OKC Mayor Race 2014

[betts]

Sorry, that was me being slightly silly. Many of my friends are Republicans and they are definitely pro-MAPS and know what they're doing when they vote.

But, my point is that if by your actions (paying no attention to the fact that MAPS was passed by the majority) you tell them their votes are inconsequential, you have no chance of getting them to vote for a different tax. You cannot throw out the streetcar and assume people will vote for buses instead.

[kevinpate]

Thats sad. How long ago was that? It almost sounds like OKC compared unfavortably to even Fort Smith, Arkansas in those days.

For many folks on east of OKC a ways, it was not uncommon to do the to the city trips to Tulsa or Fort Smith, not to OKC. Living in eastern OK as a youth, we came to OKC from time to time, rarely and primarily because Pops had reason to come this way when he was on the bench (for judicial conferences and bar gatherings and such.) My favorite memories as a youngster were Sleepy Hollow dinners, the old Holiday Inn when we came to see the Globetrotters (the only time I remember staying downtown OKC until i was in undergrad school), Frontier City, and a trip or two with youth groups to Stage Center and meals with Pops and others at Jamil's (though when I was older he liked some other places more. I still ahve a soft spot for Jamil's today.

I have scads more memories of trips to the Fort and to T-town growing up and into young adult hood. I never really saw OKC as anything majorly special. In addition to the damage of the bust following Penn Square Bank, I think perhaps the early 70's busing issues and resultant white flight probably did a lot of damage as well, a decade before the early 80's bust.

In the late 80's, after we moved to Norman for my lovely's masters and my time at the OU law, we didn't roll into OKC much at all from 86 on into early 90's. I worked in Norman, and business trips were rare. Business with a state agency would bring me to town from 1990 forward in the daytime, but unless Pops and Mom were coming up for something, we rarely came into OKC from Norman for an evening out. Our kiddos were small then. Evening outs were mostly kept in town and early end times, to be kind to the sitters, who by and large were young high school or late middle school. Eventually we started coming up for B town area places, like Jokers, Spag Warehouse and Crabtown or an occasional cheapo movie. Or, I would do the Me and kiddo X all dayer at Frontier City so the focus was on what that kiddo wanted to do. I enjoyed the rides far more than my lovely did, and working so often into the evenings, I really enjoyed the one on one time myself.) Then the kiddos got into Scouts and camping age and we came to town less and less as Scouts in one flavor or another filled evenings and weekends were hobo dinners on coals way more often than menus and real china. Miss those days of hobo dinners, tents and sitting round what had been a campfire, just talking quietly and stirring the embers while other folks slept.

Need to start getting out more, to the city and to the woods. Getting way too hermity these days.

[Bellaboo]

Back in about 1979 or 80, there were several decent places to eat around i-40 and Meridian. Molly Murphy's, Applewoods, and a few others were not bad. Chi Chi Mexican on NW Expwy was not a chain and had the fired ice cream...I think it was not as dire as some make it out to be, they've just forgotten. But I would'nt want to go back to those days.

[Bellaboo]

My point was...there is a diverse crowd of citizens that are at least interested in what Ed has to say. The electorate is not as monolithic as you would like to believe.

Answer this krisb, why would anyone support some guy who wants to stop (and possibly retreat from) the incredible transformation we've had ?

That just doesn't make good sense.....

[Bellaboo]

Sorry, that was me being slightly silly. Many of my friends are Republicans and they are definitely pro-MAPS and know what they're doing when they vote.

But, my point is that if by your actions (paying no attention to the fact that MAPS was passed by the majority) you tell them their votes are inconsequential, you have no chance of getting them to vote for a different tax. You cannot throw out the streetcar and assume people will vote for buses instead.

Betts,

I'm very conservative, and there is no one out there who supports MAPS more than I.....I've made it a point to preach it to my co-workers on every vote. Of all things, I don't mind paying the tax, at least you can actually see tangible assets we pay for. It makes our future brighter, and gives everyone something to look forward to. Some people complain that the fat cats take advantage of it, but as far as i'm concerned, we all profit indirectly if not directly.

[Urban Pioneer]

Answer this krisb, why would anyone support some guy who wants to stop (and possibly retreat from) the incredible transformation we've had ?

That just doesn't make good sense.....

