I find it humorus that the taxpayers paid to have this place built and they have to buy expensive tickets to enjoy it.

That is like buying your teenager a car and they charge you gas money everytime you ride in it.

I wonder if the new Central Park will be the same way. Will they charge each person for walking/driving through?

I am sure you can go into the Ford Center anytime you want. However, if there is a private organization that has something on display (basketball game, concert, hockey game) then you will need to pay to see that.

I do know what you mean though - I have the same concern about state and national parks. They were made by God, existed long before the federal or state government existed (and will be around long after they are gone) but if we want to see it we have to pay. Whatever expenses that went into facilites was already paid for by tax dollars.

Sorry, but my "conjecture" is firmly based on the facts (the remarkably similar histories of the Key and the Ford, the fact that Bennett is involved and the terms of the lease).

Now, if you have a different set of facts that would lead to a different "conjecture", please post. I am reasonable and willing to listen.

Why do you think Bennett had those terms written into the lease if he didn't plan on using them?

The continual upgrade provision was written into the lease because as the judge in the trial asked, if any such provisions were in the Key lease. They were not.

Conjecture: "reasoning that involves the formation of conclusions from incomplete evidence." We could also call your reasoning a hypothesis. A hypothesis remains a hypothesis until it is proven. My hypothesis is that we won't be asked for a new arena for 10 to 15 years, and it won't be built for 20, and that we won't be asked to add $20 million a year for the next 5 years, at which time Bennett won't ask for a new arena. My hypothesis bases its suppositions on the fact that the Key is a completely different arena, Bennett had nothing to do with the Key lease, and the Key was sited in a city considerably farther away from its owners than the Ford Center. Let's see whose hypothesis ends up being proven. In the meantime, let's quit talking about it.

Sorry, but my "conjecture" is firmly based on the facts (the remarkably similar histories of the Key and the Ford, the fact that Bennett is involved and the terms of the lease).

Now, if you have a different set of facts that would lead to a different "conjecture", please post. I am reasonable and willing to listen.

Why do you think Bennett had those terms written into the lease if he didn't plan on using them?

The continual upgrade provision was written into the lease because as the judge in the trial asked, if any such provisions were in the Key lease. They were not.

What are the "remarkable similarities" of the Key and the Ford?

I find it humorus that the taxpayers paid to have this place built and they have to buy expensive tickets to enjoy it.

That is like buying your teenager a car and they charge you gas money everytime you ride in it.

I wonder if the new Central Park will be the same way. Will they charge each person for walking/driving through?

I almost saw your point. But we paid for the opportunity that the upgraded arena gives. The NBA gets attention, and perhaps it will draw a large firm to add a site here or relocate here. It livens things up in general. Obviously tickets are expensive, but it's what we pay to be in the game. Just because you helped fund it doesn't mean you have a right to free entry. You helped fund the opportunity for a brighter future (cheesy sounding as it is) that includes NBA games, concerts and attractions (all of which can be costly to attend).

I find it humorus that the taxpayers paid to have this place built and they have to buy expensive tickets to enjoy it.

That is like buying your teenager a car and they charge you gas money everytime you ride in it.

I wonder if the new Central Park will be the same way. Will they charge each person for walking/driving through?

I wouldn't say that... Last year I spent 30 bucks on 2 tickets to the home opener...

This year I spent 60, for the home opener, and the Lakers, 3 tickets to each game.

10 bucks a pop isn't bad in the least.

I don't mind sitting in loud city.

I wouldn't say that... Last year I spent 30 bucks on 2 tickets to the home opener...

This year I spent 60, for the home opener, and the Lakers, 3 tickets to each game.

10 bucks a pop isn't bad in the least.

I don't mind sitting in loud city.

We have to pay for every event at the Civic Center and the Brick, as well.

We have to pay for every event at the Civic Center and the Brick, as well.

And the zoo. And the state fair. etc. etc. Just a fact of life.

doesn't matter, Larry is right no matter what. :whiteflag

I find it humorus that the taxpayers paid to have this place built and they have to buy expensive tickets to enjoy it.

The tax payers paid for the place to attract more people to come to the city, which increases tax revenue. The additional people also provide a larger market for local investors and businesses to access. Better entertainment creates better quality of life (perceived or real), which attracts businesses, visitors, and more residents which increases the tax base.

There are plenty examples of publicly support attractions that charge for admission that, while they lose money in a direct cost analysis, are responsible for a lot bigger positive economic impact than just the cost of admission or any taxes collected on that admission charge.

What are the "remarkable similarities" of the Key and the Ford?

I apologize in advance for the length of the post but it was requested.

BOTH ARENAS BUILT TO THE SPECIFICATIONS OF THE NBA

KEY: built to the exact NBA/Sonics specifications (Seattle had a tenant). The Key is just 7 years older than the Ford. Although originally constructed as part of the 1962 World's Fair, it underwent an extensive renovation in 1994 and reopened in 1995, literally from below the ground up (they lowered the floor "35 feet below street level to allow for 3,000 more seats"). Apparently, it was essentially gutted to the studs, it "maintained the architectural integrity of the original roofline by using the existing steel trusses in combination with four new main diagonal trusses".

FORD: built to NHL & NBA specifications (this was even mentioned in the original MAPS ballot language). We didn't have a tenant signed and didn't even know which sport, so it was built "builder's white". It was the City's plan that the eventual tenant would pay for any "finishing out" costs or amenities they wanted. The MAPS tax was passed in 1993, construction started in 1999. The Ford would be one of the last projects to open, in 2002.

Bennett was heavily involved in trying to get an NHL team here (we did make the list of finalists but lost out on the expansion team). He planned on being an owner of the expansion team and was most likely involved in the design of the Ford (at least to the extent of what would be needed by the team).

I have not been able to find a single article, written at the time, that supports the claim that the Ford was built on the cheap or built bare-bones. Some "wish-list" items were cut to alleviate the problem they were having with cost over runs, but again, it was the City's plan for the eventual tenant to pay for those.

