The way I look at it is: If it costs more, it's because it costs more. It happens. "You get what you pay for" is an aphorism because it's true. If it costs more to finish the MAPS projects than the $17 million put back for just such a thing, then, at that time, the voters will have to decide whether to extend it or not. It's very difficult to estimate both what construction costs will be over the next 7 years (how many of us anticipated our current economic climate?) and how much tax will actually be collected. So, the city does the best it can, and if it's wrong we'll all have to decide how to deal with it.

Respectfully ask again, the City KNOWS what the cost over runs were for MAPS (47%). The City KNOWS what the average cost over runs are in the 2007 Bond Issue (8.3%). WHY then are they only allowing 2.2% for MAPS 3?

Of the Big 3 items in MAPS 3, what are you expecting when it's done?

You do realize the City had the same plan with the Ballpark and ended up going 50/50 with the 89ers/Redhawks (no relocation or associated buying the team costs). The City literally gave away the naming rights to the Ballpark and even though there was a bit of an uproar, turned around and did it again with the Ford/Thunder (an amount that if handled correctly could have nearly paid the entire cost of the improvements).

Respectfully ask again, the City KNOWS what the cost over runs were for MAPS (47%). The City KNOWS what the average cost over runs are in the 2007 Bond Issue (8.3%). WHY then are they only allowing 2.2% for MAPS 3?

Of the Big 3 items in MAPS 3, what are you expecting when it's done?

You do realize the City had the same plan with the Ballpark and ended up going 50/50 with the 89ers/Redhawks (no relocation or associated buying the team costs). The City literally gave away the naming rights to the Ballpark and even though there was a bit of an uproar, turned around and did it again with the Ford/Thunder (an amount that if handled correctly could have nearly paid the entire cost of the improvements).

I dont know if the numbers you gave above are accurate or not but I do have one question about what you say. Bond issues can only bring in a certain maximum amount of money because there is a limit on how many bonds can be issued. With this being the case, how can a bond issue come in 8.3% "over cost?" Are you simply saying that the cost of all the projects covered by the bond issue rose 8.3%? If so, I don't think they could have built all the projects outlined in the bond issue. This is actually a pretty common occurrance in large bond issues.

The reality is that there are some conventions that will never come to OKC, thus there is not a need for +1,000,000 sq ft convention center. However, something in the 500,000 to 750,000 sq ft range would put OKC in the same league as peer cities in the region (Denver, Dallas, San Antonio, Kansas City, St. Louis, and Salt Lake City).

As for money already spent on the COX Center; it isn't like that is wasted money as we will still have the Cox Center. It would be a different story of the new convention center was going to built on the same land as the Cox Center, but it isn't. OKC is already just one of a few cities (and maybe the only one) with two +15,000 seat arenas across the street from each other.

I dont know if the numbers you gave above are accurate or not but I do have one question about what you say. Bond issues can only bring in a certain maximum amount of money because there is a limit on how many bonds can be issued. With this being the case, how can a bond issue come in 8.3% "over cost?" Are you simply saying that the cost of all the projects covered by the bond issue rose 8.3%? If so, I don't think they could have built all the projects outlined in the bond issue. This is actually a pretty common occurrance in large bond issues.

If the cost of a G.O. Bond project exceeds what the ballot called for, and what we as Citizens voted for, the City has options. In the past the City has used a couple of different methods in order to complete the project. Although I only know of two, I suspect they have many more at their disposal.

For example, two of the listed Fire projects in the 2000 G.O. Bond Election in Proposition # 6 had cost overruns, the "Live Burn Building" for training, and the "Vehicle Storage Building". The Burn Building as voted on, called for a separate, and free standing, brick and mortor building. In order for the project to stay within its budget the building was later reduced down to a trailer house. The project cost the same but we recieved less.

In the case of the vehicle storage building we received what we voted for, in fact maybe a bit more, but of course it exceeded its budget. It took only a simple funds transfer from the dedicated sales tax fund to cover the additional cost. I guess you could say, they robbed Peter to pay Paul.

Respectfully ask again, the City KNOWS what the cost over runs were for MAPS (47%). The City KNOWS what the average cost over runs are in the 2007 Bond Issue (8.3%). WHY then are they only allowing 2.2% for MAPS 3?

Of the Big 3 items in MAPS 3, what are you expecting when it's done?

You do realize the City had the same plan with the Ballpark and ended up going 50/50 with the 89ers/Redhawks (no relocation or associated buying the team costs). The City literally gave away the naming rights to the Ballpark and even though there was a bit of an uproar, turned around and did it again with the Ford/Thunder (an amount that if handled correctly could have nearly paid the entire cost of the improvements).

Maybe I missed it above. If so, would you mind telling us again where you came up with the 47% cost overrun for MAPS?

Whether one be for, against, or undecided about Maps 3, Megax11, you are vastly oversimplifying all of the numerous issues which are involved in MAPS 3 and I'll not elaborate here.

But, on one point, I take serious issue with you, where you said

We need both. Our past heritage is every bit as important as our present and future. After numerous grand buildings were destroyed in the 1960s-1980s, would you also have torn down the Skirvin, as many thought best to do?

I do agree about needing the past as well as the future, but the past hasn't been kind to the areas where Core to Shore would be implimented.

I expect tons of crime there. The places are ran down, and could be made to be better, where people can gather in parks, which we need, not only as a state, but as a country where we're getting so lazy, we're up there on the obese scale.

I have 3 kids and while they love being productive outdoors on top of playing games, so many of these parks are boring... I can imagine the whole Core to Shore being vibrant, and very scenic.

So what I meant in saying we need to get out of the old, is that we really need to take risks like we did in getting the renovations to Ford center, which brought us into professional sport territory, and in 1993 when we started getting a vastly superior Bricktown (it used to be so ran down.)

I do agree though, I am always for the past, but we need a balance of the past, while looking to the future, while also not thinking about what it costs us as citizens, who really need to think about the future of america (our kids; grandchildren,) as they need things to do in life while we take a dirt nap until the world ends.

I would also love to see a new convention center, as sometimes change is better, and the Myriad has always been ugly, even after only rennovating certain areas of it.

I dont know if the numbers you gave above are accurate or not but I do have one question about what you say. Bond issues can only bring in a certain maximum amount of money because there is a limit on how many bonds can be issued. With this being the case, how can a bond issue come in 8.3% "over cost?" Are you simply saying that the cost of all the projects covered by the bond issue rose 8.3%? If so, I don't think they could have built all the projects outlined in the bond issue. This is actually a pretty common occurrance in large bond issues.

Hi mugofbeer,

If you will go the the Bond link I gave there is even more info but I think the following answers your question.

Question: How will the City pay for unforeseen needs?
Answer: Experience tells us that when we build large projects we discover needs that weren’t apparent when we were making plans. By including an unlisted line item we are making sure these unexpected expenses are covered. Limited funds, made up of less than 8.3% of the entire bond authorization, are included to address any unforeseen needs.


The numbers I gave are from 3 main sources: the final cost numbers are from the City's MAPS web page and the various "voters told numbers" are from articles written at the time of MAPS from the Oklahoman and Journal Record. If there is a specific number you are questioning, will be more than happy to provide where it came from (I don't have them all footnoted, but will provide the ones I have).

If anyone knows of a link to a single article where the 9 projects in MAPS were spelled out, (preferred PRE vote, like the Oklahoman has done for MAPS 3), it would be appreciated!

Maybe I missed it above. If so, would you mind telling us again where you came up with the 47% cost overrun for MAPS?
Oil, Not a problem...I was doing the 47% number from memory, and re-ran the data, and I had rounded down. It is actually 47.75%. Voters were told $238M, final cost was $351.7M, a difference of $113.7M or 47.75%

The "voters told" $238M was in a Journal Record article dated 11/6/97 (about the middle of MAPS)

It is buried in the article: "We’ve had problems with MAPS to be sure. It was started as a $238 million proposal when voters approved it, and that was a sales job."

The final cost is found at the City's website:
City of Oklahoma City (http://www.okc.gov/maps/index.html)

(Have to go to each of the 9 project's link to find the cost for each)

Of course none of that includes the extra $100M to $120M to "finish" the Ford.

