I'm already ready for that Fairfield Inn to be demolished and scraped. That was such a lousy hotel to settle on for that spot. And it's only going to look worse once the apartments and garage are built.

That's so funny...I first thought that Fairfield was in the middle of nowhere and now it is in the middle of everywhere lol

So much potential in the large vacant lot/old CC planned site between the Myriad BG and Scissortail Park. It's actually an eye-sore right now, but I hope that whoever owns it (Midtown Renaissance?) develops something special there.

So much potential in the large vacant lot/old CC planned site between the Myriad BG and Scissortail Park. It's actually an eye-sore right now, but I hope that whoever owns it (Midtown Renaissance?) develops something special there.

I just saw the Thunder renewed their parking contract for season ticket holders.

They make very good money from arena parking so they can sit on that property for a long time.

I'm already ready for that Fairfield Inn to be demolished and scraped. That was such a lousy hotel to settle on for that spot. And it's only going to look worse once the apartments and garage are built.

It was an inspired first step for building up the additional hotel room stock we'll need in the general area of the convention center, with room on the block for another hotel at some point in the future. The city is fortunate they were forward thinking and took the plunge of building in what was the middle nowhere when they started.

It was an inspired first step for building up the additional hotel room stock we'll need in the general area of the convention center, with room on the block for another hotel at some point in the future. The city is fortunate they were forward thinking and took the plunge of building in what was the middle nowhere when they started.

The hotel operators knew the convention center and park were going in when they built this underwhelming hotel. Let's not re-write history and pretend they propelled development in the area in some way.

This wasn't the original spot and this hotel was in the works before they announced a location for the c.c.

This wasn't the original spot and this hotel was in the works before they announced a location for the c.c.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this location was a convention center possibility when they announced and before they actually started construction, no? They could have just not built if the convention center went elsewhere, no? I don't remember the exact timeline. Either way, the park was always slated for this location, correct? Putting in a small, cookie cutter hotel in this area where so much public infrastructure about to be pumped in just wasn't much of a gamble.

Since this will be open next year, are there any exciting conventions or events that are scheduled to happen that would not have occurred had this not been built?

Dankrutka- you're right and wrong. This hotel was in the works for quite a while. The c.c. wasn't close to being a done deal for that area. Remember they had to swap land just to make everything fit. After the second proposal came out everybody loved it. After they started building the Omni up, everyone started to hate it.

Dankrutka- you're right and wrong. This hotel was in the works for quite a while. The c.c. wasn't close to being a done deal for that area. Remember they had to swap land just to make everything fit. After the second proposal came out everybody loved it. After they started building the Omni up, everyone started to hate it.

I'm sure they knew the CC Hotel Room count was going to come in way below what was recommended and seen an op to take up some of the slack they city fell short on. The Omi should have been another 10 stories and another 100-150 rooms but as we all know, the city always comes up short it seems. Just seems they always underbuild these projects to save money.

I'm sure they knew the CC Hotel Room count was going to come in way below what was recommended and seen an op to take up some of the slack they city fell short on. The Omi should have been another 10 stories and another 100-150 rooms but as we all know, the city always comes up short it seems. Just seems they always underbuild these projects to save money.

Didn't Omni pick how many rooms they were going to build, so OKC paid them accordingly?

They pulled the trigger on Fairfield inn only a couple weeks after the original convention center site hit a dead-end. If your a smart person, it was pretty obviously there was only one other realistic place the convention center could go (Probably hoping to get more money out of the city, so they turned drawings into real actions) . I would be willing to bet the hotel would either be in the "planning" stages still if convention center site went in at the original site. Either way it was a nice educated gamble that paid off beautify. Actually, it was never really a gamble, it just would have taken longer to see the benefits with just the park down there.

Okcrt- I have to go back and look but I think this hotel was in the works before Omni was even chosen for the c.c. I wonder if there would be the same blowback if the c.c. were placed on one of the other sites.

Didn't Omni pick how many rooms they were going to build, so OKC paid them accordingly?

Not sure but it was prob. a collaboration between the city and omni. But the study that was done recommended 750 rooms for new CC Hotel I believe.

