Looks like the mayoral race has another candidate! This should really be interesting!












Councilman Ed Shadid plans 2014 race for Oklahoma City mayor | News OK (http://newsok.com/councilman-ed-shadid-plans-2014-race-for-oklahoma-city-mayor/article/3775380)

Good luck...

I will only vote for a mayor who strongly supports existing MAPS projects and is open to the prospect of a MAPS IV.

He will be destroyed. Once it gets out that he feels MAPS money can be spent wherever with no regard for the voter's decision, he won't have a chance.

Should Cornett run, this may be the only time in my life I will actively campaign for a Republican.

I will only vote for a mayor who strongly supports existing MAPS projects and is open to the prospect of a MAPS IV.

Why? Doesn't he support MAPS or something?

He will be destroyed. Once it gets out that he feels MAPS money can be spent wherever with no regard for the voter's decision, he won't have a chance.

Should Cornett run, this may be the only time in my life I will actively campaign for a Republican.

At one time, Ed would have had my enthusiastic vote. But after turning against MAPS in general and the streetcar in particular, he will not have my support. I know many other folks who are in the same camp. Can't imagine someone who opposes MAPS, which is almost singularly responsible for OKC's turnaround, getting the votes of rational OKC citizens.

Why? Doesn't he support MAPS or something?

No, he does not, and he didn't even bother to vote in the MAPS elections.

Based on the content of the news article, it looks like someone leaked an internal memo to the press. Not really the way to kick-off a mayoral campaign.

I wouldn't underestimate Ed Shadid.

Will not be receiving my vote!

I'm surprised so many here have turned so quickly on the best friend the citizens in the neighborhoods, as opposed to the suites, have had in years. Maybe ever. I would hope people here would give Shadid a fair hearing, like he does for us. When was the last time Mick Cornett held a townhall meeting on multiple issues to get your feedback? He's too busy going on TV and working for the insiders that want to control OKC. Ed Shadid wants to move this city forward as much as all of us here on this board, he just wants to do it the right way and not by being irresponsible. Some here want the sizzle without having to worry about how the steak gets grilled.

He posted the story about the new CC & hotel on his Facebook page and I said on it that he 'just wants the land for bus storage', which he liked. I wasn't joking because he's anti-streetcar, which is the reason I voted for MAPS3. Not a fan of Ed anymore...

I am sure Mr. Shadid wants what he thinks is best for this city, its just his focus sounds like its the suburbs rather than downtown. I can definitely understand that viewpoint. OKC has many suburban areas that are deteriorating and feel neglected. However, there is so much momentum downtown and in the inner-core why not stay the current course? It also seems he is against city-funding towards any recreational amenities. He wanted to eliminate the Zoo funding a while back.

What he needs to understand its these amenities that make OKC an attractive place to live and work and without them this city could easily fall back to what it was 15-20 years ago. We need a mayor that wants to take this city forward, not backwards. I hope Cornett runs again.

A flower blooms from the inside...

Tulsa, here we come...

OKC's transformation from dead-city to thriving-city occurred largely due to the Council’s political ubiquity. Dr. Shadid is an intelligent and adroit man, but the contention he fosters will surely stunt the transformation.

Electing a Mayor Shadid would signal the beginning of the end of OKC’s golden era.

Won't get my vote. Hope Cornett runs again.

Interesting. I'll give him a fair shake... but he'll have to prove to me that his "dissension stance" has been genuine and not just an attempt to do something that is inherently difficult... as in taking over the captaincy of a ship that has recently been steered away from an iceberg... under the direction of said ship's present captain. Exaggeration? Yes... but the general NATIONAL opinion is that things are going well. Not exactly time for a change.

I don't know. I really want to like Ed. Unfortunately, he seems to feel that he is smarter than his peers on the council in every way(he very well may be)... and has allowed that to feed his opinion of his own opinion. I'm cool with that. Hubris is useful, but he seems to have maybe allowed that to extend too far and it seems to color his listening skills and "mind changing ability" at too broad a radius. He talks too much... too confidently... too finitely... too often... too fast. Once a grown man voices his opinion publicly it's very hard for that same man to change his mind publicly... especially when the change would have been brought about by the voice of another man/woman.

