I would caution people to understand that all the information and opinion on this matter is being provided by Cathy O'Connor and her group and it is completely one-sided.

I haven't had time to do in-depth analysis but did with TIF and can say a huge amount of what they present and promote is highly biased and based on assumptions that are impossible to prove.

And the Oklahoman just regurgitates it, as they did in the last several articles. In fact, much of what was written today about TIF is completely false and comes directly from Cathy's group. Any wonder why they are fed this stuff exclusively and in advance?

Cathy O'Connor is a very sharp, motivated person. But in her role with the Alliance, she is not an employee of the city, she is working for a private company and she and her staff are employed specifically to get things done in the name of economic development. If you had that job and could get your hands on billions in TIF funds to dispense as you will and $200 million to give to the Omni to help you broker a deal, why wouldn't you?

The Alliance was formed specifically to avoid public meeting and open records laws. These terms with Omni were set months ago yet were only made public on Friday when there was required 2-day notice for the city council meeting. Even then, the full funding model was not provided.

There are no checks and balances in this system because the council will and always has approved anything brought before them in the name of economic development. And these issues are so complex, the local press just repeats what it's told by the Alliance.

I can tell you when I spent months researching TIF I found many, many inconsistencies in how this has be presented and reported, and that is still happening today, although the arguments for have slightly shifted.

I love the central argument: No additional taxes! But we are giving away over $100 million in tax dollars! Obviously, that comes from somewhere yet that is never talked about in any honest way.

The simple fact is that state and city budgets are being slashed to the point of not even being able to offer basic services yet we are giving up over $100 million to pay a hotel company to build in an area where over a billion of taxpayer money has already been spent. But it's must 'magic money'! Taxes don't increase and we won't miss it!
Pete, while it's fair to point out and criticize the way information is disseminated by others, it's also fair to point out that in your own characterization so of the issue you craft your message to achieve maximum effect in favor of your viewpoint. And of course, we surely all do that.

But when you repeatedly characterize it essentially as a cash gift to a billionaire it's every bit as disingenuous, sorry. In the post above you say we are "giving up more than $100 million..." but that's simply not true and completely ignores things like the fact that the City is almost guaranteed to get back $50 million of the $85.4 million incentive (and conceivably even more). It also stubbornly continues to lay all of the cost of the garage, OGE substation relocation etc at the feet of the CC and hotel when it is quite clear that there are other drivers in the park, arena, etc.. Also, you don't acknowledge the potential for Cox redevelopment to more than offset public investment in the hotel. Sorry, that's ALSO an incomplete telling of the story.

Even bringing up that the Omni guy is a billionaire is of course designed to rile up and give the impression that this deal is being done to line a rich guy's pockets, when the fact is that clearly consultants and City officials have identified as a need a hotel product that he (or any other developer) would NEVER build here (and then rent rooms for a less than profitable amount) BUT FOR the incentive.

It's completely fair to be dubious and critical of TIF and other incentives - in fact as a taxpayer I appreciate you keeping a light shined on it - but to continue to characterize this as some type of gift without acknowledging the things I listed above betrays its own bias. In fairness we all have it, of course. But I do wish you weren't so stubborn in acknowledging the significant nuance involved in this one.

Pete, while it's fair to point out and criticize the way information is disseminated by others, it's also fair to point out that in your own characterization so of the issue you craft your message to achieve maximum effect in favor of your viewpoint. And of course, we surely all do that.

But when you repeatedly characterize it essentially as a cash gift to a billionaire it's every bit as disingenuous, sorry. In the post above you say we are "giving up more than $100 million..." but that's simply not true and completely ignores things like the fact that the City is almost guaranteed to get back $50 million of the $85.4 million incentive (and conceivably even more). It also stubbornly continues to lay all of the cost of the garage, OGE substation relocation etc at the feet of the CC and hotel when it is quite clear that there are other drivers in the park, arena, etc.. Also, you don't acknowledge the potential for Cox redevelopment to more than offset public investment in the hotel. Sorry, that's ALSO an incomplete telling of the story.

Even bringing up that the Omni guy is a billionaire is of course designed to rile up and give the impression that this deal is being done to line a rich guy's pockets, when the fact is that clearly consultants and City officials have identified as a need a hotel product that he (or any other developer) would NEVER build here (and then rent rooms for a less than profitable amount) BUT FOR the incentive.

It's completely fair to be dubious and critical of TIF and other incentives - in fact as a taxpayer I appreciate you keeping a light shined on it - but to continue to characterize this as some type of gift without acknowledging the things I listed above betrays its own bias. In fairness we all have it, of course. But I do wish you weren't so stubborn in acknowledging the significant nuance involved in this one.

I am merely presenting another side which is not at all represented.

As I have told Cathy many times, my perspective on this is only perceived as negative because there is zero attempt to present the other side by her group.

I've also said if there was a group constantly pumping out info only about how TIF is bad and should never be used, I'd present the other side there, such as what seems to be fair and apt applications like the Wheeler District and FNC.


And since you are questioning my impartiality, it has to be said you have a close personal relationship that comes into play here, several working relationships and a financial interest in all this.

I have none of those things and have invested months of my own time and energy and my only reward is being bad-mouthed by city officials and possibly compromising my personal business (separate from OKCTalk).


I am done dancing around all these issues.

And while I also get and appreciate calls for transparency, the fact remains the we elected our City Council to make financial decisions such as these on our behalf. There continues to be a (largely unspoken) suggestion of unseemliness, while I believe 100% that these officials are making these decisions because THEY 100% believe they are the right decisions for the city's growth and economic development.

I don't think that the City is always right - mostly due to some cultural old-think in areas like planning policy, land use and traffic engineering - but it's pretty hard to take issue with the effectiveness of MAPS-related investments to date.

I am merely presenting another side which is not at all represented.

As I have told Cathy many times, my perspective on this is only perceived as negative because there is zero attempt to present the other side by her group.

I've also said if there was a group constantly pumping out info only about how TIF is bad and should never be used, I'd present the other side there, such as what seems to be fair and apt applications like the Wheeler District and FNC.


And since you are questioning my impartiality, it has to be said you have a close personal relationship that comes into play here, several working relationships and a financial interest in all this.

I have none of those things and have invested months of my own time and energy and my only reward is being bad-mouthed by city officials and possibly compromising my personal business (separate from OKCTalk).
Yes, I'm pretty transparent here about my relationships and personal interest.

And don't get me wrong; I appreciate your work and passion and that you hold a mirror up to the process - you know this - I'm just saying that while you MAY be representing the other side, you are a bit stubborn about not including info not favorable to your side of the into your calculations. Doing so is really no different than the Chamber's blue sky predictions of which you are so critical.

I am responding directly to information being presented and quoted/linked and thus already included.

I am merely presenting another side which is not at all represented.

As I have told Cathy many times, my perspective on this is only perceived as negative because there is zero attempt to present the other side by her group.


Saying. This is a gift is not neutral or presenting the other side. Saying the owner of Omni is a billionaire isn't presenting one side it is a class warefare statement that is not even remotely relevant


Of course the alliance is behind what they present to council. That is their job economic development

The things they are not behind they don't advise the city to consider for a policy vote. That is not controversial in any way.

I think it's worth mentioning again after all the prognostications of those on this board and others about how this will play out financially... the only study made my supposed experts in the field about the viability, requirements for success of a convention center and associated required facilities and conditions, (including some we don't have, like being an airport hub city) was the study commissioned by the Chamber that has never been released to the public.

That's water under the bridge until we have some results, (and or until we consider other similar open ended MAPS projects and vote again for leaders.) My guess is there will never be another real study of if the CC is paying off or not. There will be the same bits of pieces of information, broad statements with scant hard facts about what it all means, and requests for more money to improve and move forward.

Saying. This is a gift is not neutral or presenting the other side. Saying the owner of Omni is a billionaire isn't presenting one side it is a class warefare statement that is not even remotely relevant


Of course the alliance is behind what they present to council. That is their job economic development

The things they are not behind they don't advise the city to consider for a policy vote. That is not controversial in any way.

When someone asks for money based on need, their financial situation is completely relevant.

Even based on this particular project, the company has obviously achieved great profits on their hotels which is also relevant when asking for tax dollars.

It's important to note that the Alliance or anyone else involved in economic development does zero follow-up and reporting once money has been given to a business or developer. These applications are always made on the assumption that proposed projects are not otherwise economically feasible, but there is no analysis after the fact -- when there is now an actual track record in hard numbers -- to determine if that was true in the first place or how much profit was made.

We now have a lot of projects that have been completed with public assistance and determining if they really needed the money in the first place is not even a consideration because frankly, I'm sure the exercise would not in any way forward the idea that such funds are required.

In fact, just last week I spoke to a developer who has received TIF funds and he admitted you can write your pro formas specifically to show 'need' and in aid of receiving this tax money.

http://kfor.com/2017/07/18/hotels-support-competition-from-incoming-omni/

This guy says all the hoteliers are for the Omni.

http://kfor.com/2017/07/18/hotels-support-competition-from-incoming-omni/

This guy says all the hoteliers are for the Omni.

That guy is Mike Carrier who is the head of the OKC Conventions and Vistors Bureau.

He has been the primary proponent of the convention center and hotel from the very beginning.

It's like asking Cathy O'Connor if she wants another $500 million of TIF to help her do her job.

When someone asks for money based on need, their financial situation is completely relevant...

The difference here is that the CITY has the need, not the developer. This is what I think is being missed in this discussion. Omni did not come to the City and say "hey, we want to build this great hotel...but we need you to pitch in." In fact, it's highly unlikely Omni would be in this market but for this deal, and if they came here of their own accord the hotel would in no way resemble this one.

Instead, the City and its consultants identified a need for a hotel that doesn't make business sense for a hotelier but which makes a ton of business sense for a city already committed to investing hundreds of millions of dollars in a convention center. It is the CITY'S need being addressed here, NOT the developer's. To suggest otherwise is not a fair retelling.

This is very, very different from almost any other incentive deal we have seen recently other than FNC, specifically because it is clearly being done this way pretty much exclusively to provide benefit the CITY (and by extension its taxpayers) rather than the developer.

That guy is Mike Carrier who is the head of the OKC Conventions and Vistors Bureau.

He has been the primary proponent of the convention center and hotel from the very beginning.

It's like asking Cathy O'Connor if she wants another $500 million of TIF to help her do her job.
Another way to look at that is that Mike is a nationally-recognized CVB executive who was brought to OKC in part to deliver more convention and tourism business, which City officials (and taxpayers through their record of voting for MAPS) believe is important for the growth and development of OKC and its economy. Just because someone says positive things about something that will help them do their job better - after many years of effort on their part - doesn't mean their viewpoint is by extension invalidated.

^

The city put out an RFP and Omni applied.

Then, said they couldn't make the deal work without all these incentives and conditions.

And the whole assumption behind incentives is the city 'needs' the development in one way or another. Otherwise, why give them money at all?

The only thing different here is the scale. It's all the same economic development arguments about how the city will benefit down the line.

The difference here is that the CITY has the need, not the developer. This is what I think is being missed in this discussion. Omni did not come to the City and say "hey, we want to build this great hotel...but we need you to pitch in." In fact, it's highly unlikely Omni would be in this market but for this deal, and if they came here of their own accord the hotel would in no way resemble this one.

Instead, the City and its consultants identified a need for a hotel that doesn't make business sense for a hotelier but which makes a ton of business sense for a city already committed to investing hundreds of millions of dollars in a convention center. It is the CITY'S need being addressed here, NOT the developer's. To suggest otherwise is not a fair retelling.

This is very, very different from almost any other incentive deal we have seen recently other than FNC, specifically because it is clearly being done this way pretty much exclusively to provide benefit the CITY (and by extension its taxpayers) rather than the developer.

I am pretty sure Omni is the one who sent in their proposal. Or are you suggesting the city behind-the-scenes reached out to Omni and said "hey, put a bid in, we'll hook you up"?

