OKC Mayor Race 2014

[kevinpate]

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

Yes. the voters had one, and only one, decision. Did they want to enact a temporary 1 cent sales tax for umpteen months, the funds going to capital improvements, or did they want to say, no, we do not want to have a temporary 1 cent tax for umpteen months. It was a straight yea or nay, no two ways about it vote. it passed.

Everything else as to the pith, the non-binding resolution, all that were but examples of what the elected leaders were intending to do IF the voters said yes on their one issue .. the temporary sales tax. John Q Voter and Jane P Voter did not have to decide I am stuck with a streetcar, or a CC, or a park I do not want. That was never, ever theirs to vote on in the first place. They got to decide, and they only got to decide, will there, or will there not, be a temp sales tax dedicated to capital improvements. that's it. the rest was outside their purview.

[Larry OKC]

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.

You mentioned that the original MAPS was most definitely logrolling (and MAPS 3 was "essentially" the same thing), so the question is, is logrolling unconstitutional? The State Supreme Court has ruled many times that it indeed is unconstitutional. One of the most recent involved tort reform that "required" the Special Session that just finished to fix it. As far as if it applies to municipalities, back before the vote, when you, Mid, and I were hashing this out, we finally came to the consensus that it did apply to political subdivisions (and not just the Legislature). In the Gazette, the City's legal guy even admitted flat out that the original MAPS was "probably" illegal...but no one challenged it in the courts. Think it is the same guy that Shadid grilled during that recent Council meeting about the MAPS 3 ballot, that the correct way would have been to list the items separately. When asked why the City didn't do that, he mentioned something about it being a "policy decision" of the Mayor/Council. Which goes right along with what the Mayor said during the campaign as to why (contrary to assurances that the law would be followed by his spokesman David Holt, and the Mayor's own statement that "each of these projects must stand on it's own") they chose the all-or-nothing ballot again because...

Oklahoman, Sept 29, 2009

Mayor Mick Cornett, who has spearheaded the MAPS 3 initiative, said an all-or-nothing approach for MAPS 3 was chosen because it has worked with voters in the past. "This is the process they are going to be comfortable with,” Cornett said.

Hmmm, so much for the prior assurances. Completely ignoring the fact that voters are also used to separate ballot propositions. Instead more of the end justifying the means...what ever works to get the vote passed. In other words, they are going to keep using it until it fails to work or it gets challenged in court.

There is another option of voting for Cornett or Shadid (presuming there aren't any other candidates), and that is to not vote in that race at all (which is where I am at the moment). As Penn Jillette (Penn & Teller) said: "Voting For Lesser Of Two Evils Always Leads To More Evil". Now I am not suggesting that either candidate is "evil". What I am saying is until the voters hold our elected officials accountable, we are rewarding questionable behavior and the end result will be more questionable behavior.

Yes. the voters had one, and only one, decision. Did they want to enact a temporary 1 cent sales tax for umpteen months, the funds going to capital improvements, or did they want to say, no, we do not want to have a temporary 1 cent tax for umpteen months. It was a straight yea or nay, no two ways about it vote. it passed.

Everything else as to the pith, the non-binding resolution, all that were but examples of what the elected leaders were intending to do IF the voters said yes on their one issue .. the temporary sales tax. John Q Voter and Jane P Voter did not have to decide I am stuck with a streetcar, or a CC, or a park I do not want. That was never, ever theirs to vote on in the first place. They got to decide, and they only got to decide, will there, or will there not, be a temp sales tax dedicated to capital improvements. that's it. the rest was outside their purview.

And that is the core problem.

[DoctorTaco]

This is an interesting blog post from a blog very relevant to this thread:

"Data Shows Candidates May Have to Steal Votes From Each Other"


Data shows candidates may have to steal votes from each other | 200 Walker OKC

The gist of this is that, in Shadid's district, the precincts that went heavily for Shadid in the last city council election are the same one that went heavily for Cornett in the last Mayoral election. Hence the two are drawing from the same, relatively liberal, fan base.

This being Oklahoma City, my DoctorTaco prediction then is that the candidate who successfully outlfanks the other to the right could run away with this thing. It seems like maybe Shadid, with his "us vs. them"/neighborhoods versus downtown/little guy against big government thng might be trying to tap into the Tea Party mindset/resentments, if not actually into Tea Party policy.

