Ed Shadid running for Mayor 2014!

[soonerguru]

Not really.... he seems to be favoring re-examining how much is spent on streetcars vs. bus transit, and whether streetcar is the best system. Hoping William Crum covers this soon.
Sooner, I think your posts speak for themselves.

My posts may speak for themselves, but they don't speak for you. So I ask, for the umpteenth time, why are you diminishing the concerns of the streetcar advocates with Shadid's plans for the streetcar? This isn't about hurt feelings, or paranoia, or an unwillingness to accept criticism. It's about legitimate concerns.

You have finally addressed, on here, what people are concerned about. Namely: Shadid seems to be suggesting moving money from the streetcar, which was voted for by the citizens, toward something else. Please don't in the future suggest this is anything other than that, and please don't equate me pointing that out as an attack, because it is not. It is an entirely reasonable question.

To add, I find it disappointing that while you were maligning streetcar advocates in your chat Friday, you still are not certain exactly what Councilman Shadid's position on the streetcar is, though you now admit he "seems to be favoring re-examining how much is spent on streetcars vs. bus transit..."

It's rather amazing that you would slag the streetcar camp without even mentioning this point to the readers of your Friday chat.

[betts]

And my point is: the time to have determined whether streetcar or bus system is best was preMAPS 3. I assume Councilor Shadid was a registered voter. He had the opportunity to go to the Council and speak as a citizen, to speak to the mayor, post his opinion in the DOK and/or Gazette, or even use public forums like OKC Talk. IIRC, he didn't even vote in the MAPS 3 election. To me, these actions, or lack thereof, mean he abdicated his right as a citizen to express his opinion on MAPS 3. He should turn his attention to MAPS IV or work to create new funding sources for transit. Those of us who did vote would like to see our right as citizens respected. To go against the expressed will of the citizenry is not acceptable in our system of government. MAPS is a plebiscite ballot and thus shouldn't be subject to representative democracy.

[DoctorTaco]

I like Ed Shadid if for no other reason his influence on re-shaping the discussion of the Western Avenue project from simply throwing in some new sidewalks to making it truly pedestrian friendly. That being said, his approach to MAPS bothers me a bit. It is great that someone is pointing out the problems in how MAPS3 was written. No funding for park maintenance? Not enough money for sidewalks because, oops, we forgot how big sidewalks need to be! No money for convention center hotel. Etc. etc. Without Shadid these issues might not even be publicly discussed.

That being said, calling it "fatally flawed" is a problem. MAPS3 exists. It was passed. Now what? If I go to my boss and explain a problem with a project, he wants to know how I can fix it and make the project happen. If I just say, over and over again, "There is a problem! The project cannot be completed," my boss will not be impressed. He wants results. The voters want results. The voters want their MAPS3 projects. Yes there were serious problems with MAPS3, but we still want our stuff. How are you going to overcome the problems and still deliver? That is real leadership.

[Just the facts]

I also don't think we've heard everything there is to hear about the costs of a convention center hotel, garage, prospects for funding of the park or wellness centers. But you folks don't seem to have a problem with questioning of those issues, right?

Only to the extent that funding for operation and maintenance needs to be identified or the choice of locations needs to be revisted, not to cancel them. I can only think of one person by name on OKCTalk that wants to cancel the convention center (an ardent Shadid supporter by the way), everyone else pretty much just wants the location moved - even if the math presented by the Chamber doesn't add up. Heck, we are still going forward with the AICCM project and that math is screwy 8 ways from Sunday.

[betts]

I also don't think we've heard everything there is to hear about the costs of a convention center hotel, garage, prospects for funding of the park or wellness centers. But you folks don't seem to have a problem with questioning of those issues, right?

Is there any MAPS project, besides the Chesapeake Arena, that is self-supporting? I'm sitting here trying to think of one. Haven't we always argued that it is the private investment/economic development benefits, as well as quality of life and civic pride benefits that make the expenditures on all of these worthwhile?

I don't think we should look at any of these projects in a vacuum.

[s00nr1]

Wow, I just read all 5 pages of this very interesting thread and must say I've never seen such a consensus among all posters on a topic as this. Sure, there are the rare one or two posts supporting Councilman Shadid's views/actions but the vast majority here are without question against. I appreciate his viewpoint for improving the urban landscape of OKC but as a politician you have to be able to work with others to achieve progress -- a characteristic I am fairly certain Mr. Shadid is incapable of.

I won't get too deep into the soonerguru/Steve spat but I will say one thing is clear -- the citizens of OKC voted for the streetcar project and that vote cannot be overlooked or so easily dismissed. Sure, 5 votes on the council can change the direction of projects, but give me one example where this has happened on a project the size of the streetcar, because I find it hard to believe anyone currently sitting on the council (save for Councilman Shadid) would risk their political career by so blatantly going against the majority vote of the city.

With all of that being said, I will have to say the one line from this entire thread that made me laugh was this one:

Cornett reminds me of a weasel

Mayor Cornett has been without a doubt a great champion of OKC and, while not perfect (what politician is), I feel he has done a fine job of representing and selling our city both domestically and abroad. OKC could certainly do much worse.

[Steve]

Is there any MAPS project, besides the Chesapeake Arena, that is self-supporting? I'm sitting here trying to think of one. Haven't we always argued that it is the private investment/economic development benefits, as well as quality of life and civic pride benefits that make the expenditures on all of these worthwhile?

I don't think we should look at any of these projects in a vacuum.

Te original MAPS came with plans for operations and maintenance, most notably the use tax fund. So yes, MAPS 3 was done VERY DIFFERENTLY with far less planning than MAPS when it came to this.

[Just the facts]

Early warning to Steve - Shadid is going to replace "mystery tower' in your weekly chat session. Bring your Magic 8 ball.

[Hutch]

Yep. You're right. I read the Oklahoman article from archives, linked to the resolution (after clearly reading the story - not mine - and not reading the resolution carefully enough)...
My bad. Irony. So right now, unless five council members say otherwise, it does need to be a rail based streetcar system. I am willing to acknowledge when I'm wrong, and in this case, damn right, it says that.

Not so fast. You don't get off that easy. Myself, and I'm sure many others here, normally respect the journalistic work you do. Your research is thorough and you're careful of what you write and report. But as far as the streetcar issue goes, you've lost journalistic credibility with me. As a respected reporter who many look to for better understanding on issues related to OKC development, you are subject to a higher standard of fact checking prior to making public statements and assertions on the issues you cover than the average citizen posting to this forum. The Council resolution detailing the project intent of MAPS 3 has been publicly available and reported on since 2009. The fact that you failed to due your normal due diligence in reviewing the resolution language, which by the way requires very little "careful" review...the wording is clear to see and easy to understand, prior to making such a huge mistatement of fact indicates to me that you have lost objectivity with regard to this issue and have developed a personal bias against the streetcar project and those who support it.

[Steve]

Nope. No personal bias against the streetcar project at all. And if you're going to judge me on one post made over the weekend while my eyes were a bit bleary from doing hours of book research, well, whatever. I'm sticking with my original observation ... folks in this thread don't like to be questioned or challenged. The twist of this whole thread pretty much proves it - I questioned whether folks in this thread are hostile to those who question or challenge them, and the knives came out.

[BoulderSooner]

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

so disingenuous and void of any context

[Steve]

I agree - there is no context because the truth is people voted to give the city council $777 million - without context of any sort on the ballot. Have you checked into the positions of the two challengers for Ward 7 and Ward 1 on this issue? And really, where is the money going to come from to operate and maintain the park and the streetcar system when they're up and running and we go into a down cycle on sales tax collections? Where is money going to come from to subsidize a convention center hotel. Just answer these questions. Or attack me for asking.

[Urban Pioneer]

Steve, the Subcommittee is discussing at length parking garage revenues, Santa-Fe station space leases, advertising at Santa-Fe Station and at stops and on trains, and potentially fares.

THIS HAS GONE UNREPORTED

Shadid keeps insinuating that O&M is the reason we should kill streetcar or change everything in MAPS Transit because he proclaims some day we might take money away from bus operations. All whilst knowing that the Subcommittee is actively discussing O&M and mandated that our paid consultants tell us what our options are.

I know he knows because he was at some of these specific subcommittee meetings where O&M was discussed and he even chimed in! A far more respectful approach would be to acknowledge these discussions but simply say he still has concerns until the final report is in.

He has been DISENGENIOUS in omitting this information at his public forums and discussions. He didn't even acknowledge the existence of an oversight body.

And beyond Shadid and his bus motivated political strategy, the O&M discussion/strategization in transit has gone unreported and broadly unacknowledged allowing his arguments to erroneously gain some validity before the verdict is even in.

[Just the facts]

Just curious, where would O&M funds for an expanded bus system would come from?
Where does the current bus O&M funds come from?
Over the average expected lifetime which has a high O&M cost, buses or streetcars?

According to BrooklynRail, a streetcar has 39% of the O&M cost of a bus.
http://www.brooklynrail.net/images/n...ating_cost.pdf

[Spartan]

I've implied no sort of impropriety on behalf of the MAPS streetcar subcommittee. I've suggested that attacks are launched by people in this thread (not the committee) when their beliefs or assumptions are challenged. You've pretty much done that... again, I love the part about you denying you've attacked me in any way. Seriously - I laughed when I read it. God bless ya Sooner - that's quite a perspective you have.

I've been out of the loop for just a few weeks and missed A LOT apparently. What was this "smoking gun"??

[BoulderSooner]

I agree - there is no context because the truth is people voted to give the city council $777 million - without context of any sort on the ballot. Have you checked into the positions of the two challengers for Ward 7 and Ward 1 on this issue? And really, where is the money going to come from to operate and maintain the park and the streetcar system when they're up and running and we go into a down cycle on sales tax collections? Where is money going to come from to subsidize a convention center hotel. Just answer these questions. Or attack me for asking.

the general fund

[Steve]

Has anyone figured out whether the general fund can support that much additional expenditure?

[Steve]

I've been out of the loop for just a few weeks and missed A LOT apparently. What was this "smoking gun"??

The smoking gun is this thread!
I asked questions, suggested folks in the transit thread don't like being questioned or challenged, and the feeding frenzy began!

[Tier2City]

Out of interest, how much are the current O&M expenses for the original MAPS projects and where does the funding currently come from?

[Steve]

Out of interest, how much are the current O&M expenses for the original MAPS projects and where does the funding currently come from?

Depends on which project:
The original MAPS Use Tax, revenues from canal boats provides for capital improvements to the canal and ballpark. The arena makes a profit, and it's my understanding that some of that money helps cover losses at the convention center. A foundation was set up to help on the Civic Center. State Fair Park is it's own operation. The library is the same story. The river I'm not certain of. The rubber tire trolleys... I have no idea anymore.

[betts]

If you've seen knives on this thread I would call them butter knives. Either that or this forum is more thin-skinned than most I've participated in. And the "sharpest" comments are from people who aren't part of the subcommittee. I consider that an indication that there are people who thought they were voting for a streetcar when they went to the polls for MAPS 3. The answer to O&M questions is that city staff says we have the money to run the streetcar. That doesn't even take into account the significant potential for advertising revenue on the trains, at the stops, nor does it consider potential revenue from commercial operations such as retail and parking that might arise from a maintenance facility. Heck, we might even sell naming rights.

[BoulderSooner]

Has anyone figured out whether the general fund can support that much additional expenditure?

the city manager says that it can

[SoonerDave]

so disingenuous and void of any context

Not at all disingneuous nor void of context. Steve is absolutely correct in his statement that voters voted for effectively a blank check.

Plenty of people here were vilified for pointing out precisely this problem with MAPS3, that it was only a resolution of intent with absolutely zero promises attached, and here we are, yet again, with many people acting with varying degrees of shock and surprise that "Thing We Were Promised X Isn't Happening," when, in reality, that "thing" was never promised. We were given a resolution of intent. And there is zero doubt in my mind that the only underlying intent among the core power structure in OKC was for a new convention center, which was known to be an unsellable proposition on its own as an independent MAPS3 project.

That Steve is being vilified for pointing out the plain language of the resolution is astonishing, as is the failure to understand that a "Resolution of Intent" isn't worth the paper its written on in terms of a "promise" of anything. I believe there is and was a way to bind the city to its intent and abide the state constitutional rules regarding the encumbrance of city funds, and wrote that notion to the city manager (in considerable detail, at least for a layman), but was given a very generic response that it wouldn't work.

The point here is that to criticize someone for pointing out what MAPS3 really is represents the archetype of shooting the messenger.

[Steve]

the city manager says that it can

Think about this in light of past debates, discussions over Project 180 implementation, the boulevard, etc. One final comment from me and I'm moving on - there's a lot of confusion in the whole source of this debate. Someone asked about Shadid and the comments over at OKC Talk. I mentioned that folks in the transit thread didn't like being questioned or challenged - which Shadid was doing. Make note: I didn't say Shadid was right in his questions or challenges. But sure enough, folks in the thread did not being questioned or challenged in all this. I DID NOT make any reference to the MAPS 3 transit committee.

[BoulderSooner]

Not at all disingneuous nor void of context. Steve is absolutely correct in his statement that voters voted for effectively a blank check.

Plenty of people here were vilified for pointing out precisely this problem with MAPS3, that it was only a resolution of intent with absolutely zero promises attached, and here we are, yet again, with many people acting with varying degrees of shock and surprise that "Thing We Were Promised X Isn't Happening," when, in reality, that "thing" was never promised. We were given a resolution of intent. And there is zero doubt in my mind that the only underlying intent among the core power structure in OKC was for a new convention center, which was known to be an unsellable proposition on its own as an independent MAPS3 project.

That Steve is being vilified for pointing out the plain language of the resolution is astonishing, as is the failure to understand that a "Resolution of Intent" isn't worth the paper its written on in terms of a "promise" of anything. I believe there is and was a way to bind the city to its intent and abide the state constitutional rules regarding the encumbrance of city funds, and wrote that notion to the city manager (in considerable detail, at least for a layman), but was given a very generic response that it wouldn't work.

The point here is that to criticize someone for pointing out what MAPS3 really is represents the archetype of shooting the messenger.

we voted for maps 3 with trust in the maps brand and in the city council .... and that trust continues to be upheld .... we have a councilmen that clearly doesn't care about the maps brand nor the resolution of projects

fortunately the majority of the council does and that resolution does count for a lot .. it counts for the future of the MAPS brand