When Mick took office, he did have the rudiments of an NBA arena. And what he did was go to David Stern's door, of his own volition, and beg for a team. So often that, as Capt. Dave said, Stern called him "the mayor who wouldn't go away". Basically, the mayor who wouldn't take "no" for an answer. The mayor who saw his opportunity when Katrina damaged the Hornets' arena and within hours was again talking to David Stern about getting us a team temporarily. The mayor who fought to get the arena improvements MAPS tax passed, without which we would not have a permanent team. I stand by my statement, "Without Mick Cornett, we would not have the Thunder." You can also say without Ron Norick, and Kirk Humphries, the taxpayers and Clay Bennett. They all deserve credit. But, if any of those elements were missing, we would not have a team. Mick Cornett was a key element. Ed Shadid was NOT a key element and I stand by my statement that had he been mayor at the time, we would not have the Thunder.

Yep. I'm saying "Mick brought us the Thunder" is about as accurate a statement as "Al Gore invented the internet" with one major difference, Al Gore was involved in the early stages paving the way. Mick wasn't.

And I call complete and unEDucated bs on this.

And I call complete and unEDucated bs on this.

Okay. Where was Mick in '92 and what was his involvement with the plans at that time to bring an NBA team to OKC?

The link from upthread I'm referring to. http://newsok.com/city-plans-netting-nba-franchise-arena-due-study/article/2383994

I've tried to take you serious mk but it is pretty clear you are being obtuse on purpose. Again, no one is saying Cornett is the sole reason the Thunder are here and yet you keep arguing that people are saying that. However, Cornett was key player in the Thunder making the move. To somehow diminish his involvement either means you haven't been paying attention the last decade or simply refuse to give the man any credit for whatever reason.

Okay. Where was Mick in '92 and what was his involvement with the plans at that time to bring an NBA team to OKC?

The link from upthread I'm referring to. City Plans Netting NBA Franchise; Arena Due Study | News OK (http://newsok.com/city-plans-netting-nba-franchise-arena-due-study/article/2383994)

Good Lord. No one is saying Mick was alone in bringing the Thunder here. Not one person is saying that. What we are saying is that without him there is no way there would be a Thunder team here. None.

Really. Some other mayor with an empty arena built for an NBA team and all the other planning and economic factors in play, "no way" would there be a team here. Right.

How old was Mick in '92 and what was he doing? Nothing to do with this. It wasn't his idea. He had nothing to do with the idea. He had nothing to do with Maps 1 where the voters committed to collect and spend money on an arena. Credit where credit is due. He is due some, but not all that much in the grand scheme of effort, planning, and millions of dollars spent by the people.

City Plans Netting NBA Franchise

February 1992

City Plans Netting NBA Franchise; Arena Due Study | News OK (http://newsok.com/city-plans-netting-nba-franchise-arena-due-study/article/2383994)

If he voted as a regular citizen, he had more to do with it than his primary opposition.

Really. Some other mayor with an empty arena built for an NBA team and all the other planning and economic factors in play, "no way" would there be a team here. Right.

With all of the things we had, we needed a mayor who would go and get us a team. Cornett was a corner piece in the large intricate puzzle that led to us getting a team. Yes, him, along with many others contributed, but he was a cornerstone to getting it.

Anyways we are off topic, Thunder is doing great, and so is our city. I'm voting for Cornett again.

Seriously, are you just an Ed plant spouting the party line? Why did the Hornets come to Oklahoma City? They were likely going to play in Baton Rouge initially. George Shinn didn't even know OKC had an arena. Who told him we did? David Stern. How did David Stern know that? Read "Big League City". Kansas City has a much prettier, empty arena that was NBA ready in 2007. Why didn't the Sonics go there instead? People who were paying attention know the answers to these questions. Mick Cornett is the answer to all or part of each question.

Really. Some other mayor with an empty arena built for an NBA team and all the other planning and economic factors in play, "no way" would there be a team here. Right.

Most Mayors would not have gone to the lengths that he did to get the team here. He traveled back and forth to NYC to talk to David Stern personally about getting an NBA team and wouldn't take no for an answer. He talked to Clay Bennett personally about getting the Sonics because CB had expressed interest in buying the Hornets from George Shinn to get them to stay in OKC instead of going back to N.O.. He pushed to get an arena renovation done to lure the Sonics to come here. He personally did all of those things. So, no, I don't think most mayors would spend the time, effort and money to do all those things to bring a team to the 45th largest TV market and the 29th largest in population.

Yep. I'm saying "Mick brought us the Thunder" is about as accurate a statement as "Al Gore invented the internet" with one major difference, Al Gore was involved in the early stages paving the way. Mick wasn't.

Similarly, without the voters who actually voted in the MAPS referendums, Ed would not have his windmill to joust.

Howard Schultz's greed deserves most the credit. He could have sold to a local for less $ but he was like a crow to a shiny object when Bennett waved cash under his noes.

Edgar: Schultz' group sold to the highest bidder; would you classify that as greed?

Larry Elliott, CEO of Oracle offered Schultz' group $400 million to purchase the Seattle Supersonics back in 2006 with full intent to move the franchise to San Jose, CA. Schultz knew that the NBA wouldn't approve an NBA team for an area to have three franchises (Oakland-San Francisco, Sacramento & San Jose) in a 100-mile radius.

Elliott's bid was contingent upon relocation of the franchise from Seattle to San Jose. Howard Schultz knew this wouldn't fly with the NBA; he valued the impact this would have on Starbucks' reputation.

The Oklahoma group led by Clay Bennett was awarded the Seattle Supersonics for $350 million. Schultz' had a side note attached to the sale which he knew wasn't binding. Bennett's group made a pitch to get a new arena in Seattle which failed and the owners requested relocation to Oklahoma City which was approved by the NBA Board of Governors. The Supersonics relocated to Oklahoma City for the 2008-09 season.

The Hornets wanted to stay in Oklahoma City. The NBA knew that local ownership was in the best interest for operating a franchise. Hornets left OKC and returned to New Orleans.

MAPS for Hoops initiative (arena upgrade, practice facility) was passed to upgrade the downtown arena in OKC to NBA standards. We have the NBA as a result of the work spearheaded by Mayor Mick Cornett. True, Hurricane Katrina's devastation of New Orleans led to the temporary relocation of the New Orleans Hornets to OKC; however, many predicted that Oklahoma City would draw 12,500 per night at best.

Oklahoma City far exceeded the expectations of the NBA averaging 18,168 in 2005-06 and 17,833 in 2006-07 before returning to New Orleans.

Let's not overstate the conservation figures often used to gauge Oklahoma City's potential.

Oklahoma City's geographic location and additional convention center space will allow us to compete for the more conventions as we continue to add quality hotels downtown. Money from out-of-state being brought into our community will hasten our growth; not money that is being recirculated within our community.

Now whether or not the convention center pays for itself directly is another question. One thing that having a quality convention center will do for Oklahoma City is help get the word out (marketing, advertising), spur hotel development, create jobs, attract more businesses and development which will have a far more economic impact than the convention center itself.

The Business Of Basketball - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/nba-valuations/#page:2_sort:0_direction:asc_search:)

Edgar, your ignorance would be laughable if it weren't so sad. You're talking to people who lived through this and know precisely what happened. Read "Big League City" if you want to educate yourself. The Washington legislature and the city of Seattle's refusal to build a new arena is the primary reason the Sonics moved here, which was preceded by Mayor Cornett's persistant courting of the NBA and acumen in seizing the opportunity to host the Hornets when Katrina made the New Orleans arena unusable. If it weren't for the voters who approved MAPS I, the MAPS arena update and Mayor Cornett, the Thunder would not be here. Most people who are losing $20 million a year on a business cannot be called greedy for wanting to break even. Howard Schultz was foolish, perhaps, to think that he could operate a team in the black, given the ridiculously bad contract the Sonics had with the city of Seattle, but it is ignorant to call him greedy. And there were no Seattle buyers at the time he sold to Bennett et al. The only other potential buyer was in San Jose and insisted on moving the team immediately there upon purchase.

Wasn't it Brad Lund who ha dthe brainstorm after katrina? Should have never ran the man out of town. He knows how to put on a show.

Wasn't it Brad Lund who ha dthe brainstorm after katrina? Should have never ran the man out of town. He knows how to put on a show.

He's not been run out of town. From his bio on Sold Out Sports web page:

Brad Lund has served in an executive capacity in the Oklahoma City market for the past 19 years. He currently is overseeing Oklahoma City’s efforts to land a world-class Grand Prix in downtown OKC. Lund is actively involved in the local tennis community as director of Friends of OKC Tennis, OKC Tennis Classic, and the Oklahoma City Open USTA Pro Circuit Futures.

From 1992-2008, Lund was the lead executive for one of North America’s most respected minor league hockey franchises – the Oklahoma City Blazers. During his tenure with the Central Hockey League franchise, the Blazers posted the top attendance average in all of minor league hockey (9,123). The franchise set numerous industry benchmarks, including leading the CHL in attendance in each of the 16 seasons under Lund’s helm, and ranking number-one in all of minor pro attendance on five occasions.

Lund, 45, was a key player in establishing the 2001 merger between the CHL and Western Professional Hockey League (WPHL). He served on the league’s Board of Directors and Franchise Advisory Committee for eight consecutive seasons (2001-2008), and was honored as CHL Executive of the Year on three occasions.

Lund also has had executive and marketing roles in Professional Bull Riding (PBR Tour), Davis Cup Tennis, WTA Tennis, Major League Soccer (MLS), and has hosted two CHL All Star Games, and four NHL Preseason Games. He was a special assistant to the Oklahoma City Mayor’s Office for the relocation of the New Orleans Hornets to Oklahoma City following Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

Prior to entering into professional ice hockey, Lund worked in the University of Oklahoma’s Athletic Department as a Student Assistant (1984-89); then served a two-season stint as the Director of Basketball Operations for the CBA’s Oklahoma City Cavalry.

Brad is married to Irma of Tegucigalpa, Honduras, and has a stepson Henry Litchfield, a second-year student at Tulane Law. Irma is currently in her 22nd year of employment with Kansas City-based Cerner Corporation.

You can see in the bolded part that he was part of the effort to bring the Hornets here, but he was working with the Mayor's office in that regard.

For clarity about why I got involved in this topic to start with, this post was in another thread before my post in this thread where credit for the Thunder being a great success was given to two people and one group:


Thank you Mayor Cornett and Clay Bennett. Thank you Thunder fans!!!!

Then this was posted by the same person only it read differently originally when I started to post about it. It first said "Without Maps 1 and Mick Cornett the Thunder wouldn't be here."

Betts obviously saw the need to reword it thus, and my response followed.



Edgar, your ignorance would be laughable if it weren't so sad. You're talking to people who lived through this and know precisely what

happened. Read "Big League City" if you want to educate yourself. The Washington legislature and the city of Seattle's refusal to build a new arena is the

primary reason the Sonics moved here, which was preceded by Mayor Cornett's persistant courting of the NBA and acumen in seizing the opportunity to host the

Hornets when Katrina made the New Orleans arena unusable. If it weren't for the voters who approved MAPS I, the MAPS arena update and Mayor Cornett, the

Thunder would not be here. Most people who are losing $20 million a year on a business cannot be called greedy for wanting to break even. Howard Schultz

was foolish, perhaps, to think that he could operate a team in the black, given the ridiculously bad contract the Sonics had with the city of Seattle, but it

is ignorant to call him greedy. And there were no Seattle buyers at the time he sold to Bennett et al. The only other potential buyer was in San Jose and

insisted on moving the team immediately there upon purchase.


I'm glad you reworded that. I don't remember if Mick was a rep or a TV personality during Maps 1 but he didn't have anything substantial to do with what was and is first and foremost to bringing the team here.


Were it not common around here to step on all the work done over the last few decades by other than Mick, and instead sing Mick's praises as if having an NBA team here were all about him, I wouldn't have said a word about it.

I did say something about the taxpayers in the other thread, and sometime later Betts acknowledged them.

being obtuse

For clarity about why I got involved in this topic to start with, this post was in another thread before my post in this thread where credit for the Thunder being a great success was given to two people and one group:


Thank you Mayor Cornett and Clay Bennett. Thank you Thunder fans!!!!

Then I find this posted shortly after by the same person only it read differently originally when I started to post about it. It first said "Without Maps 1 and Mick Cornett the Thunder wouldn't be here."

Betts obviously saw the lack of clarity and need to reword it and this was the result, with my response following.



Edgar, your ignorance would be laughable if it weren't so sad. You're talking to people who lived through this and know precisely what

happened. Read "Big League City" if you want to educate yourself. The Washington legislature and the city of Seattle's refusal to build a new arena is the

primary reason the Sonics moved here, which was preceded by Mayor Cornett's persistant courting of the NBA and acumen in seizing the opportunity to host the

Hornets when Katrina made the New Orleans arena unusable. If it weren't for the voters who approved MAPS I, the MAPS arena update and Mayor Cornett, the

Thunder would not be here. Most people who are losing $20 million a year on a business cannot be called greedy for wanting to break even. Howard Schultz

was foolish, perhaps, to think that he could operate a team in the black, given the ridiculously bad contract the Sonics had with the city of Seattle, but it

is ignorant to call him greedy. And there were no Seattle buyers at the time he sold to Bennett et al. The only other potential buyer was in San Jose and

insisted on moving the team immediately there upon purchase.


I'm glad you reworded that. I don't remember if Mick was a rep or a TV personality during Maps 1 but he didn't have anything substantial to do with what was and is first and foremost to bringing the team here.


Were it not common around here to step on all the work done over the last few decades by other than Mick, and instead sing Mick's praises as if having an NBA team here were all about him, I wouldn't have said a word about it. Now, lets see how many days we go before it happens again.

I did indicate in the other thread the taxpayers got passed over, and sometime later Betts acknowledged them.

your repeating yourself self again again

He's not been run out of town. From his bio on Sold Out Sports web page:


You can see in the bolded part that he was part of the effort to bring the Hornets here, but he was working with the Mayor's office in that regard.

Obvious he's not running the hockey any more. You can take a nap in the place.

Obvious he's not running the hockey any more. You can take a nap in the place.

nm

your repeating yourself self again again

That's helpful. Thanks.

Were it not common around here to step on all the work done over the last few decades by other than Mick, and instead sing Mick's praises as if having an NBA team here were all about him, I wouldn't have said a word about it. Now, lets see how many days we go before it happens again.

I did indicate in the other thread the taxpayers got passed over, and sometime later Betts acknowledged them.

Who exactly is stepping on all the work done by previous mayors? I haven't seen anything negative about Mayor Humphries and Mayor Norick. The only negativity or attempt to step on anything I see with regard to MAPS is from the Shadid camp.

Of course Mayor Cornett's predecessors deserve a huge amount of credit for having the vision to set the city on this path using MAPS as the vehicle. The people that actually voted for MAPS in all its iterations and with all its imperfections deserve credit. It is also undeniable that Mayor Cornett deserves much of the credit for the NBA taking a serious look at OKC. Before his tenure, the focus of the aspirations for a professional team for the MAPS arena was the NHL. A combination of unfortunate and providential circumstances came together that permitted OKC to capitalize on the groundwork Mayor Cornett had laid at the NBA offices in New York. Constantly attempting to shift credit away from where it is due is a fairly transparent tactic.

Obvious he's not running the hockey any more. You can take a nap in the place.

There are many who would say the the Barons are a much more successful enterprise than the Blazers. It all depends on how you measure success. If it's purely flesh in the seats, the Blazers were more successful. If it's a better level of hockey or interaction with the major league or income, the Barons are the more successful. Prodigal Hockey certainly built on what the Blazers did, but the Barons are better hockey and business.

Constantly attempting to shift credit away from where it is due is a fairly transparent tactic.

Exactly. Perfect example:


Quote Originally Posted by betts View Post
Thank you Mayor Cornett and Clay Bennett. Thank you Thunder fans!!!!

Glad we're on the same page now.

Come on, Betts. Don't you know that the only step that ever matters is the very first step? That's why I give all credit to the Thunder being here to the land run. If it wasn't for those settlers none of us would be here so nobody alive deserves any credit.

Come on, Betts. Don't you know that the only step that ever matters is the very first step? That's why I give all credit to the Thunder being here to the land run. If it wasn't for those settlers none of us would be here so nobody alive deserves any credit.

In other words, thank you Sooners for the Thunder :-P

In other words, thank you Sooners for the Thunder :-P

Hah!

They deserve none and Washington is the only person we should be talking about.

Washington? That hack. Let's give credit to John Hanson, the first president of the United States under the Articles of Confederation. :-P

Exactly. Perfect example:



Glad we're on the same page now.

No, you are still quite a ways off.

Exactly. Most our Founding Fathers were very late to the mission, relatively speaking. Several not even getting involved until they were invited to the Convention.

I'm just glad no one is ever trying to give them any credit. They deserve none and Washington is the only person we should be talking about. Or was it Columbus? Oh drat, now I'll have to go find a quote that tangentially supports my position. I can't recall my history well enough.



Washington? That hack. Let's give credit to John Hanson, the first president of the United States under the Articles of Confederation. :-P

No - Myles Standish deserves all the credit! Or was it Thor Heyerdahl or one of his ancestors?

No - Myles Standish deserves all the credit! Or was it Thor Heyerdahl or one of his ancestors?

Hey, I'll take that (Standish), he and I are directly related!

Y'all keep going back and back and pretty soon, you're gonna have to find yourself in the far, far, right, holding hands pew-side and singing to God be the Glory, for the things He has done.

Thunder, are you kidding me - It has to be James Naismith that gets all the credit......

So again, Are mkjeeves and edgar Ed's last remaining holdouts here? Can we put LandRunOkie in his camp? Can't think of anyone else. The poll of site users was quite illuminating.

Perhaps there should be a "Friends of Ed Shadid Post Here" thread, so Edgar and mkjeeves can give each other verbal high fives while trying to suggest Mick Cornett is the apotheosis of evil, and since they will be the only ones posting there, we won't have to have them gum up the works in all the other threads they troll in.

