Ed Shadid running for Mayor 2014!

[hoya]

SUPER! Anybody but Mayor Mick! It is time for an end to MAPS. It was supposed to be a temporary tax, not a permanent one. While I live in OKC I try to spend all of my money I can where taxes are lower.

Over a one cent sales tax? You will drive all the way out of the city to save a few pennies? If you spend a thousand dollars in a shopping spree, that's ten bucks for MAPS. You'll spend more than that on gas driving to Norman. I don't know about you, but I tend to spend my money in less than thousand dollar increments. So I'm not really sure we should take financial advice from you.

[Larry OKC]

Don't have the info handy, but IIRC, the City/Chamber had info out there during the MAPS 3 campaign that indicated that many of the bordering communities have higher tax rates than OKC. If you oppose paying for MAPS that is one thing, but to do so, you may be costing yourself more. Like someone said, even if the tax rate is lower, it may be costing you more in gas, time traveled etc than what you are saving.

[CuatrodeMayo]

It appears to be official.

Ed Shadid | Oklahoma City Ward 2 Councilman

[king183]

Can't wait to begin working against him. A couple years ago, I would have given him serious consideration, but his attempts to damage the progress of the streetcar are enough to disqualify him for consideration.

[krisb]

Can't wait to begin working against him. A couple years ago, I would have given him serious consideration, but his attempts to damage the progress of the streetcar are enough to disqualify him for consideration.

We should be in favor of public dialogue and improving the transit system, not a particular mode of transit that has unacknowledged flaws. Dr. Shadid brought in a national transit consultant to bring up important questions for discussion and you consider that damaging the progress of the streetcar?

[king183]

We should be in favor of public dialogue and improving the transit system, not a particular mode of transit that has unacknowledged flaws. Dr. Shadid brought in a national transit consultant to bring up important questions for discussion and you consider that damaging the progress of the streetcar?

No, I don't consider bringing in a national transit consultant to bring up important questions for discussion damaging to the progress of the streetcar. Can you show me where I said that or is that just one huge logical jump you made yourself?

[soonerguru]

I'm now completely off the Shadid bandwagon. He is a garden-variety duplicitous politician masquerading as a crusader for the common man. He drives a Lexus, lives in a penthouse, and doesn't respect the voters who supported MAPS. He thinks he knows better than all of us, and that he can remake MAPS for what he thinks it should be when he didn't even vote in any of the MAPS elections. He turned his back on people who supported him and is a toxic, cancerous presence in OKC politics.

What is sad is there are many people who will continue to support him because he supposedly is a "progressive," but the progressives I respect throughout history were willing to work with others to achieve their goals. Ed hasn't accomplished anything of substance as a councilman (short of the non-discrimination clause). Anyone can ask questions, but few politicians can provide answers. Ed is certainly not providing any leadership and his presence is destructive.

He has managed to split the small transit-supporting community we have. He is a divisive figure who would be a disaster as mayor.

[soonerguru]

We should be in favor of public dialogue and improving the transit system, not a particular mode of transit that has unacknowledged flaws. Dr. Shadid brought in a national transit consultant to bring up important questions for discussion and you consider that damaging the progress of the streetcar?

The consultant he brought in wasn't even familiar with how we fund MAPS projects. The basis of his critique was that we weren't getting federal funding, when we don't even need federal funding to complete the project. The speaker had an agenda against streetcars and was chosen for that purpose. Further, the streetcar subcommittee was provided no opportunity to respond to the ill-informed attacks from the podium. It was a dog and pony show paid for by Shadid to further his agenda. It was not in any way a "discussion." To suggest it was is embarrassing. Most people are not this gullible.

I find it "interesting" (using favored Steve Lackmeyer parlance) that Shadid will not come out and say he's against the streetcar project, when we all know he is. Why? Because deep down he knows he's going to lose a lot of voters overnight if he comes clean on his position. Spartan is correct: Hey, Shadid, put up or shut up.

So he will continue this charade that he's just "asking questions."

Perhaps if you think Shadid is a good councilman or a good candidate for mayor, you should consider asking him questions, starting with: "Will you uphold the will of the voters who have spoken on this issue, or will you try to subvert their votes?"

[Teo9969]

I'm now completely off the Shadid bandwagon. ...

He turned his back on people who supported him and is a toxic, cancerous presence in OKC politics.