A 2013 market study conducted for the Alliance by Dallas-based Stone Hospitality and Real Estate suggests OKC’s convention center business can support a headquarters hotel with 735 rooms and 68,000 square feet of meeting space. The largest existing hotel in downtown OKC is the Sheraton Oklahoma City Hotel with 396 rooms and 28,000 square feet of meeting space...

Oklahoma Gazette: https://www.okgazette.com/oklahoma/if-we-build-it/Content?oid=2950071

Had we gone with the 735 room hotel market study on the convention center complex, OKC would have a total of 888 rooms available for convention goers on one site with the 133 room Fairfield Inn & Suites. This could have had a significant impact on conventions the city would be able attract.

The extra 130 rooms added to the Omni using the current design may have added 4 additional floors to the current building; making the Omni 21 instead of 17 stories--more money would have been needed to subsidize the hotel as well.

Reported by the Oklahoman, December 2013:

Study suggests Oklahoma City can support $200 million, 735-room conference hotel: https://oklahoman.com/article/3914440/study-suggests-oklahoma-city-can-support-200-million-735-room-conference-hotel?

double

Instead, we're getting a 17-floor $200+ million 600-room conference hotel.

I'm with RT - this is underwhelming, I don't care how much amenities it will have. Should have been 735 rooms esp for the same cost (particularly since the city is paying nearly half the cost). ...

Instead, we're getting a 17-floor $200+ million 600-room conference hotel.

I'm with RT - this is underwhelming, I don't care how much amenities it will have. Should have been 735 rooms esp for the same cost (particularly since the city is paying nearly half the cost). ...

You have a wealth of knowledge, what's your remedy.

You have a wealth of knowledge, what's your remedy.

I think CC and Omni need to be open for at least 2 years before we can say we screwed up by adding those extra 150 rooms. We can have study's done, but at the end of the day it doesn't matter if you can't find an operator willing to build at that size. We would have to give them even more money to maintain their level of risk.

So, another 135 rooms adds around $35-40 Million. Was the city willing to underwrite that and guarantee occupancy levels. NO. That’s not cheap, that’s smart.

I’f the demand for 4 star rooms is there after opening, another convention hotel will be built in proximity. There is a huge amount of vacant space to build within 2-3 blocks, including the old convention site. I’d rather fill up than go up more. This is high enough to satisfy the ego height requirements.

So, another 135 rooms adds around $35-40 Million. Was the city willing to underwrite that and guarantee occupancy levels. NO. That’s not cheap, that’s smart.

I’f the demand for 4 star rooms is there after opening, another convention hotel will be built in proximity. There is a huge amount of vacant space to build within 2-3 blocks, including the old convention site. I’d rather fill up than go up more. This is high enough to satisfy the ego height requirements.

And if I remember correctly, the Omni has rights to a part of the cox convention center land to build another hotel if they choose. I remember seeing that somewhere.

And if I remember correctly, the Omni has rights to a part of the cox convention center land to build another hotel if they choose. I remember seeing that somewhere.
Yes I believe they have the first right of refusal on at least part of that land. Is Omni part of a larger hotel network? Just wondering what brand/flag they would build.

Yes I believe they have the first right of refusal on at least part of that land. Is Omni part of a larger hotel network? Just wondering what brand/flag they would build.

Only the Omni brand. They would probably either build a new tower or build on to their current building.

Many of us understand the gravity of projects built through MAPS. Many want height, accommodations and quality reflected in a project--nothing different than what we see in other cities of our size or larger.

OKC focused on options for expansion.

Personally, I wanted to go with 1,000 rooms because it would have allowed us to be open to bid on a number of conventions and events that a city of our size in the tier III range wouldn't normally get. To the contrary, let's be real and work with the hand we've been dealt.

I'm a pie-in-the-sky guy, my ideas would have bankrupted this city years ago. Over the years, our city leaders have made low risk conservation type decisions where we've worked with the numbers that support what we can achieve. You can call it 'inexpensive' or 'cheap,' whatever fits your fancy--it's what you get when all you can afford is on the clearance rack.

OKC does possess a vehicle to pay as we go. As a growing city, we'll acquire more revenue to fund future projects. As we move from simplicity to complexity, our citizens have an appetite that has grown bigger than its leaders.

So, another 135 rooms adds around $35-40 Million. Was the city willing to underwrite that and guarantee occupancy levels. NO. That’s not cheap, that’s smart.

I’f the demand for 4 star rooms is there after opening, another convention hotel will be built in proximity. There is a huge amount of vacant space to build within 2-3 blocks, including the old convention site. I’d rather fill up than go up more. This is high enough to satisfy the ego height requirements.


Only the Omni brand. They would probably either build a new tower or build on to their current building.

Excellent points. We have the land available to expand or build another 300 room addition to the Omni hotel on site or in the vicinity if the demand is there to exceed supply. Omni, has first rights, if they don't exercise that option, OKC has the option to bring in another band and developer.

There's also Oklahoma's only 5 star hotel with plans to open at First National Center. Our city will be poised to support conventions that require certain specifications.

Excellent points. We have the land available to expand or build another 300 room addition to the Omni hotel on site or in the vicinity if the demand is there to exceed supply. Omni, has first rights, if they refuse to expand, OKC has the option to bring in another band and developer.

There's also Oklahoma's only 5 star hotel with plans to open at First National Center. Our city will be poised to support conventions that require certain specifications.

where?

where?

:D Current convention center complex under construction.


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/convention082519a.jpg

Also, what about the parcel of land south of Patel's Fairfield Inn & Suites. There's options for another hotel if Omni doesn't exercise their options.

That cause to give Omni first rights, doesn't negate the rights for our city to pursue other alternatives.

The hotel operators knew the convention center and park were going in when they built this underwhelming hotel. Let's not re-write history and pretend they propelled development in the area in some way.

Oh, sure, everyone knew it was coming, but they still put their money in and broke ground before anything else started around them. With them starting when they did we'll have two hotels open in the immediate area of the convention center when it opens instead of just the Omni, and that is important for the new facility to get off the ground running.

I've been to plenty of conferences and conventions, and nearly always the closer you can get a hotel room the better off you are. The Fairfield going up when it did means more con attendees will have a better experience from the start.

Oh, sure, everyone knew it was coming, but they still put their money in and broke ground before anything else started around them. With them starting when they did we'll have two hotels open in the immediate area of the convention center when it opens instead of just the Omni, and that is important for the new facility to get off the ground running.

I've been to plenty of conferences and conventions, and nearly always the closer you can get a hotel room the better off you are. The Fairfield going up when it did means more con attendees will have a better experience from the start.

That doesn't make it a good development. Anyone with foresight could have told you this area was going to be AT LEAST moderately successful. This Fairfield Inn is a joke. Lousy design for this area. It wouldn't even be that difficult to fix. Just add 2 stories of parking underneath, done. As it is its just another cookie cutter hotel that no one with authority said no too.

That doesn't make it a good development. Anyone with foresight could have told you this area was going to be AT LEAST moderately successful. This Fairfield Inn is a joke. Lousy design for this area. It wouldn't even be that difficult to fix. Just add 2 stories of parking underneath, done. As it is its just another cookie cutter hotel that no one with authority said no too.

None of that disagrees with anything I said about the usefulness of the Fairfield to the convention center business the city will be getting when the new convention center opens.

I know you stan for the parking garage district, but that doesn't mean every building needs to have an integrated one. We've had, what, one single hotel proposal with a parking garage pedestal that I can think of in recent times? It's not exactly a common requirement we should be expecting the city to enforce. Beyond that, plenty of people traveling to conventions from far out of town do not rent a car at all and just use local means (taxi, shuttle, rideshare, etc.) to get from the airport to their hotel and pedestrian around while they are in the area. If I was flying in from out of town to a conference or convention in OKC that is exactly what I would do, and for my hotel my first choice would be the Omni and second the Fairfield because of the proximity.

It was a funny situation with the Fairfield because they had already acquired property needed for the convention center, so the city had to work out a trade.

And very hard for the city to lean on the design when they needed the owner to agree to the swap.

It really only looks out of place from drone shots. From ground-level, you don't see it at all unless you are heading south on Shields and even then it's built right to the corner and looks fine.

Thank you Pete. Finally someone agrees with me. It looks fine.

Having another less expensive hotel so close will be a good thing. It will allow anyone who might not be able to stay at Omni to have access to all the same things. Also once things fill in around it wont look out of place.

Personally, I wanted to go with 1,000 rooms because it would have allowed us to be open to bid on a number of conventions and events that a city of our size in the tier III range wouldn't normally get. To the contrary, let's be real and work with the hand we've been dealt.



