OKC Mayor Race 2014

[Edgar]

Many questions have yet to be answered, says convention-center expert | Red Dirt Report
Did anyone attend? The good doctor even provided refreshments. Bet Mick never provides refreshments.

[Bellaboo]

Many questions have yet to be answered, says convention-center expert | Red Dirt Report
Did anyone attend? The good doctor even provided refreshments. Bet Mick never provides refreshments.

And we've got another one !

And why would someone want to attend something the good doctor puts on ? You know he is dishonest which gives way to him having very little substance.

[catch22]

And we've got another one !

And why would someone want to attend something the good doctor puts on ? You know he is dishonest which gives way to him having very little substance.

Ed's minions remind me of the little creatures off the Island of Doctor Moreau



ALL PRAISE THE GOOD DOCTOR FOR HE GIVES US LIFE

[Jeepnokc]

Ed's minions remind me of the little creatures off the Island of Doctor Moreau



ALL PRAISE THE GOOD DOCTOR FOR HE GIVES US LIFE

Oompa Loompa, do-ba-dee-doo,
I’ve got a perfect puzzle for you.
Oompa Loompa, do-ba-dee-dee,
If you are wise you’ll listen to me.

[betts]

Many questions have yet to be answered, says convention-center expert | Red Dirt Report
Did anyone attend? The good doctor even provided refreshments. Bet Mick never provides refreshments.

Gee, we already knew those plutocrats were bad. But now I should be embarrassed to be bourgeois? I guess if you're not poor, you're in trouble, it being easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a middle class person to get into heaven? And, I'm using whether someone provides refreshments as a reason to vote for them for mayor? This has suddenly become a very simple race.

Silliness aside, I think there are questions that remain to be answered.

1. Do we have a current convention center that is of an appropriate size and quality for a city of our size? Personally, although I'm not dying for a new convention center, I have to admit that the answer is probably no. The Cox Center is poorly organized, looks shabby and that's on the interior. The exterior is ghastly and the superblock it's on is in a horrible location for a superblock. It will be 50 years old soon. So, I don't mind building a $250 million convention center. A different location would be nice. So, based on my answer, even if I didn't think that it's a mistake to basically spit in the eye of people who took the trouble to vote for MAPS 3 by trying to stop it, I think a new convention center is probably a worthwhile expenditure. I might go for it just to see the Cox Convention Center torn down, personally.

2. Do we have to have a convention center hotel? This I don't know. I'm fine with getting more information on this subject. I'm going to read the consultant's report when I get a bit of free time and decide what I think of their data. That's pretty much what the city council has done. They listened to the consultant, looked at his slides and handout and said "thank you". Did anyone say we're getting a convention center hotel come hell or high water? Not publicly. Did anyone say we're using MAPS dollars for a convention center hotel? Not that I've noticed. Did anyone say $200 million? Ed Shadid. Anyone else? Not on the record anywhere. Did anyone say $50 million? Not anywhere that I've read. So, it seems like any convention center hotel anxiety is premature. Let's educate ourselves so we can have an educated opinion if the subject comes up.

3. If the city decides we have to have a convention center hotel, who will pay for it? This too is an important question. But, until the question of whether we're going to have a hotel is answered, what value is discussing who will pay what? This is definitely putting the cart before the horse.

4. What if the convention center needs a phase II? Hmmmm. Is there any way to pay for a phase II with MAPS 3 funds? Nope. So, I guess the voters will have to decide. What a concept! Ask the people. If they say no, the Chamber will have to hold a few bake sales I guess.

5. Should a convention center be self-supporting? I don't know. Is anything else we've built with MAPS self-supporting? Is anything a city builds self-supporting? It's kind of tricky, as you have to factor in salaries of people employed to build the structure, salaries of people who run the structure, potential sales taxes and hotel taxes generated, not to mention all those pesky intangibles like civic pride, interest generated in visiting the city, how many new conventions might be interested in coming, what the economy is doing, what the economy will be doing in the future. It's tough.

6. Does any of the above justify stopping MAPS collections prematurely? To me, question #1 is the only relevant one here, since nowhere has anyone said we're getting a hotel and/or it's being paid for with MAPS dollars. Personally, my answer is a resounding no, for all the reasons I've outlined previously. But trying to lump a hotel with the question of stopping MAPS is again using fear-mongering to politick. Ed is hoping the low information voters won't think this through and will believe all his hype.

[mkjeeves]

Gee, we already knew those plutocrats were bad. But now I should be embarrassed to be bourgeois? I guess if you're not poor, you're in trouble, it being easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a middle class person to get into heaven? And, I'm using whether someone provides refreshments as a reason to vote for them for mayor? This has suddenly become a very simple race.

Silliness aside, I think there are questions that remain to be answered.

1. Do we have a current convention center that is of an appropriate size and quality for a city of our size? Personally, although I'm not dying for a new convention center, I have to admit that the answer is probably no. The Cox Center is poorly organized, looks shabby and that's on the interior. The exterior is ghastly and the superblock it's on is in a horrible location for a superblock. It will be 50 years old soon. So, I don't mind building a $250 million convention center. A different location would be nice. So, based on my answer, even if I didn't think that it's a mistake to basically spit in the eye of people who took the trouble to vote for MAPS 3 by trying to stop it, I think a new convention center is probably a worthwhile expenditure. I might go for it just to see the Cox Convention Center torn down, personally.