Because people don't know the "real" Ed.

[PhiAlpha]

Go to downtown Amarillo sometime... It's very arguably nicer than OKC was back then. 4-7 restaurant/bars, one nice new hotel, a bunch of abandoned buildings and a ton of surface parking. This from a city with a little under 250,000 people. There downtown is experiencing a mini renessance and is actually kinda cool for what it is, but it definitely is similar (but better than) OKC in the late 80s early 90s.

[krisb]

Answer this krisb, why would anyone support some guy who wants to stop (and possibly retreat from) the incredible transformation we've had ?

That just doesn't make good sense.....

I have never heard Ed say that he is against MAPS or the transformation of the city. He has been critical of some aspects of the MAPS 3 process, that is different. The straw man you're trying to beat up has more brains than you think.

[PhiAlpha]

Not sure Christopher's made it into the 90's. Or the Wine Cellar or Newport.

Anyway, the point being things were *bad* and MAPS was nothing short of a minor miracle.

To try and tear it down now when the investment has been repaid in literally incalculable amounts and ways... Well, that's shear lunacy.

Dont forget Joe Kelly's, now part of the chaparral campus.

[PhiAlpha]

Not sure Christopher's made it into the 90's. Or the Wine Cellar or Newport.

Anyway, the point being things were *bad* and MAPS was nothing short of a minor miracle.

To try and tear it down now when the investment has been repaid in literally incalculable amounts and ways... Well, that's shear lunacy.

Don't forget Joe Kelly's, now part of the chaparral campus.

[Bellaboo]

I have never heard Ed say that he is against MAPS or the transformation of the city. He has been critical of some aspects of the MAPS 3 process, that is different. The straw man you're trying to beat up has more brains than you think.

The dedicated straw man with brains didn't even VOTE one way or the other on MAPS 3. When the majority on this board favored him a couple of years back, they posted a link of him giving some kind of rebuttal on the shoe. I took the 20 minutes of my time and watched with interest. He walked all over himself, was somewhat feeble in his questioning...and then he backed off.... I said to myself, what the heck do people see in him ? But what got under my skin is him questioning a dedicated zoo tax voted on by the people, and now he's questioning MAPS 3 in the same regard......... how much 'brains' does he have...... being a surgeon he has some, but politically, his approach is very much in question. It's hard to vote against Mick when you know what you're going to get, but with Ed, who in the hell knows...?

I guess when Ed speaks, you're going to hear what you want to hear.

[PhiAlpha]

I have never heard Ed say that he is against MAPS or the transformation of the city. He has been critical of some aspects of the MAPS 3 process, that is different. The straw man you're trying to beat up has more brains than you think.

So he hasn't ever said he's against MAPS, but what do his actions say? Getting an attorney to threaten to file a lawsuit seeking an injunction against MAPS and questing its constitutionality 4 years after the vote say plenty.

[betts]

If you're willing to sacrifice MAPS on the altar of political expediency, then you're not a steward of your citizens. If you are willing to ignore or throw out decisions made by the citizens of the city you claim to represent, then you're not doing your job correctly. I don't want a mayor who doesn't care what we as citizens value. We expended a lot of energy supporting MAPS 3. A lot of people (Ed not included) acted as responsible citizens and voted. And he's willing to act as if that (and by extension we) doesn't/don't matter.

[CaptDave]

I have never heard Ed say that he is against MAPS or the transformation of the city. He has been critical of some aspects of the MAPS 3 process, that is different. The straw man you're trying to beat up has more brains than you think.

With some of his recent actions, no words are needed. (But I still haven't watched last week's council meeting....I've heard Ed made some sort of statement about MAPS) No one thinks Ed is unintelligent; I've mainly heard people express disappointment and disillusionment.

[Pete]

Don't forget Joe Kelly's, now part of the chaparral campus.

It was a cool spot but didn't last long. Doubt it made it to the 90's, either.

[Urban Pioneer]

The straw man you're trying to beat up has more brains than you think.

Not political ones. Ed needs to learn how to work with people and respect those with a different opinions rather than constantly embarking on subversive negative innuendo campaigns.

[soonerguru]

So he hasn't ever said he's against MAPS, but what do his actions say? Getting an attorney to threaten to file a lawsuit seeking an injunction against MAPS and questing its constitutionality 4 years after the vote say plenty.