It is true that other MAPS projects were scaled back due to massive budget over runs (only 1 of the 9 MAPS projects was built on time and on budget). The cost over runs on the other projects were so excessive, there was serious consideration in scrapping the Arena completely. Mayor Humphreys decided that they needed to complete what was promised (his campaign slogan was "we can finish MAPS on time and on budget", neither turned out to be true). He came up with the 6 month "extension" of MAPS to finish paying for the Ford. The campaign was called "Finishing MAPS right" (further going against the claim that it was "bare-bones"), it was called the "crown jewel of MAPS", "a first rate facility", "state of the art" and other glowing terms (by City leaders, trade publications, ESPN, and yes, even the NBA when the Hornets were here...from opening day until just about the time Bennett bought the Sonics and then the Ford started to be called "adequate" and the idea for the Ford Tax came about. Stern himself said the Ford didn't necessarily need any improvements to land a permanent team (discounting the claim that the Hornets were a special case and the Ford was barely adequate).

SEATING CAPACITY

KEY: Supposedly one of the problems with the Key was that it was the smallest arena in the NBA (17,072). Reportedly, the seating capacity was insisted on by the Sonics owners to keep competition from the NHL out. Ironically, Bennett wanted a new larger arena so he could be the potential owner of both an NBA and NHL team in the same arena. Stern even called the Key a "model NBA arena" at its opening. Naturally, there was some resistance up in Seattle to make major improvements to an arena that was still essentially new and built exactly the way they wanted it.

FORD: NBA seating capacity last season was 19,163. After the improvements are made and "nearly 1,000" net loss of seats, capacity will be 18,203. This drops the Ford from #14, all the way down to #28. Dangerously close to the smallest in the NBA (with the elimination of the Key as an NBA arena, the smallest is 17,248). Someone else posted in another thread that a couple of the arenas that are below us are building larger arenas that will be open soon. The Ford will drop even further. Hard to control what other NBA cities do, but initially, we are making the Ford smaller ourselves.

AGE OF ARENAS BEFORE MASSIVE IMPROVEMENTS ARE "NEEDED"

KEY: It was at about the 8 year mark that the owners of the Sonics started asking for major improvements to the arena. Have to remember the Key was built to the exact specifications of the NBA and the Sonics.

FORD: It was at the 5 year mark that the Mayor talked about REPLACING the arena (may have been before the 5 year mark based on his comment below)

http://www.theolympian.com/sonics/story/202314.html
Tacoma News-Tribune: OKC mayor denies talking to Sonics (8/28/07)

Cornett said. “But I have been very public about the willingness to consider building A NEW FACILITY to REPLACE the Ford Center.”

But Cornett realizes the Ford Center would need to be REPLACED in the near future if an NBA team were to relocate there, and he would consider proposing a tax measure -- that might include funding for a new stadium and convention center -- for a vote.

Bennett agreed a few weeks later:

With deadline looming, Sonics seeking arbitration for KeyArena lease - NBA - ESPN (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3030622)
Associated Press: With deadline looming, Sonics seeking arbitration for KeyArena lease (9/21/07)

“I absolutely know the team can survive and be profitable in Oklahoma City. ... It will certainly work today a heck of a lot better than it’s working here today,” Bennett said, with a small chuckle. “The Ford Center [there] is quite adequate -- but ANOTHER BUILDING WOULD BE NEEDED IN THE FUTURE.

Stern said concerning the life of an NBA arena:
Councilmember Nick Licata: Urban Politics #214 5/3/05 (http://www.seattle.gov/council/licata/up/up_214.htm)

Urban Politics #214, (5/3/06) “David Stern, NBA Commissioner, testified before the Washington State Senate, Ways & Means Committee, that public officials should not expect stadium facilities to last more than eleven or twelve years.”

RENOVATION OR NEW ARENA (This is where the Key and Ford differ somewhat)

KEY: Various Sonics' owners had been trying to get renovations done for years. Stern even went to the Washington legislature to lobby for it. At least 3 different remodel/lease plans were offered by the City and none of them went anywhere. "The priciest option would have delivered a $198 million KeyArena expansion sought by the team, but would have required team owners to come up with $49 million of that ... The second option was a $149 million expansion with an owner contribution of $37 million. ... The third option would not have cost the Sonics owners anything. It would have provided a $50 million KeyArena renovation without a public vote. That option would have relied on “existing revenue streams” and not new taxes..." (The 1st two would have required approval from the Legislature & a public vote as they were new taxes, just as the Ford tax required a vote for the same reason). Depending on the upgrade option, they also would receive "$8 million to $20 million a year in additional revenue". This could have alleviated if not eliminated the owners reported yearly losses.

After several years of failure to get an agreement acceptable to all parties, Schultz sold the team to Bennett with the hopes that a relocation threat would be taken seriously and government leadership would take heed. Bennett decided that a remodel was out of the question and only a new arena would work. He played the relocation card but to no effect. He even commented to the effect: "they don't even know where Oklahoma City is" and mentioned other cities like Kansas City and Las Vegas into the mix (got into some trouble with Stern over Vegas). Stern supported his new owner's relocation plans to Oklahoma City and said a remodel would no longer work. After the team relocated to OKC, Stern changed his mind again and said a remodeled Key would be acceptable for consideration of Seattle getting a possible replacement team.

FORD: The reverse ended up being the case. As in the quotes from Cornett and Bennett above show, they were talking about a replacement arena. Probably realizing the election reality that it would be a hard sell convincing voters that a 5 year old building was needing replacement, the remodel plan was enacted. The Mayor publicly stated he wasn't even sure a remodel plan would pass, so this $120M remodel had a much better chance of success than a $500M new arena (as Bennett was asking for in Seattle). Granted it probably wouldn't cost $500M here, but most likely would have been much higher than the remodel cost. Or maybe not. As the County Commissioners recently found out to their astonishment, it will actually cost about $50M LESS to build a brand new jail from scratch than to renovate and build an annex to fix the current jail. But I digress...

LONG TERM OBLIGATION

KEY: One thing that came out in the trial (the judge asked about it), was Seattle was under no obligation to keep making whatever upgrades the team decided they needed.

