OKC Mayor Race 2014

[Hunt4Mayor]

I've got some hilarious tricks up my sleeve. Get ready, morons.

[betts]

I've got some hilarious tricks up my sleeve. Get ready, morons.

Didn't you move away? Weren't you banned here? I do not remember you ever saying anything particularly clever or amusing.

[CuatrodeMayo]

I've got some hilarious tricks up my sleeve. Get ready, morons.

If those tricks involve making taco shells out of chips other than Doritos, then no thanks.

[Midtowner]

I've got some hilarious tricks up my sleeve. Get ready, morons.

Welcome back. What do you have to add to this conversation? Does Taco Bell have a new flavor of taco you'd like to tell us about?

Innocent jibes aside, I'm not sure someone whose recent work experience includes such fancy gigs as retail (which was a cool job for me when I was 16) has much to offer. Most of us thought your run for mayor was just delusional. You might have had a better chance getting elected to the legislature. They actually LOVE crazy people with no relevant experience to prepare them for that job.

I thought we'd seen the last of Hunt4Mayor. We all thought his flounce from this city would be permanent. He's back though and wanting more. Dr. Shadid's campaign needs more delusional folks to prop it up. Really. We're all cheering for you. Go volunteer.

[Laramie]

I've got some hilarious tricks up my sleeve. Get ready, morons.

LMAO! Don't make yourself disappear...

[Bellaboo]

I've got some hilarious tricks up my sleeve. Get ready, morons.

Moron ? Takes a moron to know a moron.....I suppose.

[CaptDave]

I've got some hilarious tricks up my sleeve. Get ready, morons.

So should I cower somewhere now Steven? *YAWN*

[kevinpate]

I've got some hilarious tricks up my sleeve. Get ready, morons.

Sadly, that's not the strangest opening line ever typed by an OKC mayoral candidate.

[RadicalModerate]

I've got some hilarious tricks up my sleeve. Get ready, morons.

Silly Candidate . . . Trix are for kids . . .

"By his crunching--and the sound of little colored corn balls hitting the floor--shall ye know him . . ."

[jerrywall]

What's he smoking this time?

[Midtowner]

What?

[betts]

Mid, there's a reason God created the "ignore" function. It looks as if the anti-Mick crowd is still requiring innuendo and lies to advance their agenda.

[Midtowner]

He hasn't even said anything other than that he can turn tricks or something.

--pretty sure that was it.

[Pete]

Hunt4Mayor has forfeited his posting privileges.

Let's please move on.

[Midtowner]

Just signed up here...

Mick Cornett for Mayor

[LuccaBrasi]

My neighborhood, located in Ward 1, recently held a neighbors night out, as they have every year. It's not very big; approximately 50 people show up, if even that. The police and fire department attend every year, bringing a couple of trucks for the kids to climb on. This year, much to my surprise, Mayor Cornett's opponent showed up with 3 or 4 of his cronies to work the crowd in their "TRUSTED" shirts. He also made a speech about the importance of neighborhoods and disdain for "special interest" as well as the lack of public safety. He promised to set a time in the future to come back and hold a more in-depth discussion. This was not a brief cameo; his team was there for the duration, some working the crowd, some glued to his coat tails. From what I observed, he spent a great deal of his time chatting with the fireman at length.

[warreng88]

From the gazette:

City officials respond to MAPS 3 legal challenge

Tim Farley
September 3rd, 2013

An attorney challenging the constitutionality of the MAPS 3 vote has promised to reconsider his fight against Oklahoma City.

City officials sent a letter Tuesday to private attorney David Slane outlining the reasons his concerns are misplaced. Slane alleged the December 2009 MAPS 3 vote was unconstitutional because it violated the state’s single-subject rule since eight different projects would be financed with the sales tax extension.

The single-subject rule came into focus for Slane when a tort reform measure approved by the Oklahoma Legislature earlier this year was ruled unconstitutional, prompting Governor Mary Fallin to call a special session.

In the letter, Municipal Counselor Kenneth Jordan wrote, “Please note that the face of the ordinance and the face of the ballot title each reflect a single subject: a sales tax levy for the limited purpose of providing city capital improvements.”

In turn, Slane issued a statement vowing to review his stance and previous legal cases involving the single-subject rule.

“We feel we have an obligation to go back to square one and reconsider, in good faith, our position,” he said.

In a telephone interview with Oklahoma Gazette, Slane also said, “We didn’t do this mean-spirited, so we need to put it on hold. The taxpayers deserve for me to go back and reconsider this again.”

Slane, known for his unpopular stances involving controversial issues, promised his legal review would take no longer than “a few days.”

