Ed Shadid running for Mayor 2014!

[Doug Loudenback]

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

Oh, puhleese, come on, Jill.

Notwithstanding that I am a lawyer, lots of occasions call for a simple yes or no answer. For example, when lying in bed with my wife and I ask her while watching TV, "Is this what you want to watch," and she goes on about tangential matters without saying either yes or no, it drives me crazy since her unsolicited remarks don't answer my question nor does it help that the hearing out of my right ear (I sleep on the left side) is not as good as from my left ear. "Well, does that mean yes or no," I not too infrequently inquire. Just extrapolating from your comment, but perhaps you do exactly the same thing with your very patient and kindly husband (and, hence, possibly arises the real reason for what you said).

As recently as last night (after Mary Jo did some grocery shopping), I asked, "Did you remember to get me some yogurt," the dialog went something like this: "Was it on the list you gave me? ... Yes, it was. Did you get it? ... Well, I didn't see it ... Well, then, you didn't read my list. Did you get it? ... No."

I am supposing that such a scenario is repeated many times over by lots and lots of people, neither of the persons being lawyers ... perhaps even in your own home where both are doctors.

But back to the lawyer part. What you fail to mention is that, after the "yes or no" answer to a particular question is presented, and eventually the evasive witness actually does get around to answering the question with a yes or no answer, either (a) the asking lawyer will ask the evasive witness to give an explanation for his/her yes or no answer, or (b) the opposing lawyer will do so. The fuller explanation always occurs (unless the opposing lawyer is crappy). That's the way the "Yes ... No" thing works out.

Now, I wish that I know some good doctor, particularly pediatrician, jokes (similar to the abundance of great lawyer jokes that are just about everywhere ... and which I thoroughly enjoy hearing) ... but I don't.

Aside from the above friendly banter, I have other opinions about the manner in which the MAPS 3 campaign was "untransparently" conducted, some parts but certainly not all involving Mayor Cornett. I have opinions about the need of the city to deliver on what was promised by the then constituted city council. And I have opinions about the wisdom of re-defining MAPS 3. I'll save these opinions for a later time, should they become relevant.

Some parts of this thread, most notably regarding Shadid and the Zoo, are wholly bogus and merely parrot what the Oklahoman had to say at the time. If one relies upon the Oklahoman for accurately presenting the facts when forming one's opinions, well, what can I say ... one has been body-snatched.

[betts]

I guess I've only been questioned by crappy lawyers Doug! My pet peeve in court is being asked to answer yes or no without being given a chance to explain. It's a ploy used by defense lawyers in child abuse cases all the time.

But back to MAPS and city business. Is it perfect? No. Has it been great for the city? Yes. Could the process be improved? Yes. Should we throw out the MAPS concept because it hasn't been perfect? No. There, I did it. But really, any analysis of MAPS and city government deserves at least a blog, if not a series of articles. It's far too complex for a simple yes or no answer, or even a series of them.

And most importantly to me AND my opinion: any frustration with or lack of clarity or transparency from city government does not justify eliminating MAPS projects or continuing the concept in further elections. If this forum or writers such as you or Steve can decrease that when we start talking about MAPS IV. Great. But let's keep the concept of MAPS separate from any criticisms of the process or we will lose something that has ....finally.... allowed Oklahoma City to start thinking about becoming a peer city of Kansas City, Indianapolis and Charlotte rather than Omaha, Wichita and Tulsa.

[Just the facts]

If MAPS has room for improvement (and it does) then MAPS IV is the place to start. Also, since the list of capital projects that even make it to the MAPS list is put there by the City Council I am a little disturbed that they don't identify an O&M funding source at the same time, even if that funding source is the general fund. That only seems like common sense to me. If Shadid is concerned that O&M funds for the Streetcar are going to come out of an already underfunded bus system then that is a valid concern but the approach should be to find that funding source, not transfer MAPS funds from the streetcar to the bus system. Ideally that should have been done at the exact same time and is one place MAPS can be improved.

I suspect that nealy all MAPS projects don't generare the revenue needed to keep them operational and provide maintenance and the bus system is certainly no exception as it requires constant deficit funding, so transfering funds to expand a bus system is nothing more than shifting the location of the defict spending, and at least studies show that spending on fixed guideways systems generate more private sector development dollars than any other kind of transportation spending. So if we are going to defict fund something shouldn't we at least defict fund the items that produce the greatest benefit?

