Ed Shadid Gets His Say
I’m sensing Ward 2 Councilman Ed Shadid is the kind of guy who won’t be denied an opportunity to speak his mind on an issue. And if the Oklahoma City Council thought that by refusing to defer a discussion and vote on MAPS 3 and the convention center last week (his flight back to OKC got delayed), they were going to shut him up, they’re probably reconsidering that today.
Shadid took out a two-page advertisement in the Oklahoma Gazette today on the convention center. Read it for yourself.
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
Sounds like a rant to me. Anytime I hear the likes of: “…some of the most powerful business leaders and downtown real estate holders…” I expect blame to be placed on George Bush and his buddies in the oil business! Are downtown stakeholders better suited for these decisions than a Ward-2 physician? I think so…
Welcome to politics Dr. Shadid.
I was quick to criticize Shadid for his inexcusable abscence from the July 5th city council meaning, but this gallant, and important, effort by him almost makes me want to apologize. Maybe all is NOT lost! We still have a chance to reverse the despicable, underhanded actions that have pushed the most unpopular MAPS3 project (only 27% support), the convention center, to the forefront of the MAPS3 time line.
What I find most interesting is the related article in the Gazette which explores the relationship between the CC subcommittee and the new Alliance for Economic Development (recently formed to promote the necessary but unfinanced CC hotel). Councilman Pete White commented on the obvious conflict of interest in having two members (Devon’s Larry Nichols and attorney John Williams) of the Alliance also being members of the CC subcommitte.
Steve, I encourage you to investiagte this unseemly connection further.
Maybe not pure but he’s definitely more involved with how certain things may affect us common-day citizens and he is proactive in his pursuance of his constituents’ needs and wants for MAPS 3.
He certainly is “REFRESHING” in the city’s political climate.
I think the big concern here is that we don’t have leadership from the Mayor’s office like in previous MAPS. Now is a time of consensus building and compromise, not playing politics in the newspaper.
Who is leading our City?
That is the question…
Exactly Jim. I agree with Dr. Shadid on the projects. I wish they would start light rail along with sidewalks now. But the way he is going about it, trying to look like the good guy in the paper with a two-page advertisement on how “it’s me against the world” type thing? I threw up in my mouth a little. He will be running for mayor next election.
“He (Shadid) will be running for mayor next election.” (Matt)
We can hope! But…
Don’t you, Matt, think that the “powerful business leaders and downtown real estate holders…”, that Dennis complains about, are controlling the public funds for their own benefit?
Rob… I wasn’t complaining, rather being sarcastic about Shadid’s default assumption that the rich & powerful are inherently evil. Sounds like you share that assumption!
Isn’t it remotely possible that they have the community’s best interest in mind?
Question to those who read “OKC Second Time Around”:
- What happened when power shifted too far into the hands of the private sector in OKC in guiding downtown development in the 1960s and early 1970s?
- What happened when a backlash caused power to shift too far into the hands of the public sector in the late 1970s and throughout the 1980s?
History is more than story-telling… it’s a teacher, if the student is willing to learn.
Rob, everyone thought Mick was great at first too. I for one still thinks he is doing fine. I think he has OKC’s best interest in his heart, maybe he doesn’t have the best ideas or tact.
Shadid has made it very clear that he was going to come after Cornett from the beginning. Cornett played along with him and gave Shadid the middle finger when it came to delaying the vote. Now Shadid is taking it public and crying foul, and even though he might be right, he needs to quit being a baby. He’s playing big boy politics and needs to act like a big boy.
I haven’t read it, Steve, but when I think about the 60′s & early 70′s, the failures of the Pei Plan come to mind. As far as the late 70′s and 80′s, I’m thinkin’ the weak economy had more to do with the lack of development than public over-influence.
I’ve been on vacation since last Friday and I’ve wondered if anything has been going on during this past week. Well, I’m back now … and wow …
If the council members who thought they would take away Shadid’s opportunity to speak by playing dirty pool after his travel plans got screwed up in Europe and after he called city manager Couch and councilman White, explained his predicament but said he could be present and would be if needed by spending $4000 for extra travel expenses to do so … but being told by both, no … no problem, it will be continued … BUT IT WASN’T … it is evident that those who banked their positions on rookey-doing Shadid out of his opportunity to speak have miscalculated.
Denied a council forum, he has resorted to a more public one with this 2-page advertisement.
What we have now appears to be a no-holds-barred city council fight before our very eyes, something that probably very few, including Shadid, wanted. I don’t blame him, though, since he was left no alternative by those in the majority at the last council meeting. They said, “See ya,” and now they do but not in a way that will probably suit them.
If it’s time to go to the mattresses (and I still hope that it isn’t) I’m staking my position with Shadid, short term, long term. Given the current council make-up, Shadid’s position may be doomed to fail for now. But city council elections occur every two years, and Oklahoma City has seen a major shift in city council membership before and not that long ago based upon a strong desire of citizens to have council members whose only focus was upon good government. It could happen again, and, if that develops, well … get lots of popcorn and stay tuned.
While on vacation, a couple of news items (new to me) solidified my point of view. One was that the US Chamber of Commerce was the group which led to the US Supreme Court in 2010 to protect the identities of groups like the Committee for Oklahoma City Momentum in 2011; another item was not a news item at all but was a re-watching of the 1973 movie, Soylent Green. Another news item while on vacation was that Corpus Christi is experiencing its own city problems, not completely dissimilar to ours … trying to pump up a convention center which is losing money by expanding it to one which might but which will cost taxpayers a bunch for the experiment, and more.
One thing for sure … next week’s July 19 council meeting is showing signs of being a whing-dinger. Don’t miss it.
By trying to pull a fast one on Shadid the cruds and crap heads that infest the city council and mayors office got their comeuppance. This is the latest and most public display that the mayor and city council, other than Shadid have their own selfish possiblly graft related agendas.
Just a point of observation. Pro or con on the Convention Center, consider the source of the research and motivation on all sides. The referenced Market Demand Study in the Gazette ad was issued by Source Strategies Inc. on March 5, 2003 and was commissioned by “Citizens for a Sound Economy.” Here’s a link to the report http://www.sourcestrategies.org/pdf/ssi_conv_hq_hotels.pdf.
Citizens for a Sound Economy no longer exists but was formed in 1984 as an anti-tax organization funded by (gee)big business and politicians, also opposed to the Kyoto Protocol. It later split into two groups. Dick Armey remains associated with one “FreedomWorks” while the Americans for Prosperity Foundation is funded almost exclusively by David H. Koch and Charles G. Koch of Koch Industries.
Imagine that scenario. Politicians and business interests working together to fund a report used to kill a convention cneter hotel development. What’s up with that?
This conversation is getting good. Tom, interesting info there – that’s the problem with this entire conversation – what information can we rely on? (Ed, I know you’re reading this out there, feel free to chime in).
Jeffrey, I agree Tulsa politics are poisonous. I wonder if that tidbit was thought about when the firm that made Tulsa politics so bad was hired to interfere with city council elections in OKC?
Just in case your readers are unaware, Steve, the Tulsa outfit you reference is, as I understand it, the group that did the mailings and push-pull phone surveys for the Committee for Oklahoma City Momentum. I stand ready to be corrected if that’s not the case.
As a member of the Convention Center sub-committee, I will enter this fray (probably unwisely so) to offer two minor but hopefully helpful corrections to statements made by Dr. Shadid and repeated by others:
First, in his advertisement Dr. Shadid stated that “Attorney John Williams” is a member of the Convention Center sub-committee. This is not accurate. John Williams, the popular hotel manager who formerly ran the Skirvin Hotel and now oversees the Colcord Hotel and other interests for Devon, is on the committee. Both of these John Williamses are fine gentlemen and are valuable contributors to our city.
Secondly, Dr. Shadid asserts that “major downtown landowners” (plural) are on the Convention Center subcommittee and states that their personal land holdings might give rise to some bias. I cannot help but feel that Dr. Shadid is implying that I am one of those landowners. The truth is that neither I nor any of my businesses have ever owned property in downtown Oklahoma City. The only exception to this is my brief ownership for a few days of the property on which the Bricktown Parking Garage stands — and I sold this before I ran for mayor in order to avoid even the potential of a conflict of interest.
Enjoy the discussion.
Kirk Humphreys
On both matters Humphreys is correct. It is John D. Williams, who was general manager at the Skirvin when he was appointed and is now running the Colcord Hotel, who is on the committee. Also, Kirk Humphreys does not own land downtown. His son Grant developed the Block 42 condominiums, and they lease an office along Walker Avenue. I also do not know of any downtown land owned by committee members Russell Perry, Roy Williams or Mike Carrier.
I’ve been trying to just let other speak on this matter… I worry for all sides on all this and the direction everything is taking.
Steve: How did you know I was reading this?
