OKC Mayor Race 2014

[betts]

When you hand pick the experts you bring in with your personal money, it's not surprising that they endorse your POV. What I've noticed about all the experts, regardless of POV, is that what they don't bring along with them is an understanding of Oklahoma City and its residents, it's history, what MAPS has meant to the city and how the citizens view that plebiscite. They don't understand how unique it is for a decidedly partisan electorate to act in nonpartisan fashion and tax themselves for quality of life improvements, and what a source of pride they are. They don't understand transit here and people's attitudes towards transit, as we are decidedly not like Portland or Seattle, and that has to be an important part of the process of improving transit here in Oklahoma City. It too will require nonpartisanship and a decided change in attitude. Unless a leader can build bridges, not break them, he will be unsuccessful in effecting change.

[krisb]

I have not heard Shadid or any of "his" experts push one particular view over another. They are simply asking questions that haven't been asked, which is upsetting to many. Clearly, none of the questions and concerns with the streetcar are settled as shown by the response at the last public forum. People are interested and want to explore all of the options before making a decision. This is a good thing.

[betts]

Jarrett may understand now. It's nice if he's educated himself. But I went to the first meeting here and he was clueless about MAPS, and had a very decided anti-streetcar POV. That's fine, since Ed paid him and I'm still not sure Ed understands MAPS or has a deep understanding of what Oklahoma City was like pre-MAPS.

It's not the Portland system I'm talking about, but rather, Portland's attitude towards mass transit. Although I do remember being told that folks in Portland would let buses pass by if a streetcar was due. The way you sell mass transit in a red state that loves its automobiles may require techniques that are different from the Pacific NW. It is definitely going to require political acumen and the ability to make it a nonpartisan issue.

[betts]

I have not heard Shadid or any of "his" experts push one particular view over another. They are simply asking questions that haven't been asked, which is upsetting to many. Clearly, none of the questions and concerns with the streetcar are settled as shown by the response at the last public forum. People are interested and want to explore all of the options before making a decision. This is a good thing.

The decision was made by we the voters in 2009. Public forums are usually attended by a very small percentage of the population, typically those with decided opinions. I thought there was a small vocal minority at the last meeting who had issues with the process, and many of those were with the format.

[soonerguru]

I have not heard Shadid or any of "his" experts push one particular view over another. They are simply asking questions that haven't been asked, which is upsetting to many. Clearly, none of the questions and concerns with the streetcar are settled as shown by the response at the last public forum. People are interested and want to explore all of the options before making a decision. This is a good thing.

False. Shadid has asked questions that WERE asked, and already answered. He also asked questions based on false premises like the exaggerated threats of federal lawsuits he made (he suggested OKC would be sued if the streetcar was built, citing an example that did not relate to the streetcar). He also has completely misrepresented how the streetcar project was unveiled to the public, insisting that federal money was guaranteed by the city when all of the available news stories that existed prior to the MAPS vote make it clear that we were building the streetcar WITHOUT federal funding, and that if we were to get it, great, that would be a bonus, but was not expected or required for completion. Obviously, the city will pursue federal funding when and if it's available but we don't need it to get this done, unlike projects in other cities (another area where Jarrett seemed confused).

Although this is all widely available in the public record, Shadid stated this to hundreds of people at his transit "forum," in which he provided the streetcar subcommittee no voice to respond to his bizarre and inaccurate suppositions. So, is it a matter that people don't like questions? No. It's that people tend to bristle when you make stuff up out of whole cloth.

He also has repeated the whopper that "stakeholders" were not consulted, which is outrageously false. Citizens, business owners, public officials, etc. were brought in for many meetings during the early days of the streetcar planning. These were widely publicized meetings open to the public. Also, business owners were consulted privately and invited to attend these meetings. Shadid was not at those meetings (he didn't vote for MAPS and wasn't yet on Council so maybe he was not interested), but that's not the fault of the city or the subcommittee.