Actions speak louder than words. My only hesitation in supporting Shadid during his Council campaign were my lingering, nagging doubts about 1) his support of MAPS, 2) his apparent alignment with the unions (whom I would normally support but with whom I had lost respect after their campaign against MAPS), and 3) his weird diatribes against the business community.

Ultimately I reconciled my concerns after Shadid pledged to support the MAPS 3 vote. Then, suddenly, he turned his back on his campaign position about a year ago and I learned the hard way that he doesn't keep his word. He very much used the grass roots base of the Streetcar initiative to get elected and then turned his back on the Streetcar.

The man has proven to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that he cannot be trusted.

Today's announcement that the hub is getting Federal support blows up one of his cental lies: namely that the Streetcar would not receive federal funding. Now we find out we're getting $13 million from the Obama Administration to build a first-class transit hub, and we learn we would have been nowhere in the running for this federal support had we not passed the MAPS 3 vote to fund the Streetcar and Hub expansion.

Ed has been extremely duplicitous in his comments on this very public vote and process, and he should be ashamed. At this point, he is only a hindrance to expanding transit in Central Oklahoma, and furthermore, short of issuing easily debunked arguments against MAPS 3, he has exerted no leadership to get anything done for transit. Nothing.

[PhiAlpha]

Actions speak louder than words. My only hesitation in supporting Shadid during his Council campaign were my lingering, nagging doubts about 1) his support of MAPS, 2) his apparent alignment with the unions (whom I would normally support but with whom I had lost respect after their campaign against MAPS), and 3) his weird diatribes against the business community.

Ultimately I reconciled my concerns after Shadid pledged to support the MAPS 3 vote. Then, suddenly, he turned his back on his campaign position about a year ago and I learned the hard way that he doesn't keep his word. He very much used the grass roots base of the Streetcar initiative to get elected and then turned his back on the Streetcar.

The man has proven to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that he cannot be trusted.

Today's announcement that the hub is getting Federal support blows up one of his cental lies: namely that the Streetcar would not receive federal funding. Now we find out we're getting $13 million from the Obama Administration to build a first-class transit hub, and we learn we would have been nowhere in the running for this federal support had we not passed the MAPS 3 vote to fund the Streetcar and Hub expansion.

Ed has been extremely duplicitous in his comments on this very public vote and process, and he should be ashamed. At this point, he is only a hindrance to expanding transit in Central Oklahoma, and furthermore, short of issuing easily debunked arguments against MAPS 3, he has exerted no leadership to get anything done for transit. Nothing.

Exactly

[CaptDave]

And thanks to the efforts of people who cared enough about OKC transit to actually come up with a plan and follow through on it, OKC is now being recognized as being serious about improving transit. Despite several rather deceitful statements and actions designed to divide transit supporters, the USDOT has now approved the first of hopefully several TIGER Grants to support the people actually making a difference rather than doing nothing more than criticizing. If you are not going to offer a plan, you are not part of the solution.

I think this is appropriate for this mayoral race:

“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”


― Theodore Roosevelt

[Urban Pioneer]

From Steve's chat today- OKC Central Chat transcript, Sept. 6, 2013 | News OK BTW, it was a really good chat session Steve.

Guest 10:11 a.m. Hello steve what is the latest with the maps 3 protest from attorney slane will this derail maps 3 and is maps 3 pass a constitutional test thanks. You would have thought okc would have checked this out before they put it on the ballot or is this political movement from a mayor wanna be


Steve Lackmeyer 10:17 a.m. City Attorney Kenny Jordan replied with information that would indicate the ballot is not unconsitutional. David Slane has since told local reporters he is re-evaluating whether he will proceed with the lawsuit. The public response to Slane was very negative, and rightly or wrongly, his connection to councilman and mayoral candidate Ed Shadid through consultant Andrew Speno (who also represents longtime MAPS 3 opponents at the FOP) has sparked some criticism against Shadid. There is no evidence that I know of showing there's a coordinated effort between Slane and Shadid, but critics note Shadid was quite vocal against the ballot in comments at the city council meeting just a couple days before Slane's representatives contacted reporters and he announced his intentions to sue the city over the ballot.

[Larry OKC]

They're not at all different.

