Lone SandRidge Opponent Yanked from Board of Adjustment
David Wanzer was the only member of the city’s Board of Adjustment to oppose SandRidge Energy’s application to tear down three older buildings on its downtown campus. Mayor Mick Cornett chose not to appoint Wanzer for another term and instead appointed Mark Stonecipher in his place. Cornett reappointed the other two members up for new terms – Jim Allen and Michael Dunn, who both supported the SandRidge building demolition (the council gave its blessing to Cornett’s appointments).
Cornett declined to say why he was reappointing Dunn and Allen but chose not to reappointment Wanzer, citing his policy of not discussing appointments to boards and commissioners. Cornett’s predecessors Kirk Humphreys and Ron Norick on various occasions did discuss changes to boards (Humphreys was quite vocal in voicing his displeasure with former Riverfront Redevelopment board member Dusty Martin after Martin openly advocated on behalf of controversial property owner Moshe Tal).
Cornett’s authority to appoint and remove members from boards and commissions includes the MAPS citizens oversight board.
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
David Wanzer…….Winning
OKC is lucky to have him and other talented designers like him during this point in the City’s history.
NOW you’re getting to some good stuff Steve. Focus more on this, and making City Hall squirm, less on doubting the only above-board process this city has seen in a while (streetcar).
Tom Ward has done a great deal for Oklahoma City over the past 20 years. He has created tens of thousands of good paying jobs and donated millions of dollars to Oklahoma charities, churches, etc. He has never done one single thing that hurt Oklahoma City or Oklahoma for that matter. I would more likely question why Wanzer opposed it.
Do we know how common or uncommon it is for someone NOT to get reappointed? The initial reaction is to think this is because of Wanzer’s position on SandRidge and that this is scandalous, but maybe this happens a lot? Has Wanzer had anything to say about whether he wanted to be reappointed? Not trying to start an argument, just curious.
Terry, read my latest post. Other members like Rod Baker have served multiple terms. Wanzer is choosing not to comment on this matter. Wanzer is a designer whose livelihood includes contracts with the city and sometimes major corporations in the city.
So, Steven, if Mr. Ward decides to parade around the city naked or doesn’t file his taxes, should we be okay with that too because of his past? The vote wasn’t about Mr. Ward’s level of contribution to the city.
Personally, I think demolishing a historic building that could have been saved hurts Oklahoma City, and in light of our history, hurts us a lot more at this point. We don’t have a lot left. (Of course, whether India Temple fell in that category was a matter of some disagreement.)
Nick, he was removed because he could have a conflict of interest at some point. There is no conspiracy theory. Get a hobby.
Let’s say it was political. Mayor Mick is the head cheese. Wanzer was a roadblock in a decision that most people wanted to happen, including the mayor, so Cornett removed him. That’s politics and Mick can do what he wants. I suggest you not vote for him next time.
I’m probably going to get beat up for saying this, but I would wonder how different things would be if we elected a democrat as the mayor? I know it’s supposed to be non-partisan, but I do remember the robo calls, eluding voters to Cornett’s affiliation before he was initially elected. He was running against the guy who owns full circle. Maybe historic preservation and some other policies might be different. Just a thought.
The mayor’s authority to appoint is not absolute, though, but is subject to the approval of the city council (unless that is different under the city charter than it was during Mayor James Norick’s 1st term, when his appointments to the initial Urban Renewal Authority were put on “indefinite hold” by motion of council). I doubt that it is likely today that council would not approve, however.