Queen Kathy - again?? JUST SAY NO!!!!

[LocalGirl]

For you to try and bring up some obscure person (not a colleague, not a friend, my a$$) who was fired years ago shows how little it takes for you to make up outrage for political purposes.

Ok, that's enough. I was spurred to start this topic when a KT campaigner knocked at my door - not months earlier when BC announced his candidacy, though I knew I would support him from that moment.  I formulated opinions about KT YEARS ago when she was mayor and I was very involved in neighborhood issues. I watched and listened closely and neither liked nor respected what I saw. I used the Nancy Atwater (NOT a friend and NOT a colleague) example because, having occurred during that time, it was something I knew about first-hand and because it's a concrete example of the behavior I OBSERVED in KT throughout her tenure. There are many many more examples of her childish and dictatorial behavior, all evident through observation. I believe she left office (elected not to run) because she had bigger and better irons in the fire at the state level and, at the time, heaved a huge sigh of relief that we would be rid of her. I was, frankly, outraged at her hubris in believing that she could simply step back in to her 'old job' and hoped that Tulsans wouldn't allow it. I still do - with a passion.

My opinions on the two candidates are UNRELATED.

I don't know KT personally, but loathe her as mayor.  I believe she deems herself not a public servant, but more an overlord (enabled by lots of $-acquired influence.) I hate that in government! My opinions are based on my own perceptions of facts and events that I KNOW to be true because I was paying attention. So, my big mistake was having the unmitigated gall to air my opinions on a public forum, huh?

You and others, obviously, disagree and that's your prerogative. However, your prerogatives do not serve to curtail my own. I view many of her behaviors as 'wrong' where you do not. Fine. But, through this, you believe you're privy to the operation of my mind? I assure you that you are not!

Go have a drink, yourself. Drink to your own astonishingly superior intellect and morality.

[RecycleMichael]

Go have a drink, yourself. Drink to your own astonishingly superior intellect and morality.

Thanks for noticing.

[TheArtist]

So, it doesn't matter what tactics are used to accomplish one's goals?  I think the ballpark is a good thing, too, but I know it wasn't all KT's doing - lots of private money and influence was behind that project. I also know she was dishonest in the process of getting the project through the Council.  But, so what??

What (else) did she do wrong? Oh, please! How about her lies to accomplish the City Hall move? How about her refusal to attend CC meetings and make required presentations because they DARED question her? How about firing the new Parks Department head, within months of actively recruiting her, because she DARED question her (KT)?  KT thinks she's royalty, exempt from ethical standards, and she's nothing more than an empire builder!

NO - it's NOT ok to 'get things done' in a crooked way - even if some of those things may be beneficial.  (What about when they're not?)  She's shown she will do whatever is necessary to have things HER way and giving over power to someone like that is just nonsensical.

I never said "it doesn't matter what tactics are used" that's a product of your bias.  I also did not say "it's ok to 'get things done' in a crooked way".  

I do not like how the Bartlett administration appears to be "slowing down the implementation of and or pushing aside, or at best not pushing for" the implementation of the new Comprehensive Plan for instance.  And has even been pushing for things in total contradiction of it's findings (one of the studies showed that Tulsa would have slower growth if we continued "as usual" and did things like the Gilcrease Expressway expansion" but would have faster growth if we redid our zoning/infrastructure planning to instead begin focusing more on quality, pedestrian friendly infill.  So what's he do?  Pushes for the Gilcrease Expressway expansion and ignores the new Comprehensive Plan that everyone worked so long and hard on.  Now I could cry foul and suppose he is just wanting his way over the peoples wishes, point to this and that to show how he is being crooked and even immoral in how he does all this, call him names "King Bartlett" etc.  But I know this is just the way things are played.  Each administration is going to have it's priorities that will be different than someone elses and will do things to make sure their goals are pushed forward and others goals that they do not want to happen are pushed back or ignored.  Depending on your perspective the "tactics" involved may look, or may indeed be, "shady".  There is a difference between being morally wrong and legally wrong.  I believe it's morally wrong to be pushing for more sprawl as usual development, and ignoring the tenants of the new Comprehensive Plan, which I believe will, over time, hurt our cities potential.  But that doesn't mean the "means" or "tactics" by which he is doing so is illegal or wrong in that respect "though I don't like them".