Again, if anyone knows of an article (prefer PRE MAPS vote) that spells out the total or individual project costs (like the Oklahoman did for MAPS 3) please provide. Thanks!

In the MAPS ballot it states that the Arena would meet the standards of the NBA and NHL (doesn't mention just seating capacity standards).

Standards of the NBA and NHL doesn't necessarily equate Taj Mahal. It meet the bare minimums. And sure, it would've "worked" in its original design, but it wasn't near as nice as other NBA arenas.


While "Taj Mahal" may not have been specifically mentioned when it went to the voters, he were told since it's opening and in following years, it was the "crown jewel of MAPS" ... "First-rate Facility" ... "a Top-quality Arena" ... "the Premier Project of Maps" ... "Oklahoma City wanted The Best. Now it’s here." ... "the Ford Center is the area’s Premier Entertainment and Sports Complex" ... and finally, the “Ford Center is State of the Art” (This last one isn’t an isolated quote, but a descriptive phrase m entioned by at least 5 different sources).

I think that was more marketing ploy by SMG.


It was described that way while the Hornets were here and didn't start being called "adequate" and talk of REPLACING the Ford happened right about the time Bennett bought the Sonics. Then it was determined the Ford "needed" $120M in improvements (more than it cost to begin with) to bring it back up to NBA standards. Even though Stern said we didn't necessarily need any improvements to the Ford to land a permanent team. At the time of the vote, the Ford had just turned 5 years old. The Mayor admitted it was all his idea (no one at the NBA said we needed the improvements).

The Ford served its purpose for the Hornets, but it was obvious it wasn't as nice as some other NBA arenas. Most of the improvements have been more costmetic than anything and not necessarily required.

Standards of the NBA and NHL doesn't necessarily equate Taj Mahal. It meet the bare minimums. And sure, it would've "worked" in its original design, but it wasn't near as nice as other NBA arenas.

Do you have an article or link WRITTEN AT THE TIME that would indicate that it was "bare minimum"? I have asked for it before in other threads and have never gotten a response. Nearly EVERY article I have run across indicates otherwise (see quotes below) and in those rare articles that do mention some cutbacks, they were items that the City planned the eventual tenant would pay for.


I think that was more marketing ploy by SMG.

Most assuredly SOME of the glowing phrases are mentioned by SMG on the Ford Center site, so I won’t include those. But since you indirectly asked for the sources they are as varied as the Journal Record, the Oklahoman, ESPN, the Associated Press, trade publications and a former and current Mayor of OKC:

Journal Record, “New arena expected to boost OKC economy” ... (6/7/02)

“We have a FIRST-RATE FACILITY that will seat 20,000 people...” said Oklahoma City Mayor Kirk Humphreys.


ESPN.com “Oklahoma City high on list of home sites for Hornets” Updated: (9/18/05).

When Oklahoma City opened up its Ford Center three years ago, its residents surely hoped that it would one day host a major professional sports team. After all, IT WAS BUILT TO SATISFY BOTH NBA AND NHL SPECIFICATIONS. ... Representatives in Louisville, Ky.; Nashville, Tenn.; San Diego; and Kansas City, Mo., also offered to temporarily host the team, but no city can offer THE STATE-OF-THE-ART FACILITY with as many open dates as Oklahoma City can. ... Oklahoma City mayor Mick Cornett said he believes his city is the first option if all the games can’t be played in the state of Louisiana. “THEY [NBA/Hornets] MADE IT CLEAR THAT THEY LIKED WHAT THEY SAW and that OUR ARENA WAS APPROPRIATE FOR NBA GAMES,” Cornett said.


Associated Press “Hornets to call Oklahoma City, Baton Rouge ‘home’” Updated: (9/21/05).

Numerous other cities -- including San Diego, Las Vegas, Nashville, Tenn., and Kansas City, Mo. -- also made offers to host the team for the upcoming season, but Oklahoma City had what few others could offer -- A TOP-QUALITY ARENA with few scheduling conflicts.


Ford Center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Center)

The facility is the PREMIER PROJECT of Oklahoma City’s capital improvement program (MAPS) to finance new and upgraded sports, entertainment, cultural and convention facilities with a one percent (1%) sales tax. ... Ford Center received a $200,000 renovation as part of the Hornets’ lease.


http://home.digitalcity.com/oklahomacity/entertainment/ford-center/v-116437664

The Ford Center, Oklahoma’s STATE-OF-THE-ART multifunctional facility, hosts a wide variety of sports events, concerts and more. And for the 2005-2006 NBA season, it is the home-away-from home of the hurricane-displaced New Orleans Hornets.


http://www.bricktownokc.org/Default.aspx?p=8085

Learn more about Oklahoma’s STATE-OF-THE-ART sports and entertainment showcase by visiting the Oklahoma City Ford Center.


ConventionSouth (http://www.conventionsouth.com/archive/april_issue/oklahoma_city.htm)

....the Ford Center is the area’s PREMIER ENTERTAINMENT AND SPORTS COMPLEX offering a nearly 20,000-seat arena...


Oklahoma City's Ford Center Employs EV ZX1 Loudspeakers (http://mixonline.com/mixline_live/fordcenter-ev-020697/) (2/7/07)

The Ford Center, Oklahoma City’s PREMIER SPORTS AND ENTERTAINMENT ARENA, recently incorporated a new EV sound-reinforcement system installed by Ford Audio Video of Oklahoma City.


Oklahoma City Blazers - Profile of the Oklahoma City Blazers Central Hockey League Team W/ Information On Roster, Coaches, Schedule, Tickets and More (http://okc.about.com/od/spectatorteamsports/p/blazersprof.htm)

Built in 2002, the Ford Center is STATE OF THE ART and hosts a number of amateur sports franchises.


Numerous articles said that improvements to the Ford Center were needed to bring the Ford back up to NBA standards (No, I won’t hunt them down and list them all here...LOL).


Oklahoman, “Election to be called for Ford Center upgrade” (12/07/07)

The city has contracted with the architects who designed the Ford Center, The Benham Companies, to study the IMPROVEMENTS THAT WILL BE REQUIRED TO BRING THE ARENA TO NBA STANDARDS. ... Cornett said the city, working in consultation with the NBA, has determined a new arena won’t be needed. The renovations will make the Ford Center comparable with the league’s best arenas and will prevent the city from needing a new arena for many years. “This is basically the equivalent of a new arena,” Cornett said. “It should last at least 15 years. We’ll have a STATE-OF-THE ART ARENA.”


Oooops, there’s that “state-of-the-art” phrase again...


The Ford served its purpose for the Hornets, but it was obvious it wasn't as nice as some other NBA arenas. Most of the improvements have been more costmetic than anything and not necessarily required.

You are correct, it wasn't as nice as SOME other NBA arenas. Don't have the quote handy but when compared to other NBA arenas, was described as being "middle of the pack" or similar language.


WOW, $100M+ for cosmetics? You do realize that the improvement amount is more than what the building cost to begin with? Guess you didn't hear about the building expansion (expensive sounding stuff) that is for the exclusive use of the Team/NBA (offices, locker rooms, TV studio etc)


Then there is the $20-25M budgeted for the practice facility....

Larry, I'm confused about why language is so important. What is "state of the art" for a city hoping to eventually land an NHL or NBA team might be very different from what is expected of a city that actually gets a team. Remember, when the Ford Center was built, there was still a "pie in the sky" chance of getting a team. We were likened to the Field of Dreams "build it and they will come" dreamer. In addition, what might be considered "state of the art" for a city hopeful of getting a professional team could also change in 5 years.

Why is the description of the arena at the time it was built so important; why does it matter what people called it? Anyone who spent any amount of time in it who'd also been to professional arenas in other cities knew it wasn't state of the art for a true NBA arena. But, we didn't have a team, so most of us didn't pay it much mind. Also, we knew that Dallas had spent over four times what we had to get a new arena there, so it was clear we had a bargain basement arena. You get what you pay for, and we hadn't paid much at all. Clearly. The BOK Center in Tulsa cost over twice what we originally paid for the Ford Center, so again, we didn't pay for much and so we got bare bones. We ended up getting a lot for that minimal investment, as we got the Hornets for two years, which gave us the opportunity to try and land our own professional team.

