2008 city council elections

[pmcalk]

quote:Originally posted by Double A

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

AA, first, the comp plan.  As I have told you before, under STATE law, the Tulsa METROPOLITAN AREA Planning Commission has ultimate authority over the comprehensive plan.  The TMAPC, who will ultimately recommend approval of the plan, has both county (3) and city (6) members.  Without some county involvement in the steering committee, you would have some real problems when it came time for adoption.  The steering committee simply is not exclusively a city committee.  If the planning commission were a city planning commission, I would agree with you.  But as long as the TMAPC operates under a joint agreement with the county, you are going to need to involve the county.

As for the rest of your post, thanks for once again proving my point.  I was trying to get at the inaccuracy of your statement regarding "geographic inequity."  The problems of our city cannot simply be explained based upon where you live.  If all of the residents of Maple ridge moved to the north side, I have no doubt that the north side would get the attention they deserve.  As Marlin explained, we need to get to the root of what is the true problem.  Instead of responding, you simply accuse me of not understanding because of where I live.  How ridiculous.  Yes, life's problems are much easier to explain when its all about class warfare and geographic inequity.  But, in truth, life is full of shades of gray.  You know I have defended you in the past, but your "angry young man" routine is getting really old.  Keep attacking everyone who disagrees with you, and soon no one will listen.  Stop tilting at windmills, and try to engage in real debate.

Actually, I was told he was serving on this committee because the County is contributing funding, yet to my knowledge no county funding has materialized to date. Has it? This is the city of Tulsa comprehensive plan update, not the Tulsa metropolitan area comprehensive plan. It is funded by the city of Tulsa, if Tulsans wanted Owasso residents deciding who will be hired to develop our comprehensive plan they wouldn't have voted for the charter amendment. Cosigning the B.S. speaks volumes. Nice dodge on the Preserve Midtown question, BTW.

Nice dodge on all other issues, BTW.  Unless the city of Tulsa decides to move away from a metropolitan planning commission, the comprehensive plan must be approved by the joint city/county TMAPC.  Read the state statute--Title 19A, Section 863 et al.  Funding is irrelevant.  I have no idea who, beside the funds put in by the city, will ultimately be funding the comp plan. Since we don't know how much it will cost, that's a bit premature.  By the way, everyone involved in this process has recognized that it is a two part endeavor--first, update the city, second, update unincorporated county, at least within Tulsa's fence line.  

As for PreserveMidtown--from what I have heard, their real interest is in adoption of a conservation district, which Councilor Barnes has unequivocally stated she supports.  My understanding is that she has been pulling together information from other cities and previous research, and setting up meetings with key neighborhood advocates.  I suspect we will see something very soon with conservation districts.  Since all zoning code amendments must ultimately be approved by the City Council, it makes no sense for the TMAPC to act unless and until City Council indicates their support.

[BASleuth]

I am ready to return to the former form of city government, where citizens knew the identity of the commissioner who was responsible for certain functions of Tulsa City Government, whereas today no one has any responsibility for anything, it is always someones elses responsibility.  Just think we could kick the street commissioner out of office for the current conditions of our streets; got a water problem, could contact the Commissioner office who is responsible for the Water department...not satisfied, get that commissioner booted next election.. Today no one is responsible for anything thing.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by BASleuth

I am ready to return to the former form of city government, where citizens knew the identity of the commissioner who was responsible for certain functions of Tulsa City Government, whereas today no one has any responsibility for anything, it is always someones elses responsibility.  Just think we could kick the street commissioner out of office for the current conditions of our streets; got a water problem, could contact the Commissioner office who is responsible for the Water department...not satisfied, get that commissioner booted next election.. Today no one is responsible for anything thing.

Yeah, well they changed that because supposedly west and north Tulsa were always ignored.  We changed to a representative council form of government and what happened?

After 17 years (it was 1990 when it changed, wasn't it?) The west side and north side still say they are being ignored.

If we changed back the west side and north side will, surprise, still claim to be ignored.

[Wrinkle]

We changed from a Commission form of government due primarily to a Supreme Court ruling on similar City governments being unConstitutional in representation. Believe it a city in PA which brought the issue. But, Tulsa's was exactly similar and subject to the ruling.

Only then, did leaders decide to change our form of government to representative, yet leaving the 'strong' Mayor (i.e., weak Council) form, which minimizes actual representation.

[shadows]

Under the former charter commissioner form of government the commissioners could be found in their offices where a citizen with a complaint could drop in and discuss their problems.  

The amending of the system of government was submitted to the voters previously with eleven councilors which the voter defeated.  The Lords of the circle brought a political expert, at a cost of excess of $200,000 dollars who was elected mayor.  The city spent $23,000 dollars to revise the eleven representatives to nine.  Then the charter was resubmitted which was a new form of government called as amending the charter.      

Before the amendments were add (case law allows the amending of any section of a city charter or all sections but you must itemize each section that the voter wants to amend in order for the voter to be selective to that part they want to amend.)   The amending of the charter was done by including all the sections under a single ballot title that exceeded the limitation in the number of words.

The citizens have less representation as now all thing must go to the mayor through the mayor action line.  The previous system was a mayor/commissioner form which was changed to a dominating mayor who grants permission to the weak councilors before any action is taken.