Last week, Slane said he would file a lawsuit with the Oklahoma Supreme Court if city officials did not respond to a letter he sent them Aug. 29. In the letter, Slane referred to the MAPS 3 ballot as “log rolling,” whereby a legislator or taxpaying citizen would cast an all-or-nothing vote on the eight projects.

Slane said he believes OKC residents should have been able to cast separate votes on each proposal, which included a convention center, walking and biking trails, senior wellness centers, a 70-acre public park, a streetcar system and Oklahoma River and Oklahoma State Fairgrounds improvements. The projects will cost $777 million.

Although the projects were not listed on the ballot, city officials and the Greater Oklahoma City Chamber of Commerce marketed the proposals as one initiative.

In his letter to city officials, Slane threatened to seek a restraining order preventing city officials from collecting the MAPS 3 tax or expending any funds from that account.

Case law

In his letter to Slane, Jordan referred specifically to a 2011 case that challenged the single-subject rule but was upheld at the trial and state Supreme Court level. The case centered on the 2007 passage of House Bill 1804, a strict immigration reform measure.

The lawsuit alleged the bill had unrelated subjects attached to it and violated the single-subject rule. However, the Supreme Court opined that Oklahoma case law adheres to the “germaneness test.”

“The most relevant question under such analysis is whether a voter (or legislator) is able to make a choice without being misled and is not forced to choose between two unrelated provisions contained in one measure,” the court wrote.

“The question is not how similar two provisions in a proposed law are, but whether it appears either that the proposal is misleading or that the provisions in the proposal are so unrelated that many of those voting on the law would be faced with an unpalatable all-or-nothing choice.”

In a separate 1993 case, the Supreme Court rejected the broad, expansive theme approach to the single-subject requirement and said “legislation satisfies the one-subject requirement if the provisions are germane, relative and cognate to one another.”

Oklahoma Gazette: News: City officials respond to MAPS 3 legal challenge

[Doug Loudenback]

Mid, there's a reason God created the "ignore" function. It looks as if the anti-Mick crowd is still requiring innuendo and lies to advance their agenda.

Another snark attack.

Jill, why do you persist in doing that? You know, it's not necessary and it adds nothing to an intelligent discussion here, if anyone who participates here is interested in having such a thing. As for me, I'm still waiting on substantive statements from the candidates and that may not occur until the election campaign gets in full swing.

At the moment, I leaning to not voting for Ed ... were he behind or have supported the potential lawsuit which would have challenged the MAPS 3 vote, that would probably tell the tale for me. I've seen nothing definitive about that matter here or elsewhere so my mind remains open about that.

Should I decide to vote for Mick Cornett, it will not be because I am drawn to how he has conducted himself as mayor, because I am not so drawn, generally speaking. It will be because I value the approach taken in original MAPS approach (which clearly involved a logrolling ballot), the plain evidence that the MAPS logrolling ballot turned this city around, and that, though structurally different (the "capital improvements" ballot matched with potential chameleon-like nature of the accompanying City Council resolution), MAPS 3 essentially involves the same approach that the original MAPS did.

[Pete]

Doug, betts was responding to a ridiculous post that I deleted, leaving her comment completely out of context.

She was addressing Steve Hunt, not Ed Shadid.

[Doug Loudenback]

Doug, betts was responding to a ridiculous post that I deleted, leaving her comment completely out of context.

She was addressing Steve Hunt, not Ed Shadid.

OK. Sorry about that, Betts, if I got you wrong.

[RadicalModerate]

It was still/nonetheless a very articulate and persuasive argument.
I know that I was convinced. (but i don't live right in OKC--only on a surrounded island--so my vote doesn't count)

[BoulderSooner]

At the moment, I leaning to not voting for Ed ... were he behind or have supported the potential lawsuit which would have challenged the MAPS 3 vote, that would probably tell the tale for me. I've seen nothing definitive about that matter here or elsewhere so my mind remains open about that.

his comments at council last week showed pretty clearly that he already knew about the proposed lawsuit(not to mention he has ties to the guy through his pr guy) and reading between the lines in his comments he agreed with it ..

[betts]

OK. Sorry about that, Betts, if I got you wrong.

I was actually being polite. It was the last in a string of rude, incorrect (the kind word for a lie) and completely weird, out in left field comments Mr. Hunt has made about me.

Ed has made some untrue statements as well, (not about me) but I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt and suggest that he's got so many things he's fighting, he doesn't have time to educate himself in depth on all subjects....streetcars being one.