We will see. I generally love my Batman being a vigilante. Bruce Wayne being my mayor? Meh... not so much. I completely dig intelligent leadership... but not leadership that insists upon itself. We'll see. I'll hear him out. IF he'll let me inside of his echo chamber to listen. (i kid)... he'll let me in. Lol! Every politician has to balance doing what THEY want to do against executing the will of those who elected them. How he continues to handle the streetcar issue will speak to whether or not he understands the nuance that being an elected leader demands. It's not the same as steering a private company. (To exhaust the previous metaphor) If he does assume captaincy of said ship... I want to know that if the consensus says/already said let's go dock in Streetcarville... I don't want him saying, "No, no, no... you all don't know what you want. Let's just drop anchor here and spiffy up the ship. We'll go to Streetcarville later on". Him being right or wrong would not be relevant in that case. Batman should think long and hard about running for mayor. The Office of the Mayor has rules. I want my mayor solely focused on fighting to take OKC forward. Not fighting to take OKC forward AND fighting the constraints of the mayorship. Just my current opinion. I'll allow him an undefended chance to augment my opinion. I expect him to behave the same way in his public service positions.

Ed said he'll spend up to 1.5 million of his own money on his campaign. I read this in todays DOK.

Is it worth 1.5 mil to be the mayor ? What is the motive here ?

Nope, the questioning of the dedicated, voted for by the people zoo tax did him in with me.

Ed said he'll spend up to 1.5 million of his own money on his campaign. I read this in todays DOK.

Is it worth 1.5 mil to be the mayor ? What is the motive here ?

Nope, the questioning of the dedicated, voted for by the people zoo tax did him in with me.

What exactly was the deal with Shadid and the zoo? How did that end up?

Will not be receiving my vote!

Nor mine!

What exactly was the deal with Shadid and the zoo? How did that end up?

That zoo tax (1/8 cent dedicated) was voted in for exclusive zoo upgrades and maintenance back in the '80's. Never to expire -

He wanted to 'look' at doing away with or moving it to different receipients, IIRC. You can probably research for more details.

Ed just posted this on Facebook:


Yesterday afternoon while seeing patients I received a call from the Oklahoman newspaper indicating they had acquired a memo to consulting firms that morning and that they were going to publish the details on the internet in a couple of hours. It is no secret that I have been approached and have explored the possibility of trying to unite the people of OKC across the spectrum, rescue the MAPS program from a fatally flawed process, introduce honesty, transparency and public collaboration on an unprecedented scale, and add value to the city. Hundreds of people have indicated a desire to help on such a campaign. Such due diligence is not the same as filing and there are many moving parts not the least of which is substantial financial sacrifice and no declared candidates including the current mayor. If such an effort were to occur the contract between the people of OKC and myself would be unbreakable and sacred to me; the full narrative of that vision deserves additional reflection.

Ed just posted this on Facebook:

"rescue the MAPS program from a fatally flawed process" that is enough for me right there .... fatally flawed means dead ...


can/could/should the Maps process be improved? sure things can always be improved but to take it that far ..... no he will note get my vote and i will actively help anyone that runs against him

Ed just posted this on Facebook:


That's a good start. The question isn't about his honesty or ability. I believe him to be both able and truthful. The issue is concerning where his utility has the greatest impact for progress. A simple question can be asked. If he were mayor would the entire council unite against him? If the answer is yes what does that mean for OKC? He answers his own questions. Admirable. Will he always answer his own questions as mayor? Some long and winding roads lead to small houses. I just hope that him believing himself to be a "better" choice doesn't cause him to feel indemnified in fulfilling his calling by any means necessary. 1.5 million bucks can buy a load of divisive and negative ads in a local campaign. What would that mean for OKC?

For the record. I'm politically independent. I'm affiliated with no political entity. I'm a musician. I just wanna see OKC improve. I like Ed. I just want him to correctly identify his most effective station. He shouldn't travel a path just because he's smart enough to see it.

Gino Guest

"rescue the MAPS program from a fatally flawed process" that is enough for me right there .... fatally flawed means dead ...


can/could/should the Maps process be improved? sure things can always be improved but to take it that far ..... no he will note get my vote and i will actively help anyone that runs against him


I concur.

Although I don't doubt he has good intentions, his election would be a disaster for OKC's momentum.

I'll wait and see what he says. He seems like an honest and capable person. He has certainly impressed me over the last year or so. I've missed his latest comments, but people here seem to think he's had a Charlie Sheen moment, just going off the rails. There's no question in my mind that the MAPS program has benefitted this city far beyond the money we have spent. If he wants to end that I won't be able to support him. This city needs continued capital improvements over the next 50 years to catch up to where we should be.

Shadid is right to challenge the process and decision-making around some of the current MAPS programs. I'm glad he's asking some tough questions and demanding answers.

I'm just afraid he's alienated too many people.

I learned a long time ago it's not always about being right... It's about getting others to see your point of view and building consensus, otherwise you become a lone voice further and further removed from any real ability to affect change.

Shadid is right to challenge the process and decision-making around some of the current MAPS programs. I'm glad he's asking some tough questions and demanding answers.

I'm just afraid he's alienated too many people.

I learned a long time ago it's not always about being right... It's about getting others to see your point of view and building consensus, otherwise you become a lone voice further and further removed from any real ability to affect change.

Exactly. He can and does affect change presently. I usually agree with his positions. The thing is... thus far he has allowed and helped himself to be mostly a voice of dissent. Great. But how do you build a platform around that without being destructive? You don't. You end up having catch phrases like "fatally flawed process" be a natural part of your speech. You use words like "rescue". Good dude. Good leader. Well able. Well positioned? Not where he's currently choosing to stand. Fine line between being independent and being a party of one.

Two important things that politicians need to understand: you represent the electorate. If you express your platform prior to your election and the majority elects you, then as you move forward you can press for your agenda. You have not been given a mandate to disavow things that occurred prior to your election.

Secondly, people remember and can find earlier positions. Don't say things publicly and then hope no one will remember.

And I will add a third piece of advice. City government is not an operating room, where everyone defers to the surgeon and carries out his/her orders. A surgeon is a dictator in the operating room. That is a very unique microcosm and should never be extrapolated to other aspects of life/politics.

Well spoken Betts!

There have been suggestions made in this thread that Shadid was against thededicated Zoo tax. While I didn't read the whole thread again on it, that wasn't my remembrance. This post by Hutch over in that thread (that has been bumped up)...
http://www.okctalk.com/general-civic-issues/30797-shadid-wants-eliminate-zoo-funding.html#post552271

I watched the discussion on City Council. From my perspective, it seemed like Ed was simply trying to make the point that there's a permanent dedicated funding source for the Zoo, so why can't we have one for transit. It was a good point to make. I don't think he was seriously suggesting eliminating the Zoo's funding to pay for it. He knows it will take a lot more than that to fund an effective regional transit system. ...

There have also posts suggesting that Shadid doesn't support MAPS. That isn't true. Shadid DOES support MAPS (or at least has expressed public support for it)

From Dougs blog:
http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2011/03/ward-2-why-im-for-shadid.html

Exemplary Shadid Public Statements
MAPS3 is a bond with the voters. It must be implemented in its entirety with transparency and with the maximum public deliberation. Mr. Swinton risks the legitimacy of future referendums by essentially eliminating the rail component. We do not get to pick and choose which projects we (or our unknown financial sponsors) want to move forward. [Source: his Facebook page]

My primary concern with MAPS 3 is exactly what we're facing in this city council election. All we voted for was a 1-cent sales tax and unlike the first MAPS there was no line item for the voters of exactly what we were getting ... There's no guarantee that the voters are going to get what I think they believe was promised to them. What we're risking is the legitimacy of referendums. [Source: Oklahoman, February 23]

Dr. Shadid believes that MAPS 3 should be completed as it was promised to voters, with maximum transparency, honesty, and public deliberation. Needlessly delaying the rail component of MAPS 3 could cost the city $60-120 million in federal matching funds, reducing the project's connectivity to neighborhoods. [Source: Ad in the March 9 Oklahoma Gazette]





Two important things that politicians need to understand: you represent the electorate. If you express your platform prior to your election and the majority elects you, then as you move forward you can press for your agenda. You have not been given a mandate to disavow things that occurred prior to your election....
What if they are in opposition to each other? In other words, what if by the new election, voters have essentially changed their mind?

There have been suggestions made in this thread that Shadid was against thededicated Zoo tax. While I didn't read the whole thread again on it, that wasn't my remembrance. This post by Hutch over in that thread (that has been bumped up)...
http://www.okctalk.com/general-civic-issues/30797-shadid-wants-eliminate-zoo-funding.html#post552271




What if they are in opposition to each other? In other words, what if by the new election, voters have essentially changed their mind?



i don't think he was suggesting eliminating the zoo tax (although i would argue that his expression showed that he thought it is crazy that we have a zoo tax while not having a transit tax)

however he was arguing that we very much should on a continuing basis (2 years 5 years 10 years whatever) reexamine the long term taxes and perhaps put them up for a revote

BoulderSooner: I agree. I don't see anything wrong with looking at dedicated taxes being revisited from time to time. priorities change so you need that flexibility. Very few, if any, taxes should be "permanent"

"Dr. Shadid believes that MAPS 3 should be completed as it was promised to voters, with maximum transparency, honesty, and public deliberation."

If you only knew how hard it was to get him to sign off on that line. I told him there was no way in hell he would get elected unless he put that out there. Little did I know where all of this was going.

For that matter, the other line too.

"Dr. Shadid believes that MAPS 3 should be completed as it was promised to voters, with maximum transparency, honesty, and public deliberation."

If you only knew how hard it was to get him to sign off on that line. I told him there was no way in hell he would get elected unless he put that out there. Little did I know where all of this was going.

clearly he has now "changed his mind" on this point

Ed just posted this on Facebook:

Parsing some of Ed's words here:


It is no secret that I have been approached and have explored the possibility of trying to unite the people of OKC across the spectrum, rescue the MAPS program from a fatally flawed process, introduce honesty, transparency and public collaboration on an unprecedented scale, and add value to the city.

