Tulsa didn't get a better project than OKC, Tulsa got better FUNDING than OKC.

Not even remotely true.

If these bonds pass, AICM will have gotten $92 million in bond money and OK Pop will have $25 million.

That's because OK POP doesn't currently exist...

The AICM/AICC is yet another blight with which the state surrounded our downtown. You have to squeeze along a narrow path to the NW to find a non State of OK-ruined pathway out of Downtown OKC.

FWIW, the Tulsa Pop museum cleared the Senate today. It has not yet cleared the House.
Might. Might not get through. At the moment, I'm thinking Might.

Not even remotely true.

If these bonds pass, AICM will have gotten $92 million in bond money and OK Pop will have $25 million.

Don't weat your panties Swake :), I didn't say Tulsa got MORE than OKC, I said Tulsa's museum is better funded. This means, the state is doing a MUCH better job with the Tulsa museum, it appears to be well planned and likely the $25M requested would be enough to construct and initially develop it. On the contrary, the OKC museum has been a hodge podge effort from the start and taken $92M from the state to not even make it happen.

Try not to jump with guns ablazin' when somebody mentions Tulsa. ..

:tiphat: Good for Tulsa.
Kind of like golf, putting just after your competitor, easily readable. Whether it was the arena, baseball field or now the new museum, Tulsa just lags ( I mean follows) behind OKC.

I just find it breathtaking that Tulsa got this so easily after we've had the AICC construction inflicted on us for over a decade now. I'm a quarter-century old and I've honestly never known a downtown OKC that wasn't a construction pit, and being a southsider that crosses the river on 35, I don't really remember a time that OKC wasn't marred by this construction mound.

On the bright side we have such lovely red dirt everywhere, and always have, seemingly always will. I just hope that both of these propositions are adequate to finish the job, so that Tulsa doesn't have to endure the ordeal we have.

Finally...

Oklahoma Senate gives final legislative approval to Indian museum plan | News OK (http://newsok.com/oklahoma-senate-gives-final-legislative-approval-to-indian-museum-plan/article/5421172)

It seems the bigger issue is if the City wants to take it back on those terms.

If the city doesn't take it, will the state just pass a law that forces the city to take it? I jest.

If the city doesn't take it, will the state just pass a law that forces the city to take it? I jest.

You could say the city is already being forced to take it. Unless city officials want to always look at an abandon building when they drive by everyday. The state legislators will just say they did their job and its up to the city now.

The problem Mick has with it is the possible strings attached. Kind of like being a share cropper way back when.
Where is our George K ?

You would think with a $2 billion economic impact that they City would be jumping at the chance to get it finished. If they were selling fishing lures the City would be falling all over themselves to find the money. Maybe the AICCM should threaten to move out of downtown (to say... Edmond).

You could say the city is already being forced to take it. Unless city officials want to always look at an abandon building when they drive by everyday. The state legislators will just say they did their job and its up to the city now.

FWIW, I have little doubt that the city could run this better than the state...

The state has a bigger issue with maintaining its Oklahoma History Center, which also just opened recently.. when the AICM opens, will people still go to the OHC? Especially for Native American/Oklahoma Territory history, and especially for a better facility (the OHC facility is pretty bland for a museum).

One of the best plausible options to keep the OHC strong would be for the state to also run the AICM, so that they can share exhibits or perhaps offer a combined ticket deal, etc. There is very little room for error in keeping museums profitable, and separating these two competing museums could be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

From Bill Crum on twitter (https://twitter.com/WILLIAMCRUM/status/603996357905375232):


Governor signs bill aimed at completing long-delayed American Indian Cultural Center & Museum in Oklahoma City. #OKC

https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=JN.ZUWNXCs9jxZWpIANfZiZdg&pid=15.1&P=0 https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=JN.XEeWm12MI838lQ0kdKl%2ffQ&pid=15.1&P=0 https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=JN.rTNmR83uJqt12DcuxJ9pGg&pid=15.1&P=0
The city has an opportunity to do something with the AICCM. First, let's get it completed so that we can obtain possession of the artifacts that the Smithsonian has stored for the museum.

The center needs $80 million for completion. There are $40 million in pledges along with the $25 million the state will provide; this should allow the city to get some initial phrases completed. The $15 million shortfall could mean some delays, possible cuts or downsizing.

There's land that could be developed in the vicinity of the museum.

If the folks on Lincoln were not just huffing fumes, it isn't a shortfall of 15 mil.

It was commented in one or more articles certain trimming and cost savings resulted in 15 mil less being necessary to complete.

If the folks on Lincoln were not just huffing fumes, it isn't a shortfall of 15 mil.

It was commented in one or more articles certain trimming and cost savings resulted in 15 mil less being necessary to complete.

Let's hope that's the case. Just want them to get on with this project before the pledges drop to $25 million.

Keep in mind that the city has not agreed to this plan yet. I believe it will happen but it's going to be studied for a while first.

Mayor says the plan for American Indian Culture Center completion is only an offer | KFOR.com (http://kfor.com/2015/05/28/mayor-says-the-plan-for-american-indian-culture-center-completion-is-only-an-offer/)


“I caution people not to pre-judge this,” says Cornett.

The mayor stresses that it’s only an offer.

“We need to have a fresh look at it, and look at the numbers, and look at it without the cloud of the disappointment throughout the years of this project,” Cornett says.

The city seems to have 3 options:

1) Accept the proposal from the state, get an extra $25 million of state money.
2) Reject the proposal from the state, let the thing sit there.
3) Reject the proposal from the state, take the land back.

Option 2 sucks. With both options 1 and 3, the city ends up responsible for running the thing. With option 1 at least, the city gets an extra 25 million to complete it. They have to pay that money back over the years, but it's basically a guaranteed low interest loan.

Option 1 seems like a no-brainer. This thing is going to make tons of money if opened.

Option 1 seems like a no-brainer. This thing is going to make tons of money if opened.

It seems a bit presumptuous to just assume this museum will be a big moneymaker. Don't many museums (not owned by the federal government) rely on private donations to help stay open? This isn't DC where millions of people travel to from all over the world specifically to visit their world famous monuments and museums. Does anybody have figures for the other large museums in the city to use as a comparison?

The city needs to do its due diligence to figure out what the realistic attendance figures would be, how much they could realistically charge for attendance, and what the annual operating costs would be to run the museum. I certainly wouldn't put a whole lot of stock in the figures that were put together in the original museum proposal considering they would be fairly out-of-date by now and were likely intentionally puffed up to make the proposal look better. The last thing we want to do is jump on this deal and find out down the line that most or all of the museum revenue is being eaten up by operating costs. Then the city is stuck trying to find money elsewhere just to pay back the loan from the state.

Then the city is stuck trying to find money elsewhere just to pay back the loan from the state.

It would not be a loan. What the state would get is a right to share in certain revenues over a threshold. Until those revenues hit $7 million, the City would not have to pay anything to the State. The state would still receive improved tax revenues, but for the state to receive any payments from the City, the AICCM must generate revenues at a level that will enable success.

That said, I agree that the City must analyze the deal to make sure it understands the likely cash flows and economic impact.

An interesting interview by the Oklahoman with state senator Kyle Loveless.

The Future of the Indian Culture Center (http://m.newsok.com/video/4269385055001)

The state has cut funding that OKC receives... the city really does have to weigh taking on this liability carefully. This cannot be counted as "downtown funding" even though it will probably come at that cost.

State is still better positioned to finish the job they started.

The big hill is burning right now... just drove by it. Firetrucks everywhere. I hope the building is spared!!!

They just shot fireworks in conjunction with DeadCenter kickoff party, held at AICCM.

NOOOOOOOOOOOO

I remember for like 4 years they couldn't even get grass to grow on it because of the drought. I haven't seen it yet but I hope its not too bad. Damn hipsters.

NOOOOOOOOOOOO

I remember for like 4 years they couldn't even get grass to grow on it because of the drought. I haven't seen it yet but I hope its not too bad. Damn hipsters.

I logged on to like this post because it made me chuckle when I read it, but alas, I do not have the "like" feature turned on in this thread.
So a quote and acknowledgement you shall receive.

I know this will never happen but if it could be turned into a casino resort with a solid golf course that would be a huge money maker.

I know this will never happen but if it could be turned into a casino resort with a solid golf course that would be a huge money maker.

I still like the idea of either bidding out the adjoining land or a city owned parcel somewhere else in the city (or farther down the southern bank of the river) to the highest bidding indian tribe and allowing them to operate a casino/resort on it. The funds from the sale could be used to finish the museum and a percentage of the casino profits could go toward maintaining it. The tribe would benefit by having the closest full casino/resort to downtown and the city/state would get a completed museum and an attraction that was close enough for downtown to benefit from it, but far enough away that the negatives of casinos wouldn't be an issue. With all the legal hurdles, it would probably be difficult if not impossible, but cool nonetheless. Native American Past and Present, side by side :tongue:

And what tribe would run this casino? I don't ever remember hearing of a joint venture, quite the opposite actually.
I would expect a lot of push back from every tribe with a nearby casino that doesn't get it.

And what tribe would run this casino? I don't ever remember hearing of a joint venture, quite the opposite actually.
I would expect a lot of push back from every tribe with a nearby casino that doesn't get it.

I don't think anyone has every actually presented this as a legitimate idea from anyone at the city or state level. I brought it up here awhile ago, as have others, as something that could get this done if it weren't for all the legal issues surrounding it, but it wasn't something that anyone thought was realistically possible.

I still like the idea of either bidding out the adjoining land or a city owned parcel somewhere else in the city (or farther down the southern bank of the river) to the highest bidding indian tribe and allowing them to operate a casino/resort on it. The funds from the sale could be used to finish the museum and a percentage of the casino profits could go toward maintaining it. The tribe would benefit by having the closest full casino/resort to downtown and the city/state would get a completed museum and an attraction that was close enough for downtown to benefit from it, but far enough away that the negatives of casinos wouldn't be an issue. With all the legal hurdles, it would probably be difficult if not impossible, but cool nonetheless. Native American Past and Present, side by side :tongue:

I would hate that. I bothers me that the new Native American heritage is a casino.

How about a Hard Rock Cafe / Hotel / Casino / Museum?

https://www.seminolehardrocktampa.com/

I would hate that. I bothers me that the new Native American heritage is a casino.
+1

There cannot be an Indian Casino there, or anywhere in OKC for that matter. OKC was not a part of Indian Country. It was "unassigned land." But for one or two special situations that Congress has approved, an Indian tribe can only put casinos on land that was part of their allotment. And that land has to be in trust with the Federal Government. A tribe cannot buy land outside of their original jurisdictional boundaries and build a casino. Since OKC was never "assigned" lands, a tribe cannot put a casino here. So, worry not about that situation. And, in case someone wants to argue that Remington Park is a Chickasaw casino, that isn't really the case. Remington is owned by a business subsidiary of the Chickasaw Nation. It isn't an "Indian Casino" within that definition. Remington was a casino, created by a special state question before the Chickasaw subsidiary ever bought it. Now, there may be a casino somewhere on the outskirts of the Metro that is technically in OKC. I don't think that is the case, but it could be. But if so, they are on "assigned" lands within original jurisdictional boundaries.

There cannot be an Indian Casino there, or anywhere in OKC for that matter. OKC was not a part of Indian Country. It was "unassigned land." But for one or two special situations that Congress has approved, an Indian tribe can only put casinos on land that was part of their allotment. And that land has to be in trust with the Federal Government. A tribe cannot buy land outside of their original jurisdictional boundaries and build a casino. Since OKC was never "assigned" lands, a tribe cannot put a casino here. So, worry not about that situation. And, in case someone wants to argue that Remington Park is a Chickasaw casino, that isn't really the case. Remington is owned by a business subsidiary of the Chickasaw Nation. It isn't an "Indian Casino" within that definition. Remington was a casino, created by a special state question before the Chickasaw subsidiary ever bought it. Now, there may be a casino somewhere on the outskirts of the Metro that is technically in OKC. I don't think that is the case, but it could be. But if so, they are on "assigned" lands within original jurisdictional boundaries.

You really aren't very sophisticated in business? It doesn't matter how you take Humpty Dumpty apart, you can always put it back together.

Well, I may not be very sophisticated in business...but I understand laws that govern indian country. And OKC proper isn't indian country. And tribal casinos cannot be built on land not in their respective jurisdictional boundaries, or land not held in trust by the federal government. So, that land, owned by the city, not in indian country, not tribal trust land is off limits to indian gaming. The hoops that would have to be jumped through and the things that would have to occur for there to be a glimmer of a chance, are not going to happen.

There cannot be an Indian Casino there, or anywhere in OKC for that matter. OKC was not a part of Indian Country. It was "unassigned land." But for one or two special situations that Congress has approved, an Indian tribe can only put casinos on land that was part of their allotment. And that land has to be in trust with the Federal Government. A tribe cannot buy land outside of their original jurisdictional boundaries and build a casino. Since OKC was never "assigned" lands, a tribe cannot put a casino here. So, worry not about that situation. And, in case someone wants to argue that Remington Park is a Chickasaw casino, that isn't really the case. Remington is owned by a business subsidiary of the Chickasaw Nation. It isn't an "Indian Casino" within that definition. Remington was a casino, created by a special state question before the Chickasaw subsidiary ever bought it. Now, there may be a casino somewhere on the outskirts of the Metro that is technically in OKC. I don't think that is the case, but it could be. But if so, they are on "assigned" lands within original jurisdictional boundaries.

Yes I am completely aware of where the unassigned lands begin and end, hence why I said "with all the legal hurdles it would probably be difficult, if not impossible"

Yes I am completely aware of where the unassigned lands begin and end, hence why I said "with all the legal hurdles it would probably be difficult, if not impossible"

It doesn't appear that yukong was directing that comment to you specifically. There were several posters who were making comments about it without recognizing the legal issues involved.

Yes I am completely aware of where the unassigned lands begin and end, hence why I said "with all the legal hurdles it would probably be difficult, if not impossible"


I wasn't directing anything at you and I'm sorry if you thought I was. In fact, I didn't even see your post. (My bad I guess.) I had read some of the earlier posts about could it happen, not wanting it to happen, etc. I was responding to that. And if anything, I agree completely with you. This is not something that is going to happen.

Just because I didn't specifically state the legal issues I am fully aware of the legal issues re casinos having to be on tribal lands. It was more of a pipe dream than a that is what they should do.

I wasn't directing anything at you and I'm sorry if you thought I was. In fact, I didn't even see your post. (My bad I guess.) I had read some of the earlier posts about could it happen, not wanting it to happen, etc. I was responding to that. And if anything, I agree completely with you. This is not something that is going to happen.

My bad. Should've read the rest of the thread.

I would hate that. I bothers me that the new Native American heritage is a casino.

^^^

You really aren't very sophisticated in business? It doesn't matter how you take Humpty Dumpty apart, you can always put it back together.

He's actually correct. Remington Park is licensed as a horse racing facility, which allows it to be accompanied by electronic gaming, but not cards. If it were an Indian casino it would have other forms of gaming besides electronic, specifically including cards. It may be owned by business subsidiary of a tribe, but it is NOT tribal gaming.

The only way the Chickasaws or anyone else could pull off this type of a casino at AICCM would be to build a horse track there, which wouldn't be possible anyway, due to geographic restrictions on parimutuel facilities. And they would not be able to build a tribal gaming facility owing to the aforementioned federal tribal land restrictions.

OKC committee to examine Indian museum proposal | NewsOK.com (http://m.newsok.com/okc-committee-to-examine-indian-museum-proposal/article/5427760)


Mayor Mick Cornett and three city council members are to assess the Legislature's proposal to have Oklahoma City take over the American Indian Cultural Center and Museum.

The four-member committee will monitor evaluations by city staff and outside consultants and report to the full council, Cornett said Monday.

Here is the memo (http://www.okc.gov/councilnotes/2015/061615files/AICCM%20memo.pdf) that was presented at Tuesday's city council meeting about this.

http://www.okc.gov/councilnotes/2015/cn072115.html#AICCM


Council takes steps to evaluate AICCM proposal

The Council voted Tuesday to take two more steps in the ongoing evaluation of the state government's proposal regarding the unfinished American Indian Cultural Center and Museum. The Council issued a new request for proposals from consultants to study potential commercial developments near the museum after a previous request for proposals proved to not allow enough time for responses. The Council also voted to approve a contract with ConsultEcon to evaluate the operational needs and expected revenues for the museum. The Council will use the studies and other information to decide whether to accept or reject the state's proposal.

maybe do the jealousy projects near the AICCM

He's actually correct. Remington Park is licensed as a horse racing facility, which allows it to be accompanied by electronic gaming, but not cards. If it were an Indian casino it would have other forms of gaming besides electronic, specifically including cards. It may be owned by business subsidiary of a tribe, but it is NOT tribal gaming.

The only way the Chickasaws or anyone else could pull off this type of a casino at AICCM would be to build a horse track there, which wouldn't be possible anyway, due to geographic restrictions on parimutuel facilities. And they would not be able to build a tribal gaming facility owing to the aforementioned federal tribal land restrictions.

This is basically correct. I can't get into client details, but suffice to say that it's not your typical arrangement. However, they have managed to bring life back into the place, and we should all be grateful of that considering how run down the place had gotten.

Well, I may not be very sophisticated in business...but I understand laws that govern indian country. And OKC proper isn't indian country. And tribal casinos cannot be built on land not in their respective jurisdictional boundaries, or land not held in trust by the federal government. So, that land, owned by the city, not in indian country, not tribal trust land is off limits to indian gaming. The hoops that would have to be jumped through and the things that would have to occur for there to be a glimmer of a chance, are not going to happen.

Yes, there would have to be some changes in the legal framework. I think that's assumed? Sorry for my snide earlier post, I guess we were talking past eachother.

Despite how insane our state legislature is, I have a hard time seeing them block that. Tulsa proper already has Indian casinos... several of them (East, South, and West I think). Opposing this would be the most obvious yet example of giving Tulsa something to the detriment of OKC. Go ahead and give the state legislators a chance to prove how anti-OKC they really are.

... Tulsa proper already has Indian casinos... several of them (East, South, and West I think). ...

Indian casinos in the Tulsa area share something in common with the areas near Thackerville, Durant, Norman, Shawnee, etc. which OKC does not share with these areas - the existence of Indian land.

I'm well aware of that. So change the law to allow a regulated casino in Oklahoma County. Many states allow them along rivers (Iowa, Mississippi, Missouri I believe).

I'm well aware of that. So change the law to allow a regulated casino in Oklahoma County. Many states allow them along rivers (Iowa, Mississippi, Missouri I believe).

You must be counting on an entirely new legislature being elected. LOL

Spartan, I may be mistaken, but if memory serves, in all those examples the casinos exist, as they do here,by virtue of available Indian land. Either on the waterway banks, or the casinos are water based and exist because the tribes have land claims regarding the land beneath the waterway.

I don't know that any of them exist based on politicos deciding it's a fine idea.

The rules regarding which lands are considered Indian lands are FEDERAL, not state. The boobs at the legislature have no say, and the Feds aren't going to change their rules for OKC. This city sits in the middle of what as known as the Unassigned Lands, which was government land not assigned to a tribe, therefore it cannot be held in trust as "Indian land" for purposes of gaming. This really cut-and-dried, and no amount of Internet typing (or anything short of major changes in the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act) will reverse this.

The only way full class 3 gaming could appear in OKC is if the state changed its laws to allow non-Indian class 3 statewide, which would violate the state's current brokered deal involving Indian gaming and horsemen. It could be restricted to riverbanks, a la Missouri's original deal, but that probably would be successfully challenged because other casinos already exist away form waterways. The state would have to allow Indians to also have unrestricted gaming at existing casinos, and would surely also expand gaming options at racetracks, assuming they could get all parties to agree.

So the question is, would the state open that Pandora's box just to allow OKC to have a casino? Unlikely.

In Oklahoma, California and some other places, gaming is allowed on Indian property because:
In 1987, the Supreme Court in California v Cabazon Band of Mission Indians confirmed the authority of tribal governments to establish gaming operations independent of state regulation.

http://www.ok.gov/OGC/Frequently_Asked_Questions/

Riverboat gambling in several states, casino gambling in Nevada, Atlantic City, 3 cities in Colorado and paramutual wagering all happened from state laws allowing it, irrespective of the above issue.

There's a casino within 30 minutes of just about everywhere in the state. We don't need to change the laws in the state to allow more.

The rules regarding which lands are considered Indian lands are FEDERAL, not state. The boobs at the legislature have no say, and the Feds aren't going to change their rules for OKC. This city sits in the middle of what as known as the Unassigned Lands, which was government land not assigned to a tribe, therefore it cannot be held in trust as "Indian land" for purposes of gaming. This really cut-and-dried, and no amount of Internet typing (or anything short of major changes in the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act) will reverse this.

The only way full class 3 gaming could appear in OKC is if the state changed its laws to allow non-Indian class 3 statewide, which would violate the state's current brokered deal involving Indian gaming and horsemen. It could be restricted to riverbanks, a la Missouri's original deal, but that probably would be successfully challenged because other casinos already exist away form waterways. The state would have to allow Indians to also have unrestricted gaming at existing casinos, and would surely also expand gaming options at racetracks, assuming they could get all parties to agree.

So the question is, would the state open that Pandora's box just to allow OKC to have a casino? Unlikely.

Not necessarily. Colorado restricted gambling to three cities, Blackhawk, Central City, and Cripple Creek and has denied attempts to add other cities. (If memory serves, they did that incrementally adding cities. But I could be wrong.) OKC could ask the state to pass a law to allow gambling in a specific location. It would raise a dust storm from many in the city and most of the rest of the state and would never pass. I'm against it.

Possible perhaps, but doing so would still violate the agreement with Indians and horsemen. The state would have to renegotiate that agreement, and those parties (especially the Indians) would press hard for full-on class 3. That is why I say it is a Pandora's box.