I can't find the link for this in the Gazette. The story is on Facebook and I copied the intro. Ed's expanding his friend group, I guess:


A petition has been filed to halt funding for a new hotel and convention center in downtown Oklahoma City, which would cost an estimated $250 million in MAPS 3 funding.

What a clown.

Ed seems to want OKC to return to the mediocrity of the 1980s. It really wouldn't be hard to do. What are the chances the entire convention center gets derailed?

Anyone else see the irony of Ed having his anti-Convention Center teach-in at the Bricktown Hotel? Has anyone seen that dump? I'm envisioning fired up anti-Convention Center Hotel folks rolling up and coming away with a very different opinion than Ed is trying to foster.

If he didn't care enough to vote for or against MAPS, it's clear he doesn't understand what MAPS has done or didn't care enough about OKC to even voice an opinion. If you can't see what it's done, you can't see where we've come from. Again, it shows a disconnect from OKC past, present and future.

I assumed this would resonate positively with the many on this board who have been very anti-CC in the past?

I think it's very easy to be persuaded on the convention center when you look at the facts. When I first heard about it I wasn't so sure it was a good idea, then after doing research discovered it was a slam dunk and likely the most important of the MAPS3 projects. The truth is, the Cox Center is a convention center appropriate for a city the size of Little Rock or Wichita. OKC will never get the big name conventions it would get with a real convention center. Take a look at convention centers in other cities OKC's size or a bit larger, compare them to the Cox Center, and then try to make the case OKC doesn't need a new convention center. Conventions bring in lots of money as well as exposure to both tourists and businesses alike. The convention center will more than pay for itself if it gets built. Does anybody really think the Cox Center will still be enough in 20 years, considering OKC growth remains strong?

I assumed this would resonate positively with the many on this board who have been very anti-CC in the past?

I was against the convention center being included in MAPS 3. I don't like its location. But there are people who voted for the convention center primarily when they voted for MAPS 3 and they deserve to get what they thought they were voting for. As I've said, when you ask the people for their approval, you have moved from representative to direct democracy. So, the elected representatives gave up their authority to decide they know better. But, of course, the people pay for a new election. Maybe the person who starts the petition should have to foot the bill.

When is the next councilman election? Someone needs to run against Shadid and oust him out of his position...he's useless...

Just curious, is there even a recall process in OKC?

Just curious, is there even a recall process in OKC?

Yes: City of Oklahoma City | Council Election Cycle (http://www.okc.gov/clerk/elections/)

Ed is an anathema to anything he supports. Good or bad.

Yes: City of Oklahoma City | Council Election Cycle (http://www.okc.gov/clerk/elections/)

Ah, so we can't have a recall because if the mayor issued a proclamation for recall of the ward 2 councilor (even if valid) it would be construed as an attack on his competition for mayor (even if it wasn't).

Section 1. Elective Officers May be Removed by Recall.permanent link to this piece of content

The holder of any elective office may be removed at any time after six months from the date of his accession to said office by the electors qualified to vote for the election of a successor to such incumbent, in the following manner:

Thirty-five per cent of the qualified electors of the area from which the incumbent was elected as shown by the County registration records at the time the petitions are filed must file with the City Clerk petitions demanding the election of a successor to the person sought to be removed; provided, that said petitions, within 60 days of the commencement thereof, and the filing of the affidavits required, shall be filed with the City Clerk, and each and all of them contain in the heading thereof the reason for said recall in not more than 200 words, and the reasons against such recall in not more than 200 words.

(Charter, 3-14-11; am. 4-2-57)

Section 2. Petition for Recall.permanent link to this piece of content

No petition shall contain more than 100 names, and each name shall be followed by the address of the petitioner; and at least one of the signers of each petition shall make affidavit that the reasons for recall stated, he believes, are true; that each signature to said petition is genuine and made after each reading the petition; that same was circulated and signed within 60 days, and that each signer thereof, he believes, is a qualified elector of the City.

(Charter, 3-14-11)

Section 3. Duties of City Clerk Affecting Recall.permanent link to this piece of content

Within 30 days from the date of filing such petitions the City Clerk shall ascertain whether a sufficient total number of qualified signatures appear by checking the same with the last registration list, and, if sufficient, he shall certify such fact to the Council. Upon proper certification from the City Clerk that a sufficient petition has been filed, it shall be the duty of the Council to order and fix a date for holding said election petitioned for, not less than 20 nor more than 30 days from the date of the Clerk's certificate. If the petition is found insufficient, no further recall proceedings may be instituted against said official within 12 months from the date of the Clerk's certificate.

(Charter, 3-14-11; am. 4-2-57)

Section 4. Election—How Conducted.permanent link to this piece of content

Said election shall be called and conducted, and the result declared in all respects as other City elections. The successor of any officer so recalled or removed shall hold office during the unexpired term of his predecessor.

