Charlotte, Denver, Salt Lake City, Indianapolis
Omaha, Des Moines, Little Rock, Wichita

Which group would you rather be in?

Fundamentally, I'm not interested in being in either group. These groups exist only in the talking points of people who want an NBA franchise - no one else uses them. If you look in an encyclopedia or almanac, you won't find a list of 'elite cities' based on who has NBA franchises.

You're also implying that your first four cities became part of this 'elite tier' when they got NBA teams. That could arguably be true for Charlotte, if Charlotte is in fact an 'elite city,' but do you actually believe that those other cities got where they are today because of NBA franchises?

And why doesn't your second list include non-NBA cities like San Diego? St. Louis? Las Vegas? Austin? Nashville? Do you consider those non-'elite' cities because they don't have NBA franchises?


How many people watch ESPN in the United States and around the world? How many people read "The Economist""? Again, there are worse things than being on the sports pages of the New York Times, Chicago Tribune, Washington Post, LA Times and USA Today 82+ times a year.

Sure there are worse things. But are these mentions - and after the first season, they'll be passing mentions - worth what we're going to spend? I'm not talking about just the sales tax revenue, but whatever additional operating expenses for the Ford Center and the practice center the city incurs? A person who watches ESPN a lot may get some gratification from the hearing the words 'Oklahoma City' spoken a lot, but is that actually going to bring new business or jobs here? If we're going to realize tangible benefits from all this name-dropping, it needs to happen in front of an audience that makes those kinds of decisions.

The linked articles appear to be mostly sports page items from various cities, and all of them are focused on the Hornets/Hurricane Katrina angle. We won't have day-to-day coverage like that from now on.


That (the rental/lease agreement) is not being decided by this vote, so it should have no effect on your decision.

It absolutely has an effect on my decision, because that agreement is going to affect the day-to-day operating costs of the Ford Center. If those costs go up, other city services will have to be adjusted to stay within budget. When Clay Bennett talks about 'a lease that makes us competitive,' what do you think that means? I think it means 'as close to free as we can intimidate the city council into giving us.'


You can worry about that (future concession demands) later. Again, that has nothing to do with NOW.

It has everything to do with now. Again, we can't look at this as the capital costs of the Ford Center alone. We need to consider all the costs. I'm pretty sure they're doing that at city hall and the chamber, and we ought to base our votes on all the data, which we don't have.


...although it's harder to get financial concessions when a team is already in place than when a city is trying to lure a team.

And yet the Sonics partners are trying to leave Seattle because the city won't upgrade the Key Arena to their liking. Or the NBA's liking. Whatever.


It's simply saying "I do not want an NBA basketball team in Oklahoma City." and David Stern and the Board of Governors will take us at our word.

No, it's saying that viewed strictly as a civic investment, I don't think an NBA team is worth what we are being told it will cost - not to mention the other costs that come in years head.


One major league team is, but 2 or 3 will not be economical in OKC for a while. City leaders aren't going to be promoting any of those other leagues any time soon.

This is an assumption, and one which I don't share.


So are you saying that you research the ownership of every business you patronize to make sure that you agree with every bit of their politics?

I don't patronize some businesses because of their politics. In the case of the NBA, it's not a business I would patronize in any event. Obviously I'm not an NBA fan. So this is a business I'll pay 15 months of sales tax for, and my payoff will be knowing that somewhere, someone is hearing the words 'Oklahoma City' spoken over and over on ESPN.


You clearly have a negative attitude about the city's progress.

You have no idea what my attitude about the city's progress is. I voted for MAPS, MAPS for Kids, the public safety sales tax and even 'Six to Fix the City.' I voted for parimutuel racing so Remington Park could 'put us on the map' and 'elevate us into the elite tier of cities.'

But I won't vote for this. I don't consider an NBA franchise 'progress.' It's just entertainment, not a social or moral imperative.

Didn't read all the nepotism posts to be honest Doug. In all fairness, even if nepotism is a good excuse, regardless of a few in city hall who might have nepotism issues, the FORD CENTER is a community issue and affects the community as a whole, not just the NBA and city officials. This vote as you know has much farther reaching implications.
I was just kidding, Metro.

\
You're also implying that your first four cities became part of this 'elite tier' when they got NBA teams. That could arguably be true for Charlotte, if Charlotte is in fact an 'elite city,' but do you actually believe that those other cities got where they are today because of NBA franchises?

And why doesn't your second list include non-NBA cities like San Diego? St. Louis? Las Vegas? Austin? Nashville? Do you consider those non-'elite' cities because they don't have NBA franchises?

Actually, that was not my implication. I just meant that, to me, those cities have more cachet, are more well known and well thought of. And, I never meant to imply it was only NBA teams that give you "elite" status. Actually, I think the top three professional leagues, be it MLB, NFL or NBA give a city more stature. As I've said to others, I'd like us to be known for more than the dustbowl and the Murrah bombing, and I don't consider having a professional team the only thing that will elevate this city, but I do consider it a piece of the puzzle.


\No, it's saying that viewed strictly as a civic investment, I don't think an NBA team is worth what we are being told it will cost - not to mention the other costs that come in years head.

To me, improving the Ford Center is worth the cost, regardless of whether we get an NBA team or not. It could be one of the downtown showpieces, and I want our downtown to be something I can be proud of. I'm very pleased with the way the Bricktown Ballpark looks, as it is aesthetically pleasing. I think there is value in aesthetics, realizing that is an opinion I hold which may not be shared by others.


\I don't patronize some businesses because of their politics. In the case of the NBA, it's not a business I would patronize in any event. Obviously I'm not an NBA fan. So this is a business I'll pay 15 months of sales tax for, and my payoff will be knowing that somewhere, someone is hearing the words 'Oklahoma City' spoken over and over on ESPN.

I think the last sentence is a bit of oversimplification, but if you neither think the Ford Center needs improving, nor Oklahoma City would be enhanced by having an NBA team, there's really nothing to discuss.

Personally, I think one can argue that increasing entertainment options, especially options such as professional sports, increases a city's attractiveness to college graduates. Good jobs do as well, and were I owner of a business looking to relocate, I would consider entertainment options in a city as one of the things to consider when choosing a site. Unlike other cities like Seattle, Miami, Denver, we have very little in the way of outdoor entertainment and geographical beauty to attract businesses and keep college graduates at home, so we have to create artificial sources of leisure time activity. Again, I'm not arguing that having an NBA team in and of itself will solve all problems, but it's a big piece of the puzzle. I have three children who have left or are leaving Oklahoma City after graduation. Not one of them left for a specific job, but rather, because "there is more to do in ______, and I can get an equally good job there as here." I think more to do creates even more to do, and a team would stimulate downtown growth of housing, retail, restaurants, etc. I'm a huge fan of an urban center to a city, and I see an NBA team as a way of enhancing development of a true urban area in Oklahoma City.


\But I won't vote for this. I don't consider an NBA franchise 'progress.' It's just entertainment, not a social or moral imperative.