FORD: Bennett took care of that problem with the Ford lease. The City (taxpayers) is required to keep upgrading the arena as a "first rate NBA arena". Who gets to decide what that definition is? The NBA/team of course. As pointed out above, after the improvements, the Ford falls dramatically. Some have claimed the amenities change all that (maybe they do). The Mayor has said the Ford will be "like a brand new building" and will be "state of the art" (it was described as that when it was built, yet somehow this remodeled building is going to last 2 to 3 times longer than it did before "needing" $120M in improvements?) What is that based on?

doesn't matter, Larry is right no matter what. :whiteflag

Now was that so hard? ;-)

Now was that so hard? ;-)
I'm only kinda-sorta following this thread, Larry, since, for me at least, the Ford Center vote is a done deal and one in which I aggressively supported. I'm wondering, though, why you're devoting your valuable time to it right now. From what I've read of your posts, you are a rational and sincere guy and I don't see you taking cheap shots at anyone (though the same have come your way).

Why are you going here (Ford Center)?

I'm only kinda-sorta following this thread, Larry, since, for me at least, the Ford Center vote is a done deal and one in which I aggressively supported. I'm wondering, though, why you're devoting your valuable time to it right now. From what I've read of your posts, you are a rational and sincere guy and I don't see you taking cheap shots at anyone (though the same have come your way).

Why are you going here (Ford Center)?

Probably because he already bored all the newsok folks with this the last two years...The man LOVES this topic

I'm only kinda-sorta following this thread, Larry, since, for me at least, the Ford Center vote is a done deal and one in which I aggressively supported. I'm wondering, though, why you're devoting your valuable time to it right now. From what I've read of your posts, you are a rational and sincere guy and I don't see you taking cheap shots at anyone (though the same have come your way).

Why are you going here (Ford Center)?

No problem Doug....Someone asked so I answered...guess I could have found a more relative thread (if still active and pointed him there) but didn't think about that until right now...it did take more time to respond to it than I had planned...thought I had the info all in one place but was scattered in parts on 2 different computers.

I have the same concern about state and national parks. They were made by God, existed long before the federal or state government existed (and will be around long after they are gone) but if we want to see it we have to pay. Whatever expenses that went into facilites was already paid for by tax dollars.

If it weren't for our national parks system (which is vastly underfunded thanks to the Bush administration), you either wouldn't HAVE these places to visit at all, or they would be privately owned and you'd be paying a whole lot more.


The "break-even" I spoke of is how long it will take, not to pay for the improvements, but how long it will take for the taxpayers to see their money "returned" (in a figurative sense).

You seem to be forgetting about all the sales tax revenue generated from game night dining, drinking, and other entertainment. Not to mention the businesses that stay in this city or come to this city at least in part due to our improved quality of life.

If it weren't for our national parks system (which is vastly underfunded thanks to the Bush administration), you either wouldn't HAVE these places to visit at all, or they would be privately owned and you'd be paying a whole lot more.



The National Park Service Budget went up 38.5% during the Bush administration years, while CPI increased only about 25%. Is that the "vast underfunding" you are referring to?

You seem to be forgetting about all the sales tax revenue generated from game night dining, drinking, and other entertainment. Not to mention the businesses that stay in this city or come to this city at least in part due to our improved quality of life.

Unfortunately, those numbers weren’t included in the Mayor’s and City managers statement. It was the direct profit/loss from the Thunder lease. A far cry from the agreement we had with the Hornets, where the City/Investors (including Bennett) split a $1M net profit directly from the lease the 1st year they were here. From what I can tell, the second year resulted in neither a profit or loss (there was a disagreement on what constituted a home game, if the City got their count, there would have been a net profit).

While there certainly is some NEW money coming in on game night from out of the area (reportedly 20% of season ticket sales for the Hornets were from the Tulsa area), the rest is a low economic impact (not for downtown of course, but for the City as a whole). The same money was being spent at other “dining, drinking, and other entertainment” options throughout the City. To be fair, you have to add in the transfer of money spent on those things from surrounding communities that are now being spent in OKC.

I am not saying that sales tax revenue hasn’t increased but where is all of that money going? Is that increased revenue just more “break even” to keep us current with increased costs/inflation etc? Sure some of it can be blamed on the economy as others have mentioned, but this is at least the 3rd year in a row that the City budget has been “tight”.

Budgets and the like are sometimes up and sometimes down. These are the numbers I was able to find from the City’s website (City of Oklahoma City (http://www.okc.gov)) starting at the Budget & Finance tab:

2002 FY = $10M shortfall

2003 FY = $12 to 19.1M anticipated shortfall

“All General Fund departments had to cut budgets. Police and Fire were required to cut 2% of their budgets and the other General Fund departments had to propose budget cuts of 11% – the biggest reductions we’ve had in years.”

“Our budgets are always tight due to employee costs – even when revenues were growing 5% a year. But the level of cuts necessary next year will affect our core services – parks, animal control, street maintenance and public safety. All these services depend on workers.”

2004 FY = ???

2005 FY = $210M Surplus (where did the money go?)

2006 FY = $17.88M Surplus

“Programs have been expanded and positions have been added only in critical areas where reductions in past fiscal years have negatively impacted the ability to provide services.”

So we were playing catch-up again.

2007 FY = $1.3M Shortfall
“... sales tax, the City’s largest revenue source, growing at about six percent”

But since there was an overall shortfall, expenses exceeded growth.

2008 FY (then the economy hit...)

“... revenue growth began SLOWING from the trends seen in the past two fiscal years. Sales tax, the City’s largest source of revenue grew at 3.95%, which is BELOW NORMAL GROWTH trends. Projections for FY 2009 are for continued LOWER LEVELS OF REVENUE GROWTH. This trend, along with anticipated growth in expenditures to continue current service levels, has limited the City’s ability to increase services. Expenditure growth in the budget is primarily related to fuel costs, maintenance contracts for new public safety technologies, and personnel related costs.”

“Although the number of City staff has increased in the past few years, we are still operating BELOW 1994 STAFFING LEVELS.”


City budget to be tight (5/6/2008)
“The $788.7 million Oklahoma City budget unveiled today includes money for 30 new jobs in various departments, but SLOW GROWTH IN CITY REVENUE WILL BARELY COVER RISING FUEL COSTS AND PERSONNEL EXPENSES, city officials said.”...