The archives will  show that the changing of city governments had come to be an prevailing issue of the time as the strong mayor concept was acceptable as apathy was being overrun by the inflation factor.  

The bottom line is we have increased crime, wagon grade streets and a explosion in the budget process without  control over representation .

[RecycleMichael]

quote:Originally posted by shadows
The citizens have less representation as now all thing must go to the mayor through the mayor action line.  

Completely untrue.

This Mayor is very easy to talk with. She is at tons of events and tries hard to meet and talk to everybody. You can also write her direct or even e-mail her without going through the Mayor's Action Center.

She communicates better with city employees than any previous mayor as well.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by recyclemichael

quote:Originally posted by shadows
The citizens have less representation as now all thing must go to the mayor through the mayor action line.  

Completely untrue.

This Mayor is very easy to talk with. She is at tons of events and tries hard to meet and talk to everybody. You can also write her direct or even e-mail her without going through the Mayor's Action Center.

She communicates better with city employees than any previous mayor as well.

I don't know if this is true or not ("She communicates better.."), but is not a requirement of the position. "Strong" Mayor means near absolute contol of day-to-day with only minimal infliction by Council, and a political price to pay with each adventure.

It can be good with the right person, and just as much bad with the wrong one.

Yet it remains minimally representative.

[Conan71]

I've had a long-standing suspicion that RM is a shill for the Mayor or her boy-toy.  []

Over the last couple of months of being in contact with her on some projects, I've found her to very approachable, very cerebral, considerate, and has a pretty decent sense of humor.  I've gotten to observe her in her official capacity and her figurehead ceremonial capacity.  I spoke with her about a couple of other issues/projects coming up and was told more or less that the door to the mayors office is always open.  

No, I don't expect the mayor to be able to take every call and a smart leader is going to delegate things to the proper person who can best handle the task or issue.

I've really gained a better appreciation for her and what the task of being mayor of the city our size entails, a complete 180 from my previous thougts?  Not quite, but she's earned a lot of respect from me- not that she lives for that or anything [}:)].  There are still issues and hires I don't agree with, but I've become aware that she is willing to listen and try to work with people.

[rwarn17588]

<Wrinkle wrote:

It can be good with the right person, and just as much bad with the wrong one.

<end clip>

Well, duh.

You could say that about anything. A car, a hammer, a tax-code book.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

<Wrinkle wrote:

It can be good with the right person, and just as much bad with the wrong one.

<end clip>

Well, duh.

You could say that about anything. A car, a hammer, a tax-code book.

Seems the point slipped right over your head while you were pounding on your book.

In case you remain wondering, it's about checks and balances, of which there are few on a 'strong' Mayor. A good person with few checks can accomplish much, while a not so good one may do much more than nothing in terms of damage.

Most consider the position over the person and demand checks and balances. We have, as I stated, minimal representation in that respect.

[shadows]

Recycle quoted "  She communicates better with city employees than any previous mayor as well."
------------------------------

The words of wisdom spoken by one of the group but  omitted is the promise that the strong mayor concept would give representation for the taxpaying citizens of Tulsa.  One could use the incident of buying a building that has rapidly decreased in value over its lifetime, as a communicated city employee project, in the darkness without the citizens approval, to be paid for by the working poor and retirees.  

It is amazing how the mayor communicates with the citizens on the streets and crime.  Lets see it is "I'll appoint a committee" or "I'll see if I have another opening on my 16 appointed staff for a $100,000+to look at it but now I have to the rush over for a TV screening."

Did per chance you leave out "SOME city employees" in your statement?

[RecycleMichael]

No shadows. You are wrong.

First, I am not a city employee, so your comment about being one of the group is wrong.

Secondly, she has implemented a policy of sending out an internal e-mail every week, to every city employee and just for city employees, talking about what is going on in the city that could affect them.

Communications was never a strength for you, was it?

[Renaissance]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle



Most consider the position over the person and demand checks and balances. We have, as I stated, minimal representation in that respect.

I would suggest that this point captures much of what holds Tulsa back.  No matter the Mayor, there seem to be parties in this town who will work together to limit his or her initiatives.  I don't generally understand the motivations for this--they come under all guises, from wanting to limit government generally, to personal attacks on the executive--but what they have in common is an irrational (to me) distrust of whoever is in charge at the top.

I'm not saying every Mayor is a saint, but this city might reach certain goals faster if the strange, universal opposition in Tulsa would quiet its rhetoric a bit.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

I would suggest that this point captures much of what holds Tulsa back.  No matter the Mayor, there seem to be parties in this town who will work together to limit his or her initiatives.  I don't generally understand the motivations for this--they come under all guises, from wanting to limit government generally, to personal attacks on the executive--but what they have in common is an irrational (to me) distrust of whoever is in charge at the top.

I'm not saying every Mayor is a saint, but this city might reach certain goals faster if the strange, universal opposition in Tulsa would quiet its rhetoric a bit.

Nice point.  They seem to be advocating for structural changes that would leave us in perpetual gridlock.  The problems are pretty easy to understand:  public safety, transportation, water, sewer, and parks and figuring out how to maintain and grow them.  We don't need "checks and balances"...we need accountability.  If you don't like how an executive is handling affairs, then toss the rascal out in a couple of years.  But don't strip him of his power to make changes in the city.

[RecycleMichael]

Rick Westcott is running for re-election according to today's Tulsa World.