(Charter, 3-14-11; am. 4-2-57)

Section 5. Affidavit of Petitioners.permanent link to this piece of content

Before any petition for the recall of an officer is circulated for signatures thereto, an affidavit in triplicate shall be made by a person or persons representing at least 100 qualified electors, who shall be named in the affidavit and filed with the City Clerk, proposing such recall and setting forth a statement in not more than 200 words giving the grounds therefor. One of such affidavits shall be sent by registered mail to the residence address of the officer sought to be recalled, and the said officer shall have five days after the filing of such affidavit to formulate and deliver to the person or persons making the affidavit a statement in not more than 200 words setting forth the reasons justifying said officer's conduct. These reasons for and against the recall of said officer shall be printed in the heading of each petition circulated; provided, that if no reason against the recall is submitted by the said officer, the petition shall be valid if otherwise conforming to the provisions hereof.

(Charter, 3-14-11; am. 4-2-57)

Section 6. Who May Be Candidates.permanent link to this piece of content

Any person sought to be removed may be a candidate to succeed himself, and no one may be a candidate for the office until he shall qualify in the same manner as candidates before an official primary election. In any such recall election, the candidate receiving the highest number of votes shall be declared elected. If at such election some person other than the incumbent receives the highest number of votes, the said incumbent shall be deemed to have been removed and shall vacate the office from the declaration of the result. If the incumbent receives the highest number of votes he shall continue in office, and no subsequent petition for recall of said officer may be entertained during the remainder of his term of office.

(Charter, 3-14-11; am. 4-2-57)

Section 7. Recalled Officer Ineligible for Appointment.permanent link to this piece of content

No person who has been removed from an office by recall, or who has resigned from such office while recall proceedings were pending against him, shall be appointed to any office or employment under the City Government within one year after such removal by recall or resignation.

(Charter, 3-14-11; am. 4-2-57)

I think it's very easy to be persuaded on the convention center when you look at the facts. ...
I don't want to derail the thread, but if you look at the facts it is far from being a "slam dunk". Details are being sent thru a PM

If it actually was really doable... keep in mind, there's no assurance they wouldn't have needed public financing as well.

Exactly. I talked with a national hotel developer a few years ago with several CC projects under their belt. He articulated to me how the finances work on such a deal including debt financing, construction costs and room rates, etc. He indicated it was impossible for any developer to do this deal without some level of public monies. Period. The economy is different now, but I suspect the financing facts are not too different from then as far as hotels go. He had indicated back then a 100% developer financed deal was impossible and there would be zero responses if the city sought that out.

The Journal Record adds its editorial voice to the cacophony of people calling out Ed Shadid on the betrayal of his campaign promises.

Editorial: MAPS to success | The Journal Record (http://journalrecord.com/2014/01/06/editorial-maps-to-success-opinion/#.Us170VH55bU.facebook)

Does anyone think that E. Shadid is doing this to take the heat off his personal stuff that's been going on?

Solely? No. But the timing does seem to make it an reasonable question for any voter or interested observer to ponder.

Here's the spot for this:


Haywood Sanders mops the floor with the Stone report at 26:30 in the video.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsYU07H8QMY

Betts, thanks for reposting the video.

I noticed at roughly the 35 minute mark in the slide, in 2019-20 when the speaker says the C.C. is scheduled to be open demand jumps 12% to 14% impressive sounding except a far cry from what the Chamber's previously promised 3-fold or 300% increase. Couldn't help but also notice that after that, in 2021 & 22, the increase drops to only 2% and 0%.

I didn't watch the complete video (started at the 26 mark and had to stop at the 50 min mark), but to be fair, the numbers he presented for the missed projections were for markets much larger than ours and Tier I level (rather than Tier II which is where we are trying to get). So the question remains does the same trend exist in markets our size?

Oklahoma County had 2 billion in tourism last year. Most of that was in OKC.

I've been trying to find other presentations Heywood Sanders has given and am coming up without much. However, he's as busy as the convention hotel consultants. They say you need it, he says you don't. While he says he's never heard a consultant say a city doesn't need a convention center hotel, I can't find one instance where he says you need one.....or a new convention center. It would be refreshing to see either either side of this argument actually find one instance where their usual recommendation is not applicable.

In Tucson:

"Sanders gave a 30-minute presentation saying convention centers have been overbuilt nationally, with their supply far outstripping demand.

Because of this, convention hotels have to resort to offering steep discounts on third-party sites such as Priceline and Expedia as a way to stay full, Sanders said.

He produced receipts showing he stayed at convention-center hotels in Houston and St. Louis for $50 to $56 a night during midweek. In Phoenix, he stayed at the Hyatt for only $42 a night midweek, he said."

Sound familiar?

He does not say what month he got these prices, nor what year. For example, I would not stay in Phoenix in July or August for any price. But, I did a bit of checking.

To stay at the Phoenix convention center hotel on a Wednesday in February of this year, Pricline's lowest price is $217 and the highest $274.

To stay at the Houston convention center hotel on a weeknight in April, prices start at $93. Houston is the city whose convention center debt was paid off the first year. They're actually building a second hotel.

St. Louis convention center hotel went bankrupt.....in 2008. Recognize that year?

