Your assumption is that only the government can come up with good ideas for this city. Thankfully, VERY good ideas will come about from people who won't be given free tax money! Don't be sad! :) Fiscal prudence is something that may well keep this city alive even longer! Also, don't be disheartened! Visionaries are in every generation and there are plenty of visionaries who will not rely on government for dreams to come true.

There's only one problem with this concept. The "visionaries" who aren't relying on the government are probably going to want some sort of return on their investment. Probably a much higher return than the Sonics owners are contemplating. We are talking about capitalism here aren't we? Oklahoma City and it's populace isn't going to get something for nothing. Were a "visionary" to come up with the money to refurbish the Ford Center, s/he is going to require compensation for his or her investment for those who want to attend events at the Ford Center. Ticket prices could escalate to the point where they aren't affordable to anyone but the well off and the wealthy. The way things are now, the owners of a sports team can make tickets available for modest amounts so that families of low and moderate income can afford to go to events. I see that as a good thing. Perhaps you don't. Compare Hornets' ticket prices to Mavericks ticket prices, and you'll find Mavericks' tickets are about double those of the Hornets. The Mavericks arena is partially privately funded. You don't get something for nothing.

Initially, the Hornets were the success story of the NBA. They had a huge arena (23-24,000, I think), and wildly enthusiastic fans. They had an incredibly long run of sell-outs, and incredibly high season ticket sales (maxed at 21,000), despite the fact that Charlotte was one of the smaller cities in the league. The team made it to the playoffs frequently, but didn't advance. There were some questionable trades and contracts that left the team in disarray. But, what killed the deal was when George Shinn was accused of rape by a former employee. He had the poor judgement to allow the trial to be shown on court tv. It also came out that he had had an affair with a Honeybee. Reportedly, the first Mrs. Shinn was a pillar of the Charlotte community, and although Shinn was acquitted of rape, the on and off court issues completely killed fan support for the team. Their fan support fell to the bottom of the league in rankings. Shinn requested a new arena, and his request obviously was not supported by the populace, since he was basically a pariah. He then requested a move. although the city of Charlotte requested Stern force him to sell the team. Stern reluctantly let him move the Hornets, most likely because of the poisonous relationship between him and almost the entire city of Charlotte, and one year later granted the city of Charlotte the Bobcats expansion franchise. Once Shinn was out of the picture, the city built the new arena.Thank you.

Though off-topic, if you've not see this video of a Charlotte City Council meeting by a nut case citizen discussing George Shinn, you'll get a chuckle from it ... it's a classic.

zA1hyqA6UTY

I see your point. And I love the fact that visionaries were in place in order for the wonderful projects to take place. However, relying on government for these visionary ideas to take place isn't necessary.

Your assumption is that only the government can come up with good ideas for this city. Thankfully, VERY good ideas will come about from people who won't be given free tax money! Don't be sad! :) Fiscal prudence is something that may well keep this city alive even longer! Also, don't be disheartened! Visionaries are in every generation and there are plenty of visionaries who will not rely on government for dreams to come true.

By the way, growing up in Sulphur, we would come to OKC several times a month for fun. So even when I was very young I always had an adoration for OKC. Through my high school years I'd drive up to Blazers games with friends. I loved OKC before MAPS.
Thanks, Luke.

The only way of fixing downtown pre-maps was via government (well, actually via the citizens who accepted Norick's leadership and passed MAPS). There was simply too much to be done which only government was in a position to do ... the brilliantly improved Civic Center, the river project which became the Oklahoma River, the Bricktown Canal and Ballpark, improvements to the then named Myriad Convention Center, the sports arena, and the downtown library. Probably I've left things out. The overall plan focused on "mass." As I said in my review of OKC: 2nd Time Around, Doug Dawgz Blog: OKC 2nd Time Around (http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2006/11/okc-2nd-time-around.html)


A principle of Norick's vision was "mass" -- for most of the projects to be centered downtown so that one project could feed off of one another ... some elements of which were contrary to the wishes of formidable Oklahoma Citians and/or interests, e.g., E.L. Gaylord wanted a new arena at the Fairgrounds, some wanted a totally new cultural center and not just an updated Civic Center Music Hall, etc., etc., etc. However, Mayor Norick, firmly involved in the process, held his ground. Of course, other projects were also involved ... upgrading the Convention Center, a new library, river improvement and development through south of downtown – and – canals and stuff in that ignored part of town that Neal Horton's dreams were hooked upon, Bricktown.
Such a comprehensive plan could come from none other than the government. At least, if that's not so, private investment wasn't in the wings to do it ... private investment had pretty much given up on downtown and was focusing on areas outside the city's core. The Skirvin Hilton is another good example of the benefits of a proactive city government working with private investors, as has been said before.

That doesn't at all mean that private development will not or has not taken place. What has become of Bricktown is an example of that. But it was the city that provided the foundation. There would be no "Oklahoma River" projects and development without the city laying the foundation. No Chesapeake Boathouse, no international rowing competition, no future plans for the river's development. It was a sand dune with weeds and a TV set sitting in the river bottom. Private development will continue to develop on the river, but only because the city (you and me) paved the way for that to happen. Midtown development is another good example of private development ... but that wouldn't have been possible without a revitalized downtown. The Colcord Hotel project wouldn't have happened without a renewed downtown, nor would have the Oklahoma City Art Museum, most probably. I fully expect that some new major private developments will occur downtown, even this year. But, again, without a revitalized downtown, probably they would not. Private development and city leadership can go hand-in-hand, as it has. But that wouldn't have happened by penny-pinching. Not ever ... well, not within my lifetime, anyway.

It is obvious from your comments that you care a great deal about Oklahoma City. You weren't reared here ... neither was I, even though I was born at St. Anthony's. Like you, I came to visit, me when I was a kid growing up in Lawton. Unlike you, when I came to visit, going to the downtown shops (John A. Browns, Rothschilds, etc.) was a treat, as was going to the now destroyed downtown movie houses which got whacked by an earlier vision by city leaders ... the Urban Renewal plan which went bust when oil and Penn Square Bank did.

But, even though it didn't fully succeed, something like it was clearly necessary as downtown was dying in front of everyone's eyes ... private investment was investing all right, but not downtown. At least we got some things done with the Urban Renewal plan ... the Myriad Convention Center, Myriad Gardens and several new downtown buildings via private investment during that period ... Kerr McGee Center, Oklahoma Tower, Corporate Tower, Leadership Square, Kerr Park. Things don't always work as expected or hoped, but I am convinced that government and private enterprise working together is the way to go.

March 4 provides another opportunity to do the same.

Doug, Your best post. Ever.

Let me say up front, I don't dislike Bennett and Co.. Yes they have been wonerful local and corporate citizens. Nevertheless. What if the citizens Sea. Wash. or the Washington Legislature would have built them their new arena, would they still be moving to OKC?

If Seattle had built an arena then they would have stayed in Seattle no questions. However, moving the team to OKC was Plan A. Staying in Seattle was plan B. They had to agree to keep the team in Seattle in order to buy the team. They were outbid by Larry Elison from Oracle but Larry wanted to move the team to San Jose the day he cloased on the sale. He wasn't going to wait for the lease to expire or NBA approval. He was just going to move the team and let the chips fall where they may.

The owners knew that Seattle wouldn't build the arena though so it was a safe bet. Plus, staying in Seattle an additional year bought them time to get things in place in OKC, further demonstrate Seattle's opposition to the NBA, and get 1 year closer to the end of the lease. I also suspect that if Seattle had built an arena they would have been able to trade Shin for the Hornets when the N.O. lease expired in 2012. Thus bringing the Hornets to OKC (see Plan A).

As predicted the City of Seattle did not build a new arena - and they aren't going to. For all of the sabre rattling in Seattle they simply don't have the political nor the money. They have to replace a key bridge that is going to cost $4 billion and they have to do without any federal funds since it is a state road. They can't even come close to the $4 billion so far, so there is no way they are going to contribute to a new arrena.

Or maybe an assemblage of Bricktown restaurants and downtown hotels and businesses could chip in.

That could never work. It's an unprecedented method that would never be agreed to. Is it just Bricktown or does it include Midtown and Arts District restaurants? Is it the Harkins Theatre and the comedy club too? What about the Meridian restaurants? It would be unfair not to include them. See, that idea is just a huge clusterf***. It could never work.


then where there is a will (and large pocketbooks) there is a way.

That will, and that pocketbook, ends somewhere. It certainly seems likely that a failure of this vote would be a signal for Clay to give up on this city. I wouldn't count on anything. By voting no, you're taking a lot of risk that it won't mean no NBA at all.

