Ed Shadid running for Mayor 2014!

[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.

What started this whole fuss was this answer I gave in the OKC Central chat:
It's been my observation that the streetcar advocates at OKC Talk do not like to see their beliefs or assumptions challenged or questioned - which is certainly what Shadid has done.
Shadid is being seen as challenging or questioning whether the streetcar should be implemented as desired by folks in the transit thread at OKC Talk. And you guys don't like that. At no point in this conversation have I said the streetcar advocates have made bad conclusions. At no point have I indicated it's a bad project. I do question whether planning for operation and maintenance was thought out for MAPS 3 as well as it was for the original MAPS. And I do question how firmly this project is locked in considering the great amount of discretion given the city council by voters (wittingly or not).

[Urban Pioneer]

Well the irony in that statement is that this debate is about Shadid "keeping the promise" of what the voters "intent" was.

[CaptDave]

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

The City Manager was very emphatic the funds exist for O&M during a council meeting about 4 weeks ago IIRC. He further stated he saw no reason to think there would be any issues funding O&M, and this did not even consider any revenue generated by the streetcar system itself.

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!

Steve, as a person that thinks you do a fantastic job 99% of the time, I think you are being a bit thin skinned. You threw out some innuendo and got called on it. Your "challenge" has no legitmacy unless you can back it up - and you insinuation had nothing to do with O&M initially. There were a definite insinuation of some sort of impropriety going on within the MAPS Subcommittees and the streetcar in particular. I picked up on it in one of your chat sessions and in a couple other posts. I maintain that if you have some concrete basis for your questions and challenges, lay it out and let the chips fall where they may.

I think possibly you were fed some bogus information, and counter to your normal practice threw it out to see if anything would stick. I have a hunch where this may have started but cannot say for certain as it is only a guess. If you were as careful with your statements about this MAPS project as you are with the "mystery tower", I suspect you would not feel like you have been subjected to a "feeding frenzy". (And maybe this is making too much out of something you thought were innocuous statements - I'll accept that maybe I read something into your statement(s) you did not intend.)

As far as funding O&M for the streetcar in particular, I witnessed this topic being discussed at one of the subcommittee meetings I was able to attend. You were not there for that one Steve. To say O&M has not, and is not, being discussed or otherwise considered is misinformed at best; and disingenuous if one has knowledge of these discussions yet makes statements to the contrary.

[Urban Pioneer]

But what "beliefs and assumptions" Steve. This is about him insinuating we should take money away from the project to fund our ailing bus service. Not "beliefs and assumptions."

[Steve]

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

Here's your other challenge, however...
You have two council members now who were not around when that resolution was written. You could have two more after tomorrow.... I'm NOT saying it would be right for the council to not follow the resolution. But do you see how tenuous it might be?

[BoulderSooner]

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.

What started this whole fuss was this answer I gave in the OKC Central chat:
It's been my observation that the streetcar advocates at OKC Talk do not like to see their beliefs or assumptions challenged or questioned - which is certainly what Shadid has done.
Shadid is being seen as challenging or questioning whether the streetcar should be implemented as desired by folks in the transit thread at OKC Talk. And you guys don't like that. At no point in this conversation have I said the streetcar advocates have made bad conclusions. At no point have I indicated it's a bad project. I do question whether planning for operation and maintenance was thought out for MAPS 3 as well as it was for the original MAPS. And I do question how firmly this project is locked in considering the great amount of discretion given the city council by voters (wittingly or not).

i don't think many people have a problem with "Shadid is being seen as challenging or questioning whether the streetcar should be implemented as desired by folks in the transit thread at OKC Talk."

i think people have a problem with Shadid not wanting to implement the street car at all

[betts]

I think the issue is that he seems to be saying it shouldn't be implemented, and as a citizen and voter, I have a problem with that. What does "as desired" mean anyway? Every person who voted probably desires something a bit different and what we all get is a compromise between what we want and what we can afford, what's practical and what's possible.

[Steve]

But what "beliefs and assumptions" Steve. This is about him insinuating we should take money away from the project to fund our ailing bus service. Not "beliefs and assumptions."

You believe the resolution should be honored, even though as a city council member he never signed on to it. And you don't like that he's questioning whether it should be followed, right?

[betts]

I consider it deceitful and paternalistic for city council members, new or old, to think that the wording of the ballot means they can decide what they now want the ballot to have meant. The wording of the resolution was quite clear. If we only had a representative form of city government, then the councilors would be given a large pot of money to do with as they pleased. When you ask the people to vote on certain issues, then you have taken the decision-making authority on that issue away from the government and given it to the people. This was a plebiscite, a unique decision-making event. The people spoke and to ignore their wishes means you certainly risk never being trusted with a similar resolution again and probably risk a concerted effort on the part of some members of the electorate to turn you out of office.