Hmmm. He's a "uniter?" He's so far managed to cause division within his own voting constituency, and even further division among supporters of public transit.

He wants to "rescue" MAPS? A friend mentioned that he seems to envision himself as a white knight riding in for the rescue (rescuing citizens from their own MAPS vote, a heretofore sacred bond between the city and the voters). Is Ed saying we need to be rescued from ourselves? I give the citizens of OKC more credit than that.

Not sure what he means by adding "value" to the city. Personally, as a voter, I went to the polls in 2009 to add value to our city by supporting MAPS, which includes projects I favor and some I'm not crazy about. But in the end, MAPS III will add more value to OKC than Ed can as mayor.


If such an effort were to occur the contract between the people of OKC and myself would be unbreakable and sacred to me; the full narrative of that vision deserves additional reflection.

So, he's suggesting there would be an unbreakable contract between himself as mayor and the citizens of OKC. Great. But as councilman, he seems all too willing to break the contract we made when we voted for MAPS. Ed, we don't want you deciding whether we get to have what we voted for or not. We spoke at the polls. Consider our MAPS vote to be the first contract you would have to enforce as mayor.

Secondly, I thought Ed's closing remarks here are great. Perhaps he should exercise greater reflection overall, and not just as it pertains to his political ambitions. Perhaps he should take some time to reflect on how many people -- including numerous former supporters -- he has let down.

There have been suggestions made in this thread that Shadid was against thededicated Zoo tax. While I didn't read the whole thread again on it, that wasn't my remembrance. This post by Hutch over in that thread (that has been bumped up)...
http://www.okctalk.com/general-civic-issues/30797-shadid-wants-eliminate-zoo-funding.html#post552271


There have also posts suggesting that Shadid doesn't support MAPS. That isn't true. Shadid DOES support MAPS (or at least has expressed public support for it)

From Dougs blog:
Doug Dawgz Blog: Ward 2 ? Why I'm For Shadid (http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2011/03/ward-2-why-im-for-shadid.html)





What if they are in opposition to each other? In other words, what if by the new election, voters have essentially changed their mind?

I don't believe Ed has been entirely honest about MAPS with voters. He has at least been opaque on the issue. The fact that he has railed against it since getting elected suggests his "support" is flimsy at best.

Let's step into our Way Back machine... Set it to January 4, 2011 Sherman.

http://www.okctalk.com/transportation/20121-modern-streetcar-commuter-transit-project-maps-3-progresses-62.html#post395039


Well, Dr. Shadid (candidate for Ward 2 in March) doesn't think OKC should be spending any money on convention centers, streetcars, commuter rail, or rafting parks until every street in OKC is safe to live on and walk on. He even made a point that the projects are not required to be built, implying that the money could be re-directed at the Councils discretion. He also seemed willing to spend MAPS money on buses. Needless to say, I think this is going to be the last MAPS style tax. Everything else is going to have to be single issue votes.

http://www.okctalk.com/general-civic-issues/25029-ward-2-runoff-campaign-issues-only-please.html#post408639


One thing is for sure Doug, Shadid is against big business and big banks. He used that phrase in 3 of his 5 points. Maybe during an interview he could identify who he thinks those big business and big banks are. Could he being talking about the Thunder and the Ford Cener Tax? If so, maybe someone can explain to him local small businesses benefit from the Thunder.

http://www.okctalk.com/transportation/20121-modern-streetcar-commuter-transit-project-maps-3-progresses-62.html#post394883


Just pray the clown (Dr. Edward Shadid) that was on before you doesn't get elected to District 2 in March. He wants to direct all MAPS money to sidewalks, buses, and the police/fire departments.

http://www.okctalk.com/general-civic-issues/25016-runoff-why-oklahoman-trying-smear-shadid.html#post408164


You guys need to go back and listen to the KTOK interview with Shadid before he started getting professional coaching advice from the unions. He wants to kill MAPS and divert the funds to police and fire. Why do you think he was endorsed by both unions?

http://www.okctalk.com/general-civic-issues/25016-runoff-why-oklahoman-trying-smear-shadid-2.html#post408361


That wasn't what he said before. I guess you have to decide which version of Shadid you want to believe (Shadid 1.0 or Shadid 2.0). Just keep in mind the Shadid 2.0 is back by a labor union that was attracted to him by positions taken by Shadid 1.0.