[warreng88]

MAPS threat lingers

Issues remain and voters react after questions were raised about constitutionality of MAPS 3 projects.

Tim Farley
September 11th, 2013
Vowing to avoid a political battle, Oklahoma City attorney David Slane contended this week that his research into the constitutionality of the 2009 MAPS 3 measure is aimed at protecting the public. Recently, Slane and his legal team questioned whether the ballot language violated the state’s single-subject rule, which prohibits unrelated issues from being placed on a single ballot question. The MAPS 3 ballot centered on a sales tax extension that would finance eight separate projects.

Since Slane questioned the validity of the MAPS 3 election two weeks ago, OKC’s lead municipal counselor, Kenneth Jordan, delivered a letter Sept. 3 citing a 2011 state Supreme Court case, Thomas vs. Henry, that he claims validates the ballot language and election results.

In the letter to Oklahoma Gazette, Jordan said the city’s legal team used other case law, one dating as far back as 1943, to help guide the city’s decision to use the 2009 ballot language.

“The Court has remained consistent in its rulings on the single-subject test over the years, and we firmly believe that (the) ordinance and ballot title meet that test,” Jordan wrote.

In an interview with Oklahoma Gazette, Slane replied, “We’ve looked at the fact that they quoted a case that was decided after the election, but they didn’t have this legal precedent at the time (of the election). So what were they basing their decision on? We just want to know. They didn’t have a case on point in 2009 because it hadn’t been decided.

“I don’t want to get into politics.

I just want to know if it [MAPS 3] is legal or not.”

Although he’s taking more time to review previous legal challenges, Slane said he’s not “going by the wayside.”

On Monday, Slane told Oklahoma Gazette he has not decided if he will file a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the MAPS 3 vote.

However, City Manager Jim Couch said the 2011 case “further strengthens” the city’s position that the ballot language did not violate the state constitution: “The letter Kenny sent out on Tuesday is still valid on Thursday.”

Slane also alleged the ballot language was “so vague that it violates the law in its vagueness.

“It doesn’t tell anything to the voter.

It doesn’t tell the voter what the money will be used for. ... It’s amazing something so vague could be passed.”

Slane, who, in years past, has advocated unpopular positions on Oklahoma’s rape law and invasion of privacy by government drones, isn’t backing down despite largely negative social media reactions toward the longtime OKC attorney.

Oklahoma Gazette reader Stephanie Bice wrote, “Why do I get the feeling this has nothing to do with MAPS 3 and everything to do with an upcoming election?” Another reader, Allen Brown, wrote, “There’s nothing wrong with proposing a package for approval, just like bond issues. Do we have to vote on each street repair separately?” Still, Slane contends his purpose is noble and aimed at protecting OKC’s taxpaying residents.

“There is so much money involved, and the public has no oversight,” he said.

City officials established citizenled subcommittees and a MAPS 3 Oversight Board that makes recommendations to the Oklahoma City Council.

The first of its kind
So far, Slane said his legal review team has not found previous state Supreme Court cases that focused on similar municipal ballot issues.

“If it goes that far, this will be a case of first impression,” he said. “This will be the first of its kind ever in Oklahoma.”

Slane threatened to file a legal challenge with the Oklahoma Supreme Court if city officials had not responded to his original letter from Aug. 29. At the time, Slane said he would seek a restraining order preventing the city from collecting MAPS 3 tax revenue or spending of that money on the eight projects. The projects, valued at $777 million, include a convention center, sidewalks, trails, senior wellness centers, fairgrounds improvements, a modern streetcar system, Oklahoma River Improvements and a 70-acre public park in downtown OKC. The MAPS 3 initiative was approved by 54 percent of voters.

Oklahoma Gazette: News: MAPS threat lingers

[warreng88]

Larry, you have been so against MAPS and the way it was handled, how would you have held the vote?

Would it be: Vote yes or no for a specified amount of money to go towards the building of a streetcar & hub, convention center, park, oklahoma river improvements, fairground improvements, senior wellness centers, trail, sidewalks and a contingency fund?

Would it be: Vote yes or no for a specified amoutn of money to go towards the building of a streetcar. Vote yes or no for a specified amoutn of money to go towards the building of a convention center. Vote yes or no for a specified amoutn of money to go towards the building of a park. Vote yes or no for a specified amoutn of money to go towards the building of oklahoma river improvements. Vote yes or no for a specified amoutn of money to go towards the building of fairground improvements. Vote yes or no for a specified amoutn of money to go towards the building of senior wellness centers. Vote yes or no for a specified amoutn of money to go towards the building of trails. Vote yes or no for a specified amoutn of money to go towards the building of sidewalks.