[CaptDave]

Here's your other challenge, however...
You have two council members now who were not around when that resolution was written. You could have two more after tomorrow.... I'm NOT saying it would be right for the council to not follow the resolution. But do you see how tenuous it might be?

Ahhhh - here is where I think you can be of incredible service Steve. I agree with this statement - the language in and of itself is easily construed as to permit someone to play games with MAPS funds. But to do so would be a gross violation of the public trust OKC voters have justifiably placed with our city council and mayors for the last several years.

You are part of the "fourth estate" and as such you should serve as the reminder to our elected officials the will of the voters. It is very clear what the voters intended with their votes for MAPS3 regardless of any semantic games with the language of the resolution. Just because someone was not on the council at the time of the MAPS vote does not give them a free pass to willfully violate the public trust.

[SoonerDave]

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

So your vote for the blank-check carried with it the implicit assumption that every councilman and/or mayor to hold those offices in the future would be duty bound to a resolution of intent?? C'mon, Boulder, we've disagreed on various things here at times, but you're too smart to pretend to be that naive (or shockingly disingenuous).

[Steve]

QUOTE: Ahhhh - here is where I think you can be of incredible service Steve. I agree with this statement - the language in and of itself is easily construed as to permit someone to play games with MAPS funds. But to do so would be a gross violation of the public trust OKC voters has justifiably placed with our city council and mayors for the last several years.

You are part of the "fourth estate" and as such you should serve as the reminder to our elected officials the will of the voters. It is very clear what the voters intended with their votes for MAPS3 regardless of any semantic games with the language of the resolution. Just because someone was not on the council at the time of the MAPS vote does not give them a free pass to willfully violate the public trust.

-------------------

Absolutely. Such was the case when County Commissioners tried to divert money from the Tinker runway bond package ... but here, if the council reduces the streetcar portion of the project, but doesn't kill it, and reallocates $$ to other transit... that's where this all gets very, very interesting....

[SoonerDave]

Perhaps overlooked here is that the ballot language responsible for this situation is a direct result of state constitutional limitations on municipal funding projects. Perhaps its time we address that issue at a state constitutional level rather than wage these local political wars arising from efforts designed specifically to get around them.

[Urban Pioneer]

Here's your other challenge, however...
You have two council members now who were not around when that resolution was written. You could have two more after tomorrow.... I'm NOT saying it would be right for the council to not follow the resolution. But do you see how tenuous it might be?

Absolutely.

[betts]

Yes, SoonerDave, for the reasons I outlined above. We give our city councilors the ability to make many decisions, but if they didn't want to be bound by this resolution, either legally or ethically, then they should never have written the resolution. They should have asked for a penny sales tax to do with as they willed. If they don't feel legally bound, then they certainly should feel ethically bound, which I consider as binding as law for a public servant.

[Urban Pioneer]

QUOTE:but here, if the council reduces the streetcar portion of the project, but doesn't kill it, and reallocates $$ to other transit... that's where this all gets very, very interesting....

And don't forget the $25 million put back into the contingency fund for unused substation monies. That could build more of something.

[CaptDave]

QUOTE:Absolutely. Such was the case when County Commissioners tried to divert money from the Tinker runway bond package ... but here, if the council reduces the streetcar portion of the project, but doesn't kill it, and reallocates $$ to other transit... that's where this all gets very, very interesting....

But any reallocation of the $120 Million in MAPS3 funds to anything other than "rail-based streetcar" would be a violation of the public trust. The language of the resolution does provide some wiggle room in the actual location of a rail based streetcar system, but that is the only aspect of the project that has much room for adjustment.

This is developing into a situation where our elected officials' performance will be evaluated on whether they do the "right thing" as opposed to the purely "legal thing".

[BoulderSooner]

So your vote for the blank-check carried with it the implicit assumption that every councilman and/or mayor to hold those offices in the future would be duty bound to a resolution of intent?? C'mon, Boulder, we've disagreed on various things here at times, but you're too smart to pretend to be that naive (or shockingly disingenuous).

no i understood/understand that future councilmen/mayors could disregard the resolution of intent .... however i do believe that it would/will be a "break of public trust" if they do ... as steve said there is assuredly some gray area

Perhaps overlooked here is that the ballot language responsible for this situation is a direct result of state constitutional limitations on municipal funding projects. Perhaps its time we address that issue at a state constitutional level rather than wage these local political wars arising from efforts designed specifically to get around them.

this is a great point and i hope that at some point it can be addressed ...

[Steve]

But any reallocation of the $120 Million in MAPS3 funds to anything other than "rail-based streetcar" would be a violation of the public trust. The language of the resolution does provide some wiggle room in the actual location of a rail based streetcar system, but that is the only aspect of the project that has much room for adjustment.

