Ed Shadid running for Mayor 2014!

[DoctorTaco]

Wishing the LIKE button worked

On the money, kevinpate. On the money.

Agreed. kevinpate's was the most sensible thing I've read thus far in this thread.

[BoulderSooner]

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.

they didn't cut or divert the funding for the trails

they didn't cut or divert the funding for the senior centers

a councilmen is talking about diverting money from/cutting the streetcar ..

apples and oranges

[Just the facts]

they didn't cut or divert the funding for the trails

they didn't cut or divert the funding for the senior centers

a councilmen is talking about diverting money from/cutting the streetcar ..

apples and oranges

Exactly! When the route of the streetcar was shortened it was near universally accepted.

[Just the facts]

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.

You are correct. The $30 million was to fund the movement of the substation, and since the CC location doesn't require that the money goes back into MAPS III. If that is something the CC subcommittee doesn't like they should have taken that into consideration or got clarification on BEFORE they picked a location. Now, if they decide to go back to the substation site I fully expect the $30 million would be restored.

[betts]

Wishing the LIKE button worked

On the money, kevinpate. On the money.

I recall you opposing MAPS for the new arena and MAPS 3. Of course you would like his comment. And you probably, logically, don't care if there's a MAPS 4. Since he didn't vote in the preceding MAPS elections, I suspect Councilman Shadid doesn't either. I remember a fair amount of uproar about the sidewalks. No one was happy there were going to be fewer miles. But, with sidewalks it's a question of them needing to be wider and costing more than budgeted. No one has taken money away from the sidewalk budget or said we're not building sidewalks. No one has said we're spending the sidewalk money on something different. I'm not aware that the senior centers are not being funded or that money is being taken from their budget. I know the city would like to find partners to help run them and has been looking. I think if the city announces there will be no senior centers, there will be a significantly negative response as well. And there should be. However, responses are usually proportional to interest and support. If there's been more of a response to the suggestion of not funding the streetcar, that probably indicates voter interest and investment were higher.

[Urban Pioneer]

Betts I think that is Okiedave. But maybe not.

[Urban Pioneer]

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.

That's hilarious and accurate. And it shows how many people care about this project. I can assure you as MTP director, it goes beyond the posters on here. And those same people want a system change to the entire system as well. If we're going to be a big city, were going to have to act like a big city. Build rail, build bus, build transit. And this project is the first meaningful step in maintaining support for more to come.

[SoonerDave]

I recall you opposing MAPS for the new arena and MAPS 3. Of course you would like his comment. And you probably, logically, don't care if there's a MAPS 4. Since he didn't vote in the preceding MAPS elections, I suspect Councilman Shadid doesn't either. I remember a fair amount of uproar about the sidewalks. No one was happy there were going to be fewer miles. But, with sidewalks it's a question of them needing to be wider and costing more than budgeted. No one has taken money away from the sidewalk budget or said we're not building sidewalks. No one has said we're spending the sidewalk money on something different. I'm not aware that the senior centers are not being funded or that money is being taken from their budget. I know the city would like to find partners to help run them and has been looking. I think if the city announces there will be no senior centers, there will be a significantly negative response as well. And there should be. However, responses are usually proportional to interest and support. If there's been more of a response to the suggestion of not funding the streetcar, that probably indicates voter interest and investment were higher.

You are mistaken.

I enthusiastically supported and voted for the original MAPS projects. I opposed MAPS for Kids because throwing money at OKC schools wasn't going to solve their problems. I opposed MAPS3 because of PRECISELY the horrendous ballot language that has induced the very kind of discussion in this thread - the blank check promise that OKC voters were voting for whatever future five members of the city council decided they wanted. And I make no secret of the fact that I supported construction of a new convention center even though it was apparent from most polling data that the broader cross-section of OKC voters did not, so much so that it essentially initiated the "non-log-rolling log-rolling" that became the MAPS3 ballot with all of the other sugar to draw in enough votes to get the convention center passed.

[adaniel]

You are mistaken.

I enthusiastically supported and voted for the original MAPS projects. I opposed MAPS for Kids because throwing money at OKC schools wasn't going to solve their problems. I opposed MAPS3 because of PRECISELY the horrendous ballot language that has induced the very kind of discussion in this thread - the blank check promise that OKC voters were voting for whatever future five members of the city council decided they wanted. And I make no secret of the fact that I supported construction of a new convention center even though it was apparent from most polling data that the broader cross-section of OKC voters did not, so much so that it essentially initiated the "non-log-rolling log-rolling" that became the MAPS3 ballot with all of the other sugar to draw in enough votes to get the convention center passed.

I will chime in and say the ballot language was not the city's call.

MAPS 3 ballot won?t detail individual projects | News OK

A state law commonly referred to as the single subject rule forbids cities from asking voters to approve one tax for multiple purposes. Voters must vote on tax-funded projects one project at a time.
"Someone probably could have challenged the original MAPS as violating the single subject rule, but no one really did,” said City Attorney Kenny Jordan.
The law is why the MAPS 3 ballot will look dramatically different from its predecessors.

[SoonerDave]

I will chime in and say the ballot language was not the city's call.

MAPS 3 ballot won?t detail individual projects | News OK

And I will counter that there was zero effort expended in creating a cost and funding structure as a series of rolling one-year accounts that would have satisfied the spirit of the law, particularly given there was no challenge to the original ballot language, which was just as "illegal."

