Some More Thoughts on MAPS 3
My morning appointment has been moved to this afternoon, so I’ve got a bit more time to blog.
I’m convinced that Tuesday marked the first local social media election for Oklahoma City. Having followed Twitter, Facebook, OKC Talk and various blogs, it’s clear that social media created a huge wave of voters, especially for the pro-side that consisted the same sort of younger demographic as was seen in the fall presidential election last year.
Can I prove it? No. But anecdotally, I’m pretty certain of it.
More thoughts on the oversight board as well. Consider that the best people to have on the board won’t necessarily be those who will apply for such slots.
Having talked to several folks the last 48 hours, the following names emerge as people who have the ideal mix of experience, wisdom and judgment but may or may not need to be convinced into serving in such a capacity.
They include (not my list – but from others):
- Joe Clytus
- James Pickel
- Renzi Stone
- Nick Preftakes
- Marsh Pitman
- Dave Lopez
- Tiana Douglas
- Mark Beffort
- Rhonda Walters
- Bill Bleakley
- Kirk Humphreys
- Don Karchmer
- Jim Loftis
So what names would you want to see put into consideration?
Thank you for joining our conversation on OKC Central. We encourage your discussion but ask that you stay within the bounds of our commenting and posting policy.
Comments
Is Blaine Humphreys back in OKC yet? His education in urban planning would be excellent to have on the committee.
I think it’s important to have some of the very type of people we are trying to attract– young, urban-minded, educated, professional.
I agree with Brian J. Let’s get a designer/ urban planner/ architect on the board. Jeff Bezdek?
Renzi Stone? Defensive presence? Kidding…
I know it looks like I was nominating myself, but I meant the “^” to just mean that I was seconding Doug’s comment..
But yeah it’s obviously absolutely vital that Jeff Bezdek be on the committee, which I think he will be, and then someone with Blair’s degree..
Steve said: “Doug, have another sip of the bourbon! And Nick, come on now…” I’ve taken your advice. My vote is the same. You, Steve Lackmeyer, should be on this board. Jeff is yet another excellent suggestion. Someone mentioned me. Thanks, but I think that I better serve by being independent of the process … and, like Steve said …
Oh, yeah … I forgot to mention … congratulations, Steve, on getting engaged in MAPS 3 … again. Now, WHY WAS IT that it didn’t happen sooner? I know … I’m bad …
I’m not at all saying Steve is not qualified, but shouldn’t he also remain “independent of the process”, as the Oklahoman’s downtown reporter?
Yes, Jason I should. Those pitching my name are being very generous in their praise of my work and I hope I can continue to earn that appreciation. Now, let’s keep having fun with this list…
(This captcha, btw, is very disturbing: boil kermit)
Jason’s right, plus we need Steve to “report” on the activities of the advisory council. Got to keep the Fourth Estate’s involvement legit!
(And it’s not that we don’t love you, Steve; cause we certainly do!)
OK, how about… Anthony McDermid? Probably won’t happen because it would keep TAParchitecture from being involved with any of the projects, but I did like his stand on the Chamber building.
This is a nice list, yet I’m concerned that the “NO” people would view them as people whom stand to profit from portions of MAPS 3.
The “NO” people have some legitimate points, and the narrow margin in this election tels me that the City and the Chamber should try to adderss their concerns quite soon.
I believe we should have at least two of the “NO” people on the Board, as well as some “average Joes” on the Board. This would send a message to the citizenry that the City is listening and understands their concerns of MAPS 3.
Nobody who is against the purpose of the projects should be on the board. Am I the only person who doesn’t think we need to give the “NO” side some chairs at the table? That would be retarded. They would just run it into the ground and try and deviate from the purpose of MAPS: to grow the center city. We need people who believe in MAPS and the public process, not people who have calculated their political chips on disrupting the public process and waging a campaign of intimidation and misinformation against MAPS.
Brian Walters can appoint whoever he wants..
I think it’s very important to have a group that is representative of the city. There should be young, old, north, south, east, west, yes, no. When a group wins an election, it doesn’t mean that it can shut the door on any dissenting opinions. The board shouldn’t appoint any sabateurs from the “No” camp who only care to see the plan fail miserably, but like Radar says, you’ve got to have a representative group. The absolute WORST thing that can happen for this thing is for there to be a bunch of unanimous decisions and “yes men” that lead to a myopic view and plan.
I’m not sure the board should only consist of the “experts.” More than likely, many of the names mentioned are/will already be contributing their oversight and expertise in some form or fashion. It’s important for there to be some representatives of just “regular citizen patrons” who have a great taste and appreciation for what’s being put on the table. We need those who make the food and those who eat the food all at the same table. More Indians than Chiefs…
“It’s important for there to be some representatives of just ‘regular citizen patrons’ who have a great taste and appreciation for what’s being put on the table.”
Well, that lets me out. 
Steve is being modest; he’s incredibly qualified to be on the committee. But I think that it would change his ability to report on its work. Besides, I think he is already a defacto member, by virtue of his medium. Jason was right that he should remain independent of the process.
I think Blair Humphreys is an excellent suggestion. However, I also think you would want Kirk if he would accept. As important as it is to have a formally trained urban planning voice, it’s equally important to have someone as politcally astute as the former Mayor. His MAPS and M4K experience would be invaluable. Two members of the same family might be a tough sell. It’s a darn shame; they both bring so much to the table.
My name that hasn’t been added to the list yet: Oklahoma Main Street Program architect Ron Frantz.
My captcha: revised municipal
No offense to Steve L., or anyone who posts on this forum, but journalists should not be part of the story. I realize that in the new age of nu media, that some rules change, but the people that report the news should never be “part” of the news. I believe Steve will reinforce this concept.
No to Steve on the MAPS oversight board, nor any journalist, formal, nu media, or blogger or poster. It is a citizen oversight committee.
actually, using something like the likert scale you probably could evaluate the impact of social media on the election to some degree. it would be difficult given the privacy settings, however. my tweets aren’t on the public timeline and therefore would not be included in the measurement using that scale. and, facebook – impossible to research. you just made me realize how much more complicated measurement has become for PR practitioners – and it was never easy.
Thank you, John, for the compliment. I do believe that the “NO” people really want MAPS 3 to succeed, but that their voices and concerns are heard in City Hall. And yes, there are some municipal issues that need to be dealt with. And, for the average Joe, he/she does not always get a seat at the table. With this MAPS being so decisive, I don’t believe it would hut to have a “NO” peron on the Board. Especially, a “NO” person who likes most of the projects, but is concerned with the price tag.
I don’t think we should have any of the “NO” voters on the board either. I don’t want to be offensive, but I don’t think anyone who belongs to the police or firemen’s unions needs to be on it. And, many of the other people who voted “NO” were convinced that this is vote designed to fill the pockets of the already wealthy. I heard that line from some surprising people during the course of the campaigning, and so believe it’s fairly consistent across the non-union “NO” voters. I think that’s a)a fairly antagonistic attitude and b)shows that these particular voters didn’t have a great understanding of the location of many of the planned proposals and/or how they can be used to benefit both the citizens and the city.
I want to forward Jeff Bezdek’s name as well. Without him, who knows what kind of transit system, if any, would have been one of the MAPS proposals.
I don’t think any NO people should be on the board (except the one that Brian Walters will undoubtedly appoint). Last time I checked 47% of Obama’s staff was not conservative, 40% of Coburn’s staff was not liberal, etc. We need people on the board who are committed to these projects and PASSIONATE about them.
Marva Ellard and Steve Mason
No on Nick Preftakes, he’s been buying as much land in the MAPS area as he can get to profit from… how would he be objective.
How about someone from the Oklahoma City Community Foundation? Brian Daugherty (OCCF/Margaret Annis Boys Trust) would provide valuable input for the Park. OCCF could play an important role in establishing endowments for public art and exhibits in the Park.
Steve, perhaps you could do a blog entry on the whole process from this point? I would like some questions answered that an entry on this topic could cover. Things like: does the Citizen Board just review and approve what city staff decide? Do they have veto power? Does city staff defer to them for any decisions? What city staff is involved? Is there any other group with major input besides city staff/elected officials and the Citizen Board? Who works with Downtown180 folks– city staff or the Board? Can there be any overlap of people working on both?