Kirk: The section of the ad asking questions about the Populous study is the least important, and unfortunately, seemingly the most discussed. I have written a column for another newspaper and dropped that section as I want us to focus primarily on the empirical data and the poor methodology of the consultants and not conjecture. I knew from a urban planner who studied at MIT that you did not own property in the vicinity, and I was told that by Jim Couch as well. Pete White has tought me from the beginning that it is not personal land holdings or direct financial gain that are the primary conflict of interests, but rather, relationships. I was unable to convey that as articulately as Pete. Thank you for the Williams info; there is at least one other city councilor under the same impression. I do remain very critical of the process in which our consultants are arriving at recommendations for reasons beyond what was stated in the ad. If those in medicine utilized the same faulty reasoning and methodology utilized by ADG, Populous and CS&L, we would not tolerate it and neither should we as a city. It is the poor methodology, rather than the influence of the subcommittee members which is my primary concern.
Steve: I can”t make you or anyone else not worry but need to at least say that I believe this type of debate is healthy for our city and that the idea that just because there is discord that there will be a compulsory degeneration into Tulsonian dysfunction is baseless.
The way I see it is that we’ve got two different opinions: there are clearly people who believe a new convention center is a key part of forward progress for the city and there are people who believe that while the MAPS proposals included a new convention center, the fact that it was the most unpopular of all the proposals should relegate it to the rear of the timeline. I don’t think there’s any evidence that there’s a conspiracy theory, nor do I think there’s any evidence that people voted on the timeline based on who gave them campaign contributions. If you study political science, there’s data showing groups tend to donate to people who think similarly to them, rather than politicians voting to please those who elected them. Also, I get tired of reading about who does or doesn’t own land downtown. We say we want development downtown, but we don’t want people to profit from it? I don’t think there’s any way people could think the group that owns the land proposed for the convention center bought it with insider information, considering how long they’ve owned it. Have they been promoting it as a possible location for the convention center? Possibly, but wouldn’t any of us who owned land that was under consideration for a project like this do the same? If we could move away from conspiracy theories and towards a more rational discussion of the pros and cons of the timeline and the location as stand alone issues, I think it would be more beneficial and less divisive.
That being said, I don’t like the location and I’m not impressed with the methods used by Populous to determine the best location. However, their methods seemed more sloppy than sinister. I don’t like the idea of it cutting off access between the Myriad Gardens and the new Central Park and I really don’t like the idea of putting part of it underground. If we’re stuck with that site, however, the building needs to be impressive. I’d rather see it built up than down. It’s cheaper to build up, and I will be very unhappy if the convention center goes over budget, either due to land or building costs. The loading docks can go over on the west side of the building, and they can come up with a screen if they don’t think they’re attractive. I really don’t understand why Populous virtually ruled out the east side of the park as a site, saying that the loading docks were an aesthetic issue when they made accomodations for them on the current site. To me, far better to have loading docks east of the convention center in Core to Shore than right across from our new Central Park, underground or not.
The timeline is less of an issue to me. I remember the mayor mentioning that the convention center would be last, but I don’t remember any promises to that effect and I don’t really remember it coming up before the vote. So, saying we were lied to about the timeline is a little histrionic, to me. As far as I can remember, there were no mentions of timelines before MAPS passed. While I am dubious that we can really even attract bigger conventions without far more retail, better transit and more attractions downtown, and I don’t particularly like the methods used to alter the timeline, I think we need to pick our battles and I don’t feel this is as important a battle as some others may be. Unless……the convention center goes over budget and there is an attempt made to move money away from other projects to complete the convention center. That is unacceptable, and the best way to stay in budget is to make sure we optimize land and construction costs. I’d far rather have a nice design for the convention center than a basement. And if either of the other two sites is far cheaper to acquire, they’d be just fine sites, IMO.
I did not state anywhere in the advertisement “Attorney John Williams” and made no reference to anyone being on the convention center subcommittee except Mike Carrier.
I worry also, Steve. I worry when a majority of city council breaks its unwritten rule of amity about continuances and gives what appears to be an unwelcome council member the short shrift. I worry when city council members cease to give respect to their peers … it’s the old golden rule, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, but the golden rule has been trashed by the city council majority. Pete White and Skip Kelly not included.
If the ugliness of the council majority cannot be fixed, we are in for some ugly times ahead. And, perhaps, that’s not such a bad thing … every now and then, it is fair to consider kicking the rascals out. Exactly that occurred in the 1950s-1960s. Perhaps the time has come again.
