Ed Shadid running for Mayor 2014!

[hoya]

I'll wait and see what he says. He seems like an honest and capable person. He has certainly impressed me over the last year or so. I've missed his latest comments, but people here seem to think he's had a Charlie Sheen moment, just going off the rails. There's no question in my mind that the MAPS program has benefitted this city far beyond the money we have spent. If he wants to end that I won't be able to support him. This city needs continued capital improvements over the next 50 years to catch up to where we should be.

[Pete]

Shadid is right to challenge the process and decision-making around some of the current MAPS programs. I'm glad he's asking some tough questions and demanding answers.

I'm just afraid he's alienated too many people.

I learned a long time ago it's not always about being right... It's about getting others to see your point of view and building consensus, otherwise you become a lone voice further and further removed from any real ability to affect change.

[Decious]

Shadid is right to challenge the process and decision-making around some of the current MAPS programs. I'm glad he's asking some tough questions and demanding answers.

I'm just afraid he's alienated too many people.

I learned a long time ago it's not always about being right... It's about getting others to see your point of view and building consensus, otherwise you become a lone voice further and further removed from any real ability to affect change.

Exactly. He can and does affect change presently. I usually agree with his positions. The thing is... thus far he has allowed and helped himself to be mostly a voice of dissent. Great. But how do you build a platform around that without being destructive? You don't. You end up having catch phrases like "fatally flawed process" be a natural part of your speech. You use words like "rescue". Good dude. Good leader. Well able. Well positioned? Not where he's currently choosing to stand. Fine line between being independent and being a party of one.

[betts]

Two important things that politicians need to understand: you represent the electorate. If you express your platform prior to your election and the majority elects you, then as you move forward you can press for your agenda. You have not been given a mandate to disavow things that occurred prior to your election.

Secondly, people remember and can find earlier positions. Don't say things publicly and then hope no one will remember.

And I will add a third piece of advice. City government is not an operating room, where everyone defers to the surgeon and carries out his/her orders. A surgeon is a dictator in the operating room. That is a very unique microcosm and should never be extrapolated to other aspects of life/politics.

[OKCisOK4me]

Well spoken Betts!

[Larry OKC]

There have been suggestions made in this thread that Shadid was against thededicated Zoo tax. While I didn't read the whole thread again on it, that wasn't my remembrance. This post by Hutch over in that thread (that has been bumped up)...
http://www.okctalk.com/general-civic...tml#post552271

I watched the discussion on City Council. From my perspective, it seemed like Ed was simply trying to make the point that there's a permanent dedicated funding source for the Zoo, so why can't we have one for transit. It was a good point to make. I don't think he was seriously suggesting eliminating the Zoo's funding to pay for it. He knows it will take a lot more than that to fund an effective regional transit system. ...

There have also posts suggesting that Shadid doesn't support MAPS. That isn't true. Shadid DOES support MAPS (or at least has expressed public support for it)

From Dougs blog:
http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2011/03...or-shadid.html

Exemplary Shadid Public Statements
MAPS3 is a bond with the voters. It must be implemented in its entirety with transparency and with the maximum public deliberation. Mr. Swinton risks the legitimacy of future referendums by essentially eliminating the rail component. We do not get to pick and choose which projects we (or our unknown financial sponsors) want to move forward. [Source: his Facebook page]

My primary concern with MAPS 3 is exactly what we're facing in this city council election. All we voted for was a 1-cent sales tax and unlike the first MAPS there was no line item for the voters of exactly what we were getting ... There's no guarantee that the voters are going to get what I think they believe was promised to them. What we're risking is the legitimacy of referendums. [Source: Oklahoman, February 23]

Dr. Shadid believes that MAPS 3 should be completed as it was promised to voters, with maximum transparency, honesty, and public deliberation. Needlessly delaying the rail component of MAPS 3 could cost the city $60-120 million in federal matching funds, reducing the project's connectivity to neighborhoods. [Source: Ad in the March 9 Oklahoma Gazette]

Two important things that politicians need to understand: you represent the electorate. If you express your platform prior to your election and the majority elects you, then as you move forward you can press for your agenda. You have not been given a mandate to disavow things that occurred prior to your election....

What if they are in opposition to each other? In other words, what if by the new election, voters have essentially changed their mind?

[BoulderSooner]

There have been suggestions made in this thread that Shadid was against thededicated Zoo tax. While I didn't read the whole thread again on it, that wasn't my remembrance. This post by Hutch over in that thread (that has been bumped up)...
http://www.okctalk.com/general-civic...tml#post552271




What if they are in opposition to each other? In other words, what if by the new election, voters have essentially changed their mind?

i don't think he was suggesting eliminating the zoo tax (although i would argue that his expression showed that he thought it is crazy that we have a zoo tax while not having a transit tax)

however he was arguing that we very much should on a continuing basis (2 years 5 years 10 years whatever) reexamine the long term taxes and perhaps put them up for a revote

[Larry OKC]

BoulderSooner: I agree. I don't see anything wrong with looking at dedicated taxes being revisited from time to time. priorities change so you need that flexibility. Very few, if any, taxes should be "permanent"

[Urban Pioneer]

"Dr. Shadid believes that MAPS 3 should be completed as it was promised to voters, with maximum transparency, honesty, and public deliberation."

If you only knew how hard it was to get him to sign off on that line. I told him there was no way in hell he would get elected unless he put that out there. Little did I know where all of this was going.

[Urban Pioneer]

For that matter, the other line too.

[BoulderSooner]

"Dr. Shadid believes that MAPS 3 should be completed as it was promised to voters, with maximum transparency, honesty, and public deliberation."

If you only knew how hard it was to get him to sign off on that line. I told him there was no way in hell he would get elected unless he put that out there. Little did I know where all of this was going.

clearly he has now "changed his mind" on this point

[soonerguru]

Ed just posted this on Facebook:

Parsing some of Ed's words here:

It is no secret that I have been approached and have explored the possibility of trying to unite the people of OKC across the spectrum, rescue the MAPS program from a fatally flawed process, introduce honesty, transparency and public collaboration on an unprecedented scale, and add value to the city.

Hmmm. He's a "uniter?" He's so far managed to cause division within his own voting constituency, and even further division among supporters of public transit.

He wants to "rescue" MAPS? A friend mentioned that he seems to envision himself as a white knight riding in for the rescue (rescuing citizens from their own MAPS vote, a heretofore sacred bond between the city and the voters). Is Ed saying we need to be rescued from ourselves? I give the citizens of OKC more credit than that.

Not sure what he means by adding "value" to the city. Personally, as a voter, I went to the polls in 2009 to add value to our city by supporting MAPS, which includes projects I favor and some I'm not crazy about. But in the end, MAPS III will add more value to OKC than Ed can as mayor.

If such an effort were to occur the contract between the people of OKC and myself would be unbreakable and sacred to me; the full narrative of that vision deserves additional reflection.

So, he's suggesting there would be an unbreakable contract between himself as mayor and the citizens of OKC. Great. But as councilman, he seems all too willing to break the contract we made when we voted for MAPS. Ed, we don't want you deciding whether we get to have what we voted for or not. We spoke at the polls. Consider our MAPS vote to be the first contract you would have to enforce as mayor.

Secondly, I thought Ed's closing remarks here are great. Perhaps he should exercise greater reflection overall, and not just as it pertains to his political ambitions. Perhaps he should take some time to reflect on how many people -- including numerous former supporters -- he has let down.

[soonerguru]

There have been suggestions made in this thread that Shadid was against thededicated Zoo tax. While I didn't read the whole thread again on it, that wasn't my remembrance. This post by Hutch over in that thread (that has been bumped up)...
http://www.okctalk.com/general-civic...tml#post552271


There have also posts suggesting that Shadid doesn't support MAPS. That isn't true. Shadid DOES support MAPS (or at least has expressed public support for it)

From Dougs blog:
Doug Dawgz Blog: Ward 2 ? Why I'm For Shadid





What if they are in opposition to each other? In other words, what if by the new election, voters have essentially changed their mind?

I don't believe Ed has been entirely honest about MAPS with voters. He has at least been opaque on the issue. The fact that he has railed against it since getting elected suggests his "support" is flimsy at best.

[Just the facts]

Let's step into our Way Back machine... Set it to January 4, 2011 Sherman.

http://www.okctalk.com/transportatio...tml#post395039

Well, Dr. Shadid (candidate for Ward 2 in March) doesn't think OKC should be spending any money on convention centers, streetcars, commuter rail, or rafting parks until every street in OKC is safe to live on and walk on. He even made a point that the projects are not required to be built, implying that the money could be re-directed at the Councils discretion. He also seemed willing to spend MAPS money on buses. Needless to say, I think this is going to be the last MAPS style tax. Everything else is going to have to be single issue votes.

http://www.okctalk.com/general-civic...tml#post408639

One thing is for sure Doug, Shadid is against big business and big banks. He used that phrase in 3 of his 5 points. Maybe during an interview he could identify who he thinks those big business and big banks are. Could he being talking about the Thunder and the Ford Cener Tax? If so, maybe someone can explain to him local small businesses benefit from the Thunder.

http://www.okctalk.com/transportatio...tml#post394883

Just pray the clown (Dr. Edward Shadid) that was on before you doesn't get elected to District 2 in March. He wants to direct all MAPS money to sidewalks, buses, and the police/fire departments.

http://www.okctalk.com/general-civic...tml#post408164

You guys need to go back and listen to the KTOK interview with Shadid before he started getting professional coaching advice from the unions. He wants to kill MAPS and divert the funds to police and fire. Why do you think he was endorsed by both unions?

http://www.okctalk.com/general-civic...tml#post408361

That wasn't what he said before. I guess you have to decide which version of Shadid you want to believe (Shadid 1.0 or Shadid 2.0). Just keep in mind the Shadid 2.0 is back by a labor union that was attracted to him by positions taken by Shadid 1.0.

In reality, you might have to pick from the lessor of two evils. If I had to choose I would pick the opposite of the union support.

http://www.okctalk.com/general-civic...tml#post408269

Shadid said in his KTOK interview that he prefered the bus system over streetcars and if I remember correcrtly, said if it was up to him none of the MAPS items would be built until every street in OKC was safe. If he was for MAPS III why did the unions put their support behind him when every other candidate they backed was anti-MAPS III? The Unions are so anti-MAPS III they supported Baptist Tea Party types - that is how much they hate MAPS. If Shadid was pro-MAPS he should have rejected their endorsement.

[Steve]

I'm curious as to where Ed Shadid got the impression that the city was in a time bind to get the streetcar project started quickly so as to not lose out on $120 million in federal matching funds. Was that good, solid sourcing he received, or wishful thinking represented as something more authoritative by advocates? If if it's the latter and not the sooner, what's the implication of that realization?

[Urban Pioneer]

The simple answer is think back to when all of this was going on. There was legitimate belief both by transit advocates, paid consultants, and METRO Transit officials that the flood of Federal money might wash over us in the major attempt to put out the national recessionary fire through stimulus and TIGER funds.

You have to think back to the Federal Stimuls, TIGER 1, 2, and 3, the Federal Livibility initiative, the absence of a normal 6 year comprehensive transportation bill, and then the Tea Party locking up congress.

Those were crazy times with many "time sensitive" Federal funding opportunities to take a stab at.

There is no implication of any realization other than if we resolve this O&M issue, the streetcar very we will be undeniably still applicable for Federal Funds. At the time, the funding was more indiscriminant in not needing an Inhofe, Coburn, or Lankford to push it through.

If the advocates, consultants, and transit officials had known O&M would affect the apps so much, we would have pushed differently.

But it is also important to understand that MAPS 3 builds a starter system irregardless of Federal Funds. The funds would have been the icing on the MAPS 3 streetcar cake. And we may become more eligible for funds as the O&M issue is resolved and the Federal dynamic continues to change.

[Hutch]

I'm curious as to where Ed Shadid got the impression that the city was in a time bind to get the streetcar project started quickly so as to not lose out on $120 million in federal matching funds. Was that good, solid sourcing he received, or wishful thinking represented as something more authoritative by advocates? If if it's the latter and not the sooner, what's the implication of that realization?

I've been involved with this issue from the beginning. I never once heard anyone advocating for building the streetcar as soon as possible in order not to lose out on federal matching funds, which by the way was only a potential additional $75 million...not $120 million.

What WAS advocated by Jacobs Engineering, the MAPS 3 Transit Subcommittee and other streetcar supporters was for the City and COTPA not to drag their feet on finalizing the Alternatives Analysis for the streetcar project and making the necessary FTA Small Starts Grant application in time for OKC to: (1) qualify for any leftover FY2011 funds...Ft. Worth cancelled their streetcar project and their was going to be millions of dollars leftover from that and other projects that could be awarded to other projects, as long as those projects were far enough along in the FTA Small Starts application pipeline and if those projects were eventually approved for a grant, and (2) qualify for the FY2012 Small Starts funding cycle, which was proposed for significant increase over FY2011.

Ed wasn't elected until April 2011. By that time, the Let's Talk Transit public scoping process and Alternatives Analysis for the MAPS 3 Modern Streetcar Project had been going on for more than one year and was nearly complete, and the MAPS 3 Transit Subcommittee had been meeting for more than 6 months. Ed didn't participate in any of those processes until after his election, and he knew little, if anything, about the specifics of the technical and policy issues related to the streetcar before that time.

Ed has a lot of inaccurate "impressions" about what took place with the streetcar project before he was elected. Those are of his own creation.

[Tier2City]

I'm curious as to where Ed Shadid got the impression that the city was in a time bind to get the streetcar project started quickly so as to not lose out on $120 million in federal matching funds. Was that good, solid sourcing he received, or wishful thinking represented as something more authoritative by advocates? If if it's the latter and not the sooner, what's the implication of that realization?

So if it is the former what are the implications for why Steve is trying to say there are implications for the latter?

[Steve]

It's a conspiracy.

[zookeeper]

It's a conspiracy.

Steve, Wouldn't you agree a lot of decisions downtown are not made openly in a transparent manner? That's a simple yes or no question. That's not a "conspiracy" that's just bad government.

From Ed's Facebook page, I like this.

[betts]

Steve, Wouldn't you agree a lot of decisions downtown are not made openly in a transparent manner? That's a simple yes or no question. That's not a "conspiracy" that's just bad government.

From Ed's Facebook page, I like this.

Only lawyers ask for yes or no answers, because the complicated and more accurate answer is not what they want to hear.

[Steve]

My observation: there was a lot of information regarding MAPS 3, implementation, unfunded aspects of it, possible risks that were not shared with the public... and I always get suspicious when supporters of any of the projects are hostile to questions and challenges posed to them.

[betts]

If you're speaking to me, Steve, I am not privy to enough information to answer questions and challenges on that topic, so I have no reason to make a hostile response. Nor have I ever implied that perfect decisions are made "downtown". Aue contraire. But, I've also been around the block often enough to know that any attempts to simplify an incredibly complex process to a "yes" or "no" answer is either a legal trick, a political maneuver or demonstrates naïveté. The third option is the most palatable.

[soonerguru]

I'm not a member of the Streetcar committee, but the only thing I recall about building the infrastructure quickly was the desire to synchronize efforts, whenever possible, with the Project 180 -- to save taxpayers money. Obviously, that did not occur.

Steve, you still have not responded to my comment about your chat post yesterday. You continue to gloss over streetcar advocates' true concern with Shadid's posturing: it's not that he's asking questions, it's that he intends to use streetcar money for other projects. We voted for the streetcar, not the councilman's pet projects. Is this being hostile?

I would hate to jump to conclusions, but you seem to enjoy the controversy for controversy's sake. It will get you clicks, for sure, but you've been very one-sided in your recent coverage.

[soonerguru]

Steve, since you ignored it, here's a cut and paste from my commentary you ignored yesterday.


Steve continues to diminish and brush over the key issues people here have with Shadid's candidacy and its relationship to the MAPS Streetcar initiative. In fact, he seems to outright dis the folks here with this comment from yesterday's chat:

No. We do not know if Ed Shadid is running for mayor. We know he is looking at it - which can be said about at least three or four other people. It's been my observation that the streetcar advocates at OKC Talk do not like to see their beliefs or assumptions challenged or questioned - which is certainly what Shadid has done.

Steve, this isn't about beliefs or assumptions, it's about votes. People voted for this project. Shadid has discussed shifting the money from this project elsewhere for his pet projects. Why do you continue to misrepresent the angst Streetcar supporters have with Shadid? Is it not clear to you that shifting money from a MAPS project that people have already voted for is going to piss a lot of people off? There's no reason to obfuscate or overcomplicate the matter.

It's very cut and dried.

You owe people here a mea culpa -- or at least fair reporting. Quit trying to act like this is about sensitive people who can't handle having their assumptions challenged. That is not only inaccurate -- it's a bit of a cheap shot.