A reader passed along a campaign letter he received from City Councilor David Patrick, who faces former Councilor Roscoe Turner in a repeat of the District 3 City Council Democrat primary on April 6. In the letter, Patrick (or someone writing under his name) takes credit for progress he has had little or nothing to do with. (He is careful not to remind voters of his enthusiastic support for the Vision 2025 tax increase.) He then accuses Turner of being a tool of eeeeeeeevil Republicans.
We face a severe challenge in continuing this progress. A close examination of the facts will show that Republican and other outside interests have joined forces with my opponent, in an effort to discredit me through false accusations and misinformation.
This is pretty rich, coming from someone who received more than half his campaign contributions ($13,400, of which $11,000 were given in amounts exceeding $200) from registered Republicans ($7,500). All of Patrick's contributions over $200 from individuals came from people who live outside the district in some of south Tulsa's wealthiest precincts. On top of that, Patrick got significant contributions from two business PACs. (Turner has received the support of organized labor.) And, as we reported, Patrick received $7,300 from officers and board members of the F&M Bank and Trust Company. Patrick was a supporter of F&M's rezoning bid for 71st & Harvard.
I would like to know what false accusations and misrepresentations Patrick is talking about. I haven't seen anything from Turner's campaign or from outsiders that can't be backed up.
In fact, this special election is necessary because more than 50 Republicans voted in my opponent's home precinct during the regular Democratic primary election in February -- a fact I discovered after my opponent challenged the outcome of the original election in court.
Here Patrick tries to make it look like it's all Turner's fault and hints that it was a Republican conspiracy. In reality, Patrick only discovered this fact because Turner investigated the election and turned up the discrepancy, the result of errors by the precinct election board. Similar discrepancies occurred in precincts in two other council districts, and lesser discrepancies show up in dozens of precincts citywide.
Now this bit makes no sense whatsoever:
These outsiders oppose me because I have supported development in our community. They oppose development in our city because they are comfortable today in their crime-free neighborhoods with banks, groceries, pharmacies and other services only minutes away.
Please, Mr. Patrick, where do I find one of these crime-free neighborhoods?
I can't think of anyone who opposes development for north Tulsa. For that matter, I can't think of anyone who is opposed to development. We simply want the rules to be followed, so that the process is handled with fairness, and with respect for the investments already made by nearby property owners.
That's why so many neighborhood leaders want to see Patrick defeated. He supported a flagrant violation of the process in order to serve the interests of a major campaign contributor. He voted to silence homeowners and keep them from speaking about their mistreatment. The Whirled likes to paint him as someone who looks after the interests of the whole city, but what they mean by that is that he looks after the interests of the Whirled's ownership and the downtown elite, at the expense of ordinary Tulsans.
Even though this is a partisan primary, sophisticated observers understand that Tulsa politics don't follow national-party lines. There are Republicans and Democrats rooting for each of the candidates. The key question in this election is whose interests will the new Council serve.
