Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 147

Thread: Possible lawsuit against city regarding alleged open meetings violations

  1. #51

    Default Re: Possible lawsuit against city regarding alleged open meetings violations

    Quote Originally Posted by Midtowner View Post
    I'd actually like to hear your answer to your own question. Not that any court is going to reform open meetings/records laws to allow legislative bodies any period of time to consider things before them, but do you really not think that a week to sit on any deal could never have an effect? Would it be a horror show if the Council rejected one of these deals?



    How are they not? How come Continental is able to worm its way into a BancFirst deal?
    the council is not voting on these deals uninformed


    worm their way in? buying the garage was thier idea to start with .. they didn't worm their way into anything

  2. #52

    Default Re: Possible lawsuit against city regarding alleged open meetings violations

    Quote Originally Posted by BoulderSooner View Post
    the council is not voting on these deals uninformed


    worm their way in? buying the garage was thier idea to start with .. they didn't worm their way into anything
    I'm curious also. Why are you against a week or two period for citizen input on multi million dollar expenses on their behalf? A majority of the city council is not necessarily representing a majority of the tax payers.

  3. #53

    Default Re: Possible lawsuit against city regarding alleged open meetings violations

    Quote Originally Posted by Jersey Boss View Post
    I'm curious also. Why are you against a week or two period for citizen input on multi million dollar expenses on their behalf? A majority of the city council is not necessarily representing a majority of the tax payers.
    i am not opposed to it necessarily

    but i don't think more time is always the answer .. we elected these 9 people to make these decisions over a billion dollars a year .

  4. #54
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    5,662
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Possible lawsuit against city regarding alleged open meetings violations

    Let's see....

    - Continental wants to assure its employees have a long term security of parking since their current city owned parking might go away. However, they can't or aren't willing to afford, what the city sees as a fair price to this huge parking structure and they don't need that much parking anyway.

    - Chase tower is in danger of further deteriorating and needs a motivated owner (hopefully with local connections) to invest in it and shore up an important structure in our downtown. They also believe long term security in a long term solution to their tennants' parking needs is beneficial. They too can't justify buying the totality of this size structure.

    - The alliance believes that by a cooperative buying of the garage the city can fortify the long term impact of these two businesses who are important to the city for business and real-estate purposes in a core part of our evolving downtown. By combining forces the two can pay a higher amount and help make a new facility possibile, further developing a key area in our downtown renaissaince. The Alliance coordinates all parties to make this happen.

    I can see why people think this is a nefarious role for the Alliance. I am sure they believe we should let what happened to the Skirven years ago, and what happened to 1st National years ago, to happen again and just let everything work itself out in a decade or two. Perfect.

  5. #55

    Default Re: Possible lawsuit against city regarding alleged open meetings violations

    Just FYI, the Alliance had nothing to do with Santa Fe Garage sale.

  6. #56
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    5,662
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Possible lawsuit against city regarding alleged open meetings violations

    I stand corrected. I see why everyone thinks the CITY administration is so crooked.

  7. #57

    Default Re: Possible lawsuit against city regarding alleged open meetings violations

    Quote Originally Posted by Midtowner View Post
    How are they not? How come Continental is able to worm its way into a BancFirst deal?
    There's the answer to your question BoulderSooner. Seems like a posh deal for good ole boy Mr. Hamm to me. ..

    Shall we bring more examples that you already know?

    Rover: some of us think the alliance/city MIGHT be have the opportunity or appearance of being crooked (Couch - cough cough) because they are not allowing enough time between a recommendation from the alliance, the publish of said recommendation for council vote, and the actual vote.

    Can this not be more clear?, would it not be so difficult to allow a week between the publish of council material and the actual vote? THIS would go a long way into letting the general public know what was discussed behind closed doors and recommended by the Alliance (or other parties) for the city to approve. In other words, having this transparency period would at least dis-spell any notion of corruption since the news could pick it up and the general public would have a week to contemplate and possibly arrange their schedules to voice an opinion "for" or "against".