You could say his "experts" pushed no particular view, but you would be incorrect. His speaker at the transit "forum" (cough, cough) literally hates streetcars. So to suggest they weren't pushing "one particular view" doesn't really add up, particularly since no other speakers, such as the myriad transit experts from across the country who are strong advocates of streetcars (not to mention the locally appointed experts who have volunteered their time and energy to build the streetcar) were handed a microphone and allowed to respond. Ask yourself if this fits Shadid's mantra of "maximum public deliberation."

These things have been very disappointing to me as someone who not only admired Ed Shadid a great deal, and personally liked him, but pitched in and worked hard for his campaign.

[CaptDave]

I have not heard Shadid or any of "his" experts push one particular view over another. They are simply asking questions that haven't been asked, which is upsetting to many. Clearly, none of the questions and concerns with the streetcar are settled as shown by the response at the last public forum. People are interested and want to explore all of the options before making a decision. This is a good thing.

Decision? The MAPS3 decision was made in 2009. All that is left to decide now is how the best complete the projects on the MAPS3 ballot. That process has been open - especially Ed's favorite target, the streetcar. There have been tons of meetings about the streetcar project throughout the planning process beginning with the Fixed Guideway Study, Let's Talk Transit, Alternatives Analysis, and MAPS3 Streetcar subcommittee - all open to the public. (I may have forgotten some.)

From everything I have heard about the "transit forum", it was mainly a canine and equine event for a single point of view. It was nothing more than a prequel to some later actions - all very disappointing.

Finally, what would Dr Shadid do better in the office than Mayor Cornett? Mayor Cornett has done an excellent job and any opponent will have a difficult time convincing people OKC would be better served by someone else.

[catch22]

I am very happy to see Cornett run again.

OKC is on a great roll and we do not need a change in leadership.

[soonerguru]

The thing that is befuddling to me is that Shadid is presenting a classic false choice when he frames the issue as a decision between buses and the streetcar. Guess what? We can have both! The fact is that the streetcar is only one component of a multimodal transit system. Everyone that I've ever talked to involved with the streetcar project are huge supporters of improving our bus system. They believe as do I that one way to do this is to present another mode of transit to get more public buy in. The next step would obviously be to plug in the data from the bus study and get to work on implementing it.

It makes zero sense to present this false choice: 1) it's misleading to those who desire better bus service to frame the discussion in this manner, and 2) it is foolish to divide people in OKC who support an improved public transportation system. As betts points out, this is a car city, built for the car, and it's going to take considerable political skill to get broader support for improved transit funding. Why cause division among transit supporters? How does that help us reach our goals? And finally, 3) the voters of OKC voted for a transit initiative! Yay! How would you earn their trust and / or votes for future transit initiatives when you pull the rug out from under them on a project they've already voted for? Huh? This doesn't make sense.

[PhiAlpha]

Oklahoma City Mayor Cornett to seek fourth term, says 'work's not done' | NewsOK.com

Glad Cornett is running again, hard to argue that he's done anything other than a great job. He's got my vote.

[hewi]

Yes, he can simultaneously run for mayor and retain his seat. His seat isn't up for reelection until 2015.

Great, I really like Mr. Shadid however it's a bit early to sit in the big chair.

To a young leader: Don't try to be Batman in your Robin Season!

[Urban Pioneer]

Originally Posted by Urban Pioneer
All I can think about is the hypocrisy in the million or so that is about to be burned by Shadid that could be spent on better bus stops.

This comment troubles me. Are you not in favor of better bus stops? Has he not already spent enough of his personal money to bring in national urban planning experts to elevate the discussion?

THAT... was a joke. Obviously lost on you my friend. lol

[Snowman]

Unfortunately text is one of the worst mediums for conveying jokes. It loses voice tone, cadence and body language. Which is often the majority of how intent and sometimes content is implied in normal speech. People tend to read as literal and also tend to take things more personal if view are different.

[Urban Pioneer]

You may be right, but I can't see that statement in any other way. An incredible amount of money is about to be "wasted" on both sides.

Shadid needs to serve a full term, build some bridges, learn some discipline, make some accomplishments, and regain some trust with people.

It may be entirely possible that this "exercise" in Democracy may be a very good and healthy thing for this city. However, if he does win, I fear "Tulsa town" type divisiveness after personally observing the last few years of his reckless antics.

[Snowman]

Yea, it seems like there is a good chance this is going be more money spent all around and him loosing in a landslide. The mayor got 87% of the votes at one point and at lowest has gotten 58%, I wonder how many outside of Shadid's ward have heard of him. I agree on him needing more time, ideally a mayor is elected to get things done and there have been a few times he has either come out of nowhere on a subject or clearly wanted to do the opposite of what was voted on by citizens before he was in office, so I have a hard time putting a lot of trust in him following through at this point. There are uses for politicians that are either watchdogs or purposely outside core political club but they also tend to be fairly ineffective leading executive branches (Carter is the poster boy for this).

At least there is the benefit in OKC's Council/Manager system that there is not a lot more any individual can do as mayor than as a council member, though it could look worse in the press if the mayor is a constant decenter verses a council person is a constant decenter. In Tulsa's 'Strong' Mayor system a mayor against a council can be a lot more of an obstruction.

[soonerguru]

Yea, it seems like there is a good chance this is going be more money spent all around and him loosing in a landslide. The mayor got 87% of the votes at one point and at lowest has gotten 58%, I wonder how many outside of Shadid's ward have even heard of him. I agree on him needing more time, ideally a mayor is elected to get things done and there have been a few times he has either come out of nowhere on a subject or clearly wanted to do the opposite of what was voted on before he was in office, so I have a hard time putting a lot of trust in him following through at this point. There are uses for politicians that are either watchdogs or purposely outside core political club but they also tend to be fairly ineffective leading executive branches (Carter is the poster boy for this). At least there is the benefit in OKC's Council/Manager system is there is not a lot more any individual can do as mayor than as a council member, though it could look worse in the press if the mayor is a constant decenter verses a council person is a constant decenter.

Talking to his supporters, Ed really believes he can win. Perhaps he's just running to elevate certain issues. It will definitely be an uphill battle for him given OKC citizens' positive view of the direction of our city. Virtually every political race -- absent crazy scandals -- is determined by the mood of the electorate. People can visibly see the positive change in OKC, and while they may have issues in certain areas, one would have to be blindfolded and waking up from a ten-year coma not to recognize how much OKC has improved and continues to do so.

So Ed is trying to say, "Yeah, things may be good, but with me they could be better." This is a difficult and far too nuanced case to make, particularly given all of the bridges he has burned in his very short career. Maybe he will run on a platform of banning automobiles and converting all city power to solar or something to give his campaign an edge. Perhaps a pro-pot-legalization message would win lots of votes.

But there is really not a compelling argument one can make that Mayor Cornett should be fired. He has been very competent and he has been the steward of a cycle of nearly unprecedented growth in OKC -- capped with the celebrated arrival of a championship contending NBA darling.

Firing Cornett right now for Shadid is about as ridiculous on paper as OU firing Bob Stoops and replacing him with some wacky offensive coordinator from Utah.

[Urban Pioneer]

Lol

[MWCGuy]

People in Oklahoma and Oklahoma City for that matter have a "Don't fix it if it not broke." attitude when it comes to politics. I don't see Mick being defeated. You can guarantee he has the backing of the business community and the power brokers of this city. Anyone one who tries to run against him is going to fail miserably. Those who seek change would probably be better off to sit this one out and wait until Mick decides to retire.

Mick does it right. He walks the middle of the road and stays out of the politics that are outside of his pay grade.

I do think it will be interesting to see who runs for office. Last time it was rather entertaining because you had four or five guys that had no earthly idea what the city council actually does. They kept talking about issues that have nothing to do with the city council.

[Midtowner]

Ah yes.. the Fairview Baptist candidates never failed to leave an impression...

[Patrick]

"We're supposed to have non-partisan city elections. Cornett has largely stayed true to this. "
Wasn't Mick the first to violate the gentleman's agreement to leave political affiliation out of city races? Notice he mentoned "faith based community" in his announcement, playing the religion card right off the bat. Shadid may be a contrarian to some, but he's defiantely not a chamber tool.

