Time To Dump Our Antiquated Municipal Government

[xrayman]

It's time to put it on the table. Oklahoma City needs to dump its antiquated form of municipal government. The council-manager form is not for cities of our size. Dallas is in the process of debating this very issue. Great cities need great mayors. Government by committee (which is what we have) cannot make the tough decisions that need to be made on a consistent basis. I'm not talking about large projects every decade, but day-to-day action that can move a city forward. Decisions made by a mayor that truly has responsibility and is not just largely a ceremonial figurehead. I have no idea how our current mayor feels about this issue and it doesn't matter. But, if Mayor Cornett finds himself frustrated (and he will) with having no codified authority to do what needs to be done, maybe he will be interested. But regardless, it's exactly what we need: A strong mayor who runs the city.

Today, we have a City Council that decides legislatively by committee. They hire a City Manager to "run" the city. But, the City Manager serves at the pleasure of - you got it - the City Council. It's a circle of everybody having some of the responsibility and therefore NOBODY having the real responsibility. If the roads are falling apart - who are you going to hold accountable? If there's no action on the economic front, who are you going to hold accountable? Under our current system of muni government - there is nobody to "blame" and nobody to "praise." It is, at its essence, government by committee. Sometimes it works (at a snails pace) and most times it simply does not. In fact, it's an exercise in governmental gymnastics!

It's time that we look at this issue seriously. As we move ahead into the 21st century, city leadership by committee, at war with the county to boot, is simply not going to hack it. I fully agree with the conservative groups in Dallas who believe that their form of government (same as ours) has held them back. We're talking DALLAS feeling held back (!). Where does that leave us? In the same boat, and if we're smart we'll do the same thing as Dallas and move ahead with plans for a true big city government: A strong mayor with a nice salary to go with the responsibility and hard decisions, a staff and administration to help him, or her, make it happen. We would have a city council acting as true local legislators instead of a council trying to oversee - and be responsible for what SHOULD BE executive decisions. The whole City Manager thing? Thrown out - history. The mayor and their administration would be in charge. Maybe it ALL should be on the table and we should even rethink the council concept and look at making commissioners responsible for specific departments within our city government. Should we have commissioners directly responsible, at an executive level, for particular departments? "Commissioner of Parks and Leisure" "Police Commissioner" "Streets and Infrastructure" "Economic Development" "At-Large" commissioners that are strictly legislative. Place these people in the role of running departments and therefore, being RESPONSIBLE for their departments. As long as we look at the top job - we might as well look at all of it.

Oklahoma City is growing up and it's time we have a municipal government that can work in the best interest of the city - rather than government by committee, when we get around to it, and nobody being responsible for anything. Right now, there's too many pointing of fingers, just showing up for council meetings learning of serious issues in cram courses so they can get back to their "real jobs." No, Oklahoma City is better than that. We are there, and it's time to think about it.

What do YOU think???

[HOT ROD]

I totally agree. Nobody in OKC is accountable, that is why things are quite backward.

While most people in OKC want to avoid partisanship in local government, it still exists - it just does not have an official affiliation - known as the ole boy.

I will not go into details here, because all of you know exactly what I am talking about - but I want to say that it is time for OKC to become progressive in leadership and dump the Council-Manager system!

In Seattle, we have Mayor-Council system. In Tacoma, Council-Manager.

Ask anyone which of the two cities is more known, more progressive, bigger, and definitely more desireable! Tacoma is nice and everything, but Seattle will always beat Tacoma because we think big.

And it all started with a mayor Seattle had in the early 1990s named Norm Rice (an African American by the way - Feb is Black History Month, plug). He created a MAPS of sorts which resulted in the 12th largest metropolitan area in the nation (3.7 million), #6 in the nation for corporate headquarters, #2 in the nation for high tech, #1 in the nation for cybertech/internet, and #1 in the nation for the wealthiest/richest people in the world. Our city makes more $$ per capita than any in the nation, if not the world - and this was a vision of Mayor Rice, to have a world class city that embraced business no matter what it was! Look at Seattle today!!!

The same could happen for OKC, but we need leadership like RICE! I think Humphreys was close but his power was limited. We need to realize that OKC is a force to be recogned with. OKC regularly competes with the likes of Denver, KC, and Houston (and Tulsa) - ALL Mayor-Council cities I might add! Which of these cities regularly gets the press, the jobs, the prestigue? Let me clue you in, its NOT Oklahoma City,

yet.

Its time for OKC to join the likes of Seattle, Denver, KC, and Chicago - with accountable leadership and progressive business practices. Sure, it may be a call centre now, but it is employment and absorbsion of office space in the short run. In the long run, it is a thriving economy that is diverse and prosperous!!!

And tons of citizens really happy to live here!!!

[xrayman]

Guys, this was pertaining to Urban Renewal in the "Urban Renewal/Triangle thread". We moved it here because it fits better with the topic! Thanks, Patrick, moderator
------
Here's xrayman's post:

This is just another reason why we need to scrap our old-fashioned weak mayor/council/city manager form of municipal government. Urban Renewal is an outsourced quasi-governmental outfit whose time has come and gone. People working part-time on issues that will impact the city in a MAJOR way. It's the kind of progressive and responsible government Oklahoma City desperately needs to meet the demands of the 21st century. Urban Renewal is making these decisions (and who knows what going on) with NOBODY ELECTORALLY ACCOUNTABLE! It has to change.

[xrayman]

Glad to see you agree and that people are seeing the need for strong and ACCOUNTABLE municipal government for Oklahoma City!

[1adam12]

You guys are pathetic !! We have a great city government that works hard for its people. Our mayor is the best mayor that we have ever had, in my opinion. As one of our moderators has said, time and time again, our mayor does many things behind the scenes. He needs no lime light.

Granted, there are many more things that our mayor and city council "could" be accountable for, but that's the same for every city. Mr. HotRod, you live in Seattle, so why do you feel that you have to bash our great city? You don't live here, so you have no idea what is going on.

I really get tired of people bashing this great city we have and the great people that run it. I would rather live here than anywhere else in this country. Instead of bashing our great city, get out and do something productive, to make it a better place to live. Xrayman, have you ever contacted our mayor in person to discuss this, or is it easier to complain about it on this forum?

[floater]

This is just another reason why we need to scrap our old-fashioned weak mayor/council/city manager form of municipal government. Urban Renewal is an outsourced quasi-governmental outfit whose time has come and gone. People working part-time on issues that will impact the city in a MAJOR way. It's the kind of progressive and responsible government Oklahoma City desperately needs to meet the demands of the 21st century. Urban Renewal is making these decisions (and who knows what going on) with NOBODY ELECTORALLY ACCOUNTABLE! It has to change.

Actually, xrayman, I disagree. I like our form of government. Having a city manager professionalizes the delivery of services that might more easily be subject to patronage if the mayor was in control of administration. That's a perspective from an outsider's point of view.

Ultimately, having the city manager/mayor/council format actually doesn't matter in the overall scheme of things. The main driver of things happening will always be business. The strong mayor is only as strong as business interests are willing to let them be. Popular mayors can only be as popular as the state of the city.

This doesn't mean that mayors can't be iconic symbols of the city -- they usually are. And they can lead, they can spearhead an agenda. But when it comes to building the economic base and improving quality of life, the mayor must have the cooperation of business (not to mention nonprofit groups) to make things happen.

In regards to Urban Renewal, I don't think there's any void of accountability. If people really opposed UR's activities, they would let the city council and mayor hear about it. I do think we as OKC citizens need to more engaged in the doings of city hall, but this is still a democracy. If there is heat regarding any action, the mayor and city council will react to it -- they may not change the action, but at least make a stronger case for it. Look at the Bass Pro controversy. If the public is unsatisfied, the official could very well be booted.

[xrayman]

Adam 12,

First of all, this thread has nothing - NOTHING - at all to do with Mayor Cornett. As far as I know, he may fully agree with everything I have written concerning the need for a "strong mayor" form of government for our city. He may not - I honestly don't know. I would be surprised, frankly, if anybody who has held the post in recent times would not have let it run through their minds that their lack of authority on certain matters - ceded to the council as a whole, the city manager's office, and various city boards and commissions - has held this city back.