Kirk, Shadid never stated in his “advertisement” that attorney John Williams was a member of the CC subcommittee. That was reported by Gazette staff writer Clifton Adcock in an article entitled “Shift happens” in the same July 13th issue. Adcock also stated that “two of the three people listed as incorporators of the Alliance-Nichols and John Williams-sit on the convention center subcommittee.”
Furthermore, are you not a land owner of the former Downtown Airpark property? Although not necessarily in the downtown core, that area would certainly benefit from early development of the convention center nearby.
My apologies on not checking the ad myself. I can see how with so much information, discourse, etc. flying at once, how Humphreys could have confused what was in the Shadid ad w/ the Adcock story. As for the Downtown Airpark, that’s no more downtown than the I-40/Meridian corridor. In saying that Humphreys was correct, I was referring to the make-up of the committee, and not the content of the advertisement.
I consider the DOWNTOWN Airpark property DOWNTOWN! I-40 & Meridian is miles away,Stev, outside the I-44 loop entirely; no comparison. Isn’t the new I-40 near Kirk’s property? Of course it is. Didn’t he recently say that his much touted and publicized development on the DOWNTOWN Airpark property “dead in the water!”. Unless, I guess he gets his convention center (less than a mile away) built before the other more popular MAPS 3 projects.
“This (the Downtown Airpark property) will build on the success of MAPS and be another boost to the momentum of downtown Oklahoma City.”
(Blair Humphreys, qouted in The Oklahoman, 2-2-06)
Um, yeah. That’s all nice and good. But the Downtown Airpark isn’t downtown. It isn’t even close. But I’m looking forward to hearing about your walk from the airpark to the central business district Rob.
“We became interested in the property because of its great views of the downtown skyline and prime riverfront location,” Aduddell (Humphrey’s partner) said. “It’s by far the biggest single development site in close proximity to downtown.”
Views are one thing. But, I don’t personally know a whole lot of people who can walk on water. And, I’m not at all sure how a convention center would benefit a residential/business development 15 blocks, a major interstate highway and a river away. That’s a part of the conspiracy theory that needs to be laid to rest pronto.
“Drawings of “The Waterfront” released in early 2009 showed the development along Western Avenue, the new I-40 and the Oklahoma River would consist of hotels, restaurants, housing and shops. Grant Humphreys even bought a Ferris wheel from the Santa Monica Pier via eBay for the development.” (The Oklahoman, 6-25-11)
Rob, still waiting to find out when you intend to make the walk from the Downtown Airpark site to the central business district. I can also quote from stories in the past about Aubrey McClendon’s aspirations for Classen Curve – would that make it a part of downtown as well? I seriously doubt anyone is buying into your argument here….
FYI – there are some great views of the downtown skyline from I-35 south of the river…. is that a part of downtown as well?
Anyway, back to the issues at hand. Isn’t this just all about an argument about form over substance at this point? If we let this one vote become a never ending spiral of city council insanity, well then ok, this is a substative issue. But right now all I see is really bad form on the part of the council (not giving Mr. Shadid correct info or not following through), rather than substance (changing what would have been the outcome of a full council vote).
I don’t mind arguing the priority and timing of the convention center getting built. But the MAPS 3 vote was to build one, like it or not. Yeah yeah, don’t get me into the silly circular logic of the MAPS vote didn’t really vote for projects, the council change change them at their whim etc. etc. The plan at the time of the vote was to build one, so it should get done. I just happen to disagree on the timing…it should be done later in the timeline, not earlier. A park etc. would do more for the convention center than the other way around.
slackmeyer, why don’t you put actions to your words and walk that distance yourself? When all is said and done, the whole point of Core-to-Shore was to expand the boundaries of downtown and the airpark will feel a part of that new area. Just because a tiny stream of water (it’s definitely not a river) separates the two areas doesn’t mean it’s not a part of the core of downtown. I agree with Rob solely based on the fact that Kirk has referred to it as the downtown airpark. If he wasn’t hoping to benefit/profit off it being so close to downtown and honestly a ‘part of’ downtown then he should change his wording. Steven how’s that walk coming along?
Good comments, above, by Shadid and Jill. Listening to the KTOK radio broadcast last night, he strikes me as conciliatory (much more so than I would have been, under the circumstances) and merely wanting to contribute to the discussion and debate concerning which he was denied the opportunity on July 5. I’ve been wrapped up finishing off my own vacation video to spend time doing a comparison of the comments made during city council meetings on May 31 vs. July 5, but I’ll get to it shortly.