...

Christe Eleison...what does that make the rest of the politicians in OKC?

You surely can't be serious.

I think any effort to eliminate the Streetcar from MAPS 3 is asinine and would be the biggest blunder in this city's history full of big blunders. But this sort of derisive language is absolutely absurd.

That you are convinced that Shadid is *Against* a Streetcar when he's never come out and said such a thing is really baffling. I'm not even a Shadid apologist, but come on man...Quit putting words in people's mouths.

[Doug Loudenback]

I'm now completely off the Shadid bandwagon. He is a garden-variety duplicitous politician masquerading as a crusader for the common man. He drives a Lexus, lives in a penthouse, and doesn't respect the voters who supported MAPS.

Daamn ... he even drives a Lexus and lives in a penthouse? Thanks so much for the important info.

[Midtowner]

He's a fine councilman. And really, what a great day when the voters were able to stick their thumbs in the eyes of the city fathers and deny them another total shill on the horseshoe? I appreciate Shadid in that he does bring a different perspective. He's not afraid to ruffle feathers and he's not afraid to question conventional wisdom.

Trouble is, the role of a mayor vs. a councilman is very different. A mayor doesn't have all that much more power than a councilman does, but is expected to be the voice of the city government. I'd rather show businesses a city government which might have a dissenting voice or two, but generally has itself together rather than a city government where the Council is at odds with the mayor and on its way to being a hot mess.

Please Shadid, don't Tulsa my OKC.

[bradh]

Please Shadid, don't Tulsa my OKC.

This pretty much sums it up, and you're certainly not the first I've heard to put this into almost these exact words

[bchris02]

This pretty much sums it up, and you're certainly not the first I've heard to put this into almost these exact words

Ed Shadid scares me.

This may not be a popular thing to say, but Tulsa does have some significant cultural advantages over OKC or at least once did. However they have been rather stagnant for the past decade in Tulsa while things have been really happening for OKC. A lot of people in Tulsa blame their mayor who I think was recently ousted. I would hate to see OKC go down a similar path.

[betts]

An excellent measure of how divisive a political figure will be is how he treats his "enemies" or those who oppose his plans. A politician who cannot compromise, see both sides of an issue and be gracious in defeat will divide and shatter. There is no conquer in a democracy, but divisiveness can definitely destroy momentum and progress.

[Edgar]

Ed Shadid scares me.

This may not be a popular thing to say, but Tulsa does have some significant cultural advantages over OKC or at least once did. However they have been rather stagnant for the past decade in Tulsa while things have been really happening for OKC. A lot of people in Tulsa blame their mayor who I think was recently ousted. I would hate to see OKC go down a similar path.

You need to take a trip up the pike. A young man by the name of Sir Paul just played a couple nights stand there.

[Bellaboo]

You need to take a trip up the pike. A young man by the name of Sir Paul just played a couple nights stand there.

Sir Paul has played here before also....not only that, when he did his infamous Route 66 trip in the '76 Broncho he made it a point to spend the night at the Skirvin and had dinner at Nonas.

[Doug Loudenback]

As for me, I await Shadid's specific statements as to the streetcar element of MAPS 3 before forming a judgment, as well as other potential candidates doing the same. It is "not OK" (to use Shadid's phrasing when discussing the convention hotel at the 6/11 city council meeting) that later iterations of the City Council opt to deviate from the City Council Resolution which was concurrent with the MAPS 3 vote.

On Shadid's Mayoral Facebook page, I said,

I am more than happy to "like" this page.

That said, I am less-than-present able to throw my support to Ed for mayor before I learn who his opponents may be and what their various positions are. In my blog and otherwise, I have made myself very clear that I admire Ed Shadid very highly and I am working on a blog post about the convention center hotel post right now which features Ed in a most favorable light.

That said, I am strongly opposed to Ed's earlier remarks at the Farmers Market which appear to rather clearly have said that he favors re-evaluation of the downtown streetcar component of MAPS 3 in favor of rubber-tire cars.

Whether my analysis of his substantive remarks at Farmers Market are correct, or whether he might address the streetcar matter today differently, is NOT the point.

The point IS that city voters cast their votes in the MAPS3 campaign. One of the most highly favored components of MAPS3 was the downtown streetcar. Given the ballot issues (too long to restate here), it is sufficient to say that the voters have cast their ballots, and the streetcar was approved as part of MAPS 3.