I don't think anyone here thinks having an NBA franchise is a "social or moral imperative." It is entertainment, but it's great entertainment, and this tax will cost me less per day than I spend on the diet Dr. Pepper I probably shouldn't be drinking anyway. If it were a huge sum for an extended period of time, I might feel differently. I see having an NBA team similarly to how I look at having an art museum, a nice park or the Civic Center. They too are "just entertainment", but they are part of the fabric of the city, and they greatly enhance quality of life for the people who use them. I vote for things that enhance other people's quality of life, even if I don't use them, and will continue to do so.

I think bornhere is from Seattle.

A "no" vote here would be tough for the city to recover from. I don't mind the practice facility at all. If it gets used anything like the Blazer's practice facility does (which I was at on Friday night watching a UCO vs. OU ice hockey match), it'll be valuable to the community. The price tag isn't outlandish at all.If it (the practice facility) is able to be used by the community in general then yes, it may be of some value. But thats not the case here. In your opinion the 20 MIL. price tag is not outlandlish. Though I disagree with your opinion, I respect it.

You mentioned the Blazer's practice facility. I assume you are referring to the I-35 and I-240 location, if so, let me ask a couple of questions.

If B.Ball is played (and practiced) on a wood floor, Hockey on a ice floor (rink), here are my questions.

1: Which type of playing and/or practice surfice would cost more to build, upkeep, and maintain. Wood or Ice?

2: Do you think the Blazer's practice facility cost 20 Mil.?

3: Who payed for the Blazer's practice facility?

Andy 157

The Blazers Ice Centre is a privately (non-Blazer) owned, they have a marketing agreement with the Blazers. No public dollars where used to build or maintain the facility.

Originally Posted by Midtowner
A "no" vote here would be tough for the city to recover from. I don't mind the practice facility at all. If it gets used anything like the Blazer's practice facility does (which I was at on Friday night watching a UCO vs. OU ice hockey match), it'll be valuable to the community. The price tag isn't outlandish at all.

Actually, this is what hung me up before finally deciding to vote "YES"....it will not be used for anything but the NBA team. Keep in mind the so-called "practice facility" is more than a glorified gym - it's the home offices for the team as well. A twenty million dollar facility will be, without question, lavish. But - I've moved on from that and decided the best interests of the city lie with a "YES" vote.

But - I've moved on from that and decided the best interests of the city lie with a "YES" vote.

Yes! Yes! Yes!

Thanks Kerried. I grew up in Northern California and attended OU for 5 years before moving to Florida. Although I only lived in the OKC area for 5 of my 38 years, I will always consider OKC my adopted hometown. I loved living in the OKC metro and was very sad to leave. I still remember passing the Lindsey St exit on I-35 as I drove the Ryder truck out of town thinking how much it sucked that I was leaving.

I loved going to Cavalary and Blazer games at the Myriad and then going to Bricktown for a drink after the game. That was before Bricktown was popular. I even took my father-in-law to see the Tampa Bay Storm play Ft Worth in an AFL game at the Myriad the day before we moved. I also went to see the Blazers play at State Fair Arena and caught a foul ball at All Sports Stadium when the 89ers were playing the Iowa Cubs. Name me another city in America where a broke college student had so many sports options.Kerry, sorry, but as someone who 54 years ago was born, and raised, and educated, then married, had kids, and has worked, and is now living in retirement in the City of Oklahoma City, I'm a bit skepticle of your deep seeded love for our great City.

You stated that after getting your education here in Oklahoma (thats good) how sad you were when you (had?) to leave OKC. But, as sad as it was, in order to get a good job, you (had?) no other choice. Furthermore as you've stated in a previous post, you will joyfully come back to your adopted home if ,or when, Oklahoma can provide you a decent job. Yet I don't hear from you much optimisim thats going to happen. Some think of you as an advocate for our state, out there leading the cheers for a wonderful City. I'm still not getting from you that message

Were you equally as sad when you (had?) to leave your home in Northern California and come to Oklahoma (City) to get a good quality education? You sign off your post with "OKC- The Surprise Your Family Has Been Looking For" Evidentually just not yours.

Actually, this is what hung me up before finally deciding to vote "YES"....it will not be used for anything but the NBA team. Keep in mind the so-called "practice facility" is more than a glorified gym - it's the home offices for the team as well. A twenty million dollar facility will be, without question, lavish. But - I've moved on from that and decided the best interests of the city lie with a "YES" vote.So you have rethought your position on this issue, and you will now vote yes. I can, and in fact do, respect that. Hell, from time to time regarding other issues I've been known to do that myself. Haven't quite got there yet on this one. I could, but most likely won't. I only wish they had made this a two part issue. Whereby then, I would have been able to vote YES for the arena, and NO for the practice facility. But, they didn't. So for now I must still vote NO, and I'm in the minority, and the majority will vote Yes. Hurry up March 4

Kerry, sorry, but as someone who 54 years ago was born, and raised, and educated, then married, had kids, and has worked, and is now living in retirement in the City of Oklahoma City, I'm a bit skepticle of your deep seeded love for our great City.

You stated that after getting your education here in Oklahoma (thats good) how sad you were when you (had?) to leave OKC. But, as sad as it was, in order to get a good job, you (had?) no other choice. Furthermore as you've stated in a previous post, you will joyfully come back to your adopted home if ,or when, Oklahoma can provide you a decent job. Yet I don't hear from you much optimisim thats going to happen. Some think of you as an advocate for our state, out there leading the cheers for a wonderful City. I'm still not getting from you that message

Were you equally as sad when you (had?) to leave your home in Northern California and come to Oklahoma (City) to get a good quality education? You sign off your post with "OKC- The Surprise Your Family Has Been Looking For" Evidentually just not yours.

I must admit, reading Kerry's energetic posts, the fact Kerry lived here only five years (while in college) and moved 14 years ago is surprising. But, according to this post in 2006 (http://www.okctalk.com/72394-post10.html), if we get an NBA team he's going to "make every effort" to come back.

That was an un-necessary personal attack if I have ever seen one.

For the record, I could not wait to move out of California. I will never move back to California. I do have a mother, 3 sisters, and 2 brothers that live in the OKC area so "yes" I would be interested in moving back to OKC. However, for what I do my employment oppertunites would be very limited.

As for "had to move". Yes I had to move. When I graduated from OU the only company to offer me a job was Rand McNally in Daytona Beach, FL. What was I supposed to do, take my degree that took me 7 years to get and throw it away and keep working the same job I already had or work in a call center. Where is the logic in that? Call me crazy but I kind of wanted to work in my field of study. Unfortunately, I had to sacrafice what I wanted to do for what I had to do. 14 years later that kind of decision making process has really paid off for me.

"I only wish they had made this a two part issue. Whereby then, I would have been able to vote YES for the arena, and NO for the practice facility. But, they didn't. So for now I must still vote NO, and I'm in the minority, and the majority will vote Yes. Hurry up March 4."