Regardless, the voters voted for the Ford Center improvements and the practice facility. They were willing to improve the Ford Center (guess a few of them had actually been in the building, and knew it wasn't what it should be). They were given a choice and a choice was made. Now we move on.

It's time to think about choosing to do other things for the city that might have as much of an impact as our MAPS investment did.

Larry, I'm confused about why language is so important. What is "state of the art" for a city hoping to eventually land an NHL or NBA team might be very different from what is expected of a city that actually gets a team. Remember, when the Ford Center was built, there was still a "pie in the sky" chance of getting a team. We were likened to the Field of Dreams "build it and they will come" dreamer. In addition, what might be considered "state of the art" for a city hopeful of getting a professional team could also change in 5 years.

Why is the description of the arena at the time it was built so important; why does it matter what people called it? Anyone who spent any amount of time in it who'd also been to professional arenas in other cities knew it wasn't state of the art for a true NBA arena. But, we didn't have a team, so most of us didn't pay it much mind. Also, we knew that Dallas had spent over four times what we had to get a new arena there, so it was clear we had a bargain basement arena. You get what you pay for, and we hadn't paid much at all. Clearly. The BOK Center in Tulsa cost over twice what we originally paid for the Ford Center, so again, we didn't pay for much and so we got bare bones. We ended up getting a lot for that minimal investment, as we got the Hornets for two years, which gave us the opportunity to try and land our own professional team.

Regardless, the voters voted for the Ford Center improvements and the practice facility. They were willing to improve the Ford Center (guess a few of them had actually been in the building, and knew it wasn't what it should be). They were given a choice and a choice was made. Now we move on.

It's time to think about choosing to do other things for the city that might have as much of an impact as our MAPS investment did.

Excellent post. Thanks Betts

Oil, Not a problem...I was doing the 47% number from memory, and re-ran the data, and I had rounded down. It is actually 47.75%. Voters were told $238M, final cost was $351.7M, a difference of $113.7M or 47.75%

The "voters told" $238M was in a Journal Record article dated 11/6/97 (about the middle of MAPS)

It is buried in the article: "We’ve had problems with MAPS to be sure. It was started as a $238 million proposal when voters approved it, and that was a sales job."

The final cost is found at the City's website:
City of Oklahoma City (http://www.okc.gov/maps/index.html)

(Have to go to each of the 9 project's link to find the cost for each)

Of course none of that includes the extra $100M to $120M to "finish" the Ford.

Again, if anyone knows of an article (prefer PRE MAPS vote) that spells out the total or individual project costs (like the Oklahoman did for MAPS 3) please provide. Thanks!

You need to factor in the $54 million in interest earned on MAPS money. Cost overrun was 17%. However, since there was not any debt at the end of construction you could argue that there was $0 cost overrun.

I do agree about needing the past as well as the future, but the past hasn't been kind to the areas where Core to Shore would be implimented.

I expect tons of crime there. The places are ran down, and could be made to be better, where people can gather in parks, which we need, not only as a state, but as a country where we're getting so lazy, we're up there on the obese scale.

I have 3 kids and while they love being productive outdoors on top of playing games, so many of these parks are boring... I can imagine the whole Core to Shore being vibrant, and very scenic.

So what I meant in saying we need to get out of the old, is that we really need to take risks like we did in getting the renovations to Ford center, which brought us into professional sport territory, and in 1993 when we started getting a vastly superior Bricktown (it used to be so ran down.)

I do agree though, I am always for the past, but we need a balance of the past, while looking to the future, while also not thinking about what it costs us as citizens, who really need to think about the future of america (our kids; grandchildren,) as they need things to do in life while we take a dirt nap until the world ends.

I would also love to see a new convention center, as sometimes change is better, and the Myriad has always been ugly, even after only rennovating certain areas of it.
megax11, about the bold (past) parts above, these points:

I have no optimism that the parts of the area south of current-I40 that may contain buildings some would consider worthwhile saving will be -- not for the reason that some might be deserving and couldn't be worked in to a well designed architect's plan -- but for the reason that I don't sense that a public will exists to do so.

COULD it be done? Sure. The remnants of Deep Deuce that still exist are testament enough to that. The qualities of being vibrant and very scenic are not at all limited to the "new." If they were, virtually everything constructed today would also become dull and less vibrant, just because it, too, becomes "old" as time passes.

I'm not sure that I understand what you're saying with the "crime" point. But if you mean that incorporating some of the old buildings would lend itself to crime, I'd have to disagree. Deep Deuce in its run-down period was, I suppose, crime ridden, but those few parts of it which have been restored today are not, as far as I'm aware, anyway.

Oil, Not a problem...I was doing the 47% number from memory, and re-ran the data, and I had rounded down. It is actually 47.75%. Voters were told $238M, final cost was $351.7M, a difference of $113.7M or 47.75%

The "voters told" $238M was in a Journal Record article dated 11/6/97 (about the middle of MAPS)

It is buried in the article: "We’ve had problems with MAPS to be sure. It was started as a $238 million proposal when voters approved it, and that was a sales job."

The final cost is found at the City's website:
City of Oklahoma City (http://www.okc.gov/maps/index.html)

(Have to go to each of the 9 project's link to find the cost for each)

Of course none of that includes the extra $100M to $120M to "finish" the Ford.

Again, if anyone knows of an article (prefer PRE MAPS vote) that spells out the total or individual project costs (like the Oklahoman did for MAPS 3) please provide. Thanks!

See the crop from a November 14, 1993, Oklahoman article below. The full article is much larger. Click the cropped image to open the full version. I have modified the text arrangement so that it will better fit in a more or less rectangular space.

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/coretoshore/maps3/maps1_1993_11_14_crop.jpg (http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/coretoshore/maps3/maps1_1993_11_14.jpg)

Maybe you said and I missed it, Larry, are you just curious or does this comparison have something to do with the current analysis of Maps 3?

You need to factor in the $54 million in interest earned on MAPS money. Cost overrun was 17%. However, since there was not any debt at the end of construction you could argue that there was $0 cost overrun.

Kerry,

First of all, the $54M in interest is questionable. In a Journal Record article dated 2/24/99, Jim Couch, (MAPS Project Manager, now City Manager), stated it had only earned $4.7M in interest. This was after many projects were already well over what voters were told. The original MAPS tax had 9 months left, plus the additional 6 month extension. The extension was projected to bring in $30M total or $5M a month. Is it mathmatically possible for $75M to earn the remaining $49.3M? Are you saying in 15 months they earned 66% in interest? If that is possible, someone please show me the math on it.

In the article he said the $4.7M that it was due to the delays in construction of the Arena because of the shortage of funds, once those funds started coming in again, you don't even have the $75M due to the fact that money would be going out for construction and expenses involved with the Arena.

2nd, presuming the $54M in interest is correct, that number is added to the total amount collected by the tax ($309M), not subtracted by the amount spent.

There seems to be some confusion. "If Revenue - Expense is Zero, there is no cost over run." That isn't what we are talking about here. It is the amount voters were told minus the amount spent. Or $238M - $351M = (-113.7M). The negative is the amount you are in the hole, or overspent from what was originally budgeted.

Hi betts,

I'm not really sure how to answer your question: "...why language is so important"? and your other question as to why numbers were important.

Other than to say this, and I am saying it badly....if the words and the numbers used by politicians and those conducting the campaign were wrong or as grossly inaccurate as the MAPS numbers were, and they are using much of the same words and numbers now, how much can you really trust what they are saying now is going to be true?

I am not saying that MAPS wasn't successful or that MAPS 3 can't be a success. But given that it was such a success, why resort to the same "sales job"? MAPS 3 should sell itself.

I am not saying that MAPS wasn't successful or that MAPS 3 can't be a success. But given that it was such a success, why resort to the same "sales job"? MAPS 3 should sell itself.

In a normal economy, yes, but in the economy we have now, there will have to be a 'sales job' to overcome not onlyl those who automatically vote no for any tax revenue election - MAPS pay-as-you-go or bond issue - those who are struggling financially right now.

Larry, passing any tax is always an unsure thing (and you certainly don't need me to be telling you this, right?) ... there are always going to be a significant number who vote no, just because. MAPS (1) had a huge public campaign ... remember Rick Horrow, the Florida consultant hired by the chamber to be go-to guy ... the public event in the then Myriad Convention center with cheerleaders like Barry Switzer, etc.

All I'm saying that a sales job is always a necessity for a tax, particularly one which will last 7 3/4 years.

There seems to be some confusion. "If Revenue - Expense is Zero, there is no cost over run." That isn't what we are talking about here. It is the amount voters were told minus the amount spent. Or $238M - $351M = (-113.7M). The negative is the amount you are in the hole, or overspent from what was originally budgeted.

I'm not sure where you are going with this line of thinking but the $238 million was an estimate. The tax raised (both directly and indirectly) 100% of the funds necessary, thus no cost overruns.

Are you suggesting that the tax should have stopped once tax collections plus interest accumulated $238,000,000.00? Because that wasn't what was voted on and it was never presented to the voters as such. Conversley, would you think it prudent if money raised via the MAPS tax was spent on items other than what was in the proposal? If spending was capped at $238,000,000.00, what should the city have spent the extra money on?

Maybe you said and I missed it, Larry, are you just curious or does this comparison have something to do with the current analysis of Maps 3?

:congrats:Thanks Doug for the article, just didn't have the right criteria in my various Google searches, now that I have the article title, here is a link to the Oklahoman article in their regular format (selectable text, unfortunately the graphics are not included there).

NewsOK (http://newsok.com/major-league-status-sought-voters-to-decide-on-237.6-million-plan/article/1119950)

To answer your question I wasn't quite sure myself...LOL...I had to go back and check...it started with architect5311 & metro's discussion if MAPS was underfunded or not, one thing lead to another...and here we are.

Wait, that didn't answer your question, did it? Curiosity is certainly a factor, but as with the discussion that prompted my response, am sure others will come up as well. Having an article PRE-Vote is indeed helpful (rather than one where a number was given and then trying to back-track all of the particulars). Now I just have to reconcile any discrepancies.

As you said, looks like the text version didn't show the project by project itemization that the graphic version does ... at least, I couldn't see it. I didn't use Google to find it, I used the on-line Oklahoman archives which are free to use by using your metropolitan library card to enter. If you want to be able to do that (and if you didn't already know), here's how: Doug Dawgz Blog: Using The Oklahoman Archives & Jerry Lee Tyner (http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2008/07/using-oklahoman-archives.html)

Oh, and by the way, did you notice who the author of the main article was? Berry Tramel, for god's sake. I won't comment further but will just leave that one laying in stunned silence.

On edit: well, since the main article did focus on the sports parts, I guess it's fair enough that he was selected to write it.

:
To answer your question I wasn't quite sure myself...LOL...I had to go back and check...it started with architect5311 & metro's discussion if MAPS was underfunded or not, one thing lead to another...and here we are.

Larry OKC and Doug, good investigative stuff. I was just shooting from the hip, from what I recalled concerning those numbers. I have slept since all those MAPS 1 projects were under construction.

Anyways, back to the topic..............what was it by the way?

1. Has MAPS made OKC a better place? Yes

2. Could the City have done a better job? Yes

3. Did the MAPS facilities meet expectations? Yes, if we're told we got what we paid for.

Oh, and by the way, did you notice who the author of the main article was? Berry Tramel, for god's sake. I won't comment further but will just leave that one laying in stunned silence.

On edit: well, since the main article did focus on the sports parts, I guess it's fair enough that he was selected to write it.

LOL, yes and Mr. Trammel has come up with some "interesting" stuff. Will compare with what I have discovered previously and as long as there isn't a huge discrepancy... If you run across an article that isn't from the Sports staff please post.

Will check out your link on the archives stuff too. Thanks again!

I'm not sure where you are going with this line of thinking but the $238 million was an estimate. The tax raised (both directly and indirectly) 100% of the funds necessary, thus no cost overruns.

Where I was going with it was in the original post so won't repeat it (am endeavoring to keep my posts shorter).

Maybe this will help...if a friend mentioned he saw an ad for a new tv at the local big box store for $238 and you said to yourself, "that sounds pretty good, that fits into my budget." Then when you get to the store, the salesperson tells you that the ad was a mistake, and that the actual price is $351 ($113 or 47.5% more). What would your reaction be? Would you say, "it isn't costing me any more because I have $363 in my account"?


Are you suggesting that the tax should have stopped once tax collections plus interest accumulated $238,000,000.00? Because that wasn't what was voted on and it was never presented to the voters as such. Conversley, would you think it prudent if money raised via the MAPS tax was spent on items other than what was in the proposal? If spending was capped at $238,000,000.00, what should the city have spent the extra money on?

If more was raised with the tax than estimated, and in excess of the projected cost and any factored in cost over runs, then yes, the money should have been returned somehow to the taxpayer. Slightly different but the principle is the same: a couple of years ago, the State had a huge budget surplus (something like a billion $$$), after the required deposit into the rainy day fund, etc, the excess income tax collected (over projections) was distributed back to the taxpayers in a rebate/refund check. One of the Tinker Bond issues a while back, they had money authorized by the bond issue to clear property but it wasn't all needed. They talked about using the money for other purposes, but ultimately decided to simply not issue the bonds (and therefore no cost to the taxpayers). Problem is, since the projects proposed in MAPS 3 are not mentioned in the ballot or the Ordinance, the City can do exactly what you described (spending the money on something other than what you thought you were voting for).

Doug, just dawned on me what you were saying about Trammel (why is a Sports guy reporting on MAPS), but then you mentioned the focus on sports....its' all good

Larry, I appreciate the need for accountability, but I think you might be going a bit too far to the right.

Nothing is perfect and I think OKC definitely got a huge shot in the arm due to MAPS. No person in their right mind would say that OKC is the same terrible place it was pre 1995. We all know it is because of MAPS that OKC is even a contender for events, not to mention an NBA team that we permanently have, much less the 2 year trial run with the displaced Hornets.

I think you might be arguing for argument's sake, rather than looking at the impact the projects will bring to further the momentum that was MAPS in the first place.

Should the city have more time to inform voters? I agree, but I think the city wants to keep the tax in place (a good idea) instead of letting it go in March and trying to bring it back. This and state policy necessitates the vote the way it is and only a 2 month pitch.

I think there are some savvy leadership folks running Oklahoma City and some even better people running OKC based companies. These people CARE about OKC and are certainly going to be involved with making sure this run of projects are a success.

Do you really think Larry Nichols, Clay Bennett, and Aubrey/Ward (et al) will sit and let OKC fail if the voters approve MAPS 3 but it falls short? I just dont see them sit on their ass with all of the money they've invested in (and will invest) their businesses to KEEP THEM IN OKC. Nichols stated himself that HE PERSONALLY plans to help downtown become the premier destination for business with his tower and line of credit on his own TIF, so the city can improve 89 acres of streets and sidewalks.

I think that alone is commitment from the business community in their belief in OKC. And to me, it shows that everyone is committed to improving OKC - even if Nichols himself does not agree with all of the MAPS 3 projects at this time; but you can be for sure, if the voters of OKC pass it (which they should IMO), then the whole OKC community will back it to make it a success.

Because the business companies of OKC have as much riding on this as the city leadership. In the end, we get a much better (and BIGGER) Oklahoma City complete with most of the attractions that our new peer cities (in Tier 2) have. And, since OKC's will be much newer, there should be a HUGE influx of business initially to 'try-out' the new kid on the block (think Ford Center concerts when it first opened). If OKC does well, it should result in a rotation if nothing else (think Big 12 b-ball) of conventions with OKC and a few of it's peers.

That still means more NEW money for OKC, and certainly a continuation of improved 'status' and amenities for the city (which results in a domino effect [think Bricktown - but better planning hopefully this time]).