Further, your comment is on the money with my earlier notion that all this nonsense is a direct result of those very constitutional issues, meaning that the real problem needs to be addressed at that level. This "non-log-rolling log rolling" is precisely the mess we're in right now.

[Just the facts]

If they want to fix MAPS then I suggest the following format.

Determine how many projects and then divide the penny by that many shares. Each month the city transfer the monthly take into an account for each project and the committees spend their money accordingly. As projects become fully funded their share of the penny drops off. When all funds have been raised the tax expires. The projects are built according to how fast the money is raised.

Here is an example:

The City proposes 6 MAPS projects

Project 1 ($10 million)
Project 2($15 million)
Project 3 ($40 million)
Project 4 ($60 million)
Project 5 ($120 million)
Project 6 ($300 million)

Each project is on the ballot by itself and the dollar amount needed. During the election Project 3 doesn't pass.
This leaves us with 5 projects, so each month each project gets 1/5 of the MAPS pie.

In 12 months the first project is fully funded so the remaining projects start splitting the pie 4 ways.

In 5 years all projects except the last one are fully funded so the whole penny goes to project 6 until it fully funded - and then the tax ends.

Committees can start spending on their projects as soon as they have sufficient funds to start doing whatever they need done.

That format should solve any issue we currently have.

[soonerguru]

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?

Is that all you got? Wow. You've jumped the shark.

[Steve]

This whole thread speaks for itself - especially your comments Sooner.

[soonerguru]

This whole thread speaks for itself - especially your comments Sooner.

Weak.

1. You try to skim over your misreading of the resolution.

2. You fail to acknowledge members' concerns about Shadid's intentions until last night.

3. You quickly try to backtrack from your chat comment with a flimsy rationale.

I think that speaks volumes.

[Mississippi Blues]

...

[Steve]

I'm not backtracking at all.... I'll shout it out next time: folks in this thread do not appear to like having their interests questioned or challenged. At this point, we're at an impasse Sooner. And that turns into a flame and a hijacking of the thread. So I'm gonna let others figure out what's what, and not worry about whatever you type next on your keyboard.

[zookeeper]

I think it's horrible the way Steve has been treated in this thread. All the good he does and you disagree with him, or think you do, on ONE thing and you treat him like an enemy. Steve cares about Oklahoma City as much as anyone possibly could, he works his butt off, he reports to you things you would never have known otherwise, he hosts open chats, he's a good guy and doesn't deserve this crap. Sorry, Steve.

[BoulderSooner]

Not sure if serious.

[soonerguru]

I think it's horrible the way Steve has been treated in this thread. All the good he does and you disagree with him, or think you do, on ONE thing and you treat him like an enemy. Steve cares about Oklahoma City as much as anyone possibly could, he works his butt off, he reports to you things you would never have known otherwise, he hosts open chats, he's a good guy and doesn't deserve this crap. Sorry, Steve.

I happen to think Steve does a good job, just not so much this time. When I think he does a great job, I let him know. It's OK to discuss issues with reporting. Reporters are not above being questioned. We all care about OKC, and I don't think anyone insinuated that Steve does not. The discussion was limited to his reporting on the streetcar and Ed Shadid. I don't see what the big deal is. I'm sure Steve will be fine.

[Mississippi Blues]

I think it's horrible the way Steve has been treated in this thread. All the good he does and you disagree with him, or think you do, on ONE thing and you treat him like an enemy. Steve cares about Oklahoma City as much as anyone possibly could, he works his butt off, he reports to you things you would never have known otherwise, he hosts open chats, he's a good guy and doesn't deserve this crap. Sorry, Steve.

Not really trying to get involved with this rage cage, but +1. Steve is half the reason I even care so much about OKC.

[Stew]

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.

Well said and spot-on.

[Rover]

I'm not backtracking at all.... I'll shout it out next time: folks in this thread do not appear to like having their interests questioned or challenged. At this point, we're at an impasse Sooner. And that turns into a flame and a hijacking of the thread. So I'm gonna let others figure out what's what, and not worry about whatever you type next on your keyboard.

Steve, we all know that people get most interested and vocal when it is THEIR ox that is getting gored. You just got too close to his ox.

Know that nearly everyone on here respects how you are able to stay objective and truthful while others get emotional and exhibit bias. You have a real gift. Don't let anyone drag you into the gutter.

[Spartan]

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!

Yeah but are we really going to torpedo a voter-approved streetcar system over these petty arguments? Just from my perspective of being blind-sided by all this infighting, "asking questions" is coming off exactly the same as "just defending from attacks." Obviously each side is going to swear up and down that they're "just replying" or "just questioning."

To me this is "just infighting" and nothing else. To pull the Tulsa card appears to be a bit late in my book. And if you ask me, this is all because the first few years of MAPS3 wasn't really done the right way and everybody knows it. We need to stop pointing fingers all around and see how the city can move forward and still accomplish the amazing vision we collectively bought in on.

What are the questions that we are "just asking?"

[soonerguru]

Well said.

I balled my eyes out when they told us we would only be getting a little over half the sidewalk miles. Okay, maybe that's a little bit of an exaggeration.

I was also similarly disappointed by this. However, the reasoning given for the reduction was poor projecting. Money was not actually taken away from the project.

[Urban Pioneer]

What are the questions that we are "just asking?"

Good question.