[CaptDave]

At risk of taking the thread off topic - my response to Doug is that often lawyers do want "yes" or "no" but refuse to permit a perfectly reasonable explanation for the answer to be offered in testimony. This very scenario has happened to me. "Yes, but...." or "No, but...." is often the only fair and completely honest way to answer a question but usually the attorney does not want to allow the "but" part because is often refutes the point they want to make.

This certainly may apply to this discussion about MAPS and the streetcar in particular. Going for the simple yes or no - or seemingly with Steve lately a smoking gun - does not fully explain the process nor does it do justice to those involved in the process. Steve does an excellent job covering the various happenings in downtown most of the time, but I think he is off base and not being completely objective in his recent statements and insinuations about the streetcar project. This diminishes his otherwise excellent reputation IMHO.

I have attended several Streetcar Subcommittee meetings as an interested citizen and have never Steve at one - maybe we simply did not attend the same ones. But I believe the Streetcar Subcommittee has been pretty open and transparent. I have also been able to talk to Ed on several occasions - I usually think he brings up good discussions that otherwise would not be heard. But there is a positive way to do so and a less constructive way to bring issues up. I think he sometimes strays into the less constructive side of the equation at times.

On balance he has been good to have as a councilman, but I do believe he is way off base on the MAPS issue and the streetcar in particular. (He also got beat up over his zoo comments, but if you carefully look at the context, they were not that shocking.) If he wants to highlight systemic problems in the process, that is fine; but do not attempt to hijack funds (or give the impression that is his intent) from projects the voters chose for personal pet projects. Honestly, if he makes this a constructive discussion, it is very likely funds to improve the bus system could be part of the next bond issue and certainly the next MAPS. But only if he doesn't go about it with a scorched earth approach.

[catch22]

At risk of taking the thread off topic - my response to Doug is that often lawyers do want "yes" or "no" but refuse to permit a perfectly reasonable explanation for the answer to be offered in testimony. This very scenario has happened to me. "Yes, but...." or "No, but...." is often the only fair and completely honest way to answer a question but usually the attorney does not want to allow the "but" part because is often refutes the point they want to make.

This certainly may apply to this discussion about MAPS and the streetcar in particular. Going for the simple yes or no - or seemingly with Steve lately a smoking gun - does not fully explain the process nor does it do justice to those involved in the process. Steve does an excellent job covering the various happenings in downtown most of the time, but I think he is off base and not being completely objective in his recent statements and insinuations about the streetcar project. This diminishes his otherwise excellent reputation IMHO.

I have attended several Streetcar Subcommittee meetings as an interested citizen and have never Steve at one - maybe we simply did not attend the same ones. But I believe the Streetcar Subcommittee has been pretty open and transparent. I have also been able to talk to Ed on several occasions - I usually think he brings up good discussions that otherwise would not be heard. But there is a positive way to do so and a less constructive way to bring issues up. I think he sometimes strays into the less constructive side of the equation at times.

On balance he has been good to have as a councilman, but I do believe he is way off base on the MAPS issue and the streetcar in particular. (He also got beat up over his zoo comments, but if you carefully look at the context, they were not that shocking.) If he wants to highlight systemic problems in the process, that is fine; but do not attempt to hijack funds (or give the impression that is his intent) from projects the voters chose for personal pet projects. Honestly, if he makes this a constructive discussion, it is very likely funds to improve the bus system could be part of the next bond issue and certainly the next MAPS. But only if he doesn't go about it with a scorched earth approach.

I think this is an excellent post, Dave.

[catcherinthewry]

I think this entire exercise is just the time honored tradition of running one's candidacy up the flagpole to see if anyone will salute. And, not that this forum is representative of the city as a whole, but you can bet that Mr. Shadid is politically savvy enough to check out our opinions, especially before he commits to spending the 750k-1.5m that was reported. My prediction is that he will get the sense that the people of OKC do not want him to mess with the momentum that MAPS has created and he will back off and, then at a later date, magically change his mind on the subject.

FWIW, I love his picture that accompanied the newsok.com article. He looks a little befuddled, and that has been my impression of him both times I have heard him speak (both times about the boulevard). He seemed to have his message already set in stone and if someone disputed or even contradicted one of his preconceived notions he would invariably ignore the contradiction and just regurgitate his preconceived bullet point. In other words, I was not impressed with his ability to incorporate new ideas on the fly to his owns beliefs.