Help me understand your thought process.

[Urban Pioneer]

This is an interesting blog post from a blog very relevant to this thread:

"Data Shows Candidates May Have to Steal Votes From Each Other"


Data shows candidates may have to steal votes from each other | 200 Walker OKC

The gist of this is that, in Shadid's district, the precincts that went heavily for Shadid in the last city council election are the same one that went heavily for Cornett in the last Mayoral election. Hence the two are drawing from the same, relatively liberal, fan base.

This being Oklahoma City, my DoctorTaco prediction then is that the candidate who successfully outlfanks the other to the right could run away with this thing. It seems like maybe Shadid, with his "us vs. them"/neighborhoods versus downtown/little guy against big government thng might be trying to tap into the Tea Party mindset/resentments, if not actually into Tea Party policy.

Great observations.

I do feel however that the blog post is trying to apply some science to some relatively irrelevant data (and I mean that the two shouldn't be contrasted).

The Ward 2 data is however completely relevant. That data is derived from a relatively high turn out of "educated" voters. It really demonstrates how Ward 2 can perform.

But the Mayoral election data with Steve Hunt as candidate and little campaigning and GOTV efforts doesn't really demonstrate anything that could be compared to this upcoming election.

Probably MAPS 3 would be a election to better compare some numbers on. Even that would be empirically flawed but might give you a sampling of a "worst case" scenario for Cornett.

In short, this election will be like none other if Shadid makes the monetary investments in advertising he claims he will make. If so, this will show the absolute best and worst sides of our city when its people are goaded.

[krisb]

I'm sure anonymous big business will be spending way more money for Cornett. It must be acknowledged that Shadid is the most formidable opponent Mick has ever faced.

[betts]

We little people will help as well. I've already donated money and volunteered my time to Mayor Cornett, and I know some people who don't ordinarily donate who have done so already. Councilman Shadid has angered some people with his MAPS posturing. I have an 80 year old friend who has lived in OKC all his life. I saw him today for the first time in two months, and his first words to me were, "I'm so angry at that councilman I can hardly speak." Someone my son's age said something similar, and he lives in Ward 2. Shadid may be wake the sleeping majority, who don't ordinarily bother to vote in mayoral elections, but that won't necessarily be helpful to him.

[SoonerDave]

I'm sure anonymous big business will be spending way more money for Cornett. It must be acknowledged that Shadid is the most formidable opponent Mick has ever faced.

That might have been true had he not kicked off his campaign so incompetently. I'm not sure who designed his campaign, but his thinly-veiled strategy of having a lackey declare war on MAPS, he alienated, oh, nearly everyone in town. With the exception of Larry, I suppose. And you.

That's two.

Now realizing the strategy was, ahem, unwise, he's got Slane backing up so fast he may trip over himself.

Methinks this may just end up another one of those lopsided mayoral elections after all. And there's no one but Shadid himself to thank for it. If there were legitimate issues to discuss, Shadid has almost certainly poisoned the well for it.

[soonerguru]

In the end, Shadid will have no one to blame for his loss but himself. He could have been a credible opponent to Cornett, but Ed is who he is, and he doesn't listen to advisors, and he goes off on "let's sue MAPS" missives and then blames his electoral impotence on false issues like "the Chamber screwed me." Ed is going to lose because he's a terrible, completely tone deaf politician, not because of imaginary demons like the Chamber.

[soonerguru]

I'm sure anonymous big business will be spending way more money for Cornett. It must be acknowledged that Shadid is the most formidable opponent Mick has ever faced.

It's not just going to be "big business." Get ready. Ed is going to be buried by small business and average donors saying, collectively, "We're not going to let this guy screw up a good thing."

[krisb]

Yup. Always a secret boogy-man at the heart of every conspiracy.

Also a sucker born every minute.

I only say that because it actually happened during the last Ward 2 election. Citizens United has forever changed the playing field of elections. I despise unfounded paranoia too.

[krisb]

These are ideas worth talking about regardless of your opinion of Ed Shadid.