I'm not sure how you can call putting forth ideas for a new and better form of municipal government as a "bashing" of the city. This is a great city and we have accomplished great things over many decades. We sometimes have to remind ourselves that we are a relatively young city. However, for the 21st century, it is my belief that OKC can best be served by a "strong mayor" form of government. By the angry tone of your response I have to think you don't understand what I have put up for discussion in this thread. There is a very simple definition of a "strong mayor" form of government here:
http://www.answers.com/topic/mayor-council-government

Adopting a "strong mayor" form of government would bring a new accountability and responsibility to our city government. Whether Mayor Cornett is a lousy mayor or the best public official in our history has nothing to do with what I am discussing in this thread. It is my opinion that Oklahoma City has outgrown the present council-manager form of government. There are pros and cons to the "strong mayor" concept, but the benefits, in my view, far outweigh the bad.

Again, I don't think you understood what I was really putting up for discussion in this thread before responding and calling me (and a fellow poster) "pathetic." I can only speak for my posts in this thread, but I didn't bash Mayor Cornett and I most certainly did not bash the city I love. I have disagreed with the mayor on several issues and have posted those elsewhere on this forum. I have also agreed with him on several and have posted those as well. It is *because* of my love for Oklahoma City that I put this on the table here at OKCTalk. It has NOTHING at all to do with Mayor Cornett and I truly feel you misunderstood my original post.

You asked a question though at the end of your post that I felt a bit odd. You asked if I had talked to Mayor Cornett, in person, before coming here to "complain" in this forum. I say it is an odd question because consider: Have you spoken - personally - with every elected official about all issues that they might be involved with before you have offered an opinion on an Internet message board? I'm sorry, but that struck me as not being very practical. I am guessing the mayor wouldn't particularly appreciate having to take calls to listen to people say this or that before posting an opinion on OKCTalk. This forum, OKCTalk, is as good a place as any to discuss this issue and there's no need to personally run it by anybody before we discuss it. That's what we do here - discuss! It is a *discussion* forum. No need to personally talk to the mayor before anything is brought up pro, con, or indifferent.

Have a nice weekend and by the way, I loved the old Adam-12 show myself. One of these days maybe the 1960's Dragnet and Adam-12 will be released on DVD.

[xrayman]

Hey guys, I pulled this off of the Urban Renewal thread, so take that into account.....the thread he is referring to is the Urban Renewal/Triangle thread.
Thanks, Patrick, moderator
------------
Here's the post from xrayman:

Hi Floater,

I merely mentioned the "strong mayor" form of government in this thread because it related to Urban Renewal and Oklahoma City's current "everybody is responsible, so nobody is responsible" form of government. I don't want to hijack this thread, which is important on its own merits. It's worth discussing......but I hate to get into the whole form of government thing here as this is metro's thread and it is very interesting hearing of the various proposals and projects.
Have a good weekend!

[floater]

Yeah, I know. Perhaps the mods can switch over the city management related posts on this and the call center thread to your specific thread.

[downtownguy]

I'm surprised your comments are aimed at City Hall, and not at County Government. What is it that has been done by the city government that disappoints you? Wasn't it our current system that produced MAPS? MAPS for Kids? Improvements to the zoo? Providing us with police and firefighters that won worldwide aclaim during the boming and various tornadoes and emergencies? We have one of the worst cases of sprawl, and yet, the streets aren't as bad as one might suppose for a city our size. All across this board, you can find discussions by people thrilled about the community, about its direction.

Are there problems from time to time? Yes, of course. But compare OKC to Tulsa.

Go to www.tulsanow.org/forum, where they have a strong mayor form of government. See how happy they are with what they have. Ask swake about the recall movement going on over there. And Tulsa, I must admit, has so much more going for it than Oklahoma City does when it comes to natural beauty and resources!

Now, when it comes to county government, there you have some serious dysfunction and shades of corruption.

[xrayman]

I sure agree with you about the County. You couldn't be more right.

Like I said, Oklahoma City has done great things over the years, I don't dispute that for a minute. I LOVE Oklahoma City! However, what has been accomplished in recent years has been in spite of, and not because of, our council-manager government. In fact, I could list many things that took much longer than necessary, went over budget, was "catch as catch can," and, I believe, could have been avoided with more accountability that a strong mayor system would give us.