    Remember the Oklahoma City Blvd? What if the city handled it like it does with development proposals, nobody was publicly notified of the alignment, cost, and schedule until the Friday before council votes to approve. Do you think the public would have been able to voice their concerns with the originally selected route D if they only had one business day to act? .....

    The way it is now, the deal is made behind closed doors and council swiftly approves it with only minimal disclosure. And with Continental sneaking in to somebody else's deal when the city wouldn't sell to him directly; how does that not seem shady to a normal person.

    -----------------
    BTW - special thanks to Pete and his orgs incredible reporting. NONE of us would be aware of anything without him and a few other media outlets that report the facts and not just what people tell them to. KUDOS!
    Oklahoma City, the RENAISSANCE CITY!

  8. #58

    Default Re: Possible lawsuit against city regarding alleged open meetings violations

    Quote Originally Posted by HOT ROD View Post
    There's the answer to your question BoulderSooner. Seems like a posh deal for good ole boy Mr. Hamm to me. ..

    Shall we bring more examples that you already know?

    Rover: some of us think the alliance/city MIGHT be have the opportunity or appearance of being crooked (Couch - cough cough) because they are not allowing enough time between a recommendation from the alliance, the publish of said recommendation for council vote, and the actual vote.

    Can this not be more clear?, would it not be so difficult to allow a week between the publish of council material and the actual vote? THIS would go a long way into letting the general public know what was discussed behind closed doors and recommended by the Alliance (or other parties) for the city to approve. In other words, having this transparency period would at least dis-spell any notion of corruption since the news could pick it up and the general public would have a week to contemplate and possibly arrange their schedules to voice an opinion "for" or "against".

    Remember the Oklahoma City Blvd? What if the city handled it like it does with development proposals, nobody was publicly notified of the alignment, cost, and schedule until the Friday before council votes to approve. Do you think the public would have been able to voice their concerns with the originally selected route D if they only had one business day to act? .....

    The way it is now, the deal is made behind closed doors and council swiftly approves it with only minimal disclosure. And with Continental sneaking in to somebody else's deal when the city wouldn't sell to him directly; how does that not seem shady to a normal person.

    -----------------
    BTW - special thanks to Pete and his orgs incredible reporting. NONE of us would be aware of anything without him and a few other media outlets that report the facts and not just what people tell them to. KUDOS!
    worm their way in??? sounds like bancfirst joined continental's deal not the other way around ..

  9. #59

    Default Re: Possible lawsuit against city regarding alleged open meetings violations

    Also, if Hamm is so concerned about his future parking needs; why not work with the city on future leasing. Clearly Santa Fe will still be there and I doubt the city would eliminate Cox Center parking without a plan for replacement.

    Why should the city be so compelled to sell the Santa Fe parking garage at a loss to Bank First in order for them to purchase and refurbish an adjacent skyscraper as their new home and likely gift the Santa Fe to Continental while the city sells/gives the Bricktown land to Karchmer who would only then build his two-year proposed garage IF the city agrees to build a connection to Santa Fe. ...

    How does this not all sound strange? And furthermore, how come such a complicated - highly variable development proposal(s) such as this only allow one day for the public to find out about it and possibly have a voice?

    How does this not sound like possibly corruption. .?
    Oklahoma City, the RENAISSANCE CITY!

  10. #60

    Default Re: Possible lawsuit against city regarding alleged open meetings violations

    Bank First is buying the skyscraper right? Under the condition of also buying the Santa Fe. right?

    Continental wants to JOIN Bank First (it was reported that way in the Oklahoman, btw) in ownership of the Santa Fe; something the city refused to sell to them at market rate. Oh, and there's more. The city also must sell the bricktown lands to Karchmer who will build his garage for Bank First, provided the city ALSO build a connection to the Santa Fe.

    Here's another thing, look how long it too all of us to unravel all of this. Much longer than the amount of time the city allowed public disclosure of the deal before they voted on it.


    It wouldn't be a 'bad deal' if 1) the city was not involved or didn't have to sell and spend such dollars to make it happen or 2) if the city is involved then they should be transparent after the deal was worked out to allow the public the time to consider any objection.