[Conan71]

Ok, that's enough. I was spurred to start this topic when a KT campaigner knocked at my door - not months earlier when BC announced his candidacy, though I knew I would support him from that moment.  I formulated opinions about KT YEARS ago when she was mayor and I was very involved in neighborhood issues. I watched and listened closely and neither liked nor respected what I saw. I used the Nancy Atwater (NOT a friend and NOT a colleague) example because, having occurred during that time, it was something I knew about first-hand and because it's a concrete example of the behavior I OBSERVED in KT throughout her tenure. There are many many more examples of her childish and dictatorial behavior, all evident through observation. I believe she left office (elected not to run) because she had bigger and better irons in the fire at the state level and, at the time, heaved a huge sigh of relief that we would be rid of her. I was, frankly, outraged at her hubris in believing that she could simply step back in to her 'old job' and hoped that Tulsans wouldn't allow it. I still do - with a passion.

My opinions on the two candidates are UNRELATED.

I don't know KT personally, but loathe her as mayor.  I believe she deems herself not a public servant, but more an overlord (enabled by lots of $-acquired influence.) I hate that in government! My opinions are based on my own perceptions of facts and events that I KNOW to be true because I was paying attention. So, my big mistake was having the unmitigated gall to air my opinions on a public forum, huh?

You and others, obviously, disagree and that's your prerogative. However, your prerogatives do not serve to curtail my own. I view many of her behaviors as 'wrong' where you do not. Fine. But, through this, you believe you're privy to the operation of my mind? I assure you that you are not!

Go have a drink, yourself. Drink to your own astonishingly superior intellect and morality.

I really was not a Taylor fan for the first year or two she was in office.  I'm sure there's plenty of posts of mine somewhere in the murky past of this forum containing very harsh criticism for her over the City Hall move and a few other issues early on in her administration.  I was also against the ball park in downtown because we had a perfectly good one at Expo Square.  I'm glad to admit I was wrong on that one, I have seen first-hand how much that helped catalyze redevelopment and commerce in the surrounding area and it's truly a nice facility.

What changed my view was actually getting to work with and around her on a project for the Oklahoma Centennial time capsule.  The Artist and I both worked on that project.  I actually found her to be very thoughtful, inquisitive, and a very skilled and deft administrator.  She's one of the busiest and well-organized people I've ever met.  Far from being dictatorial, she was very good at delegating authority to capable assistants but she would stay on top of issues or projects until they were completed.  I never perceived her as uppity or having a royalty complex.  That's why the title of this thread really rankles me. 

Unfortunately, we were not able to find a permanent home for the time capsule before she left office, mainly due to issues we had with the Parks Department and/or Parks Board.  The Bartlett Administration has never expressed interest in pushing this along, but honestly, they've had issues which I believe would take priority. 

She got things done and she was aggressive in getting them done, I can certainly see how that rubs some people the wrong way or can make her misunderstood.  I'm sure she helped get projects through which benefitted business associates and backers, most every politician does that.  Many of those projects have resulted in a more livable Tulsa, that's pretty hard to deny.  I perceive her as someone who really cares about her city.

She and her husband can afford to retire and go float around on a yacht somewhere instead of having the pressure of public service.  Instead, she would rather be someone who makes a difference.

[AquaMan]

Ok, that's enough. I was spurred to start this topic when a KT campaigner knocked at my door - not months earlier when BC announced his candidacy, though I knew I would support him from that moment.  I formulated opinions about KT YEARS ago when she was mayor and I was very involved in neighborhood issues. I watched and listened closely and neither liked nor respected what I saw. I used the Nancy Atwater (NOT a friend and NOT a colleague) example because, having occurred during that time, it was something I knew about first-hand and because it's a concrete example of the behavior I OBSERVED in KT throughout her tenure. There are many many more examples of her childish and dictatorial behavior, all evident through observation. I believe she left office (elected not to run) because she had bigger and better irons in the fire at the state level and, at the time, heaved a huge sigh of relief that we would be rid of her. I was, frankly, outraged at her hubris in believing that she could simply step back in to her 'old job' and hoped that Tulsans wouldn't allow it. I still do - with a passion.

My opinions on the two candidates are UNRELATED.

I don't know KT personally, but loathe her as mayor.  I believe she deems herself not a public servant, but more an overlord (enabled by lots of $-acquired influence.) I hate that in government! My opinions are based on my own perceptions of facts and events that I KNOW to be true because I was paying attention. So, my big mistake was having the unmitigated gall to air my opinions on a public forum, huh?

You and others, obviously, disagree and that's your prerogative. However, your prerogatives do not serve to curtail my own. I view many of her behaviors as 'wrong' where you do not. Fine. But, through this, you believe you're privy to the operation of my mind? I assure you that you are not!

Go have a drink, yourself. Drink to your own astonishingly superior intellect and morality.

Passion is great but passion without facts is just irritating.

I am always surprised how little people seem to understand when they say, "We need government run as a business by business people." without truly understanding what it takes to be an effective business leader. You've described nothing that KT has done that is unusual in the business world. Probably Christiansen and Bartlett have their own similar histories but you didn't draw those conclusions or do that research.

All three are capable and good candidates. For once we have what look like competent, experienced business people to choose from. And all you can do is draw inferences from news reports, a campaigner and your own biases about one of them while ignoring such inferences about the other two? That makes your arguments weak. You don't like her, we get it.

[Gaspar]

Sometimes expensive shoes hurt your feet.  You may want to throw them in the back of the closet and wear your tennies for a while, but eventually you miss the way people looked at you, and you feel compeled to dig them out again.

KT was not a bad mayor, but she was not a great one.  Bartlett has done little to impress anyone.  Both seem like they enjoyed the status of the position more than the sacrifice. 

I think perhaps we should look for a candidate who sees the position as more than a hobby.  I'm not sure who that person is.  I still like the idea of a business person, but we need one willing to work ON the business rather than just being a participant or figurehead. That requires more of an entrepreneur than a CEO, someone who has improved, innovated, and been passionate about something.

I don't see that person yet.  Perhaps we won't for a while.  None of the campaigns realize what most Tulsans really want and that is a bit upsetting.

[Townsend]

None of the campaigns realize what most Tulsans really want and that is a bit upsetting.

What do most Tulsans really want?

[RecycleMichael]

What do most Tulsans really want?

Occasional snacks and an afternoon nap is what I want.

[Red Arrow]

What do most Tulsans really want?

Cholesterol and saturated fat free extra sharp cheddar cheese that tastes as good as the real stuff.

And free avgas.   

[Conan71]

Free Marshall's beer for everyone!

[carltonplace]

Free Marshall's beer for everyone!

Marshall's for the win! My vote goes to Conan 

[Gaspar]

What do most Tulsans really want?

Point well taken.  I can only speak for what I want, and that is stated above.  I am tired of politicians, status-collectors and political hobbyists. I want a mayor who understands the office as an act of sacrifice, and service to the people.  I don't see that being communicated.

[carltonplace]

There is a Taylor sign in my District 4 Councilor's yard. Could be his wife's.

[RecycleMichael]

There is a Taylor sign in my District 4 Councilor's yard. Could be his wife's.

I think he is just a fan of Taylor Swift.

[LocalGirl]

Passion is great but passion without facts is just irritating.

Don't lecture me about facts.  I've seen your glib, one-liner dismissals of facts you don't want to hear.  It appears to me you have a pretty selective definition of the word 'fact' anyway:

These unimportant facts...

to wit:

I think some of your dates of a sale are not accurate.

They outright owned a car rental company?

... you guys refer to are getting in the way of a perfectly good partisan rant she has going.

A statement that happens to coincide with your mindset is a fact.  But information reported in local news broadcasts rises only to the level of 'inference.'  It's laughable.