2. Do we have to have a convention center hotel? This I don't know. I'm fine with getting more information on this subject. I'm going to read the consultant's report when I get a bit of free time and decide what I think of their data. That's pretty much what the city council has done. They listened to the consultant, looked at his slides and handout and said "thank you". Did anyone say we're getting a convention center hotel come hell or high water? Not publicly. Did anyone say we're using MAPS dollars for a convention center hotel? Not that I've noticed. Did anyone say $200 million? Ed Shadid. Anyone else? Not on the record anywhere. Did anyone say $50 million? Not anywhere that I've read. So, it seems like any convention center hotel anxiety is premature. Let's educate ourselves so we can have an educated opinion if the subject comes up.

3. If the city decides we have to have a convention center hotel, who will pay for it? This too is an important question. But, until the question of whether we're going to have a hotel is answered, what value is discussing who will pay what? This is definitely putting the cart before the horse.

4. What if the convention center needs a phase II? Hmmmm. Is there any way to pay for a phase II with MAPS 3 funds? Nope. So, I guess the voters will have to decide. What a concept! Ask the people. If they say no, the Chamber will have to hold a few bake sales I guess.

5. Does any of the above justify stopping MAPS collections prematurely? To me, question #1 is the only one here, since nowhere has anyone said we're getting a hotel and/or it's being paid for with MAPS dollars. Personally, my answer is a resounding no, for all the reasons I've outlined previously. But trying to lump a hotel with the question of stopping MAPS is again using fear-mongering to politick. Ed is hoping the low information voters won't think this through and will believe all his hype.

It's probably good you didn't attend the event last night. Best to stay uninformed to be able to post that with a straight face. The video will probably be out soon. You will never admit you agree with most of it even though a bunch of what you just said was said.

[Edgar]

Gee, we already knew those plutocrats were bad. But now I should be embarrassed to be bourgeois? I guess if you're not poor, you're in trouble, it being easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a middle class person to get into heaven? And, I'm using whether someone provides refreshments as a reason to vote for them for mayor? This has suddenly become a very simple race.

Silliness aside, I think there are questions that remain to be answered.

1. Do we have a current convention center that is of an appropriate size and quality for a city of our size? Personally, although I'm not dying for a new convention center, I have to admit that the answer is probably no. The Cox Center is poorly organized, looks shabby and that's on the interior. The exterior is ghastly and the superblock it's on is in a horrible location for a superblock. It will be 50 years old soon. So, I don't mind building a $250 million convention center. A different location would be nice. So, based on my answer, even if I didn't think that it's a mistake to basically spit in the eye of people who took the trouble to vote for MAPS 3 by trying to stop it, I think a new convention center is probably a worthwhile expenditure. I might go for it just to see the Cox Convention Center torn down, personally.

2. Do we have to have a convention center hotel? This I don't know. I'm fine with getting more information on this subject. I'm going to read the consultant's report when I get a bit of free time and decide what I think of their data. That's pretty much what the city council has done. They listened to the consultant, looked at his slides and handout and said "thank you". Did anyone say we're getting a convention center hotel come hell or high water? Not publicly. Did anyone say we're using MAPS dollars for a convention center hotel? Not that I've noticed. Did anyone say $200 million? Ed Shadid. Anyone else? Not on the record anywhere. Did anyone say $50 million? Not anywhere that I've read. So, it seems like any convention center hotel anxiety is premature. Let's educate ourselves so we can have an educated opinion if the subject comes up.

3. If the city decides we have to have a convention center hotel, who will pay for it? This too is an important question. But, until the question of whether we're going to have a hotel is answered, what value is discussing who will pay what? This is definitely putting the cart before the horse.

4. What if the convention center needs a phase II? Hmmmm. Is there any way to pay for a phase II with MAPS 3 funds? Nope. So, I guess the voters will have to decide. What a concept! Ask the people. If they say no, the Chamber will have to hold a few bake sales I guess.

5. Should a convention center be self-supporting? I don't know. Is anything else we've built with MAPS self-supporting? Is anything a city builds self-supporting? It's kind of tricky, as you have to factor in salaries of people employed to build the structure, salaries of people who run the structure, potential sales taxes and hotel taxes generated, not to mention all those pesky intangibles like civic pride, interest generated in visiting the city, how many new conventions might be interested in coming, what the economy is doing, what the economy will be doing in the future. It's tough.

6. Does any of the above justify stopping MAPS collections prematurely? To me, question #1 is the only relevant one here, since nowhere has anyone said we're getting a hotel and/or it's being paid for with MAPS dollars. Personally, my answer is a resounding no, for all the reasons I've outlined previously. But trying to lump a hotel with the question of stopping MAPS is again using fear-mongering to politick. Ed is hoping the low information voters won't think this through and will believe all his hype.

Cornett would probably charge for refreshments.

[betts]

Cornett would probably charge for refreshments.

This is all you've got? Lame, Edgar, as usual.