At the June 2, 2024, news conference the citizens of Muskogee heard, for the first time, that City Manager Mike Miller, Mayor Patrick Cale, and City Councilor Melody Cranford were all for transparency. (We had never heard this before and it has never been demonstrated before.) This is Cranford's first go at the city council, so we'll follow her actions and see if she adheres to her transparency statement. So that leaves Cale and Miller.
"Building A Better Muskogee is a collection of four propositions to accomplish key projects across our community, funded by a $77,000,000 bond and a CIP sales tax extension." (https://www.buildingabettermuskogee.com/pdfs/muskogee-flyer.pdf) The CIP sales tax will make the entire bond package at total of $100,000. I cannot find a statement on the city's "Building a Better Muskogee" website that the bond and the CIP tax equals $100M. (Transparency issue #1.)
The photos shown of the "deteriorating" police station are photos of locations that aren't even used by the police department — nada, zero, zilch — not one person works in the areas where those photos were taken. (https://www.buildingabettermuskogee.com/pdfs/public-meeting1-presentation-slides.pdf) (Transparency issue #2.)
From the day City Manager Mike Miller presented the bond to the city council at their public retreat (which I attended), Miller has always promoted the "misinformation" that the bond will cost taxpayers $77M. It will not. According to the county assessor's office, with interest, attorney fees, administrative fees, etc., the total cost will be between $120-$130M. But even today (July 23, 2024) the Building a Better Muskogee website still says that the bond only costs taxpayers $77M. (Transparency issue #3.) Miller even publicly admitted the correct cost of the bond in the June town hall meeting at the MLK center. However, his website still maintains the facade that the bond will only cost property owners $77M.
Miller did not hold community (face-to-face) meetings with each ward to answer questions about the projects within the bond, the bond process itself, or the CIP tax. Miller did not talk to County Assessor Ron Dean nor did Miller or Mayor Cale listen to Dean at the city council meeting when he said the city should put the brakes on the bond and research other ways of providing funding for all these projects. A more equitable way to fund all these projects is through a sales tax. When the 4.25% grocery tax disappears next year, Muskogee citizens could vote themselves a one-cent sales tax that would be shared by everyone, including visitors, instead of putting economic pressure on just property owners. This one-cent sales tax would bring in $108-$110M in the same 25-year period the bond was scheduled for. Why would the city oppose a more equitable way of producing those funds? Miller did not talk to Dal-Tile or Georgia Pacific specifically asking how much this bond would raise their taxes. I was told that someone calculated how much Georgia Pacific would have to pay in property taxes over 25 years if the bond passed — a staggering $30M! (Transparency issue #4.)
In the city's June news release, Mayor Cale said, "Almost everyone I’ve talked to is in favor of investing in Muskogee and like the projects put forward, but I feel like we could use a few more months to consider the issues,” said Mayor Patrick Cale. “I’m excited about the opportunities for Muskogee through this measure, but I want everyone – all the people of Muskogee – to be informed as much as possible when they go vote. I’m grateful for the efforts so far in helping spread the word, but I believe we can do more. That’s why I’ve called the meeting for the council to consider postponing the vote for a few months.”
So let's dissect this statement.
"Almost everyone I’ve talked to is in favor of investing in Muskogee . . ." Really? Where have they been in the last half-century? So the mayor is telling us that some people/businesses want to invest in Muskogee and are willing to pay higher property taxes for 25 years? So who are "these people?" If they exist I have the proverbial bridge in Brooklyn to sell them. Additionally, the city has spent millions of dollars on "downtown" improvements through Main Street Muskogee with the intent to draw more business downtown yet they want to tax them for 25 years? Does this make sense to anyone?
" . . . and like the projects put forward." So they like the $11M new police department that no one at city hall can tell us the square footage, how many rooms, if there's a gym included, lockers, indoor pistol range, etc. And they like the idea of renovating City Hall for $4.5M without seeing one diagram or one layout or one "white paper" that explains exactly what that money is going to be spent on?
