OKC Mayor Race 2014

[ljbab728]

I still want to hear Dougs reasoning as to why he supports Ed..... Doug seems like a very intelligent, informed, and overall awesome person and he must have a good reason.

Well plupan, to be honest, we think the same thing about some of your posts.

[SoonerDave]

Actually, you're right catch22. No one is changing their vote at this point in time. .....
....
But I agree, vote, and drag every last friend and relative you have to the polls.

Absolutely. It's all about the turnout now. Even if you're lukewarm about Mick for whatever reasons, it is imperative we keep Shadid out of office. And our only option in that vein is to vote.

[warreng88]

Steve posted this on twitter. I was not really sure where to put it but since ES is talking about how much we need more police officers, I thought this would be a good place:

"Odd. I thought OKC is one of the nation's most dangerous cities for violent crime. But not according to this list: Top 100 most dangerous places to live in the USA - NeighborhoodScout "

[mkjeeves]

I guess it depends on what is important to care about, crime or just violent crime, how it was reported and counted, and/or how you want to spin it. For all crime based on some FBI data, we made the news recently in the top ten on this 2014 report, number 7.

http://os.cqpress.com/citycrime/2013...Population.pdf

That came from here: http://os.cqpress.com/citycrime/2013/cc2014.htm

[betts]

I guess it depends on what is important to care about, crime of just violent crime, how it was reported and counted, and/or how you want to spin it. For all crime based on some FBI data, we made the news recently in the top ten on this 2014 report, number 7.

http://os.cqpress.com/citycrime/2013...Population.pdf

That came from here: CQ Press: City Crime 2014

And if you look at per capita police numbers, you won't be able to explain why anyone made either list. Crime rates are clearly multi factorial and its hard to associate per capita police numbers with safety or lack thereof.

[mkjeeves]

That depends on which studies and how much weight you want to give them. Here's a short summary of several studies with some interesting thoughts:

Police numbers and crime rates ? a rapid evidence review | Ben Bradford - Academia.edu

[betts]

I've seen the study you've linked before. But, I'd like to see the authors address the per capita numbers I posted above and explain why I can't find an association between per capita numbers and safety. Perhaps it has to do with the fact that even your article says police numbers don't show an association with violent crime, and that's the data being used to determine most dangerous cities.

Plus it's basically a review of previously written papers and the authors caution against "generalizing from the findings".

[mkjeeves]

Pretty sure the 2014 one that ranked us as 7 was all crime not violent crime. Personally, I've been the victim of one violent crime and 20-30 other crimes I can think of in a few minutes, non-violent crimes being everything from burglary to auto-theft. "Safe" to me means both my personal well being, that of the ones I love and my property.

Yep. That's what I said, it was a review with some interesting thoughts. It includes a table of various studies through the years. Cherry pick away, like tweeting about only violent crime or some such.

[betts]

The bottom line is that its not a simple issue. More officers does not automatically mean less crime. Portland has the same number of officers per capita as we do and they're on the safest cities list. When people try to simplify complex issues, they wonder why their solutions don't work. A better solution is to try and figure out what does work, rather than assuming all you have to do is throw money at a problem. Maybe you've never worked with large departments, but sometimes refocusing or approaching problems from a different angle is as or more effective than adding personnel.

In my next life I want to be an efficiency expert.

[zookeeper]

The bottom line is that its not a simple issue. More officers does not automatically mean less crime. Portland has the same number of officers per capita as we do and they're on the safest cities list. When people try to simplify complex issues, they wonder why their solutions don't work. A better solution is to try and figure out what does work, rather than assuming all you have to do is throw money at a problem.

It really has more to do with response times than it does actually preventing the crime. The more officers on the street the faster the response time and a better chance of catching the perps, saving a life, and less chance of giving someone fleeing a crime scene too much lead time. With that said, many believe visibility, in and of itself, deters crime. I've never bought that except in high-profile events and those are always very well protected no matter how many officers a department has.