In reality, you might have to pick from the lessor of two evils. If I had to choose I would pick the opposite of the union support.

http://www.okctalk.com/general-civic-issues/25016-runoff-why-oklahoman-trying-smear-shadid.html#post408269


Shadid said in his KTOK interview that he prefered the bus system over streetcars and if I remember correcrtly, said if it was up to him none of the MAPS items would be built until every street in OKC was safe. If he was for MAPS III why did the unions put their support behind him when every other candidate they backed was anti-MAPS III? The Unions are so anti-MAPS III they supported Baptist Tea Party types - that is how much they hate MAPS. If Shadid was pro-MAPS he should have rejected their endorsement.

I'm curious as to where Ed Shadid got the impression that the city was in a time bind to get the streetcar project started quickly so as to not lose out on $120 million in federal matching funds. Was that good, solid sourcing he received, or wishful thinking represented as something more authoritative by advocates? If if it's the latter and not the sooner, what's the implication of that realization?

The simple answer is think back to when all of this was going on. There was legitimate belief both by transit advocates, paid consultants, and METRO Transit officials that the flood of Federal money might wash over us in the major attempt to put out the national recessionary fire through stimulus and TIGER funds.

You have to think back to the Federal Stimuls, TIGER 1, 2, and 3, the Federal Livibility initiative, the absence of a normal 6 year comprehensive transportation bill, and then the Tea Party locking up congress.

Those were crazy times with many "time sensitive" Federal funding opportunities to take a stab at.

There is no implication of any realization other than if we resolve this O&M issue, the streetcar very we will be undeniably still applicable for Federal Funds. At the time, the funding was more indiscriminant in not needing an Inhofe, Coburn, or Lankford to push it through.

If the advocates, consultants, and transit officials had known O&M would affect the apps so much, we would have pushed differently.

But it is also important to understand that MAPS 3 builds a starter system irregardless of Federal Funds. The funds would have been the icing on the MAPS 3 streetcar cake. And we may become more eligible for funds as the O&M issue is resolved and the Federal dynamic continues to change.

I'm curious as to where Ed Shadid got the impression that the city was in a time bind to get the streetcar project started quickly so as to not lose out on $120 million in federal matching funds. Was that good, solid sourcing he received, or wishful thinking represented as something more authoritative by advocates? If if it's the latter and not the sooner, what's the implication of that realization?

I've been involved with this issue from the beginning. I never once heard anyone advocating for building the streetcar as soon as possible in order not to lose out on federal matching funds, which by the way was only a potential additional $75 million...not $120 million.

What WAS advocated by Jacobs Engineering, the MAPS 3 Transit Subcommittee and other streetcar supporters was for the City and COTPA not to drag their feet on finalizing the Alternatives Analysis for the streetcar project and making the necessary FTA Small Starts Grant application in time for OKC to: (1) qualify for any leftover FY2011 funds...Ft. Worth cancelled their streetcar project and their was going to be millions of dollars leftover from that and other projects that could be awarded to other projects, as long as those projects were far enough along in the FTA Small Starts application pipeline and if those projects were eventually approved for a grant, and (2) qualify for the FY2012 Small Starts funding cycle, which was proposed for significant increase over FY2011.

Ed wasn't elected until April 2011. By that time, the Let's Talk Transit public scoping process and Alternatives Analysis for the MAPS 3 Modern Streetcar Project had been going on for more than one year and was nearly complete, and the MAPS 3 Transit Subcommittee had been meeting for more than 6 months. Ed didn't participate in any of those processes until after his election, and he knew little, if anything, about the specifics of the technical and policy issues related to the streetcar before that time.

Ed has a lot of inaccurate "impressions" about what took place with the streetcar project before he was elected. Those are of his own creation.

I'm curious as to where Ed Shadid got the impression that the city was in a time bind to get the streetcar project started quickly so as to not lose out on $120 million in federal matching funds. Was that good, solid sourcing he received, or wishful thinking represented as something more authoritative by advocates? If if it's the latter and not the sooner, what's the implication of that realization?

So if it is the former what are the implications for why Steve is trying to say there are implications for the latter?

It's a conspiracy.

It's a conspiracy.

Steve, Wouldn't you agree a lot of decisions downtown are not made openly in a transparent manner? That's a simple yes or no question. That's not a "conspiracy" that's just bad government.

From Ed's Facebook page, I like this.
https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/537196_10151578911795309_940703831_n.jpg

Steve, Wouldn't you agree a lot of decisions downtown are not made openly in a transparent manner? That's a simple yes or no question. That's not a "conspiracy" that's just bad government.

From Ed's Facebook page, I like this.
https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/537196_10151578911795309_940703831_n.jpg

Only lawyers ask for yes or no answers, because the complicated and more accurate answer is not what they want to hear.

My observation: there was a lot of information regarding MAPS 3, implementation, unfunded aspects of it, possible risks that were not shared with the public... and I always get suspicious when supporters of any of the projects are hostile to questions and challenges posed to them.