[catch22]

I'd like to add, regarding the bus system... I couldn't agree more with Ed that our system sucks. It really does. But.... He is taking the completely wrong approach to doing this. While technically the funds in this MAPS program could be spent on buses, it would be doing a complete slap in the face of the voters who were sold on a streetcar. And it would also be the end of MAPS. I don't know why Steve is missing that point and quite frankly I'm disappointed with the un-objective journalism Steve has provided on this issue. It's definitely not the norm for you Steve, but it is very disappointing.

[Edgar]

Looks to me Ed is just asking the obvious questions about a projects viability and shining a light on the plutocrcay that is OKC's governance. People don't like difficult questions asked about their per projects. Wish I could vote for an honest well informed accountable rep like Dr Shadid. Mom definately will. Cornett reminds me of a weasel, particularly after jamming through the timeline vote before Dr Shadid could get back to OKC to enter into public record the money pit the CC and hotel will be. Mick must have thought the travel delay devine intervention. The origianl MAPS great civic projects. The lastest got highjacked. Now when the CC overruns occur, voters will have to approve the next MAPS for the projects they actually voted on. The ole bait and switch. All very cynical. Best luck to Dr Shadid.

[Urban Pioneer]

This isn't about "tough questions". They've all been answered as they have been asked.

This is about Ed seeing MAPS 3 Streetcar/Hub monies as an answer to fixing the bus system. Something the voters did not vote for.

Its also about his unwillingness to not acknowledge and respect the public process that also exists to see these projects fulfilled in the most impactful, positive, and efficient way possible. When voters supported MAPS 3 via the vote, they also supported the oversight process of which many of us are volunteer appointees.

I think you should be able to see why some people might be upset. To suggest that he is asking "tough questions" that is generating hostility is oversimplifying the matter.

[soonerguru]

Looks to me Ed is just asking the obvious questions about a projects viability and shining a light on the plutocrcay that is OKC's governance. People don't like difficult questions asked about their per projects. Wish I could vote for an honest well informed accountable rep like Dr Shadid. Mom definately will. Cornett reminds me of a weasel, particularly after jamming through the timeline vote before Dr Shadid could get back to OKC to enter into public record the money pit the CC and hotel will be. Mick must have thought the travel delay devine intervention. The origianl MAPS great civic projects. The lastest got highjacked. Now when the CC overruns occur, voters will have to approve the next MAPS for the projects they actually voted on. The ole bait and switch. All very cynical. Best luck to Dr Shadid.

Time has a way of healing all wounds, but your memory of the first MAPS is a bit off.

It was, in many ways, an organizational disaster. It went way over budget and schedules were missed. Lawsuits were filed over the materials used for the library. The canal was shortened -- and didn't connect to the river as promised. The arena went over budget. Schedules were missed. The voters had to be asked to spend more money.

And yet, it turned out great for our city. People today -- some of whom even voted against it -- acknowledge it as a success, despite the bumps and bruises. And it was a success, a monumental success that started the momentum for OKC's emergence as a big-league city, something it is now recognized for internationally.

So forgive me, but as a supporter of the streetcar, one of the MAPS 3 projects, I do NOT have a problem with tough questions. Bring 'em on. What I have a problem with is someone like you calling it a pet project. Sorry, Charlie, but it was on the slate of MAPS projects voted for by the citizens, and polling showed it to be one of only three or four the public really even wanted, so it is most certainly NOT a pet project.

[soonerguru]

What is Steve's agenda here besides getting clicks to his column? Does he hate the streetcar? Does he hate the streetcar supporters? Does he hate Urban Pioneer? Why use all the super secret innuendo? If you have a good story, run it.

He did say in this chat that Ed Shadid "Cares. A lot." So he seems to have a special fondness for him as well.

[Spartan]

I think to paint Ed as being anti-MAPS is a vast mischaracterization. Ed would be the biggest champion the inner city could ever have, he just wants to see MAPS go in a different, perhaps more progressive direction. I think he gets the notion that MAPS is a dynamic, changing proposition based on the significant changes we have already seen.

It was not Ed who shorted the bike trails, got fuzzy on senior centers, pushed the streetcar back, and moved the convention center up. For the record, I am a personal friend of Ed, but I am also deeply committed to the streetcar project. It's not that downtown won't continue to grow without it, but if we can just make this streetcar happen ASAP, that will be the change impetus here. Then it won't be OKC, always 10 years behind Austin.

Charlotte, Portland, and Austin all have dynamically seized a moment in its recent past that propelled those cities to greatness. OKC doesn't appreciate from organic growth like Austin or Portland, where those cities greatness slowly bubbled from an entrenched culture that was more urbane and exploded once they became large cities. Charlotte is our destiny. OKC is a city that grows in leaps and bounds or not at all, and everyone knows our history of boom and bust. The streetcar will be that cataclysmic transit event. It will be a beacon that will in turn make Okies demand better public transit for all.

In that sense, it is not worth preventing this beacon system from developing to fight a larger battle for transit for all. Many of the same people devoted to the streetcar also care about bus service and have great ideas for that, like instituting a logical grid system, for example. The people who run this city are civil servants, not dictatorial visionaries, and all things are a compromise. Ed has done a fantastic job of working WITH people, not AGAINST them. I hate to see his stances and character blown out of proportion by melodramatic news headlines.

That said, I've obviously been out of the insider loop for a while. These thoughts just touch the surface, but hopefully can add some rational middle ground to this discussion. This is why we have elections, to see these things unfold over time, and get to the bottom of these things.

[Spartan]

For the record, Ed touched home with me regarding the zoo. For us to have a dedicated zoo tax, but not a dedicated funding stream of any kind for transit, is absurd. He did come off that big-time and didn't even play that card as strongly as I would have. The zoo should have to figure out where its budget is coming from each year like every other city entity - but for some reason, because people like koalas, the zoo is above all else.

MAPS funding can only legally or logistically be applied to capital expenditures. Bus service is low-capital, heavy-operating, and even heavier-maintenance. Maintenance however is factored over years, not one time. If we had to have a vote every time a bus broke down, transit would be even worse off than it is now.

Also just to be fair to the other side, I was in Pittsburgh the other weekend and saw the sexiest buses I've ever seen in the U.S. The Port Authority there has model bus service. Just merely taking over some aspects of bus service from advertising agencies is a very small thing a city can do to say it cares about transit for all.

By the way I apologize for all the typos, I'm writing on my iPad.

[Steve]

Some of you are simply proving my point... you definitely don't appear to like to see your beliefs and assumptions challenged. And when it happens, you often attack the person doing the questioning or challenging as you've done with these latest threads. What's funny is how now I'm being painted as a pro-Shadid when we've been attacked in the past as being anti-Shadid. I've had my integrity attacked before by those who didn't like my questions or challenges - former County Commissioner Brent Rinehart (indicted, convicted of campaign finance violations as a result of my questioning), Councilman Frosty Peak, the late Bricktown developer Jim Brewer, top executives at a couple of major energy companies, etc, etc. Funny how it all works out in the end.
I will note that Soonerguru seemed to question my journalism education based on his incorrect conclusion that I don't post multiple images with various stories when such images are available, and then somehow concluded the 100 emails being withheld by Gov. Mary Fallin conceal some sort of relationship with The OKlahoman, even though it was The Oklahoman that started and continued and continues to wage this fight to let the public see these emails. Consider all that as Soonerguru reflects on my work ....

[Steve]

Time has a way of healing all wounds, but your memory of the first MAPS is a bit off.

It was, in many ways, an organizational disaster. It went way over budget and schedules were missed. Lawsuits were filed over the materials used for the library. The canal was shortened -- and didn't connect to the river as promised. The arena went over budget. Schedules were missed. The voters had to be asked to spend more money.

And yet, it turned out great for our city. People today -- some of whom even voted against it -- acknowledge it as a success, despite the bumps and bruises. And it was a success, a monumental success that started the momentum for OKC's emergence as a big-league city, something it is now recognized for internationally.

So forgive me, but as a supporter of the streetcar, one of the MAPS 3 projects, I do NOT have a problem with tough questions. Bring 'em on. What I have a problem with is someone like you calling it a pet project. Sorry, Charlie, but it was on the slate of MAPS projects voted for by the citizens, and polling showed it to be one of only three or four the public really even wanted, so it is most certainly NOT a pet project.

As the one who wrote the book on MAPS, covered it first hand:
- The arena did not go over budget.
- The canal was NOT shortened - it was actually built slightly longer than first presented during the campaign. And there was never a promise to completely link the canal to the river - that was always impossible due to the steep drop in elevation.
- The library materials did end up in litigation.
- Schedules did fall behind.
- The budget did go over and the tax was extended for six months.
- The structure of the first MAPS ballot, provisions for funding of operations and maintenance, were far more detailed than for MAPS 3, which basically consisted of voters approving a blank check of $777 million to be spent on "capital improvements" with just a resolution (which can be scrapped at any time with five votes) giving a summary of which projects were to be funded.

[CaptDave]

Spartan - I agree with the basic premise of this and Ed's statement regarding the zoo having dedicated funding and none for transit.

BUT - I think it is counter productive to take the discussion into the realm of insinuations about the most transparent of the MAPS3 subcommittees. I simply wonder what his actual goal is and would prefer it to be openly stated. He would probably find there is widespread support for the eventual goal but he needs to modify his method to accept the unwritten contract between the voters and city leadership regarding MAPS.

[Urban Pioneer]

Ed has done a fantastic job of working WITH people, not AGAINST them.

That said, I've obviously been out of the insider loop for a while.

This is simply not true. Ed has done a HORRIBLE job "working with people."

And yes, you have been out of the loop. (At least the transit volunteer one.)

I can't tell you how many people have reached out their hands and had them bitten. Ed has brought nothing but acrimony to the implementation of the voter's will.

If he has a remote chance of being elected Mayor, we are on our way to Tulsaville... Divisiveness and acrimony.

I'm not saying there aren't problems. The absence of planners where planning is needed instead of engineers is the obvious one. But he has done nothing to help resolve those issues.

[Urban Pioneer]

Some of you are simply proving my point... you definitely don't appear to like to see your beliefs and assumptions challenged.

You keep saying this about MAPS 3 Streetcar/Transit advocates. What specific beliefs and assumptions are you talking about?

I am and always have been willing to listen to others and change my views if I'm proven wrong or think somebody has a better path. All I want, and I think most want, is for streetcar, hub, rail infrastructure to be built in the best way possible as generally described in the campaign voters voted on.

Shadid has the extraordinary position of helping craft the next MAPS or GO bond docket to get the funding to resolve the broader transit issues at hand.

Having sensitivity to his desire to change the purpose of these current funds should be totally understandable.

[CaptDave]

Some of you are simply proving my point... you definitely don't appear to like to see your beliefs and assumptions challenged.

For it to be a legitimate challenge there needs to be a basis for the challenge. If you have such a basis, why not state it rather than insinuating? I really think you are better than that Steve. I look forward to your columns and think you are a great asset to people that care to be informed about what our city government is doing. But I honestly think you are off base on this one in the absence of any concrete basis for your "challenge".

[Spartan]

As the one who wrote the book on MAPS, covered it first hand:
- The arena did not go over budget.
- The canal was NOT shortened - it was actually built slightly longer than first presented during the campaign. And there was never a promise to completely link the canal to the river - that was always impossible due to the steep drop in elevation.
- The library materials did end up in litigation.
- Schedules did fall behind.
- The budget did go over and the tax was extended for six months.
- The structure of the first MAPS ballot, provisions for funding of operations and maintenance, were far more detailed than for MAPS 3, which basically consisted of voters approving a blank check of $777 million to be spent on "capital improvements" with just a resolution (which can be scrapped at any time with five votes) giving a summary of which projects were to be funded.

The arena did not go over budget, but the earlier projects did, and the arena was the focal point of Mayor Humphreys' "finish MAPS right."

I hate to see my friends arguing this vociferously. I will just say that the streetcar process was by far the most transparent of the MAPS projects, and that Ed Shadid is at times the only councilman we have that one would expect in a city of 600,000 - and that takes courage. The only way we'll descend into the Tulsa pit is if we can not find a way for these two very good things to coexist. But I think we can, coexistence has long been one of OKC's strengths.

[catch22]

Some of you are simply proving my point... you definitely don't appear to like to see your beliefs and assumptions challenged. And when it happens, you often attack the person doing the questioning or challenging as you've done with these latest threads. What's funny is how now I'm being painted as a pro-Shadid when we've been attacked in the past as being anti-Shadid. I've had my integrity attacked before by those who didn't like my questions or challenges - former County Commissioner Brent Rinehart (indicted, convicted of campaign finance violations as a result of my questioning), Councilman Frosty Peak, the late Bricktown developer Jim Brewer, top executives at a couple of major energy companies, etc, etc. Funny how it all works out in the end.
I will note that Soonerguru seemed to question my journalism education based on his incorrect conclusion that I don't post multiple images with various stories when such images are available, and then somehow concluded the 100 emails being withheld by Gov. Mary Fallin conceal some sort of relationship with The OKlahoman, even though it was The Oklahoman that started and continued and continues to wage this fight to let the public see these emails. Consider all that as Soonerguru reflects on my work ....