    Even the Federal Government has a transparency period where there's time between deals made behind closed doors and the actual vote. Why should council be any different particularly when they are much closer to the private sector.
    Oklahoma City, the RENAISSANCE CITY!

  11. #61

    Default Re: Possible lawsuit against city regarding alleged open meetings violations

    Quote Originally Posted by HOT ROD View Post
    Also, if Hamm is so concerned about his future parking needs; why not work with the city on future leasing. Clearly Santa Fe will still be there and I doubt the city would eliminate Cox Center parking without a plan for replacement.

    Why should the city be so compelled to sell the Santa Fe parking garage at a loss to Bank First in order for them to purchase and refurbish an adjacent skyscraper as their new home and likely gift the Santa Fe to Continental while the city sells/gives the Bricktown land to Karchmer who would only then build his two-year proposed garage IF the city agrees to build a connection to Santa Fe. ...

    How does this not all sound strange? And furthermore, how come such a complicated - highly variable development proposal(s) such as this only allow one day for the public to find out about it and possibly have a voice?

    How does this not sound like possibly corruption. .?
    the city is not selling sante fe at a loss and continential isn't getting a gift ... they are buying 57% of the sante fe ... this isn't that complicated or variable it was time sensitive because of Bancfirst ...

  12. #62

    Default Re: Possible lawsuit against city regarding alleged open meetings violations

    Quote Originally Posted by HOT ROD View Post
    Bank First is buying the skyscraper right? Under the condition of also buying the Santa Fe. right?

    Continental wants to JOIN Bank First (it was reported that way in the Oklahoman, btw) in ownership of the Santa Fe; something the city refused to sell to them at market rate. Oh, and there's more. The city also must sell the bricktown lands to Karchmer who will build his garage for Bank First, provided the city ALSO build a connection to the Santa Fe.

    Here's another thing, look how long it too all of us to unravel all of this. Much longer than the amount of time the city allowed public disclosure of the deal before they voted on it.


    It wouldn't be a 'bad deal' if 1) the city was not involved or didn't have to sell and spend such dollars to make it happen or 2) if the city is involved then they should be transparent after the deal was worked out to allow the public the time to consider any objection.

    Even the Federal Government has a transparency period where there's time between deals made behind closed doors and the actual vote. Why should council be any different particularly when they are much closer to the private sector.
    it took no time to "unravel this" continental wanted to buy sante Fe and offered 15 mil ..... now bancfirst will join contential and they will buy the garage together 57.??% Con 42.??% BancFirst

    bancfirst jointly with karchmer are also going to build a parking garage in bricktown ..

  13. #63

    Default Re: Possible lawsuit against city regarding alleged open meetings violations

    Bancfirst is getting the karchmer garage. Why is the Santa Fe being tied into it?

    Further, Continental originally proposed to purchase the Santa Fe LONG BEFORE Bancfirst proposed to buy the Cotter Tower. The city turned down that offer as it was under market value.

    Yet by tagging along with Bancfirst, now the sale will go through at the original proposal ($15K per spot) that was turned down. Seems like the condition for Bancfirst to buy the Cotter Tower, is for 1) the city to sell the Santa Fe to Continental, letting them tag along and 2) the city to sell the Bricktown land to Karchmer to build Bancfirst a garage, with the caviat that the city must also build a connection between the two garages.

    It's point 1 that is very peculiar in all of this. Appears the city is being forced to sell to Continental on Continental's terms or Bancfirst will walk away from buying the Cotter Tower.
    Oklahoma City, the RENAISSANCE CITY!

  14. #64

    Default Re: Possible lawsuit against city regarding alleged open meetings violations

    Quote Originally Posted by HOT ROD View Post
    Bancfirst is getting the karchmer garage. Why is the Santa Fe being tied into it?

    Further, Continental originally proposed to purchase the Santa Fe LONG BEFORE Bancfirst proposed to buy the Cotter Tower. The city turned down that offer as it was under market value.