I don't know downtownguy, It's hard to compare Oklahoma City and Tulsa. Tulsa has lost so much from the desertion by the oil industry and other vital industrial components of their local economy. Oklahoma City, on the other hand, while experiencing great things with Downtown/Bricktown and the MAPS projects still has much to do and is just a base closure away from disaster. I think I mentioned in my original post that Oklahoma City has a tendency to point to large projects and think along those lines while, in my opinion, the day-to-day management of our city is in the hands of a part-time committee (the City Council) and a bureaucrat (City Manager). It's not really about "problems" that, as you correctly stated, all cities experience; it's about where we go from here. That very sprawl you mentioned could be our great undoing. I point to Dallas as exhibit 'A'. Dallas is a city in trouble because all of the money has gone to Plano, Addison, Lewisville, Coppell, Frisco.....sound familiar? If I'm not mistaking, I believe even the former *mayor* of Oklahoma City now lives in ---- Edmond. And by the way, back to Dallas, many there blame many of their troubles on this very same issue of municipal government and lack of full-time administrative leadership at every level. In fact, sometime in May, Dallas will probably rectify that as they have a ballot proposition asking voters to approve a strong mayor form of government. It's desperately needed there and Oklahoma City has much to learn watching that.

It's worth saying again how much I agree with you concerning our County government. It has only taken twenty years to come full circle from corruption to sunshine to corruption once again. Certain developments there are rather disconcerting.

Btw, I have really enjoyed your blog and your focus on downtown. You've done a great job with it and I make it a must-read......and I only have a few.

[Patrick]

Yeah, I know. Perhaps the mods can switch over the city management related posts on this and the call center thread to your specific thread.

Hey floater, I'll go ahead and move these posts to the "Time To Dump Our Antiquated Municipal Government" thread.

[floater]

Thanks, Patrick!!

[Patrick]

Actually, I'm going to try to get this thread merged with the other one that xrayman started, but for some reason the "Merge Thread" moderator feature isn't working. Todd recently changed the coding of all of the threads over to html, so that's probably the problem. I'll check with him to try to get this corrected. Until then, I'll just leave this temporary thread here.

[Patrick]

Okay guys, I got everything merged. I tried to edit the posts (leaving the content) to help the posts fit in this thread better. Just remember, everything refers to the comparison of the two types of city government, but some of the posts refer more to Urban Renewal, since some of the posts came from that thread.

[windowphobe]

The Dallas example, I think, is misleading; the charter-change proposal in Big D is being pushed mostly by Mayor Miller, who envisions herself as Michael Bloomberg in a skirt, and whose major accomplishment so far has been presiding over a 50-percent decline in convention business.

And I'd argue that the strong-mayor concept is no guarantor of success: for every Rudy Giuliani out there, there's a Marion Barry.

Besides, we had "strong" mayors before. One of the more memorable ones was Jack Walton, who served from 1919 to 1923, and whose major distinction was packing city departments with cronies and protecting them with strategically-placed machine-gun nests downtown. (He quit three months before the end of his term to become governor.) Stuff like this is what prompted the change to a council-manager system in 1927.

[xrayman]

"Stuff like this is what prompted the change to a council-manager system in 1927."

And I would argue that it's better to know of the corruption and have the opportunity to kick them out. Instead, our current council-manager system has given us many an instance of corruption behind closed doors by unelected bureaucrats with no accountability.

Dallas....I disagree about Laura Miller. She has done her best in a situation very much like I described above. There is a certain segment of the business community that opposes the measure mainly because they think it would be fine with Laura Miller, but they are concerned when the ramifications down the road with Dallas' continued loss of White educated Republicans. I have to agree that there is a valid concern of the money flight, but action on a number of fronts needs to happen NOW and could bring about a Dallas resurgence. I expect the May election to be close. I also believe that Oklahoma City can avoid the stagnant inaction like Dallas City Hall, by doing what Dallas should have done twenty plus years ago - and that's dump the council-manager system.

"Michael Bloomberg in a skirt"!!! I had to laugh at that one - the visual is just too funny!

[Patrick]

I won't comment too much on this topic, because both sides have pretty much already been stated. I think this is an interesting topic to bring up though, and I appreciate xrayman for starting this thread. For some time now, I've actually wondered myself why we didn't switch to a mayor-commissioner type system. It seems to work for larger cities. In fact, it's often more effective for larger cities because the mayor has more control.

Just look at how large corporations are run. The board of directors typically hire a CEO whose in charge of the day to day operations of running the corporation. He/She's basically given complete authority.

Under our current form of city government, our mayor doesn't have much more power than a councilman, in my opinion. On voting matters, he's just 1 vote on the horseshoe. Comparing him to the federal government, I equate his power more with the speaker of the house than the president.

Under a mayor-commissioner form of government, the mayor would be given more authority to act on certain issues, without having to consult various committees and council members before he acts.