He's a devil's advocate. That's all good and fine, but when that's all you are, you stand in the way of progress, and don't help momentum....in fact, you kill it.

[Patrick]

I have not heard Shadid or any of "his" experts push one particular view over another. They are simply asking questions that haven't been asked, which is upsetting to many. Clearly, none of the questions and concerns with the streetcar are settled as shown by the response at the last public forum. People are interested and want to explore all of the options before making a decision. This is a good thing.

So, far, that's all Shadid has done is ask questions. That's all good and fine, but he needs to work on finding solutions and implementing them.

[king183]

The thing that is befuddling to me is that Shadid is presenting a classic false choice when he frames the issue as a decision between buses and the streetcar. Guess what? We can have both! The fact is that the streetcar is only one component of a multimodal transit system. Everyone that I've ever talked to involved with the streetcar project are huge supporters of improving our bus system. They believe as do I that one way to do this is to present another mode of transit to get more public buy in. The next step would obviously be to plug in the data from the bus study and get to work on implementing it.

It makes zero sense to present this false choice: 1) it's misleading to those who desire better bus service to frame the discussion in this manner, and 2) it is foolish to divide people in OKC who support an improved public transportation system. As betts points out, this is a car city, built for the car, and it's going to take considerable political skill to get broader support for improved transit funding. Why cause division among transit supporters? How does that help us reach our goals? And finally, 3) the voters of OKC voted for a transit initiative! Yay! How would you earn their trust and / or votes for future transit initiatives when you pull the rug out from under them on a project they've already voted for? Huh? This doesn't make sense.

EXACTLY!

I confronted him about this very thing at his campaign HQ last week and it was clear he was playing Mr Politician on the issue-- trying to find a way to say he opposes the streetcar without saying he opposed the streetcar. It was a disappointing interaction.

When I pressed him on the issue, he said his opposition to the streetcar was based on the fact that we don't have a dedicated funding source for it and shouldn't proceed until one is found. I then asked if he opposed beginning work on the Central Park and he said no. I guess the inconsistency was lost on him.

[Dubya61]

It may be entirely possible that this "exercise" in Democracy may be a very good and healthy thing for this city. However, if he does win, I fear "Tulsa town" type divisiveness after personally observing the last few years of his reckless antics.

I'm also a bit concerned about what happens if he loses. I still think we need to hear his voice on the council and I would hate to see any greater divide occur between Dr. Shadid, Mayor Cornett and others.

[warreng88]

Whenever I explain my preference for liking the streetcar first as opposed to the bus system first is that the streetcar is the more "sexy" of the two. We could improve the bus system first, but it still wouldn't change the stigma of the system. I don't know anybody who rides the bus (except for a few people on this board) and I think the misconception is that it is only for people who aren't able or can't afford to drive a car. The streetcar would make it to where people of all walks of life would ride it as opposed to the people who do it for necessity. Ehen you get that, people are more used to it, the bus system improvements would be better and more people would ride as an option, not a necessity. JMHO.

[Patrick]

When I pressed him on the issue, he said his opposition to the streetcar was based on the fact that we don't have a dedicated funding source for it and shouldn't proceed until one is found. I then asked if he opposed beginning work on the Central Park and he said no. I guess the inconsistency was lost on him.

So my challenge to him would be to find a solution for funding for the streetcar system. The citizens of OKC already voted for a streetcar, so simply not implementing the street car is not an option. We're paying Mr. Shadid to come up with a plan on how to pay for the streetcar. There are options out there. As a last resort he could consider pressing for a 1/8 cent dedicated sales tax to cover funding for it. It works for the zoo. That's my problem with Shadid. He's obviously against the streetcar. That would be okay, but the citizens of OKC have already voted for it. So, at this point, being against the street car is simply not an option.

[Patrick]

I'm also a bit concerned about what happens if he loses. I still think we need to hear his voice on the council and I would hate to see any greater divide occur between Dr. Shadid, Mayor Cornett and others.

But, Shadid's voice at present is only working to hold us back. Maybe he needs to go back to being solely a doctor.