    Yet by tagging along with Bancfirst, now the sale will go through at the original proposal ($15K per spot) that was turned down. Seems like the condition for Bancfirst to buy the Cotter Tower, is for 1) the city to sell the Santa Fe to Continental, letting them tag along and 2) the city to sell the Bricktown land to Karchmer to build Bancfirst a garage, with the caviat that the city must also build a connection between the two garages.

    It's point 1 that is very peculiar in all of this. Appears the city is being forced to sell to Continental on Continental's terms or Bancfirst will walk away from buying the Cotter Tower.
    Continental and bancfirst will own the sante fe garage ...... the city is selling the land to both karchmer and bancfirst ...

    the city is not being forced to do anything ..

  15. #65

    Default Re: Possible lawsuit against city regarding alleged open meetings violations

    if that's the case, then why couldn't those deals stand alone? Why the package?

    If you're thought were true then it would be

    1) Bancfirst buys Cotter Tower, no conditions. And renovates it.
    2) Bancfirst and Continental approach the city, offer to buy the Santa Fe garage. No conditions.
    3) Karchmer goes to the city, offers to buy the land to build his garage.

    and 4) why the HECK would Oklahoma City build a connection between two -NOW- private garages?

    This mutually exclusive approach you're suggesting above is not what's happening here.
    Oklahoma City, the RENAISSANCE CITY!

  16. #66

    Default Re: Possible lawsuit against city regarding alleged open meetings violations

    the city has been looking at an underground connection to a possible garage development on that brick town lot for a long long time .... that is not new ..

  17. #67
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    5,662
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Possible lawsuit against city regarding alleged open meetings violations

    Sounds like an open and shut case of conspiracy to cheat the citizens of the city. Cancel the sale.

  18. #68

    Default Re: Possible lawsuit against city regarding alleged open meetings violations

    Interesting discussion in this thread. I think the whole system, built to circumvent the law, is horrible.
    I have a real problem in this thread when a certain poster seems to be going to great lengths to carry water for the downtown elite, while running an important business in the core that relies on the support of the city. That kind of non-disclosure, to me, takes away all credibility of this poster on this issue, and many others that have to do with the downtown power structure. Just my opinion.

  19. #69

    Default Re: Possible lawsuit against city regarding alleged open meetings violations

    Many major urban cities don't have a good reputation for being open & transparent. As Blue Sky mentioned about the system built to circumvent the law, this is a practice the city should discontinue immediately; get on publication track to a more open & transparent agenda for council meetings. The sale of these garages aren't worth the damage it could destroy in public confidence.

  20. Default Re: Possible lawsuit against city regarding alleged open meetings violations

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Blue Sky View Post
    Interesting discussion in this thread. I think the whole system, built to circumvent the law, is horrible.
    I have a real problem in this thread when a certain poster seems to be going to great lengths to carry water for the downtown elite, while running an important business in the core that relies on the support of the city. That kind of non-disclosure, to me, takes away all credibility of this poster on this issue, and many others that have to do with the downtown power structure. Just my opinion.
    Oh, now we're doxxing? Hahahaha

    I assume you are talking about me. I have never, EVER concealed my identity on this board. In fact, if I recall the first time I came here was to clarify some misinformation about the business I manage. The reason I have stayed since is largely to correct misinformation when it crops up, providing I can offer insight on the topic.

    I rarely post about my job, because I am not here to promote. But I personally know dozens of people on this board - many who I consider friends - including people arguing each side of this issue. Unlike you, I don't need to try to personally discredit them to score points in my debate. Anyone else who posts here regularly probably knows who I am and what I do. That said, I am not at all shy about who I am and in fact I am happy to stand on my personal reputation as a professional and as a community volunteer.

    For anyone who DOESN'T know, my name is Chad Huntington. I am General Manager of Water Taxi on the Bricktown Canal, which contracts to the City of Oklahoma City Parks Department. I have managed this company since 2002. I am not the owner; I am an employee. So basically, I am like probably tens of thousands of people in OKC who work for companies who contract to the City. Accountants, dry cleaning companies, janitorial services, construction companies, engineering firms, car dealerships, printing companies...guess what? The City of OKC contracts to LOTS of companies.