I posted hotel rates elsewhere for convention center hotels for Denver and Charlotte that Priceline had listed at a minimum of $150, with some rooms as high as $275.

As I said elsewhere, hotel rooms are like airline seats. One person may get a very good price on an airline ticket. Does that mean every other person in the airplane paid what the person with the lowest price seat paid? Unlikely. There are people in first class, and higher priced seats. Even Southwest has three different price ranges for seats.

Someone who uses Priceline's "Name your own price" option is likely not paying the same price as every other person in the hotel. Hotels can greatly discount some rooms that are unbooked at the last minute or that are available on the off season. But someone in the hotel is likely paying for your discount by paying the highest rate.

So, Heywood Sanders is using misleading information to make his point. He is implying that convention center hotels are all forced to rent all their rooms at a massive discount. Why? Why not just use the truth to make your point? It certainly raises the question of whether he can prove his point using the truth. Isn't this similar to what he is accusing the convention hotel consultants of doing - using flawed data to make a point? So just maybe the truth is somewhere in between and people should be careful who they listen to.

I've been trying to find other presentations Heywood Sanders has given and am coming up without much. However, he's as busy as the convention hotel consultants. They say you need it, he says you don't. While he says he's never heard a consultant say a city doesn't need a convention center hotel, I can't find one instance where he says you need one.....or a new convention center. It would be refreshing to see either either side of this argument actually find one instance where their usual recommendation is not applicable.

In Tucson:

"Sanders gave a 30-minute presentation saying convention centers have been overbuilt nationally, with their supply far outstripping demand.

Because of this, convention hotels have to resort to offering steep discounts on third-party sites such as Priceline and Expedia as a way to stay full, Sanders said.

He produced receipts showing he stayed at convention-center hotels in Houston and St. Louis for $50 to $56 a night during midweek. In Phoenix, he stayed at the Hyatt for only $42 a night midweek, he said."

Sound familiar?

He does not say what month he got these prices, nor what year. For example, I would not stay in Phoenix in July or August for any price. But, I did a bit of checking.

To stay at the Phoenix convention center hotel on a Wednesday in February of this year, Pricline's lowest price is $217 and the highest $274.

To stay at the Houston convention center hotel on a weeknight in April, prices start at $93. Houston is the city whose convention center debt was paid off the first year. They're actually building a second hotel.

St. Louis convention center hotel went bankrupt.....in 2008. Recognize that year?

I posted hotel rates elsewhere for convention center hotels for Denver and Charlotte that Priceline had listed at a minimum of $150, with some rooms as high as $275.

As I said elsewhere, hotel rooms are like airline seats. One person may get a very good price on an airline ticket. Does that mean every other person in the airplane paid what the person with the lowest price seat paid? Unlikely. There are people in first class, and higher priced seats. Even Southwest has three different price ranges for seats.

Someone who uses Priceline's "Name your own price" option is likely not paying the same price as every other person in the hotel. Hotels can greatly discount some rooms that are unbooked at the last minute or that are available on the off season. But someone in the hotel is likely paying for your discount by paying the highest rate.

So, Heywood Sanders is using misleading information to make his point. He is implying that convention center hotels are all forced to rent all their rooms at a massive discount. Why? Why not just use the truth to make your point? It certainly raises the question of whether he can prove his point using the truth. Isn't this similar to what he is accusing the convention hotel consultants of doing - using flawed data to make a point? So just maybe the truth is somewhere in between and people should be careful who they listen to.

To expand on your point about airline fares, generally there are up to 15-20 different fares an airline will quote for the same flight. They are called fare buckets, when the bucket is empty for that fare, the next price will be displayed. As the flight fills up, the cheap buckets disappear quite rapidly, with a remaining stock of higher priced fares. Hotels work the exact same way. Price is determined by availability at the time of the search relative to the time you use the product,

If we are going to build a convention center, let's build something designed to attract Tier II type events which brings in out-of-state money.

High school graduations, proms and local business meetings are great; money being redistributed into our local economy is good because we keep the tax dollars here; however, new money being pumped into our economy perpetuates growth.

1. A convention center is a long-term investment which doesn't always pay for itself as a stand alone facility.
2. We need do determine what kind of convention city we want to become.
3. A hotel chain anchor will be needed to grow conventions.
4. Build facilities (Convention center/Hotel complex) to attract events we're capable of handling.
5. Management: SMG does give you a broad spectrum to access conventions.

Conventions can often become a city's best advertising & marketing tool which could lead to other economic development; these are the invisible elements which impact a city moving forward.

We are well equipped through Fair Park to handle a number of trade shows and other gatherings; therefore we don't need to build something that's going to be in direct competition of something we already have.

As a city on the verge, there are risks associated with growth. Do we become stagnant or do we move forward while we have the resources and the momentum?

Dallas is a pattern which could provide ideas moving forward.

