If District 4 was in an ideal world...

[sgrizzle]

We have two candidates for city council for district 4 who re defined more by their negatives than anything else. We have the neighborhood activist and community leader labeled as "anti-downtown" and "anti-development" competing against someone considered "anti-preservation" and "pro-homeless hi-rise." Both achieved these negative labels through perception more than fact. Now imagine if no-one had proposed 10 N Yale, and groups like "Preserve Midtown" and "Who Owns Tulsa" never started, etc.

In this utopian "positive-only" race, how would it be going?

[TURobY]

It's hard, because I actually like both of them. I wish there was an ideal world where I could get a combination of both.

[sgrizzle]

I tried...

[akupetsky]

I am sure that Gomez is a decent guy.  But it is a misconception to think people are voting against him simply because of the "homeless highrise."  I am voting for Maria because I like her, and think she does a good job of keeping her constituents informed and included in the process.  I don't know why people say she is "anti-downtown."  I don't recall a single vote that she made that was "anti-downtown."  In fact, when she ran the last time, I went to a fundraiser thrown by the Mayor in which Kathy Taylor spoke about how Maria "gets" downtown.  I am voting against Gomez because:


1.  He removed all of the restriction that the TMAPC & SignBoard advisory committee put in the digital billboard ordinance.  He gave the outdoor advertising companies everything they wanted.

2.  He threated to sue a constituent merely for criticizing his job performance (and forced her to incur legal costs).

3.  He has repeatedly not included interested parties in the decision making process.  Examples include 10 N. Yale, the downtown assesment (which I support, but I think that many business owners felt they had no say), the downtown housing money that went to the Tribune lofts (after he spoke in favor of it) and, just recently, the park across the street from Hilcrest.  I understand that Hilcrest has been working with the city for months to take over that park, without anyone from Forest Orchard even knowing it. Maybe the decisions would have been the same in each case, but people deserve to be part of the process.


4.  He voted against street package after campaigning on how he was going to fix the streets.

Again, I am sure he is a decent guy.  He just hasn't done a decent job in representing me.

[sgrizzle]

2. He threatened to sue due to libel & slander and a recall petition. If you water that story down too much you might float off.
3. You discount the homeless high-rise then use it as an example of why you're not voting for him? Gomez did not vote on the zoning, the plans, the use, or anything else. The only hing he had an official vote on was a grant money request that no-one at the time had any interest in.
4. Which street package? There were three. Voting against one means you hate streets in general?

Thank you akupetsky for exemplifying my statement so well. You even included the phrase "I am voting against Gomez because"

[akupetsky]

2. He threatened to sue due to libel & slander and a recall petition. If you water that story down too much you might float off.
3. You discount the homeless high-rise then use it as an example of why you're not voting for him? Gomez did not vote on the zoning, the plans, the use, or anything else. The only hing he had an official vote on was a grant money request that no-one at the time had any interest in.
4. Which street package? There were three. Voting against one means you hate streets in general?

Thank you akupetsky for exemplifying my statement so well. You even included the phrase "I am voting against Gomez because"

Thank you for ignoring the rest of my post.  As I said, I am voting FOR Maria--I would probably vote for her regardless.  You said that the "against" vote was based upon perception, not reality.  I pointed out real reasons why I am voting against Gomez.


As for the rest, suing a constituent is a pretty big deal, IMO.  I take my 1st Amendment right pretty seriously.  I don't think we should "water down" that point.  As for 3, I used 10th N. Yale as but one example of a pattern.  Including people in the process is important.  Gomez hasn't done that.  As for the street package, Martinson's proposal came first for a vote.  It was voted down.  The next vote was for the Mayor's.  Councilors could vote for hers, or vote for nothing.  Gomez voted for nothing (along with several other Councilors).  I just think that is an example of the petty political bickering that has gone on at City Council.  Basically, if you are not going to do it my way, we aren't going to do it at all.

[Bledsoe]

2. He threatened to sue due to libel & slander and a recall petition. If you water that story down too much you might float off.
3. You discount the homeless high-rise then use it as an example of why you're not voting for him? Gomez did not vote on the zoning, the plans, the use, or anything else. The only hing he had an official vote on was a grant money request that no-one at the time had any interest in.

I think it is important to get the facts straight--

2. What libel or slander are you talking about?--neither Gomez nor his lawyer could identify one single specific thing--(see): http://www.batesline.com/archives/2009/03/politicians-v-freedom-of-speech.html 

Perhaps I misunderstood--are you suggesting someone should be sued for supporting or organizing a recall?

3. The city council did vote on the "use" of 10 N. Yale--they were required by the Oklahoma Public Housing law-

"Provided, however, that a public hearing to consider a proposed project requiring construction, purchasing, leasing or renting of more than twenty new housing units shall be held together by the authority and governing body, and any such project must be found to be in the public interest by a majority of the members constituting said authority and a majority of the members constituting said governing body as a condition precedent to the implementation of any such project." [/u]

63 O.S. Section 1061(b):
http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=99934

Thus--a majority of the city council and the Tulsa Housing Authority Board must find that the particular proposed project is in the public interest.  Gomez keeps saying "I only voted to allow funding not whether the project  would go forward."  This is not correct.  If the council had voted NO the project would not have gone forward at the 10 N. Yale location as a Tulsa Housing Auth. project.

Many supported this project generally, and many would have supported it at 10 N. Yale if neighborhood involvement and communication had happened.  Tom Adelson is one who was outraged at the process and took lots of heat from his friends down at the Synagogue.  He tried to get it changed as did the Mayor--without success.  If Gomez had just informed his constituents so much discord could have been avoided.  We have public hearings for the public and Gomez really let the public down.