    Though without question we serve the City of OKC and its taxpayers, we don't receive a dime in City funding. In fact, unlike most municipal contractors I am proud to say that we PAY RENT as a part of our agreement and actually TURN A PROFIT for the City. This is a rare thing indeed for someone contracting to a municipality. Over the past 19 years the City of OKC and its taxpayers have made a tremendous amount of money on this operation, both in contract fee and in sales tax.

    I have served multiple terms on the Bricktown Association Board of Directors and also on its Planning and Operations Committee, when active. Prior to being an employee for this company, I was Executive Director of the Automobile Alley Main Street Program, and then briefly served as the first Director of Marketing for what is now the Downtown Oklahoma City Partnership. Before serving as director of Automobile Alley I volunteered on their board of directors for a number of years immediately after the bombing (Automobile Alley was the commercial district most affected by the bombing), and served as their design chair.

    When I joined OKCTalk, I based my username on my social media handle, @UrbanizedOkie, which I use on Twitter and Instagram. Feel free to follow! On OKCTalk the "Okie" part seemed redundant, so I dropped it, but figured people would still be able to make the connection. You can view my LinkedIn profile here: https://www.linkedin.com/in/chadhuntington/.

    I office at 116 E Sheridan in Bricktown. You or anyone else on this board are welcome to call me up and meet me for a beer across the street at TapWerks or around the corner at Mickey Mantle's or at one of the dozens of other places I'm proud to patronize in this town, to discuss these very topics.

    Regarding "carrying water" for ANYBODY, I kindly invite you to pound sand. I am a grown-ass man. I don't carry water for anybody. Just like most people who hide behind screen names and take pot shots at people - making ad hominem attacks instead of debating the topic - it's pretty unlikely that you would join me for the beer I previously suggested, and even unlikelier still that you would use those words to my face. For the record I have had MANY beers with Pete and some of the others posting on the other side of this, and we've vigorously debated these very issues. Sometimes the conversations were heated, but they have always been friendly. Here's a tip: if you have to turn personal in a debate, you've lost the debate.

    Nearly everything I have shared on the topics we've been discussing here I have backed up by linking to state law, to independent definitions of municipal trusts and their purpose, to websites with open records, to agendas, to meetings minutes and the like. Other things I have mentioned here have been based on personal experience in a quarter century of volunteering or otherwise being involved; they certainly have nothing to do with being "elite" or owing anything whatsoever to "the elite," whoever that is.

    I DO, however, take issue with people who hide behind screen names and accuse others of unethical behavior without a single shred of evidence. Over 25 years I have worked with many, many public servants, volunteers, community leaders and others, and when people who I have seen sweat and bleed for our city are the victims of blind allegations by people who apparently flunked civics and/or can't do a simple Google search then yeah, I speak up.

    So there now. I've shown you mine, you show me yours. Who are you, Mr. Blue Sky, registered here in April 2018? What do you do for a living? What organizations have you volunteered with? Who pays you? Do you actually live in OKC? Do you pay taxes here? Where can I see your LinkedIn profile? Who are YOU friends with? Fair is fair...

  21. Default Re: Possible lawsuit against city regarding alleged open meetings violations

    By the way, I should probably just save a link to that post for the next time someone is losing an argument and wants to discredit me because of what I do for a living. Maybe I should start every post by saying "notice: I work for a downtown tourist attraction! Believe me at your own risk!" Or maybe I should just put my LinkedIn profile link in my signature...becoming literally the ONLY person on the board with that type of personal disclosure in every single post...

    Funny, nobody cares about what I do for a living when I am posting (as I often do) things that are CRITICAL of the City, about things such as transportation, land use, urban design issues, maintenance of street lights, accessibility issues, protection of historically significant structures, and on, and on. If I were going to try to hide my identity, THOSE are the times when I would feel like it might be a good idea.