Dallas Convention Center: Dallas Convention Center - Dallas, Texas Convention Center | Cvent Supplier Network (http://www.cvent.com/rfp/dallas-hotels/dallas-convention-center/venue-c39ba9f9f3fb463b8a4d2ff7533257cd.aspx)


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

Whatever credibility Sanders has or does not have, the Priceline cheap room example is just silly. Selling off some product, not otherwise likely to sell on that day, is pure profit, not a loss.
If someone does not book a room at Priceline or cut a deal at the counter, that room may sit empty that particular night, and those dollars are gone for good once the cock crows.

It no more means folks can book at rock bottom prices en mass than Walmart sells burger meat or steaks at the same price on day 1 of cutting as they do on last 12 hours before discarding.
Those who time it right get a bargain. Others pay regular price.

So one might wonder, who is bs-ing whom if the sthick is based on the fringe outliers and not the norm.

Whatever credibility Sanders has or does not have, the Priceline cheap room example is just silly. Selling off some product, not otherwise likely to sell on that day, is pure profit, not a loss.
If someone does not book a room at Priceline or cut a deal at the counter, that room may sit empty that particular night, and those dollars are gone for good once the cock crows.

It no more means folks can book at rock bottom prices en mass than Walmart sells burger meat or steaks at the same price on day 1 of cutting as they do on last 12 hours before discarding.
Those who time it right get a bargain. Others pay regular price.

So one might wonder, who is bs-ing whom if the sthick is based on the fringe outliers and not the norm.

That's what I'm thinking. Stick with the truth and no one can ever prove you wrong.

Hotels work the exact same way. Price is determined by availability at the time of the search relative to the time you use the product,

That is true to some extent but, for convention hotels, the conventions normally have negotiated rates that stay the same until they are sold out. You then have to book whatever regular rates are available providing the hotels aren't sold out. It often happens that if you try to book a convention hotel through normal channels it shows sold out even if you can book rooms through a housing bureau.

That is true to some extent but, for convention hotels, the conventions normally have negotiated rates that stay the same until they are sold out. You then have to book whatever regular rates are available providing the hotels aren't sold out. It often happens that if you try to book a convention hotel through normal channels it shows sold out even if you can book rooms through a housing bureau.

Right. Was making the point that, his search results weren't scientific if he was using them for something that is considered "academic". If he wrote a science textbook, and it happened to rain on the only day he collected data, he'd write that all cloudy days made rain. Using Expedia and Orbitz.com to form the conclusion of a hotel's profitability is juvenile.

http://youtu.be/WarIBb4spvo

First let me say that Sanders is very good and presents a very good case, with numbers no more cherry picked than CSL's. the difference is that Sanders cherry picks his numbers whereas CSL very clearly pulls them out of thin air and then extrapolates them using trends that are false premises. It's scary stuff with which to justify a $250 million investment.

However the trick is in focusing on how much convention business we stand to lose if we don't build a CC and attached hotel. What's important is to get away from this phony promise of tripling our business and focus on a real chance to maintain a respectable presence in the convention industry. That's better than watching it slip away from us.

I'm personally not so much against the CC as I am against the lies spewing out of the city during this whole maps process. The trick for us to be successful in shaping this project to HELP and not HURT is getting caught up in details for once and not personalities.

First let me say that Sanders is very good and presents a very good case, with numbers no more cherry picked than CSL's. the difference is that Sanders cherry picks his numbers whereas CSL very clearly pulls them out of thin air and then extrapolates them using trends that are false premises. It's scary stuff with which to justify a $250 million investment.

However the trick is in focusing on how much convention business we stand to lose if we don't build a CC and attached hotel. What's important is to get away from this phony promise of tripling our business and focus on a real chance to maintain a respectable presence in the convention industry. That's better than watching it slip away from us.

I'm personally not so much against the CC as I am against the lies spewing out of the city during this whole maps process. The trick for us to be successful in shaping this project to HELP and not HURT is getting caught up in details for once and not personalities.

I agree. Clearly the city was using some pie-in-the-sky numbers to justify the convention center. Why? Why not just say the convention center will allow OKC to host bigger and better conventions, and will allow us to keep up with / stay ahead of cities that we no longer regard as peer cities?

I think it's actually fairly hard to make a case that OKC does not need an adequate convention center. There's no reason for the city to overstate the impact the convention center will have.

However the trick is in focusing on how much convention business we stand to lose if we don't build a CC and attached hotel. What's important is to get away from this phony promise of tripling our business and focus on a real chance to maintain a respectable presence in the convention industry. That's better than watching it slip away from us.

I'm personally not so much against the CC as I am against the lies spewing out of the city during this whole maps process. The trick for us to be successful in shaping this project to HELP and not HURT is getting caught up in details for once and not personalities.

First of all, Sanders is a showman. He too talks a good game but he's lazy. He finds enough data to support his claims, but he generalizes and his beliefs are based on a very clear bias I've found in his papers.

Having spent a bunch of time researching this, I can tell you that the "lies" spewed here are pretty much comparable to those spewed by every city. And, having gone to a bunch of these meetings and presentations, I don't think the city is deliberately spewing lies. I think consultants are exaggerating and the figures they produce sound so good that people want to believe them. When you want to believe something and you're not in the habit of thinking critically, then you're going to swallow all their numbers. No one is being malicious here. The Chamber really has no reason to want the city to spend $250 million on a building that doesn't help the city, nor do city officials. Where Sanders is really wrong is when he gets political and tries to imply that all downtown development occurs because a few rich people want to keep their property values up. That's a lie as well. He's making very gross generalizations likely based on his experience in one city or his worldview.