". . . but I feel like we could use a few more months to consider the issues . . ." You're darn tootin'! Of course, the city council and Miller don't have to "consider the issues" because they still want the projects included in the bond. No doubt the issues they are considering are: "How do we convince the voters to vote, once again, for a bad bond with nondescript multi-million dollar projects that will burden the poor, those on limited incomes, renters, and small businesses?" Waiting a year will not cause this tyrannical action by the council and Miller to fade. We will never forget that city hall tried to shove this down our throat and we gagged — and gagged hard enough that they had to retreat.
“I’m excited about the opportunities for Muskogee through this measure . . ." I, too am excited about some of the proposals listed in the bond. But Muskogee citizens are smart enough to know when they're dealing with a used car salesman.
" . . . but I want everyone – all the people of Muskogee – to be informed as much as possible when they go vote." We can't be "informed" if city officials (i.e. Miller) are not transparent with each project within the bond. He needs to answer the basic journalism questions — Who? What? Where? When? Why? and How? Each project should have detailed information answering each of the above questions — especially the question of where are bids going to be solicited. I understand the city's desire to "reward" local businesses, but city officials have a more important duty to taxpayers and that is the wise and prudent use of limited tax dollars. Therefore all bids should go to the states abutting Oklahoma so the taxpayers can be ensured that we get the biggest bang for the buck.
"I’m grateful for the efforts so far in helping spread the word, but I believe we can do more. That’s why I’ve called the meeting for the council to consider postponing the vote for a few months.” I was shocked when I discovered that the city was only holding two town hall meetings to "discuss" the $77M bond. Really? Why the rush? Which brings up another question. Why did we have to vote in August when numerous families would be on vacation? Now that wouldn't be an underhanded ploy by city officials to get a low turnout thus practically ensuring victory for the bond? Why couldn't they have had the bond vote in November, along with the general election when a heck of a lot more people would participate in the bond vote. Remember what the hired moderator said about our intelligence and attention span? Basically, she said August was chosen because there would be too many ballot options on the November election and we might get confused. Well, we certainly didn't get confused about her insulting our intelligence and attention span.
If City Manger Mike Miller thinks he can wait a few months or even a year and come back expecting us to pay more in property taxes when there are other equitable ways to fund these projects, he's going down for the count.
Where does the city council stand in all of this? Aren't they supposed to be our representatives? Are they supposed to look out after us? Aren't they supposed to be our defenders? Instead, in this instance, it looks like they were nothing but rubber stamps for the shadow government that runs Muskogee. Why do everyday citizens of Muskogee elect people who have been handpicked by the mayor thus ensuring that there is no opposition to any of "his" policies? (This was especially effective in the Coleman administration.) If you don't vote because you believe our vote doesn't count, just remember that former City Councilor Traci McGee (4th Ward) lost to Tom Martindale by 100 votes. McGee was a voice for the people — against the shadow government, for transparency (long before Cale and Miller caught the bug, which was short-lived in their cases), questioned policies that didn't make sense, and wasn't afraid to speak out about it. (There's much more to that story, but that's for another post.) Martindale has yet to show that gumption, but he's just getting started. It won't take long to determine his position based upon his votes and if there are lack of questions/opposition to city policies that go against the best interest of his constituents.
"I believe to go along to get along is unpatriotic. I believe that agreeing with your government on everything they do is unpatriotic. I believe a patriot stands up and holds your government's feet to the fire. Because if you do that, you will get good government."Jesse Ventura
We don't have good government because we don't have enough city councilors that will hold City Manager Miller's feet to the fire. If the disastrous rollout of the $77M bond occurred in the private sector, would that person still be working there? No. So why is Miller still the city manager? Would you accept a non-certified plumber to work on your plumbing or a non-certified electrician to install your electrical panel or would you allow a non-certified tax accountant to prepare your taxes? No. Then why does the city council allow a non-certified city manager to head up our city? This specific point has nothing to do with Miller but everything to do with the short-sightedness of the city council. Who puts this crazy idea in their heads that we need a good old boy to run the city? Could it be that the shadow government wants a good old boy they can control? Anything is possible in Muskogee.
Comentarios