Personally I would agree with some of the people above in that we need at least some people who are not already part of the “in” crowd. They can bring a fresh perspective and the possible insight of an outsider which is not always readily seen and heard. I don’t have a problem with many of the names mentioned here, but as often is the case, the “ivory tower” mentality can set in and we may be missing some important thoughts and ideas if we just go with people who are already in the inner circle of decision-making.
To go with this discussion, does anyone know who was on the original MAPS Citizen Oversight Board? Were they only insiders or were there any “average joes” among them?
Also, although I’m honored at Ryan’s suggestion, I quote the late Groucho Marx: “I don’t want to belong to any club that will accept people like me as a member.” Hopefully that board is made up of people a bit more qualified and influential than me.
Interesting take on the “no” voters being allowed into the group. So we’re wanting a bunch of “yes men.” Yeah, I’m challenging you on this one…
History tells us one voice can’t stop an entire group from making the right decision. But more than once I’ve seen silence lead to disaster.
Think about it…
Steve, there is a difference between yes men and people supportive of MAPS3. Take for instance the Chamber headquarters– yes men would say build it as-is, but some are supportive of the idea but want to see it tweaked to better fit ideal urban planning. You can have different ideas within a group of people who support similar goals. I am not sure how many NO people support the goals of MAPS3. Why would we want someone who thinks a convention center is a waste of money or would never ride public transit/streetcar to have any influence how their location and design??
captcha: wife leached
Brian, is it possible that we’ve got some lingering “they’re bad, we’re good” sentiments left over from the election.
Go to the library. Check out my book “OKC Second Time Around” and look at how things have taken place in the past. Then look at what has transpired in Tulsa… there’s the old way and the new way…
Steve, you may be right on some level. But I want people on the Board to be totally committed to completing this projects efficiently and attractively. What I am trying to say is everyone who is chosen should be properly vetted for their intentions– no matter how they voted. Honestly, I would be concerned if someone chose Porter Davis to be on the Board. I want everyone to have something beneficial to bring to the group, and certainly some people who voted no may do that. I just don’t want people hindering the process. But I do want them to present different ideas, views, ways to accomplish our goals. But someone who is just negative toward MAPS 3 and its projects would do more harm than good.
I think you can have a wide variety of talents and opinions from the “Yes” side if they’re chosen wisely. Being in favor of MAPS doesn’t necessarily mean one would rubber stamp any proposal put forward. To me, it was unthinkable to vote “NO”, as that meant an end to anything but private vision for our city. To be able to vote “NO”, knowing that public works would cease for an unspecified period of time, was a gamble I was unwilling to take, and it’s hard to put myself inside the head of someone who could comfortably allow that to happen.
I don’t think voting yes on MAPS makes you a yes man, I think it says that you are knowledgeable about the issues facing the city and that you’re not afraid to take the next step forward. Take me for example, someone who is temporarily removed from OKC, but let’s say I was the well-established downtown community member that I aspire to be some day.
I would have been working my tail off volunteering with the campaign, and after it passed and I was on an advisory board, I would be the biggest budget hawk ever as well as the most outspoken design critic, because I have a vision of what MAPS can be, and that’s what MAPS is all about in the first place. It’s like Tom McDaniel said, I clearly believe that the “no” side could not buy into vision, and I don’t want anyone who rejects vision on the MAPS oversight committee.
Talking about someone who has been fairly skeptical of the MAPS projects and the new urbanism, how about Dennis Wells? He’s knowledgeable, he’s respectable, but at the same time he would be a different voice on the committee, for certain. He would criticize elements of a park, convention center, streetcar system, or Boathouse row that might serve no functional purpose, just as he has in the past. Now I disagreed with him on the issue of the streetcar, but I valued his reason. It was sure a lot better than anything the NO MAPS side ever came up with.
I think it’s all about why someone voted no. If they voted no because, even though they generally supported the projects, they didn’t trust there’d be enough oversight, put them on. A couple of people like that would lend a lot of legitimacy to the projects over the next few years. But if someone just wants to sabotage, forget about it.
I agree with Ex-Pat and Brian J. There are plenty of people who voted NO for valid, respectable reasons that would be very valuable for this board. Then there are those like Porter Davis and David Glover who would do nothing but sabotage. I know Glover’s not even an OKC resident, but you get the idea.
Brenda Jones