And I wish Barack Obama might be a little more fiscally conservative, or John McCain were a little more anti-war. I don't think I've ever voted for something or someone I supported every single piece of. I wish we'd hear, "Yes, we're going to use the practice facility for some state basketball championship games, or use it for practice for teams here for regional NCAA's or the Big Twelve Tournament." I don't think it's impossible for that to happen, but until a contract is negotiated or the facility actually exists and the city and owners see how it's utilized and how much, will we know that. It is the closest thing to a sticking point for me. But, I see it as a trade-off. I didn't have to spend $350 million of my own money (of course, that's a laugh) or the city's money to buy the team, and yet I get to enjoy it 41+ nights a year. And I honestly and earnestly believe that having a team in Oklahoma City will be great for the city. So, to me, the practice facility is my way of saying "thank you" to the Sonics' owners for buying a team, and wanting to bring it to Oklahoma City, where there is absolutely no guarantee they will make money, and a very reasonable chance they will lose money. When McClendon said "We'll be happy if we break even", it confirmed what I suspected. With the exception of Clay Bennett, none of the Sonics owners had a lifelong dream of owning a team. It's clear that none of them are interested in running the team. I believe, and I have no reason to believe I'm wrong, that when this group bought the team, it was because they saw all the excitement and energy having the Hornets here brought to the city. They wanted that energy and excitement to continue and increase. These are men who are interested in Oklahoma City. Some of them were educated elsewhere. All of them could live anywhere in the world they wanted. And yet they choose to live in Oklahoma City, and most of them have given back to the community and are clearly attempting to improve it. Tom Ward made a conscious decision to move Sandridge downtown, because he wants to see downtown thrive. Bob Howard is behind the Midtown Renaissance group. Clay Bennett was one of the movers behind the Fair Park improvements that have kept the fairgrounds full of horse shows and brought visitors to OKC. Bill Cameron is considering moving his company downtown. I see their purchase of the Sonics as an extension of their other hopes and dreams for our city, and I feel a few pennies a day for 18 months is one of the the ways I can afford to join in their dream.

2. The owners of the Sonics are millionaires. Some people have the mindset that they have so much money and are so rich, that they can fund the improvements needed at the Ford Center. Some are also saying that Bennett agreed to pay $100 million towards the arena in Renton....so why not here?

Sounds good to me.

I'm posting a letter to the editor I found in the DOK today:

Letters to the Editor: Wednesday, February 13, 2008

Let's keep momentum going in city
When we made the decision to reopen the Skirvin Hotel, we did so feeling confident that Oklahoma City was definitely a city on the move, especially downtown. Little did we know how much movement there would be! On March 4, Oklahoma City voters have a rare opportunity to build on that momentum. Improving the Ford Center will show the nation that we're ready to become a top-tier, big league American city.

I worked in Milwaukee at the Pfister Hotel, owned by our parent company, Marcus Corp., and can tell you first hand the tremendous impact the NBA's Bucks had on that community during the six years that I lived and worked there. The NBA brings a wealth of economic activity at many levels. Restaurants and taxi cabs, night life and entertainment venues will all be supported by the teams and fans.

This may just be the catalyst that could spur downtown retail store growth. So much is happening here and we need to keep the momentum going! Only 28 cities in this country can call themselves an NBA town and enjoy the benefits and recognition that brings. Let's hope our city is able to join that elite list. Vote yes on March 4.

John D. Williams, Oklahoma City

Williams is general manager of the Skirvin.

What does the Ford Center vote have to do with Bennett or the Sonics? If it was Bennett pushing for the vote then you might have a point. Also, the arena in Seattle was to cost $500 million. The Ford Center improvements will cost about 1/5 that. So by my calculation that means Bennett should only be libal for $20 million. The relocation fee is around $30 million so I think Bennett is covered.

The city stepped up and built the Ford Center for $90 million. Bennett and company stepped up even more and bought the Sonics for $350 million. Now people think the city should just lay down and let this opportunity pass instead of stepping up to the plate again? Go figure. You have to be at-bat to hit homeruns.

Well, if the reason to upgrade the Ford Center was so Bennett's Sonics could come to town, then why shouldn't he foot the bill for the upgrades? It would seem logical seeing as how he wants a return on his investment. No upgrades, no Sonics, no money for Bennett.

Luke -- because nowhere else in the world do major league franchises pay for their own facilities. It just isn't done.

Unless the city isn't serious about having the NBA here, we'll get this done.

Well, if the reason to upgrade the Ford Center was so Bennett's Sonics could come to town, then why shouldn't he foot the bill for the upgrades? It would seem logical seeing as how he wants a return on his investment. No upgrades, no Sonics, no money for Bennett.

I don't believe Clay Bennett is being given an option to foot the bill. And there's no guarantee he'll ever get a return on his investment, which will total at least $400 million by the time he pays the $30 million relocation fee and his legal fees. No upgrades, no Sonics is correct, but the third may well not be. There is very little assurance that the Sonics owners will ever make money on the team, or at least as much of a return as most of us would expect on any investment we made.

Sports stadiums can be privately financed - The Buckeye Institute (http://www.buckeyeinstitute.org/article/238)

Interesting read.


But, must these stadiums be financed solely be taxpayers? Many new sports stadiums are being built with substantial private funding.

Joe Robbie Stadium, home of the Miami Dolphins, is renown for being almost completely privately. Joe Robbie put up almost $12 million of his own money and borrowed as additional $90 million from three banks.

Robbie, however, had some public sector help: Two landowners donated several hundred acres to Dade County for a sports stadium, and the local government built a highway interchange to ease traffic problems in the area. Nevertheless, the bult of the cost -- construction, maintenance and operation of the facility -- was financed privately.

Joe Robbie's project is not unique. Consider the following more recent examples:

The Fleet Center, home to the NBA's Boston Celtics, was privately financed except for road improvements, a mass transit station and service costs.
Minneapolis's Target Center, home to the NBA Timberwolves, was originally financed with $25 million from owners, and $59 million from private banks. The city provided $20 million for land and infrastructure improvements.
The NHL's St. Louis Blues built their facility with a $30 million investment from the owners and a bank loan for the rest of the facility costs. The city provided the land and paid $10 million for land clearance.
Private philanthropists in Milwaukee built the Bradley Center which is home to the NBA Bucks, IHL Admirals, and Marquette University's basketball team. They built the arena for $84 million and then donated it to the state as a gift. The city used $25.5 million in bonds to demolish some vacant buildings, acquire some land, and provide planning and infrastructure.
What lessons can be learned from these examples?

First, private ownership and financing of sports stadiums is not a thing of the past. Ohio policymakers need to fully explore private alternatives before putting taxpayers' wealth at risk or increase taxes further.

Second, public investments can be limited to things that cannot be done easily through the private sector such as land assembly, some planning, and some road improvements.

Third, sports teams should have a significant financial stake in the stadium. This gives the teams an incentive to fill seats and factor the success of the stadium into their bottom line.

Fourth, privately owned and operated facilities are taxable. This means that public expenditures that result from the project can be offset by revenues from new taxes.

Ohio citizens and policymakers should be wary of proposals to fund sports facilities solely with public dollars. Public funding of sports stadiums in Ohio is way out of line with trends in other cities and states. Private financial markets will provide funding for the most economically profitable projects. If significant private financing is not available, taxpayers and policymakers should take that as a sign that the sports facility is not a good investment.