I only made it to page 3 before I had to stop reading that non-sense. The hotel is going to increase local economic output by $669 million? Why are we just building one of these? We should build 20 if you believe that number.


On-going hotel operations are estimated to create and/or maintain 674 local jobs, increase local economic output by $669 million, and increase local income by over $204 million.

The economic development spurred by the hotel and its workers. The number seems a bit exaggerated.

The number seems a bit exaggerated.

That could never happen!

abcdefg

abcdefg

hijklmnop?

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSPpR-8OTQhbHcmX4qksnXlxXqh9Gch3sjaZYpOo2kNP_h4AQTE
Some folks are not for progress.


http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/stockyards/coliseum1922s.jpghttps://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR2t5TY4Nwxu-iw2GLjAnhMIciKStoqBoqfxjtt3BnDRHg4uA5xgghttps://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTOYqqadCPs4r1aB9Oa21rzm8sGJfGtK Ore1USggEBsM9KcmlZY

Let's live up to the fact that there aren't any perfect candidates for mayor. If it wasn't for MAPS I, Oklahoma City would be the world's largest cemetery.



Can some tell me what is Shadid's platform? He seems to be the only one trying to unravel what we approved as voters in 2009. Mayor Cornett deserves another term...

The Oklahoma City Convention Center will be needed; let's build it while we have voted to fund it; the money will be there. Construction costs are rising and it's more economical to build it now.


http://www.thunderfans.com/vforum/images/smilies/okc.gif "Oklahoma City looks oh-so pretty... ... as I get my kicks on Route 66." --Nat King Cole.http://www.thunderfans.com/vforum/images/smilies/okc.gif

The economic development spurred by the hotel and its workers. The number seems a bit exaggerated.

So are the projected costs put out by Shadid's campaign.

Y'all keep going back and back and pretty soon, you're gonna have to find yourself in the far, far, right, holding hands pew-side and singing to God be the Glory, for the things He has done.

I'm pretty sure I remember way-back-when hearing the story of when Mick, Jesus, FSM, Al Gore and the Sooners sat around a campfire planning the future of the NBA in Oklahoma City. Yeah, lets give that credit to Mick and give credit for the internet to Al Gore. It all makes perfect sense in your world.

I received an email this week about Cornett's "get out the vote" effort beginning in earnest this weekend. I'm going to try to make it. Hope to see/meet some of you guys there.

I'm pretty sure I remember way-back-when hearing the story of when Mick, Jesus, FSM, Al Gore and the Sooners sat around a campfire planning the future of the NBA in Oklahoma City. Yeah, lets give that credit to Mick and give credit for the internet to Al Gore. It all makes perfect sense in your world.

Your blatant attempts to completely ignore every single post that refutes your point is getting to such an absurd point is probably time for people to start ignoring you. You keep arguing some point that people repeatedly say they aren't making. Not one person has said Mayor Cornett is the sole reason the Thunder are here. People continue to reap tons and tons a praise on the citizens and the visionaries of the original MAPS. You just choose to ignore all of it because you want to chase this bogeyman of people giving sole credit to Cornett (which I've yet to see). Because in your world view Cornett has never done anything positive for our city.

End of the day Cornett was a major part of the Thunder ending up in OKC. I promise you David Stern and Clay Bennett feel the same way. To try to minimize his involvement shows a complete lack of awareness on how this all went down. That lack of awareness is what is fueling the Shadid campaign right now. It's like the city did not exist before Shadid was a council person. There have been plenty of politicians who I never want to see reelected and disagree with on almost everything. I can still give them credit for the positive things they've done. Heck, I think Shadid's crusade for improvements to our bus system are admirable and well worthwhile (I just disagree with it coming at the expense of other stuff).

And before you quote Bett's post for the 10th time. There is nothing wrong with thanking Mayor Cornett for the Thunder. He deserves it. Just as Clay Bennet and the citizens do for voting on the various taxes. Thanking one person doesn't mean he was solely responsible. If I thank my mom for me being born that doesn't mean my dad had nothing to do with it. It also doesn't mean my grandparents had nothing to do with it even though without them my parents wouldn't be there without them.

I wish wherever mkjeeves lives was de-annexed so we wouldn't have to listen to this anymore.

A lot of people read these posts who don't post. It's quite clear what the biases of the people who post here are. Ultimately, since there are more readers than posters, what they think is the important thing. Let them decide whose arguments are reasonable and whose are not. Refusing to acknowledge Mick Cornett's large role in the Thunder being here is just as absurd and unreasonable as refusing to acknowledge his predecessors and the taxpayers' role. I'm willing to acknowledge them all and I'll leave it at that.

There once was a candidate Ed
Into folly his sheeple he led
If he gets his way
The whole city will pay
Because our progress it soon will be dead.

There once was a candidate Ed
Into folly his sheeple he led
If he gets his way
The whole city will pay
Because our progress it soon will be dead.

You'd better copyright that!

THAT WAS GOOD!

In truth though, the 'cured' challenger can't kill the progress okc is making. He might maul it, bruise it, maybe even leave it a bit scarred, but kill it? Nah. Even when people fall for excessive hype, they tend to catch on once it turns out the city doesn't become all lollypops and rainbows and dancing unicorns grazing beside bus stops that attract Vogue photographers 24/7/365 and cause jaded superstars to fly in and weep at the magnificence of the structures whilst well paid pilicia guard each street corner and teach songs to the happy children as they flit about walking their butterflies.

Many questions have yet to be answered, says convention-center expert | Red Dirt Report (http://www.reddirtreport.com/prairie-opinions/many-questions-have-yet-be-answered-says-convention-center-expert)
Did anyone attend? The good doctor even provided refreshments. Bet Mick never provides refreshments.

Wow, what a well balanced, thought out, fact based, accurate, and unbiased piece that was.

*cough*

So did the ding dongs get free ho hos?

nm. juvenile, even for me on a slow morning.

Quick question from the peanut gallery. Why are we debating if the convention center is a good or bad idea? This was all down (with Sanders involvement) leading up to the vote. I thought the issue at hand was whether we were lied to, not whether the center is a good or bad idea. Shadid insisting on debating convention center economics doesn't seem inline with why he says he wants the vote of the people overturned.

So is he against he project or is he agaisnt the way the project was sold to voters? To some that might be splitting hairs. To me there is a big difference.

So, can we do a reset, for just a moment?
What does Mick propose for his next term, should voters give it to him?
What does Ed propose for his first term, should voters give it to him?
Have either of them put out anything definitive?

Your blatant attempts to completely ignore every single post that refutes your point is getting to such an absurd point is probably time for people to start ignoring you. You keep arguing some point that people repeatedly say they aren't making. Not one person has said Mayor Cornett is the sole reason the Thunder are here. People continue to reap tons and tons a praise on the citizens and the visionaries of the original MAPS. You just choose to ignore all of it because you want to chase this bogeyman of people giving sole credit to Cornett (which I've yet to see). Because in your world view Cornett has never done anything positive for our city.

End of the day Cornett was a major part of the Thunder ending up in OKC. I promise you David Stern and Clay Bennett feel the same way. To try to minimize his involvement shows a complete lack of awareness on how this all went down. That lack of awareness is what is fueling the Shadid campaign right now. It's like the city did not exist before Shadid was a council person. There have been plenty of politicians who I never want to see reelected and disagree with on almost everything. I can still give them credit for the positive things they've done. Heck, I think Shadid's crusade for improvements to our bus system are admirable and well worthwhile (I just disagree with it coming at the expense of other stuff).

And before you quote Bett's post for the 10th time. There is nothing wrong with thanking Mayor Cornett for the Thunder. He deserves it. Just as Clay Bennet and the citizens do for voting on the various taxes. Thanking one person doesn't mean he was solely responsible. If I thank my mom for me being born that doesn't mean my dad had nothing to do with it. It also doesn't mean my grandparents had nothing to do with it even though without them my parents wouldn't be there without them.

Oh it's far worse than that. When mkjeeves first started posting on this thread he acted like he was "undecided," and even suggested he would "hold his nose" and vote for Cornett. He has misrepresented himself from the start. He's a Shadid campaign lackey masquerading as in independent thinker.

Oh it's far worse than that. When mkjeeves first started posting on this thread he acted like he was "undecided," and even suggested he would "hold his nose" and vote for Cornett. He has misrepresented himself from the start. He's a Shadid campaign lackey masquerading as in independent thinker.

More likely I'll stay home, for the first time ever, unless there are other issues on the ballot I'm concerned with. Was still planning on voting for Cornett but there's still time to change my mind. Meanwhile, you remain a bag of hot air and little else, malodorous at that.

mkjeeves, honest question. Why are you planning on staying home? Seems weird to me someone who seems to agree with most of Shadid's positions would not vote for him.

No need to *repeat myself regardless of what liars have to say. (soonerguru)
You can look it up.


* as per yourself and kp.

Many questions have yet to be answered, says convention-center expert | Red Dirt Report (http://www.reddirtreport.com/prairie-opinions/many-questions-have-yet-be-answered-says-convention-center-expert)
Did anyone attend? The good doctor even provided refreshments. Bet Mick never provides refreshments.

And we've got another one !

And why would someone want to attend something the good doctor puts on ? You know he is dishonest which gives way to him having very little substance.

Many questions have yet to be answered, says convention-center expert | Red Dirt Report (http://www.reddirtreport.com/prairie-opinions/many-questions-have-yet-be-answered-says-convention-center-expert)
Did anyone attend? The good doctor even provided refreshments. Bet Mick never provides refreshments.

Gee, we already knew those plutocrats were bad. But now I should be embarrassed to be bourgeois? I guess if you're not poor, you're in trouble, it being easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a middle class person to get into heaven? And, I'm using whether someone provides refreshments as a reason to vote for them for mayor? This has suddenly become a very simple race.

Silliness aside, I think there are questions that remain to be answered.

1. Do we have a current convention center that is of an appropriate size and quality for a city of our size? Personally, although I'm not dying for a new convention center, I have to admit that the answer is probably no. The Cox Center is poorly organized, looks shabby and that's on the interior. The exterior is ghastly and the superblock it's on is in a horrible location for a superblock. It will be 50 years old soon. So, I don't mind building a $250 million convention center. A different location would be nice. So, based on my answer, even if I didn't think that it's a mistake to basically spit in the eye of people who took the trouble to vote for MAPS 3 by trying to stop it, I think a new convention center is probably a worthwhile expenditure. I might go for it just to see the Cox Convention Center torn down, personally.

2. Do we have to have a convention center hotel? This I don't know. I'm fine with getting more information on this subject. I'm going to read the consultant's report when I get a bit of free time and decide what I think of their data. That's pretty much what the city council has done. They listened to the consultant, looked at his slides and handout and said "thank you". Did anyone say we're getting a convention center hotel come hell or high water? Not publicly. Did anyone say we're using MAPS dollars for a convention center hotel? Not that I've noticed. Did anyone say $200 million? Ed Shadid. Anyone else? Not on the record anywhere. Did anyone say $50 million? Not anywhere that I've read. So, it seems like any convention center hotel anxiety is premature. Let's educate ourselves so we can have an educated opinion if the subject comes up.

3. If the city decides we have to have a convention center hotel, who will pay for it? This too is an important question. But, until the question of whether we're going to have a hotel is answered, what value is discussing who will pay what? This is definitely putting the cart before the horse.

4. What if the convention center needs a phase II? Hmmmm. Is there any way to pay for a phase II with MAPS 3 funds? Nope. So, I guess the voters will have to decide. What a concept! Ask the people. If they say no, the Chamber will have to hold a few bake sales I guess.

5. Should a convention center be self-supporting? I don't know. Is anything else we've built with MAPS self-supporting? Is anything a city builds self-supporting? It's kind of tricky, as you have to factor in salaries of people employed to build the structure, salaries of people who run the structure, potential sales taxes and hotel taxes generated, not to mention all those pesky intangibles like civic pride, interest generated in visiting the city, how many new conventions might be interested in coming, what the economy is doing, what the economy will be doing in the future. It's tough.

6. Does any of the above justify stopping MAPS collections prematurely? To me, question #1 is the only relevant one here, since nowhere has anyone said we're getting a hotel and/or it's being paid for with MAPS dollars. Personally, my answer is a resounding no, for all the reasons I've outlined previously. But trying to lump a hotel with the question of stopping MAPS is again using fear-mongering to politick. Ed is hoping the low information voters won't think this through and will believe all his hype.

Gee, we already knew those plutocrats were bad. But now I should be embarrassed to be bourgeois? I guess if you're not poor, you're in trouble, it being easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a middle class person to get into heaven? And, I'm using whether someone provides refreshments as a reason to vote for them for mayor? This has suddenly become a very simple race.

Silliness aside, I think there are questions that remain to be answered.

1. Do we have a current convention center that is of an appropriate size and quality for a city of our size? Personally, although I'm not dying for a new convention center, I have to admit that the answer is probably no. The Cox Center is poorly organized, looks shabby and that's on the interior. The exterior is ghastly and the superblock it's on is in a horrible location for a superblock. It will be 50 years old soon. So, I don't mind building a $250 million convention center. A different location would be nice. So, based on my answer, even if I didn't think that it's a mistake to basically spit in the eye of people who took the trouble to vote for MAPS 3 by trying to stop it, I think a new convention center is probably a worthwhile expenditure. I might go for it just to see the Cox Convention Center torn down, personally.

2. Do we have to have a convention center hotel? This I don't know. I'm fine with getting more information on this subject. I'm going to read the consultant's report when I get a bit of free time and decide what I think of their data. That's pretty much what the city council has done. They listened to the consultant, looked at his slides and handout and said "thank you". Did anyone say we're getting a convention center hotel come hell or high water? Not publicly. Did anyone say we're using MAPS dollars for a convention center hotel? Not that I've noticed. Did anyone say $200 million? Ed Shadid. Anyone else? Not on the record anywhere. Did anyone say $50 million? Not anywhere that I've read. So, it seems like any convention center hotel anxiety is premature. Let's educate ourselves so we can have an educated opinion if the subject comes up.

3. If the city decides we have to have a convention center hotel, who will pay for it? This too is an important question. But, until the question of whether we're going to have a hotel is answered, what value is discussing who will pay what? This is definitely putting the cart before the horse.

4. What if the convention center needs a phase II? Hmmmm. Is there any way to pay for a phase II with MAPS 3 funds? Nope. So, I guess the voters will have to decide. What a concept! Ask the people. If they say no, the Chamber will have to hold a few bake sales I guess.

5. Does any of the above justify stopping MAPS collections prematurely? To me, question #1 is the only one here, since nowhere has anyone said we're getting a hotel and/or it's being paid for with MAPS dollars. Personally, my answer is a resounding no, for all the reasons I've outlined previously. But trying to lump a hotel with the question of stopping MAPS is again using fear-mongering to politick. Ed is hoping the low information voters won't think this through and will believe all his hype.

It's probably good you didn't attend the event last night. Best to stay uninformed to be able to post that with a straight face. The video will probably be out soon. You will never admit you agree with most of it even though a bunch of what you just said was said.

Gee, we already knew those plutocrats were bad. But now I should be embarrassed to be bourgeois? I guess if you're not poor, you're in trouble, it being easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a middle class person to get into heaven? And, I'm using whether someone provides refreshments as a reason to vote for them for mayor? This has suddenly become a very simple race.

Silliness aside, I think there are questions that remain to be answered.

1. Do we have a current convention center that is of an appropriate size and quality for a city of our size? Personally, although I'm not dying for a new convention center, I have to admit that the answer is probably no. The Cox Center is poorly organized, looks shabby and that's on the interior. The exterior is ghastly and the superblock it's on is in a horrible location for a superblock. It will be 50 years old soon. So, I don't mind building a $250 million convention center. A different location would be nice. So, based on my answer, even if I didn't think that it's a mistake to basically spit in the eye of people who took the trouble to vote for MAPS 3 by trying to stop it, I think a new convention center is probably a worthwhile expenditure. I might go for it just to see the Cox Convention Center torn down, personally.

2. Do we have to have a convention center hotel? This I don't know. I'm fine with getting more information on this subject. I'm going to read the consultant's report when I get a bit of free time and decide what I think of their data. That's pretty much what the city council has done. They listened to the consultant, looked at his slides and handout and said "thank you". Did anyone say we're getting a convention center hotel come hell or high water? Not publicly. Did anyone say we're using MAPS dollars for a convention center hotel? Not that I've noticed. Did anyone say $200 million? Ed Shadid. Anyone else? Not on the record anywhere. Did anyone say $50 million? Not anywhere that I've read. So, it seems like any convention center hotel anxiety is premature. Let's educate ourselves so we can have an educated opinion if the subject comes up.

3. If the city decides we have to have a convention center hotel, who will pay for it? This too is an important question. But, until the question of whether we're going to have a hotel is answered, what value is discussing who will pay what? This is definitely putting the cart before the horse.

4. What if the convention center needs a phase II? Hmmmm. Is there any way to pay for a phase II with MAPS 3 funds? Nope. So, I guess the voters will have to decide. What a concept! Ask the people. If they say no, the Chamber will have to hold a few bake sales I guess.

5. Should a convention center be self-supporting? I don't know. Is anything else we've built with MAPS self-supporting? Is anything a city builds self-supporting? It's kind of tricky, as you have to factor in salaries of people employed to build the structure, salaries of people who run the structure, potential sales taxes and hotel taxes generated, not to mention all those pesky intangibles like civic pride, interest generated in visiting the city, how many new conventions might be interested in coming, what the economy is doing, what the economy will be doing in the future. It's tough.

6. Does any of the above justify stopping MAPS collections prematurely? To me, question #1 is the only relevant one here, since nowhere has anyone said we're getting a hotel and/or it's being paid for with MAPS dollars. Personally, my answer is a resounding no, for all the reasons I've outlined previously. But trying to lump a hotel with the question of stopping MAPS is again using fear-mongering to politick. Ed is hoping the low information voters won't think this through and will believe all his hype.

Cornett would probably charge for refreshments.