http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/shadpressrelease.pdf

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?

Interesting?

Shadid claims that this has been happening for seven years, but only now raises an objection?

I think he must be a reader here. Or, Pete wrote the claim for the law firm.

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!

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?

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.

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?

Channel 4 is not reporting it correctly

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!

We will see if he actually files suit. I doubt he does. This is a losing case

Exactly my thought. He's been fine with it going on until it may be something he personally objects. Makes ya wonder. . .

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.

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?

Is the Alliance OKC a non-profit or a not-for-profit? From my understanding, a formal non-profit still has requirements to log minutes of meetings, and they have to be read into record and approved at the following meeting. Not-for-profits don't.

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.

The timing is likely because his term is up soon and he’ll be done as city councilor. This is kind of a, you come at the king you better not miss type situation. He does this from the start and fails, his political capital is spent and a lot of money aligns against him.

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?

The accounting term would be depreciation and amortization.
The market would tell you used things aren’t as valuable as new things.

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...

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 (http://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=23849&page=10&p=1040637#post1040637).


...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 addressed the reasons why it makes sense in the Santa Fe Garage thread and separately in the Cox Center thread:


...Regarding COTPA, which as I pointed out is a public trust with OKC as its beneficiary municipality and NOT the same thing as the City of Oklahoma City (read a description of the purpose of municipal public trust here (http://www.crawfordcpas.com/Municipalpublictrusts.pdf)), there have been a number of transactions in recent years. Keep in mind that the responsibilities of a public trust are to work to the benefit of its associated municipality, NOT necessarily to get the most money out of a property. For instance, in the case of the Santa Fe garage... ...this means for instance not putting a property on the market to the highest bidder but instead looking at the most benefit for the City and its taxpayers.

If you do the former, you could end up with a single-focus, bottom-line-only parking operator who price gouges, drives up the parking rates in the immediate area, runs off corporate users - like Continental or BancFirst, for instance - and makes redevelopment of contiguous space such as Cotter Ranch Tower tricky or even impossible. Can you think of ANY scenarios whereby a highest bidder might not be the best deal for OKC? Can you think of any downtown property owners who you might not want to own it, simply by nature of writing the largest check?

Instead, the deal currently being considered does the following:


Provides Continental a long-term parking solution and solidifies their ability to remain in downtown OKC
Enables BancFirst to confidently purchase and redevelop Cotter Ranch Tower with contiguous parking
Guarantees the existing parking arrangement with the Skirvin
Requires after-hours event parking availablity to remain in place
Frees up Cox Center underground parking from Contintental requirements so that it can be redeveloped at some point
Frees up bonding capacity for COTPA to build and participate in other needed structured parking deals


...
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. :)

By the way, as I’ve pointed out before here, for those who feel like the procedure being used is wrong, their time and money would be better served in working to get the state of Oklahoma’s Open Meetings law amended. The City is almost certainly complying with the current law in every way.

The timing is likely because his term is up soon and he’ll be done as city councilor. This is kind of a, you come at the king you better not miss type situation. He does this from the start and fails, his political capital is spent and a lot of money aligns against him.

True. But the garage is a terrible “shot”. No one cares enough about this issue.

Is the Alliance OKC a non-profit or a not-for-profit? From my understanding, a formal non-profit still has requirements to log minutes of meetings, and they have to be read into record and approved at the following meeting. Not-for-profits don't.

That doesn't mean the minutes are available to the public.

True. But the garage is a terrible “shot”. No one cares enough about this issue.

The garage is a "vehicle" and a secondary issue. The primary issue is circumventing the open meetings act.

The accounting term would be depreciation and amortization.
The market would tell you used things aren’t as valuable as new things.

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?

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. [...]

Of course it's a possibility. The fact is we just don't know because we have zero visibility into the process - precisely because of the alleged creative circumvention of the Open Meeting Act. Everything in these meetings could very well be 100% on the level - and in fact I hope that it is! But again, because we don't have any insight into the process until proposals are thrust before the Council for a final yes/no vote, there's no way for us to know. As noted in Shadid's press release, this level of secrecy also serves to suppress public input on these development proposals - and while I generally trust my elected representatives to represent the will of their constituents, the general public still needs to have the ability to add their voice.

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.

There are a lot of ways something like this could come out. If it is found that the Alliance relationship with the city is problematic, there are a number of things which could happen from the courts simply making available for FOIA requests all of the records of the entity to a slap on the wrist and an admonition not to do these things in the future, all the way to unwinding every single deal the Alliance made. Shadid's attorney isn't a state's attorney, so he doesn't get to prosecute the criminal code.

You'll need a bit more to make an accessory charge stick than having read something in the newspaper and failed to report it as a crime--just a bit.


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.

I'd wait to see the briefs of the parties before making any determinations. Even if the city loses, I imagine the blessing of groups like the Alliance will quickly make it into the Oklahoma Statutes during the next legislative session.


It will also have the added benefit of clarifying discussion on this board. Which, of course, would happen no matter who prevails. :)

I'm sure that's what everyone is shooting for!

Of course it's a possibility. The fact is we just don't know because we have zero visibility into the process - precisely because of the alleged creative circumvention of the Open Meeting Act. Everything in these meetings could very well be 100% on the level - and in fact I hope that it is! But again, because we don't have any insight into the process until proposals are thrust before the Council for a final yes/no vote, there's no way for us to know. As noted in Shadid's press release, this level of secrecy also serves to suppress public input on these development proposals - and while I generally trust my elected representatives to represent the will of their constituents, the general public still needs to have the ability to add their voice.

Very simply, the Open Meetings Act could be amended to allow executive session to consider incentive packages for business development. It really could be that simple.

Of course it's a possibility. The fact is we just don't know because we have zero visibility into the process - precisely because of the alleged creative circumvention of the Open Meeting Act. Everything in these meetings could very well be 100% on the level - and in fact I hope that it is! But again, because we don't have any sinsight into the process until proposals are thrust before the Council for a final yes/no vote, there's no way for us to know. As noted in Shadid's press release, this level of secrecy also serves to suppress public input on these development proposals - and while I generally trust my elected representatives to represent the will of their constituents, the general public still needs to have the ability to add their voice.
I hope we get it cleared up. But, at this point, we have seen zero evidence of corruption or bad faith. To my knowledge, there have been no claims by jilted competitors, accidental or other witnesses, no evidence of bribes or payoffs, etc. .... nothing that points to bad behavior other than “we just don’t know, so it must be bad”.

I hope we get it cleared up. But, at this point, we have seen zero evidence of corruption or bad faith. To my knowledge, there have been no claims by jilted competitors, accidental or other witnesses, no evidence of bribes or payoffs, etc. .... nothing that points to bad behavior other than “we just don’t know, so it must be bad”.

There is certainly room for healthy skepticism when a private organization is created solely to help the city get around its obligation to share information with the voters. If we're talking about the old saying re "where there's smoke, there's fire," Alliance is definitely smoke. Now.. have millions of dollars in taxpayer incentives to private entities flowed out without an ounce of corruption? From a historical perspective in Oklahoma and OKC, a fair amount of skepticism is warranted.

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.

...You'll need a bit more to make an accessory charge stick than having read something in the newspaper and failed to report it as a crime--just a bit...

I was referring to anyone who might have specific and direct information.

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.

10% cap rate for a parking garage is very much on the high end.

There is certainly room for healthy skepticism when a private organization is created solely to help the city get around its obligation to share information with the voters. If we're talking about the old saying re "where there's smoke, there's fire," Alliance is definitely smoke. Now.. have millions of dollars in taxpayer incentives to private entities flowed out without an ounce of corruption? From a historical perspective in Oklahoma and OKC, a fair amount of skepticism is warranted.

That is not why the alliance was created

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.

There is certainly room for healthy skepticism when a private organization is created solely to help the city get around its obligation to share information with the voters. If we're talking about the old saying re "where there's smoke, there's fire," Alliance is definitely smoke. Now.. have millions of dollars in taxpayer incentives to private entities flowed out without an ounce of corruption? From a historical perspective in Oklahoma and OKC, a fair amount of skepticism is warranted.
Your bias is immediately obvious when you state that the reason the Alliance was formed was for nefarious activity rather than acknowledging perhaps its stated intent of streamlining and facilitation for the purposes of public good is the real reason.
Of course we know there can be corruption in all sorts of well intentioned organizations ... churches, the White House, the EPA, etc. if there is, root it out. Otherwise, don’t start the smoke so you can claim there is a fire. If you see flames, yell. If it’s ones own breath they see, then they need to think twice about yelling fire in a crowded room.

10% cap rate for a parking garage is very much on the high end.

Especially since it is losing a significant number of contracted parkers as well as it needing maintenance and upgrade capital. Cap rates on parking garages across the country is running around 6.75% to 7.25%

At 7%, on face value, the purchase price would be around $32 million. Given the loss of revenue from the leaving of Enable, and given other possible capital needed, Bancfirst and Continental are getting a good, not great deal.

I am going to laugh when this causes BancFirst to back out of buying the Cotter Ranch Tower.

Oof.

That is not why the alliance was created

The Alliance was created to "Fast-track" development proposals outside of the existing processes.


The proposal calls for additional, unspecified amounts to be provided by the Oklahoma City Urban Renewal Authority, which is largely supported with federal funds and land sale proceeds. Devon Energy Corp. Executive Chairman Larry Nichols, who will chair the new organization, said it is needed to “fast track” development projects.

“Oklahoma City is at a unique stage in its growth,” Nichols said. “As a community, we have implemented strategies that are attracting investment in our city at an ever-increasing rate, yet the process and entities to help facilitate that growth have been the same for many years.”


“In the past we've pulled together this ad hoc team from the city, Urban Renewal and a variety of trusts to put together whatever project we had at the moment,” O'Connor said. “The idea is to institutionalize our approach to economic development.

“The idea is that entities like the city of Oklahoma City and the Oklahoma City Economic Development Trust will contract with The Alliance to coordinate projects we have ahead.”

Nichols said a company looking at Oklahoma City will be able to work with just The Alliance, and not several different offices, to assemble deals. Similar organizations exist in Kansas City and St. Louis.


O'Connor said proceedings of the existing public trusts will still be subject to the Oklahoma Open Meetings and Open Records laws. She was unsure whether the expenditures of The Alliance, which will operate with public funding, will be subject to open records laws.


Duties of “The Alliance” will include coordination, management, planning and implementation of the following tasks:
• The city's economic development incentives.
• The city's retail incentives.
• Redevelopment traditionally handled by the Oklahoma City Urban Renewal Authority.
• Identification and development of job creation sites.
• Public/private redevelopment opportunities generated by MAPS 3, specifically a new convention center hotel.
• Implementation of required financing associated with projects.

Source: https://newsok.com/article/3556579/new-nonprofit-is-established-to-spearhead-economic-development-in-okc

The Alliance was created to "Fast-track" development proposals outside of the existing processes.

Source: https://newsok.com/article/3556579/new-nonprofit-is-established-to-spearhead-economic-development-in-okc
You say that and you posted that article as if it were an indictment. The “existing processes” were that THERE WERE NO EXISTING PROCESSES. Just as your quoted article states, anytime the City was pursuing an economic development opportunity they had to hurriedly throw together an ad-hoc team, determine what partnerships might apply, and then hand applicants off to a hodgepodge of agencies and hope everybody handled things with the same amount of care.

The Alliance was intended to streamline things and bring a level of professionalism and institutional knowledge which would make everyone’s efforts more impactful. Period. And it has performed exactly as was described in the article you just quoted, to the letter.

In secret.

This is a whole lot of speculation It seems. Most of the people named in this, I would assume, are readily available for comment. Why has no news organization got them on record as of yet? I apologize if I’ve missed that somewhere here as this thread and other stories about it are all over. Seems like it’d be important for the reporting.

In secret.
This reminds me of the "I know you are but what am I?" scene in Pee Wee Herman's Big Adventure. Were you really trying to make a point or just to antagonize?

As I have pointed out (ad nauseam) in other threads, the business of OCURA and the Economic Development Trust has been conducted to the letter of the law (and personally I believe to the spirit of the law). As I pointed out abundantly in the Cox Center thread, land deals and the like have been done overwhelmingly by RFP, as indicated in their mandate. Furthermore, groups like COTPA follow the rules and obligations of municipal trusts, which are decidedly different from their beneficiary municipalities. If you care to know more about those obligations and the thinking behind them, you can read about them here: http://www.crawfordcpas.com/Municipalpublictrusts.pdf

Regarding The Alliance, I have outlined their main reasons for existing above. But if by "in secret" you are referring to the fact that The Alliance can honor a non-disclosure agreement if a company they are dealing with does not wish to reveal proprietary information (that could be seized upon by competitors) and wouldn't come to the table without one? In that case, you are 100% correct. Or, if you meant they can negotiate without revealing their full capabilities, resources and limits to competing municipalities or future applicants - thereby protecting OKC's negotiating position - then, you're right about that too. These are strengths, not weaknesses, and they protect our interests rather than compromise them.

Have you ever wondered if, when someone looks at the sky that you see as blue, even when they agree that it is blue, the color they see is actually orange? If you are wearing a tinfoil hat you are ALWAYS going to see a conspiracy.

Here is an example: when I see someone here saying "they met with a group of 3-4 in order to circumvent public meetings law" I completely disagree, because I believe they met with a small group so as to NOT VIOLATE open meetings law. Or - perhaps more properly - IN ORDER TO COMPLY with open meetings law. If you would like to know more about the Oklahoma Open Meeting Act, you can read the actual, full ordinance here: https://www.ok.gov/occy/documents/OpenMeeting.pdf

This is a whole lot of speculation It seems. Most of the people named in this, I would assume, are readily available for comment. Why has no news organization got them on record as of yet? I apologize if I’ve missed that somewhere here as this thread and other stories about it are all over. Seems like it’d be important for the reporting.

It is because other news organizations have previously attempted to challenge this and have been advised that they have no traction and that the City is operating within the bounds of the existing Open Meetings Act.

I am going to laugh when this causes BancFirst to back out of buying the Cotter Ranch Tower.
Not knowing what, if any, other suitors exist, that would suck. Hard.

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 (http://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=23849&page=10&p=1040637#post1040637).


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. :)

Urbanized, I don't think people are asking for the city to have to lay out all of its cards or to not be responsive/competitive; we've seen the great work that the alliance has done. However, what I (and likely many) on here want to see is for there to be more TIME allowed for public disclosure of what the Alliance recommends before the City Council votes on it. THIS to me is what brings up the potential for corruption, because often deals in OKC have strings attached involving the good ole boys (lets face it, its true) where they get something out of it at the public expense. Case in point here - Hamm wanted that darn Santa Fe garage and will now get it since it's a string on the Bank First deal which obviously the city and everybody in OKC wants... Why does Hamm have to be involved with Bank First deal? And why does OKC have to build a connection to yet another string, the Karchmer (sp?) garage?

That's at least two outside "deals" brokered involving public funds/assets and there was barely one business day for the public to read and react before the unanimous city council approval on Tuesday. ... Do you now see how this appears to be corrupt? Why not give the citizens at least a week before the council vote? Furthermore, why not have the Santa Fe and Bricktown garages as separate developments from the Bank First purchase?

I hope this is the outcome of this lawsuit, not to hold up OKC or the Alliance but to allow for time for the public to find out and voice an opinion AFTER the deals are made but BEFORE the council vote. Make the deal but give us a little time to consider it. ..

Urbanized, I don't think people are asking for the city to have to lay out all of its cards or to not be responsive/competitive; we've seen the great work that the alliance has done. However, what I (and likely many) on here want to see is for there to be more TIME allowed for public disclosure of what the Alliance recommends before the City Council votes on it. THIS to me is what brings up the potential for corruption, because often deals in OKC have strings attached involving the good ole boys (lets face it, its true) where they get something out of it at the public expense. Case in point here - Hamm wanted that darn Santa Fe garage and will now get it since it's a string on the Bank First deal which obviously the city and everybody in OKC wants... Why does Hamm have to be involved with Bank First deal? And why does OKC have to build a connection to yet another string, the Karchmer (sp?) garage?

That's at least two outside "deals" brokered involving public funds/assets and there was barely one business day for the public to read and react before the unanimous city council approval on Tuesday. ... Do you now see how this appears to be corrupt? Why not give the citizens at least a week before the council vote? Furthermore, why not have the Santa Fe and Bricktown garages as separate developments from the Bank First purchase?

I hope this is the outcome of this lawsuit, not to hold up OKC or the Alliance but to allow for time for the public to find out and voice an opinion AFTER the deals are made but BEFORE the council vote. Make the deal but give us a little time to consider it. ..

serious ? what would another week do to change this vote?? this is why we elect the council? to make these decisions

also take exception that "good old boys" are getting something at the public's expense

can you show me where that has happened?

serious ? what would another week do to change this vote?? this is why we elect the council? to make these decisions

also take exception that "good old boys" are getting something at the public's expense

can you show me where that has happened?

It would actually give it time to hit the news and give citizens time to read/see it and tell their councilperson how they feel. Hard to do in less than 24 hours. Shedding more light on public deals is never a bad thing for the public.

If someone is buying a public property below market value, you could say thats getting something at the publics expense. I thought I read talk of an appraisal on the Karchmer property but is there a recent one for the Santa Fe garage?

serious ? what would another week do to change this vote?? this is why we elect the council? to make these decisions


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


also take exception that "good old boys" are getting something at the public's expense

How are they not? How come Continental is able to worm its way into a BancFirst deal?

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



How are they not? How come Continental is able to worm its way into a BancFirst deal?

the council is not voting on these deals uninformed


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

the council is not voting on these deals uninformed


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

I'm curious also. Why are you against a week or two period for citizen input on multi million dollar expenses on their behalf? A majority of the city council is not necessarily representing a majority of the tax payers.

I'm curious also. Why are you against a week or two period for citizen input on multi million dollar expenses on their behalf? A majority of the city council is not necessarily representing a majority of the tax payers.

i am not opposed to it necessarily

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

Let's see....

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

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

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

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

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

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

How are they not? How come Continental is able to worm its way into a BancFirst deal?

There's the answer to your question BoulderSooner. Seems like a posh deal for good ole boy Mr. Hamm to me. ..

Shall we bring more examples that you already know?

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

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

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

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

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

There's the answer to your question BoulderSooner. Seems like a posh deal for good ole boy Mr. Hamm to me. ..

Shall we bring more examples that you already know?

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

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

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

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

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

worm their way in??? sounds like bancfirst joined continental's deal not the other way around ..

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

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

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

How does this not sound like possibly corruption. .?

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

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

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


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

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