I don't believe Clay Bennett is being given an option to foot the bill. And there's no guarantee he'll ever get a return on his investment, which will total at least $400 million by the time he pays the $30 million relocation fee and his legal fees. No upgrades, no Sonics is correct, but the third may well not be. There is very little assurance that the Sonics owners will ever make money on the team, or at least as much of a return as most of us would expect on any investment we made.You state that, you don't believe Mr. Bennett is being given an option to foot the bill. I will take you at your word. But, would you, or could you believe that, he has an option to foot the bill? That is of course if he desired to do so?

He offered to foot the bill to the tune of 100 Mil of a 530 Mil plan for a new arena, that he proposed, to the state of Washington to be located in the City of Renton.

The best part of his offer was that he got to keep ALL of the revenues, everything, the whole pie. The naming rights alone where worth 150/200 Mil. Terrible return on his investment hey.

The rest of the money was to raised by the State/City. Sales Tax: 227 Mil, Resturant Tax: 75 Mil, Car Rental Tax: 40 Mil, Hotel/Motel Tax: 81 Mil.. The article was in the 11/5/07 Sports Business News. It went on to say that on 4/16/07 The Washington State Legislature was faced with two choices. Give in to Bennett's Blackmail demands, or reject his offer. Action taken. There will be no arena in Renton

The Fleet Center, home to the NBA's Boston Celtics, was privately financed except for road improvements, a mass transit station and service costs.
Minneapolis's Target Center, home to the NBA Timberwolves, was originally financed with $25 million from owners, and $59 million from private banks. The city provided $20 million for land and infrastructure improvements.
The NHL's St. Louis Blues built their facility with a $30 million investment from the owners and a bank loan for the rest of the facility costs. The city provided the land and paid $10 million for land clearance.
Private philanthropists in Milwaukee built the Bradley Center which is home to the NBA Bucks, IHL Admirals, and Marquette University's basketball team. They built the arena for $84 million and then donated it to the state as a gift. The city used $25.5 million in bonds to demolish some vacant buildings, acquire some land, and provide planning and infrastructure.
What lessons can be learned from these examples?


The lessons that can be learned are that some cities have people in them wealthy enough to pay for sports facilities themselves. Boston is the seventh largest television market in the US, and Oklahoma City is 45th. Massachusetts has 20 Fortune 500 companies and Oklahoma has 6. There might be a disparity in wealth between the two. You notice that it took private philanthropists in Milwaukee to build the arena. Know any that would be willing to pay for the Ford Center? Because I think bringing a $350 million team here without any guarantee of a return is philanthropy enough for the Sonics owners. The Minnesota Timberwolves franchise cost $32.5 million, so it would be a lot easier to come up with the cash for a new arena if you'd spent one tenth of what the Sonics' owners spent. I'm not going to discuss the Blues because I know nothing about hockey. There are several problems with the above reasoning: First of all, as discussed, the are huge disparities in what people have paid for sports teams, and there are huge disparities in wealth of different cities. Second of all, this isn't Clay Bennett coming to the city asking for a handout. No one knows what team, if any, will end up in Oklahoma City. The NBA is telling Oklahoma City what it needs to do for them to consider putting a team here. Remember, before we hosted the Hornets, we didn't even make the cut for an NHL expansion franchise, and David Stern laughed at Mick Cornett and Clay Bennett when they asked for an NBA franchise. We're a marginal size for a team, we have a marginal at best television market and we've got a less than acceptable median income. We're not doing the NBA a favor by "allowing them to put a team here", they're doing us a favor by considering us an acceptable market, despite some of their reasonable concerns. If we're not willing to upgrade an $89 million arena when other cities are building half billion dollar arenas, I think there are reasons for concern, and I cannot disagree with the NBA not wanting to put a team here if that's the case.


If significant private financing is not available, taxpayers and policymakers should take that as a sign that the sports facility is not a good investment.

I don't think anyone is trying to say sports facilities are a good investment for a private investor. What we've said, and it is opinion, is that we think having an NBA team is a quality of life issue, that it may help keep college graduates in Oklahoma City and attract interest from businesses looking to relocate, that having a team is great advertising for the city, and provides an artificial form of entertainment in a city without a lot of geologic and geographcial reasons for natural outdoor entertainment. I believe having a team helps us continue to develop our downtown and helps decrease urban sprawl. Not to mention, it's a lot of fun to have a team, is something that can pull OU and OSU fans together, and gives a city a national identity apart from the dustbowl and the Murrah bombing. For those reasons, to me, it's worth a few pennies a day for 18 months to bring a team to Oklahoma City.

It would only make sense that if I wanted my NBA team to play in OKC because I thought OKC would be profitable, then I would have to make sure the facility was up to NBA standards and I should foot the bill for that.

Here's what we have: several businessmen worth billions buy a team. The citizens of OKC pay a tax to ensure the team moves here. The businessmen worth billions charge the citizens to enter the arena they originally paid for and upgraded. The businessmen make even more money.

How about the businessmen invest in the arena themselves?

I'm going to repost this, as it answers some questions posted just above, and you now have to be a subscriber to view it online. I apologize to those who have read it already. This is from the Journal Record last week:

Streuli: Time to play ball
by Ted Streuli
The Journal Record February 11, 2008

I tend to be a skeptical kind of guy, but that’s generally regarded as a good trait in a journalist. And like most journalists, I tend to be especially skeptical when there’s a lot of tax money being tossed about, and a politician is telling me why it’s a good thing.

That’s why I got a little itchy when Oklahoma City Mayor Mick Cornett started touting the March 4 sales tax election as a great idea. If it passes, the $120 million raised by the 1-cent sales tax will pay to dress up the eight-year-old Ford Center and build an NBA-quality practice arena. Proponents, including Cornett and the Chamber of Commerce, say it’s a must-win election if the SuperSonics are to move from Seattle to Oklahoma City. And they’re pushing hard; even Cornett’s assistant, David Holt, is handing out buttons and giving PowerPoint presentations to any group willing to listen.

In case you’ve been living in an igloo the past couple of years, you need to know that when George Shinn declined to sell the NBA’s Hornets to a group of local businessmen headed by Clay Bennett, they turned to Seattle and bought the Sonics. They would like to move the team to Oklahoma City.

Anytime folks want to spend $120 million of other people’s money – including mine – I have questions. And this deal was no exception. Cornett and Chamber President Roy Williams answered those questions for me the other day, and now I’ve decided how to vote. I wondered why we should pony up the cash to help a group of millionaires (some of them billionaires) remodel a relatively new arena.
It seemed to me that would be like building a new garage as a gift to my rich neighbor who just bought a Bentley, which he would then charge me to ride in. I would wonder why he couldn’t just build his own damn garage. The answer is that the Bentley people won’t let him. Or, if you’ve become confused by the car metaphor, it means the NBA, not the team’s owners, decide where a team will play. And the NBA says the city, not the owners, should invest in the facility because they want to make sure their franchisees have a reasonable chance to turn a profit. If we don’t build the garage, they’ll park the Bentley in Kansas City. Bennett and friends don’t want to own a Kansas City team, they want to own a team in their hometown – but they don’t get to make the decision. If the Bentley gets parked in KC, they’d likely look to transfer title.

Spending the $120 million all but guarantees the Sonics will soon be playing here. But we’ll get more for that money than the NBA. We’ll get more play from the Big 12 and others. Tulsa, with a beautiful new arena, will attract more big-time events, too.

I don’t know about you, but I’m un-jerking my knee on this one.
My March 4 vote will be “yes,” even if I have to rub a little anti-itch cream on when I do it. This is one of those times when they’ve got it right

It would only make sense that if I wanted my NBA team to play in OKC because I thought OKC would be profitable, then I would have to make sure the facility was up to NBA standards and I should foot the bill for that.

Here's what we have: several businessmen worth billions buy a team. The citizens of OKC pay a tax to ensure the team moves here. The businessmen worth billions charge the citizens to enter the arena they originally paid for and upgraded. The businessmen make even more money.

How about the businessmen invest in the arena themselves?

And again, please provide me with proof that the businessmen will make any money at all by putting a team in Oklahoma City. What would you consider a reasonable return on an investment if you were investing money? 5%? 7%? 10%? The average NBA team makes $10 million a year. Last year, 30% of all NBA teams operated in the red, one team losing $39 million. If the Sonics' owners were to make the NBA average of $10 million, they would be getting a 2.5% return on their money. Most of the teams that lose money are smaller market teams, especially if they don't make the playoffs. Oklahoma City would be the second smallest market, with the second smallest television market. When someone proves to me that the Sonics' owners are going to make even a reasonable return on their investment, I might start thinking they should help pay for the arena.

#215 Tom L Ward - Forbes.com (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/54/biz_06rich400_Tom-L-Ward_SDZK.html)

#215 Aubrey K McClendon - Forbes.com (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/54/biz_06rich400_Aubrey-K-McClendon_MSFH.html)

Luke,

Actually only two of the Sonics owners are billionaires (McClendon and Ward). Each are estimated by Forbes at $1.6 billion net worth. While I can totally agree with you in principle, that we shouldn't be subsidizing the rich, unfortunately that is the way business is done in America as others have pointed out. Furthermore, we aren't Boston, Miami, or St. Louis as you pointed out below. We are OKC, a city barely known outside the region. These other cities you mentioned are much larger in population, wealth, and media market (3 key factors to major league sports). These other cities also have several other major-league franchises, so the loss of one is not as significant as trying to obtain your first one as is OKC (or having none). Furthermore, we're competiting with larger cities such as San Diego, Anaheim, Vegas, Kansas City and others that are salavating at the possibility of a team, and probably willing to throw a better incentive package at the NBA than we are. Do you think these cities know and see the value in major league sports? Of course they do, most of them have already experienced it and know the value. While I'm as big of an OKC supporter and visionary as anybody, I know good and well chances like this don't just come around often, at best once a decade. I know most of what I've said has been beat around the bush many times, but if you think NBA or NHL is coming without this arena upgrade, or at an owner's expense, you're fooling yourself.

This may be somewhat off topic, if so I'm sorry. But here are my questions. We are all aware by now that Bennett:Etal paid 350 Million for the NBA Sonics. But also included in the deal was the WNBA Storm. Granted the mens team accounted for 280 of the 350 but what is going to happen with the womens team? Anyone know? Is he going to sell them? Keep them? If he keeps them will they come here or stay there? If he brings them here does the relocation fee cover both the teams?

He has since sold the storm.

If they promise to bring the WNBA Storm to OKC, and promise to hire Sherri Coale as the head coach, and sign her to a long term contract, I may forget all about little ole practice facility. And vote YES!!!

If they promise to bring the WNBA Storm to OKC, and promise to hire Sherri Coale as the head coach, and sign her to a long term contract, I may forget all about little ole practice facility. And vote YES!!! Well crap. Then screw them. I'm back to NO!!!

He has since sold the storm.Any idea on how much of the 350 they got back?

10 mil

And again, please provide me with proof that the businessmen will make any money at all by putting a team in Oklahoma City.

Are you implying they wouldn't make any money? I guess I'm confused as to why businessmen would spend time and lots of money to try to get a basketball team here if they're not going to make any money?

#215 Tom L Ward - Forbes.com (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/54/biz_06rich400_Tom-L-Ward_SDZK.html)

#215 Aubrey K McClendon - Forbes.com (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/54/biz_06rich400_Aubrey-K-McClendon_MSFH.html)

Luke,

Actually only two of the Sonics owners are billionaires (McClendon and Ward). Each are estimated by Forbes at $1.6 billion net worth.

Then those two alone could finance the WHOLE upgrade project!


While I can totally agree with you in principle, that we shouldn't be subsidizing the rich, unfortunately that is the way business is done in America as others have pointed out.

A little creativity and this could be financed privately. If not, then perhaps the demand is superficial.


Do you think these cities know and see the value in major league sports?

If Chesapeake, Devon, OGE, MidFirst, BoA...on and on... see the value in Major League Sports for their employees, then why don't THEY foot the bill? If Bricktown restaurants and downtown hotels think that it would help their bottom line, then how about THEY subsidize it. Between the owners and the beneficiaries of an NBA team, it can be funded.

Look, I know what you're saying. All I'm saying is there has got to be a more creative way to get the financing necessary than by taxing everybody when only a fraction of the population will actually go to a game.

Luke,

First off, the Sonics have nothing to do with this. They did not ask the City to upgrade the Ford Center. Second, you are probably correct, the owners do have enough money to privately fund the arena. However, that is not the option we are presented with. You have to play the cards you dealt, not the cards you wish you had. There is not a secret option 3 on the ballot.

I don't know how you can say the Sonics have nothing to do with this. If it wasn't for the Sonics, there would be no purpose to upgrading the arena.

The owners financing the arena is not an option we are presented with...yet. If the "Nos" have it, then maybe our local home town businessmen will do everything possible to make sure the opportunity doesn't slip through their hands. Or, they'll look to another city where they don't have to spend money. We'll see.

Way to sum it up Kerry!!!


Quote andy157: This may be somewhat off topic, if so I'm sorry. But here are my questions. We are all aware by now that Bennett:Etal paid 350 Million for the NBA Sonics. But also included in the deal was the WNBA Storm. Granted the mens team accounted for 280 of the 350 but what is going to happen with the womens team? Anyone know? Is he going to sell them? Keep them? If he keeps them will they come here or stay there? If he brings them here does the relocation fee cover both the teams?

andy157, As others have pointed out, he sold the Storm for $10 million a month or two back. A good move in my opinion. Bennet's Group's losses plus legal fees this year are probably around $20 million or so. WNBA doesn't really make any money, the selling price just reflected that. This is a good way the group can help subsidize losses/costs to hold out until 2010 if need be AND it provides goodwill and a bargaining tool in dealing with the City of Seattle. Keep the WNBA and Sonics naming rights in Seattle, Seattle might agree to a buyout (or have no choice if the judge grants they can move early). Seattle is more happy with the NBA than they would have been otherwise. Bennet and Co. end up just cutting waste/losses and focus on the cream of the crop to bring to OKC. Again, NBA games ARE NOT AND WILL NOT BE the only events at the Ford Center. There are dozens of other types of events that take place their on a regular basis, and those events as well as the community as a whole will benefit, regardless of usage.