Does anyone truly think most of the people involved in city government and the Chamber don't love Oklahoma City and want to see it succeed? I don't and unlike most of the fear mongers talking about the "plutocrats", I've taken the time to go to these meetings and really listened to people. They absolutely want the best for OKC. Do we all differ sometimes in what we think is the best? Definitely.

But, if they publish figures that can be refuted or at least the refutation is believable to people, then they risk losing something that I agree the city needs. That's why I think they should sell civic pride. Look how much economic development has occurred as a result of that civic pride and our willingness to improve our city. Maybe we'll increase our business by a third. That would not be a bad thing. I suspect that Sanders is at least partially wrong. He's certainly made some assumptions about OKC as a destination that can be fixed with better promotion of our city as it improves. I'm not done researching, but I think a lot of these convention centers are financed, not pre-paid. That makes a big difference in costs. So, OKC, drop the hyperbole and sell civic pride. By so doing you pull the rug out from the Shadids of the world and their "plutocrat paranoia".

When we stop chasing the fraudulent numbers, it sounds like we need for ourselves, our civic pride and to meet reality, a convention center maybe 125% the size we have now with the extra space built only out of optimism. Lets do that and put $100 million somewhere else that makes more sense.

I can't think of a reason in the world why we would support any public subsidy of any kind for a convention center hotel. We can encourage it but it should be 100% private.

(duplicate)

When we stop chasing the fraudulent numbers, it sounds like we need for ourselves, our civic pride and to meet reality, a convention center maybe 125% the size we have now with the extra space built only out of optimism. Lets do that and put $100 million somewhere else that makes more sense.

I can't think of a reason in the world why we would support any public subsidy of any kind for a convention center hotel. We can encourage it but it should be 100% private.

To be honest, I'd rather spend the $250 million and, if we really don't need as much space (and I don't know that - how much space do most conventions we could attract need?) build a show stopper. My concern was always that the space chosen needs a stunning building because of its location. If we're building it for civic pride and community need, let's see if we can build something that ends up in an architecture magazine or at least is admired by anyone who sees it or the brochures.

As far as a hotel is concerned, I think we should NOT borrow money to build it unless they make it a votable bond issue. If they can get a really nice hotel chain to build a hotel with a reasonable subsidy and we still need hotel rooms downtown then I'm fine with it.

No subsidy of any kind on a hotel. There's no evident reason to do that. If we need it, the private sector can step up. We've already spent millions to attract business and redevelop downtown. Let that money do the work we were told it would do.

As far as CC numbers be damned and spend it all anyway on a bauble, I'd rather take another look at rehabbing the Cox center than do that. Put the rest back in the taxpayers pocket and for something else we need. Maps for Suburbs would be a good place. Buying (another) $1000 doormat for a house with the back porch falling off is irresponsible.

That spend it while we have it attitude reminds me of a sign my father used to have on his office wall, "Nothing is easier than spending public money. It does not appear to belong to anyone. The temptation is overwhelming to bestow it on someone."

Calvin Coolidge

Eeew. I'm not sure the Cox can be rehabbed appropriately for any price. I'd rather see the Cox torn down and the land sold. Actually, if we wouldn't lose the meeting space for 3 years, I'd like to see the Cox torn down and us build a CC that goes up on half of it. We could give the other half of the land as our subsidy for a hotel and open up Broadway again. That would be my first choice.

No subsidy of any kind on a hotel. There's no evident reason to do that. If we need it, the private sector can step up. We've already spent millions to attract business and redevelop downtown. Let that money do the work we were told it would do.

As far as CC numbers be damned and spend it all anyway on a bauble, I'd rather take another look at rehabbing the Cox center than do that. Put the rest back in the taxpayers pocket and for something else we need. Maps for Suburbs would be a good place. Buying (another) $1000 doormat for a house with the back porch falling off is irresponsible.

That spend it while we have it attitude reminds me of a sign my father used to have on his office wall, "Nothing is easier than spending public money. It does not appear to belong to anyone. The temptation is overwhelming to bestow it on someone."

Calvin Coolidge

The People already voted to 1) Spend their money. 2) They wanted a new Convention Center. 3) We are going to get a new CC.

We voted to go outside the standard ( trust gov w/ our money ) , we started MAPS and now we are going to get what we all previously ( through a city wide vote) decided on. The People are fine with this process. We ready to spend the money we decided on this CC.

The Hotel is a seperate conversation, and we could certainly use a ( Hyatt Type ) hotel for our guest. 40+ stories would be fine w/ me.

There are actually strategic reasons for the hotel to have some public investment, which have not been discussed much publicly. They specifically go to the ability to book events at the convention center. One current problem has to do with the high occupancy AND 100% private ownership of downtown hotels; the CVB has a difficult time offering large blocks of contiguous rooms and deep discounts, which are standard when pursuing conventions.

Currently occupancy runs very high - 80% plus nightly - which is extraordinarily high in that industry, and hotels can get close to rack rate nearly every night without expending much effort. Additionally, the current agreement the City has with JQH/Renaissance at times places them into a weird competitive position on meeting space rental.

Right now we are actually a surprisingly appealing conference/convention destination (and have been for more than a decade) despite what some posters - even pro-CC posters - think. This is due primarily to our central location AND our walkable proximity to hotels and appealing dining and entertainment options. I personally see CVB-hosted site visits very regularly, and speak with convention planners, who are generally blown away by what they find here. Attractions, shopping or lack thereof really have little to do with bookings, despite conversations I see on here.

The LOCATION of the Cox Center sells this city as a convention destination, and the CVB has for years been competing on events that it really should have not been able to compete on with such an inadequate facility. It's one of the reasons the SITE of the new center is more important than perhaps any other MAPS 3 project; what makes us competitive is how walkable we are as a convention location (ironic for OKC). Where we normally end up losing is on our inability to procure adequate rooms at deeply-discounted convention rates.

If the City has at least SOME investment or ownership position in the new hotel, they can dictate some of the terms in circumstances like these, and our convention bookings WILL improve dramatically. In other words, City involvement is DESIRABLE. You can believe me or not, but understand that I work very closely with CVB staff and talk with at least one or two people a week there, and have for more than a dozen years.

The convention center itself - combined with the need to set it up for success rather than failure - is not a pet project of some rich guy (which by the way is one of the most ridiculous things I've heard on here). It is a critical component of a successful city and especially a successful downtown. It isn't sexy or fun to talk/think about, and it doesn't SEEM to most people that it will affect their lives one way or another, but it IS important.

I think you are trying too much to make sense.

There are actually strategic reasons for the hotel to have some public investment, which have not been discussed much publicly. They specifically go to the ability to book events at the convention center. One current problem has to do with the high occupancy AND 100% private ownership of downtown hotels; the CVB has a difficult time offering large blocks of contiguous rooms and deep discounts, which are standard when pursuing conventions.

Currently occupancy runs very high - 80% plus nightly - which is extraordinarily high in that industry, and hotels can get close to rack rate nearly every night without expending much effort. Additionally, the current agreement the City has with JQH/Renaissance at times places them into a weird competitive position on meeting space rental.

Right now we are actually a surprisingly appealing conference/convention destination (and have been for more than a decade) despite what some posters - even pro-CC posters - think. This is due primarily to our central location AND our walkable proximity to hotels and appealing dining and entertainment options. I personally see CVB-hosted site visits very regularly, and speak with convention planners, who are generally blown away by what they find here. Attractions, shopping or lack thereof really have little to do with bookings, despite conversations I see on here.

The LOCATION of the Cox Center sells this city as a convention destination, and the CVB has for years been competing on events that it really should have not been able to compete on with such an inadequate facility. It's one of the reasons the SITE of the new center is more important than perhaps any other MAPS 3 project; what makes us competitive is how walkable we are as a convention location (ironic for OKC). Where we normally end up losing is on our inability to procure adequate rooms at deeply-discounted convention rates.

If the City has at least SOME investment or ownership position in the new hotel, they can dictate some of the terms in circumstances like these, and our convention bookings WILL improve dramatically. In other words, City involvement is DESIRABLE. You can believe me or not, but understand that I work very closely with CVB staff and talk with at least one or two people a week there, and have for more than a dozen years.

The convention center itself - combined with the need to set it up for success rather than failure - is not a pet project of some rich guy (which by the way is one of the most ridiculous things I've heard on here). It is a critical component of a successful city and especially a successful downtown. It isn't sexy or fun to talk/think about, and it doesn't SEEM to most people that it will affect their lives one way or another, but it IS important.

Best post of this thread

I'm going to believe you Urbanized over anyone, pro or con, who looks at OKC from a distance. As I've said they bring their particular biases to their evaluation. You I know have an understanding of what's going on in downtown Oklahoma City. Thanks very much for the information. This is what people need to hear. The truth.

If we ever get some hard numbers and evidence that's the case let's see it. Otherwise, it's $250+250 million or so in unsupported rhetoric.

We need less of that and more actual facts.

There are actually strategic reasons for the hotel to have some public investment, which have not been discussed much publicly. They specifically go to the ability to book events at the convention center. One current problem has to do with the high occupancy AND 100% private ownership of downtown hotels; the CVB has a difficult time offering large blocks of contiguous rooms and deep discounts, which are standard when pursuing conventions.

Currently occupancy runs very high - 80% plus nightly - which is extraordinarily high in that industry, and hotels can get close to rack rate nearly every night without expending much effort. Additionally, the current agreement the City has with JQH/Renaissance at times places them into a weird competitive position on meeting space rental.

Right now we are actually a surprisingly appealing conference/convention destination (and have been for more than a decade) despite what some posters - even pro-CC posters - think. This is due primarily to our central location AND our walkable proximity to hotels and appealing dining and entertainment options. I personally see CVB-hosted site visits very regularly, and speak with convention planners, who are generally blown away by what they find here. Attractions, shopping or lack thereof really have little to do with bookings, despite conversations I see on here.

The LOCATION of the Cox Center sells this city as a convention destination, and the CVB has for years been competing on events that it really should have not been able to compete on with such an inadequate facility. It's one of the reasons the SITE of the new center is more important than perhaps any other MAPS 3 project; what makes us competitive is how walkable we are as a convention location (ironic for OKC). Where we normally end up losing is on our inability to procure adequate rooms at deeply-discounted convention rates.

If the City has at least SOME investment or ownership position in the new hotel, they can dictate some of the terms in circumstances like these, and our convention bookings WILL improve dramatically. In other words, City involvement is DESIRABLE. You can believe me or not, but understand that I work very closely with CVB staff and talk with at least one or two people a week there, and have for more than a dozen years.

The convention center itself - combined with the need to set it up for success rather than failure - is not a pet project of some rich guy (which by the way is one of the most ridiculous things I've heard on here). It is a critical component of a successful city and especially a successful downtown. It isn't sexy or fun to talk/think about, and it doesn't SEEM to most people that it will affect their lives one way or another, but it IS important.

Excellent post. Great to hear your voice on this thread. You represent a small, local business and Bricktown attraction. For all of the rhetoric Shadid makes about supporting small, local business, his proposals all will hurt their bottom line. People forget how much money visitors spend in OKC on lodging, dining, shopping, and services -- not to mention, visiting our attractions. To me, $250 million seems like a bargain for a brand-new facility, particularly when I read about cities like Nashville spending upward of $800 million for their facility.

I actually asked one of his campaign associates if Shadid is advocating OKC simply getting out of the convention business altogether. Waving the white flag, so to speak. And I got no response. Crickets. It's not clear to me exactly what these people want. They ridicule the convention center and decry the "process," but what is their alternative? Just not build one at all and see our share of the convention market fall each year? So tired of rhetoric and division. Ready for leadership and "can do" efforts to move this city forward. This election can't happen fast enough.

If we ever get some hard numbers and evidence that's the case let's see it. Otherwise, it's $250+250 million or so in unsupported rhetoric.

We need less of that and more actual facts.

The rhetoric is the $250 million marshmallow fluff number for a CC hotel of Ed's. if you're going to demand hard numbers why are you parroting figures that have no basis in reality?

...
I can't think of a reason in the world why we would support any public subsidy of any kind for a convention center hotel. We can encourage it but it should be 100% private.

Many things that aid a city involve a public subsidy. Perhaps the appropriate landing point on this particular issue is somewhere between 100% private and 100% public, the latter being a level I have no problem with saying is a level no city should land.

The rhetoric is the $250 million marshmallow fluff number for a CC hotel of Ed's. if you're going to demand hard numbers why are you parroting figures that have no basis in reality?

This the hotel thread. How much does a hotel of the size Urbanized wants us to be a part of cost?


Here's an idea:


If we ever get some hard numbers and evidence that's the case let's see it. Otherwise, <snip> it's unsupported rhetoric.

We need less of that and more actual facts.

How much money is a hotel asking for?

No subsidy of any kind on a hotel. There's no evident reason to do that. If we need it, the private sector can step up. We've already spent millions to attract business and redevelop downtown. Let that money do the work we were told it would do.
As far as CC numbers be damned and spend it all anyway on a bauble, I'd rather take another look at rehabbing the Cox center than do that. Put the rest back in the taxpayers pocket and for something else we need. Maps for Suburbs would be a good place. Buying (another) $1000 doormat for a house with the back porch falling off is irresponsible.

That spend it while we have it attitude reminds me of a sign my father used to have on his office wall, "Nothing is easier than spending public money. It does not appear to belong to anyone. The temptation is overwhelming to bestow it on someone."

Calvin Coolidge

The millions we've spent downtown has done the work we were told it would do. 1994 OKC looks a lot different from 2014 OKC, in case you haven't noticed.

I also disagree with your reliance on the private sector. The private sector didn't turn around downtown OKC. The public did. Private industry isn't a panacea. The private sector is good at making money, but it doesn't care where or how it makes it. It's as likely to build a call center in Yukon as it is to build a glittering downtown hotel. You can't just say "Private sector... alakazam!" and have a brand new hotel appear. Otherwise we would have one downtown right now.

The entire purpose of building this convention center, and a hotel, is to boost OKC into a new level of economic activity, one we haven't seen before. We are trying to convince a large hotel to come here instead of building their new 35 story hotel in some other state. Again, private industry is good at making money, but they don't do it where you always want it and they don't do directed projects.


If we ever get some hard numbers and evidence that's the case let's see it. Otherwise, it's $250+250 million or so in unsupported rhetoric.

We need less of that and more actual facts.

You will never get actual facts, hard numbers, because they won't exist until after the convention center + hotel is built.

Anything else is guesswork, period.

