Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeOKC
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!
|
A couple of things ... I've not yet updated my blog's postings in these regards but will do so shortly.
The Oklahoman's Coverage. Surprisingly (and pleasantly so) the past couple of days have seen what I think to be solid journalism at the
Oklahoman vis a vis reporter John Estus. A big improvement, and I'll give credit where credit is due. I'm still watching to see if his stuff was a aberrational blip ... or if he gets fired or throttled ... or if the
Oklahoman has elected to let its reporters actually report.
The closely-held process which led to the MAPS 3 proposal. Sure, there were times that public input was available, but not after spring 2009, contrary to my understanding of what the mayor said would occur. Either (a) I'm mistaken and he didn't commit to spring-summer citizen input, or (b) he changed his mind and didn't tell us.
The 2 recent press conferences. Today, I've spent a good bit of time comparing, side by side, the mayor's 11/12 press conference with the NotThisMaps press conference on 11/13, and I'll be making a new blot post about that shortly. I've not yet completed my thinking about either or both together, but my preliminary observations are:
Neither side is being particularly respectful of the other, and that's not a good thing. Isn't anyone willing to take the high road?
In my opinion, the worst culprit of the lot in this regard, city or anti-coalition press conferences, was Phil Sipe, president of the Firefighters union. In his comments yesterday, while he obviously had a sympathetic audience in the building that the Firefighters union occupies (where the press conference was held), he was full of cheap shots and misleading remarks in some of what he had to say. For example,
- He argued against "giving a blank check to a bunch of politicians." Like ... being a politician is a blemish on one's character ... like he's not being a politician, himself, right now ... like the mayor and city government, per the earlier Gazette/News9 poll, are not held in high esteem by the public, which the poll showed they were, remarkably so. Flash back to pre-1993-MAPS, and Sipe could easily have been voicing the identical rhetoric that he did yesterday. He looks good in his cowboy hat and he is good at speaking to and rallying those who agree with him already, but his presentation is clearly emotionally, and not intellectually based ... at least that's how he comes across to me.
- Like his remark about the purity of the unions ... they are not in it for themselves but because of their devotion to Oklahoma City. Right. While I don't doubt that they like their city, I do doubt that they became firefighters and/or policemen for the reason that they saw it as their life-roles to devote themselves in some feigned love affair with OKC to the city that they loved. Like most of the rest of us, they needed jobs and that (police/fire) was the job that gave them personal satisfaction. Kids dream of being cops or fire fighters, and that's all good. But it's wrong for Sipe to try and characterize police/firefighter motivation as being up on some sort of a grand pedestal, superior to the place of mere "politicians."
- Like his remark, about the offer presented by the city to the firefighters, that the union rejected the "30 pieces of silver," making like the city was Pontias Pilate and that the union was not about to be Judas.
- Like his remark that the city should be more focused on fixing pot-holes, as though the city's earlier bond election isn't presently involved in substantially repaving and improving our city's streets.
I'll have more to say shortly, and the city does not have unblemished hands, to be sure (like the mayor's much earlier mis-characterization of the union position as being not being about anything other than wages). One could expand the pro-MAPS 3 list of outrageous comments by going back to the 1st Chamber "Breaking Through" luncheon when, at the end, David Thompson offered his view that if MAPS 3 did not pass that the city would be set back 10 years. Sure thing, David -- the last 10 years progress suddenly vanishes on 12/8/2009 if MAPS 3 doesn't pass and we are transported back in time to 1999. The last 10 years of the city's development gets a fast flush and it never happened. What an idiotic thing for him to say.
There's plenty of hyperbole, and lack of respect for the others' viewpoint and position all the way around. Enemies are being made in this public process.
And that's sad.
One of the products of original MAPS, and then MAPS for Kids, what the convergence of citizen pride, trust in government, business willingness to invest, which occurred following the fruition of original MAPS & MAPS for Kids being profoundly realized. Today, with publicly thrown cheap shots all around, one wonders if that worthwhile alliance between government, business, and citizens that has led to so much good for the city might be in harms way.
Enough for now. I'm not done thinking, but I'm troubled for my city about how this deal is publicly progressing.