Luke, in theory, YES, McClendon and Ward could finance the arena alone. But are you suggesting or saying if you were in their shoes that you would? Meaning if you're net worth is $1.6billion, you just bought a team for $150-200million (each), plus you expect them to pay $50-75million (each) for an arena upgrade, plus all their other investments, AND still pay some of Oklahoma's highest paying jobs (thousands of them)? To do things on this scale, they have to either finance (meaning take on substantial debt on a venture they will probably lose money on) or liquidate assets (sell stocks). I don't know about you, but selling half a billion dollars worth of stocks (thus potentially losing majority stake in their own companies, Chesapeake and Riata), doesn't seem like good business sense. If these folks (which again, employ thousands of high paying jobs in local economy), lost majority control of their local companies (in a vulnerable market), we could end up losing another major energy player to Houston. Do you suggest this is a good idea to gamble on?

Are you implying they wouldn't make any money? I guess I'm confused as to why businessmen would spend time and lots of money to try to get a basketball team here if they're not going to make any money?

Any possibility this is their philanthropic gesture, but they're only willing to make one.....or only allowed to make one? If people built an arena in Milwaukee and donated it to the city, why is it so farfetched that the Sonics' owners would buy the Sonics and bring it to Oklahoma City without any financial guarantees at all? That is precisely what I believe they are hoping to do and planned to do.....that this is their gift to the city. But, David Stern is drawing the line at them also paying for arena upgrades, as well he should. If Oklahoma City really wants an NBA team, why shouldn't the city pay for an ugrade that's one third to a fifth of what other cites are spending?

I don't know how you can say the Sonics have nothing to do with this. If it wasn't for the Sonics, there would be no purpose to upgrading the arena.

The owners financing the arena is not an option we are presented with...yet. If the "Nos" have it, then maybe our local home town businessmen will do everything possible to make sure the opportunity doesn't slip through their hands. Or, they'll look to another city where they don't have to spend money. We'll see.

Hello?? I don't want to be rude, but have you read all the posts in this thread and the NBA megathread? No one even knows whether we'll get the Sonics, the Hornets or no team at all. We use the word "Sonics" just because it's simpler than talking about "the Hornets or Sonics, whichever". Since it's not even known which team will end up in Oklahoma City, it's pretty difficult for Clay Bennett to make demands. He may end up staying in Seattle or Kansas City, Las Vegas or Louisville. If the "nos' have it, the Board of Governors will turn down Clay Bennett's relocation request in April. There won't be time to throw together a financing package from some surprise philanthropists or secret hidden city funds. The owners will not be given a chance to "make sure the opportunity doesn't slip through their fingers". Yes, they will be forced by the NBA to "look to another city where they don't have to spend money." And why would they want to bring a team here that they've already spent $400 million on if their own city is too ungrateful to make it happen for a few pennies a day per person. I'd go to Kansas City too, and thumb my nose at Oklahoma City. We will see.

I don't know how you can say the Sonics have nothing to do with this. If it wasn't for the Sonics, there would be no purpose to upgrading the arena.

The owners financing the arena is not an option we are presented with...yet. If the "Nos" have it, then maybe our local home town businessmen will do everything possible to make sure the opportunity doesn't slip through their hands. Or, they'll look to another city where they don't have to spend money. We'll see.It's mind boggling to me how anyone can say that the owners have nothing to do with any of this. How come the owners of the Sonics had the blessing of Stern and the NBA to offer up 100 Million to the City of Renton, Washington for their share of a 530 Million arena, yet they are strictly forbiden from contributing a penny to OKC. Lets see the 100 Million offer to Renton was contingent on the owners recieving all of the revenue for the naming rights. Which amounted to 150-200 Million. Why can't they do that here? Oh I forgot, Ford has already paid for those rights. I would also like for someone to please explain to me the pecking order of the NBA. I know you've got your owners, you got your Bd. of Governors, and you got your Commissioner. Anyone else? If not then who controls these three groups, and who do these three groups control.
Who appoints the Gov's and who appoints the Commish? Anyone know?

Since it's not even known which team will end up in Oklahoma City, it's pretty difficult for Clay Bennett to make demands.

I'll bet if he and his partners foot the bill for the upgrades, that would be an incredible incentive for the board of Governors to approve quickly. Then we wouldn't even have to do this song and dance vote of the people thing. Easy!


And why would they want to bring a team here that they've already spent $400 million on if their own city is too ungrateful to make it happen for a few pennies a day per person. I'd go to Kansas City too, and thumb my nose at Oklahoma City. We will see.

Jeez. Leave it to the taxpayers of OKC? How about the big corporations like Devon, Chesapeake, MidFirst and BOk subsidize the upgrades. They would no doubt love to woo employees with a higher quality of living. And the citizens of OKC would reap the benefits.

So, if I have a business idea that would bring millions to the metro, can we put it to a vote of the people to pass it?

I'll bet if he and his partners foot the bill for the upgrades, that would be an incredible incentive for the board of Governors to approve quickly. Then we wouldn't even have to do this song and dance vote of the people thing. Easy!



Jeez. Leave it to the taxpayers of OKC? How about the big corporations like Devon, Chesapeake, MidFirst and BOk subsidize the upgrades. They would no doubt love to woo employees with a higher quality of living. And the citizens of OKC would reap the benefits.

So, if I have a business idea that would bring millions to the metro, can we put it to a vote of the people to pass it?

You clearly don't understand. I guess that's OK, because at this point, I'm guessing it's annoying those who do. So, for the last time. The NBA will not allow the Sonics owners to fund the arena upgrades. We either do it ourselves, or we will not get an NBA team. Period.

Why not?

Ask David Stern. Perhaps he's worried that the Sonics owners (if that's the team we get) have already spent too much money, and he wants Oklahoma City to show they'll support the team. Perhaps because no one is asking the owners of the Blazers and the Yard Dawgz to help fund the upgrade. Perhaps because Oklahoma City owns the arena and Aubrey McClendon and Clay Bennett do not. Perhaps because there will be many events every year in the Ford Center that have nothing to do with the Sonics.

Ask David Stern. Perhaps he's worried that the Sonics owners (if that's the team we get) have already spent too much money, and he wants Oklahoma City to show they'll support the team. Perhaps because no one is asking the owners of the Blazers and the Yard Dawgz to help fund the upgrade. Perhaps because Oklahoma City owns the arena and Aubrey McClendon and Clay Bennett do not. Perhaps because there will be many events every year in the Ford Center that have nothing to do with the Sonics.

