Last Tuesday ward 8 councilman Pat Ryan introduced a resolution for the City Council and Mayor to voluntarily take a 5% Pay cut. Because that was what they may ask the employees to do. I wonder why he didn't mention the city manager do the same thing? The city managers salary has gone from approx. $96,000.00 when hired 11 years ago to approx. $205,000.00 today. That would more than double the savings the council and mayor would give back.

If the council is considering imposing on city employees a 5% across the board cut, wouldn't that include the city manager at that time?

Maybe I'm just bleary eyed and noggin impaired but I'm not following your thought train on this one.

Are you kidding me...$205,000? How much does his Asst get?

This thread is based on bad information. According to archives, Couch started with a salary of about $130,000 when he was first named city manager. This job is akin to being CEO of a company with 4,500 employees. It is the norm, not the exception, to see Couch working nights and on weekends in addition to normal hours. And regardless of whether you like the decisions he makes, there's no arguing that it's a high-stress job. Further, we did an examination of city manager salaries several years ago and discovered they're pretty much in line with what you see elsewhere in the country.
I'm not going to argue whether Couch should be taking a pay cut - and I'm not at all sure he isn't. But I'll pipe up when I see outright bad information being posted on this site.
Context ... it's a wonderful thing.

I think people tend to forget who is actually running the city (for the most part) in a weak mayor form of government.

Steve, I am sorry that I got the starting salary wrong, that may have been what he was making at the water dept. Thank you for the correction. That is still a nice bunch of raises. Was I close on the current salary? Obviously with the rate of raises he is not on the same level as most employees. I doubt he will be subject to any cuts.

I don't know on the current salary, but it doesn't sound incorrect to me. As I said, I'm not weighing in on the debate over whether his salary should be cut with everybody else. But with all due respect, the way this thread was started left me feeling like some more accurate info and some context was needed. Your comments, in a way, mirror the same debate going on with corporate America, which is, needless to say, quite interesting.

My point was the manager wasn't mentioned or did he say anything during the discussion.

Mike, do you consider the city manager to be a city employee or not? lol

MikeMarsh and all - remember in OKC, we use a council-manager form of government which means we have a "weak" mayor and the city manager is generally the one who essentially runs the city. The city manager in a city like ours probably does earn more than city managers of other cities around the country of similar size because ours has more responsibility. The other thing to point out is that to be a city manager of this type, you generally will always have a masters degree. Its a very specialized position that demands more education than most any in city government.

When I think back to the 1980's when streets were crumbling and city government was ripe with the "good-ole-boy" network, when parks weren't getting mowed, when residents along streets with medians had to mow the medians because they were only getting done once a month and when downtown was empty, I am happy to have a highly paid and highly qualified city manager.

To all:
So then, by the reasoning of what I'm seeing here, the city manager's salary should be based upon similar sized cities and responsibilities? I think that's is a reasonable way to approach his salary.

My understandings is that is pretty much how it is done. If you go back and look at former city manager's and where they have gone, its either been where their pay was better or a bigger city. I think one or 2 have gone to Arlington, TX where the pay was better (might be mixing it up with heads of the OKC public schools).

If the council is considering imposing on city employees a 5% across the board cut, wouldn't that include the city manager at that time?

Maybe I'm just bleary eyed and noggin impaired but I'm not following your thought train on this one.Kevinpate, it is my understanding that the City Council will be (if not already) considering a 12% reduction in wages and benefits based on a recomendation from Couch. In the end that 12% number could change, it could go down, I hope it does.

Hopefully, the best case would be zero cuts for anyone. In the end should that (zero cuts) not happen, and cuts are made, those cuts should be applied to everyone equally. That would include Couch due to the fact he is an employee (for spartan), as well as his 3 (for possumfitter) assistants.

I applaud Councilman Ryan for his symbolic resolution that the Council take a 5% cut in pay. However, if the Council wants to show the employees their willingness to share the burden I would think the Council's cut would be the same as the final number, what ever that may be. Furthermore, the Council's cut should be mandatory, not voluntary, unless of course all employees have that same option.

I can't speak as to Mike's train of thought but as he pointed out in his last post, the Manager was not mentioned, nor did he step up and claim that his wages and benefits would be cut just like any other employees may be.

What was interesting, though not surprising, and by the way, very telling, was the opposition to the 5% number in writing and included in the resolution. Wonder why that troubled management?

My understandings is that is pretty much how it is done. If you go back and look at former city manager's and where they have gone, its either been where their pay was better or a bigger city. I think one or 2 have gone to Arlington, TX where the pay was better (might be mixing it up with heads of the OKC public schools). I believe your thinking about something different. Unless I'm wrong none of the last 4 went to be the C.M. in Arlington. There was, (1) Scott Johnson (?), (2) Terry Childress (private business), (3) Glen Deck (K.C.), (4) Don Bown (retired), (current) Jim Couch.

The City Manager deserves the pay he gets, no doubt. I agree that all city employees should be paid equally by comparison with what other like sized cities pay their employees. Can anyone tell me where our City employees fall in comparison to other cities liked size, maybe Austin or Kansas City perhaps? I do know that our City Manager has his salary based on a 10 City Average, so his salary is absolutely deserved in my opinion if it is within that average.

I believe your thinking about something different. Unless I'm wrong none of the last 4 went to be the C.M. in Arlington. There was, (1) Scott Johnson (?), (2) Terry Childress (private business), (3) Glen Deck (K.C.), (4) Don Bown (retired), (current) Jim Couch.

Thats fine. I may be thinking of the School Super

Andy got it right. I think Johnson ended up somewhere in California.

The City Manager deserves the pay he gets, no doubt. I agree that all city employees should be paid equally by comparison with what other like sized cities pay their employees. Can anyone tell me where our City employees fall in comparison to other cities liked size, maybe Austin or Kansas City perhaps? I do know that our City Manager has his salary based on a 10 City Average, so his salary is absolutely deserved in my opinion if it is within that average.

It's true that our City Manager's salary is based upon a 10 City average. If the City Managers pay is fair. If the City Manager deserves the pay he gets. If the City Managers pay is based upon the pay of other City Managers in a market made up from Cities of like size. Then why does the City Manager want to abolish that exact same method for determining the pay for the Firefighters and Police Officers of this City? That would seem to be a bit hypocritical.

Oooooooooooooooooooooooooo........ Andy, you sure about that? I'm getting out the popcorn. This ought to be good.

Personally, I think it's premature and a little on the ridiculous side to chastise Couch at this time, wait until the budget process concludes, read the fine print, and then complain if necessary.

...What was interesting, though not surprising, and by the way, very telling, was the opposition to the 5% number in writing and included in the resolution. Wonder why that troubled management?

As the Mayor put it, it was because at this point, they don't know how much the cuts will end up being. May be the oft mentioned 12% cut. May be more than 5%, may be less. That was countered with they could change the % amount as needed (also remember this is voluntary and non-binding).

Even with the reservations by some about putting a specific amount in, all present Council voted for it (except for "Skip" Kelly who was strongly opposed)

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Oklahoma City Council to review City Manager's performance, salary, | Journal Record, The (Oklahoma City) | Find Articles at BNET (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4182/is_20041221/ai_n10164116/)

Oklahoma City Council to review City Manager's performance, salary, and benefits (Journal Record, 12/21/04)


City Clerk Frances Kersey confirmed Couch's current pay rate is $156,000, with an annual allowance of $7,000 for personal expenses associated with the job.

Couch hasn't received a pay adjustment since 2001, which raised him from his starting pay of $133,500 to where he is now.

Of course, Steve's number was correct. Obviously an older article but recall the City manager getting a hefty raise last year or the year before (if I recall correctly, the raise was higher than the median Oklahoman's income). The $200,000+ figure seems correct from what I remember. Can't locate that article now or recent salary numbers for the City manager. If anyone has...

Couch has been our best City Manager ever! NO way would he want to do away with a system of pay justification for other city employees, that is identical to the way his compensation is calculated. That just wouldn't seem right! Please, someone, say it ain't so! As for the City Council's 5%, it seems funny to me that they are comparing a $400 a year pay cut from their "volunteer/elected public servant position" to someone elses much larger cut to their only source of income to provide food and shelter for their families. Really, this is like any other lawyer, business owner, etc... saying I will quit cut my golfing fund or Starbucks habit by a few dollars while they ask their employees to give up a house payment every month. I can't fall for the "we are doing our part to help" from the city council on this one! Their action is symbolic, I get it. But asking that single mom or struggling family to give up a substantial amount of their income for the sake of saving a few dollars from the contingency fund, special projects fund, rainy day fund, money in my friend's pocket fund, etc..... is not symbolic. It is life altering. If the economy doesn't turn around, if the $50 plus million dollars unincumbered is depleted, if we can't afford to finance a study for a fancy racing program, if we can't afford to hire MORE lawyers from city funds, then come to the employees and ask for help.

Oooooooooooooooooooooooooo........ Andy, you sure about that? I'm getting out the popcorn. This ought to be good.I'm positive. Eliminating the "Market Approach" for determining wage rates for Firefighters has been priority 1 for management at the bargaining table for the last 5 or 6 years. Management claims to have been given this directive by the Council. Of course the Council gave management that directive based upon the managements recomendation that they do so.

In fact the current fiasco surrounding the FY/09-10 negotiations/arbitration/court case/vote, stems entirely around the City's bad faith effort to strike the "Market" language from the contract. So here we are.

As the Mayor put it, it was because at this point, they don't know how much the cuts will end up being. May be the oft mentioned 12% cut. May be more than 5%, may be less. That was countered with they could change the % amount as needed (also remember this is voluntary and non-binding).

Even with the reservations by some about putting a specific amount in, all present Council voted for it (except for "Skip" Kelly who was strongly opposed)The Mayors suggestion to omit the 5% figure was nothing less than a cryptic message to Councilman Ryan, which was, we want 12% from the employees, don't box us into a corner with this 5% number. Ryan's zeal to keep his symbolic mission in tact caused him to miss the message. As workman45 stated, it will be interesting to see how this plays out.

The Mayors suggestion to omit the 5% figure was nothing less than a cryptic message to Councilman Ryan, which was, we want 12% from the employees, don't box us into a corner with this 5% number. Ryan's zeal to keep his symbolic mission in tact caused him to miss the message. As workman45 stated, it will be interesting to see how this plays out.

I watched it and didn't get that take on it at all. As I said, no one is boxed in with that number. Besides being symbolic and completely non-binding (gosh, where have we heard that before?), they can change it as the real numbers become clear.

I watched it and didn't get that take on it at all. As I said, no one is boxed in with that number. Besides being symbolic and completely non-binding (gosh, where have we heard that before?), they can change it as the real numbers become clear.You very well may be right, and I could very well be wrong. Your right they can change it if need be. However, I'm guessing if the 12% number changes, even if it goes down, will not fall to or below the 5% contained in the resolution. If I'm correct the Council will be forced to amend the resolution in order to save face which may re-ignite another round of infighting on the horseshoe. We'll have to wait to see.

You very well may be right, and I could very well be wrong. Your right they can change it if need be. However, I'm guessing if the 12% number changes, even if it goes down, will not fall to or below the 5% contained in the resolution. If I'm correct the Council will be forced to amend the resolution in order to save face which may re-ignite another round of infighting on the horseshoe. We'll have to wait to see.

Where did you get the 12% salary cut figure? My understanding was that each department had to submit a 12% budget cut plan, not a simple salary cut plan...

Where did you get the 12% salary cut figure? My understanding was that each department had to submit a 12% budget cut plan, not a simple salary cut plan...Your absolutly correct, each department was directed to submit a budget for FY/10-11 with a reduction of 12% from the previous year. You are also correct to say the 12% represents a overall reduction, and not a simple 12% cut in wages and benefits.

For me to insinuate the entire 12% would simply come from wages and benefits was incorrect, and a mistake on my part, please accept my apology.

However, as it pertains to the F.D. the Chief is to the point where he will be hard pressed to cut 1 or 2 percent, much less 12 without those cuts coming by way of Personal Expenditures.

The Firefighters whom I have heard from, rightly or wrongly, have been led to believe that there is no where to cut 12% from other than employee cost. So it really comes down to this, we cut "X" number of Firefighters, and wages stay staus quo, or we keep all of you, and cut your wages.

The first option puts the Council in an uneasy situation of supporting the elimination of 140 Firefighters (which IMO violates the intent of the 3/4 cent PSST), leaving them with the more favorable option 2, which is exactly what M&T was hired to do.

Having said all of that, the point you make whereas the 12% is not strictly in wages is valid, but unless there is a big upturn in the economy it will be alot closer to 12 than it will be to 5.

Scott Johnson went to Cincinnati. No idea if he is still there.

We have been thru this before...from the City's 03-04 budget report

City of Oklahoma City | Budget Perspective (http://www.okc.gov/budget/fy03_04/q_and_a.html)


How deep are the cuts?
The projected budget gap is $12 million. All General Fund departments had to cut budgets. Police and Fire were required to cut 2% of their budgets and the other General Fund departments had to propose budget cuts of 11% – the biggest reductions we've had in years.

How are we going to serve the public?
The best we can. Our budgets are always tight due to employee costs – even when revenues were growing 5% a year. But the level of cuts necessary next year will affect our core services – parks, animal control, street maintenance and public safety. All these services depend on workers.

Why do we have to cut jobs?
About 80% of the General Fund budget goes for employee-related costs. Direct annual costs such as pay and benefits alone account for 68%. Other expenses (ongoing retiree health insurance subsidies for example) increase employee General Fund expenditures to approximately 80%.

Cutting training and office supplies won't close a $12 million gap – we have to cut positions.

Your absolutly correct, each department was directed to submit a budget for FY/10-11 with a reduction of 12% from the previous year. You are also correct to say the 12% represents a overall reduction, and not a simple 12% cut in wages and benefits.

For me to insinuate the entire 12% would simply come from wages and benefits was incorrect, and a mistake on my part, please accept my apology.

However, as it pertains to the F.D. the Chief is to the point where he will be hard pressed to cut 1 or 2 percent, much less 12 without those cuts coming by way of Personal Expenditures.

The Firefighters whom I have heard from, rightly or wrongly, have been led to believe that there is no where to cut 12% from other than employee cost. So it really comes down to this, we cut "X" number of Firefighters, and wages stay staus quo, or we keep all of you, and cut your wages.

The first option puts the Council in an uneasy situation of supporting the elimination of 140 Firefighters (which IMO violates the intent of the 3/4 cent PSST), leaving them with the more favorable option 2, which is exactly what M&T was hired to do.

Having said all of that, the point you make whereas the 12% is not strictly in wages is valid, but unless there is a big upturn in the economy it will be alot closer to 12 than it will be to 5.

It's going to be an interesting next few months. I wonder what will happen when the departments that were able to submit 12% cuts without losing people, or only losing a few, have to reconcile with the larger departments that are down to cutting personnel only. Will all departments have to then take a pay cut, or only those that need the budget space?

The optimist in me sees the upticking sales tax collection (which is trending higher at a slightly faster rate than the Finance Dept. predicted), will be high enough for Council to not have to cut pay... but that's me, always the optimist.

As a retired OKC Management Employee, I keep in touch with several previous employees (Parks Dept.). I'm hearing that a pay reduction will not happen, but that positions will be cut (Parks has already cut 7 that were vacant) and employees may be required to pay a higher percentage for their health benefits.
During recent months, promises were made that no position cuts would be made to Police/Fire, if this does not hold out to be true, I'll be one of the first to attend a council meeting and let my voice (for what it's worth) be heard.

From www.City-Sentinel.com 4/5/10

"City Manager Jim Couch Concedes public safety faces pay cuts or layoffs."

Public safety is facing draconian budget cuts. So how does Jim Couch feel about public safety?

“I’m for public safety,” he states plainly. “But the fact is we have a $26 million shortfall for (fiscal) 2010-2011. We spend two thirds of our (city) budget on public safety. You can’t take all the cuts out of the other third.

The public safety sector is in dire straits, he conceded. And he knows of no magic wand the city has that it can wave to make it better.

There was some discussion before the MAPS 3 vote that the city might be able to help plug the hole with the use tax, which taxes people who buy equipment elsewhere and bring it into Oklahoma City and use it here.

However the use tax stands at about $9 million and $2 million of that is already committed elsewhere. The remaining $7 million is far too inadequate to help with the public safety shortfall.

What it will come down to is either is pay and benefit concessions or layoffs, he said. There’s simply no alternative to reach the overall 12 budget cuts the city faces.

“It isn’t brain surgery,” he stated. ”But it is going to be very hard.”

Fire and police representatives have made it clear Oklahoma City citizens’ safety and medical emergencies will suffer if their forces are cut. The police department’s labor union says its ranks are already 277 officers short.

Both departments would take cuts of around 250 personnel if the cuts were to come in the form of layoffs only, they have said.

While not saying so directly, Couch hinted that fire and police compensation cuts might not be quite as painful as their representatives would have the public believe. He said their total compensation is more than the general public realizes. The Tulsa police department recently took about a 5 percent pay cut according to media reports.

In fact, he said police and fire base pay is higher than recent surveys have indicated – in the mid $70s, although he conceded that does include overtime. Firefighters work 24-shifts, automatically kicking in overtime, for example, he said.

When informed that Fraternal Order of Police President Gil Hensley said his members would probably rather seek junior officers laid off rather than take pay or benefit cuts, Couch said, “I’m sorry to hear that.”

Oklahoma City public safety personnel are paid very well compared with regional cities, and even those which are bigger.

Couch said Oklahoma City has a very fine public safety force and is proud of the work they do for the city.

The city’s proposed budget will be presented to the council, and pending its approval, implemented in May.


Seems like I did see TV commercials saying if you pass Maps3 it will put more Police and Firefighters on the street. I'm just saying.......

Well I can tell you one thing, there would be even more being laid off if MAPS 3 didn't pass.

Well I can tell you one thing, there would be even more being laid off if MAPS 3 didn't pass.

How do you come to that conclusion?

Metro, I don't remember any TV commercials about your statement.

Someone refresh my memory, Wasnt the police/fire argument that the MAPS3 was a matter of bad timing and not a bad idea? The city shortfall was present long before Maps was mentioned and they felt something should be done about the shortfall first before putting money elsewhere?

Or was it they were just being bullies and wanting a raise? I'm not sure which one of those I heard more of. Wait...yes I do.

How do you come to that conclusion?

Well for one there would no longer be any use tax to collect, two you would have had lots of young professionals moving out of state if the city didn't cast a vision going forward. A "No" vote on MAPS would have been that the citizens no longer believed in the City's future, thus more tax revenue headed out of state. I know people that are more dedicated like myself probably wouldn't have been as conscious as much about spending my disposable income in OKC proper and not Edmond, Moore and other suburbs, so again even more tax revenue to the suburbs and less to OKC proper. I know many people who make an effort to buy in OKC to get the MAPS coffers up instead of suburbs.

Someone refresh my memory, Wasnt the police/fire argument that the MAPS3 was a matter of bad timing and not a bad idea? The city shortfall was present long before Maps was mentioned and they felt something should be done about the shortfall first before putting money elsewhere?

Or was it they were just being bullies and wanting a raise? I'm not sure which one of those I heard more of. Wait...yes I do.

No, they were mad because no money was allocated for police/fire in it. Doesn't make sense to in the first place since it is a temporary tax dedicated to public works projects, not temporary staffing.

Someone refresh my memory, Wasnt the police/fire argument that the MAPS3 was a matter of bad timing and not a bad idea? The city shortfall was present long before Maps was mentioned and they felt something should be done about the shortfall first before putting money elsewhere?

Or was it they were just being bullies and wanting a raise? I'm not sure which one of those I heard more of. Wait...yes I do.

Your memory is correct. Although there are those who would have you believe otherwise, since that isn't the version the mayor, the council, the chamber of commerce or the local media put out.

As Mike pointed out above, the good thing is it's recorded forever on youtube. "MAPS will mean more policemen and firefighters for our city." LOL

No, they were mad because no money was allocated for police/fire in it. Doesn't make sense to in the first place since it is a temporary tax dedicated to public works projects, not temporary staffing.

I've gone thru every single post I can find on this forum, every article and blog I could find about MAPS3 during the time it was being debated and I can't find a single sentence that supports what you just posted.

Everyone can spin it how they want to. We as a group of Firefighters saw that is was bad timing. Simple, that's it bad timing. The nation as a whole was/is suffering. It did not feel like the right thing to do.

Metro, your point is absurd! If we as a citizenry had wait 2 years it would not have undone anything. Still we would have had all of the previous projects, still would have Thunder Basketball, still would have had the Redhawks, still would have all the things we enjoy. Wow, wouldnt it have made us look really smart if our council had listened to our budget director who claims he has been informing the council for at least 2 years that tough time were coming.

How in the world are we going to build the 3 new stations the citizens voted for in 2007 if we lay off 100 some odd people?

So now you firefighters are experts on public policy and political campaigns? The vote passed hands down so obviously not enough share your concerns.

So you got all of that out of the us using some common sense and being able to see the handwriting on the wall that the the budget director could have been on to something.

I would say we did pretty good in that campain, raising issues that directly impact us. We spent $120,000.00 vs. the $3,000,000.00 the other side spent.

You know we predicted this problem, that is why Mayor Cornett started the talk about how Maps3 was going to increase public safety.

So now you firefighters are experts on public policy and political campaigns? The vote passed hands down so obviously not enough share your concerns.

I dont think it passed by a landslide...if that is what you are inferring.
It smelled a little health care reformish to me.

So you got all of that out of the us using some common sense and being able to see the handwriting on the wall that the the budget director could have been on to something.

I would say we did pretty good in that campain, raising issues that directly impact us. We spent $120,000.00 vs. the $3,000,000.00 the other side spent.

You know we predicted this problem, that is why Mayor Cornett started the talk about how Maps3 was going to increase public safety.

You predicted nothing. The election had to be held so the tax would be seamless. Don't start imagining that the fire union was trying to warn the public about this "impending" budget crisis. Tax receipts had been going down for nearly two years, so it's not like you guys were clarvoyant.

You didn't become concerned with MAPS 3 until you and your hero buddies were denied your one percent raise.

You predicted nothing. The election had to be held so the tax would be seamless. Don't start imagining that the fire union was trying to warn the public about this "impending" budget crisis. Tax receipts had been going down for nearly two years, so it's not like you guys were clarvoyant.

You didn't become concerned with MAPS 3 until you and your hero buddies were denied your one percent raise.LG who was denied a 1% raise?

You didn't become concerned with MAPS 3 until you and your hero buddies were denied your one percent raise.

That, LG, was one of the biggest loads of BS put out during the campaign. But hey, you stick with what you know or think you know.

Well for one there would no longer be any use tax to collect, two you would have had lots of young professionals moving out of state if the city didn't cast a vision going forward. A "No" vote on MAPS would have been that the citizens no longer believed in the City's future, thus more tax revenue headed out of state. I know people that are more dedicated like myself probably wouldn't have been as conscious as much about spending my disposable income in OKC proper and not Edmond, Moore and other suburbs, so again even more tax revenue to the suburbs and less to OKC proper. I know many people who make an effort to buy in OKC to get the MAPS coffers up instead of suburbs.Let me see if I've got this straight. Being that your such a dedicated citizen, you will make an effort to spend your money in OKC as long as you get your way. I'll bet as a kid you picked up lots of marbles.

Lordgerald, you are funny. Actually we were awarded a 1.4% raise. You can look it up on OSCN.net. You can read the cities ridiculous arguments as to how it is the Firefighters fault about why they bargained in bad faith. Remember they voted to spend an additional $90,000.00 dollars to fight us for that 1.4% and that is obviously a good use of tax money! Remember we have tried to give that raise back.

LordGerald, you are correct. We did not predict it. The city budget director did.

Now to the raise that you are so excited about.

The firefighters have tried to at least 3 times give back. We understand the economy is bad and dont want the raise. So get over that

But there is this pesky little thing about an unfair labor practice. Bear with me I will type slow so you can keep up. At this point the city will not agree to anything until we remove any reference to them being found guilty of an unfair labor practice. They broke the rules and cant own up to it. So tell me who is holding up the process. It is your unfallible city that's who!

Let me see if I've got this straight. Being that your such a dedicated citizen, you will make an effort to spend your money in OKC as long as you get your way. I'll bet as a kid you picked up lots of marbles.

It's a little more complicated than that. OKC is at a make or break point with young professionals. If OKC had not passed MAPS 3, you would have seen many move away, probably including myself if I could convince the wife to move away from family. As many have complained in numerous threads on this site, it's bad enough knowingly waiting and trying to be a part of the process of OKC taking a few more decades before we reach major league amenities versus moving away if the yahoos can't cast a good enough vision and plan for the future and moving to a location who is decades ahead of OKC and live with the quality of life that so many want. Many young, single professionals simply would not have wanted to waste their lives hoping that a MAPS 3 would come again some day.

Metro, you have got to be kidding. That is a presumptous load of crap! You are saying that if the whole city voted against further improvements the yuppies would be gone. You do realize that all of the Maps have done nothing for anywhere but downtown save for the schools. I seem to see alot of growth all over the city. Maybe you do need to go, because this city is alot more than just the downtown area.

You never responded to what I said about all the growth we have seen so far!

HEHEHEHE.....all I can say as i sit back and watch from my front porch is "I told you so".....We've all known that the economy has been in a downturn. The Mayor said that a vote for MAPS 3 would actually enable more police and firefighters to be hired. Come on Steve.....where you at? Journalistic reporting at it's finest. Get in there tiger. Did they Mayor lie? Did they council just let the mayor hang himself? How will Couch justify laying off police and fire? MAPS 3 was going to be the shot in the economic arm that saves us all.....BS... I got to say it once again.....I told you so........sorry, I'm done gloating now.

[QUOTE=Mikemarsh51;314650]You do realize that all of the Maps have done nothing for anywhere but downtown save for the schools. I seem to see alot of growth all over the city.
[QUOTE]

Mike, I'm not really sure what your point is here. This seems to be a contradictory statement.

ljbab728, that was directed towards metro, who was saying if Maps3 had failed there was going to be a mass yuppie exodus from OKC. My point was there is more to OKC than just Maps related items. All of which I had vigorusly supported. You should read more of these threads.

The public safety unions lost my support when it became apparent during the Maps 3 election that their opposition was nothing more then a bargaining tactic.

Or is the following letter somehow a fake?
http://www.yesformaps.com/MAPSFacts09/images/FOP%20Response%20%20Counter%20to%20City%2011%2010% 2009%20small.jpg

Metro, you have got to be kidding. That is a presumptous load of crap! You are saying that if the whole city voted against further improvements the yuppies would be gone. You do realize that all of the Maps have done nothing for anywhere but downtown save for the schools. I seem to see alot of growth all over the city. Maybe you do need to go, because this city is alot more than just the downtown area.

You never responded to what I said about all the growth we have seen so far!

You can lead a horse to water but................. I'm glad guys like you that can't see it aren't leading this city.