Whether decided rightly or wrongly, the matter has been decided.

The integrity of the MAPS process is what's involved here, particularly because of the nuances involved in the MAPS3 vote. If the City Council were to negate the public vote, which pretty much took it on faith that the city council would deliver on its accompanying MAPS 3 resolution, the blow to public faith in the premise that the city would deliver on its promises would be shot to hell.

Were Ed to speak again and assure voters that he would stand firm in assuring voters that under his administration as mayor that he would be vigilant in attempting to insure that the council resolution which accompanied the MAPS3 vote would be put into place, well then, Ed would most likely receive my unqualified support for mayor. Until then, I remain undecided. (emphasis added)

And that is where I am at this moment. I need more information directly from Shadid (by that, I mean not via Steve's blog which quoted him but by one or more statements by Shadid himself) before reaching a conclusion.

My hope (since I very much like Ed Shadid and what he forthrightly stands for ... transparency, etc .)... is that Ed Shadid will present statements which will show him as not attempting to circumvent the MAPS 3 vote ... and it will not be enough to say that, in the MAPS 3 vote, the voters did NOT actually approve any projects. While that is true, in and of itself, such a statement does not actually represent "the truth" ... voters knew what they were voting for, notwithstanding the ambiguities of the ballot and concurrent council resolution. As I have said before, more or less, voters were told, "trust me ... these are the projects, and they will get done."

[bradh]

You need to take a trip up the pike. A young man by the name of Sir Paul just played a couple nights stand there.

I'm sorry, I don't care to measure my city's success on what artists come play at your venues, but rather how vibrant is your economy and are there jobs and development present moving the city forward.

[Midtowner]

Nuts. I thought I'd coined a phrase for Mayor Cornett's reelection campaign.

[Just the facts]

Soonerguru, you hit a point that needs to re-emphasised. Any politican can ask tough questions, but that isn't their job - that is the public's job. Politicians are supposed to provide answers to the tough questions.

[soonerguru]

Soonerguru, you hit a point that needs to re-emphasised. Any politican can ask tough questions, but that isn't their job - that is the public's job. Politicians are supposed to provide answers to the tough questions.

To clarify a bit, I think it's fine for a political leader to ask tough questions. But if that's all you get from that politician, you're not getting leadership. All of us here would make excellent politicians if we were there merely to ask questions.

It's much more difficult to identify a problem, craft a solution, compromise, build consensus, and win support for your solution from people who may be adversarial. It is an art, and it requires a temperament few people have.

My view of Cornett is that he has done an excellent job of representing OKC on a national stage (probably the best of any mayor in recent history). He is analytical and politically savvy and does not create unnecessary rancor and division. Does that mean he hasn't made mistakes? No. But he has a great temperament for the job; he has far exceeded my expectations.

OKC is such a different city now, for the better. Sure, we still have some comfy good-ole-boy politics, we still see poor design and planning, we still have many unmet needs. But OKC is also a booming city that is a genuinely desired location for both residents and employers today. It's got momentum and it has had steady, (mostly) unpartisan leadership that seems to work well together. Citizens, when surveyed, trust the city government. They also are very happy for the most part with the direction the city is moving in.

When I see campaign slogans centering around "change," it would indicate there's this groundswell of support among citizens to redirect the way we're doing things. But there's not. Why would we want to radically change something that's very visibly working well in the historical context?

Perhaps instead of "change," the prevailing mood should be "continued improvement," because that is what we all want to see.

As we await word of the new tower downtown, the AT*T announcement, other job announcements, the explosion of new MAPS construction, etc., let's remember that all of this successful momentum could be halted or even reversed if we saw a radical change in tone from our city leadership, if we were to see visible division on the council, if our citizens who would normally be generally supportive of others and their goals were to become divided. Who wants to go there? Not me.

[Teo9969]

To clarify a bit, I think it's fine for a political leader to ask tough questions. But if that's all you get from that politician, you're not getting leadership. All of us here would make excellent politicians if we were there merely to ask questions.

It's much more difficult to identify a problem, craft a solution, compromise, build consensus, and win support for your solution from people who may be adversarial. It is an art, and it requires a temperament few people have.

My view of Cornett is that he has done an excellent job of representing OKC on a national stage (probably the best of any mayor in recent history). He is analytical and politically savvy and does not create unnecessary rancor and division. Does that mean he hasn't made mistakes? No. But he has a great temperament for the job; he has far exceeded my expectations.

OKC is such a different city now, for the better. Sure, we still have some comfy good-ole-boy politics, we still see poor design and planning, we still have many unmet needs. But OKC is a booming city that is a desired locale for both residents and employers today. It's got momentum and it has had steady, (mostly) unpartisan leadership that seems to work well together. Citizens, when surveyed, trust the city government. They also are very happy for the most part with the direction the city is moving in.

When I see campaign slogans centering around "change," it would indicate there's this groundswell of support among citizens to redirect the way we're doing things. But there's not. Why would we want to radically change something that's very visibly working well in the historical context?

Perhaps instead of "change," the prevailing mood should be "continued improvement," because that is what we all want to see.

As we await word of the new tower downtown, the AT*T announcement, other job announcements, the explosion of new MAPS construction, etc., let's remember that all of this successful momentum could be halted or even reversed if we saw a radical change in tone from our city leadership, if we were to see visible division on the council, if our citizens who would normally be generally supportive of others and their goals were to become divided. Who wants to go there? Not me.

This is a fantastic post.

And honestly, it seems that many of the problems that do occur in our city are as much a result of the non-elected officials as they are the elected ones. Obviously elected officials are at least partially responsible for their appointees, but that doesn't mean that they should bear the brunt of criticism when something goes awry. If we are to "change" anything, I would like us to try and open up at least some seats on the planning committees that are currently appointed. It seems many of the problems are a result of systemic issues rather than individual failure.

[soonerguru]

I still remember when I moved to OKC in the early 90s. This city couldn't even pass school bond issues. Many (if not most) of the schools didn't even have air conditioning (insane, I know). Crime was rampant. Inner-city neighborhoods were gang infested and deteriorating. Downtown was a weed-riddled ghost town (who can forget the huge empty lot overgrown with weeds across the street from our convention center, the site of the Renaissance Hotel today?). We had only one downtown hotel operational and it was a dump. The airport was ugly. There was no water in the river. There were only a handful of good upscale restaurants. Plaza Court was about to close to disrepair. Deep Deuce was a vacant area featuring heroin "shooting galleries." Residents here didn't even identify with Oklahoma City; they were more likely to tell you they lived in "Warr Acres," "Bethany" or "Nichols Hills." No one wanted to fess up to living here. Sure, it still had its charms (and some of the landmarks we've since lost), but quite honestly Oklahoma City was a "whoever leaves last please turn out the lights" kind of city with zero momentum and a total absence of civic pride.

Perhaps we've gotten spoiled with the successes of late but these successes have been built upon by good, steady leadership, an ounce of vision, an involved business community, and now, with a bunch of dedicated citizens who support this continued improvement. No one has to apologize for being from OKC now. Let's not forget how far we've come and how much we stand to lose if our momentum is halted.

[Rover]

To clarify a bit, I think it's fine for a political leader to ask tough questions. But if that's all you get from that politician, you're not getting leadership. All of us here would make excellent politicians if we were there merely to ask questions.

It's much more difficult to identify a problem, craft a solution, compromise, build consensus, and win support for your solution from people who may be adversarial. It is an art, and it requires a temperament few people have.

I have worked as a consultant and as an executive in charge, and I can tell you it is much easier to be the consultant who identifies the problems. And, it is even fairly easy to come up with workable solutions. BUT...the actual implementation is much harder. As you point out, getting buy in and constructive support from those who did not initially support the ideas, from various interest, etc., is not easy. Unless you are a dictator with no fear of backlash, you cannot escape the fact that you have to work with people to get things done. You have to lead, not just create discontent. You have to heal, not just carve. That is the challenge Ed will have. He will have to change, and that isn't easy. Zebras just don't become quarter-horses and win the races.

[BDP]

Sir Paul has played here before also....not only that, when he did his infamous Route 66 trip in the '76 Broncho he made it a point to spend the night at the Skirvin and had dinner at Nonas.

Yes. Most of the acts that book at BOK have already played OKC at least once. It's just another example of the easily debunked myths that are often tossed around in the strange Tulsa v. OKC culture wars.