Ed Shadid has new ideas for city revenue and spending | The City Sentinel

[Paseofreak]

^ Holy crap! What a journalistic piece of junk! Wouldn't pass muster with my junior high school English teacher by a long shot. If this is the tone of the TRUSTED campaign then I'm not worried. This guy will fade into obscurity, if not infamy. I'm sad he's my city councilman. A first class woolpuller out of the box, but by now we all should be able to see that this guy is spoiling for a mud fight in a dry puddle. Ed, sit down, shut up and quit being a disingenuous narcissistic obstacle until your term as my councilman is through. Please.

[ljbab728]

These are ideas worth talking about regardless of your opinion of Ed Shadid.

Ed Shadid has new ideas for city revenue and spending | The City Sentinel

So he's in favor of increasing property taxes to fund everything. That will certainly go over well.

[krisb]

It looks like you didn't read the article.

[ljbab728]

It looks like you didn't read the article.

Wrong. I read every word.

“Forty nine states allow their cities to use property tax for operating expenses. Oklahoma doesn’t. They use it for their police, fire, public works, everything. So if a recession comes you don’t have to panic.”

This won't happen without a property tax increase.

[krisb]

Because the article talked about many ideas, not just the use of property taxes. Placemaking, bond issues, neighborhood engagement, small business loans, streetscapes. Is it possible to start a conversation here without it automatically becoming an adversarial debate?

[betts]

My question would be: How does Ed propose we get our hands on property taxes? What are the legal issues involved in doing that? I know he's in favor of spending more for police protection. What do property taxes pay for that he would eliminate? The county sheriff department? Funding for schools? Or is he proposing raising property taxes so everything remains funded but the city gets a piece of the pie? He needs to be a bit more specific.

How is he proposing we determine if a company won't act without incentives? Will we know when they move to a different city that has offered them?

These are tricky issues. Some of his ideas are interesting, but I'd like to see more details and less politician-speak. I can think of all sorts of interesting proposals as well. But the devil tends to be in the details.

[betts]

I also think Ed's lack of prior involvement in politics is showing. We all knew about the GO bond issue here, and talked about it pre-election. People can't necessarily take a passive approach to government and expect everything will magically be wonderful. Remember we have 30 years of anti-sidewalk agenda from the city manager's office to overcome, coupled with tremendous growth in area since that time, and there's no magic wand to wave to catch up in 1/4 that many years. I am continually shocked that people don't even know about the GO bond issue and sidewalks planned, but these people need to be educated about what is planned and why they don't have sidewalks, not be led to believe it is the fault of anyone currently in office, from the mayor on down.

I think placemaking and neighborhood promotion is great. Streetscaping is great. I don't know anyone who is against that.

[krisb]

Thank you, Betts for turning this into a real conversation. I think there is value in first describing the climate and inherent challenges with our current way of doing things. Time will tell if any of these trains of thought develop into real solutions to problems. The main issues that get me excited are placemaking, community building, and increased neighborhood engagement in the planning of future bond projects. Like I said, they're worth talking about.

[krisb]

I think placemaking and neighborhood promotion is great. Streetscaping is great. I don't know anyone who is against that.

I just want it to be known that Ed has made some important contributions in this area and has elevated our awareness of best practices. His efforts in the Western Avenue streetscape planning and his vision for building "places" throughout the city is inspiring.

[betts]

But places happen organically as well. I spotted the Film District years before Chip Fudge and saw what it could become. I didn't have the time or money to pull it off. I can make a list of where the next Plaza Districts will be. They're easy to spot. Ed can do all that as a city councilman. He doesn't have to be mayor. And until he acknowledges and values the incredible efforts put in by many, many people before him, appreciates what the citizens of this city value, he is not the leader I want. I think it's good to have varying ideas and points of view. But Ed has that surgeon mentality - you have to cut to cure and only one person can do it, with the minions, er nurses, blindly following orders. He is so completely wrong there and I cannot trust he will change.

[GaryOKC6]

Everyone make mistakes including those of us in ward 2

[Midtowner]

The article starts by explaining how his entire proposal violates state law.

So how does a Green Party Ralph Nader adherent who has alienated most of the city council and probably wouldn't be able to even get a majority locally propose to get the Republican legislature to change state law to allow municipalities to raise property taxes?

Further, is there anyone out there against placemaking?

I voted against portions of the 2007 Bond Election because they very obviously would increase urban sprawl. I was on the losing side of that. Of course, Shadid is complaining about a process that he wasn't even a part of and an election in which I doubt he even took part or interest.