This is me also. With 1,000 rooms - attached to the cc and 4 diamonds, OKC could have gone after conventions that we've only dreamed of, perhaps even including the all-star game. No reason why OKC shouldn't try to compete with the bigger boys but it only happens if we have hotel rooms. It's not just the lack of height.

600 rooms is a GIVEN and shouldn't have even needed a subsidy. It's very clear OKC will do well given this will be double what we currently have in the Renaissance Convention Center hotel. Why did we need to give Omni $85M for 600 rooms aand the kitchen sink (with development rights to the cox site AND stipulation on TIF use for no other hotels????) for them to invest $115M on a very sure bet - I don't get it.

To me, subsidy should be required above 600, OKC's $85M should have got us closer to 1,000 imo. Will Omni even have any suites?

Anyway - I am excited to have a new hotel but I'm just tired of OKC being bled to death with subsidies for 2nd best. .....

This is me also. With 1,000 rooms - attached to the cc and 4 diamonds, OKC could have gone after conventions that we've only dreamed of, perhaps even including the all-star game. No reason why OKC shouldn't try to compete with the bigger boys but it only happens if we have hotel rooms. It's not just the lack of height.

600 rooms is a GIVEN and shouldn't have even needed a subsidy. It's very clear OKC will do well given this will be double what we currently have in the Renaissance Convention Center hotel. Why did we need to give Omni $85M for 600 rooms aand the kitchen sink (with development rights to the cox site AND stipulation on TIF use for no other hotels????) for them to invest $115M on a very sure bet - I don't get it.

To me, subsidy should be required above 600, OKC's $85M should have got us closer to 1,000 imo. Will Omni even have any suites?

Anyway - I am excited to have a new hotel but I'm just tired of OKC being bled to death with subsidies for 2nd best. .....
We could have done like Dallas. They got a bigger Omni .... by paying for the whole thing.

Oh, the subsidies don’t happen just because of room count, but for all the other amenities they are building for complementing the cc.

Our city will be in much better shape to wheel & deal come time to craft MAPS V in 2028.

Just want to remind you that if you kill MAPS IV, you've set a dangerous precedence. The defeat of MAPS IV will kill the MAPS brand along with its momentum.

Why, because by the time you get a new MAPS IV crafted, the tax extension that would go with the 2000 collections will expire; thus resulting in a reduction of the 1 cent penny sales tax extension--opponents will then say that the next new re-crafting of MAPS IV raises taxes and they will be right.

Our city will be in much better shape to wheel & deal come time to craft MAPS V in 2028.

Just want to remind you that if you kill MAPS IV, you've set a dangerous precedence. The defeat of MAPS IV will kill the MAPS brand along with its momentum.

Why, because by the time you get a new MAPS IV crafted, the tax extension that would go with the 2000 collections will expire; thus resulting in a reduction of the 1 cent penny sales tax extension--opponents will then say that the next new re-crafting of MAPS IV raises taxes and they will be right.

That is why they should have went for the 1 cent general fund tax increase to fund the city and capital projects, not a temporary tax that has to be voted on every decade to extend it.

Our city will be in much better shape to wheel & deal come time to craft MAPS V in 2028.

Just want to remind you that if you kill MAPS IV, you've set a dangerous precedence. The defeat of MAPS IV will kill the MAPS brand along with its momentum.

Why, because by the time you get a new MAPS IV crafted, the tax extension that would go with the 2000 collections will expire; thus resulting in a reduction of the 1 cent penny sales tax extension--opponents will then say that the next new re-crafting of MAPS IV raises taxes and they will be right.

By passing it, we set a dangerous precedent that real estate moguls and minor league sports franchise owners set the agenda and not the people. So there's that.

By passing it, we set a dangerous precedent that real estate moguls and minor league sports franchise owners set the agenda and not the people. So there's that.

Well, we can't rely on private companies in this city to care about most of the issues that MAPS is looking to help, so there is also that.

We're not oblivious to the fact that private enterprise will grab at opportunity. I'd prefer we reward those corporations & companies that been here for us.

Recall the horse-racing debacle that led to the DeBartolos (Ohio) being awarded the Remington Park development.