[Larry OKC]

…Should I decide to vote for Mick Cornett, ...It will be because I value the approach taken in original MAPS approach (which clearly involved a logrolling ballot), the plain evidence that the MAPS logrolling ballot turned this city around, and that, though structurally different (the "capital improvements" ballot matched with potential chameleon-like nature of the accompanying City Council resolution), MAPS 3 essentially involves the same approach that the original MAPS did.

Doug,

Please correct me if I am misreading you. Are you saying that you would vote for Cornett again because of the unconstitutional (logrolling) original MAPS approach that he and the Council "essentially" decided to use again???

Just because MAPS "turned this city around"...the end justifying the means???

As it stands I can't vote for either Mayor Cornett or my Councilman Shadid. Both because of deep-rooted , core, untruthfullness. Cornett during the MAPS 3 campaigns and Shadid for breaking the most basic promise to his constituents...that he will serve the entire term for which he was elected (if he does win the Mayorship, he can't complete his Council term). It has been brought to my attention that Cornett did the same thing when he ran for Mayor to replace Humphreys. Even though I have voted for all 3 of these men at some point or another, at least Humphreys resigned from office when he announced he was running for the Senate. Which reminds me of Cornett's failure to resign when he ran for Representative (after just winning what was described as a landslide re-election for Mayor)...

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.

What Ed is correctly calling for is clarification/validation on what the citizens really wanted. The correct and legal way of doing it by listing the projects as separate propositions. The way the MAPS 3 ballot was written, there is no way to discern the voters wishes on which projects they did/didn't support. We have to go back to scientific and unscientific surveys & polls to try to sort that out (which can divert from the election day results). The only thing we know is that a very small minority of the electorate, barely approved a 1 cent on the dollar tax that would be levied for 7.75 years and the money be spent on something. There have been many people, including yourself, here and on other forums that insist they voted for ___________ (fill in the blank of their favorite project).

One thing that amazes me is that some folks are getting so upset over the perception (real or imagined), that Shadid is trying to redirect funds from a project…when that is EXACTLY the way it was set up! We discussed that many times on this forum, yet the response back was "we can trust them". The irony!

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.

Exactly, I have made that point myself several times. The problem is we didn't have the option to do just that (vote on the projects separately).



Midtowner: I didn't go to any law school but even among your learned colleagues that have, there is often disagreement on the law…they are called "opinions" aren't they?

The misleading part (which the City's legal guy admitted during Shadid's questioning during the Council meeting that Sid posted), that the City was insisting that the only legal way to do the Ballot was the all-or-nothing (logrolling) format. What I think you are saying is if the original MAPS had done the same thing it would have been legal? That the only thing illegal about it was listing the projects? If that is the case, why is it not illegal to list them on bond issues?

One big difference between the two taxes that I failed to mention that may allow more leniency in specifics in what the money is to be used for, is the duration of the tax. The Public Safety tax is ongoing, so by its very nature would be less specific. the MAPS 3 tax is a "temporary" tax, and just like Bond issues (which are paid for thru taxes) are finite requires more specifics.

Single subject, maybe, but not sufficiently limited in the subject matter. It is just far too broad, vague, generic or whatever legal term you want to use.

The information you supplied clearly supported my contention, no need to tell me you are arguing my point, it is plainly obvious.

Yes or No, were the voters presented with an all-or-nothing ballot?

[Doug Loudenback]

Larry,

You are quick to say that the original MAPS ballot was unconstitutional. Pray, tell, please cite the legal authorities for your opinion and conclusion.

My own research reflects that there is not one statute, there is no constitutional provision, and there is no appellate court opinion, which states, implies, or infers that the "single subject" provisions of state law apply to anyone other than the legislature or state bonds. If anyone, lawyer or non-lawyer, knows differently, i.e., can cite specific legal authority which states that such rules apply to municipal corporations, he/she is more than welcome to cite any such legal authority. It doesn't exist. Did I do a bad job of legal research? Could be, but I suppose I'd be asking you to prove it. I did look into this point very closely during the MAPS 3 campaign, as has been stated in my blog posts during that period of time.

But, more to your point, yes, I think that the logrolling method is a good one and has benefited our city greatly. It's not like we, the voters, didn't know what were doing. But for use of that method, the original MAPS would have almost certainly been a piece of folklore. The original MAPS vote would have been remembered just as vividly as Mayor Andy Coats' "Six To Fix" campaign ... and I'm sure you know what I'm talking about but probably not many others do ... and for good reason. I have no problem at all with an all or nothing approach when it comes to municipal sales tax elections.

Should I decide to vote for Cornett, it will be because I don't see that I have any other choice, if I am inclined to think as I just stated which, of course, I do.