If you're speaking to me, Steve, I am not privy to enough information to answer questions and challenges on that topic, so I have no reason to make a hostile response. Nor have I ever implied that perfect decisions are made "downtown". Aue contraire. But, I've also been around the block often enough to know that any attempts to simplify an incredibly complex process to a "yes" or "no" answer is either a legal trick, a political maneuver or demonstrates naïveté. The third option is the most palatable.

I'm not a member of the Streetcar committee, but the only thing I recall about building the infrastructure quickly was the desire to synchronize efforts, whenever possible, with the Project 180 -- to save taxpayers money. Obviously, that did not occur.

Steve, you still have not responded to my comment about your chat post yesterday. You continue to gloss over streetcar advocates' true concern with Shadid's posturing: it's not that he's asking questions, it's that he intends to use streetcar money for other projects. We voted for the streetcar, not the councilman's pet projects. Is this being hostile?

I would hate to jump to conclusions, but you seem to enjoy the controversy for controversy's sake. It will get you clicks, for sure, but you've been very one-sided in your recent coverage.

Steve, since you ignored it, here's a cut and paste from my commentary you ignored yesterday.


Steve continues to diminish and brush over the key issues people here have with Shadid's candidacy and its relationship to the MAPS Streetcar initiative. In fact, he seems to outright dis the folks here with this comment from yesterday's chat:


No. We do not know if Ed Shadid is running for mayor. We know he is looking at it - which can be said about at least three or four other people. It's been my observation that the streetcar advocates at OKC Talk do not like to see their beliefs or assumptions challenged or questioned - which is certainly what Shadid has done.

Steve, this isn't about beliefs or assumptions, it's about votes. People voted for this project. Shadid has discussed shifting the money from this project elsewhere for his pet projects. Why do you continue to misrepresent the angst Streetcar supporters have with Shadid? Is it not clear to you that shifting money from a MAPS project that people have already voted for is going to piss a lot of people off? There's no reason to obfuscate or overcomplicate the matter.

It's very cut and dried.

You owe people here a mea culpa -- or at least fair reporting. Quit trying to act like this is about sensitive people who can't handle having their assumptions challenged. That is not only inaccurate -- it's a bit of a cheap shot.

Only lawyers ask for yes or no answers, because the complicated and more accurate answer is not what they want to hear.

Oh, puhleese, come on, Jill.

Notwithstanding that I am a lawyer, lots of occasions call for a simple yes or no answer. For example, when lying in bed with my wife and I ask her while watching TV, "Is this what you want to watch," and she goes on about tangential matters without saying either yes or no, it drives me crazy since her unsolicited remarks don't answer my question nor does it help that the hearing out of my right ear (I sleep on the left side) is not as good as from my left ear. "Well, does that mean yes or no," I not too infrequently inquire. Just extrapolating from your comment, but perhaps you do exactly the same thing with your very patient and kindly husband (and, hence, possibly arises the real reason for what you said).

As recently as last night (after Mary Jo did some grocery shopping), I asked, "Did you remember to get me some yogurt," the dialog went something like this: "Was it on the list you gave me? ... Yes, it was. Did you get it? ... Well, I didn't see it ... Well, then, you didn't read my list. Did you get it? ... No."

I am supposing that such a scenario is repeated many times over by lots and lots of people, neither of the persons being lawyers ... perhaps even in your own home where both are doctors.

But back to the lawyer part. What you fail to mention is that, after the "yes or no" answer to a particular question is presented, and eventually the evasive witness actually does get around to answering the question with a yes or no answer, either (a) the asking lawyer will ask the evasive witness to give an explanation for his/her yes or no answer, or (b) the opposing lawyer will do so. The fuller explanation always occurs (unless the opposing lawyer is crappy). That's the way the "Yes ... No" thing works out.

Now, I wish that I know some good doctor, particularly pediatrician, jokes (similar to the abundance of great lawyer jokes that are just about everywhere ... and which I thoroughly enjoy hearing) ... but I don't.

Aside from the above friendly banter, I have other opinions about the manner in which the MAPS 3 campaign was "untransparently" conducted, some parts but certainly not all involving Mayor Cornett. I have opinions about the need of the city to deliver on what was promised by the then constituted city council. And I have opinions about the wisdom of re-defining MAPS 3. I'll save these opinions for a later time, should they become relevant.

Some parts of this thread, most notably regarding Shadid and the Zoo, are wholly bogus and merely parrot what the Oklahoman had to say at the time. If one relies upon the Oklahoman for accurately presenting the facts when forming one's opinions, well, what can I say ... one has been body-snatched.

I guess I've only been questioned by crappy lawyers Doug! My pet peeve in court is being asked to answer yes or no without being given a chance to explain. It's a ploy used by defense lawyers in child abuse cases all the time.