Now there are some problems with this form of government, as have already been suggested. With more power, can also come the possiblity for more corruption. At least with our current form of government, if we swear in a corrupt
mayor, the council can override him. Under the mayor-commissioner form of government the mayor has complete authority. The only chance to change directions comes at the next election.

Obviously, Mick Cornett is an honest man, and would probably benefit from a mayor-commisioner form of government, but that may not be true for every mayor.

I suppose you could look at the positives and negatives of both forms of government separately:

1. Mayor-Commissioner:

Positives: more power given to the mayor to make faster executive decisions.

Negatives: giving a lot of power to 1 person can be risky if that 1 person is corrupt

2. Mayor-Manager:

Positives: Accountability within the group....if one person is corrupt, the other votes can make up for it

Negatives: No one person can be held accountable on any issue, since issues are decided by the group. Also, it can take more time for bills to pass through a committee of several people.

Midtowner and mranderson, if you're out there, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this issue.

[floater]

I agree this is an issue worth studying. But we also have to be appreciative of the way things have been executed. OKC leadership shows a solidarity that is the envy of cities its size and larger. Granted, groupthink isn't a good thing, but so far the results of this unity have been positive.

[HOT ROD]

You guys are pathetic !! We have a great city government that works hard for its people. Our mayor is the best mayor that we have ever had, in my opinion. As one of our moderators has said, time and time again, our mayor does many things behind the scenes. He needs no lime light.

Granted, there are many more things that our mayor and city council "could" be accountable for, but that's the same for every city. Mr. HotRod, you live in Seattle, so why do you feel that you have to bash our great city? You don't live here, so you have no idea what is going on.

I really get tired of people bashing this great city we have and the great people that run it. I would rather live here than anywhere else in this country. Instead of bashing our great city, get out and do something productive, to make it a better place to live. Xrayman, have you ever contacted our mayor in person to discuss this, or is it easier to complain about it on this forum?

Im not bashing OKC, I grew up there, born and raised. I am simply stating an opinion about the government and the lack of progress in OKC. I am a firm believer in OKC, probably more than you! I have participated on these OKC forums since what 1996, back when the Daily Oklahoman had a MAPS forum.

I love OKC, in fact - Im the first one to "coin" the phrase - Oklahoma City, the Renaissance City and Continue the Renaissance. That is because I believe in OKC and want the city to prosper. Anyone ask me about OKC and I am the first to tout its positives AND I DONT MAKE ANY EXCUSES (UNLIKE MOST CITIZENS OF OKC WHEN ASKED ABOUT THE CITY).

To the contrary, I am not bashing but instead stating an opinion about the form of government there just as you stated yours about me and xrayman in your post. Yes, I dont live in OKC anymore - but there is a reason for that and it has little to do with my "alleged disgust" for the city and more to do with the complacent conservative political arena there and citizens that stand up for people who consistently let them down!

I can give you countless examples of what I am talking about; its not bashing - its opinion (and often times FACT). From what I remember, I was invited to this particular forum last year by Patrick with a PERSONAL email, so I think that gives me as much right to voice my opinion and concerns and citizens who reside in OKC such as yourself.

CONTINUE THE RENAISSANCE! of DOWNTOWN OKLAHOMA CITY!!!

[mranderson]

If I am elected to the City Council, will a Mayor-Commisioner form of Government give me more power? It does not matter, but I am curious.

Yes. At this point, the Mayor is a figure head. However, there is much more to the job than that. He recommends items, he is a spokesperson, he is a guide. He is more.

If we change the format, he will have a lot more power, and a lot more leveridge. He can work harder to get what we need. A larger Will Rogers, the domed stadium and the team to fill it, the NBA and NHL, more and higher paying jobs. This city is suffering from not only growing pains, but also from image pains and the lack of a council that will make a true effort to obtain high paying jobs.

Oklahoma City has 14 major call centers. I think that is more than any other city in the nation. Yes. A lot of people only have the skills to sit at a pod and take calls from, screeming, uncooperative people all day. Many are stuck in that rut because there are few, if any well paying jobs for them. They have the training, they have the skills, they have the intellegance, and they have the drive. The jobs are not there.