2009 FY (the economy worsened)

“REVENUE GROWTH SLOWED during the current year and, since January, SALES TAX REVENUE, our largest revenue source, BEGAN TO SLOW SIGNIFICANTLY. Over the past four months, sales tax declined from the previous year by 1.8% and is projected to finish the year with less than 2% growth over FY 2008. ...
“Sales Tax growth has slowed in FY 2009 after a good FY 2008 and two prior years of exceptional growth. By year-end, it is expected that Sales Tax growth for FY 2009 will come in at 1.7%, compared with growth in the prior three years of 4.0%, 6.0% and 6.9%. To put these years in perspective, the 10-year average for sales tax growth is 4.3%”

General Fund [non-dedicated] Sales Tax History
(bar chart, numbers are approximate)
FY 06 = $162M
FY 07 = $172M
FY 08 = $178M
FY 09 = $182M (est)
FY 10 = $187M (est)


From the 5 year forecast report

General Fund Revenue and Expenditure (chart pg 61)
FY 04 thru 06 = slight surplus (chart doesn’t show the $210M surplus in the official City budget document??)
FY 07 thru 09 = slight shortfall
FY 10 thru 14 = shortfall increasing to $24.7M

“State law mandates a balanced budget so every year the City must close the gap.”

“Without additional staffing, departments will have to look at cutting current services to provide new or expanded services in other areas. BECAUSE DEPARTMENTS HAVE BEEN TAKING CUTS FROM A SAME SERVICE LEVEL BUDGET FOR MANY YEARS, departments have been actively pursuing more efficient ways of operating.”


As far as “quality of life” that is certainly true, but most articles I have read over the years that list what companies are looking for when considering relocation, the Quality of Life issues commonly mentioned (in no particular order):

• Skilled workforce
• Taxes
• Quality schools
• Roads
• The “Arts” (ballet, symphony, museums etc);
• Recreation facilities (those that encourage participation rather than observation) like parks, biking & walking trails, tennis courts, softball fields, soccer fields and even basketball courts.

That’s why I actually am in favor of most of the projects in MAPS 3, they are items that Government should be supporting. My issues with MAPS 3 so far is the Ballot and Ordinance language where NONE of the 8 announced projects are mentioned or referenced.

Larry, regardless of your attitude towards sports, a shockingly high number of people put sports in their "quality of life" list regarding relocation or simply reasons to stay somewhere. I believe it would fit in with "The Arts" which is usually called "arts and entertainment" or "arts and leisure". We could have the most beautiful art museum, or the best ballet in the world here (both of which would please me, as I'm rather catholic in my tastes), and it wouldn't give us the cachet that a professional team does.

Because we're a city that people rarely think about, or get excited about visiting, we have to do it better than other comparably sized cities that have beaches, mountains or other attractive features. I'm almost embarrassed to admit it, but, when my fiancee told me he was considering a job here (we lived in Denver at the time), my response was, "Why? I've visited almost every state in the union, and my parents never took me to Oklahoma. There must have been a good reason. You know you can't ski or kayak there, and for me, there are no sports but the Sooners." I wasn't very happy about the prospect of moving here, and when we got here (pre MAPS) I was even less happy. It's taken many years of ongoing improvement to make this a city I'm not trying to get away from. When I go back to Denver, or visit my daughters in Chicago, I see what we could become, over time, if we keep working at it.

Eloquently stated and great observations, Betts.

agreed betts. OKC may not be the creme de la creme of american cities, but it is making real progress, and people all over the country are starting to notice. which is why ya'll should keep the momentum going with MAPS 3.

... a shockingly high number of people put sports in their "quality of life" list regarding relocation or simply reasons to stay somewhere. I believe it would fit in with "The Arts" which is usually called "arts and entertainment" or "arts and leisure". ...

While individuals may indeed rank sports highly, what I was talking about was at the Corporate level. What companies have specifically said they were going to relocate or not relocate depending on a pro-sports team?

Do you have any articles etc that you can direct me to on that? As I have said, every one that I have seen over the years mention the things I listed off, sports (especially pro sports) was way down on the list if mentioned at all. Don't recall seeing any that lumped it together with the "Arts".

To be clear, I am not anti-sports or anti-NBA.

:backtotop

Sorry, metro. One more and then I promise I quit. I found an article by a consulting company manager whose company "provides site selection services and economic development consulting to companies and organizations worldwide." Although he states quality of life issues regarding recreation and leisure are different for different people, the widespread popularity of professional sports certainly supports the assumption it's a factor.

http://www.mccallumsweeney.com/uploads/ARTICLE-50-07-Quality_of_Life_BusDevOutlookMag_McCallum_8_07b.pd f

"So, what are some of the important characteristics for any
quality of life assessment? Generally speaking they can be
divided into the following:
• Education
• Housing
• Crime & Safety
• Healthcare Quality and Costs
• Spouse Employment Opportunities
• Child Care Cost & Quality.
• Recreation & Leisure Activities
• Mobility

Recreation & Leisure Activities

This factor is probably the hardest to evaluate among all of
the quality of life factors. Everyone is different. As a
consequence, everyone enjoys a myriad of activities that
are different as well. Some love the arts or crave
professional sports, while others enjoy hunting or skiing.
There are some that enjoy a wide variety of shopping and
entertainment that only a big city can provide, while others
enjoy the bucolic setting of a small town with more
mundane pleasures. Some see a university as an
opportunity to provide many of these activities, as well as
educational opportunities, while others enjoy the college
sports. Identifying the target audience here is crucial
because tastes and preferences vary so much for this
factor."

Larry, I doubt that you will ever have a (non-ancillary) business make a public statement that they moved to or from a place because of professional sports or lack thereof. It wouldn't serve any positive PR purpose to do so. And in fact I can't imagine that it is ever the single reason anybody makes business location decisions. But it is a part of the overall picture.

But if you want a link from an independent source that acknowledges the importance professional sports holds for businesses making location decisions, check out the recent CNN/Money article on best places to launch a business (http://money.cnn.com/smallbusiness/best_places_launch/2009/snapshot/241.html). Despite the fact that Oklahoma City ranked number one in the U.S., the article pointed out that having only one pro sports team was in fact a shortcoming:

Oklahoma City has its drawbacks... ...forget about entertaining your visiting clients with top-notch sporting events: Oklahoma City has only one professional franchise, the NBA's Oklahoma City Thunder, which had its first season in 2008 and finished 26th in the league.

It's an important component in business location, and obvioiusly not just Chamber-types believe that.

What companies have specifically said they were going to relocate or not relocate depending on a pro-sports team?

I don't think that any company will say that specifically, but you are essentially dealing with human nature. Companies often locate due to their access to quality human resources. While a company may not specifically be located somewhere because of sports teams or any other specific form of entertainment, individuals do make choices based on these factors and companies go where the people are.

Now, of course, no one locates anywhere based on one specific sports team, but no one can deny that a great many people do locate places based on access to "stuff to do". Having professional sports is simply one piece of the puzzle in the "stuff to do" equation. In fact, I'd almost say that NOT having professional sports hurts more than having it actually helps, if that makes any sense.

Now, I think a lot of people here can list off the usual suspects of why living in Oklahoma City is good: accessible people, affordability, ease of living. However, I would bet that most college undergrads and grad students are not aspiring to live and work here as they are cities like LA, New York, or Chicago or even new growth cities like Dallas, Phoenix, Atlanta, etc. I mean to say that even if you asked them if they could have the same job with the same exact pay here as they could in any of those cities, most would choose those other cities, despite the added expense. Why?: Stuff to do. They want a good life which most people equate to having access to high quality goods and services, including entertainment, of which major league sports is a factor. I agree it is far from THE factor, but it plays a part, and it is, for better or worse, THE entertainment option with the highest profile. And, at the end of the day, many people simply want to be able to take their family to a ball game every now and then.

Now, Oklahoma City is in an inherently tough position because we can not sales tax our way to beaches, mountains, wilderness, weather or other highly valued natural beauty resources that seem to attract people. We have to build assets that are attractive to people in a way that makes them feel that, by living here, they can have access to the life they have worked to achieve.

Why? Because, despite our amazingly competitive cost of living, companies know that they still can not attract the top human resources they desire when their competitors are in New York, Chicago, or even Phoenix or Denver hiring from a larger talent pool with more higher educated people. And those people are there because of a higher perceived quality of life, in large part because there is simply more "stuff to do". More and more, people choose where they want to live after college and then find a job in that market.

The reality is that Oklahoma City, first and foremost, needs to keep its higher educated workers here. It needs people in the state's higher education system to want to stay here after they graduate. Does one specific sports team change that? No, but it does begin to change the tide in a positive way. It begins to make the city appear to be a viable option. When you begin to add in other higher quality services and entertainment that are supported by and made possible by large investments in public assets and you begin to have something you can sell to people. And if you can start selling it to people (without a chuckle in response), you can start selling it to companies.

Many may not want to hear it, but really our investment in the city over the past 20 years through MAPS and other measures have been more part of an effort in mitigation than true elevation. These projects have kept us from being completely irrelevant on the national stage, in terms of attracting human resources. And the only reason it has succeeded in doing that is because it was comprehensive and not focused on one specific project, like ONLY an arena or ONLY one sports team. It will probably take more investment if we want to ever be competitive with other regional large markets, like Denver or Dallas, but we have started and it is beginning to feel like Oklahoma City may have a future it can really be proud of and, while the Thunder is not THE reason for that, it is one piece of a puzzle that has many pieces.

Now, one can argue the pros and cons of the deal the city made with the Thunder, and there's definitely a lot of merit to that. I think we gave too much away in some aspects (naming rights!), but also have to realize our leverage position. You basically have Los Angeles and the privately financed Staples Center on one end of the spectrum and Oklahoma City on the other. In the end, we made a decision to collectively support the venture by taxing ourselves because we thought the benefit to our community was worth the investment beyond a simple direct cost/benefit analysis. Of course, no company is going to make a decision to move here specifically based on that ONE deal. But, hopefully, there are a lot more college students and people with the prospects of moving here thinking: "maybe it's not that bad after all." If so, then you have the very beginnings of what is hopefully an economic snowball.

so, about those Ford Center renovations...............anyone have any feedback after attending a preseason game?

Oh sorry, I didn't realize that Metro was finished with his participation in the tangent, so we were all supposed to stop as well...

:LolLolLol

The seats do seem roomier and comfier. The scoreboard is amazing, although, since I sit in the end fairly low, I have to tilt my head back to see the scoreboard well (no Bennett wedge for us cheaper seats:)). I think the terrace mini suites are a bit odd looking, with a solid white appearing wall dividing them, but haven't sat in them to tell if they're nice, which is probably all that matters. I'm sad that the Johnsonville fast food kiosk has been replaced by Schwab's as that was my bad for you food guilty pleasure a couple of times a week. I heard the Ice House looks the same, which I assume means you can still see the metal studs, but I would guess that is a next year improvement. I'll take a stroll up to Loud City tomorrow night and see how it looks.

Thanks for the feedback and will consider all that was mentioned.

... I heard the Ice House looks the same, which I assume means you can still see the metal studs, but I would guess that is a next year improvement. ...

Can't find it now but thought I read an article that said the Ice House was gone and the space had been re-purposed??

Can't find it now but thought I read an article that said the Ice House was gone and the space had been re-purposed??

I'll go look tonight. It's got a different name, but my friends who went there before the last game said it looked the same but had a new name. I'm sure it will either be gone or improved next year, since it's near where the new entrance will be next year.

It's called Jack Daniels Grill right now. But looks the same. And will be gone by the start of next season

Am curious, in other threads on other forums, Seattle posters indicated that watching a game in the Key was great...great sight lines etc. Is that what you are talking about?

Know I saw a clip of Stern praising the Key (at it's reopening) as a model NBA arena.

Concerning the expansion, while they may not have been able to add seats, I know I read that there was 3 different remodel proposals to prior owners (still offered to Bennett) and a remodel was OK with Stern (he even went to the Washington legislature to lobby for it)...then a remodel wasn't OK when Bennett decided it was a new arena or nothing (although a remodeled Ford was OK)...then OK with Stern again after the Sonics relocated.

Presume that the Key OK/not OK/OK remodel would have been along the same lines as the Ford remodel (the things that maximize team revenues).

KeyArena was/is a great place to watch a bball game because it is very intimate and every seat has a great view of the court. This was by 're'-design and at the time of Michael Jordan, was one of the best arenas (coincidentally, Michael Jordan never played in KeyArena but always played in the much larger but now destroyed Kingdome or Tacoma Dome, due to the large crowds). ...

but that is the Key, in the 1990's we had Michael Jordan and Magic Johnson, and completely different salaries and economic models - so Key Arena was suitable.

but today, things are different. Owners want to make money. And they do so by charging premiums. And Key Arena, well - just can't offer the premiums. So, you can't charge what would be profitable there.

Again, KeyArena IS a great place for the COMMON PERSON to see a NBA game - you are up and close, no matter where you sit. But, in today's model - without Michael Jordan - clubs can't charge premium pricing in a building that just has good 'common seats'.

I hope that sheds some light into the debacle, it isn't that KeyArena is bad - but it is that KeyArena is bad for business and DOES NOT COME CLOSE to tapping into the wealth of the Seattle metro area; whereas Ford Center does/will.

And that is where the NBA/owners make money.

The "worst contract in the NBA" was also touted by Commish Stern (and he approved it). Yes support for the NBA had been decreasing (partly due to the teams on-court performance). Which brings up the point, why did Bennett need a bigger arena when they couldn't fill the seats they had? The other two franchises did indeed get new arenas, but the Sonics got their's first and were back in about 8 years wanting improvements. Didn't the owners of those other Pro teams contribute to those "new houses"? (There are conflicting reports that Bennett's ownership would contribute to a NEW arena). Why was a Key remodel and new lease (3 offers were still on the table for Bennett) not OK with Bennett in Seattle but perfectly OK here (not an original thought, even Mr. Trammel with the Oklahoman asked that question). Why was a remodel of the Key OK with Stern (he even went to the Washington legislature to lobby for it), then not OK when Bennett bought the team, then suddenly OK again when the Sonics relocated?

Given the remarkably similar histories of the Key and the Ford and the people involved, think it will be shorter than 10 years before a new arena is asked for. The Mayor talked about a replacement arena just 4 years after the Ford opened. The age of the arena isn't the issue. I thought replacing a 5 year old arena (still "new" in my view) was absurd. After all we are talking about a building, not a computer. Then I found out the arena was built too small and we needed to be adding seats, not taking them out (even without the NBA).

No matter what the time frame ends up being, that isn't a problem for Bennett any more. He made sure of that in the lease with the City. For at least the next 15 years (expandable by the team, up to 30) the City is contractually obligated to keep making improvements to the Ford to "ENSURE THAT THE ARENA CONTINUES TO BE A FIRST-CLASS NBA ARENA" (similar language exists for the Practice Facility). With NO substantial means of paying for same. If there are structural limitations to achieving that end, the City will really have no choice but to build a new arena. IMO

How much is this going to end up costing? Based on projecting out what we know it has cost so far ($100 to $120M after 5 years) over the 15 to 30 year term of the lease....

Larry, Bennett needed a new Arena in Seattle because KeyArena didn't have the luxury amenities necessary to capture the 'overwhelming' wealth that exists in the Seattle metro area. ..

plain and simple.

the other points about the KeyArena lease are somewhat moot when one considers the cost of attending a game at KeyArena compared to the per-capita income of those attending. The NBA in Seattle the best bargain in the NBA and it is because of KeyArena. If we could have expanded KeyArena to 20000 seats, then maybe it could have worked without the luxury stuff. But, the site is small and the roof is somewhat historic - so, no deal. (besides, the site had already expanded (lowered) to make it into it's current 14,000 seat config.

Again, the problem is Key Arena was designed with the common fan in mind. At the day of Michael Jordan, ie - good talent on the floor and relatively small player/coach/admin salaries, one could charge fans more than you can today given same seating configs.

KeyArena was the 'model' arena in 1995 because it was a great place for the common fan to see a game, and for quite cheap. Well, those same prices are basically in effect "today" but you can't make money off of it with the city taking so much away and Seattle folks paying less (than say OKC folks at ford center). .. way too much income differential to justify staying in Seattle unless a new arena was built to capture the wealth of the area.

I hope that sheds some light into the debacle, it isn't that KeyArena is bad - but it is that KeyArena is bad for business and DOES NOT COME CLOSE to tapping into the wealth of the Seattle metro area; whereas Ford Center does/will.

And that is where the NBA/owners make money.

Don't disagree with anything you said in either posts, but what about the remodel offers made to former owners and then again to Bennett (which would have addressed the money losing aspect)?

Then there is the whole thing about Stern being for the remodel plans/against them/then for them again when the Sonics relocated. If he is for them again, doesn't that suggest that the Key could be redone so it fixed the broken NBA business model?

I always thought it was the lease as much as anything that made the Key untenable. Bennett wasn't interested in a remodel, because that would have made the "sweet flip" far less sweet. They weren't going to make the big bucks on a sale of the Sonics (which would have happened eventually had they not been able to move to OKC) without a fancy new arena to lure buyers. Even more frightening, they might not have found a buyer at all, ala Portland and Memphis.

to be fair, here is what I know:

when Bennett first bought the team, he was willing to talk to the city of Seattle about a KeyArena fix. The city immediately shut the door on any future KeyArena reno's or any discussion further on the NBA.

Seattle voters then quickly passed I-91.

THEN ----

Bennett sought to build a new arena outside of Seattle but in Puget Sound. Renton was chosen because the Boeing Company had land it was seeking to liquidate (from factory space) and an investor team had bought a bunch of it for the creation of a modern town center. The arena was seen as a potential anchor to the development but the land would not have been owned by Bennett (but then again, Bennett would have had control over it since the Sonics would have been majority tenant). Price tags for the Arena (with all of the modern bells and whistles) would have been roughly $500M (sorry guys, it's expensive to build in Seattle) and therefore would have required significant public funding. Initially Bennett was offering to cover $100M, with the City of Renton and the State picking up the remainder.

The state laughed at Bennett. The city of Seattle worked with the anti-tax and SOS to prevent any state funding for the Renton arena. This obviously backfired against the city of Seattle when they themselves were seeking said funds to improve KeyArena in an attempt to get the NBA to overrule Bennett and make him sell (will discuss this later).

So, we had Renton people wanting the arena to give them status but nobody else in the Puget Sound (save S. Side residents) willing to even consider it. Well, the Renton Town Center exists today (called the Landing) and there is even a field that is where the arena would have gone. So, actually - Bennett was committed to getting something for Seattle - I argue as others, in hopes that he could then sell at top dollar (higher than his payment of $360M) to Seattle investors led by Ballmer AND the NBA might force Shinn to sell the Hornets to Bennett and/or the Hornets return back to OKC with Shinn but Bennett in a CEO role OR the NBA give Bennett some other team to bring to OKC.