Jill, I think it unlikely that those who voted against the July 5 continuance are part of a conspiracy theory. I do think they exhibit fear from hearing a different point of view, though, and that fear manifests itself in an unseemly paranoia, or, at least, dislike, from hearing an opposing point of view. Not for a second do I think that the July 5 non-continuance would have occurred if, for example, the mayor could not have been present and the mayor had requested a continuance.
Disagree?
I’m not going to walk that distance because I know the airpark isn’t a part of downtown, and won’t be after Core to Shore is done. It’s far more than water separating the two – there’s a good two-mile walk there. Downtown Airpark was the name of the property when Humphreys bought it, and it simply referred to the fact that it was the closest airport to downtown (but not located downtown). The name of that proposed development does not include the word downtown – it’s called “The Waterfront”
Thanks for playing Ray.
[...] • City Councilman Ed Shadid decided to let everyone know that you don’t fuck with City Councilman Ed Shadid. (via OKCcentral.com) [...]
Steve is like the Casey Anthony jury; they can’t put two & two together to determine a reasonable conclusion.
The point of the matter isn’t if the Humphreys’ property is less than a mile from the urban core (as I have stated) or 15 blocks (as Jill has stated) or two miles (as Steve would like to us think), it’s that the property would definitely benefit from the convention center being pushed to the forefront of the MAPS3 timeline. Wouldn’t the planned hotels, restaurants, & retail gain an advantage? Wouldn’t the ferris wheel be a more popular tourist attraction? Would it not only be “another boost to the momentum of downtown Oklahoma City”(their description, not mine) or also be boosted itself by new downtown activity? Simply, wouldn’t “the biggest single development site in close proximity to downtown”(their description again, not mine) see increased success and be more lucrative?
Oh, and Steve, take a cab from the new CC site to the property and tell me how much it costs? Or maybe you could take a River Cruise from the boathouse area (Is that downtown?) to “The Waterfront” or wait until the Bricktown Canal extends to the river and take a water taxi?
Ed – Thank you for your comments and the correction on the context of the Williams reference. While you and I might disagree at times, I appreciate your thoughtful comments and your desire for the best for our city. Rob and Ray – Wow…
Also, I thought the Waterfront Development is on hold? Correct me if I am wrong.
Rob, if the Humphrey’s really want to profit off the new convention center, they better start developing so they are ahead of the construction of the new CC. Like Dennis said above, just because someone has money doesn’t mean they are evil or don’t have the city’s best interests in mind. It sure would be terrible if someone profitted off the momentum of the city. How unAmerican…
Rob, let’s make a deal: I won’t need a cab to get from the new convention center site to Park and Robinson when this heat wave breaks. So when temperatures cool down into the 80s, let’s agree to meet one morning for coffee. After that you go to the airpark site and walk to Park and Robinson and I’ll go to the future convention center site and walk to Park and Robinson. This shouldn’t be a problem for you at all considering how close that location is downtown.
Again, thanks for playing. Please smile and wave goodbye to Don Pardo on the way out. Sorry but there won’t be any one-year free supply of Rice-A-Roni, the San Francisco treat, or a home game of Jeopardy. But you from this point on be immortalized as the one who declared that downtown now stretches down to Western Avenue and the Oklahoma River. Next stop Stockyards City and State Fair Park?
A new convention center won’t much change the traffic in OKC, just give the same organizations a nicer building. They can take white elephant canadian river crises to the new white elephant convention center. Heck Ausitn’s having trouble attracting people, does OKC really think it has more to offer than Austin. traffic will remain local as alwyas. And yes Steve, Hunphrey’s in the long line of former elected officls making out well via being well connnected once out of office. He presented a case for taxpayers paying costs of doing business to develop his holdings, going with the lame cannard that the development would instead go to Norman or Moore. Read the piece in the Globe Dr Shadid cites.
Edgar, it says “Paid Advertisement” at the top of the two pages Dr. Shadid bought. Just FYI.
What do you do Edgar? That’s a pretty hate filled post.
We’ve now had three attempts to delve down to name calling, and quite frankly, I’ve got higher standards for this blog. I think we’ve had some good discussion here, but this thread has run its course. I’m cutting it off now. If you have questions or concerns about this, or think I’m taking the wrong step, please do so by emailing slackmeyer@oklahoman.com
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Ed is obviously not beholden to any powerful interest or group, he is whipsmart, honest, straight forward and speaks his mind. Most refreshing elected official in Oklahoma.