I had a professor in college who used to say that no one writes anything without a reason. That's probably the most important thing I learned at OU. Anyone who puts in the amount of time and effort needed to come up with a decent set of projections on this topic is going to be getting paid to do it, and they're going to have their own opinions on the subject. If you are waiting for numbers without any bias then you will be waiting until the cows come home, and I don't mean my ex-girlfriend and her friends.

We had no hard numbers when we built the Chesapeake Arena. But people recognized a need for the city and went ahead with a plan to fill that need.

People who study the numbers and the market can make reasonable assumptions and projections. We don't have that from the pro crowd. We have BS numbers and rhetoric.

People who study the numbers and the market can make reasonable assumptions and projections. We don't have that from the pro crowd. We have BS numbers and rhetoric.

Then why is the "anti" crowd using BS numbers? You are like talking to a wall. Many people here have commented that the numbers that were promoted for the convention center were probably exaggerated. Why do you ignore those posts and just write troll nonsense like this? Why do you promote the garbage $800 million numbers Shadid says we're "on the hook" for, when we are on the "hook" only for the $250 million we voted for and approved?

I suspect you will not answer this question and continue to deploy misdirection and sophistry. Very hard to converse with someone who doesn't continue the conversation where it advanced to but rather reboots every time to talking points.

Many people here have commented that the numbers that were promoted for the convention center were probably exaggerated.

We all agree on that part.

Again, knee jerk per usual, Urbanized, not Ed, just made a case for us getting financially involved with a hotel. Try reading the thread sometime.

I never said we are on the hook for $800 million. We aren't. Maybe you can post some more stuff in big letters and multi-quote a few long posts too to clog up the thread per your usual.

As far as an estimate on possible total costs to build a hotel, (not what the taxpayers are on the hook for, not what Ed said or any other fallacy you can come up with again and again) try this from the top of the thread. It's as good as any other opinion on this board:

Address: SW corner of Robinson & Reno
Status: proposed
Owner:
Cost: est $200 million
Architect:
Start Date:
Finish Date: est 2019
Contractor:
Height in Feet / Floors:
Sq. Feet:
Acreage:
Other: Recommended 735 rooms

People who study the numbers and the market can make reasonable assumptions and projections. We don't have that from the pro crowd. We have BS numbers and rhetoric.

Hey you like using big numbers, so here's one for ya... That ( Pro ) crowd is about 97% of us out here. ...we are comfortable in our large numbers. That leaves a very small ( 3% ) for the uninformed / misinformed / & the 1% that always votes against the majority.

I hope we get a chance to vote for a hotel that is $1B in cost, because our economy is growing at a pace that requires it.

( wait, that may be too small, let's make that $1.5 B in cost so we can have 2 Iconic Towers looking over our fine city.)

I never said we are on the hook for $800 million. We aren't. But Ed did. Was he lying or just misguidED?


As far as an estimate on possible total costs to build a hotel,(not what the taxpayers are on the hook for or any other fallacy you can come up with again and again) try this from the top of the thread. It's as good as any other opinion on this board:

Address: SW corner of Robinson & Reno
Status: proposed
Owner:
Cost: est $200 million
Architect:
Start Date:
Finish Date: est 2019
Contractor:
Height in Feet / Floors:
Sq. Feet:
Acreage:
Other: Recommended 735 rooms

Right. It's figure that is of interest. It's probably reasonably correct. But, again, my question is: How much has a hotel asked for?

But Ed did. Was he lying or just misguidED?



Right. It's figure that is of interest. It's probably reasonably correct. But, again, my question is: How much has a hotel asked for?

You're asking me "again" because...?

BTW...for the keystone thread cops, isn't there a thread to talk about Ed?

You're asking me "again" because...?

BTW...for the keystone thread cops, isn't there a thread to talk about Ed?

Because you are repeatedly implying that we might/will have to spend $250 million on a convention center hotel. By repeating it as ad nauseum as I'm trying to ask the above question, you leave it out there for the uninformed and low information voters to see and, I'm sure, hopefully believe. That's Ed rhetoric, which is why I brought his name up. I'm saying let's not get all hysterical until we see what a hotel is asking for. To do otherwise is to use fear mongering for political gain. And who is doing that?

So far: no hotel, no financial demands.

Because you are repeatedly implying that we might/will have to spend $250 million on a convention center hotel.

Cites plural?

ad nauseum is every time someone says "hotel" the cabal running out in hysteria

This is direct response to talking about urbanized calling for subsidized hotel:


If we ever get some hard numbers and evidence that's the case let's see it. Otherwise, it's $250+250 million or so in unsupported rhetoric.

We need less of that and more actual facts.

If we ever get some hard numbers and evidence that's the case let's see it. Otherwise, it's $250+250 million or so in unsupported rhetoric.

We need less of that and more actual facts.

The sheer irony of this post is flooring. Would you care to support both sides of the $250+250 figure as money the city would be spending? I'm looking for some "hard numbers" and "actual facts" here, so don't try to change the subject or muddy the waters. It is time to back up your words and numbers.