I guess the questions is, how do you know the NBA would say "NO" to Bennett's team if he and his team offered to do the upgrades? Have NBA officials said "No, they cannot pay for the upgrades, the city of Oklahoma City has to." ? That doesn't sound right.

Also, the Yard Dawgz or Blazers shouldn't pay for the upgrades either. They would reap little if nothing from the upgrades. Likewise, the people of OKC who would never go to a game should not be forced to pay for the upgrades.

Let those who will reap the benefits pay for the upgrades.

Pretty interesting arguments on both sides of the table if you ask me. I see both points. If I wasn't an NBA fan, I don't think I'd be happy about being taxed for something that dosent matter to me one bit. I wonder why they cant include a extra charge on the tickets. Then again, I am a proponet of not being taxed for a lot of crap that we are already taxed for. Not to mention, if a certain someone is elected president, your going to see a lot more middle-upper class taxes going up.

Its kinda gettin old hearing ppl talk about " let the ppl that are going to use it pay for it." Does this mean bc I dont use the parks in edmond I shouldn't have to pay for them? This thinking just doesn't sound right to me. There is alot of positive to come from the vote. I said it once before, we vote no, we are voting no to any other professional team that is thinking oh coming to OKC. We will ALWAYS be stuck in the "2nd level sports city" stigma. (my personal thought there). I understand the taxes, I understand ppl want the owners to pay, I get it. Just the rational of "I dont use it, I shouldnt pay for it is outdated, and borberline childish." Sit down and think what you don't use and you still pay for it. Then think what would happen if everyone thought that way. What would this city have that it wouldn't if everyone followed this ideal. Plain and simple, dont like it dont vote for it, but dont get mad if OKC never gets the chance again.

Way to sum it up Kerry!!!



andy157, As others have pointed out, he sold the Storm for $10 million a month or two back. A good move in my opinion. Bennet's Group's losses plus legal fees this year are probably around $20 million or so. WNBA doesn't really make any money, the selling price just reflected that. This is a good way the group can help subsidize losses/costs to hold out until 2010 if need be AND it provides goodwill and a bargaining tool in dealing with the City of Seattle. Keep the WNBA and Sonics naming rights in Seattle, Seattle might agree to a buyout (or have no choice if the judge grants they can move early). Seattle is more happy with the NBA than they would have been otherwise. Bennet and Co. end up just cutting waste/losses and focus on the cream of the crop to bring to OKC. Again, NBA games ARE NOT AND WILL NOT BE the only events at the Ford Center. There are dozens of other types of events that take place their on a regular basis, and those events as well as the community as a whole will benefit, regardless of usage.

Luke, in theory, YES, McClendon and Ward could finance the arena alone. But are you suggesting or saying if you were in their shoes that you would? Meaning if you're net worth is $1.6billion, you just bought a team for $150-200million (each), plus you expect them to pay $50-75million (each) for an arena upgrade, plus all their other investments, AND still pay some of Oklahoma's highest paying jobs (thousands of them)? To do things on this scale, they have to either finance (meaning take on substantial debt on a venture they will probably lose money on) or liquidate assets (sell stocks). I don't know about you, but selling half a billion dollars worth of stocks (thus potentially losing majority stake in their own companies, Chesapeake and Riata), doesn't seem like good business sense. If these folks (which again, employ thousands of high paying jobs in local economy), lost majority control of their local companies (in a vulnerable market), we could end up losing another major energy player to Houston. Do you suggest this is a good idea to gamble on?Metro, why is it, that you, and every other supporter of this deal feel the need to continually point out to me that the F.C. can, and will be used for other events beside the NBA. I know already. Can you make the same it's going to benefit everyone claim regarding the practice facility?

Here's the deal. All of us, me included, can ramble on and on over this issue until HELL freezes over. This late in the game, with few exceptions, nobody is going to change anyones mind. I don't need to be told what will, or won't happen with a yes vote, or a no vote.

You could hate BB and vote yes, I could love BB and vote no. I say this only as an example with no insinuations toward you. I see this as blackmail, extortion, blah-blah-blah, lets say so do you, I understand the upside, and the economic pluses, and I know you do. You hold your nose and vote yes. I can't believe anyone would do that. I throw the baby out with the bath water, and vote no. You don't understand why I don't see the big picture. Thats why were going to vote. If the vote is yes I'll not whine and cry, or move away, or shop in Moore or Edmond.

If the vote is no, yes it may be a death sentence for the NBA. Maybe it will only be a set back for you and those like you. But you will continue in your efforts to get a NBA team thats fine I would understand and respect you for that. I may help you. For the record I know quite a bit about sales taxes and the revenue they generate. They have been my sole sorce of income for 24 years. But I still got to vote No.

Does this mean bc I dont use the parks in edmond I shouldn't have to pay for them?

Why not? They could either be funded by with an entrance fee or more likely sponsored by corporations or better yet, neighborhood associations, drives or fundraisers.


There is alot of positive to come from the vote.

I actually don't disagree with that at all. I know that the results of a "Yes" vote will be great.


I said it once before, we vote no, we are voting no to any other professional team that is thinking oh coming to OKC. We will ALWAYS be stuck in the "2nd level sports city" stigma.

I wholeheartedly disagree. The NBA KNOWS OKC can support a team. It's just nobody wants to foot the bill for it, so they pass it on to the citizens.


"I dont use it, I shouldnt pay for it is outdated, and borberline childish." Sit down and think what you don't use and you still pay for it. Then think what would happen if everyone thought that way. What would this city have that it wouldn't if everyone followed this ideal.

Contrary to being childish, the responsible mature thing to do would be to let those who have ideas and want to pursue them, not to force everyone to do it. Let those who are interested get involved. The private sector typically always produces a better quality product at a lower cost than public funds could ever produce. Subsidizing always ends up costing more. It just seems to cost less, but that's merely because it is force-distributed to EVERYONE.

And I won't get mad if "OKC never gets the chance again" because that isn't true. OKC will ALWAYS have the chance. As long as businessman with civic pride want to give us a chance, then we'll get a team.

I guess the questions is, how do you know the NBA would say "NO" to Bennett's team if he and his team offered to do the upgrades? Have NBA officials said "No, they cannot pay for the upgrades, the city of Oklahoma City has to." ? That doesn't sound right.

Also, the Yard Dawgz or Blazers shouldn't pay for the upgrades either. They would reap little if nothing from the upgrades. Likewise, the people of OKC who would never go to a game should not be forced to pay for the upgrades.

Let those who will reap the benefits pay for the upgrades.
Luke, I hesitate to reply since everything you mention has been discussed before, in this thread and in the longer one, but ...

1) One cannot KNOW the NBA would say "No" to the Sonics relocation if the March 4 vote fails. One DOES know what the mayor said, that without an affirmative vote, Oklahoma City could kiss the NBA goodbye (paraphrasing liberally). His statements, and the urgency of the vote, were made after he'd been in communications with the NBA (which, I presume, means David Stern, perhaps among others). This wasn't a "Bennett et al" driven requirement, it was an NBA one.

