http://www.okgazette.com/article/11-17-2010/While_the_Oklahoma_City_Council_talks_redistrictin g_south-side_citizens_ask_for_another_inner-city_ward.aspx

I can see a redraw but ward additions I don't consider likely. The same arguement could be made for the old City of Britton. Once you open the gates to every individual neighborhod wanting unique and individualized representation it can get out of hand.

South side is a lot bigger than Britton. Here's the deal: the districts are drawn to prevent a south side minority from getting on the horseshoe. Everything north of South 44th is represented by someone from the north side. South of there is represented by.... Brian Walters, or his proxy, or whatever.

It is worth noting that some people such as Meg Salyer and Sam Bowman are extremely minority-friendly and sympathetic to the issues in the inner city.

Bigger does NOT mean better or that they will be victorious. It is what it is. Your allegation about the drawing of districts is based upon what documentable/legitimate facts? Explain??? If as you say Salyer is sympathetic then the citizen complaining is less than credibile in your belief???

Bigger does NOT mean better or that they will be victorious. It is what it is. Your allegation about the drawing of districts is based upon what documentable/legitimate facts? Explain??? If as you say Salyer is sympathetic then the citizen complaining is less than credibile in your belief???

Good grief calm down skippy. I purposefully offered conflicting points about this. Both points are true. It is obvious that the wards I would draw, separating distinct regions of the city, are very different from the wards that have been drawn. What is reality also gives a lot less autonomy to the southside. Put 2 and 2 together man.

My personal opinion is that the current setup that really mixes cross-town areas together randomly allows for more progress to be made. Less divisions on the horseshoe.

Oh Okay.

Yours truly, discoursing on the matter four years ago:


If we're going to expand the Council, we will get closer to the desired results if we go for twelve seats rather than ten. I think Pete White knows this, but figures he stands a better chance of selling a ten-ward Council.

http://www.dustbury.com/archives/470

I hit Sam Bowman up with the idea shortly thereafter:


Bowman pointed out, as White had, that the existing arrangement was perhaps insufficiently diverse, and suggested that it might be possible to redraw the lines to produce something resembling a majority-Hispanic ward and take some of the sheer vastness out of Pete White’s Ward 4. There is, though, said Bowman, not much support for expanding the Council right now. If it’s going to happen, I suspect it will be in 2011, after the new Census figures come out and they have to redraw the boundaries anyway.

http://www.dustbury.com/archives/597

...or you could go "at large" like Austin and have no one serving any particular area but the whole city. Which lends itself to really only serving a few special interests.

I think if we have at-large elections, although that's what all the progressive election reformers like to see, that we would see every councilor reflect the average OKC resident. WASP

Is the mayor not considered an at-large council seat in OKC?

I think it is a good idea to redraw the wards and possibly add one or two, and maybe also one or two at-large. I hope it is redrawn to not only reflect the diversity of the city but also allow suburban representation and URBAN representation. The mayor is at large. Right now, we have suburb AND urban co-mingling, which can have benefits but also can have problems.

Luckily, from an urban prospective things have worked in spite of this. However, we've seen the rise of the suburbanites in Maps 3 who are starting to bark against the inner city getting the majority of MAPS. I think with better representation that IS representative of the inner city, it could at least make things more fair and allow the urban and suburbs to compete.

I think having 9 or 10 ward specific council members AND 1 or 2 at large plus the weak mayor would be a great way to divide up the incredible mass that is OKC's 'city' limits. This is how it is done in Seattle, a much smaller area than OKC, but the council members are representative of their area and the at-large members look out for the city. I think we need more than just the mayor at-large, so we could avoid what we saw with things like the LFL. Either that, or we should start de-annexing and keep it at 8 but redraw. .... One or the other in my opinion.

Is the mayor not considered an at-large council seat in OKC?
Yes, but having at-large councilors make it a different dynamic.

For people who haven't followed the city council.. I don't know how much more urban-minded you can get than councilors such as Sam Bowman, Meg Salyer, and Skip Kelly. Ironically Skip is probably the least progressive of the urban councilors. There just is not an urban councilor who is a southsider. Pete White is not urban, not to say he's backwards or anything though.

Any redraw would likely (a) protect incumbants who desire protection for self or heir apparent and (b) marginalize perceived disruptions to the existing power structure.
Yeah, I know it's a cynical viewpoint. Doesn't mean it's invalid.

Any redraw would likely (a) protect incumbants who desire protection for self or heir apparent and (b) marginalize perceived disruptions to the existing power structure.
Yeah, I know it's a cynical viewpoint. Doesn't mean it's invalid.

Additionally, voter turnout in the inner-southside is pathetic. It's actually unlikely that the councilor chosen would reflect the makeup of the community. Probably a WASPish Chamber of Commerce sort would be the selection. Add what Kevin said above to the fact that every other voter's say in the entire city would be further marginalized.

If the inner-southside cold possibly improve its voter turnout, I'd probably change my mind.

Additionally, voter turnout in the inner-southside is pathetic. It's actually unlikely that the councilor chosen would reflect the makeup of the community. Probably a WASPish Chamber of Commerce sort would be the selection. Add what Kevin said above to the fact that every other voter's say in the entire city would be further marginalized.

If the inner-southside cold possibly improve its voter turnout, I'd probably change my mind.

It doesn't improve itself all on its own without even having a chance to have a say for itself. Consider that the Capitol Hill area is literally split into 5 different wards. That is ridiculous, especially for an area that has one of the strongest self-conscious vibes.

It doesn't improve itself all on its own without even having a chance to have a say for itself. Consider that the Capitol Hill area is literally split into 5 different wards. That is ridiculous, especially for an area that has one of the strongest self-conscious vibes.

For being so self-conscious, they have the lowest voter turnout in the metro.

Turnout was pretty high on the southside for MAPS 3. Thankfully it wasn't any higher or the thing would have failed. I can tell you all those NO votes definitely weren't coming from Heritage Hills and Nichols Hills.

This was brought before council in the 1980s. I don't remember all the specifics of the discussion, but there was some concern regarding ethnicity. My memory is that there were two Supreme Court decisions on the matter that seemed contradictory. One of them suggested that the city would be obliged to create a predominantly Latino ward, and the other suggested that they could not create a predominantly Latino ward. Again, I'm pulling this from my memory from the mid-80s, so I may have the details wrong.

The proposal failed when Beverly Hodges, who was representing Ward 6 back then, changed her vote. And she frankly stated that she changed it when she realized that the new council member might be Latino.