Steve, would it be bad for MAPS money to be put into the bus system, despite voters voting for MAPS3 streetcar.

[Steve]

The problem here is that nobody voted for anything but $777 million that can be used in whatever way five members of the city council see fit. You've already seen $30 million diverted from the convention center "budget" listed on the resolution (again, something not listed on the MAPS 3 ballot and can be overturned by 5 votes). You've seen the sidewalk and trails project cut back significantly. You've seen some serious doubts emerge with the wellness centers. And now you're seeing the bubbling up of questions about the streetcar system.
As an aside, how many of you have read the resolution? Read it here: http://www.okc.gov/maps3/resolution.pdf

[catch22]

Does rail based transit apply to rubber tyred buses Steve?!?

[Hutch]

It doesn't call for a streetcar system at all - only rail based transit in the inner-city and/or elsewhere in the city.

That's false...the resolution reads:

"A new rail-based STREETCAR SYSTEM..."

[Urban Pioneer]

I hate to see my friends arguing this vociferously. I will just say that the streetcar process was by far the most transparent of the MAPS projects, and that Ed Shadid is at times the only councilman we have that one would expect in a city of 600,000 - and that takes courage. The only way we'll descend into the Tulsa pit is if we can not find a way for these two very good things to coexist. But I think we can, coexistence has long been one of OKC's strengths.

I agree Nick. But we need more than coexistence to continue to make the positive change this city is experiencing.

I worked on Ed's campaign. It went way beyond knocking doors. I had my entire small staff working for several weeks on his campaign at my expense. We created many of the ads, wrote copy, designed art, and then did all the normal stuff; walking doors and making phone calls.

The reason I supported Ed so excitedly is because he was such a stark contrast to the "status quo" ie Swinton. He came across as a Progressive, of which I am proudly one.

But after the election it turned into nothing but the coexistent conversation you describe. Lets talk about everything and accomplish nothing. And for so many people, that conversation has been enough. There has been such a "vacuum" of intelligent thinking and modern progressive discussion in the past, he is filling entire auditoriums with people who have been craving this discussion.

But conversation doesn't get you votes on the horseshoe. Conversation alone is not a strategy for implementation. To be a "real leader" that racks up "wins", you have to build relationships, develop friends, gain 5 other votes.

Shadid has undoubtedly "elevated" the conversation. And that is a huge thing. He has built consensus where there was little consensus. If we had had the level of interest that he has created in public transit during the formation of the MAPS 3 docket, I would wager you would see a much bigger and broader investment. Instead of focussing this new consensus he has generated towards a comprehensive, future, goal, he's decided to cast doubt and chip away at an already hard fought initiative. And he's alienating many of his friends and supporters in the process.

Shadid has lost my confidence because he has proven himself to not be a smart political leader. He happens to be someone we elected because we liked what he had to say. But he does not have the political skills or discipline to actually orient his public conversations into constructive resolutions.

I say that with the exception of the City's equality stance. That was an early victory and has my profound respect.

But everything and everybody seems to be "fair game". There is no loyalty to anyone or anything. Between not having those basic reassurances of respect and loyalty, there is no foundation from which to develop political commitments from others to obtain your goals. You don't have to "sell yourself" to be a successful politician. But typical success in policy involves both consensus building and having the friends to get you the votes at the end of the day.

With all that said, that's quite a bit of disclosure on my part. My support of Ed in the past and my concerns about his potential mayorship go far beyond the streetcar and MAPS projects.

I'm proud of this city. I'm proud of where its going. I look up the road to Tulsa and see the result of good intentions gone bad. They have plenty of conversations though!

I think Ed has the best of intentions. But he needs to serve a few full terms, gain some political skills, rebuild some relationships, win some votes, and help restore a balance between Planning, Public Works, and the City Manager. Doing those things as a Councilman.

He has profound opportunities at his leisure should he develop the discipline and patience to harness them. Short of defending MAPS 3 streetcar/transit, I'll take a Lackmeyer line. Sit back with some popcorn and enjoy the show.