A mayor-Commisioner form of government could have broader authority to invstigate the area and do a better job of targeting the well paying jobs. Call centers generally pay just under double minimum wage. However, a person can not buy a house, a new car, feed a family, take a vacation, and save for retirement. Not everyone has had the gift bestowed upon them of a trust fund and a home inwhich to live after their parents are gone. Most have to bust their rumps until they are in their mid sixties and still live at or near poverty level. In a city with well over one million in the metro, it is a shame we only get jobs like call centers. Except for the medical field, America West, and retail, I have not heard about any companies even considering Oklahoma City for major operations. Something is obviously wrong. A Mayor-Commisioner government should have the clout to change that.

This does not say Mick Cornett is doing a bad job. He is doing a fabulous job with what he has to work with. He is one of the top five Mayors in the history of this city.

Yes. Change the charter. Pay our Mayor and council triple the salary they now earn. Hey. That way I could leave Dell and be a full time council member.

You are doing just fine Mayor Cornett. I just wish you had broader authority.

[windowphobe]

However bad we may think we have it here, Tulsa's got it worse. The mayor, faced with 5-4 votes against him (Tulsa has nine wards), picked one of the five for his staff (which pays a lot better), and a recall petition has been circulated against two others. The proponents, by and large, are sub-Gaylordian "what's good for me is good for Tulsa" types who would like nothing better than a more efficient Tulsa city government, by which they mean a Tulsa city government that gives them what they want without all that tedious discussion.

It's situations like that this that make me grateful for occasional gridlock.

[HOT ROD]

Tulsa's situation may be worse with a strong mayor-council system, but consider that tulsa IS smaller than OKC, and much more conservative. Many decisions up there have more to do with egos and power than they have to do with the overall good of the city.

And the interesting thing is that the residents of Tulsa keep voting those guys in. Imagine if OKC were that conservative, OKC would be smaller than Tulsa and would NEVER have the attractions it has.

Nonetheless how well our govt has been over the past 10 years, the time is now for a change. We have good leadership in the head office, but what about the trusts and committees?

Airport Trust? NOT. OKCURA? Maybe NOT.

It seems like we complain about the lack of forward thinking coming from these agencies but nobody listens. With a strong form of government, the leadership would have no choice but to listen!

while I agree that OKC has been "more or less" lucky with its leadership there is room for improvement when it comes to accountability and "influence or power" of our leaders. City govt of a city of 540,000 people should be more than ceremonial and part time, it should be their full time mission to "attract" tourists, jobs, residents, flights, new infrastructure, new hotels, retail, .... to Oklahoma City!

It's debatable at best as to how effective we doing under the current system. Take the Hogan issue for example, it has borne fruit but in a suburban sort of way that none of us are really happy with. Cordish was another developer who had a better plan for LoBrick but was turned down because Hogan was local.

Perhaps strong government (with better citizen accountability) might have divided the development between the two developers instead of giving it all to one man to get rich. Remember Tal, well he had some good ideas as well. So we could have given all three a chance, with parcels of land.

[xrayman]

This is the kind of discussion I was hoping for. I think it's important to say that what I am proposing is something that will make Oklahoma City better equipped to wage the battles of the FUTURE. It's not so much that things are bad now or that the past has not been particularly good to us. In many ways, there has been a good cooperative atmosphere that has produced some good things. Some of it has been too slow, too convoluted, too mired in the maze, but for the most part its been fine. It's the FUTURE we must think about.

There are many ways to change the city charter and come up with an effective new system of local government that could range from tweaking to wholesale change. We could choose the elective city commissioner route (with executive responsibilities and accountability) along with a "strong mayor." We could choose to maintain a largely deliberative legislative council and a "strong mayor." It's doesn't HAVE to be one or the other. Though, I would probably support big change that would bring about clearly lined boundaries of responsibility. Voters then know who to hold *electorally* accountable. I also think this brings about greater citizen participation as more voters know the names, know the personalities, know their particular views on how to deal with X, Y or Z.

A lot to think about. But I think this discussion is a good one to have. Oklahoma City has grown up and has gone from the hard teenage years to young adulthood - with nothing but dreams and challenges ahead. How best now to face them?

[downtownguy]

One bit of correction, hotrod: David Cordish never really made a proposal to develop Bricktown. It was Moshe Tal who made all the offers, and simply attached a letter and video by Cordish expressing an interest in participating. Until the very last minute, it was always Tal making the pitch. And again I ask, if you look at all the lawsuits filed by Moshe Tal, would you want to do a business deal with him?