But back to MAPS and city business. Is it perfect? No. Has it been great for the city? Yes. Could the process be improved? Yes. Should we throw out the MAPS concept because it hasn't been perfect? No. There, I did it. ;) But really, any analysis of MAPS and city government deserves at least a blog, if not a series of articles. It's far too complex for a simple yes or no answer, or even a series of them.

And most importantly to me AND my opinion: any frustration with or lack of clarity or transparency from city government does not justify eliminating MAPS projects or continuing the concept in further elections. If this forum or writers such as you or Steve can decrease that when we start talking about MAPS IV. Great. But let's keep the concept of MAPS separate from any criticisms of the process or we will lose something that has ....finally.... allowed Oklahoma City to start thinking about becoming a peer city of Kansas City, Indianapolis and Charlotte rather than Omaha, Wichita and Tulsa.

If MAPS has room for improvement (and it does) then MAPS IV is the place to start. Also, since the list of capital projects that even make it to the MAPS list is put there by the City Council I am a little disturbed that they don't identify an O&M funding source at the same time, even if that funding source is the general fund. That only seems like common sense to me. If Shadid is concerned that O&M funds for the Streetcar are going to come out of an already underfunded bus system then that is a valid concern but the approach should be to find that funding source, not transfer MAPS funds from the streetcar to the bus system. Ideally that should have been done at the exact same time and is one place MAPS can be improved.

I suspect that nealy all MAPS projects don't generare the revenue needed to keep them operational and provide maintenance and the bus system is certainly no exception as it requires constant deficit funding, so transfering funds to expand a bus system is nothing more than shifting the location of the defict spending, and at least studies show that spending on fixed guideways systems generate more private sector development dollars than any other kind of transportation spending. So if we are going to defict fund something shouldn't we at least defict fund the items that produce the greatest benefit?

At risk of taking the thread off topic - my response to Doug is that often lawyers do want "yes" or "no" but refuse to permit a perfectly reasonable explanation for the answer to be offered in testimony. This very scenario has happened to me. "Yes, but...." or "No, but...." is often the only fair and completely honest way to answer a question but usually the attorney does not want to allow the "but" part because is often refutes the point they want to make.

This certainly may apply to this discussion about MAPS and the streetcar in particular. Going for the simple yes or no - or seemingly with Steve lately a smoking gun - does not fully explain the process nor does it do justice to those involved in the process. Steve does an excellent job covering the various happenings in downtown most of the time, but I think he is off base and not being completely objective in his recent statements and insinuations about the streetcar project. This diminishes his otherwise excellent reputation IMHO.

I have attended several Streetcar Subcommittee meetings as an interested citizen and have never Steve at one - maybe we simply did not attend the same ones. But I believe the Streetcar Subcommittee has been pretty open and transparent. I have also been able to talk to Ed on several occasions - I usually think he brings up good discussions that otherwise would not be heard. But there is a positive way to do so and a less constructive way to bring issues up. I think he sometimes strays into the less constructive side of the equation at times.

On balance he has been good to have as a councilman, but I do believe he is way off base on the MAPS issue and the streetcar in particular. (He also got beat up over his zoo comments, but if you carefully look at the context, they were not that shocking.) If he wants to highlight systemic problems in the process, that is fine; but do not attempt to hijack funds (or give the impression that is his intent) from projects the voters chose for personal pet projects. Honestly, if he makes this a constructive discussion, it is very likely funds to improve the bus system could be part of the next bond issue and certainly the next MAPS. But only if he doesn't go about it with a scorched earth approach.

At risk of taking the thread off topic - my response to Doug is that often lawyers do want "yes" or "no" but refuse to permit a perfectly reasonable explanation for the answer to be offered in testimony. This very scenario has happened to me. "Yes, but...." or "No, but...." is often the only fair and completely honest way to answer a question but usually the attorney does not want to allow the "but" part because is often refutes the point they want to make.

This certainly may apply to this discussion about MAPS and the streetcar in particular. Going for the simple yes or no - or seemingly with Steve lately a smoking gun - does not fully explain the process nor does it do justice to those involved in the process. Steve does an excellent job covering the various happenings in downtown most of the time, but I think he is off base and not being completely objective in his recent statements and insinuations about the streetcar project. This diminishes his otherwise excellent reputation IMHO.

I have attended several Streetcar Subcommittee meetings as an interested citizen and have never Steve at one - maybe we simply did not attend the same ones. But I believe the Streetcar Subcommittee has been pretty open and transparent. I have also been able to talk to Ed on several occasions - I usually think he brings up good discussions that otherwise would not be heard. But there is a positive way to do so and a less constructive way to bring issues up. I think he sometimes strays into the less constructive side of the equation at times.