The test is germaneness. If the provisions are germane, relative, and cognate to a readily apparent common theme and purpose, the provisions are related to a single subject. The most relevant questions under this analysis are whether a voter is: 1) able to make a choice without being misled; and 2) forced to choose between two unrelated provisions contained in one measure.

Who was being misled here? This was a tax for capital improvements. Just like a tax for public safety, someone has to decide how much to spend on what. Would you tell me that the public safety tax was constitutional because they really didn't know how many police radios or walkie talkies they'd buy? Or would you argue it's not constitutional because the public wasn't given a choice to vote for Motorola radios and Ford cruisers instead of Chryslers?

Slane's lawsuit is a dog that won't hunt.

the difference is that with a tax for Public Safety, it is much more restrictive and well defined than the vague, overly broad and nearly all-encompassing generic "capital improvements" label. Please read the Ballot & Ordinance and tell me exactly what it CAN'T be spent on. Tell me if the Council can or can not change their intent and transfer funds from one project to another, decide not to do a project al all etc. Also, if not mistake, the Public Safety tax and Bond Issue taxes go into a rather lot of detail about the projects. Consider Proposition 1 of the 2007 bond issue:
http://www.okc.gov/bonds2007/

PROPOSITION 1 (STREETS)
Because street repair was your #1 priority in the last two citizen surveys, more than half of the funds in the bond program are earmarked for street improvements. This proposition finances resurfacing, widening and rebuilding of more than 750 lane miles of streets, mostly in residential areas. Walkers will also benefit from the construction of 350 miles of sidewalks and trails.

but it doesn't stop there, generic descriptions but goes into specific detail...

PROPOSITION 1 (STREETS) / Section - Resurfacing

A. Resurfacing, repair, rehabilitation, and/or improvements of the streets located in the areas bounded by the following described streets, which may include related engineering, traffic control signals, signs, markings, devices, conduit and improvements, street lighting, drainage, intersection improvements, right-of-way acquisition, utility relocation, sidewalk repair and/or installation, to-wit:


Number Limits Estimate
1 Council Road, Rockwell Avenue, Hefner Road to Britton Road $5,691,000
2 Meridian Avenue, Portland Avenue, NW 50th Street, NW 36th Street $5,199,000
3 Meridian Avenue, Portland Avenue, NW 36th Street, NW 23rd Street $6,823,000
4 Western Avenue , Santa Fe Avenue, NW 63rd Street, NW 50th Street $3,766,000
5 Portland Avenue, May Avenue, NW 63rd Street, NW 50th Street $4,403,000
6 May Avenue, Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 50th Street, NW 36th Street $7,816,000
7 Pennsylvania Avenue, Western Avenue , NW 63rd Street, NW 50th Street $3,836,000
8 Pennsylvania Avenue, Western Avenue , SW 44th Street, SW 59th Street $7,675,000
9 MacArthur Boulevard, Meridian Avenue, NW 23rd Street, NW 10th Street $4,601,000
10 Meridian Avenue, Portland Avenue, SW 15th Street, SW 29th Street $2,783,000
11 Sara Road, Morgan Road, SW 15th Street, SW 29th Street $3,717,000
12 Rockwell Avenue, MacArthur Boulevard, NW 23rd Street, NW 10th Street $2,852,000
13 Douglas Avenue, Post Road, SE 29th Street, SE 44th Street $1,643,000
14 Anderson Road, Hiwassee Road, SE 74th Street, SE 89th Street $1,074,000
15 Eastern Avenue, Bryant Avenue, SE 89th Street, SE 104th Street $1,855,000
16 Western Avenue , Santa Fe Avenue, SW 44th Street, SW 59th Street $6,595,000
17 Pennsylvania Avenue, Western Avenue SW 89th Street, SW 104th Street $5,801,000
18 Western Avenue , Santa Fe Avenue, SW 134th Street, SW 149th Street $2,575,000
19 Western Avenue , I-235, NW 23rd Street, NW 10th Street $8,767,000
20 Portland Avenue, May Avenue, Reno Avenue, SW 15th Street $2,370,000
21 May Avenue, Pennsylvania Avenue, SW 15th Street, SW 29th Street $5,986,000
22 Pennsylvania Avenue, Western Avenue , SW 15th Street, SW 29th Street $6,446,000
23 Eastern Avenue, Bryant Avenue, SE 29th Street, SE 44th Street $3,049,000
24 Bryant Avenue, Coltrane Road, Memorial Road, City Limits $2,298,000
25 Santa Fe Avenue, Kelley Avenue, NE 63rd Street, NE 50th Street $4,779,000
26 Kelley Avenue, ML KING, NE 23rd Street, NE 10TH $8,830,000
27 Meridian Avenue, Portland Avenue, Memorial Road, NW 122nd Street $4,610,000
28 May Avenue, City Limits, Britton Road, Wilshire Boulevard $1,847,000
29 May Avenue, Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 122nd Street, Hefner Road $7,242,000
30 The northern one-half section bounded by Mustang Road, Czech Hall Road, Reno Avenue $2,643,000
31 May Avenue, I-44, South Grand Boulevard, SW 59th Street $5,555,000
Total: $143,127,000

