Mayor's Nonsensical "Preamble rant" Shows his True Colors
Vote NO on amended "partnership" resolution - The City holds the power by virtue of state law!!!! We must deny the partnership.
These last few weeks have been exhausting. Instead of enjoying the end of summer, getting our kids ready for school, enjoying watching our children take part in activities and harvesting our gardens in preparation for fall, we're forced to spend this time battling misinformation on all fronts.
We’re all just regular citizens, giving our time to fight for what we know is right.
We’re sacrificing moments with our families to stand against the relentless forces coming at us from every level of government.
But don’t stop now—that’s exactly what they want. Rest up, take care of yourself, hug your spouse, your kids, your grandkids, your pets and your friends.
Then get back out there.
The tipping point is close—can you feel it?
We need everyone again with a united voice. Make sure you have Tuesday, August 27th 6:30 pm Norman City Hall in your calendar - wear red again and sign up to speak for both Item #37 and in miscellaneous comments. We’d really appreciate it if you sent one more email to your council members too. Read on to get some good talking points.
This latest affront on our lives started with the OTA’s July 15th meeting with City staff and their demand that the city write a resolution agreeing to partner with the OTA “or else.” The “or else” was “Should Council not approve the resolution, OTA funding for all of the items listed above may be jeopardized.”
Tuesday, July 30th Council Study Session
This was presented to the City Council on July 30th at a City Council Study Session. WOW! Talk about a real “partnership.”
Think about how crazy this sounds. Why would the OTA be demanding a partnership after planning this in secret and never before approaching the City until they were almost 60% done with a design on a turnpike that almost noone wants? Something is really fishy here.
Trust your intuition. If you are short on time, scan to the end of this piece to find out the real WHY.
Tuesday, August 13th Council Meeting
After that study session where staff allegiance was on full display, many of you wrote letters to council explaining why entering a partnership with the OTA was a bad idea. This education campaign was a good one, as enough questions were raised about the resolution content that more than 33 amendments were proposed.
Due to the lack of Council clarity on what should be included in the resolution by the Tuesday, August 13th City Council Meeting, it was postponed for further study and rework.
You might want to listen to all the folks that spoke during the miscellaneous comments though, because they had some really good things to say about why we should not sign this resolution.
Sunday, August 18th Study Session
After the Council Meeting, Council Member Nash (Ward 5) set up a longer format study session for the council members on Sunday, August 18th. In this study session, two well-researched and knowledgable citizens presented information to a few council members about why we cannot, in any way shape or form, enter into a partnership agreement with the OTA. If you have time to watch this, you should. There is a lot of great information about why these “partnership” resolutions didn’t work out for other communities in the past.
Tuesday, August 21st Study Session
At the August 13th City Council Meeting, Pike Off OTA members asked the council during miscellaneous comments if we could present information to the Council. The Mayor capitulated and gave us 30 minutes to present and answer questions at the Tuesday, August 21st Study Session. So again, we spent countless hours making 15 minute presentations that included the most salient points to make, only to be completely disrespected by not being able to participate in the question and answer period that followed.
Unfortunately, the Mayor reached some all time lows in that Council Study Session when he refused to let the speakers that he invited to educate the council answer council questions after their presentations. He then proceeded to misuse his gavel, pontificating prevaricating points to pressure the council into signing a partnership resolution with the OTA.
Mayor Heikkala showed his true colors in this study session. Make sure you do not ever forget that. Read this great piece in the City News OKC about the Mayor’s rant.
I case you were wondering what he said, I’ll go through the first part of the transcript for you here and more in another post. The Mayor was trying to scare the council into complying and that is not ok.
The Mayor started out with saying that “We enter into this resolution because we are duty bound to comply with existing state law in Oklahoma Supreme Court rulings. Access Oklahoma plan is the law of state of Oklahoma and the Supreme Court has spoken they say that OTA is legally allowed to proceed”
Then he says that “we as council members swore an oath of office…… and …. that oath obligates us to follow laws in the state of Oklahoma, …[and] the council does not get to pick and choose which laws we will enforce, ignore or nullify….. We’re not a kingdom unto ourselves. By choosing to disobey the law, we hold ourselves above the law, and individuals on this council expose themselves and the city to legal consequences that can have profound personal and professional implications…….The laws of the state take priority over our ordinances, resolutions, and so [forth]. We're not in a position to dictate to any state agency.”
How many falsehoods can you find in that statement? I don’t even know where to start.
The Turnpike Enabling Act is SUPPLEMENTAL - meaning that they do NOT take precendent over the City and other State Laws. This is clear in the statutes.
ACCESS Oklahoma is NOT the law in the state of Oklahoma. ACCESS Oklahoma is a project proposed by the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority that includes several projects on existing turnpikes around the state and three proposed new alignments. The permissions to modify existing turnpikes or build new turnpikes are limited to what locations the legislature has approved in the Turnpike Enabling Act Statute 69, Section 1705.
The Supreme Court, in a split 6-3 decision, validated bonds needed to construct the proposed turnpikes within the ACCESS program. The Oklahoma Supreme Court used the now defunct Chevron Doctrine to argue that
“The Court has consistently honored the discretion given to the OTA by the Legislature and allowed the OTA to exercise its judgement as the OTA has the engineering expertise and traffic data to make these complex far-reaching decisions regarding turnpike routes. We uphold the authority given to the OTA to decide routes for turnpikes…..To hold otherwise would inject this Court into the OTA’s decision-making process regarding proposed turnpike routes… The Court would not only be deciding the validity of the bonds but also substituting the OTA’s discretion with its own in choosing a route, which the Court has consistently refused to do… We are mandated to liberally construe the OTA’s authority. As previously held by this Court, we refuse to strictly construe these legislative authorizations and instead defer to the OTA’s technical expertise in determining routes. We follow our precendent that all matters or questions as to the routes of the proposed turnpikes will be settled in the future by the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority, within its descretion, or in some other manner, but no such question can affect the validity of this bond issue.” ~Oklahoma State Supreme Court Majority Opinion Case No. 120619.
The Chevron Doctrine allowed administrative agencies to do whatever they wanted without any opportunity for people to challenge the legality of their actions. Now, with the US Supreme Court striking it down, judges will have to intellectually adjudicate law, not defer “liberally” to agencies.
The Citizens and City have every right to NOT enter into a *forced* partnership with the OTA. The Citizens and City have every RIGHT to fight back against this unwanted tollroad.
You want to know exactly WHY we absolutely SHOULD fight?
I mean besides our first Amendment rights, we do not want the turnpikes, the judicial system is corrupt, and our private property rights are being pummeled? For starters, you can read this great piece in the Norman Transcript about why a compromise is bad for Norman and about why we need to continue the fight.
After you read all those good reasons, remember back to when I asked you to think about WHY the OTA puts every county and city under a 3-week gun to sign a “partnership” resolution “OR ELSE.”
Here is your WHY.
Statute 69, Section 1716(b) Requires OTA to “Partner” with Cities before Project can Start
In Statute 69, Section 1716 (b), some interesting information can be gleaned about the reason the OTA has always forced the Cities, Counties and municipalities into writing a “Partnership” resolution. They ask the Counties/Cities to sign one because their own law says they have to or they cannot build.
And then they do nothing they say they will in the resolution because all they care about is that the Counties/Cities capitulate under duress and threats of removing funds and access along turnpikes to say that they will “partner” with the OTA.
That’s what their law says they have to have to continue with the project.
This alone should be why the City Council rejects the OTA’s demands. Full stop.
“(b) All counties, municipalities and other political subdivisions and all public agencies and commissions of the State of Oklahoma, notwithstanding any contrary provision of law, are hereby authorized and empowered to lease, lend, grant or convey to the Authority at its request upon such terms and conditions as the proper authorities of such counties, municipalities, other political subdivisions or public agencies and commissions of the state may deem reasonable and fair and without the necessity for any advertisement, order of court or other action or formality, other than the regular and formal action of the authorities concerned, any real property which may be necessary or convenient to the effectuation of the authorized purposes of the Authority, including public roads and other real property already devoted to public use.”
No other municipality has ever said NO to the OTA.
The City of Norman and Cleveland County can REFUSE to participate in this and the OTA cannot legally come into our space. And if they do….. We can sue. And we will take any and every legal action we can take.
Will the City of Norman and Cleveland County be the first?
So is MAYOR LARRY and certain CITY STAFF ignorant of the law or doing the bidding of the OTA?
It’s pretty obvious to me.
Tuesday, August 27th City Council Meeting
VOTE NO ON THE RESOLUTION
It’s complete garbage. We shouldn’t even dicker about the language because the entire resolution should be thrown out. But in case you were interested, I have redlined everything that I think needs to go. Send an email to your council members, come to the meeting wearing red and sign up to speak.
NO COMPROMISE. You know the law. We cannot “acknowledge” or “partner” with them. FULL STOP. Write your council members and tell them about the law. You are making a difference. You are being heard loud and clear by people all around - people that can help us get our voices heard. I know we are all exhausted but we need to keep going. The OTA wins when we stop. So keep going!
I missed a kids volleyball game for the last city council meeting and am missing another one this week (plus backing out of my concession stand shift).
It's easy to understand why people in the thick of life aren't involved -it's a sacrifice
This is clear and powerful.
Thank you!