On balance he has been good to have as a councilman, but I do believe he is way off base on the MAPS issue and the streetcar in particular. (He also got beat up over his zoo comments, but if you carefully look at the context, they were not that shocking.) If he wants to highlight systemic problems in the process, that is fine; but do not attempt to hijack funds (or give the impression that is his intent) from projects the voters chose for personal pet projects. Honestly, if he makes this a constructive discussion, it is very likely funds to improve the bus system could be part of the next bond issue and certainly the next MAPS. But only if he doesn't go about it with a scorched earth approach.

I think this is an excellent post, Dave.

I think this entire exercise is just the time honored tradition of running one's candidacy up the flagpole to see if anyone will salute. And, not that this forum is representative of the city as a whole, but you can bet that Mr. Shadid is politically savvy enough to check out our opinions, especially before he commits to spending the 750k-1.5m that was reported. My prediction is that he will get the sense that the people of OKC do not want him to mess with the momentum that MAPS has created and he will back off and, then at a later date, magically change his mind on the subject.

FWIW, I love his picture that accompanied the newsok.com article. He looks a little befuddled, and that has been my impression of him both times I have heard him speak (both times about the boulevard). He seemed to have his message already set in stone and if someone disputed or even contradicted one of his preconceived notions he would invariably ignore the contradiction and just regurgitate his preconceived bullet point. In other words, I was not impressed with his ability to incorporate new ideas on the fly to his owns beliefs.

I'd like to add, regarding the bus system... I couldn't agree more with Ed that our system sucks. It really does. But.... He is taking the completely wrong approach to doing this. While technically the funds in this MAPS program could be spent on buses, it would be doing a complete slap in the face of the voters who were sold on a streetcar. And it would also be the end of MAPS. I don't know why Steve is missing that point and quite frankly I'm disappointed with the un-objective journalism Steve has provided on this issue. It's definitely not the norm for you Steve, but it is very disappointing.

Looks to me Ed is just asking the obvious questions about a projects viability and shining a light on the plutocrcay that is OKC's governance. People don't like difficult questions asked about their per projects. Wish I could vote for an honest well informed accountable rep like Dr Shadid. Mom definately will. Cornett reminds me of a weasel, particularly after jamming through the timeline vote before Dr Shadid could get back to OKC to enter into public record the money pit the CC and hotel will be. Mick must have thought the travel delay devine intervention. The origianl MAPS great civic projects. The lastest got highjacked. Now when the CC overruns occur, voters will have to approve the next MAPS for the projects they actually voted on. The ole bait and switch. All very cynical. Best luck to Dr Shadid.

This isn't about "tough questions". They've all been answered as they have been asked.

This is about Ed seeing MAPS 3 Streetcar/Hub monies as an answer to fixing the bus system. Something the voters did not vote for.

Its also about his unwillingness to not acknowledge and respect the public process that also exists to see these projects fulfilled in the most impactful, positive, and efficient way possible. When voters supported MAPS 3 via the vote, they also supported the oversight process of which many of us are volunteer appointees.

I think you should be able to see why some people might be upset. To suggest that he is asking "tough questions" that is generating hostility is oversimplifying the matter.

Looks to me Ed is just asking the obvious questions about a projects viability and shining a light on the plutocrcay that is OKC's governance. People don't like difficult questions asked about their per projects. Wish I could vote for an honest well informed accountable rep like Dr Shadid. Mom definately will. Cornett reminds me of a weasel, particularly after jamming through the timeline vote before Dr Shadid could get back to OKC to enter into public record the money pit the CC and hotel will be. Mick must have thought the travel delay devine intervention. The origianl MAPS great civic projects. The lastest got highjacked. Now when the CC overruns occur, voters will have to approve the next MAPS for the projects they actually voted on. The ole bait and switch. All very cynical. Best luck to Dr Shadid.

Time has a way of healing all wounds, but your memory of the first MAPS is a bit off.

It was, in many ways, an organizational disaster. It went way over budget and schedules were missed. Lawsuits were filed over the materials used for the library. The canal was shortened -- and didn't connect to the river as promised. The arena went over budget. Schedules were missed. The voters had to be asked to spend more money.

And yet, it turned out great for our city. People today -- some of whom even voted against it -- acknowledge it as a success, despite the bumps and bruises. And it was a success, a monumental success that started the momentum for OKC's emergence as a big-league city, something it is now recognized for internationally.

So forgive me, but as a supporter of the streetcar, one of the MAPS 3 projects, I do NOT have a problem with tough questions. Bring 'em on. What I have a problem with is someone like you calling it a pet project. Sorry, Charlie, but it was on the slate of MAPS projects voted for by the citizens, and polling showed it to be one of only three or four the public really even wanted, so it is most certainly NOT a pet project.