The ONLY gripe I can think of, that has ANY credibility on this - is why the city will not increase the hotel/motel/rental car use tax. OKC is already the lowest in the region (major cities) and even if the city raised it 2 or 3%, we'd still be the lowest. ...

Why not increase it a bit (gradually) and recover the increased funds from the increased visits, to help offset fluctuations in the sales tax receipts or potential overruns (think construction cost higher than estimated). The could deliver the projects as pitched, but not have to go back to voters if things cost more than expected or the tax doesn't deliver as much money as thought.

Anyways - that is the ONLY gripe I have. Why isn't the city considering capitalizing on the expanded Hospitality base. ... Other than that, to me - this MAPS 3 is a no brainer (and wont even cost people any more, since it is an extension of what's already collected today).

Cheers

I'd be more in favor of raising the hotel-motel tax again to pay for the new expo center at the state fair grounds, and diverting the left over money from MAPS towards further transit improvements.

Concerning the extra MAPS money, I'm opposed to the massive extensions of the canal previously proposed, but I'd consider some money being used for single extension of the canal to the new convention center. That would help tie the new convention center into Bricktown better.

totally agree Patrick.

I think we need to get the fairgrounds to start reinvesting in itself.

Hot Rod, you said,


Larry, I appreciate the need for accountability, but I think you might be going a bit too far to the right.

Nothing is perfect and I think OKC definitely got a huge shot in the arm due to MAPS. No person in their right mind would say that OKC is the same terrible place it was pre 1995. We all know it is because of MAPS that OKC is even a contender for events, not to mention an NBA team that we permanently have, much less the 2 year trial run with the displaced Hornets.

I think you might be arguing for argument's sake, rather than looking at the impact the projects will bring to further the momentum that was MAPS in the first place.

Should the city have more time to inform voters? I agree, but I think the city wants to keep the tax in place (a good idea) instead of letting it go in March and trying to bring it back. This and state policy necessitates the vote the way it is and only a 2 month pitch.
A few observations:


Not too sure what you mean by "... too far to the right," since I don't see MAPS (then or now) as a "right" or "left" type of thing, e.g., if one is gung-ho MAPS 3 right now, is that person "to the left?" I doubt that you mean that.
If Larry is saying that the original MAPS didn't do a lot of good for the city, I've not read him to say that, and I don't think that's what he's said or means to say.

I think that it's unfair of you to say that you think that he is arguing for the sake of argument. In the 1st place, neither you nor I can really know WHY he is looking at MAPS 3 really closely and in very particular, and very historical ways. In the 2nd, what it appears to me that he's doing is to satisfy himself, and doing so out loud, so to speak, that when he decides how he will vote that he will be making as informed a decision as he thinks that he needs to make. Nothing wrong with that. I don't think that Larry has said how he will vote ... perhaps he has and I missed it. He or you can correct me if I'm mistaken about that. But, in any event, I don't read his comments as argumentative at all. I see him as studying and thinking the matter through.

As to the amount of time to decide and whether that's enough, for what it's worth, for what it's worth original MAPS was approved by city council on October 13, 1993, to submit the matter to a vote to be held on December 14, 62 days later. In MAPS 3, council made such a decision on September 8, 2009, to submit the matter for a vote on December 8, 70 days later. Again, for what it's worth.

There are quite a number of issues involved for people to think through. Some, perhaps you, have reached their own decision fairly quickly and easily, and there's nothing wrong with that. It's your vote (well, I know that you don't live here but assuming that you did). For others, the process is not so easy. I didn't reach my own conclusion until October 4 and it wasn't made easily, either. Not that it matters in what I'm saying here, but I decided that I will vote to approve the proposal. I can easily see that some voters won't make their decision until they cast their ballots. More to the point, a personal story makes the point of what I'm trying to say.


Back in 1983 when I was trying to decide whether to remain married or not, I began seeing a counselor for the purpose aiding my reaching a decision ... I had been thinking and thinking on my own for several months before that and had made no real progress in that regard. At one point, my then-wife asked me to ask the counselor why it was taking me so long to reach a decision. I did. When I did, the counselor belly-laughed (because the answer was obvious) and said,

That's easy. Just tell her that you are a compulsive obsessive asshole who likes to filter his **** it all sorts of possible ways!
That's an exact quote. I laughed, too, because it was the obvious truth. That remains so even as we speak.

Now, to be sure, I'm not saying that Larry is also a compulsive obsessive asshole who likes ... But, it would be OK if he were. There's nothing wrong with a person thinking things through down to the nth degree, if that's what a person feels the need to do.

Larry, I appreciate the need for accountability, but I think you might be going a bit too far to the right.

Nothing is perfect and I think OKC definitely got a huge shot in the arm due to MAPS. No person in their right mind would say that OKC is the same terrible place it was pre 1995. We all know it is because of MAPS that OKC is even a contender for events, not to mention an NBA team that we permanently have, much less the 2 year trial run with the displaced Hornets.

I think you might be arguing for argument's sake, rather than looking at the impact the projects will bring to further the momentum that was MAPS in the first place.

Should the city have more time to inform voters? I agree, but I think the city wants to keep the tax in place (a good idea) instead of letting it go in March and trying to bring it back. This and state policy necessitates the vote the way it is and only a 2 month pitch.

I think there are some savvy leadership folks running Oklahoma City and some even better people running OKC based companies. These people CARE about OKC and are certainly going to be involved with making sure this run of projects are a success.

Do you really think Larry Nichols, Clay Bennett, and Aubrey/Ward (et al) will sit and let OKC fail if the voters approve MAPS 3 but it falls short? I just dont see them sit on their ass with all of the money they've invested in (and will invest) their businesses to KEEP THEM IN OKC. Nichols stated himself that HE PERSONALLY plans to help downtown become the premier destination for business with his tower and line of credit on his own TIF, so the city can improve 89 acres of streets and sidewalks.

I think that alone is commitment from the business community in their belief in OKC. And to me, it shows that everyone is committed to improving OKC - even if Nichols himself does not agree with all of the MAPS 3 projects at this time; but you can be for sure, if the voters of OKC pass it (which they should IMO), then the whole OKC community will back it to make it a success.

Because the business companies of OKC have as much riding on this as the city leadership. In the end, we get a much better (and BIGGER) Oklahoma City complete with most of the attractions that our new peer cities (in Tier 2) have. And, since OKC's will be much newer, there should be a HUGE influx of business initially to 'try-out' the new kid on the block (think Ford Center concerts when it first opened). If OKC does well, it should result in a rotation if nothing else (think Big 12 b-ball) of conventions with OKC and a few of it's peers.

That still means more NEW money for OKC, and certainly a continuation of improved 'status' and amenities for the city (which results in a domino effect [think Bricktown - but better planning hopefully this time]).

The ONLY gripe I can think of, that has ANY credibility on this - is why the city will not increase the hotel/motel/rental car use tax. OKC is already the lowest in the region (major cities) and even if the city raised it 2 or 3%, we'd still be the lowest. ...

Why not increase it a bit (gradually) and recover the increased funds from the increased visits, to help offset fluctuations in the sales tax receipts or potential overruns (think construction cost higher than estimated). The could deliver the projects as pitched, but not have to go back to voters if things cost more than expected or the tax doesn't deliver as much money as thought.

Anyways - that is the ONLY gripe I have. Why isn't the city considering capitalizing on the expanded Hospitality base. ... Other than that, to me - this MAPS 3 is a no brainer (and wont even cost people any more, since it is an extension of what's already collected today).

CheersPlease don't take this as a knock against Larry Nichols, it's not. As a lifelong resident of OKC I have a great deal of respect, gratitude, and appreciation for all he's done, is currently doing, and will do in the future. Regarding his line of credit to the City. Although it was a wonderful gester on his part, lets not forget, the City is paying interest on the loan.

totally agree Patrick.

I think we need to get the fairgrounds to start reinvesting in itself.Unlike Doug, I'm still undecided. On election day when I step up to the voting booth, I may be in favor of maps 3, and vote YES. But if by chance I oppose the measure, and vote NO, that decision will be based solely upon the allocation of money going to the Fairgrounds. They have a funding source, and they need to live within it's means.

So. Like said before. You're going to deny 710 million other dollars of investment to the city because of 60 million that will go to the fairgrounds? Doesn't make any sense to me actually. Even though it's not the best use of money, it's definitely not worth voting down the rest of the projects. By any means.

Larry what's your agenda? Why are you so negative OKC on every thread?

Maybe this will help...if a friend mentioned he saw an ad for a new tv at the local big box store for $238 and you said to yourself, "that sounds pretty good, that fits into my budget." Then when you get to the store, the salesperson tells you that the ad was a mistake, and that the actual price is $351 ($113 or 47.5% more). What would your reaction be? Would you say, "it isn't costing me any more because I have $363 in my account"?

Keeping with this analogy, if the ad was an estimated price I would understand that the price might be different when I got to the store (especially if I got to the store 5 years after the ad ran).

Let's say I collected aluminum cans to raise the money to pay for the TV so it didn't impact my normal budget. I determined that I would need 72 pounds of cans to raise the money necessary. However, by the time I collected the cans the price of aluminum changed so instead of raising $238 I actually earned $363. So now I go to the store and find out the TV now cost exactly what I earned because the cost of making TVs went up while I spent 5 years collecting my cans. Am I unhappy about it? No. I am glad my can collecting covered the increase in the cost due to the time it took me to collect cans.

I believe that getting too caught up in the minutia of exact costs versus estimates on the MAPS projects is losing sight of the big picture.

I voted on a proposal to fund the promised projects by agreeing to pay an additional 1 cent sales tax for 5 years. Although the necessary funding fell a little short, I also agreed to extend the tax by 6 months to finish the promised projects.

Estimating the exact cost of projects that would be built over the next decade as the monies were collected was at the very least, a monumental task. I felt that the powers that be did an excellent job of delivering what was promised and have absolutely no regrets for voting for the initial measure or the subsequent extension.

I view MAPS 3 in the same way. I will support the proposal to build the proposed projects with an extension of the tax for a defined period of time. If we are able to achieve the kind of results delivered in MAPS 1, I'll consider it a huge success.

I view MAPS 3 in the same way. I will support the proposal to build the proposed projects with an extension of the tax for a defined period of time. If we are able to achieve the kind of results delivered in MAPS 1, I'll consider it a huge success.

Likewise, if MAPS III turns into a boondoggle then support for MAPS IV won't materialize.

I believe that getting too caught up in the minutia of exact costs versus estimates on the MAPS projects is losing sight of the big picture.

I voted on a proposal to fund the promised projects by agreeing to pay an additional 1 cent sales tax for 5 years. Although the necessary funding fell a little short, I also agreed to extend the tax by 6 months to finish the promised projects.

Estimating the exact cost of projects that would be built over the next decade as the monies were collected was at the very least, a monumental task. I felt that the powers that be did an excellent job of delivering what was promised and have absolutely no regrets for voting for the initial measure or the subsequent extension.

I view MAPS 3 in the same way. I will support the proposal to build the proposed projects with an extension of the tax for a defined period of time. If we are able to achieve the kind of results delivered in MAPS 1, I'll consider it a huge success.

Hear, hear!

Larry what's your agenda? Why are you so negative OKC on every thread?

Ouch. Since when does a different opinion make you 'negative' and have an agenda? It seems Larry wants what a lot of us want -- some built in accountability to ensure that if we pay for all this stuff, it actually gets built.

Has anyone considered remodeling the old Myriad to be solely a convention center? If you were to take out the arena, how much space would the building have? How often is the arena used anymore? With the Ford Center arena and a new convention center, would the building have much use at all? Does Big 12 tournament justify keeping the the whole thing as it is? Just curious.

Has anyone considered remodeling the old Myriad to be solely a convention center? If you were to take out the arena, how much space would the building have? How often is the arena used anymore? With the Ford Center arena and a new convention center, would the building have much use at all? Does Big 12 tournament justify keeping the the whole thing as it is? Just curious.

It wouldn't help. The Myriad, including the arena is only 85,000 sq feet. If you took out the arena and put in a second floor you would only increase the space to around 105,000 and you would lose the largest contiguous floor space in the process.

If you build a new convention center and have the Ford Center it would still make sense to keep the Myriad open. After all, it does have a 15,000 seat arena that is good shape. In reality, it isn't necessarily the condition of Myriad that is the problem, although by comparison it has a lot of exposed concrete, it is the size that is the problem. OKC needs at least 500,000 sq feet to be competitive. The other option is just not to compete at all.

By Kathleen Gray, USA TODAY
"What happens in Vegas may be moving to Detroit, Denver or Dallas."...........or OKC


I read this article in the USA Today this morning and while it doens't mention OKC it does speak volumes as to why we need a new convention center. And now would be the time to do it. A connected hotel would help too. Heres a link to the rest of the story.

Conventions seek lower-profile cities - USATODAY.com (http://www.usatoday.com/travel/2009-10-06-conventions_N.htm)

Thanks for the info, Kerry. I was under the impression that the Myriad had 85,000 square feet of exhibition space excluding the arena. My thought was that if you took out the arena, gutted the interior, and created one contiguous space, the building could hold two or three times as much exhibition space.

It wouldn't help. The Myriad, including the arena is only 85,000 sq feet. If you took out the arena and put in a second floor you would only increase the space to around 105,000 and you would lose the largest contiguous floor space in the process.

If you build a new convention center and have the Ford Center it would still make sense to keep the Myriad open. After all, it does have a 15,000 seat arena that is good shape. In reality, it isn't necessarily the condition of Myriad that is the problem, although by comparison it has a lot of exposed concrete, it is the size that is the problem. OKC needs at least 500,000 sq feet to be competitive. The other option is just not to compete at all.

Your numbers are completely wrong. According to the Cox Center's website, they have 100,000 square feet of exhibition space, plus the arena, plus the meeting rooms, plus the ballroom. The arena takes up at least 32,000 square feet, so doubling, so doubling it would yield at least 64,000 additional square feet. Not sure you putting a second floor in the arena leads to losing the largest contiguous floor space...

Still probably not big enough to get the meetings they want to go for...

I saw the interview that Steve had with the guy from the OKC's Convention and Visitor bureau in which Steve asked him why we need a new convention center. I'm sure it is still available on OKC Central. The guy said that basically with the underground parking under the Cox Center that precludes any building up and well as limits the weight on the existing exhibition space.

So. Like said before. You're going to deny 710 million other dollars of investment to the city because of 60 million that will go to the fairgrounds? Doesn't make any sense to me actually. Even though it's not the best use of money, it's definitely not worth voting down the rest of the projects. By any means.

Architect2010, As I said, IF I vote NO, the Fairgrounds will be the reason why. My issue has to do with the fact that the Fairgrounds already has its own source of revenue. It's not because they have a source, but more about their unwillingness to share any of it, while at the same time they come with their hand out expecting a share of the MAPS revenue.

I'm not concerned about whether or not spending money on the Fairgrounds is money well spent, as you seem to be, although I must say, the fact that someone is comfortable with spending 60 Mil dollars on a project when that money would be better spent elsewhere makes no sense to me.

Lets say I do vote NO. Then lets say by some unlikely chance the NO vote prevails by one vote, then yes, I guess you could say that I denied 710 Mil dollars of investment because of 60 Mil. But if I were you, I wouldn't be to concerned with that.

There is no concern from me beyond why the fact someone would vote no simply because fairground allocations. Nothing more. I understand what you said was hypothetical. I was questioning it. I actually agree with you completely, except for the fact that If I voted no, it wouldn't be because of the fair grounds solely. Don't read into something that's not there.

I believe that getting too caught up in the minutia of exact costs versus estimates on the MAPS projects is losing sight of the big picture.

Respectfully disagree. Even though the saying goes, the Devil is in the details", it IS the big picture I am talking about. "Minutia" would be picking apart pennies. We are talking about $113 MILLION or nearly 50%. THAT is the "Big Picture".

Your numbers are completely wrong. According to the Cox Center's website, they have 100,000 square feet of exhibition space, plus the arena, plus the meeting rooms, plus the ballroom. The arena takes up at least 32,000 square feet, so doubling, so doubling it would yield at least 64,000 additional square feet. Not sure you putting a second floor in the arena leads to losing the largest contiguous floor space...

Still probably not big enough to get the meetings they want to go for...

Don’t know who’s numbers are right on this one...LOL

The arena definitely skews the numbers, but according to the New Convention Center Study the Chamber did, the Cox has 1 million square feet (including the arena)

“Total Sellable Space” = 153,000 sf; of which

“Prime Exhibit Space” = 81,500;
“Meeting Space” = 28,600 sf; and
“Ballroom/Multi-use Space” = 25,000 sf.

Reworking the Cox just isn't practical for many of the reasons already posted. Imagine it being similar to the County Jail situation, it will actually be cheaper to build a brand new one ($54M) than to try to fix the current one.

There is no concern from me beyond why the fact someone would vote no simply because fairground allocations. Nothing more. I understand what you said was hypothetical. I was questioning it. I actually agree with you completely, except for the fact that If I voted no, it wouldn't be because of the fair grounds solely. Don't read into something that's not there.

I'm not trying to be argumentative here, and I'll try not to read into this something that doesn't exsist. Having said that. I have now made my decsion. My hypothetical scenario will become reality on December the 8th. I will be voting NO. Furthermore, my NO vote will be based solely upon the fact that the Fairgrounds are to receive revenue allocations from the MAPS tax, period, nothing more, nothing less.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong. That I would vote NO, and do so simply because the Fairgrounds is to receive MAPS tax dollars concerns you, and thats your only concern, nothing more, correct? Again feel free to correct me. I'll be voting NO solely regarding the Fairgrounds, whereas should you decide to vote NO, your vote would not solely be based upon the Fairgrounds receiving allocations from MAPS, correct? I have two questions to ask of you. First, If you were to vote no, what reasons would cause you to do so? Secondly, exactly what is it that you and I agree on completely?

Unlike Doug, I'm still undecided. On election day when I step up to the voting booth, I may be in favor of maps 3, and vote YES. But if by chance I oppose the measure, and vote NO, that decision will be based solely upon the allocation of money going to the Fairgrounds. They have a funding source, and they need to live within it's means.

I agree with the other poster that said I wouldn't vote down $777 million because of $60 mill going to the fairgrounds. The money going to the fairgrounds will end the long run be worth it......afterall, we make a lot of money off our fairgrounds. Having improved exhibit space will be nice. And a complete overhaul of the exhibit space in the form of consolidating it into one large expo building is a good idea.

Problem with using the existing hotel-motel tax money is that we'd have to wait 10-20 years before we could even consider putting it towards the expo building. Much of the current money is tied to renovation and expansion of the horse facilities and arena. We really need this new exhibit space ASAP IMO. The earlier, the better. That's why I'd be in favor if getting it done with MAPS 3 now. 10-20 years from now when extra funds are available from the hotel-motel tax, it may be needed to renovate the horse facilities again.

Larry, those figures includes ALL of the arena, including seating - which is only valuable as an arena and not as contiguous convertable floor space.

Also, I didn't mean to attack you or anything, I just felt you were arguing for arguments sake on a few things (about overruns and estimates and whatever) when the real question is: do you support OKC moving the next level and continuing the progress from MAPS by CONTINUING the 1-cent tax another 7+ years? If so, these are the projects the city wants to build: A new convention center, A 5 to 6 mile streetcar network downtown (as well as provisional money for commuter rail and a hub IF that materializes with the state and feds), A new central park, community centres, sidewalks where money is not currently allocated, expanded/completed bike trails, fairgrounds improvements, and river improvements (including a destination attraction).

I think this is really the question. Nit picking and blaming is so Tulsa (sorry Tulsa residents). But we could get caught up on that (which I call being too far right....) or we could buy everything and get into debt (which I would call too far left....) [benefit for Dave, haha]. But I don't see OKC doing either extreme. We have great city leadership that is both government and private - which is very rare for a major metropolitan city.

I think we need to continue to capitalize on that and extend the MAPS 3 tax and get those improvements. I can say, the project I don't like is the fairgrounds. It seems as though we are pouring money into a white elephant that already has it's own dedicated revenue stream (and that said stream could be expanded to pay for improvements and that stream could STILL be the lowest of any major city in the region, if not the nation). THAT is what I don't like.

But, maybe the city felt they should include it since they own the fairgrounds and maybe want to try to capitalize on their current lowest Hospitality Tax status. I don't know - I just think that $60M on the fairgrounds could go to some true city beautification/statues/fountains throughout the city to create an IDENTITY for Oklahoma City and the Hospitality Tax could be raised a little bit (but still be the lowest) and that money could fund fairgrounds improvements and additions.

Nevertheless, despite all of what I have said - I strongly support MAPS 3 because of the other projects that OKC desparately needs in order to compete with the big boys; and I think/suspect this might be the last time the city sends money to the fairgrounds in this capacity. At least, I hope so - as it should be self sustaining by now or if it is not, maybe we could contract out and have somebody else run/maintain it.

As for the Myriad, it can't be expanded and can't really compete. All one needs to do is look 90 miles NE and 110 miles N and realize we need to build a new convention center. Im not sure if Tulsa or Wichita have better convention business than OKC does (I doubt it), but their centers are WAY bigger and as such they could have bigger/better/more than us.

Also, our puny little center has no chance at competing against OKC's new peer cities in denver, indy, and nashville. To me, the convention center is a no brainer but I do have a question of where will it be built, how big it will be, and what will be the features.

I am very happy and excited about the streetcar system and contingent funding for commuter rail and hub. This is OKC thinking forward AND ALSO thinking OKC. We could all say, hey - we should make the bus system better first BUT - this is Oklahoma City..... Name me ONE PERSON you know, who would take the bus from the suburbs into downtown under the current system? Name me one person who would take a bus into downtown under even a better BUS system?

You probably will not be able to name any person in OKC - RIGHT NOW - who would be that thrilled to sit on a bus for 30-60 minutes for ANY reason; especially when you would not need to do so in a car. Because of this, and other perceived reasons - I think OKC needs to think of transit different than the standard (PROVE IT) model most cities use [prove it - as in first have a bus/commuter bus network that gets expanded into rail].

I applaud OKC for thinking out-of-the-box and approaching transit from the centre out. I think people who visit downtown WILL use transit and certainly would use a train that was as convenient as 6 miles of streetcar would be in downtown OKC. I also think the streetcar network would TIE IN the downtown neighbourhoods thereby increasing land values which in turn has a way of increasing development (see Portland Pearl District, also Portland Riverside District). I also applaud OKC for going big on this (up to 6 miles), as that will be much better than a 'demonstration' line of 1 mile or so, since 6 miles really gets people around most if not ALL of downtown OKC.

Once the streetcar is successful and people LIKE using transit and OKC reaches some density in pockets of the city, then we could send money to the bus system and explore light rail in a more commute oriented fashion. Also, if the state and feds can assist with true commuter rail, then I am happy to see the city with some foresight on this with provisional funding for that vehicle as well. All in all, very well done on the transit issue - to me it's a no brainer.

The downtown park may not be everyone's cup of tea, but if you look at EVERY major city in the world (not just America), there is a large civic gathering spot that is the "pride of that said city". You could say the Myriad Gardens is that for OKC, but it really isn't big enough to host large events or be interactive and cator to a large demographic of folks. The arts festival isn't really even held at the gardens, its held in the street and fields across the street.

I also don't see anything wrong with there being 2 major downtown parks (or more); as I said, they would cator to different folks. But the main central park would be a civic identity. Think Seattle Center, or Millennium Park (Chicago), or Central Park (New York). All of these parks are man made pieces of work that each of those cities pride themselves for and is a symbol of pride for those cities. Our new Central Park would do the same for OKC. While it may not be as big as whoever or as interactive or whatever as whoever's park - it would be OKC's main civic gathering spot. Can you imagine having the Arts Festival there, capable of having some 100,000+ people A DAY visiting? Try that now at the current location (impossible). Also, I see the park with DAILY things of interest, from city announcements and speaches, to performing arts and cultural happenings of an organic nature, to beautiful women jogging around, to couples holding hands and enjoying the scenic paradise or interactive attractions. And if you also consider the park would remove a HUGE area of ghetto blight from downtown and that (most likely) the convention center would lie on it's edge (thereby also adding a huge attraction) and the parke would be served by the new streetcar network - I think this is also a no brainer.

I think the sidewalks are a no-brainer, OKC is the only big city I know where people need to walk on major streets due to there being no sidewalks (even in the dense inner city areas). How can OKC encourage transit use or healthy lifestyles if people need to walk in the street in order to get to the bus or go for a jog. Sidewalks are LONG overdue and I have always been quite vocal about sidewalks (AND LIGHTING) that is needed in OKC for a long time now, and Im glad to see OKC is listening (with MAPS 3 and the other bond issues addressing sidewalks - and hopefully street lights). The more street lights, the safer the city is at night and the more people will go out and/or use transit later. Also, it makes the city look so impressive (see aerial views of Chicago to see what I am talking about). All of OKC's major streets should be LIT and a very good portion of the inner city and current crime areas could reverse if the city installed lighting (and hopefully energy efficient lighting at that). Again, this is a no brainer as it adds to OKC's quality of life and perceived beauty.

The other projects, I couldn't really care one way or another - but I am glad OKC has thought of those segments (most likely to ensure passage of MAPS as a whole package). I can say, it will be wonderful for OKC to have a river destination attraction and that will be part of MAPS 3. Again, no brainer.

In conclusion (sorry for being so long), I don't see too many reasons why a person could not support MAPS 3. It is an extension of the current tax rate, does not add burden. It gives OKC a HUGE shot in the arm on big city infrastructure and attractions. It improves OKC's quality of life and opens the door for folks to rethink their OKC lifestyle and even civic pride. And, it moves OKC much closer to the peer level that OKC's population is currently among or reaching. Finally, it continues the Renaissance of Oklahoma City that began as MAPS - we should demand quality projects and during formulation - ensure white elephants dont keep sucking money away. But once it's time to vote - I think we all should support MAPS because it MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE has made OKC into the wonderfully progressive city that it is today.

Has anyone considered remodeling the old Myriad to be solely a convention center? If you were to take out the arena, how much space would the building have? How often is the arena used anymore? With the Ford Center arena and a new convention center, would the building have much use at all? Does Big 12 tournament justify keeping the the whole thing as it is? Just curious.

The building itself does have close to 1 million sq feet. You guys have to remember that the space currently stated for the arena is just the floor space. It doesn't include all of the space that the seating bowl takes up. If the seating bowl was removed, and a 2nd floor built to make two contiguous spaces (one on each floor), there would be plenty of space.

That all being said, the second arena is important for a number of reasons. First of all, obviously the Big XII tournaments. But, also, a lot of concerts and shows still use the Cox arena.....those that may need 14-15K seats, but not 20K seats. Cox arena is somewhere in between the size of Ford Center and state fair arena. Also, Cox arena might be a good home to the AFL team. I'm not sure AFL really needs the 20K seats Ford Center offers. I'd like to see Ford Center reserved for larger concerts and of course the NBA.

Patrick, I agree with you about the Fairgrounds now and I no longer have reservations because of it. But I can say and hope, that future MAPS initiatives DO NOT have fairgrounds RENOVATIONS OR FUNDING involved; because it has it's own revenue source that could be expanded and if there needs to be immediate funds available bonds could go out and repaid using the hospitality tax.

now, if we ADD THIS OR THAT to the Fairgrounds, then that's different. But to keep sending MAPS money to the Fairgrounds to keep it running or keep making the state fair worse and worse (who thought of getting rid of the monorail....... angry) - I say they should use their own money for that stuff or we contract out somebody else to run it.

I agree Hot Rod. I'd like to see the hotel-motel tax raised and be used solely for the fairgrounds after this.

Patrick, I agree with you about the Fairgrounds now and I no longer have reservations because of it. But I can say and hope, that future MAPS initiatives DO NOT have fairgrounds RENOVATIONS OR FUNDING involved; because it has it's own revenue source that could be expanded and if there needs to be immediate funds available bonds could go out and repaid using the hospitality tax.

now, if we ADD THIS OR THAT to the Fairgrounds, then that's different. But to keep sending MAPS money to the Fairgrounds to keep it running or keep making the state fair worse and worse (who thought of getting rid of the monorail....... angry) - I say they should use their own money for that stuff or we contract out somebody else to run it.Hot Rod, Like you, I also hope that future MAPS initiatives do not include any funding dedicated to the Fairgrounds. But considering the power, and influence of the individuals that collectivly make-up the Fair Board Trust. If they want it chances are they're going to get it.

Andy and Patrick, we all agree. I am not even opposed to fairgrounds funding - but at least ADD something. Don't just use MAPS money for operations and maintenance (which I suspect is really what they're trying to do.....)

They have a funding source for that, why not use it or increase it a little. Use MAPS only for NEW attractions like what MAPS has added NEW to downtown.

That's really my thoughts. ...

Patrick, I agree with you about the Fairgrounds now and I no longer have reservations because of it. But I can say and hope, that future MAPS initiatives DO NOT have fairgrounds RENOVATIONS OR FUNDING involved; because it has it's own revenue source that could be expanded and if there needs to be immediate funds available bonds could go out and repaid using the hospitality tax.

now, if we ADD THIS OR THAT to the Fairgrounds, then that's different. But to keep sending MAPS money to the Fairgrounds to keep it running or keep making the state fair worse and worse (who thought of getting rid of the monorail....... angry) - I say they should use their own money for that stuff or we contract out somebody else to run it.

:boxing2:Not TRYING to be argumentative, but....

What are you basing that hope on? MAPS included the Fairgrounds, MAPS 3 includes the fairgrounds, why wouldn't MAPS 4, 5...10? Fairgrounds being included is probably a political consideration to get more people to vote for the measure (think I read a recent article that the fairgrounds are used by more people than any other MAPS project). Which also explains the low polling of the Convention Center, it isn't seen as something that most people will use (but that is the reason I am in favor of it in theory, it brings in primarily NEW, out of area/out of state money into the economy and that can only be a good thing).

Don't think I even brought up the subject of budgets/costs, but was providing the factual info that showed what did happen.

AGREE with the condition of the State Fair getting "worse and worse". Had hoped when Skip Wagner was replaced that the Fair would once again return to a 3 weekend run (even 4 weekends for the Centennial). But sadly, it hasn't. Bennett may have been involved with the decision to remove the monorail (he has been the Chairman of the Board of Directors since at least 2003, when O'Toole replaced Wagner).

To others: I am not against OKC (was born here, reared across the country, moved back here during college and been here the past 20+ years...even live across the street from where I was born). Am actually in favor of most, if not all of the announced projects. IF they are built, substantially as promoted AND without going significantly over what we are told (not true of MAPS). Unfortunately, there isn't anything in the Ballot or Ordinance that says it will happen.

Larry, I just think MAPS should be used to ADD to the Fairgrounds and not be used for normal operations and maintenance of it. It appears there would be some consolidation of Expo in Maps 3 but does that really amount to $60M? I think part of that money includes operations and maintenance; which I am opposed given the Fairgrounds has a revenue source (several actually).

Now, if we ADD an attraction to the fairgrounds - GREAT, use MAPS. But dont use MAPS to keep the white elephant running just so we can keep having horse shows. Dont those shows pay rent/fees?

the monorail was a great way to get an overview of the fairgrounds as a whole and decide where you then wanted to go. I think the sky tram is a joke. Very bad of Bennett or whoever decided to get away from a transit oriented people mover with history in favor of a one direction kiddie tram. And it probably used Maps money to get rid of the monorail, i bet.

Again, not opposed to Maps 3 because of the fairgrounds but saying the fairgrounds should be able to hold its own now or soon without having to have MAPS bail them out. It would be different if the hotel/motel tax didn't go to them.