This is developing into a situation where our elected officials' performance will be evaluated on whether they do the "right thing" as opposed to the purely "legal thing".

Actually, were there line item budget amounts listed on that resolution. Recall that convention center advocates argued they were promised $280 million - and $30 million was diverted

[Just the facts]

QUOTE: Ahhhh - here is where I think you can be of incredible service Steve. I agree with this statement - the language in and of itself is easily construed as to permit someone to play games with MAPS funds. But to do so would be a gross violation of the public trust OKC voters has justifiably placed with our city council and mayors for the last several years.

You are part of the "fourth estate" and as such you should serve as the reminder to our elected officials the will of the voters. It is very clear what the voters intended with their votes for MAPS3 regardless of any semantic games with the language of the resolution. Just because someone was not on the council at the time of the MAPS vote does not give them a free pass to willfully violate the public trust.

-------------------

Absolutely. Such was the case when County Commissioners tried to divert money from the Tinker runway bond package ... but here, if the council reduces the streetcar portion of the project, but doesn't kill it, and reallocates $$ to other transit... that's where this all gets very, very interesting....

Well, if a City Council member wants to do that I say let them try it and see what happens to their political career. Does OKC have a recall procedure because I suspect that would be the fastest route to resolving the issue.

[betts]

But any reallocation of the $120 Million in MAPS3 funds to anything other than "rail-based streetcar" would be a violation of the public trust. The language of the resolution does provide some wiggle room in the actual location of a rail based streetcar system, but that is the only aspect of the project that has much room for adjustment.

This is developing into a situation where our elected officials' performance will be evaluated on whether they do the "right thing" as opposed to the purely "legal thing".

You are also playing with semantics here. The right thing, IMO, is to follow the resolution as it was written. The right thing is not to determine that something missing from the resolution is "righter".

[CaptDave]

If they don't feel legally bound, then they certainly should feel ethically bound, which I consider as binding as law for a public servant.

You are also playing with semantics here. The right thing, IMO, is to follow the resolution as it was written. The right thing is not to determine that something missing from the resolution is "righter".

Not meaning to - I agree with your earlier statement. You stated my intent much better than I.

[CaptDave]

Actually, were there line item budget amounts listed on that resolution. Recall that convention center advocates argued they were promised $280 million - and $30 million was diverted

I think Mayor Cornett was very specific in stating that particular $30million was for relocating the OG&E substation IF the convention center was built on the site he strongly supported at that time. Otherwise, those funds would be available for other contingencies. I thought that money was a built in contingency fund for MAPS and Mayor Cornett was using it to persuade the site recommendation to look at the location south of the boulevard more favorably. But that was several years ago now and I may not remember it exactly right.

[kevinpate]

When they came out for reducing some of the trail mileage, there was a grunt here, a groan there, but little else.
When they came out for cutting back on the senior aquatics centers, there were a couple gosh darn its here, a grumble or three there, but little else.
When they made the cc a bigger priority than many thought it ought to be, there was an outcry, followed by begrudging acceptance and merely whispers of displeasure.
When they decided the park need not be iconic, there were some low level wails, but a quickly rising tide of acceptance.

But, dare to have someone so much as question something about the streetcars, and there is an outcry of epic proportions of the sanctity of the voter's belief in a resolution of intent that some never signed, with still more to come.

I am not anti streetcar. Like the BT canal, I think it'll serve some purpose, even though the vast majority will never bother to use it. But every last bit of M3 is subject to change, resolution or no resolution. Given the way certain 'stakeholders' treated the streetcar a while back, and it was not all that long ago, perhaps it is not surprising if folks are rather quickly on edge about it when someone else questions it.

But there is already ample precedence, within the M3 process itself, to curtail and diminish any project ... except perhaps the cc. This present round of elections might have afforded an opportunity to elect some folks who could effectively try and hold the cc hostage should there be any finagling with the streetcar. Just a guess but I'm pretty sure that won't be the outcome of this year's elections.

But if one takes a long objective look at all M3 projects to date, and dispenses with all the but they can't, it would be wrong to mess with it pablum, it might become clear that to many, the streetcar is but one of many options, and a resolution is simply that, a resolution. not saying that is right or wrong. Only that it is.

The notion that folks who were not running the city in 09 are forever bound to what was a majority rule statement of intent from 09 ... well, that's just a bit special. As for the violation of voter's trust and expectations ... you have way more faith in the long term memories of the voter collective than most folks do.

Again, I hope the streetcar goes forward. That said, it is no more a given than any of the other projects in that resolution, many of which are mere shadows of their sale pitches.

[SoonerDave]

Wishing the LIKE button worked

On the money, kevinpate. On the money.