Quote:
Originally Posted by ronronnie1
I haven't seen these fliers, but their case is WEAK.
And when they speak of "rail yards," are they just talking about the old railroad tracks? Oh yeah, there's something important to save. The Union Station building isn't being threatened is it? I could understand objections to demolishing the building, but not so much the tracks. Makes no sense.
|
Actually, the yards are worth huge bucks if we were ever to develop a true light rail system. Search the forum and you'll find many threads on this issue, good points pro and con.
I don't like how
either side has opposed/promoted MAPS 3. I agree with Doug about the obvious conflict of interest in the publisher of
The Oklahoman leading the campaign in a public role for MAPS 3. That's just plain WRONG and obviously so. That same newspaper has been horrible about coverage of something this big. It's all part of the plan. Build it up and you get a bigger vote turnout which they
do not want.
I am going to vote 'Yes' but am disappointed to see such arrogance and secrecy on the part of our city leaders. This is like the 'good old days', and that's not good. I feel, (like many), put in a position of supporting principles of good government or a stalling of the progress. I resent that greatly, but will vote YES.
Am I being played like a fiddle? Yes, I am. All of us are. But we aren't in a position to make demands at this late date as to transparency. Like I said, I really resent the position I am placed in.
With reservations, but I'm voting YES!