[betts]

I feel this way about pretty much any government funded department, having worked for one my entire life. Everyone always wants more help. That doesn't necessarily mean they need more help. Frequently, a lot of money is wasted by poor organization or emphasis on things that either aren't cost effective or don't work at all. Circumstances change. For example, talking to my son who is pretty thoughtful, he pointed out that retirement ages were set when life spans were generally shorter than they are now and that one of the problems cities are having is that they are having to pay pensions for years longer than they did in the past. I don't know if that's true, but it was definitely food for thought. In my department, more and more people are choosing to work into their 70s. Maybe doctors are such workaholics that they don't know what to do with leisure time, but working also keeps your brain sharp and makes you feel younger. Maybe we need to extend the number of years worked before being eligible to retire in our police and fire departments. Maybe we need to look at what police are doing other than being out on the street or being available to repond to crimes. Maybe this is already being done, but areas that are high crime can have more of a police presence. I can guarantee there are areas that virtually never have problems with crime and they could have low support numbers. Maybe we can look at cities that have similar numbers of police per capita to us but have low crime rates and see if they're doing things differently. Anyone on city council can promote increasing the sales tax percentage that goes to police and firemen. They can work together with their fellow council people to put such a resolution on the ballot. Why hasn't that happened? Perhaps they are privy to data that we are not. I think there are a lot of questions that we cannot answer. So, people decide to believe one side or the other without any real evidence as to which one is correct. I suppose that's politics, but it's frustrating.

[DoctorTaco]

Not to pile onto Laudenback, but I just read this from 2011:
Doug Dawgz Blog: Ward 2 ? Why I'm For Shadid

See particularly Doug's feelings about implementing ALL the MAPS3 projects.

[mkjeeves]

Not to pile onto Laudenback, but I just read this from 2011:
Doug Dawgz Blog: Ward 2 ? Why I'm For Shadid

See particularly Doug's feelings about implementing ALL the MAPS3 projects.

Doug said then:

I want MAPS 3 to be done exactly as the voters were promised and with maximum citizen input and transparency. No deals behind the scenes and no secret handshakes.

Doug said more recently after learning more:

My opinion is that Thompson, the Chamber, the Mayor, and all those privy to the CSL study, deliberately concealed from the public that a convention hotel would also be needed for the success of the MAPS 3 convention center. With publicity about the possible need for a convention hotel, and the potential of additional public funding beyond MAPS 3's amounts, MAPS 3 might well have been doomed to failure.

Seems pretty consistent to me.

[Plutonic Panda]

I actually understood where Ed came from on his stance from the convention center and here I thought he wanted it to be canceled but he wants the public to vote for it again knowing it will likely have to be expanded immediately after the "first" phase is complete. That makes sense. The problem with people here is they are too conservative and don't want to spend money to do things the right way... see our interchanges, bridges, capitol is just now going to get funds to be repaired, AICC...... etc.

[kevinpate]

Panda, in fairness, it has never been the least bit concealed that the M3 convention center pitch was for a phase I only of a multi phase convention center project.

[betts]

But any expansion would have to be approved by the voters. Even if passed, it would be unlikely that it would start before 2025 at the very earliest. The MAPS 3 projects won't be done until at least 2021. If voters don't want an expansion, it can't happen regardless. We call that democracy.

[Plutonic Panda]

Panda, in fairness, it has never been the least bit concealed that the M3 convention center pitch was for a phase I only of a multi phase convention center project.

I knew it was going to be built in phases, but I never really thought that a convention hotel would be needed when I was looking at the project listed for MAPS3. Honestly, I like the convention center even more now since we're likely going to get a mid-rise hotel with it. I do see where Ed is coming from and I honestly think the man wants what is best for OKC, but I am still going with Mick as I think his ideas and vision is better.

[Plutonic Panda]

But any expansion would have to be approved by the voters. Even if passed, it would be unlikely that it would start before 2025 at the very earliest. The MAPS 3 projects won't be done until at least 2021. If voters don't want an expansion, it can't happen regardless. We call that democracy.

Yeah, that's completely true. I think Ed knows that and he is not campaigning against that rather than saying it is an obligation that will pretty much have to be approved either way. Again, I like the hotel and would rather it be built sooner than later. I honestly hope our convention center doesn't take 10 years to finish.

[betts]

The MAPS 3 convention center, if it goes forward, will be done in less than 10 years. We could theoretically vote for a MAPS IV in 2016, but even if there were a phase II in it, we can't start construction of a project until all the money is collected. Considering we're just now finishing up MAPS for Kids, I wouldn't be in too big of a hurry. But that sort of timeline is what we have to take into consideration, and its again, waaaay premature to assume a hotel or phase II is a fait accompli.


Sent from my iPhone

[betts]

Doug said then:

I want MAPS 3 to be done exactly as the voters were promised and with maximum citizen input and transparency. No deals behind the scenes and no secret handshakes.

Doug said more recently after learning more:

My opinion is that Thompson, the Chamber, the Mayor, and all those privy to the CSL study, deliberately concealed from the public that a convention hotel would also be needed for the success of the MAPS 3 convention center. With publicity about the possible need for a convention hotel, and the potential of additional public funding beyond MAPS 3's amounts, MAPS 3 might well have been doomed to failure.

Seems pretty consistent to me.

Well, guess what. You now have the opportunity to go sign the petition and stop the Convention Center. If Shadid doesn't win the mayoral election, that's likely the only thing he'll be able to stop. If he stops it, we still have the Cox. If we have the Cox, then we'll just stick with the convention business we have now. We won't die. The CC is the least necessary thing to "continue the Renaissance" in Oklahoma City, IMO. The Cox is shabby and it's a crappy superblock. But we've had a crappy CC and an ugly superblock for the last 40+ years and we've survived. If he doesn't stop it and we don't build a hotel, we still have a building that is paid for. What is "success" of a convention center? It brings in millions of dollars of profit? If it doesn't we still have a new building that has no debt for some number of conventions and a lot of local and regional events. Maybe we can sell the Cox block for a bunch of money, restore the grid and a lot of people are happy.

But.........regardless of whether the study said we need a hotel or not, that says NOTHING about how much a CC hotel would cost us. Nowhere besides Ed's blog has it been said we would have to pay the entire cost of construction. And regardless, the least public input that is allowed legally is that a majority of our elected representatives determine that some amount of city money is required to subsidize the hotel. It is possible they would need to put it to a vote of the citizens. Both of those options are legal and satisfy the rules of at least an indirect democracy.

And none of the above is as heinous and shocking to me as the details of Ed's divorce. If we're talking ethics here, our sitting mayor is not looking like the worst guy in the room.

I just posted this comment to Doug's blog as well. We'll see if I survive moderation. I'm a friend of Doug's but we majorly disagree here. That's cool. Some of my friends are very conservative Republicans and we all get along as well.

[DoctorTaco]

After some effort I was finally able to hash out all my thoughts in the mayor's race.

Doctor Taco's Rocks and Tacos: Why I am Voting for Mick Cornett

[David]

Nicely written (though I am a little judgemental about your blog's CSS, the lack of a color for some of your links that is distinct from the general text color gives it some usability and accessibility problems).

[DoctorTaco]

Nicely written (though I am a little judgemental about your blog's CSS, the lack of a color for some of your links that is distinct from the general text color gives it some usability and accessibility problems).

Yeah I really do plan on fixing that. I spent hours on writing the thing, minutes on publishing. Also I composed it in word so there were some copy/paste formatting issues I was unable to rectify.

[soonerguru]

After some effort I was finally able to hash out all my thoughts in the mayor's race.

Doctor Taco's Rocks and Tacos: Why I am Voting for Mick Cornett

Wow. This is eerily dead on. The only thing I can assure you is that Mick Cornett is not an a--hole. He's a very nice guy. Still, brilliant writing and reasoning.

[betts]

What a hoot. I just read your blog on twitter, Dr. Taco and e-mailed it to a bunch of people. Didnt realize it was you. But, Mick's not an ass-hole at all. I think he's basically an introvert. While that makes him a less than cuddly politician, it doesn't necessarily make him an ineffective one. And I've posted why I think debates are a poor way to evaluate candidates a page or two ago so won't rehash it. Otherwise, I think this is spot on.