The "residents in red" have spoken

We don't need a seat at the table. And the City of Norman agrees.

Did you see it? Did you see the number of NO MORE TURNPIKE PEOPLE that showed up to City Hall? Did you listen to them speak?

It was AWESOME!

The Citizen comments that talk about why the City Council should REJECT the partnership amendment start at 33:55. There were 37 citizens that spoke for this particular agenda item and the names of the citizens in order are provided below.

The unanimous 9-0 vote is taken at 2:43:35 and the “residents in red” go WILD!

---

The City of Norman’s version is below. Go to the following timestamps to hear specific folks talk about why the City Council should REJECT the partnership amendment. There were 37 citizens that spoke for this particular agenda item. I apologize if I spelled your name incorrectly or missed your name.

Council Member Peacock Moves to Reject the Partnership Resolution = 32:15;

Michelle Sinclair = 33:25; Kelly Wilson = 37:08; Pamela = 40:21; Rob Norman = 43:20; Dave Moore = 46:45; Marguarite Lawson = 49:00; Twyla Smith = 49:50; Darla Leblanc = 53:35; Tiffany Stephens = 56:45; Susan Bergen = 1:00:00; Debbie Saltzman = 1:03:19; Cynthia Rogers = 1:05:45; Amy = 1:08:15; Sheryl Hoggat = 1:09:30; State Representative Annie Menz (HD45) = 1:13:00; Former Council Member Elizabeth Foreman (Current Candidate SD15) = 1:15:40; Tammy B. = 1:17:25; Jana (Red Earth Sierra Club) = 1:19:00; Fred Bidwell = 1:21:56; Pam Post = 1:25:08; Tassie Hirschfeld = 1:27:25; State Senator Mary Boren (SD16) = 1:29:43; Leslie Noble = 1:32:31; Jesse Matlock = 1:33:18; Kathryn Bronk = 1:36:20; Greg Fitter = 1:39:05; Randy Carter = 1:41:38; Steven Ellis = 1:45:00; Turnpike Fighter =1:48:00; Luigi Pivani = 1:51:40; Margarite Blevins = 1:54:40; Judith Wilkins = 1:57:32; Sheryl Endenso = 1:59:02; Evan Dunn = 2:00:08; Phillip and Alice Denton = 2:02:45; Amy Cerato = 2:05:00. Council Comments start at 2:08:10.

Unanimous Vote Tally 2:43:10!!!!!!!! And the Residents in Red go WILD!

KGOU had a pretty decent article summarizing the night.

OU Daily also did a nice job.

Picture courtesy of Sutton Spinner/OU Daily

---

Temporary Moratorium on Permiting Large Projects Postponed

After the UNANIMOUS 9-0 rejection of the OTA demanded “partnership” resolution, the Item #38 regarding Temporary Moratorium on Permitting Large Projects was discussed at 2:54:15.

There was a motion to postpone this resolution, then council discussion and then citizen comment.

Listen to Michael Nash discuss what the resolution is all about at 2:55:00. The City has the chance to create more protective ordinances now that it is clear that developers want to come into our watershed and push urban spawl and industrial sites into our protected space. Our flood plain ordinances need to be strengthened and clarified. Many other cities have environmental impact reporting requirements.

This moratorium on permits of mega projects until specific ordinances can be written and adopted is an important step in the City of Norman getting it right. The Council asked that this resolution be sent to a committee for work and then re-introduced to council when it was ready. I will keep you posted on the resolution because I think it is an important one. Let’s hope the City Staff don’t issue any permits to the OTA behind the Council Members backs!

---

OTA’s Passive Aggressive Press Release

After the 9-0 resolution rejection the OTA issued the following press release.

And then KOCO 5 published a portion of their statement that night and then added a little editorial nugget at the end of their piece:

We SURE DID. We were the first municipality in 77 years to tell the OTA to bugger off. Hey KOCO…. whose side are you on anyway?

And.. um… how many OTA advertising dollars go to KOCO 5? ALOT .

Folks. The main stream media is bought and paid for. They didn’t even give us a chance to get the citizens statement in there. And it was a GREAT ONE.

I’m taking their last line as a great shout out, not as a passive-aggressive pot shot.

WINNING!

---

Ok… back to the OTA statement. Oh PLEASE!!! The design of the frontage roads were completed at least by October of 2022 when they were sent via email and KMZ (Google Earth) files to the City Staff.

Council Member Michael Nash (Ward 5) obtained the emails through an Open Record Request in early August 2024. You can read about it on his Facebook Page.

Pike Off OTA issued this counter statement

We got this statement into today’s KOCO news though!

“PikeOffOTA and Oklahomans for Responsible Transportation are proud of the Norman city council for recognizing and reaffirming the city's overwhelming opposition to the proposed ACCESS Oklahoma toll roads.  We have watched over the past few weeks as OTA has threatened, cajoled and offered dubious incentives to try and compel city officials to "cooperate" with its plans to invade our town.  We unanimously reject all of these overtures and pledge to remain as uncooperative as possible.  We will not give OTA permission to  endanger our water supply, destroy the rural peace of Ward 5 or displace thousands of residents from cherished family homes and farms.  These highway projects are reckless, ill-conceived, overpriced and most unwelcome. Go away OTA.”

---

OTA continues to throw a tantrum

Then in today’s Oklahoman, the OTA released the following statements full of gaslighting baloney:

The City of Norman NEVER REQUESTED FRONTAGE ROADS. They have been in the design from the beginning because that’s the only way their turnpikes can generate the money they need to cover the costs of construction, maintenance and bond debt. They used the access roads to sell the project to the bond rating agencies, to help get the plans approved at the Oklahoma Transportation Commission, to placate the Supreme Court, to justify their economics and to build support from developers and business.

Did the OTA commit FRAUD by stamping their feet and telling the City of Norman they won’t build any frontage roads or access points after using the presence of these frontage roads and access points to secure their bond monies?

Without frontage roads and access points their bonds don’t make financial sense and their revenue justification studies can be thrown (AGAIN) out the window. It’s not like they were good to begin with, but now that the turnpikes have lost 50% of their “local traffic” revenue according to CDM Smith, there is no way that these turnpikes make sense financially; just like 8 of their 12 existing turnpikes.

Maybe the Council for Bond Oversight and the Supreme Court should hear more about this? Or maybe the Attorney General?

Just remember that the OTA is in a mad scramble now. Not only to obtain federal permissions and permits to cross federal lands but now also to obtain work permits within the City of Norman and utilize our roadways. They can’t come in without permission. How do they get to the construction site if they can’t use our roads?

But not to worry. PIKE OFF OTA fired off their own press release full of actual facts. Let’s see what local news stations pick it up.

---

Next steps: Cleveland County Commissioners

Celebrate the win at the City, but know that we aren’t done. Not by a long shot. The OTA has also approached our County Commissioners and asked them for a partnership resolution. We know they did, because we have an email between the County Commissioners and the City Staff asking for language. Remember that the Cleveland County Commissioners also wrote a NO MORE TURNPIKES resolution back in March 2022 and we’d like them to stick with this.

The Cleveland County Board of Commissioners office phone is 405-366-0200 and their individual contacts are below.

Rod Cleveland, District 1 - District Barn = 405-794-2166; rcleveland@clevelandcountyok.com

Jacob McHughes, District 2 - District Barn = 405-321-3811; jmchughes@clevelandcountyok.com

Rusty Grissom, District 3 - District Barn = 405-872-3888; rgrissom@clevelandcountyok.com

The majority of the proposed east-west turnpike would go through District 2 with a bit in District 1 north of lake a bit out by 10-mile flats. District 3 would be impacted by the proposed southern extension.

Right now, we want people to contact the Cleveland County Commissioners and tell them to uphold their 2022 NO MORE TURNPIKE RESOLUTION and to not enter into any sort of partnership with the OTA. You can tell them about our win at the City. You can send them the video of the education session or study session showing them what happened to Oklahoma County when they entered into a “partnership” with the OTA and the $4 million of damages to the county roads that went unpaid.

But basically, we want you to contact them and remind them of their 2022 resolution and that you don’t want turnpikes coming into your county. Send them a similar letter to what you sent to your Norman City Council Member.

Remind them of the OTA’s statutory requirement to “partner” with municipalities and that is why the OTA might approach the County for a resolution.

Remind them of Oklahoma County’s unfunded damages to county roads during construction. Remind them of how the OTA tried to force Oklahoma County to take on more miles of service roads then they could afford to build or maintain.

Remind them that the OTA took MORE EMINENT DOMAIN THAN NECESSARY to build these service roads and then sold the surplus land to developers.

It doesn’t have to be a long email or phone call. Just let them know that you oppose the turnpikes and hope they will stand by their 2022 resolution and refuse to partner or acknowledge the OTA in any way shape or form.

FYI: If there is ever a turnpike related item placed on their agenda, their board meetings are on Monday’s at 1:00 PM in the Cleveland County Office Building at 201 South Jones, Suite 200, Norman, OK 73069. The next meeting will be Monday, September 9th at 1 PM. Agendas and minutes can be found here. The agenda should be posted 24 hours in advance, so I would think they would post by Friday, September 6th.

These are the instructions for public comment: Comments from the public will be allowed on any item listed in the agenda. Public comments will be accepted on a first come, first serve basis and are limited to two (2) minutes per person for a total of ten (10) minutes. Individuals who wish to participate in the Public Comment portion of the meeting should complete a “Request to Speak” form at the beginning of the meeting and specify the agenda item they want to discuss.

There doesn’t seem to be a miscellaneous comment period.

That’s it for now. Good work everyone!

Let’s keep our momentum going.

---