The same is true for the most, if not all of the other Propositions and subparts. What did we get in the MAPS 3 Ballot/Ordinance? Do you see ANY of the projects listed? Are ANY details about the projects mentioned? No & No.

I would imagine that the Public Safety tax had similar details but haven't looked for it myself lately, I may do so later. But IIRC, it mentioned exactly what the money would be spent for. While maybe not down to the brand, make & model and number of the walkie-talkies, it most likely had the amount earmarked for such purposes. If I am wrong, please post. If it did as you say, then yes, the Public Safety tax may also be unconstitutional.

What you described (in bold) is what happened, you seem to be arguing my point...Voters were misled into thinking that the all-or-nothing ballot was the only option the City had. And they were forced to choose, either vote for or against all of the unrelated projects. A couple of the items were probably similar enough to be considered "like-kind" and could have been lumped together as 1 proposition (but if any doubt, the safest recourse is to list them separately), but others certainly required a separate proposition of their own. For example, the Convention Center has absolutely nothing in common with Senior Aquatic Centers. And while there may be some benefit of one project to another (like the Streetcars connecting as many of the other projects together), their success or failure isn't entirely dependent on the other (unlike the Convention Center and the unfunded C.C. hotel).

[kevinpate]

But Larry, neither you, nor any other MAPs3 voter, voted yea or nay on a civic center. Nor did you vote up or down on a list of projects. You just didn't do that. you voted yea or nay on whether there would be a temporary 1 cent sales tax for X months with that sales tax being dedicated to capital improvements.

The only people who voted yea or nay on a specific list of projects were the elected council folk, sitting at the horseshoe.

[LakeEffect]

the difference is that with a tax for Public Safety, it is much more restrictive and well defined than the vague, overly broad and nearly all-encompassing generic "capital improvements" label. Please read the Ballot & Ordinance and tell me exactly what it CAN'T be spent on. Tell me if the Council can or can not change their intent and transfer funds from one project to another, decide not to do a project al all etc. Also, if not mistake, the Public Safety tax and Bond Issue taxes go into a rather lot of detail about the projects. Consider Proposition 1 of the 2007 bond issue:
The City of Oklahoma City - 2007 City Bond Election

but it doesn't stop there, generic descriptions but goes into specific detail...

The same is true for the most, if not all of the other Propositions and subparts. What did we get in the MAPS 3 Ballot/Ordinance? Do you see ANY of the projects listed? Are ANY details about the projects mentioned? No & No.

I would imagine that the Public Safety tax had similar details but haven't looked for it myself lately, I may do so later. But IIRC, it mentioned exactly what the money would be spent for. While maybe not down to the brand, make & model and number of the walkie-talkies, it most likely had the amount earmarked for such purposes. If I am wrong, please post. If it did as you say, then yes, the Public Safety tax may also be unconstitutional.

What you described (in bold) is what happened, you seem to be arguing my point...Voters were misled into thinking that the all-or-nothing ballot was the only option the City had. And they were forced to choose, either vote for or against all of the unrelated projects. A couple of the items were probably similar enough to be considered "like-kind" and could have been lumped together as 1 proposition (but if any doubt, the safest recourse is to list them separately), but others certainly required a separate proposition of their own. For example, the Convention Center has absolutely nothing in common with Senior Aquatic Centers. And while there may be some benefit of one project to another (like the Streetcars connecting as many of the other projects together), their success or failure isn't entirely dependent on the other (unlike the Convention Center and the unfunded C.C. hotel).

Bond Elections have different statutory requirements than Tax Elections, I believe. I'm not an expert, but in my time working on the 2007 GOB Election, I recall hearing that we had very specific requirements that had to be met for the ballot, and the approval required. That may be another reason the ballot list was so extensive.

[Midtowner]

the difference is that with a tax for Public Safety, it is much more restrictive and well defined than the vague, overly broad and nearly all-encompassing generic "capital improvements" label. Please read the Ballot & Ordinance and tell me exactly what it CAN'T be spent on. Tell me if the Council can or can not change their intent and transfer funds from one project to another, decide not to do a project al all etc. Also, if not mistake, the Public Safety tax and Bond Issue taxes go into a rather lot of detail about the projects. Consider Proposition 1 of the 2007 bond issue:
The City of Oklahoma City - 2007 City Bond Election

So what law school did you go to again?

That said, there is nothing misleading about being labeled "capital improvements." Capital improvements can certainly mean an awful lot, but it's in no way misleading. There was full public debate about the fact that this was open-ended and a future Council could hypothetically redirect everything to other projects. The 2007 bonds were a different story entirely. Of course the biggest difference between a tax and a bond is that a tax is not a bond and a bond is not a tax. The law is very specific about encumbering the government for periods of more than a year. You have to have a vote of the people to do so unless it's (IIRC) a coach or a school administrator.

As to my point about public safety, we currently pay .75% for a specially dedicated public safety tax above and beyond the 2% general collection. That public safety tax can be used to buy anything public safety related. From hose trucks to radios to zip ties to whatever. It's just an open-ended funding source, much like MAPS III. MAPS III did have some projects which were put forward, but the Council is in no way bound, having only passed a non-binding resolution to build them, to do anything. Thus, when the voters approved a 1-cent tax for capitol (capital too!) improvements, it's exactly the same as a special .75 going to public safety.... I mean that's police AND fire (two things, OMG!)

The same is true for the most, if not all of the other Propositions and subparts. What did we get in the MAPS 3 Ballot/Ordinance? Do you see ANY of the projects listed? Are ANY details about the projects mentioned? No & No.

No, we saw a single subject.

I would imagine that the Public Safety tax had similar details but haven't looked for it myself lately, I may do so later. But IIRC, it mentioned exactly what the money would be spent for. While maybe not down to the brand, make & model and number of the walkie-talkies, it most likely had the amount earmarked for such purposes. If I am wrong, please post. If it did as you say, then yes, the Public Safety tax may also be unconstitutional.

I looked into it. It is split just about evenly by police and fire on various things including salaries, capital improvements (and capitol improvements!), cars and whatnot. Here's a report from FY07-08. If nothing has changed (and I don't imagine it has), this should explain what you need to know:

http://www.okc.gov/auditor/08-02%20P...%206-30-08.pdf

What you described (in bold) is what happened, you seem to be arguing my point...

Uh.. no. I'll tell you if I'm arguing your point. Okay? I'll make it very clear.

Voters were misled into thinking that the all-or-nothing ballot was the only option the City had. And they were forced to choose, either vote for or against all of the unrelated projects.

That's your argument. That's not what I recall. If they actually read the very plain text of the ballot or not been in a cave when the Gazette, Oklahoman and news channels were covering this issue in depth, or if they listened to the "NOT THIS MAPS" blather, they would have certainly understood everything there was to know about this ballot. In the legal world, you can't sign something with very clear language on it and then later claim you were misled. This argument for you is based on some sort of fantasy. It is most definitely not what happened or how a court will look at what happened.

A couple of the items were probably similar enough to be considered "like-kind" and could have been lumped together as 1 proposition (but if any doubt, the safest recourse is to list them separately), but others certainly required a separate proposition of their own. For example, the Convention Center has absolutely nothing in common with Senior Aquatic Centers.

Au contraire, mon ami. Both are capitol (AND CAPITAL!) improvements.

[soonerguru]

I have never heard Ed say that he is against MAPS or the transformation of the city. He has been critical of some aspects of the MAPS 3 process, that is different. The straw man you're trying to beat up has more brains than you think.

Bull****. He threatened to sue the city to stop it. We're not this stupid.