If Seattle had built an arena then they would have stayed in Seattle no questions. However, moving the team to OKC was Plan A. Staying in Seattle was plan B. They had to agree to keep the team in Seattle in order to buy the team. They were outbid by Larry Elison from Oracle but Larry wanted to move the team to San Jose the day he cloased on the sale. He wasn't going to wait for the lease to expire or NBA approval. He was just going to move the team and let the chips fall where they may.

The owners knew that Seattle wouldn't build the arena though so it was a safe bet. Plus, staying in Seattle an additional year bought them time to get things in place in OKC, further demonstrate Seattle's opposition to the NBA, and get 1 year closer to the end of the lease. I also suspect that if Seattle had built an arena they would have been able to trade Shin for the Hornets when the N.O. lease expired in 2012. Thus bringing the Hornets to OKC (see Plan A).

As predicted the City of Seattle did not build a new arena - and they aren't going to. For all of the sabre rattling in Seattle they simply don't have the political nor the money. They have to replace a key bridge that is going to cost $4 billion and they have to do without any federal funds since it is a state road. They can't even come close to the $4 billion so far, so there is no way they are going to contribute to a new arrena.Seems to have been a very complex plan. Did they have their fingers crossed when they had to agree to keep the team in Seattle?

No fingers were crossed, but Seattle building an arena wouldn't have been a problem for them. Seattle builds the arena, they trade the Sonics for the Hornets, and move the Hornets to OKC in 2012. But everyone knew Seattle wasn't going to build a new arena. Two previous owners from Seattle tried to get either a new arena or renegotiate the lease and the City of Seattle woldn't budge on either. Why do you think only two groups were interested in buying the team and neither were from Seattle?

Some of the conspiracy theorist think the sales was in secret and that minority owners were not notified. Having been the CEO of a company I can tell you that it is simply not possible. The Schultz group was an LLC and they would have had a shareholders meeting to discuss selling the companies sole asset. I have not seen the LLC by-laws but I know there were contingency plans for owners wanting out or selling the team.

When I opened a checking account in the name of the company I was CEO for I had to submmit a Banking Resolution to the Board of Directors, have it signed and sealed by the Corporate Secretary, and then have it voted on at special meeting of the Board. All of that just to open a checking account. Does anyone honestly think that the sale of the primary asset would be taken less likly. Just not possible.

No fingers were crossed, but Seattle building an arena wouldn't have been a problem for them. Seattle builds the arena, they trade the Sonics for the Hornets, and move the Hornets to OKC in 2012. But everyone knew Seattle wasn't going to build a new arena. Two previous owners from Seattle tried to get either a new arena or renegotiate the lease and the City of Seattle woldn't budge on either. Why do you think only two groups were interested in buying the team and neither were from Seattle?

Some of the conspiracy theorist think the sales was in secret and that minority owners were not notified. Having been the CEO of a company I can tell you that it is simply not possible. The Schultz group was an LLC and they would have had a shareholders meeting to discuss selling the companies sole asset. I have not seen the LLC by-laws but I know there were contingency plans for owners wanting out or selling the team.

When I opened a checking account in the name of the company I was CEO for I had to submmit a Banking Resolution to the Board of Directors, have it signed and sealed by the Corporate Secretary, and then have it voted on at special meeting of the Board. All of that just to open a checking account. Does anyone honestly think that the sale of the primary asset would be taken less likly. Just not possible.Again this all seems very complex. It also appears that you have a great deal of knowledge regarding the finite details of their master plans. I don't. Thanks for the insight.

No great insight, just connecting the dots. I looked at this from my own point of view. If I was trying to bring a team to OKC how would I go about doing it. I would have made almost every move Bennett made. However, in my plan I would have prefered that Seattle build an arena as I would rather have the Hornets. However, I think Bennett is following Stern's lead on this. The NBA wants out of Seattle if they won't play ball and I think they want to make an example out of Seattle to keep other multi-sport cities in line. I will guarantee you the P.F. was 100% Stern's idea. No P.F. no team in OKC.

I will guarantee you the P.F. was 100% Stern's idea. No P.F. no team in OKC.

Again, no guarantee from me, but as soon as I heard the news from the mayor, I was pretty sure the NBA was behind this vote. New Orleans upgraded their arena for the Hornets, and they had the promise of a practice facility written in their contract. The only reason the practice facility wasn't built initially was because of difficulty coming to an agreement with Shinn on where it should be built, and now because Shinn was willing to waive it's construction to get an out in his contract. The NBA was also willing to go along with the PF waiver, because they want to get the Hornets out of New Orleans before 2012 if they continue to do poorly.

The NBA wants out of Seattle if they won't play ball and I think they want to make an example out of Seattle to keep other multi-sport cities in line.

Exactly the kind of people we want to do business with.

Exactly the kind of people we want to do business with.

I don't know. If my owners were losing $15+ million a year, I might want to try and protect them from further loss. People act as if a professional team should be available at no cost to them, that the team owners shouldn't mind if they're losing money, that they should never consider moving because, after all, it's that city's team, and yet we think there is something wrong with the league because they would like to see the team able to make a profit, or at least lose less money or break even? I realize, bornhere, that you have no interest in the NBA, so it colors your response, but I'd like any people who bring a business to Oklahoma City to make a reasonable profit, especially if it's one that, I believe, adds so much to that city, and that brings so much enjoyment to people who like the game.

I don't know. If my owners were losing $15+ million a year, I might want to try and protect them from further loss. People act as if a professional team should be available at no cost to them, that the team owners shouldn't mind if they're losing money, that they should never consider moving because, after all, it's that city's team, and yet we think there is something wrong with the league because they would like to see the team able to make a profit, or at least lose less money or break even? I realize, bornhere, that you have no interest in the NBA, so it colors your response, but I'd like any people who bring a business to Oklahoma City to make a reasonable profit, especially if it's one that, I believe, adds so much to that city, and that brings so much enjoyment to people who like the game.


Give me a freakin break. You act like Bennett and Co are doing us all a favor by bringing the NBA to town. They wouldn't bring the Sonics here if they didn't plan on making money. Period. If the NBA fad wears off in a few years and attendance is horrible at the Ford Center, do you think they are going to stay and lose money? I highly doubt it. Those poor billionaire owners huh? I sure feel sorry for them.

Jealousy is a terrible thing.

It's called philanthropy.

Give me a freakin break. You act like Bennett and Co are doing us all a favor by bringing the NBA to town. They wouldn't bring the Sonics here if they didn't plan on making money. Period. If the NBA fad wears off in a few years and attendance is horrible at the Ford Center, do you think they are going to stay and lose money? I highly doubt it. Those poor billionaire owners huh? I sure feel sorry for them.

Yes, that is what I believe. Clearly, we disagree. I've seen so little evidence that proves they will make money, or get what I consider a decent return on an investment, that I like my opinion better. I'd be delighted to see evidence to the contrary, though.

No great insight, just connecting the dots. I looked at this from my own point of view. If I was trying to bring a team to OKC how would I go about doing it. I would have made almost every move Bennett made. However, in my plan I would have prefered that Seattle build an arena as I would rather have the Hornets. However, I think Bennett is following Stern's lead on this. The NBA wants out of Seattle if they won't play ball and I think they want to make an example out of Seattle to keep other multi-sport cities in line. I will guarantee you the P.F. was 100% Stern's idea. No P.F. no team in OKC.Good, maybe I've found someone that can, or will be able to explain how this NBA thing really works. You say the P.F. is Sterns idea. Guaranteed, 100%. I think your 100% right. My question. Is Stern the Boss, the God, the supreame authority, the ultimate ruler of the NBA? Does he tell the owners when to jump, and how high? Does Stern appoint, and then tell the B.O.G. how they will vote? Just curious.

Combining a pair of related posts ...

1st Pair:

Clay Bennett, et. al. have shown that they really, really support Oklahoma City. They've put a substantial part of their net worths on the line. I think it's right for the city to pass this thing. This is an "atta boy" to Clay and company.

Their confidence in their hometown should be and will be rewarded.
Midtowner, while I agreed with ALL of your message, the above part is so rarely stated that I wanted to give it singular attention. I completely agree.
2nd Pair:

Give me a freakin break. You act like Bennett and Co are doing us all a favor by bringing the NBA to town. They wouldn't bring the Sonics here if they didn't plan on making money. Period. If the NBA fad wears off in a few years and attendance is horrible at the Ford Center, do you think they are going to stay and lose money? I highly doubt it. Those poor billionaire owners huh? I sure feel sorry for them.

Yes, that is what I believe. Clearly, we disagree. I've seen so little evidence that proves they will make money, or get what I consider a decent return on an investment, that I like my opinion better. I'd be delighted to see evidence to the contrary, though.
Bretthexum, you seem to assume "the worst" and not "the best" about Bennett & partners in all of this and it does not appear that you are open minded about their possible motives.

Why is that?

Do you have some special knowledge that you've not shared? Is it because you have an inherent distrust about the motives of people who are extremely affluent? To be sure, if there was a "track record" about those who are partners in the Sonics ownership group which pointed to them as being dishonorable corporate citizens in Oklahoma City or elsewhere, then your point would be deserving of serious attention. However, you mention nothing in that regard nor am I aware of anything like that.

On its face, it sounds to me as though you distrust/dislike these guys just because they are extremely affluent. You don't appear willing to consider that at least a part of their motivation might actually involve a wish to to do something uniquely good for Oklahoma City, something which they are uniquely in a position of being able and willing to do and which no other Oklahoma Citians have ever been in the position to do before. You seem to assume that these guys are only motivated by the (risky) potential of economic gain to them, period, paragraph.

As has been aptly said,


Jealousy is a terrible thing. It's called philanthropy.
As for me, I see that Bennett & partners have put up a heck of a lot of "front money" to be "philanthopic," if it ever came to that. IF they had gotten what they wanted in Washington, we'd probably not be seeing the "philanthropic" part today. Whether that request/demand on Seattle/Washington would predictably fail is anyone's guess. Certainly they did try, and spent bucks and lots of them in the process. That didn't happen.

So, now the Sonics investors are willing to move from a TV market which is 14th or so in the nation to one which is 45th or so (and that factor alone is a sizable piece of the economic pie) ... and from a metropolitan area which is 3,200,000 + to one which is 1,200,000+ ... and from a "gateway to the Pacific Rim" to a "gateway to Texas," and one which many Americans still perceive to be located in the "Dust Bowl."

These guys aren't asking the City (you and me) to repay their substantial out-of-pocket expenses and investment -- they will continue to own the Sonics as well as the potential for loss or gain. They aren't asking for the items included in the March 4 vote, it's the NBA which is doing that asking.

Whether or not Bennett & partners will ever turn a profit in OKC or not is anyone's guess. I'd personally be proud for that to happen and hope that it does. They are willing to take the risk ... and, then, if the move happens, we'd be in the same position that New Orleans is today ... will the city, the fans, support the team and put butts in the seats, buy suites, etc. I think that we'll do our part but I might be wrong about that. It's a risk and these guys are willing to take it.

Who else but Bennett et al. can you possibly think of that would be willing to take such a risk in Oklahoma City, with its 1.2M metropolitan area residents and its 45th TV national market. Investors from New York ... from Chicago ... from Dallas? I think that only investors from Oklahoma City would be willing to take such a leap of faith. They probably didn't even get a "credit check"on the market before the request to relocate was filed with the NBA. Now ... what would explain that?

Would you, were you in their position and had the bucks, do so? If "Yes," congratulations! You'd be an Oklahoma City benefactor, maybe even a philanthropist. You'd be in their company! If "No," do you mean that you'd not be willing to take a gamble on Oklahoma City's support for the team? If you say, "No," you'd not be in their company, since they are willing to take the risk, and you'd not be in their league.

Let me say up front, I don't dislike Bennett and Co.. Yes they have been wonerful local and corporate citizens. Nevertheless. What if the citizens Sea. Wash. or the Washington Legislature would have built them their new arena, would they still be moving to OKC?

I think not. I think they would be staying put. Then at a later date and time, sold the team for a tidy profit. Why, if in fact it's always been their motive and civic pride agenda, to bring the NBA to OKC did they offer to stay in Seattle? Was that some sort of smoke screen? Did they know before hand for a fact their offer to stay was going to be rejected? Maybe you and/or others may know. In my opinion OKC was their fall back plan-B. Yes it is true they most likely can make more money in Sea. If their offer to stay would have been accepted they stood to make alot of money. Yes they may not make as much money here, thats why they demand that the citizens agree to become their partners with our tax dollars. Not for the reason of cutting their losses, but for the reason of maintaining their future profits

The city of Seattle would disagree with you. A strong component of their court argument is that Bennett and company dealt with the city in bad faith when they required a $500 million dollar public investment to remain.

Every businessman has his price. The plan as Aubrey McClendon said (and was subsequently fined for) was always to move the team. These businessmen, however, like all businessmen have their price. If you can turn around a $350 million dollar investment around for oh.. say half a billion in a year's time, I think you're going to have to take the deal. These guys did walk into a win-win situation, but at the same time, as I said, through their investment they communicated to the whole country that OKC is now on the map -- we're a real threat. We can get your basketball team to move here today. Tomorrow, it'll be the corporate headquarters.

I don't know. If my owners were losing $15+ million a year, I might want to try and protect them from further loss. People act as if a professional team should be available at no cost to them, that the team owners shouldn't mind if they're losing money, that they should never consider moving because, after all, it's that city's team, and yet we think there is something wrong with the league because they would like to see the team able to make a profit, or at least lose less money or break even? I realize, bornhere, that you have no interest in the NBA, so it colors your response, but I'd like any people who bring a business to Oklahoma City to make a reasonable profit, especially if it's one that, I believe, adds so much to that city, and that brings so much enjoyment to people who like the game.You state. "If my owners were losing". Does that mean, that you own the owners? If so, who are you? Does Stern own the NBA and it's owners? Maybe the NBA owns Stern and the owners. If so then who owns the NBA? Maybe the owners own Stern and the NBA? What about the players. Who owns them?(no one I would hope) Who owns who? Who's on first? What's on second. Someone help me out here

You state. "If my owners were losing". Does that mean, that you own the owners? If so, who are you? Does Stern own the NBA and it's owners? Maybe the NBA owns Stern and the owners. If so then who owns the NBA? Maybe the owners own Stern and the NBA? What about the players. Who owns them?(no one I would hope) Who owns who? Who's on first? What's on second. Someone help me out here
Nice try at being clever. Astonishingly persuasive.

You state. "If my owners were losing". Does that mean, that you own the owners? If so, who are you? Does Stern own the NBA and it's owners? Maybe the NBA owns Stern and the owners. If so then who owns the NBA? Maybe the owners own Stern and the NBA? What about the players. Who owns them?(no one I would hope) Who owns who? Who's on first? What's on second. Someone help me out here

Stern works for the NBA owners as a group, but he appears to manage them individually, and they appear to follow his lead. Shinn calls him "the Pope", and others have said they basically take his advice on what to do. I've never seen any evidence of a rebellion against his wishes, for whatever reason. And, no, I was speaking theoretically, as if I were David Stern. Of course I'm not him.

I'm still new to this site but have really enjoyed all the diverse subject matter. I have been wavering on this issue. I certainly don't want to subsidize the rich when I am far from it and struggle as it is. But also I do love this city and marvel at and enjoy our recent progress. I think the turning point for me is that the team will be paying rent on the Ford Center and their practice facility, and then it makes sense for the City to make upgrades. The excitement and pride we felt when the Hornets were here was palpable, and I never went to a game. I think I'm changing to yes.

Nice try at being clever. Astonishingly persuasive.I gave up on trying to be clever years ago. Smart move on my part, wouldn't you agree? Astonishingly persuasive? I'm not sure if I should be flattered, or pissed. No, I'm only attempting to understand how this whole NBA system functions. Who owns it, who runs it, who controls it, who calls the shots for it, who sets its policy, who protects who, and covers for who? That's really as simple as it gets

Stern works for the NBA owners as a group, but he appears to manage them individually, and they appear to follow his lead. Shinn calls him "the Pope", and others have said they basically take his advice on what to do. I've never seen any evidence of a rebellion against his wishes, for whatever reason. And, no, I was speaking theoretically, as if I were David Stern. Of course I'm not him.I understood your were speaking theoretically, so was I. If it is true, that Stern manages the owners, that he works for, thats one helluva gig. Where else but in America can an employee tell his, or her boss what to do, and when to do it. And be given the title of "The Pope". Is this a great country or what?

I gave up on trying to be clever years ago. Smart move on my part, wouldn't you agree? Astonishingly persuasive? I'm not sure if I should be flattered, or pissed. No, I'm only attempting to understand how this whole NBA system functions. Who owns it, who runs it, who controls it, who calls the shots for it, who sets its policy, who protects who, and covers for who? That's really as simple as it gets
Andy, with that explanation, it is clear that I jumped to the wrong conclusion concerning your post, and I apologize. Here's a well-deserved slap on my face! :doh:

I understood your were speaking theoretically, so was I. If it is true, that Stern manages the owners, that he works for, thats one helluva gig. Where else but in America can an employee tell his, or her boss what to do, and when to do it. And be given the title of "The Pope". Is this a great country or what?

Once a league gives you the title of "commisioner", you are probably are the only employee in the world with that kind of power. At the risk of sounding sexist, which I'm not, I'll make a little joke (must make it clear this is a joke). Actually, the only other job in the world with that kind of power has the title of "wife'.
I've often wondered why the owners let David Stern push them around like he clearly does and I figured it was because they respect how clearly intelligent he is. They've all made a lot of money, and I would guess they bought a team because they love basketball, or they like what owning a team brings them, because believe me,buying a team at this point in time, constitutes one of the worst investments you could make with that kind of money. It is true that teams have, in the past, appreciated very nicely, but like the housing market, that can stop at any time, and you have to sell your team to get the appreciation. Most of these people don't want to sell their teams. Some of them want to pass them on to their children, who have to pay inheritance tax on the appreciation. Also, there are owners who've tried to sell their teams and not been able to find a buyer. On a year to year basis, the return on the multimillions spent is peanuts. So, after that digression, I believe the owners don't want to deal with the minutiae of running a league, figuring out the finances, promoting the league. They're busy businessmen, for the most part. So, in order to escape that kind of involvement in the league, they give the commissioner a great deal of power. Once they're used to him having it, and he's used to having it, they fall into line like meek schoolchidren. I dont' really understand it, but I've seen it happen. Some sort of variation of the Stockholm syndrome or something (that was another joke).

I rarely post what I receive via Private Messages here or in other forums ... but exceptions do exist ... never if they are personal and communicated to discuss ... never if I'm asked to keep a message private ... but maybe if they are blatantly polemic and serve no other purpose and I've not been asked to keep the message private.

This one fall into the latter category. In this one, I received a PM from a banned poster at HornetsCentral.com & SonicsBeat.com Forums :: Index (http://www.hornetscentral.com/forum/index.php). There, the same InClayWeTrust thought I'd like to know his/her point of view. He/she was right about that. I thought it might be uplifting to give that private message the light of day. The Private Message reads ...



Hey Doug,
Great work on the site! Here's an image I created to help with the recruitment efforts of the Sonics!
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/NBA/okcdabomb.jpg
Note the "Xs" (symbolic for dead) over the Honeybee's image. I post this so that you'll know some of the not often reported "hidden" stuff that goes on, and so that New Orleans and/or Seattle fans can make their appropriate responses, if any they care to make ... and also because I'm pretty much fed up with getting this kind of crap thrown my way.

As for my response, see Doug Dawgz Blog (http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/#update) .

That's sick.

This isn't the worst example. The internet hosts some really really pathologically depraved people.

OK GUYS, I've tried to catch up on this forum (Ive been in Japan for a couple of weeks).

Now, Im going to address some points for Luke and Andy and Bornhere. Please be sure to read the entire post, it will answer many of your questions and concerns.

1) Why WAS Clay Bennett willing to pitch in for an arena in Renton and not in OKC?

Answer: Because the Sonics franchise is already in Seattle and WE (Seattle residents) wont approve an arena proposal, especially if ownership does not contribute. Bennett in fact, never said an amount. It was ASSUMED to be 100M but he never actually committed to that. This in fact, is a sore point of many Sonics fans up here!!

Answer two: Bennett can not contribute in OKC YET because, the Sonics are still located in Seattle. That would be a HUGE conflict of interest, if Bennett paid for an arena upgrade in OKC when he has an existing lease in Seattle and is complaining about it. Dont you see that WE would cry foul if he offered to fund an arena upgrade there at this point in time, when he SHOULD have an obligation to do that here since the team IS HERE.

2) Why does OKC have to upgrade the Ford Center, it worked for the Hornets.

Answer: sure it worked temporarily, but look at the revenue streams, they were marginal. Everyone said, long term that would not work. You need to tap into all income levels of your city, especially the rich. Why should rich people in OKC enjoy a marginal suite experience at Ford Center for 1000 per game when at other cities they have better suites and have to pay ten times that? Yes, the TRUE reason from the NBA prospective as to why Ford needs upgrading is to tap into that LONG TERM investment group, a city's rich community. Actually, this is a fault of our Key Arena in Seattle. Our Luxury suites suck as well, and since our building can't be expanded again, we also do not tap into the EXTREME WEALTH of this region (which is why a team in RICH Seattle loses money!!!).

Another Answer: OKC wants to have a team for a LONG TIME, so you need to tap the top income groups, so you can have LOWER TICKET PRICES for the 'common seats'. Other cities do this, so why should OKC only rely on filling an arena (as opposed to filling the TOP seats with butts from their BUCKS).

3) Clay Bennett et al bought the team, why dont they pay for the arena?

Answer: OKC is not a top major league city (yet). It is just starting. Name me ONE city that got a privately financed arena for its first major league team? NONE except maybe NY, Chi, LA. Even here in Seattle, ALL OF OUR stadiums have been publicly funded!!! ALL (Seattle Coluseum, Kingdome, Tcoma Dome, renovated Coluseum/aka Key Arena, Safeco Field, Qwest Field).. All of them, despite we have the richest people in the world living in our backwoods.

Answer too: Clay Bennett and co already paid a hefty price to buy the team. They DID NOT do so to make money!!! Counting legal fees, relocation, settlement, they will be out $500M before a team gets to OKC. Tell me if you think they will EVER make a profit on that investment, let alone when they expect to break even in the 3rd (not 2nd) smallest market [OKC is ahead of New Orleans and Salt Lake, and soon will be ahead of Memphis in a year or two]. Considering this you and the fact that Bennett will make (im optimistic) $20M in OKC per year, they will need 25 years to break even !!! Does not sound like a profit making investment, now does it. Instead, it's their love for OKC - they dont care about making money. Thjey want their toy here, and at the same time - improve OKC's image. This philanthropy is shared by most other owners (esp in the NBA) since they DONT MAKE HUGE PROFITS, if any. And, in order to make profit, you need LUXURY amenities such as those in the Ford Center upgrade.

Answer three: Clay Bennett will be the top tenant at the Ford Center no doubt, but he will NOT have exclusivity for the facility, OKC will determine who and what plays there. So, given Bennett wont OWN the facility why should you expect him to pay for it? He will be paying rent. So.....

Answer four: Considering Bennett's investment already (assumed to be $500M when all is said and done and a ball bounced in OKC), and that Bennett wont be the exclusive tenant [yes, OKC plans to market the building for the other teams, concerts, sporting events [ncaa, big xii, ou/osu/ocu], conventions and since Bennett is not asking OKC to pitch in to help buy the team, OKC should pay for the facility. The cost to benefit for OKC is $500M vs. $121M (since $90M is already sunk cost). I'd take the $121M to get a top facility that gives you a NBA team for the forseeable future (since Bennett assured it meets all of his needs), guarantees you to be in the hunt for the top sport events and concerts (yes, competition in Tulsa is coming!!!), assures continued downtown and central city investment (look at the investment around AA arena in Dallas or even Key Arena here in Seattle, i expect the same there).

Answer five: considering the NBA portion of the upgrade is rather minimal (roughly $30M for the arena itself), and that REALLY the upgrade is for Oklahoma City to get a top facility, OKC should pay for it. The arena is and will not be NBA ONLY, it will continue to be a multipurpose facility OWNED BY OKC!!!

Answer again: Let me give you a scenario. You just bought a car that will be used by your brother, you will lease it to him. You paid for it outright, for $350K plus fees to relocate it to your brother's house in OKC but you are leasing it to him because you really want him to have this car in OKC (assumed to be a total of $500K when all is said and done, because the car is coming from Seattle). You plan to drive it but it mostly will benefit him because of the prestigue and image gain he will get. Your brother plans to park the nice car at his house, but he needs to upgrade his garage so it will house the car and have proper amenities (like CNG, eletric plug-ins, so forth). After you upgrade the garage, you will still own it and determine what goes in and when.

DO YOU REALLY EXPECT YOUR BROTHER WHO BOUGHT THE CAR TO PAY FOR YOUR GARAGE UPGRADE???


4) Why does OKC have to foot the bill for a practice facility?

Answer: I agree this is touchy. But, for OKC to be competitive, this is required. OKC is viewed by many around the country as backwater, small, and rather insignificant on a national scale. We, of course, know this to be otherwise in many cases. But, considering that OKC is viewed as small and new, OKC needs to put forth MUCH EFFORT to secure a ticket to the big leagues. In all realitay, $20M is not really a lot of money. And, hopefully the facility could be used by the local colleges (im advocating they locate it at OCU to assist with their NCAA attractiveness, spruce up that part of the inner city, it would be easily accessible to city residents and PUT PLAYERS IN THE CITY, perhaps even it could be a joint venture which would reduce the tax burden [maybe even allow MORE Ford Center amenities with the dollars]). I do agree that it would have been nice to see if Bennett would pay for the practice facility (my guess is that he or somebody would have, and probably would have located it at OCU like I am advocating), but there's no time for that. .. Given OK's laws, they HAD to act fast to put the ballot in register. And since OKC JUST got the OK to negotiate with Bennett, sort of - they didn't have time to get that commitment yet. Further, we in Seattle would cry a fit if Bennett funds ANYTHING in Oklahoma City while the Sonics are still here.

I know the practice facility is forced on you, but that is the way it is. I know many of you who plan to vote no would probably vote yes for the arena in a line item, but that is not how this is. You should take solice to the fact that 1) the $20M does not get collected if no NBA team signs a lease with OKC. So, in effect, if you get a team then you have to pay for it. If not, then you dont.

I think this wsa the city's way of finding an OUT for the most controversial portion of the ballot, just-in-case.

5) I dont like/support pro sports or the NBA, why should I pay for it?

Answer: unfortunately, you can't pick and chose what you support in a big city. I have no children yet I support property tax increases to fund school and library improvements. I dont use them, BUT it makes the city better - so I approve most of those issues. Even if you dont plan to go to a game, isn't it nice to have the ABILITY to chose? I think we all can agree that having a major league team will raise OKC's image and has the potential to generate significant growth long term, so you will benefit even if it is indirectly (due to increased tax dollars, potential investment, people having something positive to see/say about OKC).

6) Why do we need to upgrade the Ford Center again?

Answer: to remain economically viable as a host city for concerts, sporting events, and conventions. OKC has been accused around the nation of having an inferiour arena (since it was built "on the cheap" for $90M). Upgrading the facility and getting luxury amenities built in not only guarantees OKC will be in those top even discussions as an economically viable and desireable city IN THE NATION but it also puts those negative 'on the cheap' discussions to a rest, not to mention just about guarantees OKC an NBA team to boot. David Stern is on record as of Saturday, basically guaranteeing the Sonics will relocate from Seattle (just a matter of when, next season or 2010) and we know that OKC is that location. Also, the Hornets could possible return if the Sonics do/can not because of their OUT with regard to attendance there. So, you need to upgrade the Ford Center because you want to remain an up and coming city, and attract an NBA team! You dont want Tulsa and Wichita (of all places) all of sudden attracting concerts and events that OKC is used to getting? So, OKC has to stay one leg up, just like Dallas has always stayed one let up on OKC.

7) why dont we have other tax methods pay for it?

Answer: because they take too long and add debt unnecessarily to the city. You have to remember, OKC is still a rather small metro area by comparison with a very small convention business to date. Yes, I think OKC should raise its hotel taxes a bit (yet still remain the lowest in the region) but that incremental raise would NOT pay for a $121M upgrade of the Ford Center for decades. Even look at us here in Seattle, we're STILL paying for a Kingdome that doesn't even exist. And it will be a few decades before we're expected to finish paying for the two stadiums we care about (and we're using restaurant, hotel, rental car, and other 'tourist' taxes and Seattle is a more respectable convention/tourist city than OKC). Some day OKC might get there and have a critical mass of hotel rooms and events to fill them up, but right now OKC is near the bottom of Tier II - so you need a tax that will get the money in and finish it and leave no debt. Honestly, it would be awesome if we could do something like that up here, but there is NO WAY that would fly in our/Seattle's anti-tax environment - even though we are a bit more well off and certainly could afford something like a MAPS style tax. Nope, it wont work here, but it sure does do well there. Don't fight the advantage you have over us and other major cities. 15 months to raise $121M+ is phenominally impressive and short duration!!!

8) why didn't the city ask for Clay to pay for 'some' of it?

Answer: like I mentioned, there is that conflict of interest thing that some of us in Seattle would surely start crying if Cornett asked Clay to pay for anything outside of Seattle at this point (because the team hasn't left yet, yet he is complaining).

Answer two: You also have to know that Cornett must have found out from Stern that OKC is guaranteed a franchise with the NBA specific additions [NBA locker-rooms, NBA on-site warm-up, NBA offices which you can lease back, NBA practice facility], especially since OKC wants/needs to upgrade the Ford Center anyways to make it economically viable (more luxury, expanded footprint, more fixtures, kid friendly amentities, bunker/party suites). OKC's gonna do that anyways, to continue to be ahead of the Tulsa's and Wichita's of the region (who are getting smaller yet still impressive arenas).

"Why not do the NBA upgrades while you're at it, and I all but guarantee you a franchise (either Bennett's Sonics OR the Hornets OR somebody else in the near future)." Im sure this statement was made by Stern or the NBA (hopefully only verbal at this point, not written so we dont give any ammunition to Seattle to start whining about).. ... You must know this statement was given tho, considering Cornett started talking to the NBA in November and he had planned to announce the upgrade vote in December (but decided against due to the storms).

That's the bottom line, you're going to upgrade the Ford Center anyways, why not shell in the few NBA specifics - which will guarantee you not only a team but a lease that will be indefinite given the local ownership. Seems like "an offer you can't refuse", which explains the rush to vote!

9) Why do we have to have a MAPS for Millionaires/Billionaires?

Answer: it is not. In fact, the Ford Center upgrade wont really help the owners at all. It will help OKC be more economically viable and popular as a venue and will enhance the city's chances (like 100&) to successfully land its first permanent Big-4 major-league team. Most (say 80%) of the upgrades are for the Ford Center experience itself!!! The NBA specific portion is relatively small yet doing the NBA specifics now all but guarantees OKC a team. And since it is owned by local ownership, that team stands to be around indefinitely, since they dont care about making profit in OKC. On that note, consider the fact that OKC is now the 45th largest media market, 40th largest metro, yet has an expanded region anticipated to put it in the 20's in both categories. Seattle is the 15th largest (in both I think) yet Bennett LOST at least $17M in a RICH CITY like Seattle last year!!!

Also consider the economic value added so far: OKC has paid $90M for the Ford Center, which should be considered sunk cost since that has basically been generated more than double in revenue and tax streams to the city already. OKC stands to add $121M with a Yes Vote.

Bennett and Co have OVER paid $350M for the team, stand to pay some $50M in a settlement with Seattle, $30M to relocate, $40M+ in legal fees (assumption), and losses of roughly $20M per year in Seattle = and you get an economic value lost of $500M (half a billion).

That's half a billion vs $121M to get YOU a team, so you COULD enjoy and be proud of, so YOUR CITY could regularly get mentioned with the big boys, so YOUR downtown will be hoppin' during the slow winter months, so YOUR hotel rooms get filled, airport gets used, and restaurants and retail get's used by out-of-towners and residents alike (who otherwise would NOT use or not visit as much). Like I mentioned, I anticipate the profit from OKC to be $20M-$30M per year assuming the upgraded Ford Center, a nice lease, an expanded media market, a huge corporate contribution(s) and sponsorship(s), and concessions/retail from NBA nights/materials.

Keep in mind, the NBA will not get exclusivity to the Ford Center!!! Oklahoma City will get revenue from events on other nights and certainly with those luxury amenities available to the city (and the other teams), those could prove quite profitable to the city, not JUST ensuring the NBA will stay for a very long time!!!

10) the NBA didn't make other cities major league?

Answer: not true. You know of Seattle as an up and coming city, because of our major league teams!!! Sure, you know about Microsoft, Amazon, Costco, and some of the corporate presence here - but you MOSTLY think of Seattle as a fun attractive city because there are things to do here. This wasn't always the case. Seattle started with the NBA 40 years ago. Prior to that, Seattle was also considered backwater (even for several years after getting the NBA it was still pretty backwater). Sure, we had the worlds fair in 1962 which introduced the Space Needle, but it is our major league teams which broadcast that skyline on TV during games which you all SEE and equate to Seattle being a cool city - even though you've never been here!!

Seattle had to build an arena for their first team (in fact, we had to build for all teams), why should OKC be different. Furthermore, why shouldn't the NBA do what it did for Seattle? Im not saying it will be on the same scale, but OKC will benefit with the NBA - nobody up here is denying that. That's the truth! Look at Salt Lake. Again, pretty backwater prior to the Jazz (and still somewhat backwater). But look at the expansion in both population of the region and corporate presence since the Jazz came to town. It wasn't the Jazz that single handedly did it for them, but they were the cheerleader - you know Stockton and Malone days of the Utah Jazz competing against Michael Jordan and Scottie Pippen of the Chicago Bulls!!!!! Tell me that did not help Salt Lake City.... Having a major league team helps your city attract other top events too (makes it easier to JUSTIFY having a final four or an AFL team or a Democratic Convention, ask Denver) and keeps your city in the water cooler consciousness of the nation, the same as having an OU type college football team does with one exception, OKLAHOMA CITY gets mentioned along with the likes of New York, Chicago, and LA on a regular basis!!!! That DOES transform a city's image and for that reason ALONE, you should support this initiative.

Who knows, after Clay moves the team here - they might pay for the next arena 20 years from now themselves. The team will be in OKC and they wont have conflict of interest issues with another city. .. Considering They will pay half a billion for OKC's image and so you will have expanded entertainment options and they can recruit more and better talent to their OKC companies...

I think you should consider doing your part by voting YES to upgrade the Ford Center. Don't let some other city swoop in and take OKC's virtually HAND DELIVERED first permanent Big-4 major-league franchise (sure, OKC had the AFL and USFL, but this is the first permanent Big 4 franchise). This is more than Clay Bennett, or the NBA, or even the city pushing a tax extension - it is about Oklahoma City's Continued Renaissance!!!!

OK, I hope I have cleared up all of the dissention a bit with a bit of 'common sense' of sorts. This is not an attack of those who 'hopefully previously' planned to vote no. I am simply answering each of the issues raised with some counterarguments that I feel are valid and have not yet been received by some of the NO people. I do agree with a lot of what has been said, that the vote is too soon, we should have waited and asked Bennett after the league (why put our foot in our mouth so soon). I agree, but what is done is done. There must have been an INSIDE reason for it, SO, based on what we've discussed and the impact that a team WILL have on Oklahoma City.......
:gossip:


Please Vote Yes on March 4!!!

Thanks hot rod, as always. That was well thought out and clearly took a huge amount of work.

If this was reported locally, it slipped by me. According to Results of SurveyUSA Election Poll #13273 (http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportEmail.aspx?g=cab8ff72-6b30-4408-9ef7-9de5d44740d5) , Channel 4 commissioned this survey with the question,


On the proposal to use a 1-cent sales tax to pay for improvements to The Ford Center, are you ... Certain to vote yes? Certain to vote no? Or not certain? {"Not Certain" voters were asked: At this hour, do you lean toward yes? lean toward no, or do you not lean?}

1,300 Oklahoma City adults were interviewed by SurveyUSA 01/26/08 - 01/28/08. Of them, 1,110 were registered to vote. Of them, 438 were determined by SurveyUSA to be likely to vote on the sales tax extension. When the likely voters in today's release are first asked about the Amendment, 18% are Not Certain. When the Not Certain voters are then asked whether they lean toward Yes or lean toward No, the number of Not Certain voters drops from 18% to 5%, Yes increases from 40% to 47%, and No increases from 42% to 48%.
While this poll was about 3 weeks ago, it clearly shows that a "Yes" vote is certainly not a sure thing.

Get to work, people!

This arrived in my inbox this morning:


Thought you might find this interesting. Charlie Meadows, chairman of the OK Conservative PAC, sends out weekly emails about politics and government stuff.


I urge the VOTERS in OKC to vote NO on March 4th. However, not because I oppose the Sonics coming to OKC. I believe it to be a very good thing for OKC to have an NBA team, especially since the ownership of the Sonics is a group of Oklahomans. I would just like to see it done differently than is currently being proposed.

The Ford center originally cost the taxpayers around $92 million to build. Today it is easily worth twice that if not much more. I propose that the city sell the Ford Center at public auction for a minimum bid of $92 million, with the most likely bidders being the millionaires and billionaires who own the Sonics. That way OKC would be donating the appreciated value of the Ford Center and the taxpayers would get their original investment back.

Then the owners would own the facility and could put their own money into the remodeling of the arena. That might actually cost much less than is currently being proposed. They might want to contract with some of the local colleges for a training facility, at least in the immediate future, and they might want to delay or downsize the expense of a new South entrance into the Ford Center yet making the necessary improvements to the interior to satisfy the NBA.

I always want the private sector to own and control businesses rather than government. And of course that is what the Ford Center is, an event venue business. Remember, there are 3 basic kinds of capitalism.
Free market capitalism, where the private sector or individuals own the business, Socialist capitalism, where the government owns the business (as in the case of the Ford Center), and Fascist capitalism, where the government doesn't own the business but they control and regulate who owns the business and who gets the privileged opportunities and locations (which is why I want to sell the Ford Center to the highest bidder and not just automatically to the owners of the Sonics).

In the long run, this could be very beneficial to the private sector owners (most likely the team owners) as they would put into place a management team and would make a profit off of every event in the Ford Center, as well as be a home for their team. Of course there is some risk here, but the Ford Center is a proven commodity which will only get better with completion of the remodel.

The next question is what would OKC do with the $92 million? It should be placed in an endowment called something like, "Making Oklahoma City The Greatest Foundation." Unlike university endowments which don't seem to want to spend their money but just watch it grow, this endowment would require 80% of the EARNINGS to be spent each year to improve the infrastructure of OKC. The other 20% would be reinvested into the endowment to INCREASE its size and future earnings power. In addition, people in the private sector could also make tax deductible donations to the endowment which would accelerate its growth and make it an ever more powerful engine of wealth creation.

As an example, the first full year's earnings might be around $5 million. One million would be reinvested and $4 million would be used to improve the "bricktown," "core to shores," or "Oklahoma River"
areas of OKC. As the endowment grows each year, the amount available to improve the city would also grow each year. The money could be used to improve and beautify streets, sidewalks, lighting, parking, parks, landscapes and etc.

This endowment would lessen the need or size of future tax increases.
While I believe that in the initial years the earnings should be spent in the downtown area, future earnings could be spent for infrastructure anywhere in the city. I believe the new private sector owners of the Ford Center would make a profitable return of their investment, the taxpayers would get their original investment back and the city would be improved throughout the future. I call that a win, win, win situation for everyone involved.

Two other points to note. If the sales tax is defeated the sales tax rate for OKC will go down by about 27%. OKC would then have the lowest sales tax of any community in central Oklahoma and would become an increased draw for citizens to spend their money there and save on the things they purchase. This would also increase the revenues to the city that weren't earmarked for a particular project as the current sales tax is.

Not my words...I support the tax. Just another perpective.

Some people just don't get it and it is very frustrating. Selling the Ford Center is not on the ballot! The decision on how to raise the funds has already been made. It is a one shot deal. Another thing I can't figure out is why conservatives (me included) are pushing for a national sales tax (The Fair Tax) as the best way to raise revenue but when we have a chance to actually put that idea to work we come up with some other half-baked ideas instead.

Were the quoted language from Charlie Meadows' e-mail Okc's prevalent attitude in past votes, Oklahoma City ...

Would NOT have built the Bricktown Ballpark
Would NOT have built the Ford Center
Would NOT have purchased the Skirvin and located a viable developer/owner

Years and years of Mr. Meadows' viewpoint led to a stagnant and decaying downtown ... private investors did spend a lot of money developing the Northwest Expressway corridor ... but that didn't help the downtown problems get solved in any way and probably contributed to them. Downtown must not be left to chance solely by the decisions of private investors who may or may not give a flip about a vital downtown. We now know that it is the citizens who can "take care of business" in downtown civic projects. To use his terms, and call it "capitalist socialism" or whatever you want, but it has worked. Pure "free market capitalism" failed Oklahoma City. We need no more such failures. And, frankly, it pleases me to know that, as a citizen, I'm an owner of the Ford Center, as are you and you and you. As an owner, I want to take care of it on March 4.

Were the quoted language from Charlie Meadows' e-mail Okc's prevalent attitude in past votes, Oklahoma City ...

Would NOT have built the Bricktown Ballpark
Would NOT have built the Ford Center
Would NOT have purchased the Skirvin and located a viable developer/owner

Years and years of Mr. Meadows' viewpoint led to a stagnant and decaying downtown ... private investors did spend a lot of money developing the Northwest Expressway corridor ... but that didn't help the downtown problems get solved in any way and probably contributed to them. Downtown must not be left to chance solely by the decisions of private investors who may or may not give a flip about a vital downtown. We now know that it is the citizens who can "take care of business" in downtown civic projects. To use his terms, and call it "capitalist socialism" or whatever you want, but it has worked. Pure "free market capitalism" failed Oklahoma City. We need no more such failures. And, frankly, it pleases me to know that, as a citizen, I'm an owner of the Ford Center, as are you and you and you. As an owner, I want to take care of it on March 4.

Charlie Meadows is a huge supporter of corporate welfare. Did you read the tort reform bill he was trumpeting last year? Aside from a few minor civil procedure adjustments, the whole damned thing was corporate welfare!

He's not a very intelligent person if he can't see that ideological disconnect.

I agree Kerry. These people are being completely ignorant. They want an NBA team, but this is not how they want to pay for it. They completely ignore the fact that this is the only way we're being allowed to pay for it. If this measure passes, the BOG is going to turn down Clay Bennett's request to move the team. People are so sure we're the hot new city, and David Stern is salivating to put a team here. They are blind. David Stern will do nothing that hurts the NBA, and he's lost every bit of leverage he has if he moves a team to Oklahoma City if we've just turned down a remodel of our $89 million arena. The BOG has lost their personal leverage with their cities. Don't these people see they're doing just what Seattle did, and where it's gotten Seattle?

Some people just don't get it and it is very frustrating. Selling the Ford Center is not on the ballot! The decision on how to raise the funds has already been made. It is a one shot deal. Another thing I can't figure out is why conservatives (me included) are pushing for a national sales tax (The Fair Tax) as the best way to raise revenue but when we have a chance to actually put that idea to work we come up with some other half-baked ideas instead.

Question: The fair tax (which I personally think is a great idea) taxes all goods at the consumer level. If your not consuming the product, you pay no taxes on it. In this case, wouldnt the tax be levied on the price of tickets?

Question: The fair tax (which I personally think is a great idea) taxes all goods at the consumer level. If your not consuming the product, you pay no taxes on it. In this case, wouldnt the tax be levied on the price of tickets?

Again, even were it the fair way to pay for arena upgrades, there isn't an A and B option on the tax proposal. There are several problems with the "fair" way to improve the arena, as I see it. For one, regardless of how much "ticket tax" you add to each ticket sold, you have to finance the improvments as they're occurring. That means you borrow money. That means you pay more money for the upgrades than you would if you paid for them with cash on hand. Now, let's look at a ticket tax. What would be a fair amount to charge per ticket? $1.00? I'm not going to count every event at the Ford Center this year, but let's be generous and say that there are 100 events, and every seat is full, both of which we know is probably an exaggeration. And let's round it up to 20,000 seats to make the math simple. You have now collected, in one year's time, $2 million. That means it will take you sixty years to collect enough money to pay off the improvements. If you added a ten dollar seat tax, and my attendance and event numbers weren't a huge exaggeration, which we know they are, it would still take 6 years to pay off the debt without counting the interest. So, it's not a great way to pay for improvements.

Now, we're talking about improving a local amenity that not everyone uses, and that's what people are complaining about. Let's look at other amenities that are paid for with city taxes that not everyone uses. How many people here have been to a Redhawks game? How many people have ridden on the canal boats at Bricktown or even been to Bricktown? How many people have been in a city park? How many people have been to the Ford Center for prior events? How many people have been to an event at the Civic Center, gone to the Botanical tube in the Myriad Gardens, attended an event at the Cox Center or gone to a public library? Let's go further. Has every person who lives in Oklahoma City sent at least one child to the Oklahoma City public schools?

If you look at all the other things that have been paid for by city taxes, I think you'll find that many of the people in Oklahoma City have never been in one or used one, or use them infrequently. Does anyone think we shouldn't have the Redhawks stadium, the museum, the libraries, the Civic Center, Botanical tube, etc because not everyone uses them? Does anyone think people should pay tuition for their children to go to public schools so that the people who don't have children or never sent their children to public schools shouldn't have to pay?

If we only want to pay for the things we use personally, then we are not members of a community and we shouldn't be members of a community, where people do things that help the community even if they don't help them personally, where people pay for things for the entire community to enjoy, where people support things that help Oklahoma City become a better place in which to live. It's a selfish and shortsighted attitude, in my opinion.

Question: The fair tax (which I personally think is a great idea) taxes all goods at the consumer level. If your not consuming the product, you pay no taxes on it. In this case, wouldnt the tax be levied on the price of tickets?

Yes there is a sales tax on the tickets. But the item being taxed has nothing to do with what the tax money is spent on - although I like that idea. I want a Ford Center Happy Meal, 2 national defense apple pies and a large transportation infrastructure Coke. Oh - and Supersize it.

Yes there is a sales tax on the tickets. But the item being taxed has nothing to do with what the tax money is spent on - although I like that idea. I want a Ford Center Happy Meal, 2 national defense apple pies and a large transportation infrastructure Coke. Oh - and Supersize it.

Not quite sure what you mean... Under a true fair-tax system, if you are buying a ticket to the game, a extra few dollars (or whatever they come up with) would be imbeded in the price of the ticket as an extra sales tax add-on. Of course, this money would be only used on paying off the loan for upgrading the ford center.. the other 23% tax would go to the government... This is just a hypothetical question that I've been currious about should the fair tax ever be implemented. :)

Not quite sure what you mean... Under a true fair-tax system, if you are buying a ticket to the game, a extra few dollars (or whatever they come up with) would be imbeded in the price of the ticket as an extra sales tax add-on. Of course, this money would be only used on paying off the loan for upgrading the ford center.. the other 23% tax would go to the government... This is just a hypothetical question that I've been currious about should the fair tax ever be implemented. :)

I actually don't have a problem with a ticket tax, as long as it's implemented everywhere the city sells tickets. I think it would be a great way to put money aside for future improvements. I just think it's a bad way to pay for upfront renovation costs in toto.

I think what fsusurfer is saying is that there should be a tax on the tickets that cover the price of the upgrade. Like Betts said though, it would take years to collect that money and if the improvments are made now then interest has to be paid on the loan which either means the ticket tax will have to be higher or last longer or both.

There is no way around a sales tax being the best way to raise the most money the fastest way without having to pay interest while causing the least impact on the most people. Besides, it is the only option on the ballot. There is no secret door #3 and no alternative election in April. This is it. It is a one shot deal.

NBA tickets were given a sales tax exemption by the state legislature in 2006, but I don't know if it's still in place now. If it's not, I assume it would be re-enacted for the Sonics or whatever NBA franchise locates here.

Good point bornhere.

If the sales tax is defeated the sales tax rate for OKC will go down by about 27%.

Um, no. The city's cut of the overall sales tax might go down by that much, but the state levy isn't changing at all, so the actual difference would be 0.01/0.08375 = a shade under 12 percent.

Whether Meadows is being obtuse or deceptive is left as an exercise for the student.

This is an interesting article done by economist of the University of Texas at Arlington. This is part of the reason I am voting no. Other reasons stem from the Journal of Urban Affairs, Journal of Records, and the book "Pay Dirt". Each of these have studies pretaining to Does professional sports increase jobs.

Study: Pro games depress tax revenue
NFL, NBA cited, but hockey, baseball said to boost economic activity slightly



09:55 PM CDT on Saturday, June 24, 2006
By JEFF MOSIER / The Dallas Morning News


ARLINGTON – Football may be king in these parts, but that doesn't mean much at the cash registers.

A new statewide study co-written by a University of Texas at Arlington economist found that sales tax revenue drops by more than $560,000 every time a city hosts a regular-season NFL game.

NBA games lower sales tax revenue by $16,000 per game, the study found, while NHL and Major League Baseball games tend to boost average sales tax revenue by small amounts.

DallasNews.com/extra

Read the complete study
"When it comes to NFL games, that number seems awfully large and negative, but I'm convinced it's there," said UTA's Craig Depken.

Large traffic jams that accompany Dallas Cowboys and Houston Texans games also lead to what Dr. Depken calls the "hunker-down" and "skedaddle" factors. Fans might spend money in Irving during a Cowboys game, but more residents are likely to avoid gridlock by staying home or driving to a neighboring city to shop or dine.

The research released last week also found that NBA Finals games, like the ones held recently in Dallas, provide only a modest boost in economic activity. A Game 7 for the Dallas Mavericks would have been expected to increase sales tax revenue in Dallas by more than $65,000, based on the statewide average, the study said. But that bonus would not have made up for the average $128,000-per-game loss in the previous playoff rounds.

The study found that college football games aren't big moneymakers for larger cities but that they can boost the economy of small towns like Prairie View or Kingsville.

The study crunched sales tax data from 126 Texas cities from January 1990 to April and analyzed the effects of professional and college sporting events.

Critics of the study say it is too focused on sales tax revenue and doesn't take into account many benefits of professional sporting events.

Linda DiMario, president and CEO of the Arlington Convention & Visitors Bureau, said she's seen plenty of studies like Dr. Depken's in the past. Most have a narrow focus, she said.

The teams promote civic pride, attract millions of dollars in free publicity and help support adjacent businesses, Ms. DiMario said. Local sports teams generate hundreds – in some cases thousands – of jobs, she said. Arlington is home to the Texas Rangers and is building a stadium for the Cowboys.

"There is more at stake when a city hosts an event than the sales tax that accrues to the city coffers," Ms. DiMario said.

Previous research has shown that the average three-game Rangers homestand pumps about $2 million into Arlington's economy, she said. That's about half of what Dr. Depken's study estimated.

Arlington Mayor Robert Cluck said he doesn't believe the research – especially the data on the negative sales tax effects of football games.

"To me, it's implausible," he said.

Dr. Cluck said he trusts a city-commissioned study estimating that the new Cowboys stadium, which will open in 2009, will generate $1 million to $1.5 million in new sales tax revenue annually.

Maura Gast, executive director of the Irving Convention and Visitors Bureau, said that nothing in the study surprises her. Cowboys games attract few out-of-towners staying in Irving hotels, and traffic around Texas Stadium probably depresses the city's economy on game day.

"As a local, when you think about where you are going on the weekends and have errands to run, do I want to do it in a 50,000-person traffic sprawl?" she said.

Football has increased Irving's name recognition, Ms. Gast said, but all people know is that the Cowboys play there and it's near Dallas. That doesn't necessarily translate into a big boost in tourism.

Daniel Oney, economic development research manager for Dallas, said the study appears to be reasonable. He said that he would have projected a higher sales tax impact by the Mavericks but that the figures are still in the ballpark.

"The net impact is never as big as it's being claimed by the boosters," he said.

Dr. Depken warned that his research wasn't meant to predict the future, only to analyze the past. The study isn't a forecast for what will happen when the Cowboys leave Irving for Arlington in a few years.

The planned Glorypark shopping center, which will be wedged between the Cowboys and Rangers stadiums, could brighten the economic outlook on Cowboys game days if fans stick around after the game to eat, drink, shop or watch a movie, Dr. Depken said.

The study contains few explanations about why, among other things, NHL games boost sales tax and NBA games depress it. Dr. Depken said that he and his research partner are conducting further research to try to determine contributing factors.

Another study expected by the end of the summer will look at the "spillover" effect on cities neighboring a stadium's home city. That data has been collected but hasn't been analyzed.

One issue Dr. Depken won't tackle is whether a city should spend its tax dollars to build a stadium or how a stadium should be funded.

"Those are questions I'm not really qualified to answer," he said.

The study, which also was researched by Dennis Coates of the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, will be presented this week at the Western Economic Association International conference in San Diego.

E-mail jmosier@dallasnews.com


GAMES' ECONOMIC FOOTPRINT



Game Estimated sales tax impact per game *
NCAA football $22,346
NCAA bowl ($1,486,158)
NFL ($566,866)
NFL playoffs ($155,675)
Super Bowl $2,500,837
NBA ($21,208)
NBA playoffs ($128,709)
NBA All-Star $1,616,465
NBA Finals $65,578
MLB $22,216
MLB playoffs $461,383
MLB All-Star ($285,310)
MLB World Series $1,159,910
NHL $21,424
NHL playoffs $138,561
NHL Finals $341,267
Political convention ($1,491,518)

*Numbers in parentheses are negative

SOURCES: Craig Depken, Dennis Coates

Good thing OKC doesn't have any traffic issues on NBA game days so that part of the study can be thrown out

Irving/Dallas...Absolutely...It's nasty on a regular day

OKC...Nope

**Linda DiMario, president and CEO of the Arlington Convention & Visitors Bureau, said she's seen plenty of studies like Dr. Depken's in the past. Most have a narrow focus, she said.

The teams promote civic pride, attract millions of dollars in free publicity and help support adjacent businesses, Ms. DiMario said. Local sports teams generate hundreds – in some cases thousands – of jobs, she said. Arlington is home to the Texas Rangers and is building a stadium for the Cowboys.**

Agreed

Fans might spend money in Irving during a Cowboys game, but more residents are likely to avoid gridlock by staying home or driving to a neighboring city to shop or dine.


That was never my experience during Hornet's games.

We don't have a huge and thriving area (yet) downtown or bricktown, we need all the help we can get bringing people in.





Critics of the study say it is too focused on sales tax revenue and doesn't take into account many benefits of professional sporting events.

Linda DiMario, president and CEO of the Arlington Convention & Visitors Bureau, said she's seen plenty of studies like Dr. Depken's in the past. Most have a narrow focus, she said.

The teams promote civic pride, attract millions of dollars in free publicity and help support adjacent businesses, Ms. DiMario said. Local sports teams generate hundreds – in some cases thousands – of jobs, she said. Arlington is home to the Texas Rangers and is building a stadium for the Cowboys.

"There is more at stake when a city hosts an event than the sales tax that accrues to the city coffers," Ms. DiMario said.


It's not always about the money.

I guess it all depends on the size of the city the arena/stadium is in. When the Jags play in Jacskonville it has 0% impact on my shopping. I live 8 miles from the stadium and there is not any traffic at my house. Maybe in a small geographic city like Irving there might be a drop in shopping during the game but I seriously doubt someone in Dallas is saying "oh crap, we can't go the Galleria mall because there is a game in Irving."

Sorry folks. Anybody voting no on this initiative just isn't very intelligent. It's a ONE CENT SALES TAX!!!!! Hello!? It would guarantee this city getting an NBA franchise. If that isn't worth a penny on the dollar to you, then God help you.

If you vote no on this, you are against progress for Oklahoma City in all ways, shapes and forms. Your intelligence MUST be called into question as well. I have faith in this city and I am sure that the votes of those desiring change and progress for the city will outweigh those of the retarded baboons.

EDIT: I should also add that one of the above posters cites some dumbass professor from UTEX-Arlington (a bastion of prestige, no doubt) in order to reinforce a viewpoint he/she clearly already had. Pathetic. AN NBA TEAM IS A NET GAIN FOR THIS CITY WITHOUT QUESTION. It really isn't that hard to spell out. Please wake up, those of you voting no.

Sorry folks. Anybody voting no on this initiative just isn't very intelligent. It's a ONE CENT SALES TAX!!!!! Hello!? It would guarantee this city getting an NBA franchise. If that isn't worth a penny on the dollar to you, then God help you.

If you vote no on this, you are against progress for Oklahoma City in all ways, shapes and forms. Your intelligence MUST be called into question as well. I have faith in this city and I am sure that the votes of those desiring change and progress for the city will outweigh those of the retarded baboons.

EDIT: I should also add that one of the above posters cites some dumbass professor from UTEX-Arlington (a bastion of prestige, no doubt) in order to reinforce a viewpoint he/she clearly already had. Pathetic. AN NBA TEAM IS A NET GAIN FOR THIS CITY WITHOUT QUESTION. It really isn't that hard to spell out. Please wake up, those of you voting no.

As one voting yes, but had serious reservations before coming around to my "YES" position, I plead with you to think twice about your style of campaigning. Calling those who are looking at voting "NO", or are on the fence, "retarded baboons" and calling their intelligence into question is only going to solidify their position into voting against this thing. You're not doing the proposal any favors.

I can't reason with Islamists, and I can't reason with morons like those. This vote will pass in a landslide. Relax.

I can't reason with Islamists, and I can't reason with morons like those. This vote will pass in a landslide. Relax.

If you think it's going to pass in a landslide - you should be the one to "relax". What's the purpose of your post if you think it's going to be a landslide "YES" vote?

To illuminate small minded thinking. Every community has their own set of "contrarians". It's funny to watch them be so stupid and set in their ways. By all means exercise your right to vote AND to be a moron.

IT'S A ONE-CENT SALES TAX!!!! TO GUARANTEE AN NBA FRANCHISE. It's really a shame to think that we must live among such plebians.

I don't think this sales tax guarantees anything. It will make it easier for the City to get an NBA team, and definitely makes it more attactive. However, the NBA Board can still vote no to the relocation and keep the team in Seattle.

Theo, I certainly hope you are right. This vote is critical to the long term growth of a city that I Love!! the impact on the city and the State with the NBA can be enormous. I am nervous that a failure here would set the city and state back for years, whereas a favorable outcome would immediately raise the confidence, exposure, self esteem, notoriaty, and whatever else for OKC and in my opinion jump start a firestorm of development in 'downtown OKC. I remain cautiously optimistic here in DC hoping the largest City in my home State can soon send a team with OKC on its jersey to DC to play the Wizards. There are many Sooners here (OU alumni Club of DC)
who are anxiously awaiting the outcome of this vote, who cannot vote, but realize the magnitude of the moment. Please OKC grab the moment to move quantum leaps ahead. Man would that be awesome

Theo, Would you support a one-cent national sales tax to fund health care for every American? Seems like a no-brainer, but there would be HUGE opposition. Google "one cent sales tax" and see what all is being proposed for "just a penny!!" Most all of the proposals sound reasonable - it's a matter of where your priorities and convictions lie. I support a "YES" vote, but understand those who choose to vote "NO." They are not stupid, "retarded baboons" or anything else. There are things that I might think seems like a slam dunk for only a penny sales tax and YOU might not support it. And that should be fine. This is NOT a bad guy/good guy vote on March 4th. Don't let your emotions run away with you.