  22. #72
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    5,662
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Possible lawsuit against city regarding alleged open meetings violations

    Quote Originally Posted by Rover View Post
    Sounds like an open and shut case of conspiracy to cheat the citizens of the city. Cancel the sale.
    BTW...I WAS being sarcastic. After reading this thread I was afraid some on here wouldn’t get it.

  23. #73

    Default Re: Possible lawsuit against city regarding alleged open meetings violations

    I never expected that kind of reaction! I wasn't doxxing as doxxing is actually giving the information that you gladly provided. Personal? Not really. When I see your posts and I see the constant cheerleading for the power structure, I call it carrying water. You don't. That's fine. I think it's very relevant to the conversation that you are a connected member of downtown leadership. Do you not see the relevance? Really? If not, and you insist it's personal, I'm sorry. I never expected to touch a nerve quite like that, Urbanized.

  24. Default Re: Possible lawsuit against city regarding alleged open meetings violations

    Really? You alleged that I was “carrying water” (completely insulting) and practicing “non-disclosure” (clearly not the case). You’re welcome to go through my TEN YEARS OF POSTING HISTORY (completely boring) and count the many dozens of times that I have discussed what I do for a living, but I PROMISE you that I’ve never hidden it. I’m surely one of the most transparent posters on the forum, other than a few people who post under their given name, though I don’t necessarily know what all of them do for a living.

    Does that suddenly restore my credibility in your eyes? Yeah, probably not, I suppose.

    You suggest that the fact that I am connected to the downtown business community “takes away all credibility... ...on this issue, and many others that have to do with the downtown power structure.” So...I lose all credibility because I have some experience with and knowledge of the topic? Because I work downtown? That’s some outstanding logic at play. Reminds me of the current national political climate.

    Personally when I know someone here has actual knowledge of or experience things being discussed - while it’s fair to consider as a factor their overall posting reputation, I for one actually see relevant knowledge as a POSITIVE..

    Do any other posters here get the benefit of the doubt? Should we ask for W-2s as part of poster registration? What does everyone else in this thread do for a living? Are you doing additional online sleuthing to find this out?

    You can try to walk it back all you want, but your post without question was presented as some type of “gotcha.” It was insulting, and based on the way it was written there’s no doubt in my mind that it was designed to use (false) information to discredit me. Truly amazed that you’re so surprised that I would take exception.

    So again, since I’ve been transparent (for the past decade, actually) and since (according to you) a poster here can’t be credible on a topic unless we fully know what they do for a living, let’s go ahead and get it all out there! Please feel free to give us your full name, what you do for a living, your LinkedIn profile, your connection to or experience with the topic at hand, etc. then we can all judge for ourselves whether we should listen to you or whether we should “take away all credibility” based on your identity.

    You don’t have to post your office address if you don’t want to. Just remember that I did.

    This B.S. thing we have today on the Internet where people can anonymously shoot off at the mouth without accountability, where people automatically assume that people who they simply disagree with on principle are by extension bad, or corrupt, or evil, or whatever, it has to stop. It’s ruining our country. Truly bummed to see it happening here.
    NOTICE: I WORK FOR A DOWNTOWN TOURIST ATTRACTION

  25. Default Re: Possible lawsuit against city regarding alleged open meetings violations

    I hope my new signature helps everyone decide in the future whether or not they should believe anything I post.
    NOTICE: I WORK FOR A DOWNTOWN TOURIST ATTRACTION

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Open meetings ruling could have big impact
    By Pete in forum General Civic Issues
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 01-02-2018, 02:26 PM
  2. How to Make Yourself Appear Smart in Meetings
    By NWOKCGuy in forum Current Events & Open Topic
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 07-11-2014, 02:10 PM
  3. Community Meetings
    By ljbab728 in forum General Civic Issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-15-2012, 11:54 PM
  4. Public Transit Meetings are Coming!
    By progressiveboy in forum General Civic Issues
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 04-08-2010, 03:03 PM
  5. Looking for Emergent Church Meetings
    By solitude in forum Current Events & Open Topic
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-31-2007, 02:47 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO