Double post for some reason.

Possible partnership: Chickasaw Nation offers to save American Indian Cultural Center
By: Brian Brus The Journal Record December 22, 2015 0

OKLAHOMA CITY – As city officials balked Tuesday at consultants’ cost projections of at least $95 million to complete the American Indian Cultural Center and Museum, the Chickasaw Nation stepped up with a possible solution.

The tribe is willing to underwrite a portion of those capital costs in excess of $65 million, operate the AICCM and cover operating deficits for seven years in exchange for the authority to develop surrounding commercial properties, Chickasaw Secretary of Commerce Bill Lance wrote in a letter to the City Council.

“Based on the reports we have seen today, that without something like this … there is no way we could go forward with the proposal presented to us by the state. We just don’t have the money,” Councilman David Greenwell said in response to the offer.

“I’ve got to think the state sees this as a potential solution, as we do,” Mayor Mick Cornett said.

“It’s safe to say the city is not going to accept legislation proposed in the last session,” he said. “The question is, what do we do now? We could go back to the state and say, ‘Thanks, but no thanks.’ That’s not getting us any closer to opening the facility. The Chickasaws’ offer is an opportunity for the three of us to work together toward a real solution.”

State officials have struggled with how to complete the project near Interstate 40 and I-35 since the concept of a comprehensive cultural center was introduced more than 20 years ago. So far, the state has spent about $90 million, but construction delays have left a partial shell languishing on the south bank of the Oklahoma River for three years.

According to C.H. Guernsey & Co.’s assessment Tuesday, the project is about 50 percent complete. If work picked up right away, it would take four and a half years to finish at a cost of $94 million to $125 million, President David Guernsey told city officials. That’s far more than state legislators offered this summer when the governor signed House Bill 2237.

That legislation included a proposed agreement with City Hall stipulating that the city would have until January to agree to receive the transfer of the museum and 143 acres around it. Under the deal, the state government would provide $25 million from the sale of bonds to help complete the facility, held in a fund until matching donations could be deposited.

Legislators envisioned the cost of operating the AICCM would be offset by revenue from the city leasing the surrounding land to commercial interests. Oklahoma City could use money from admissions, event income and other enterprises to meet operating costs. And half of any annual revenue over $7 million would be remitted to the state to pay off the bond debt – an arrangement that city officials said was the equivalent of a loan.

Based on reports presented Tuesday by ConsultEcon, PGAV and Guernsey, city officials deemed that plan unpalatable.

The problem isn’t necessarily operations. Bob Brais, vice president of ConsultEcon, said the center’s pan-tribal personality could be highly attractive to tourists and event organizers, supporting further MAPS 3 development in the area. At its best, the center could draw as many as 450,000 visitors annually once operations stabilize, he said.

ConsultEcon’s midrange estimate of annual revenue totaled about $4.4 million. That compares with $6 million for operating costs. However, that’s to be expected, Brais said, as the vast majority of museum-like public centers run in the red without additional grants, endowments and government funds. But city officials have often said City Hall is not in the business of creating and running tourist attractions.

The Chickasaw offer could take care of that problem, at least for a while. Lance said his government would be willing to establish a foundation to operate the AICCM and provide up to $2 million annually to cover deficits for the first seven years, with the tribe and municipality to develop a sustainability plan thereafter.

As for as the surrounding area, Lance said the tribe wants commercial property to be leased or conveyed to the Chickasaws, thus giving the opportunity to develop it with the city’s cooperation. A tribal representative told city officials Tuesday the Chickasaws have no interest in trying to include gambling in the overall plan, even if it were legally possible to do so.

“But for the offer, we would be looking at a different outcome today,” City Manager Jim Couch said.

Cornett said the tribe’s offer must be worked out further before the city agrees. He also said Oklahoma officials need to be involved because the state still owns the project.
Legislators did not clarify in HB 2237 consequences if City Hall rejects the offer, and the law forbids state money being used to operate or maintain the museum after the upcoming budget year.

I'm cool with this idea in principle (not with a casino though, and not because I'm anti-casino/gambling), but where have they been all this time with this offer? I'm not at all assuming there's ill intent. Just wondering what changed their calculus about the situation.

Its just like any other business deal. If you wait long enough the other side gets desperate and you get a bigger piece of the pie.

This is a great offer on the surface but...

Why would the Chickasaws pledge $65 million plus offer to cover an operating deficits for 7 years in exchange for development rights on the adjoining property? I don't think they would even own the land and there would still be a ton of costs involved in remediation and site prep. And then of course, they would still have construction costs.

And it's pretty clear no casino would ever be proposed or allowed.

Also, it will take $95 to $125 million to finish the museum so the City would still have to come up with $30 to $60 million.


This is a huge step in the right direction but I'm sure it will take a lot more time and analysis.

Who covers the $2MM gap in operational costs after seven years? While I've always loved the concept of the AICCM itself, I am amazed and disappointed in the planning that ever let this thing get off the ground at this site. We're just now finding out things about this project that should have been known before the first shovel of dirt was turned.

So if the State gives back to the City for $1, can the City sell it to an Oklahoma tribe? Can the tribe open a casino then?

^^^^ No. Both federal and state law prohibit it. Further, prior restrictions on the deed prohibit it.

There.will.be.no.casino.involved.

Not.gonna.happen.

There won't be a casino, people! It literally would require an act of (the U.S.) Congress to change this, and such an act would fundamentally change Indian gaming law for the entire country. There's no workaround; there's no loophole. It's not going to happen. Please stop bringing it up; it has become a distraction from the legitimate and informed parts of this discussion.

The Chickasaws are much more diverse than strictly gaming, and working to become even more so. It will be interesting to see what development direction they take, but it WON'T involve a casino under any circumstances, which will certainly even be acknowledged in the agreement between the parties, should they reach agreement.

Maybe they'll open a Great Wolf lodge. ;)

The Chickasaw Nation possesses the financial resources to really develop that area around the AICCM. The OKC crossroads (I-35/I-40) offer more of a potential attraction than their WinStar operations in Thackerville between OKC & Dallas. The difference, they now have a more diverse portfolio.

If the City can work out this deal; you can bet that they (Chickasaws) will take it and run with it. You won't see the disappointments that you are now seeing with the slow developments taking place in OKC's Core-to-Shore. Their developments will make Core-to-Shore look like a pin ball machine vs. a high tech computer.

Look for something IMPRESSIVE!

Maybe they'll open a Great Wolf lodge. ;)

Yes! This!

I'd really like them to put a massive outdoor venue on the river banks of the property. Develop it up right and it could be a great spot for a huge music festival. The Chickasaw Nation bring a lot of great shows to WINSTAR so they have the means and know how to put on some big shows.
The biggest thing to really connect this to downtown and increase the likelihood it will succeed is some way to connect this to the boathouse row and/ or bricktown. It could be a pedestrian bridge, streetcar, or really anything but something where it doesnt have to be a drive up to location.

A hotel with a smallish water park in it? Yes, that's a fandangtastic idea.
A perfect solution for the city. well, at least the for the tweenagers and their libs.

Hopefully, the OKC leadership and the Chickasaw Nation leadership have their sights set a tad higher.

Great Wolf is a great family draw and doesn't have to be ALL of the development but could be a great part of it.

Can someone explain to me, without moralizing or showing ignorance, why having a casino is such a bad idea??

Cities (off the top of my head) with casinos: New Orleans, Baton Rouge, Kansas City, St Louis, Omaha, Sioux City, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Columbus, Toledo, Wichita, Detroit, Jersey City, Niagara Falls...

Why will you all ONLY settle for a family attraction on this river, and nothing else? Do you realize how disconnected this site is from downtown? And how nothing here will happen if we don't partner with a tribe?

It's called reality...

I too would like to know that. I also would like to know why the federal government has to get involved in gambling. It's your money and if you want to gamble with it you should have that option. It is insane to me that it would require the feds getting involved for a casino. I think one casino would do very well here and could really make the area take off if done right. A Hard Rock Cafe with a casino and grill would be amazing.

I really can't wait for the day when OKC becomes a big enough city to where we don't have to brand these big developments as family friendly.

It is not a moral issue.

It is not a fam friendly v. adult entertainment issue.

It is a legal issue.
It is a deed restriction issue.
It is a political issue.

The end result being one could never put a casino in that area.

Good idea or terrible horrible no good very bad idea. Irrelevant either way.

Not.gonna.happen.
Not near the museum.
Not to replace the Cox when it comes down.
Not adjoining the ballpark.
Just not.

Why is it a legal issue? That is the question I want to know. What is so bad about having a casino here? They have laws for a reason, right?

Why is it a legal issue? That is the question I want to know. What is so bad about having a casino here? They have laws for a reason, right?

It is a legal issue because it is prohibited for legal reasons. Please read Kevin's post. We can talk about it until we are blue in the face and it won't happen. It's really not worth discussing for that reason no matter whether it would be a good or bad idea.

I did read Kevin's post. I get that is illegal.

It is not a moral issue.

It is not a fam friendly v. adult entertainment issue.

It is a legal issue.
It is a deed restriction issue.
It is a political issue.

The end result being one could never put a casino in that area.

Good idea or terrible horrible no good very bad idea. Irrelevant either way.

Not.gonna.happen.
Not near the museum.
Not to replace the Cox when it comes down.
Not adjoining the ballpark.
Just not.

Did ya see the list of cities with casinos? Hint: It's longer than the list of those without.

Boy Howdy, stupid runs deep here. Lazy too. Changing Federal and State law would cost a fortune and have a nationwide and statewide passel of unintended consequences. Fighting the deed restriction would be like pissing up a rope. Let it go people. It ain't going to happen. Ever. If you need a hint, most of the cities listed have casinos on waterbodies or islands in waterbodies that are outside state jurisdiction.

Spartan, if you do some reading, you'll most likely discover each of the casino locations involve Indian Land, which is different from land that becomes owned or leased by someone of native american descent.

TPTB are not the biggest impediment to a casino in OKC. The absence of eligible locations holds that honor.

City needs to take it over or someone with deep pockets. Build a multi use MLS Soccer Arena/Good outdoor concert Area. Something along those lines. NFL or MLB stadium would be nice too but OKC not big enough for that yet.

Spartan, if you do some reading, you'll most likely discover each of the casino locations involve Indian Land, which is different from land that becomes owned or leased by someone of native american descent.

TPTB are not the biggest impediment to a casino in OKC. The absence of eligible locations holds that honor.

I remember when it was launched - It was a Racino. Technically not quite a casino.

http://www.klewin.com/project/remington-park-racino/

Reading through the posts, it seems to me the reason why there can't be a casino is how the land it tied up with federal and state uses of money. More or less, someone correct me if I'm wrong.

But, I've been on board with everyone on this since day one, this needs to be finished at some point instead of just sitting there rotting away.
I hope the tribe and the city work something out to get this going.
Let's hope it's not just more generic strip centers, though. A nice attraction like a park or resort of some sort would be tremendous. Especially so close to the river and Interstates.

Ok. Devil's advocate...never say never. It could happen by changing the city laws and state laws. The feds don't have a say in this matter. They are involved in tribal gaming because it involves tribal land. This isn't tribal land. Nothing is going to change that.

The deed restrictions against gambling were placed there by the city and could be removed by the city.

Cite: http://www.okc.gov/councilnotes/2015/061615files/AICCM%20memo.pdf

Gambling is allowed in Colorado at three cities because the state voted to allow it. (Blackhawk, Central City, and Cripple Creek) It has nothing to do with the feds, tribes or tribal lands. The casinos in those cities are licensed and regulated by the Colorado Gaming Commission, a state agency, not the feds. We could do the same. I really think it's a near impossible political battle and I'd personally rather see the site leveled than have a casino there.

OTOH, the gambling genie is out of the bottle in Oklahoma. While the casinos generate economic activity in the surrounding area the largest part of the profits go in the tribes pockets. I could see the public desiring to capture both of those for the city, were it packaged and sold that way to the voters. The city wouldn't need a tribe to do that. We could do it on our own, or partnered with anyone. I'd be voting no.

Spartan, if you do some reading, you'll most likely discover each of the casino locations involve Indian Land, which is different from land that becomes owned or leased by someone of native american descent.

TPTB are not the biggest impediment to a casino in OKC. The absence of eligible locations holds that honor.

Not at all. Read Paseofreak's post. Most of these towns are on the Missouri or Mississippi rivers.

I think "family friendly" is pushed way too much in this town, but gambling is already in Oklahoma and a part of its culture so I doubt that a casino would meet too much opposition if the laws allowed for one at that location.

However, changing the laws to get one allowed is no easy task and usually brings out the "thou-shalt-nots" to vehemently oppose it. Unless there is strong support from the people for changing the law to allow a casino, such an undertaking would be expensive and there's a good chance it would fail. I've seen it play out that way in other cities when a casino is proposed.

I don't think a casino in downtown OKC is necessary to have a top-notch destination at the new AICC. Could it help? I think so, but it's not essential.

Ok. Devil's advocate...never say never. It could happen by changing the city laws and state laws. The feds don't have a say in this matter. They are involved in tribal gaming because it involves tribal land. This isn't tribal land. Nothing is going to change that.

The deed restrictions against gambling were placed there by the city and could be removed by the city.

Cite: http://www.okc.gov/councilnotes/2015/061615files/AICCM%20memo.pdf

OTOH, the gambling genie is out of the bottle in Oklahoma. While the casinos generate economic activity in the surrounding area the largest part of the profits go in the tribes pockets. I could see the public desiring to capture both of those for the city, were it packaged and sold that way to the voters. The city wouldn't need a tribe to do that. We could do it on our own, or partnered with anyone. I'd be voting no.

I would have no problem voting 'Yes' for gambling on the south banks of the Oklahoma River near the AICCM. If it were approved, my concern would be whether the earmarked revenue for something like that would be additional funding for something like schools.

:ot:

What's to stop the legislature from cutting the budget like they did when the lottery was instituted and the Education budget didn't see any major increases in revenue.

Now the state is in a situation where we are seeing big shortfalls; can't keep up the cost of operational adjustments.

The state needs to keep its formulas steadfast. A state penny sales tax increase for Education could get us back on track. Concerns that we will have the highest state sales tax in the nation; someone will always be tagged with that distinction, so what?


The five states with the highest average local sales tax rates are Alabama (4.91 percent), Louisiana (4.91 percent), Colorado (4.54 percent), New York (4.48 percent), and Oklahoma (4.27 percent).

State and Local Sales Tax Rates in 2015 | Tax Foundation (http://taxfoundation.org/article/state-and-local-sales-tax-rates-2015)

^^^^^^
Missouri gaming law is full-blown Class III. It has nothing to do with Indian gaming and was originally required to be on riverboats, based on the history of that state.

Colorado gaming is not Indian gaming. It is full-blown Class III (though with some unusual location/betting restrictions). Colorado does have a whole TWO Indian casinos, and they are on INDIAN RESERVATIONS, one of the two acceptable conditions under the Federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988. The OKC land in question meets neither condition of this act and never will.

Kansas also has Indian casinos, and again, they are on Indian land, as defined by FEDERAL law in the 1988 act. But there are also four non-Indian casinos allowed by Kansas law, operated under the auspices of the Kansas Lottery Commission. One of them, Kansas Star Casino, is NOT "in Wichita", as incorrectly listed above, but in Mulvane, about 30 miles south. It is less "in Wichita" than Riverwind (south of Norman) is "in Oklahoma City". If that is your standard for having a casino in OKC, it has already been met.

I have been to and played casinos in every one of these places. Using them as examples of how it COULD be done here is absolutely clueless respective to gaming law, other than mkjeeves' (correct-in-theory) thought that Oklahoma state law could be changed, and that full-blown, Class III, non-Indian gaming COULD be passed here.

But even THAT is essentially impossible. It would fundamentally change all Oklahoma gaming law and allow non-Indian casinos to come into the state and compete with tribes. This would violate the State's compact with the tribes, and agreements with the horsemen's association. The tribes, who have invested hundreds of millions (or maybe it's billions?) of dollars into casino gaming - mostly in remote locations because that is where their federally-approved land is - would BITTERLY oppose a measure like this. Chickasaws included. WHY IN THE WORLD would they open this Pandora's box - and erode their own dominance of the state's gaming - for this single piece of property? Answer: they won't.

This has NOTHING to do with "family-friendly" or any of the other stuff wrongly suggested above. It's about law federal law and big business. Nothing else.

So I ask, once again, can we stop wasting time and bandwidth on something that WON'T happen, and start discussing the things that MIGHT?

I think "family friendly" is pushed way too much in this town, but gambling is already in Oklahoma and a part of its culture so I doubt that a casino would meet too much opposition if the laws allowed for one at that location.

However, changing the laws to get one allowed is no easy task and usually brings out the "thou-shalt-nots" to vehemently oppose it. Unless there is strong support from the people for changing the law to allow a casino, such an undertaking would be expensive and there's a good chance it would fail. I've seen it play out that way in other cities when a casino is proposed.

I don't think a casino in downtown OKC is necessary to have a top-notch destination at the new AICC. Could it help? I think so, but it's not essential.

Well realistically we have a shell of a building and a mile to go towards having a "top-notch destination at the new AICC" whatever that means.

For urbanized, kevinpate, and everyone stuck on this issue:

Detroit
http://urblife.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/MotorCityCasino.PhotoCamel.jpg
http://www.destination360.com/north-america/us/michigan/images/s/mgm-grand-detroit.jpg
http://www.uspokersites.com/poker-news/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Greektown-Casino-in-Detroit-MI.jpg

Cleveland:
http://www.kainc.com/content/Portfolio/1.5.2HCC1.jpg

Toledo:
http://www.hollywoodcasinotoledo.com/-/media/toledo/feature/main/homepage-hollywoodbuilding-night-927x380-comp.ashx

Columbus: (it can even be very ugly!)
http://www.columbusceo.com/content/graphics/2013/12/19/ceo-real-casino-01.jpg

Cincy:
https://ronethebuzzcincy.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/cincinnati-casino.jpg

Philly:
http://philly.curbed.com/uploads/provence.jpg

By State Revenues 2012 (over 1 Billion)

NV 10.86 Billion
PA 3.16 Billion
NJ 3.05 Billion
IN 2.61 Billion
LA 2.40 Billion
MS 2.25 Billion
NY 1.80 Billion
MO 1.77 Billion
IL 1.64 Billion
IA 1.47 Billion
MI 1.42 Billion

Is Oklahoma's legal framework decades behind almost every other state? Yes. Has Oklahoma's conservative leadership led to a $900 million budget shortfall? Also yes. If OKC finds itself up against a brick wall with state laws, it needs to get them changed. It's that simple. I used to think our liquor laws would never change. Stop embracing the dysfunction and just taking it.


I think "family friendly" is pushed way too much in this town, but gambling is already in Oklahoma and a part of its culture so I doubt that a casino would meet too much opposition if the laws allowed for one at that location.

However, changing the laws to get one allowed is no easy task and usually brings out the "thou-shalt-nots" to vehemently oppose it. Unless there is strong support from the people for changing the law to allow a casino, such an undertaking would be expensive and there's a good chance it would fail. I've seen it play out that way in other cities when a casino is proposed.

I don't think a casino in downtown OKC is necessary to have a top-notch destination at the new AICC. Could it help? I think so, but it's not essential.

Well realistically we have a shell of a building and a mile to go towards having a "top-notch destination at the new AICC" whatever that means.

Oklahoma has some strange laws in this area. The law is extremely restrictive, going so far as to say if one party believes that chance not skill is involved, even if not true, then its gambling and illegal. But then there are exceptions for the lottery and para-mutual betting at the racetrack. And of course there are bingo parlors scattered all across south OKC which in theory are all benefitting some charity and therefore are charitable organizations exempt from all this. But then on Indian land it's a free for all because no matter how much the state has tried in the past there's that pesky US Constitution that gives the Feds the exclusive power to interact with and regulate tribal lands.

I'm with Spartan, I honestly have never understood all the pushback.

I wonder what the Chickasaws are planning. I agree the land can't easily be deeded to them or the laws changed. Maybe just setting up a resort? Or perhaps getting a foothold in the area and hoping to influence these nutty laws in ten or so years... Playing the long game? Maybe a charity bingo hall extravaganza that benefits a Chickasaw charity? Who knows. Yes I am being somewhat silly, but oh how I hope it starts an awesome rumor.

City needs to take it over or someone with deep pockets. Build a multi use MLS Soccer Arena/Good outdoor concert Area. Something along those lines. NFL or MLB stadium would be nice too but OKC not big enough for that yet.

Good observation!

As Oklahoma City increases its hotel/motel room count; then there is a possibility that you could build a venue that could make a great impact on tourist dollars.

As we approach 2020:

We would need as least 6,000 downtown hotel rooms to host major events like the NBA All Star Classic.
A reputable or respectable NCAA Division I collegiate bowl game would require 16k - 20k hotel/motel rooms metro wide.

OKC should be in the neighborhood of 4,200 DT area rooms; 14,000 - 15,000 metro wide.

Growth could accelerate as we approach 2020.

Should the Chickasaws be allowed to develop the area around the AICCM; you can probably count on a major hotel development.

Oklahoma has some strange laws in this area. The law is extremely restrictive, going so far as to say if one party believes that chance not skill is involved, even if not true, then its gambling and illegal. But then there are exceptions for the lottery and para-mutual betting at the racetrack. And of course there are bingo parlors scattered all across south OKC which in theory are all benefitting some charity and therefore are charitable organizations exempt from all this. But then on Indian land it's a free for all because no matter how much the state has tried in the past there's that pesky US Constitution that gives the Feds the exclusive power to interact with and regulate tribal lands.

I'm with Spartan, I honestly have never understood all the pushback.

I wonder what the Chickasaws are planning. I agree the land can't easily be deeded to them or the laws changed. Maybe just setting up a resort? Or perhaps getting a foothold in the area and hoping to influence these nutty laws in ten or so years... Playing the long game? Maybe a charity bingo hall extravaganza that benefits a Chickasaw charity? Who knows. Yes I am being somewhat silly, but oh how I hope it starts an awesome rumor.

I don't gamble. I don't even enjoy sitting around a table and playing poker. OKC Talk is just about the only sitting activity I can tolerate, and that's tentative at best lol. I just know that this site is a real problem because it is disconnected from basically anything, yet we already blew hundreds of millions here, and I honestly do see the AICC as a unique opportunity for OKC. I want to see ideas and possible solutions, not push-back and myopia.

Urbanized and kevinpate - what should we do with this site? It won't be Deep Deuce. We don't need another Belle Isle. We have enough family friendly, whatever that means. We need solutions.

Not sure. The Chickasaws have been tilting in the direction of non-gaming tourism. I don't know what that means to this site. Resort? Housing? Golf course? Concert venue? Stadium? Major retail? Who knows? All I know is that it will NOT include gaming.

You can talk all you want about "family-friendly" or "pushback" or "embracing dysfunction" or "thou-shalt-not" or "stuck on this issue" "myopia" or "Republican" or whatever other marginalizing and/or insulting term/argument you can concoct. It doesn't change the fact that federal law precludes this land from being home to Indian gaming. Period. The only other gaming currently allowed in Oklahoma is electronic only, and MUST be on the site of a pari-mutual facility, the legal number if which are currently at their maximum allowable under the Indian gaming compact.

Regarding all of those pretty pictures you posted: I don't have to go check them all out to know that they EITHER are tribal gaming (which MUST conform to federal gaming regulations, including site restrictions) OR they are non-Indian, in which case they are state regulated. You think I don't understand that states have the right to pass laws allowing non-Indian gaming? Of COURSE they do. You'd might as well include Nevada and Atlantic City casinos while you're at it. Also state-regulated.

But Oklahoma sold its soul to exclusive Indian gaming years ago. As much as or more than any state. At this point that bell cannot be unrung. It has grown to such massive proportions that the state cannot side against it.

And for the record, I DO enjoy the occasional wager, (blackjack), though the dumb ante requirement generally keeps me out of Oklahoma casinos. I for one would LOVE an expansion to full-blown Vegas style gaming, and wouldn't even mind it in that location, so obviously I have no problem with the concept. I just have enough grasp of the realities of the situation to know that won't happen there.

Could Oklahoma pass non-Indian gaming and invite other casinos to locate here? Sure. But it won't be at the behest of the Chickasaws in the name of facilitating this development. In fact, the Chickasaws would bitterly oppose such a measure, the proposed deal for thIs land would certainly be killed, and the tribes and the state would be embroiled in litigation for years, the cost of which would eventually probably dwarf what has been spent on this land. Blame the resistance to this approach on whatever straw argument you want to cook up, but simply put it is ONLY about federal Indian gaming law, and the status quo will be aggressively protected by the tribes.

Regarding "solutions": I'm not sure I have them, but I DID list at least a half-dozen things above that come to mind as possible avenues they might choose to pursue. Who knows? I suspect the Chickasaws must already have a few or they wouldn't be making this proposal. Hopefully they are great ideas. I just know that they can't involve gaming.

And I will suggest that the only "myopic" or "stuck" people who seem to lack creativity here are the ones who can't imagine a solution that doesn't involve a casino.

^^^^Thank you!

Is Urbanized a chick? You remind me of one of my ex girlfriends. Can we have a love/hate relationship based on misgivings on something neither one of us has an actual stake in? I miss that.

I'm sticking with Chickasaw National Bingo Palace and Indian Taco World. It's going to be great.

I actually don't gamble either. I had fun in Vegas once though.

I wouldn't be opposed to going and checking out Riverwind if this state wasn't still in the dark ages regarding its smoking laws. I just refuse to deal with that.

Honest question... What is the difference between Vegas gambling and Oklahoma gambling.

And by the way, I just have to say that this inability to imagine the Chickasaws being capable of developing the site without gaming reeks a bit. They have proven to be EXTREMELY capable in other areas of business, including cultural tourism resort/hotel development, manufacturing, banking, real estate, media, telecommunications, healthcare, publishing and more. And yet, when they become involved in this deal all we can consider is wherever or not they'll build a casino? Seriously? It's insulting.

If a group like Gilmcher or the Chisholm Creek folks were proposing here there would instead be giddy acceptance and excited speculation, and NOBODY would question whether they could make a go of it without a casino.

Honest question... What is the difference between Vegas gambling and Oklahoma gambling.

We can't have craps or roulette. And all the card games are you betting against other players, as opposed to the House.

I don't remember if it's still this way or not, but it used to be that our "slot" machines printed out a receipt when done, technically making it a pull tab machine not a slot machine.

Also far less regulation here than Vegas. In Vegas you have very specific and clearly stated odds of winning that are set by law.

I think those are the major ones.

Honest question... What is the difference between Vegas gambling and Oklahoma gambling.

Also, blackjack stinks. You have to pay the house fifty cents per hand for the privilege of sitting at the table and risking your money. Unless you're playing high-stakes (and winning), the house will eventually soak you, even if you are even-money or winning a bit. I've played in 8 states and Oklahoma is the only place I know of with this rule.

Honest question... What is the difference between Vegas gambling and Oklahoma gambling.

About 1000 miles........:)
As someone else mentioned if you play BJ here it is pay to play, .50 cents a hand. Even being a skilled player who knows all of the correct plays will probably in the long run/grind lose his shirt. In Vegas you also have the LV gaming commission who regulates everything and is a pretty powerful entity. Here I believe we have tribal commission who are a lot less stringent and to be honest I think the only person/people who knows whats going on is them.

Again, what happens after the 7-year period? We'd have land possibly developed and also possibly left undeveloped, with the responsibility of taking care of operation overruns.

Also it would be great if people would stop using the C-word here.

I'd love to see all the development on this land add to the AICMM with businesses and lodging all geared towards indigenous culture. It would be great to attract residents, tourists, and students (particularly on field trips) to a Native American district with the museum, two or three restaurants, a couple art galleries, a hotel steeped in indigenous histories, spaces for weekly festivals, etc. The entire area could be dedicated to a deeper understanding of Native American cultures and histories.

^^^^^^
Now THOSE are creative solutions. Though I think there is also room for commercial and even possibly residential development. The nonprofit and cultural aspects should be at the forefront, but care should be paid to revenue production to make the development sustainable.

Honest question... What is the difference between Vegas gambling and Oklahoma gambling.

No complimentary beverages, alcoholic or otherwise.
No sports book.
Stated earlier, 50 cents to play BJ.

And by the way, I just have to say that this inability to imagine the Chickasaws being capable of developing the site without gaming reeks a bit. They have proven to be EXTREMELY capable in other areas of business, including cultural tourism resort/hotel development, manufacturing, banking, real estate, media, telecommunications, healthcare, publishing and more. And yet, when they become involved in this deal all we can consider is wherever or not they'll build a casino? Seriously? It's insulting.

If a group like Gilmcher or the Chisholm Creek folks were proposing here there would instead be giddy acceptance and excited speculation, and NOBODY would question whether they could make a go of it without a casino.

Good post with great points all.

Spartan, Ignore all Native American related aspects of the museum and that the folks riding in on white horses are the leadership of the Chickasaw Nation.

It's intended as a significant museum. However, neighboring residential, commercial, office space, etc. can have a tie-in to Native American History, or not.
The area doesn't have to be a theme park atmosphere, nor do the structures in the area need to have a Native American flavor.

Hotel(s), office space, retail, residential, basically anything that isn't the light industrial / industrial that is located both north and down south of the area could be workable.

I'd love to see all the development on this land add to the AICMM with businesses and lodging all geared towards indigenous culture. It would be great to attract residents, tourists, and students (particularly on field trips) to a Native American district with the museum, two or three restaurants, a couple art galleries, a hotel steeped in indigenous histories, spaces for weekly festivals, etc. The entire area could be dedicated to a deeper understanding of Native American cultures and histories.
That would be incredible.

Spartan, Ignore all Native American related aspects of the museum and that the folks riding in on white horses are the leadership of the Chickasaw Nation.

It's intended as a significant museum. However, neighboring residential, commercial, office space, etc. can have a tie-in to Native American History, or not.
The area doesn't have to be a theme park atmosphere, nor do the structures in the area need to have a Native American flavor.

Hotel(s), office space, retail, residential, basically anything that isn't the light industrial / industrial that is located both north and down south of the area could be workable.

I already said it's not going to be Deep Deuce and that we don't need another Belle Isle. Do you have a real solution?

I think you destroy your own credibility when you call the Chickasaws irrelevant to this situation. It's the American Indian Cultural Center. The Chickasaws are the premier economic developers of southern Oklahoma. The opportunities for synergy are fantastic, not irrelevant.

Not sure. The Chickasaws have been tilting in the direction of non-gaming tourism. I don't know what that means to this site. Resort? Housing? Golf course? Concert venue? Stadium? Major retail? Who knows? All I know is that it will NOT include gaming.

You can talk all you want about "family-friendly" or "pushback" or "embracing dysfunction" or "thou-shalt-not" or "stuck on this issue" "myopia" or "Republican" or whatever other marginalizing and/or insulting term/argument you can concoct. It doesn't change the fact that federal law precludes this land from being home to Indian gaming. Period. The only other gaming currently allowed in Oklahoma is electronic only, and MUST be on the site of a pari-mutual facility, the legal number if which are currently at their maximum allowable under the Indian gaming compact.

Regarding all of those pretty pictures you posted: I don't have to go check them all out to know that they EITHER are tribal gaming (which MUST conform to federal gaming regulations, including site restrictions) OR they are non-Indian, in which case they are state regulated. You think I don't understand that states have the right to pass laws allowing non-Indian gaming? Of COURSE they do. You'd might as well include Nevada and Atlantic City casinos while you're at it. Also state-regulated.

But Oklahoma sold its soul to exclusive Indian gaming years ago. As much as or more than any state. At this point that bell cannot be unrung. It has grown to such massive proportions that the state cannot side against it.

And for the record, I DO enjoy the occasional wager, (blackjack), though the dumb ante requirement generally keeps me out of Oklahoma casinos. I for one would LOVE an expansion to full-blown Vegas style gaming, and wouldn't even mind it in that location, so obviously I have no problem with the concept. I just have enough grasp of the realities of the situation to know that won't happen there.

Could Oklahoma pass non-Indian gaming and invite other casinos to locate here? Sure. But it won't be at the behest of the Chickasaws in the name of facilitating this development. In fact, the Chickasaws would bitterly oppose such a measure, the proposed deal for thIs land would certainly be killed, and the tribes and the state would be embroiled in litigation for years, the cost of which would eventually probably dwarf what has been spent on this land. Blame the resistance to this approach on whatever straw argument you want to cook up, but simply put it is ONLY about federal Indian gaming law, and the status quo will be aggressively protected by the tribes.

Regarding "solutions": I'm not sure I have them, but I DID list at least a half-dozen things above that come to mind as possible avenues they might choose to pursue. Who knows? I suspect the Chickasaws must already have a few or they wouldn't be making this proposal. Hopefully they are great ideas. I just know that they can't involve gaming.

And I will suggest that the only "myopic" or "stuck" people who seem to lack creativity here are the ones who can't imagine a solution that doesn't involve a casino.

Is there a cliff notes version of this? Sorry I didn't see your list of a half-dozen possibilities. That's exactly what we need, since it doesn't have to be gaming, but I don't understand why you take it off the table if all you need is some regulatory reform. That's how regulatory reform happens, out of necessity. This was a mess created by the state, after all.

I'll respond to a tiny snippet of this that I think is actually pertinent:


Regarding all of those pretty pictures you posted: I don't have to go check them all out to know that they EITHER are tribal gaming (which MUST conform to federal gaming regulations, including site restrictions) OR they are non-Indian, in which case they are state regulated.

Salient observation. We have a lot of state regulations that need work. You can pretty much just look around.

A new development near the river is fairly likely to develop along the lines mentioned, irrespective of your preferences, or mine. And fwiw, I did not deem the Chickasaw irrelevant. I allowed the area might develop with an overall theme, but noted also the area would not have to do so to become a desirable and successful development.

There's more than one way to develop such raw land once it is back to raw land, rather than the in need of remediation mess it is today.

We have a lot of brownfield, and of all that brownfield, I'd put this site at the bottom of the remediation list if it weren't for the AICC...

The only reason development activities are even part of the equation is to fund the AICC's completion and operation. Let's not lose sight of the end goal and get caught up in development for the sake of development.. on a site we don't need, in a city with a LOT of other needs.

It's just a bad situation all around, and I just hope we give the Chickasaws a chance to succeed, bc I'm glad they're coming into OKC, and they may be our best way of resolving this situation.

The main problem with this site is location - and there is no way to fix that. The State simply picked the wrong piece of land from day one. Everything discussed on the last 2 pages is nothing more than trying to fit a square peg into a round hole because no matter how great the idea is - there is a much better place to put it than here.

It's the state. Anything they do is incredibly damaging. From their perspective, I-35 and I-40 is as central as you can get.

At this point I think the city should do something punitive like install speed bumps on Lincoln Blvd every 50 feet. Or maybe pull its head out, fire our ineffective lobbyist(s), and get serious about affecting change at the state level in a state where the majority is...OKC metro.

Or maybe pull its head out, fire our ineffective lobbyist(s), and get serious about affecting change at the state level in a state where the majority is...OKC metro.

Ding ding ding ding ding