Nevertheless, things didn't work out in Renton and the city of Seattle thought they had it made. They thought they could sweat Bennett out and make him play at KeyArena and then sell - and THEN Seattle could get their act together with Ballmer.

Well - that didn't work out either, Bennett gave the city/state some time ultimatums and then went to the NBA board and got conditional approval to move to OKC. The state balked on that condition, which set Bennett with no choice but to move. Seattle was counting on 1) the NBA to see Ballmer's proposal for the Sonics and encourage Bennett to sell in return for a lower market team or the Hornets 2) the KeyArena lease being Iron-Clad, thereby forcing Bennett to sell or lose millions.

well, you know the rest. the city of seattle totally blew it on this one. At first, they didn't even want to talk to Bennett at all about Key Arena, they sabotashed his efforts with the state on a Renton Arena, and then miscalculated Ballmer's 'attractiveness' to the NBA not to mention their own self professed superiourity to Oklahoma City.

To me, the city of Seattle is the one who is most at fault for the Sonics departure. Howard Schults has a lot of blame too, but the city did the same things to him as they did to Bennett; so I don't fault Howard for losing his hometown spirit in favor of his pocketbook. Also of note, when Schultz 'owned' the team, there were a majority of other investors who also hailed from Seattle - so it wasn't just himself losing money there. Again, I think the city miscalculated the whole thing
1) Bennett would never move away from a self professed '1st rate' market in favor of Jokelahoma City
2) Bennett didn't have the financing to remain viable in such a big market (that didn't have ticket or ad sales to make even the least competitive comparison)
3) Bennett would realize he 'lost' with regard to the lease and therefore would sell
4) the league would bow to Seattle since it is "such a wealthy elite city"
5) if Seattle held firm, the league might force the Hornets to return to OKC instead and thereby give Seattle another chance.
6) Maybe Shinn could weasle his way out of the Louisiana lease and return to OKC, thereby making Bennett moot (since he likely would sell in that regard)
7) Forcing Bennett away from State funding for Renton would force Bennett and the NBA to return to KeyArena talks and/or honor the lease
8) there no way a Seattle judge (federal or not) would allow a 'Seattle institution' to be ripped away in favor of Okie carpetbaggers [hence the city's lack of preparation and performance during the trial]
9) the city miscalculated to 'support' given to them by Sonics fans (see 2009 Seattle mayoral [and other] elections)
10) the city grossly miscalculated the lack of civic support for tax increases for lack of support for the Sonics and the NBA in general, therefore putting the Sonics 'on the backburner'
11) the city grossly miscalculated the influence of their local businessmen in the real world
12) the city grossly miscalculated their perceived value or merit in the national stage
13) the city and city residents grossly miscalculated their power with regard to businesses who are not located in Seattle (see Sonics/Bennett, NBA, Boeing, etc).
14) the city miscalculated the city of Oklahoma City's business sense and drive to become major-league
15) the validity of the lease (or their failure to RECONSTRUCT the lease, further binding Bennett in exchange for their support of state funding....)

as I said, there were many at fault, but in my mind - Bennett is not one of them. He was simply a business man who desired to make money and turn around a thorn in the NBA's side (in return getting his own future franchise); but took advantage of Seattle's stupidity and arrogance AND got Seattle's franchise to take to OKC instead

I honestly can say, without any level of humor, that I truly think Bennett did want to Stay in Seattle. Really. If he succeeded, he could have sold making way more than the original investment and surely would have been handed the Hornets most likely as a gift for saving Seattle. Remember? Bennett was trying all along to get a team for OKC and had sought majority control over the Hornets all along. But with the city doing the same dance to him that they had done to local owners - the writing was on the wall (as Stern said) that the Sonics were leaving. Then, it was only a matter of time (2008 or 2010?).

I also believe Marsha Pechman would have ruled in favor of Bennett because contractual agreements require consideration from both sides and I am sure tha might include KeyArena functioning as a viable option. While not bad from a fan experience, KeyArena is not viable in today's config due to the lack of luxury amenities - you simply can't justify the high prices needed to capture Seattle's wealth. It is quite a shame that with all of the microsoft millionaires and billionaires, 3.3m metro, large media market of most of WA, Vancouver BC, Alaska, N. Idaho, and Montana; that the Sonics were so low when it comes to revenue generated (not to mention fan support). Fans may have supported them but the last few years, they only "followed" the Sonics.

One final thing, In my opinion and many others, Seattle simply can't support 3 major league teams (MLS not included in the discussion, it's a different animal). Seattle is a two league city because it is a bandwagon city. When times are good, you see fans and merchandise sales and so forth. When times are bad, you see apathy but content that 'at least we have a team'. How can you call that fan support, when you have teams out there (Cubs?) who win or lose (mostly lose), the fans always come out. Brewers?, shall I keep going on.

Then there is the argument, Denver has all 4 major leagues (and even teams in the other new major leagues) - but Colorado doesn't really have nearby competition for sports dollar that Washington does (with Vancouver and Portland so close). Unlike Denver, Seattle has ALWAYS had a dark horse sport team with 3 teams and since 2001 - it has been the Sonics.

Again - as far as KeyArena being concerned; Bennett DID attempt at first to discuss KeyArena but the city declined to discuss any public funding for KeyArena, passed I-91, and sabotashed any attempts Bennett to get state funding. Even the potential funding package that was offered for KeyArena at the last minute (Ballmer offered $150M IF the city/state could come up with the remaining $150M, Seattle somehow had $75M, but needed $75M from the state); the stone had been cast that Seattle is not a sports city and could not be worked with. You can say, in the end it was egos - because in reality Bennett probably should have stayed the final two years as a 'good-bye' to the loyal fans (and he probably would have if been treated fairly).

But you reap what you soe, and as a Seattle resident, I can honestly say that it was our leadership (mostly city, but also state) who is why this whole thing happened and NOT Bennett putting up 'an ultimatum for a new palace, or else.'

I don't see the same things happening in OKC. OKC is a one team town right now, and the owners are from OKC and have OKC at heart and a HUGE interest in having this team here (see recruiting talent to your company). This is a blessing for OKC residents in that you have an improvement of quality of life and also your tax roles, and some 'bragging rights' if you will - that 'you built it and they came' and you took on the 'established' city and won.

Im not sure this saga would ever occur again, because I think OKC was in a unique situation (Sonics in trouble, Seattle sick of public spending, Bennett with huge pockets to buy a team at a premium, OKC having proved success with the Hornets and now Stern's baby, doubters about OKC being major league, Seattle completely missing the boat on the whole thing - see above). I think all of these perfect conditions would NEVER be replicated again, but as an OKC expat I am happy for OKC.

As to whether Bennett would demand a new arena so quickly, I highly doubt it. Again, those owners have a HUGE interest in having a major league team in OKC. Otherwise, if you start to hear about Chesapeake or Devon or Sandridge or Sonic or whoever else relocates or merges with Texas companies; only then would I start to worry about 'weird' arena demands showing up in OKC.

So this thread can return to Ford Renovations, I started a new thread called Key Arena and Relocation. If someone wants to move Hot Rods post to it...? If that isn't possible, I will respond there.

Or, just a thought, we could simply leave the Key to Seattle. :tiphat:

As for moi, I'd much rather see some of our resident cam fans post scads of photos of the recent renovations.

anyone have any pics of the Ford Center renos?

Also, anyone with info/time care to update the national sites (ssc,ssp)? They are asking for information - and I think we should feed them all of the info we can to spread the word of OKC's renaissance and emergence.

OKLAHOMA CITY - Ford Center Renovations (19,599) - SkyscraperCity (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=976698)

Doug L, I used your pic of Ford Center to give SSC something to chew on. Thanks in advance.

Here's some pics of the new courtside club I hadn't seen before:

http://okfordcenter.webvisionhosting.com/custom_files/image/DSC_0214.JPG

http://okfordcenter.webvisionhosting.com/custom_files/image/DSC_0215.JPG

Here's some pics of the new courtside club I hadn't seen before:

Very nice space!

Does anyone know when construction will begin for the 3rd phase (exterior) of the renovation? I seem to remember reading something that said renovations would be complete by the end of 2010. That deadline doesn’t seem possible considering groundwork hasn’t even started yet.

I doubt they'll start much before the season is over. Of course, if we happen to make the playoffs, our season will be extended, so I may be wrong about that. They'll surely start in April, but I am sure they will want the majority done before the 2010/11 season starts.

dedndcrusr, I believe construction is supposed to be over at the end of 2011 or 2012 season, I can't remember. It definitely was never 2010.

dedndcrusr, I believe construction is supposed to be over at the end of 2011 or 2012 season, I can't remember. It definitely was never 2010.

If I remember correctly, it was supposed to take place over the off season of three seasons. This last off season was #2. Therefore, all of the renovations should be done by the start of the 2010-2011 season and the practice facility should be completed as well. I would assume if we go into the playoffs, they might start working on the locker room and other areas away from the north side of the building to get them completed on time.

When does the extensive construction occur for the addition of the new main entry, roof terrace and other additions to the exterior? Those will certainly take a 1.5-2 years at least.

When does the extensive construction occur for the addition of the new main entry, roof terrace and other additions to the exterior? Those will certainly take a 1.5-2 years at least.

Based on an older article:

"Additional improvements are planned to be executed following the completion of the 2009-2010 season. After the season, expect the Ford Center’s overall square footage to be expanded to include a new grand entrance with a multi-story atrium, additional restaurants and ticket windows, a warm-up court, family fun zone, along with other minor improvements. Those include new offices for the Thunder coaching staff that will be greatly expanded in size. There’s also a new room for players’ families that will include a nursery for children."

Link to said article: Thunder’s Ford Center Renovation Nearly Complete – HoopAngle: Thunder Edition (http://www.hoopangle.com/thunder/2009/08/21/thunders-ford-center-renovation-nearly-complete/)

For a great overview of the completed improvements and some great imagery, go to the following:

Ford Center Improvements (http://www.okfordcenter.com/improvements/index.html)

It also restates the 3rd phase construction to take place post the 2009-2010 season.

dedndcrusr, I believe construction is supposed to be over at the end of 2011 or 2012 season, I can't remember. It definitely was never 2010.

Errr. wrong. It was always going to start after this basketball season ends.

Notice how, if it be a couple of years, everything construction wise in Oklahoma City coincides with the year 2012. The same year that Hollywood and New Age books are making tons off of because of ancient Mayan prophecy. If anything, I believe 2012 is a rebirth of sorts and it definitely will be a step in the right direction for all of downtown OKC...

Errr. wrong. It was always going to start after this basketball season ends.

He's not wrong. Read what he wrote again. Construction was never supposed to end in 2010.

I heard that they've pushed the next phase of renovations back a year and they are now scrambling to book the facility for this summer. Lady Gaga is one that they landed.

I heard that they've pushed the next phase of renovations back a year and they are now scrambling to book the facility for this summer. Lady Gaga is one that they landed.

Might want to check on that - I think they pushed off completion, not start. That would allow some new use this summer that wasn't planned for earlier.

With us potentially being in the playoffs, and, although if we are in, it's unlikely we'll be in the playoffs for more than one series, you still have to potentially assume you could make it all the way to the finals, and right now cannot plan for construction to start until July. So, it would be very difficult to complete everything this summer, I would assume.

Lady GaGa? How solid is the info? I would love to see her at the Ford Center!

Meh, how about some real music? AC/DC, Rush, etc.

Not to be rude Skywest. But Lady Gaga is indefinitely more popular among today's youth than ACDC and Rush. Gaga would be a huuuge landing for the Ford Center. And it's actually surprising as no one would expect her to ever come here. Ever. I hope this is true, I would literally have a heart attack.

Not to be rude Skywest. But Lady Gaga is indefinitely more popular among today's youth than ACDC and Rush. Gaga would be a huuuge landing for the Ford Center. And it's actually surprising as no one would expect her to ever come here. Ever. I hope this is true, I would literally have a heart attack.

Holy. Crap.

I think I'm obsessed with that woman. Please, please let it be true! I would be the first in line at the Ford Center.

Could you imagine this at the Ford Center? It would be EPIC!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWr2UKPP84k

I would love to get some rock concerts back to the Ford Center. AC/DC back in December is one of the few we've had in a while. Ever since the BOK Center opened every show is rolling through there. Nickelback will be there next month for the second time in a year. I'm hoping once the renovations are finished we'll get a few more.