2) Even if what I said in 1) is so, that doesn't address your question, which is, "WHAT IF Bennett et al. said, "Hey, NBA, WE'LL pay the freight" (over and above what that group has already paid to purchase the Sonics franchise and to carry forward with what it has already done and paid for in Washington state), not to mention the litigation and other grief endured there pending the Sonics relocation to Oklahoma City.

What would happen if Bennett et al. even did still more than what they've already done and said, "We'll pay for the arena upgrade and practice facility -- and yes we'll put a bow around it and make a gift to Oklahoma City, absorbing all the costs of team purchase, relocation, litigation costs, arena upgrade, practice facility, etc."

That is your question.

As to the answer, one can only guess. Mine is that Stern sees this vote not just as to whether Okc will finance the arena upgrades (which we'd probably do anyway, sooner or later) and/or pay for the practice facility if a contract is signed, but at least as important if not more important, "How does Oklahoma City really feel about getting an NBA team ... is it just a nice feel-good wish, or is the city, namely the fan base, really committed over the long haul. If that's so, he'd not learn much about that if Bennett et al. just coughed up the cash and went way beyond the pale in being good corporate citizens. That wouldn't tell a single thing about the average Doug & Jill's, or Luke's, commitment about OKC being an NBA franchise over the long haul. I don't think that Stern wants to move a team here, strategically, and have a New Orleans or a Memphis situation on his hands and in short order find that he'd need to be looking at the possibility of yet another relocation down the line.

3) You opine that people who don't go to games shouldn't have to pay for the upgrades. In the 1st place, the arena was bare-bones financed in the 1st place, just to get it "in place." The bulk of the vote (about $100M) is just to make the arena what we'd (some, anyway) want it to be and which was not possible to have been done earlier. As to the "arena" facet of the vote, the same logic you suggest would have been likewise applicable to including the arena in the original MAPS proposal in the first place, which included 2 sports facilities, but, even more, in the MAPS 6 month extension which occurred when funding for the arena ran short. Had the 6 month extension failed, the arena would not have been built at all.

Volumes could be written on that subject. But, to keep it simple, IF we had no Ford Center right now, would you feel the same about whether to publicly finance such a thing, in the first place? If so, there's not anything I could possibly say that would be something other than the wheel spinning around and around and around because that particular question is many years old by now. Maybe you don't think that a vital sports arena is important to the city as a whole (whether you set foot in the arena at all), and that's fine. Others, perhaps you, saw the Bricktown Ballpark in the same way. Others, perhaps you, voted "No" on the 6-month sales tax extension to pay for the arena several years back. Most others voted, "Yes." For me, I voted "Yes" for both the original MAPS and the 6 month extension and have never regretted it, even though it was not until the 1st Hornets pre-season game in OKC that I ever set foot in that arena. Not a single time. Still, before that game, I was nonetheless pleased with what our city leaders had persuaded me to do on those earlier votes.

Last, you say, "Let those who will reap the benefits pay for the upgrades." I agree, but not the way that you mean. I, you, and our whole city will benefit from these upgrades. Some, myself included, see that all citizens have and will reap the benefits of ... the Bricktown Ballpark ... the sports arena which became the Ford Center in the 1st place ... and its upgrade in the 2nd. Not all agree, but that's pretty much what it boils down to, I think. You may be quite content with Oklahoma City not having such facilities, and that's fair. But, that's not me.

There's no reason why the Sonics partners or any other franchise should be asked to fund the improvements to a city-owned building, unless there is a quid pro quo of reduced rents or, had they not already been granted, naming rights. Or perhaps some other incentive.

Personally, I think they'll get the reduced rents - or no rents - in any event. We need to show the world we're 'open for business,' as Mayor Humphreys used to say, and the way we do that is to tax Target sales clerks and 7-Eleven managers and school teachers and cab drivers to build elegant sky boxes and suites for the half-dozen richest people in the area.

However, I don't think it's foolish to suggest various corporate entities subsidize this project just for the free publicity. That's how we funded the state capitol dome, after all, along with a number of other projects. That would at least lower the tab for the taxpayers.

Again, I'm fine with saying 'no' to the NBA, period. I'm not going to step off an airplane in some other city and hang my head in shame because I imagine others in the terminal are going to be whispering about my '2nd level sports' stigma.

And I won't get mad if "OKC never gets the chance again" because that isn't true. OKC will ALWAYS have the chance. As long as businessman with civic pride want to give us a chance, then we'll get a team.

Completely disagree...Look at the sh** storm Bennett and crew are going through and the half billion they have shelled out to get OKC an NBA team

All that and the taxpayers vote down a pitiful 15 month one cent tax extension that mostly goes to enhance fan experience?

That would have to be a helluva lot of civic pride for another group to try it again

another group

What other group? These are the 8 wealthiest people in the OKC. Does anyone seriously think number 9 thru 16, who ever they are, would even attempt it?

I can't believe this is even such an issue.

Oklahoma is being given a golden opportunity, one not easily awarded to most places... and we have people refusing to pay a penny sales tax ( one they have already been paying and I'm guessing, haven't missed one bit) based on a minor sticking point, in my opinion...

It's so frustrating!

Another missed opportunity for Oklahoma... same old thinking, same old results.

Let's hope it is not a missed opportunity at all. If the vote passes then it could be considered an opportunity gained.

That's exactly what I'm hoping for... I will absolutely die if we lost this opportunity over a freaking penny sales tax. I will move away.

To Seattle...lol

What other group? These are the 8 wealthiest people in the OKC. Does anyone seriously think number 9 thru 16, who ever they are, would even attempt it?

Actually, that's not true, but your point is still heard. David Green (owner of Hobby Lobby, Inc.) is another Oklahoma City billionaire (not in the basketball group) as well as several others in OKC that are wealthier than some in the OKC Basketball Club.

That's exactly what I'm hoping for... I will absolutely die if we lost this opportunity over a freaking penny sales tax. I will move away.

To Seattle...lol

Haha! I may move away as well. If I live in Atlanta, at least I get to see one of my children regularly, and I've got the NBA, NFL, and MLB to choose from. I'm less than a day's drive from the beach and my husband could happily do his kayaking on all the Georgia rivers. If Oklahoma City is so short sighted as to refuse a chance to get an NBA team, it's hard to imagine things are going to change around here that much. Next the anti-tax people will start complaining about Core to Shore.

Actually, that's not true, but your point is still heard. David Green (owner of Hobby Lobby, Inc.) is another Oklahoma City billionaire (not in the basketball group) as well as several others in OKC that are wealthier than some in the OKC Basketball Club.

You are right, but many of those people, including Green, have proven that their interests lie elsewhere. What we really have here is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. If we don't take it now, it may never happen again. Just because others can afford it doesn't mean they will step up in this manner and be willing to take the same risk, as well as the public scrutiny.

There's no pro basketball fairly floating about saying "Oh, let's put a team in OKC, and even if the people vote down the tax initiative, we'll put it there anyway." Nope. This is our once-and-only shot. Our Hail Mary from Half Court!!! There's a saying that luck happens when preparedness meets opportunity. Our opportunity is here. We just need to prepare.