The tribes had to eventually bail us out with the racetrack; just as they are doing with the American Indian Cultural Center Museum (AICCM) in OKC when our own state left OKC hanging.

OKC & TULSA have been the nucleus of the state's growth in the last 25 years. The richest in our two largest metro areas have given generously throughout. OKC NBA Thunder & Tulsa's Gathering Place will be key as we roll out projects in MAPS 3 & Vision 2025; our metros are our strength.

Not about to forget; reward the leaders with the deeper pockets when they have been there to step up to the place.

Isn't that what the role of profits are ? Thunder have made tremendous return on investment yet feel that taxpayers should fund a practice facility that the taxpayers have no access to.

Let's not forget the eyes of Texas are continuously looking at opportunities in Oklahoma--waiting on us to blink.

A few headquarter corporations they have lured to the Lone Star State just off the top of my head, Kerr McGee, Fleming, Phillips 66 & Globe Life. Are we going to continue to be a training farm for Texas.

Thank God OKC was able to keep Continental Resources & Devon in our city, you can credit the successful passage of our original MAPS referendum. What would our city be without MAPS...

Had we not passed MAPS, Devon would have a 925 foot skyscraper in Houston that wouldn't have been downsized to 844 feet.

Let's not forget the eyes of Texas are continuously looking at opportunities in Oklahoma--waiting on us to blink.

A few headquarter corporations they have lured to the Lone Star State just off the top of my head, Kerr McGee, Fleming, Phillips 66 & Globe Life. Are we going to continue to be a training farm for Texas.

Thank God OKC was able to keep Continental Resources & Devon in our city, you can credit the successful passage of our original MAPS referendum. What would our city be without MAPS...

Had we not passed MAPS, Devon would have a 925 foot skyscraper in Houston that wouldn't have been downsized to 844 feet.

GlobeLife was HQ’ed in Alabama
Phillips petroleum was way back in 2002, and in Bartlesville.
Kerr McGee was 2006.
Fleming went bankrupt shortly after their move.

So I guess sure?

Without MAPS Devon would definitely be in Houston, but the skyscraper height thing is unlikely. If I am remembering correctly that was driven by a decision to put the data center off-site, and there is no reason to believe that with all other things being equal a similar decision wouldn't have been made.

Let's not forget the eyes of Texas are continuously looking at opportunities in Oklahoma--waiting on us to blink.

Thank God OKC was able to keep Continental Resources & Devon in our city, you can credit the successful passage of our original MAPS referendum. What would our city be without MAPS...

Had we not passed MAPS, Devon would have a 925 foot skyscraper in Houston that wouldn't have been downsized to 844 feet.

I agree, but that does not mean we need to keep passing MAPS into perpetuity. That original MAPS was visionary and took a risk that paid off bigtime. Meanwhile, MAPS has become the scapegoat for OKC's elite to hold the city hostage on projects (OR ELSE): looking at you Funk and the "State" Fair board.

IMO, it would have been much less conspicuous if they had included one or two large downtown projects that nobody in their right mind would say NO to, just as other versions had. But they thought they could get away with it using the Neighbourhoods and Social Entities as the carrot this time - I'm not so sure it will work.

One other thing, I also disagree with the contention that MAPS will end if MAPS IV as written fails. The city could 1) come back in say March with a revised MAPS IV that includes a large hard-to-say-NO venue (like the aquarium) and/or 2) increase tax by the 1 cent anyway when MAPS III retires until the 'revised' MAPS IV is passed OR 3) keep the 1 cent permanently and just have the public vote every year on its expenditure.I

I don't see this as a bad thing but could be a "natural" evolution of MAPS where the dollars keep coming in but it's the projects that are voted/funded during a temporary phase. I like that much better actually.

Personally, I wanted to go with 1,000 rooms because it would have allowed us to be open to bid on a number of conventions and events that a city of our size in the tier III range wouldn't normally get. .

Does anyone have any examples of conventions that fall into this category? I'm not questioning the contention as much as I just don't know exactly what kind of convention we would be allowed to bid on if only we met the single variable of having a hotel with 1000 rooms under one roof in close proximity to the convention center we are building? That is, that all other minimum infrastructure and access requirements for bidding are already met, except a condition of a 1000+ room hotel?

Does anyone have any examples of conventions that fall into this category? I'm not questioning the contention as much as I just don't know exactly what kind of convention we would be allowed to bid on if only we met the single variable of having a hotel with 1000 rooms under one roof in close proximity to the convention center we are building? That is, that all other minimum infrastructure and access requirements for bidding are already met, except a condition of a 1000+ room hotel?

Fair analysis.

You would need marketing schemes & incentives, we're not a city with a minimum of 2 million metro population or a city with an abundance of billionaires or high on the list of cities with per capita income wealth.

Think we can lure a 600 - 1,000 room hotel without paying any incentives is out-of-the question.

Our mayor and city council started requesting project submission back late in 2017-18 IIRC; why wasn't the Aquarium brought up then--isn't this really what this is all about beside NOT wanting certain projects funded.

Read many posts about what people didn't want more so than what they wanted.

I personally didn't get many of the projects I wanted on this MAPS 4; however I'm not going to suggest Sabotage--there's no way you're going to satisfy everyone's needs & wants with as many deficiencies this city has.

Do away with MAPS, go ahead and pass a permanent tax to go into the city's General Fund; let the city decide what capital improvement projects (thru budget) they want to fund--leave us completely out of the process? :D

Once you lose the MAPS momentum, the naysayers who worry about a penny for every dollar they spend (their general principle policy) will clamp down on ever future MAPS proposal.

Our convention center & Omni hotel will be a success...

Reminder, this is civil discussion; so please don't take anything personal, it's obvious we all want the best for OKC.

Our mayor and city council started requesting project submission back late in 2017-18 IIRC; why wasn't the Aquarium brought up then--isn't this really what this is all about beside NOT wanting certain projects funded.

As I understand it, the Aquarium project *was* brought up at a very early stage. But the Aquarium project had it's legs cut out from under it earlier this year when the City excluded the project from further consideration. A friend of mine was actually hired by the Zoo to help with planning for the Aquarium... but they had to let him go after it became clear that the City wasn't interested in moving forward with the Aquarium as a MAPS IV project.

Thanks for the update Baralheia,

Man when the Aquarium was mentioned, thought to myself--what a saving grace. It was my #1 on the list; however, I do understand that since the zoo has its own dedicated source of funding--it probably wasn't considered.

The Aquarium is doable, it would take a long-term funding of the zoo's current funds to pay it off; if built in downtown OKC near the convention center it would be a big tourist draw IMO.

Forgive me for getting lost in this conversation; BACK TO THE CONVENTION CENTER.

Let's not forget the eyes of Texas are continuously looking at opportunities in Oklahoma--waiting on us to blink.

A few headquarter corporations they have lured to the Lone Star State just off the top of my head, Kerr McGee, Fleming, Phillips 66 & Globe Life. Are we going to continue to be a training farm for Texas.

Thank God OKC was able to keep Continental Resources & Devon in our city, you can credit the successful passage of our original MAPS referendum. What would our city be without MAPS...

Had we not passed MAPS, Devon would have a 925 foot skyscraper in Houston that wouldn't have been downsized to 844 feet.

This. We NEVER learn

Fairgrounds also has a funding source, supposedly much bigger and more impact than the Zoo. Yet, the fairgrounds is ALWAYS on every MAPS and the zoo has never been before.I think

it is shady for the city to not even allow the aquarium to be presented to the public. I thought it was a public process when in reality, the city had already decided the projects would go as those that were presented. Not a transparent process at all, instead the city made it easier for the public to be informed of the projects already selected with each giving a presentation.

My expectation for transparency in MAPS was 1) public process where projects are submitted 2) the city tallies/group suggestions into projects 3) those projects are assembled leadership who will develop their plan for MAPS 4) project leaders present their plans to the public/city 5) the public has another period to consider the top project to include in MAPS 6) the city collects the data and assembles the MAPS projects based the results of the public vote and anticipated revenue collections 7) MAPS projeccts are formally announced 8) the public vote for MAPS.

I was expecting this at least 8 step process. Consider MAPS III had steps 1-4, 7-8, I was expecting the city to implement steps 5 and 6 this time. Yet MAPS IV had the same steps again and really didn't have public involvement in selecting the projects at all *unlike MAPS III.

MAPS III was very clear that the public likes having a shiny downtown project to lead the campaign, yet we were told by the mayor and city leaders that the public didn't want MAPS IV to have a downtown project??? Again, MAPS III had a period where the public could submit projects - the MOST POPULAR were downtown projects (Aquarium, Streetcar, Central Park, Senior Centers, Stadium) and the least popular were (the CC, Fairgrounds). MAPS II put together the most popular (Streetcar, central Park, Senior Centers) with the least (cc and fairgrounds) to assemble something for everyone. Yet this time in MAPS IV, the most popular were ignored under the guise that we're tired of downtown project??

I wouldn't be surprised if MAPS IV fails but I challenge the proponents to see that as a lack of confidence in these projects or how they were selected and not that people are against the homeless or animal shelters or sidewalks/transit/bike lanes. IMO, a very easy common sense and quick way to ensure MAPS IV passage was to add that big downtown project - the aquarium. Come to a deal with the zoo, fund 60% with MAPS (and extend the canal) where the Zoo funds up to the remaining 40% and of course operations.

If we can do this for the fairgrounds arena, why couldn't we do this for the even more popular Aquarium.

Larry, I think you misunderstood my thought about the city just adding the 1 cent tax permanently.

I argue that the city could just make the 1 cent permanent but have a periodic election where the public decides what projects will be implemented. This way, the funding never goes away and the city could implement projects faster with smaller (MAPS sets). This would give the public even more of a say in how the dollars are spent, instead of a large 7-10 year collection for a set of projects, the dollars would come in regardless and the public would decide smaller set of projects every few years.

Nowhere would the city just decide what gets built in my idea, the public would vote on the 1 cent collection before it is spent. Basically the same idea of MAPS just smaller and more permanent in nature.

Instead of stomping around telling people MAPS isnt a tax increase like the mayor, chamber and those before him have/are doing; make the 1 cent permanent (so it really isn't an increase) and during temporary periods (say every 2-3 years/$350M collections) have the people vote on projects. To me this is a more mature way of doing MAPS and gives people much more say on how the dollars are spent.

What I hear you saying is pass a permanent 1 cent dedicated capital improvement tax where there is continuous collections and the public vote on the projects.

Great idea on the permanent 1 cent sales tax dedicated for capital improvements; similar to the Zoo's 1/8 cent; also what about safety (police, fire); they will want their own dedicated source of funds that is included IIFC in the budget...

How would you decide projects to be listed on the ballot: How many, who makes the cut?

Also: 1) Piecemeal: Individual stand alone or 2) Bundled: As one Capital Improvement funded item.

Hot Rod, we need a separate thread for this discussion, there are too many variables involved with this on the Convention Center thread.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/convention092019a.jpg

Drove by this area last night, and Pete's drone shots don't do the CC justice (though they are great shots). It is massive!

Yeah...if you don't see the CC in person from close or far away, the impact is impossible to imagine.

So glad this ended up being the site as it really makes great use of an other wise super difficult section of downtown to develop with the lots south of the arena, east of the park, west of the tracks and north of I-40...those 10 blocks were likely to be dead in the water for a long time since the connectivity is so bad. Or whatever development they received would have been underwhelming and that's what the park would be fronted by.

Fair analysis.

You would need marketing schemes & incentives, we're not a city with a minimum of 2 million metro population or a city with an abundance of billionaires or high on the list of cities with per capita income wealth.

Think we can lure a 600 - 1,000 room hotel without paying any incentives is out-of-the question.

To be honest, I didn't really intend to offer an analysis. I don't have near enough information to do that. That's why I was asking. I'm not sure what these conventions are that would be within consideration if we had a 1,000 room hotel next to the convention center, as opposed to the 600 room that's being built. And without that, I couldn't begin to offer any kind of reasonable or logical analysis, so I'm sorry if I misrepresented that.

I'm just kind of curious as to what we are talking about. What kind of conventions would consider coming here with a 1,000 room hotel, everything else being equal?

Unfortunately, I agree that we probably could not lure a 600 - 1000 room hotel without paying incentives. Honestly, I don't think many markets could do that at all in the government incentive economic model of today, but especially not a smaller commodity focused market like OKC. I'm just interested in what some examples are of conventions that would consider the market with a 1000 room hotel, that will not with a 600 room hotel, everything else being equal...

I'm not offering an analysis, as much as just asking, from a position of ignorance, as to what those conventions are that hinge on that requirement.