Good. So we will see where this leads.
Long needed. The word "corruption" is a rough word, but when it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
Let's just say it is fishy at the least.
Shadid claims that this has been happening for seven years, but only now raises an objection?
Exactly my thought. He's been fine with it going on until it may be something he personally objects. Makes ya wonder. . .
But I don't like how boards do this. Most state agency boards do this as well hours before their public meetings are held.
He's objected many, many times in city council meetings and to Jim Couch and the Municipal Counselor and has been considering this action for a long time.
I'm sure the timing has more to do with him just deciding not to run for re-election next April.
This really has little to do with the garage, it was just the most recent incident.
Shadid has indicated that there are many examples beside the garage and notes the $1.3 million allocation to the Boathouse Foundation from the General Fund on July 3rd as another example. Think about this example for a minute. The City Council meets with Couch right in the middle of several weeks of budget presentations which is in May of every year. Any and all sizeable changes to the general fund are discussed publicly (even the addition or subtraction of a single employee from a department). The Council decides with Couch in a private meeting that they will allocate the $1.3 million from the General Fund (meaning it is money which could be spent on almost any department in the city, including restoring cut positions, park amenities etc...) but doesn't mention it in the public budget presentations. Then, four weeks after the budget is voted on, Couch sticks the item on the consent docket on July 3rd (the day before a major holiday) with no accompanying presentation. If Shadid did not challenge it during the meeting there would have been no public discussion whatsoever. I personally think the City has a harder time with this budgetary gimmick in the courts. Go back to the meeting and listen to Couch's incoherent mumbling response to Shadid asking why this wasn't discussed during the budget presentations. Couch better do better than that in a deposition etc.. But he can't,, because there is no acceptable answer.
Interesting?
Interesting that this is on city of OKC letterhead. If Shadid is filing this in a personal capacity shouldn’t it not come from his city office?
the city letterhead is not the lawsuit, it is communication coming from city councilman Ed Shadid's office - which is appropriate use of letterhead.
that said, I am elated Shadid is taking this to litigation. Again, Im not against development but I am against these backroom, good-ole-boy deals Couch and Oconner keep running this city. The people need to know and have time to discuss development and particularly those involving city assets and/or funds. It is ludacrice to think a major city in this country could rush through a development request released to the public the friday before a council vote just 3-days (1-business day) later. ..
Oh, and this isn't the first time Shadid has spoken up against this process but apparently this one broke the camel's back and must have a bit of corruption involved for him to not otherwise ignore it "in the best interest for OKC's development/renaissance" as he's done in the past. ...
Cheers!
Oklahoma City, the RENAISSANCE CITY!
Will he name himself in this lawsuit? I am sure over 7 years he has attended at least one private meeting.
This is so confusing why he would pick this time to do it. Frankly outside of a few people on this board, no one really cares about this parking garage, and since the agreement protects the rail right of way, even fewer have a beef.
I think it’s good that Pete is bringing this topic to light, but this seems a strange time to go to war with the city. I’m sure there’s a different topic which the public actually cares about. It helps having the public on your side.
Maybe this can somehow include the State Fair Board?
I noticed Channel 4 covered it tonight. I believe they said that the private owners would only allow their employees to park there. I thought it was still going to be used for Skirvin and for events, etc. Did I mishear or Is 4 reporting it right?
I'm glad someone is challenging the propriety of the Alliance OKC organization. It is a non-profit created for the sole purpose of packaging deals using taxpayer funds in a manner which gets around open meetings/open records requirements. If the legislature had intended cities to be able to form friendly alliances using not-for-profit corps to work with the Chamber of Commerce to package deals for corporations, they would have crafted that exception. This whole business with the Santa Fe Garage just seems to be 'ol Harold Hamm throwing around his weight just because he can.
When it cost us $29K per space to build the arts district garage, how do we justify selling this structure at $15K per space? Especially when we could just as easily enter into a contract for parking and reallocate these spaces the way these companies want?
I'm sure you're aware then that fair market value is often vastly different from what a structure is worth after it is applied to the depreciation tables. Typically, once built, real estate increases in value, it doesn't decrease. That's at least true for most commercial and residential structures. Do parking garages depreciate to 1/2 the value of a new garage? Isn't the utility of a parking space in a garage built new for $29K per space vs. a space in a garage sold for $15K per space exactly the same, i.e., you can park a car in that space? Isn't the Santa Fe Garage more crucially positioned with regard to these properties than the arts district garage is positioned with regard to any properties it serves?
You’re saying structures increase in value over time? Correct. I promise you the city didn’t build the garage for $22 million however many years ago it was built.
To compare SF to the brand new arts garage is silly. For one it’s brand new, elevators are nicer, spaces are wider, etc. it’s used versus new. If a blank lot in your neighborhood gets a house built on it, your house isn’t worth what the new house is all of a sudden. You still have an old house they still have a new one. They function a little more independently.
Fair market value? The SF garage makes 2.25 million in revenue and sold for 22 million. That’s a 10X multiple, pretty standard.
I’m also glad these things are being challenged, but not for the same reasons as you are. If the City prevails in a challenge (which I believe would be the case) it would bring much-needed clarity to this issue and hopefully enlighten many as to the reasons for and benefit of the City’s actions and approach in such matters. Hopefully it would also put an end to the baseless intimations and outright allegations of wrongdoing, which is incredibly damaging. And let’s not beat around the bush here and say “nobody is alleging corruption,” because Shadid’s attorney clearly suggested in last night’s KFOR piece that it was a possibility.
Again, that’s reckless and potentially harmful speech with no evidence of this cited whatsoever. If you have evidence of wrongdoing, it should be turned over to law enforcement, otherwise you become an accessory. If not, those words should never even cross your lips. In a debate over PROCEDURE, no less.
Regarding the need for and purpose of the structure of The Alliance, I discussed this in the Cox Center thread.
I addressed the reasons why it makes sense in the Santa Fe Garage thread and separately in the Cox Center thread:
I’d expect the City/Alliance to prevail if a lawsuit were filed. If so, it will be in our best interests as citizens and taxpayers, as it preserves the City’s ability to be quick, responsive and competitive, and to not have all of its cards laid on the table in negotiations.
It will also have the added benefit of clarifying discussion on this board. Which, of course, would happen no matter who prevails.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks