Cover Sidebar

Responses to the UTW Questionnaire (Printable Version , E-mail to a Friend )
Urban Tulsa Asks the Important Questions to the Candidates
by Edited by Michael Bates

Introduction

Below are the responses submitted by candidates in the primaries for Tulsa City Council to the Urban Tulsa Weekly questionnaire. The following candidates submitted a response, and their responses are printed in district order. Please note that for this questionnaire we only included candidates whose name will be on the ballot in the primary.

Rick D. Westcott, District 2, Republican

Roscoe H. Turner, District 3, Democrat

John E. Wing, District 4, Democrat

John Gregory Madden III, District 5, Republican

Albert Nichols, Jr., District 5, Democrat

James Savino Mautino, District 6, Republican

John M. Eagleton, District 7, Republican

Robert A. Gwin, Jr., District 7, Republican

Clifford Russell Magee, District 8, Republican

Cason Carter, District 9, Republican

Maria Barnes, District 4, Democrat, had the flu and was on bedrest under doctor's orders for 10 days, and was unable to complete the questionnaire.

For more information about the candidates, www.TulsaTopics.com has links to all the candidate websites, a printable "tournament bracket" for the city elections, and audio of the mayoral forum sponsored by TulsaNow and Arts and Humanities Council of Tulsa. David Schuttler’s Our Tulsa World blog has video from many Mayoral and Council candidate forums.

The Questionnaire

1. Suppose the City has $20 million dollars available to build new water and sewer lines. Your choices are to use that money to build new water lines to the suburbs, to build water and sewer mains to undeveloped parts of Tulsa that have been in the city limits for 40 years and still lack city utilities (making it more affordable for developers to build new subdivisions), or to increase capacity and replace lines in parts of Tulsa where the old lines are inadequate. How would you allocate the money among these priorities? Explain your choice.

Westcott (2-R): I think we should make sure that all areas of the City of Tulsa receive adequate service before we provide service to the suburbs. So, providing service to the suburbs would be my third choice. Generally speaking, I think it would be a better investment to first provide service to undeveloped parts of the City. If we provide service to those areas, it should drive development which will, in turn, increase revenues for the City. We would then be in a stronger financial position to return to those areas which have had service but need improvements.

Turner (3-D): I would split the money, probably equally, between the inadequate areas and the undeveloped areas in the city limits. Older areas need to be improved and undeveloped areas must be upgraded to entice developers.

Wing (4-D): My first priority is getting our substandard infrastructure up-to-date – that includes sewer and especially roads in our area.  Ignoring our current infrastructure needs is more expensive in the long term than any other problem facing us.

Madden (5-R): It is my belief that we need to revitalize the established core of the city in order to retain those families who already choose to live here, as well as, attract families back from the suburbs.  I would spend 70% on established lines and 30% on underdeveloped areas.

Nichols (5-D): The bulk of the funds should be targeted for building new water and sewer lines to our underdeveloped areas within the city, however, we should evaluate the needs of the areas with old lines to determine the urgency of that area before we make a final decision as to the allocation percentage. A priority system could be formulated for the older areas similar to the present priority system used for street maintenance and repair. New home development brings in new residents, additional sales taxes, and possibly rejuvenates failing businesses such as Eastland Mall. This is economic development and could result in increased future funds to allocate to the needs of the older areas.

Mautino (6-R): I can refer to District 6 because I am more familiar with the needs of this district. I would put the $ 20,000,000 in sewer projects because there is already a proposed distribution system that requires that much money, but will not happen for about 15 years. 20 million would make it happen now and open up 25 sections (square miles) of land for development, homes, and retail. Water is more reasonable to install; with sewer present developers would be willing to move forward with developing an area.

Eagleton (7-R): I would allocate the $20 million dollars to build or repair water and sewer lines in the area that would benefit the City of Tulsa as a whole, the most.  I would hope to generate a revenue stream, via water sales and/or increased sales tax receipts that the entire city could use.

Gwin (7-R): First the city suburbs such as Jenks, Broken Arrow, etc., should use their tax dollars to put in those improvements instead of using Tulsa money and expect Tulsa taxpayers to pay for their cities’ improvements. The new lines to undeveloped areas of the city and new lines to add capacity and replace old lines would get 10 million each because it would be fair to do that.

Magee (8-R): The first priority if these funds were available would be to improve our police force and infrastructure to allow efficient law enforcement. This is from the number of police to the court system and prisons. Once those were funded then focus on the Tulsa infrastructure before that of the outlying suburbs.

Carter (9-R): In an ideal world we would fund all three options.  I think it is important to cooperate with the surrounding regions, to provide economic opportunities in undeveloped parts of Tulsa, and to maintain adequate lines.  However, when faced with these decisions, what will drive my vote is which option offers the best return on investment for Tulsans and what option is best for all Tulsans.  In the scenario you’ve laid out, I’d want answers to the following questions:

Taking a long term view, what revenue will be generated for Tulsa by building waterlines to the suburbs? For example, will the suburbs generate long term revenue for our City?  Will the suburbs subsidize our law enforcement budget in exchange for our subsidizing their infrastructure?

Likewise, before investing the money in water and sewer mains within Tulsa, I’d want to make sure that development in those areas was a realistic and viable option... the last thing we’d want to do is invest and have no one take advantage.

2. By a 5-4 vote the U. S. Supreme Court said it's constitutional for a city to condemn private property in order to let some other private entity have it for their own use. The Oklahoma legislature plans to limit this use of eminent domain, and the Tulsa City Council has approved a one-year moratorium on this type of condemnation. What limits should be placed on the government's eminent domain powers? Under what circumstances is the use of eminent domain abusive?

Westcott (2-R): I think the Supreme Court’s decision unconstitutionally expands the government’s power of eminent domain under the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment. Any time the government uses its powers to take private property for private development, it is abusive. I am against using eminent domain for private development. Historically, eminent domain has only been used for public use, i.e., highways. The Oklahoma Legislature has the opportunity to narrow the scope of the Kelo decision. I applaud the Tulsa City Council for passing the one-year moratorium on the use of eminent domain for private development while not restricting any of its current, lawful powers of eminent domain for public use. Eminent domain should not be used for private development.

Turner (3-D): Involuntary condemnation should never be used for private purposes and should only be used as a last resort for public purposes. To use it for private gain is abusive.

Wing (4-D): Eminent domain is a huge power and responsibility that should be used sparingly.  It was granted so that the taxpayers can’t be held hostage when we need to build roads or lay utilities.  I am not in favor of using it to steal a person’s property for the use of another individual.

Madden (5-R): I believe our local government has all the limits they need.  There is no amount of legislation that someone cannot find a way around.  This is an issue of good and fair judgment on the part of those who have authority to make these decisions.   I believe the exercise of eminent domain would be abusive in cases where individuals are unfairly compensated for property which they properly maintain and use productively and where there is a suitable substitute for placement of the intended new use.

Nichols (5-D): The original intent for eminent domain was to allow governments to develop services for the common good. Private property was to be condemned only to provide pathways for public development; however, over the years too many governments have abused the law by taking private property and turning it over to another private entity. The Supreme Court was wrong and this ruling possibly has a chance to be reversed. In the meantime, local and state governments should enact laws to prevent the taking of private property for private use.

Mautino (6-R): (a) As the new law states Eminent Domain would be more acceptable if it were for public good and knowing that the landowner would be made whole. (b) [Eminent domain abuse is] when land is taken for private use without due compensation or regard to the landowners’ rights.

Eagleton (7-R): The 5^th Amendment to the United State Constitution reads, in part, as follows: "...nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."  If a project does not have a public use and just compensation, eminent domain abuse is occurring.  A recent Supreme Court case expanded the definition of "public use" to include a perception by the condemning authorities that a change of ownership would increase tax revenues, even though the underlying property would ultimately be privately owned.  I believe the Supreme Court went to far in this decision. 

Gwin (7-R): Eminent domain should never be used for private gain, only for public use, and owners of such land should be paid justly for that land. For example if an independent auditor says a given area of land is worth say $100,000 and the owner wants $500,000, if the land is for public use such as park, road extension, etc. then they should be paid $200,000. More than its worth but not as much as they wanted for it so city work and go on.

Magee (8-R): Your statement is incorrect for it is incomplete. Kelo recognized that the public use aspect of eminent domain could include the taking for the use of a private party only if state statutes allowed for such a taking. The Kelo Court interpreted the Connecticut Statutes to provide for the economic development plan of the City of New London. Limits and uses in Oklahoma should be for traditional examples of public use such as highways. Other uses should be limited to public health and safety.

Carter (9-R): The city should limit its eminent domain powers to the ones it enjoyed pre-Kelo v. New London. The power to forcibly take private property should not be exercised for purely private pecuniary gain and should be limited to serving the public interest.

3. Thinking of the current members of the City Council, whose work as a member of the Council do you most admire, and why? (If you are a sitting councilor, pick someone other than yourself.)

Westcott (2-R): Listed in alphabetical order, I most admire Councilors Henderson, Mautino, Medlock and Turner. In my opinion, those Councilors put the benefit of the City above everything else, above all other interests. Their decisions are not motivated by selfishness, by party or any other improper influence. They seem to study the issues carefully and make reasonable decisions. Once their decision is made, they do not waver. I admire their thoughtfulness, their courage and willingness to endure criticism, and their steadfast natures.

Turner (3-D): For his integrity and his sincere effort to work for his constituents, Jim Mautino is the Councilor I admire most.

Wing (4-D): The City Council is not Miss Congeniality contest or some silly grade school exercise where we play favorites.  If elected my job is to help move Tulsa forward.  We have had too much politics of personalities and division.  I’ve been involved enough to realize that sometimes you can work with a person on some issues and you may disagree with them on others, but the point is to respect everyone and move on.  As a human resources representative for American Airlines I went to bat for some workers who were getting a bad deal from some managers who had personality clashes with their employees -- but the worker was doing a good job.  We had to work out some tense situations like adults.  That’s the same spirit I will bring to the City Council.

Madden (5-R): I believe Randy Sullivan has worked hard to make the good sense, practical decisions for the city.

Nichols (5-D): This is a tough one. I admire Roscoe Turner, Jim Mautino, Chris Medlock, and Jack Henderson. All are hard workers that have he best interests of the average Tulsa citizen in mind and all are in favor of positive changes for the City and its citizens. I cannot single out one as my favorite over the others.

Mautino (6-R): Chris Medlock, Roscoe Turner, Jack Henderson. There is a trust factor that’s shared. Before becoming a councilor I observed Chris Medlock and listened to what he said. After working with him on the council I have found him to be to the point, keeps his word and is honest.

Eagleton (7-R): I admire Tom Baker.  While I disagree with Tom on some issues and the government’s role in our daily lives, I have to admit that Councilman Baker has been a class act even when people treat him disrespectfully.  I aspire to be as gentle and affable as Councilman Baker. 

Gwin (7-R): Chris Medlock. He took on the city’s good ol’ boy network, survived an illegal attempt by that network to recall him, and did the work of the people of Tulsa.

Magee (8-R): I am not able to answer this question for the use of the term "admire." If the question were based upon respect for doing their job as a councilor the answer to the question would have meaning. As the question is posed I could only answer with a negative qualification and that I choose not to do.

Carter (9-R): I deeply admire the work of my current representative on the Council, Susan Neal. I share her dedication to our community, and admire her steadfast commitment to seeking out opinions from a variety of interested parties in order to reach reasonable solutions.

4. There's a measure of neighborhood livability called the "popsicle test" -- "An eight-year-old in the neighborhood should be able to bike to a store to buy a Popsicle without having to battle highway-size streets and freeway-speed traffic." Most Tulsa neighborhoods don't pass this test, and every trip to the store requires the use of a car. Do you think this is a problem, and if so, what would you propose to do about it?

Westcott (2-R): Yes, I think it’s a problem. When I was a kid growing up in Tulsa, there were three grocery stores, two drug stores, a cleaners, a hardware store, a five-and-ten-cent store, and a tag agency, all within five blocks of my house and all could be accessed without traveling across a major artery. I first heard Herb Beattie talking about a return to walkable neighborhoods several years ago. I think it’s a great idea and one we should pursue. We may not be able to correct the problem in some of the City’s existing, outlying neighborhoods. But I think we can address the problem through careful planning of our new neighborhoods and through careful infill-development. It can be done with simple steps. Take the example of a commercial entity, say, a grocery store, planning a new facility in an older neighborhood. The store’s front will certainly face the major arterial street. But we should create access from the rear of the store to the neighborhood. We have to start listening more carefully to the homeowners.

Turner (3-D): This is a problem and a change of zoning laws to allow small neighborhood, mom-and-pop, businesses/stores to come into the neighborhoods is needed.

Wing (4-D): Ideally, we would all love to get around town without a car, however that is just not feasible in this day and age.  Oklahoma cities began to grow at the same time the automobile came into use.  Tulsa, like all other cities in America, planned that growth around the car.  That is why I am going to devote as much resources as I can to obtain the best quality roads.  I am as tired as are most of us of having crumbling roads and having to get a front wheel alignment every few months. 

Madden (5-R): I really do not find this to be a problem nor is it anything we can do much about.

Nichols (5-D): The "Popsicle test" is an idealistic objective that was prevalent in cities whereby autonomous neighborhoods sprung up as cities grew; however, the private automobile changed that and cities began to develop with many activities outside of the city cores and outside of neighborhoods. This is a problem; however, it is not comparable to the magnitude of other problems. As councilors, we should encourage zoning changes that would favor the return to autonomous neighborhoods that could pass the "Test".

Mautino (6-R): I do think there is a problem having grown up in a community where you could walk to most places (work and businesses) I find myself wishing Tulsa was more pedestrian-friendly.

Eagleton (7-R): Walkability, or the "popsicle test" of some neighborhoods, is essential for the quality of life.  I do not believe that every neighborhood in Tulsa should be held to the "popsicle test," but somewhere in Tulsa we should have neighborhoods with a walkable urbane culture.  I am optimistic that downtown Tulsa, through private investment and rehabilitation by young urbanites, will ultimately become an active, vibrant, community that would pass the "popsicle test."

Gwin (7-R): Number one, an 8 year old child shouldn't be able to go anywhere without his parents with them, it’s not safe so using a car for a kid should always be used. With that being said, for adults without cars and have bikes, sidewalks should be installed next to roadways where possible but that would require money Tulsa doesn't have, perhaps we can inquire about a grant to do this work, but it is not a priority at this time.

Magee (8-R): Yes it is a problem. This is a much bigger problem than that of Tulsa alone. It is a value problem in society. My response is to have a zero tolerance for crime. Allow proper punishment but, have a zero tolerance for the criminal act. Send a message to the world that Tulsa is not a destination, nor a waypoint for anyone that would think of a criminal act. As for those that can not differentiate and until there was a zero crime rate in Tulsa, I will continue to drive my family in the car.

Carter (9-R): I’m happy to report most of the neighborhoods in my district pass the Popsicle test. Even in neighborhoods with busy streets, measures can be taken (reduced speed zones, etc) to make them more family friendly.

5. Tulsa's homicide rate is twice the national average, and our violent crime rate is 1.83 times the national average. Police investigative units are shorthanded, and the street crimes unit has been disbanded. The suburbs pay their police officers better than Tulsa does. What should the city do to fix this? Where should the city get the money to fix this?

Westcott (2-R): First, we should look at creative ways to maximize the manpower that we currently have. We need to review all current police procedures and policies. One idea is to allow volunteer, reserve officers to take routine report calls. That would allow sworn officers to be available for more important calls. I also like Chief Been’s idea of "verified responses" to alarm calls. Nearly all alarm calls are false. The verified response procedure keeps officers from chasing false alarm calls and keeps them free to respond to verified alarm calls and other important calls.

We have to look at all areas of City operations and make sure that we are only spending what is absolutely necessary. We should look into privatizing areas of City operations, such as the airports. We should invest the savings we incur into public safety. Increasing public safety is not only the first duty of any government, but it is also an investment. By increasing public safety, people will feel good about raising their families in Tulsa. Current residents will not move away and others will move into Tulsa, in turn driving up our revenue base. Public safety is our primary duty, but it’s also an investment.

Turner (3-D): As a quick fix we should write and ordinance to change capital funds for operational funds to hire new police officers immediately. As a more long-term fix we need to come up with a method to use our third penny tax monies for emergency services and remove them from the budget and use that money to spread to other services.

Wing (4-D): There is no coloration between officer pay and the homicide rate.  In a city our size the lawlessness of just one or two people can greatly affect our rate of crime.  However, as a former police officer, I do believe that we ought to pay our police and firefighters as much as we can.  They put their very lives on the line to protect all of us, and they deserve our respect and financial support.

Madden (5-R): Let’s address only the issue of putting more officers in the street.  We need to be able to increase the operational tempo of the current force, in other words get officers out from behind desks and onto the street and add additional officers.  We need to insure they are well compensated and working conditions are as good as we can make them in order to retain the one’s we have and be able to recruit new officers.  We need to train them as well as possible to insure the quality of officer in the field.  Funding can come from adjusting the current budgets, reducing or eliminating less essential services or personnel or increased revenue generation.

Nichols (5-D): This is a problem of priorities. Our city wastes money through poor management via our strong mayor form of government. Obviously, the mayor has too much discretionary money when he can afford to hire away one of the councilors for political reasons at a salary equal to two police officers. I would work to send the voters a recommendation to change to a city manager from of government and would be extremely critical at budget time to insure as much as possible that public safety expenditures are given careful consideration. I would also encourage more participation of the police department in the neighborhood patrol programs.

Mautino (6-R): One option would be to lower the requirements for college education and hire military police from military services, with an option for education. The County needs to be excluded from Sales Tax. They should be able to operate with the ad valorem Tax they collect. 2025 and four to fix Sales Tax needs to be eliminated.

Eagleton (7-R): For years I have advocated the need for more police.  The city needs to increase the pay and number of police officers.  The city council should look at the city budget, line by line, and eliminate non-essential expenditures and prioritize current expenditures.  This budget review  should produce substantial revenues to apply towards the problem of the spiraling crime rate.  I have been walking neighborhoods in District 7 for the last three election cycles and I can assure you that the fear of violent crime is affecting the daily lives of Tulsans, even in South Tulsa.

Gwin (7-R): Two things: get more police on Tulsa streets and pay them better. The Mayor and city council say there is no money for new police, that is a lie. We have the money they just don't want to spend it. If elected, I will fix the budget to fully fund a full police force and work to get this fighting force raises in pay so our officers are best paid in the region like they should be. If the other councilors defeat this plan, if elected, in two years with the people of Tulsa can toss them out and fix our city’s police then. Let’s hope for Tulsa that doesn't happen

Magee (8-R): Hire police that are already trained. Hire them from other cities, recall those that were retired and are willing to return in some capacity and take money from any budget item there is cover the cost.

Carter (9-R): Clearly this is one of the most urgent challenges facing Tulsa today. I’d be open to the possibility of increasing the percentage of the general fund dedicated to providing police and fire services, and might explore using part of the enterprise fund as well. But the long-term solution will require us to grow our sales tax base.

6. The Brookside neighborhood infill plan calls for design guidelines to ensure that new residential and commercial development is compatible with existing development, to preserve the character of the neighborhood. Right now, these design guidelines don't have the force of law. Many cities, including Oklahoma City, have special neighborhood conservation districts in which design guidelines become part of the zoning code. Would you support doing this in Tulsa? If not, what would you do to preserve the character of Tulsa's traditional urban neighborhoods while allowing for new development?

Westcott (2-R): I have been working with a couple of groups on the west side of the river in this area, the Southwest Main Street Project and the Southwest Tulsa Planning Committee. We are working with the City’s Urban Development department to come up with sound plans for redevelopment of West Tulsa. I definitely think that, once redevelopment plans are made, such as the Brookside neighborhood infill plan, they should be made part of the zoning code. They should have force and effect and create a system of development that residents can depend on when buying or building homes and that business people can depend on.

Turner (3-D): Yes, I would support this.

Wing (4-D): This is how Oklahoma City enforces neighborhood zoning.  It forces the developers to show the people affected by new development what the design would look like before the zoning request is approved, and it works. We all need to work together.

Madden (5-R): I believe the best course is to select individuals who will exercise good judgment and be committed to the use of the suggested guidelines.  Failing the ability to find good people then you need to establish appropriate zoning codes.  However, zoning codes are no substitute for the selection of individuals who will exercise good judgment.

Nichols (5-D): I would support neighborhood conservation districts becoming part of the zoning code provided the neighborhood members had a strong voice in approving or denying any changes. Changes in zoning have historically been too easy with neighborhood citizens being forced to compromise and accept an incompatible development under the threat of one more damaging to the neighborhoods.

Mautino (6-R): I am familiar with the Brookside Plan and certainly could support this in Tulsa.

Eagleton (7-R): I would support the guidelines for both residential and commercial development to maintain compatibility with the existing neighborhoods into which they are moving, as long as the guidelines are not overly burdensome.  Protecting the character of Tulsa’s classic neighborhoods is important to the quality of life for both residents and visitors.

Gwin (7-R): I would not support this, Brookside needs to be modern, the outdated design rules and keeping business and housing from coming there because its too expensive and hard to fit their plans in that neighborhoods design plans. Only then will Brookside get more business with more jobs to that depressed area.

Magee (8-R): These guidelines must be incorporated into city ordinances. When a person moves to a neighborhood it is usually due to the current state of that neighborhood and with an expectation that it will stay reasonably the same. Allowing a metal building or a corner tent flea market to be permitted should not happen. This is a matter that starts with the planning process and should be contained there. The City Council is the final gatekeeper.

Carter (9-R): We need to maintain the integrity of our culturally rich and beautiful neighborhoods. But I do not think increased red tape by giving design guidelines the weight of zoning law is necessarily the answer.  Instead I would promote open and frequent communication and cooperation between all the stakeholders, including neighborhood associations and developers.  It is my intention to advance integrity in our municipal government and, to me, that means acting as a mediator of interests to achieve mutually beneficial solutions before an issue is presented to the Council and in making well-reasoned and open decisions after an issue is presented to the Council.  I think we can attain significant accomplishments by having the interested parties meet at the outset of development initiatives.  I also believe that appointments to the Board of Adjustment and the Planning Commission are very important to the integrity of our neighborhoods, and I think neighborhoods can be benefited in selecting open-minded and fair citizens to serve in such positions.

7. Some say that there should be at least one part of Tulsa that is truly urban, where it is possible to live, work, and shop without having to own a car. Do you agree, and if so, what should the city do to help make it happen?

Westcott (2-R): Yes, I think it’s a good idea. This is an expansion of the "popsicle test" for adults. There ought to be a neighborhood where a person can truly live, work and shop without owning a car. It seems that most of our development problems have their solutions in creating a new zoning code and truly enforcing it, without a patchwork quilt of endless exceptions. That is the case here. We can accomplish this goal by making careful appointments to our authorities, boards and commissions, by writing a new zoning code that truly looks to our future while preserving our past.

Turner (3-D): Yes, I agree. Again there is a need to change zoning laws for these businesses and residents to coexist.

Wing (4-D): See question 4.

Madden (5-R): This is certainly a great idea.  However, those who could best benefit from it probably can least afford these kinds of neighborhoods without significant subsidies.  This would be a great place for mature citizens who have mobility challenges.  I would certainly support any private enterprise that wanted to provide such a place.

Nichols (5-D): This is another "Popsicle" question. I would favor such an objective; however, it would not be my top priority. There seems to be an obsession with the downtown development when at the same time, those so obsessed offer no solutions or explanations as to why businesses and customers left the down town area. Under the present system, it is a hassle for anyone to travel down town. We could start by purchasing the private parking lots, removing all parking meters and declaring all down town parking free. For a longer term solution, we could explore Jim Inhofe’s idea from years ago of constructing a monorail system from the city core to various strategic points throughout the city.

Mautino (6-R): As I stated in question four I do not agree. First the Comprehensive Plan needs to be updated and that is in progress. Downtown Tulsa is a perfect place to start.

Eagleton (7-R): I agree that Tulsa needs a neighborhood that is truly urbane, where owning a car is discretionary.  I believe with the recent large private investment in downtown, that downtown Tulsa is going to become that neighborhood.  To make this happen, the government needs to provide police, streets, sewer and water and then stay out of the way, letting private investors and the miracle of capitalism, drive this market to its most productive use. (Please see answer #4)

Gwin (7-R): The bus service should be expanded to include more stops all over town with more buses to fix the need so people can go anywhere and get off the bus near where they live. We should help by increasing Tulsa Transit's funding with tax breaks and bring in other companies to help with the need.

Magee (8-R): Yes, there should be such a place. I have lived in a downtown high-rise and it definitely has its benefits. The current "sprinkler" issue is one way to stop this type of lifestyle in the older buildings. As for the remodeled and converted buildings the issue may be addressed in the initial purchase price and not in a special assessment that may exceed the original purchase price of the residence. As for the city taking any positive steps, let the free market control and do not hinder the investment of the private sector. If anything assertive were to be done by the city it should be addressing the parking issue by making more available yet not destroying the few buildings left that display Tulsa’s great past.

Carter (9-R): I agree that a truly urban section of Tulsa would be attractive to both businesses and young professionals. The best way to develop this environment is to work with the private sector by helping to provide infrastructure for dedicated projects that meet specific urban benchmarks.

8. In 2008, Tulsa will host the National Preservation Conference, the annual meeting of the National Trust for Historic Preservation. Meanwhile, downtown buildings continue to be demolished and paved over for parking. Downtown Tulsa is on Preservation Oklahoma's most endangered list. Does this embarrass you? What should the city do to ensure that there are still some historic buildings around when the preservationists come to town in two years?

Westcott (2-R): Of course, it’s an embarrassment. It seems that the powers-behind-the-scenes only pay lip service to preserving Tulsa’s historic buildings and art deco architecture. If there is more money to be made from a surface parking lot, buildings are demolished. We must protect what’s left of our past. We must create zoning ordinances with teeth and strictly enforce them.

Turner (3-D): Yes it embarrasses me! People go to Europe to look at old buildings and we tear them down to look at nothing. We should create an ordinance requiring buildings in older areas of the city to be evaluated by the Historical Society before they are set for demolition.

Wing (4-D): I love many of the old buildings and the character they provide to our downtown area.  But I also don’t want to see downtown become blighted because we have great looking shells of buildings that no one can afford to upgrade the interior or move into because the building is inadequate in terms of the physical plant or telecommunications capability.  You can’t let romantic views shape our policy.

Madden (5-R): It takes a lot to embarrass me.  I am disappointed that the owners of certain unique and special structures have not had the personal values or financial ability to make attempts to maintain these structures.  I think that if the city has a whole wants to retain these structures then it needs to be prepared to fund some of the cost to retain them.

Nichols (5-D): Yes, this does embarrass me. Tulsa has a very weak historical preservation zoning system as has been demonstrated by the recent demolition of several period homes in the Yorktown neighborhood area to make way for the construction of a bank. We need to strengthen our historical preservation zoning laws to prevent the purchasing and demolition of these non replaceable resources.

Mautino (6-R): I would not say I am embarrassed, more like shocked at the complete disregard of the structures that made Tulsa the Oil Capital. I believe that buildings can be changed to other uses that would be compatible to downtown living and shopping, a truly urban make over. Implementing a plan to do this would slow down the destruction of buildings.

Eagleton (7-R): Historical preservation for preservation sake is important but not as important as allowing the synergies of the private market to do its work.  Yes, there have been some buildings torn down in the name of urban renewal or for expressways or parking lots that will be dearly missed.  However, I would leave the use of capital and private property, in the hands of those who own the buildings and are investing the capital, because they are the ones taking the business risk.  It does not embarrass me when a dilapidated, worn out structure is replaced with a newer, more vibrant structure, i.e. the Williams Tower.  It does embarrass me when a classic art deco warehouse is torn down for an expressway that is later re-routed.

Gwin (7-R): Downtown needs to be fixed, however we need better safer parking there as well. We should offer tax breaks to business that open in those buildings and renew and restore those buildings to their historical look.

Magee (8-R): Yes, it is embarrassing. See the answer to Number 7 for discussion.

Carter (9-R): [No response. Carter appears to have overlooked the question, as his answer to 9 is numbered 8, and his answer to 10 is numbered 9.]

9. Some have called for adding "sexual orientation" to the list of protected classes in the City of Tulsa's human rights ordinance (Title 5, Chapter 1). Would you support or oppose such a move?

Westcott (2-R): I definitely oppose such a move. Sexual orientation is not a protected classification under the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause. I believe it is a choice of lifestyle and does not deserve such protection. Further, such protection would only create additional problems of enforcement. If sexual orientation is added as a protected classification, the next step would surely be affirmative action programs to correct past "discriminatory" policies.

Turner (3-D): I support everyone’s human rights.

Wing (4-D): At this time, I am still talking with the constituents of District 4, on issues such as this, and not prepared to answer this question at this time.

Madden (5-R): I oppose such a move.

Nichols (5-D): No! We already have too many protected groups as it is. When we single out certain groups for their protection, we are discriminating against the remainder of the population.

Mautino (6-R): I would oppose such a move.

Eagleton (7-R): Oppose.

Gwin (7-R): Oppose, sexual orientation is a private matter, Tulsa should adopt a military version of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" to this matter, its no business of the city to ask this question and if not asked it can't be used to discriminate. This should solve the problem without making the class of sexual orientation a special protected class.

Magee (8-R): Oppose. The basis is simply a personal belief based upon personal preference.

Carter (9-R): I strongly believe that all persons should be treated equally and that discrimination against anyone is wrong, but feel that privileges granted to certain classes of persons are only appropriate in rare circumstances where a demonstrable pattern of discrimination has been firmly established.

10. Each year, Tulsa gets a chunk of money from the Federal Government called Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), which it distributes to local non-profits for various projects. In the past, some controversial groups have asked for CDBG funds for non-controversial purposes. Supposing the local chapter of Planned Parenthood, which engages in abortion rights lobbying at the State Capitol and refers clients to abortion providers, sought CDBG funding for their pediatrics clinic. Would you support or oppose such funding, and why?

Westcott (2-R): I have served on the CDBG Prioritization Committee for the past two years. If Planned Parenthood makes application for CDBG funds while I am on the City Council, even for a non-controversial program, I will oppose it. I will oppose any funding of any organization that engages in pro-abortion activities. I am absolutely against abortion. I believe that all life is created by God and it begins at conception.

Turner (3-D): I would support providing funds that benefit the health of our children.

Wing (4-D): I would look at the specific program, and not the provider.  I’m not going to vote to deny services to the poor because the provider is faith based or if they support another issue that personally oppose.  That’s the type of petty divisiveness I am running against.

Madden (5-R): Talk about your slippery slope.  In addressing your example I would want to know what alternatives are available for the people who would properly use the pediatrics clinic.  Is it possible to insure that the funds given do not make it possible to redirect other funds to the lobbying effort?  If there are sufficient alternatives and the funds can be redirected to benefit the lobbying effort then I would oppose giving them funds.  I also would oppose funding organizations which are run poorly or lack sufficient recordkeeping to substantiate their benefit to the community.

Nichols (5-D): I would oppose this funding because it benefits only a certain group and by granting the funding, agencies with greater needs may be left out. We should not provide funding for groups that already have sufficient funds to spend on lobbying.

Mautino (6-R): I would oppose funding for their clinics. It is against my personal beliefs.

Eagleton (7-R): I would not support such funding. There are many non-profits that desperately need CDBG funding that I would prioritize ahead of Planned Parenthood.

Gwin (7-R): Oppose, Planned Parenthood is nothing but an abortion clinic that should never get taxpayer funds for the actions there. The CDBG should go to businesses that encourage abstinence and adoption, instead of the horrid practice of abortion.

Magee (8-R): The question is biased for it refers to Planned Parenthood rather than to organizations that provide health care related services and their pro-life pro-choice orientation. A question about public health services would help focus on real issues that are omnibus to every citizen.

Carter (9-R): I would oppose distributing CBDG money to groups like Planned Parenthood because I think there is no shortage of non-profit organizations that enjoy broader and deeper support within our community and are therefore more appropriate recipients for the funds. Money meant to strengthen our community should not be transformed into yet another divisive incident.

Bonus question for Council candidates: Who is your choice to be Tulsa's next mayor, and why?

Westcott (2-R): I want to be clear that I believe I can work with whoever our next may be. In fact, I have had such conversations with Bill LaFortune and Randi Miller. But, I support Chris Medlock. In the three years that he has been on the City Council, I have not seen him waver or change his position on any issue. His values and positions are conservative and clear. He has good ideas for developing the City of Tulsa and he places the City’s development above that of the suburbs.

Turner (3-D): I have worked with many of the candidates running for mayor and will work with whoever wins the race. However, as a Democrat, I am supporting a man who has lived in my district and knows the plight of my constituents. I am supporting my former state representative for 18 years, Don McCorkell.

Wing (4-D): [No response.]

Madden (5-R): [No response.]

Nichols (5-D): A no brainer! Chris Medlock is my choice for our next mayor. Chris is not afraid to challenge the status quo that has stymied development in Tulsa for decades of the "good ole boy" network that has ruled Tulsa ever since there was a Tulsa. Chris seems to possess unlimited energy and he has shown that he is willing spend it for the benefit of the average Tulsa citizen. If we elect Chris Medlock as our mayor and give him a progressive Council, we will see an eruption in the status quo recall groups that will dwarf Mt St Helens and at the same time Tulsa’s growth will be set free at last and our city will become one with which we can be proud.

Mautino (6-R): Chris Medlock. He is honest, keeps his word.

Eagleton (7-R): I will vote for the conservative candidate with the strongest intellect, integrity and work ethic.

Gwin (7-R): Chris Medlock. He would stand up for Tulsa and beat back the special interests and chamber of commerce to help Tulsans keep money working for Tulsa, not allowing our money to be used to fund the city suburbs such as Jenks, Broken Arrow, etc.

Magee (8-R): The choice of the voters. The reason, that is with whom I am going to work with to make a positive change for Tulsa in the immediate future.

Carter (9-R): Throughout my campaign I’ve stressed my desire to help create an atmosphere of civility, mutual respect and dignity in city hall, endorsing a mayoral candidate could needlessly jeopardize these goals. So while I realize this is not the answer you want to hear, I am not endorsing any particular candidate.