Also, Will might have been referring to Blaine Thompson in that story, not Mike. Blaine is the GM of the Colcord, and this goes directly to this discussion. Here is someone who typically would be AGAINST a bunch of new hotel rooms being added downtown, and certainly against a competitor getting incentive dollars that he did not get. If anybody might have a personal bias against this project it might be a competitor. And yet at council yesterday he said this:


"As a hotelier in general, it's not often that I would stand here on behalf of more hotel rooms in the market," Colcord Hotel General Manager Blaine Thompson told the city council. "But, a project like this is a little bit different. Most hotels don't generate demand."

and this:


"When those are here, they can make your month," Thompson said. "We benefit greatly from the activity around the convention center: the room nights, the food and beverage opportunities, and revenues that come with that."
These are points that I have been trying to get across in my posts; so many people here and elsewhere are trying to judge the CC and the Omni strictly based on their own financial performance. The goal of these projects is not specifically to make rent money or room tax money in the hotel. The goal is to book events that will put people in rooms all over downtown, and in the case of a "city-wide" would pack hotels, restaurants and stores all over OKC. This is hugely important for the City's bottom line, general fund and tax base, not to mention the payrolls of all of these places (whose employees in turn pay taxes and spend money here).

The next goal for City officials would of course be to structure the deal in such a way that it doesn't present an open-ended, ongoing financial burden/liability. They accomplished this with this particular negotiation.

This whole thing is not too terribly different from our arena, where we paid $85 million to build it, $100 million to bring it to NBA standards, $20 million for an NBA practice facility, and then turned it over for next to nothing to a bunch of rich guys. Yet I think you'll probably have to talk to 100 people in this town before you find one who believes it was not money well spent, with great economic, cultural and brand impact for our city.

I am pretty sure Omni is the one who sent in their proposal. Or are you suggesting the city behind-the-scenes reached out to Omni and said "hey, put a bid in, we'll hook you up"?
Omni responded to an advertised RFP. If they had responded with something other than the RFP-required amount of rooms and amenities - things that that make no real business sense for them - their proposal would have been deemed unresponsive and ignored. At that point for them it became about finding an incentive formula that would allow the hotel to remain profitable despite the City-required money-losing aspects.

By the way, a number of other hotel developers also responded to the same RFP.

Wanted to add something about the claims I only present one side of economic incentives.

About two years ago, I spoke at a town hall meeting at Tower Hotel on the subject of TIF.

I skipped work and flew from California (where I was living at the time) to OKC specifically to participate because I've always thought it was a very important and misunderstood subject. In fact, while I'd normally relish a trip back to OKC, I had just been a month earlier and didn't really have the time or desire to return so quickly. But I did so anyway.

The other speaker was author Greg LeRoy who has been openly critical of economic incentives and TIF in particular.

If those questioning my objectivity and motives had bothered to attend this meeting, they would have seen my presentation after Mr. LeRoy spoke, where I did my best to outline in an dispassionate way how TIF works in Oklahoma City, as each community handles such programs a little differently.

Cathy O'Connor and other city officials had been invited to participate but declined.

I therefore did my best to present all the information and in response to questions from the crowd said many times, “The argument the city would make if favor of this program is as follows...”

After the meeting several local developers who had received TIF or were in the process of applying made a specific point of telling me they thought I had been completely fair.

...That's water under the bridge until we have some results, (and or until we consider other similar open ended MAPS projects and vote again for leaders.) My guess is there will never be another real study of if the CC is paying off or not. There will be the same bits of pieces of information, broad statements with scant hard facts about what it all means, and requests for more money to improve and move forward.
To what end is this being done? Who benefits? Is it not just a little bit possible that City officials - who we elect via City Council elections or who are appointed/hired by said council people and their designates - are making these decisions because the actually believe they are in the best interest of the City and their constituent taxpayers?

To what end is this being done? Who benefits? Is it not just a little bit possible that City officials - who we elect via City Council elections or who are appointed/hired by said council people and their designates - are making these decisions because the actually believe they are in the best interest of the City and their constituent taxpayers?

Throw money in the air and don't track it? That's terrible business by any standard. But yeah, why would we expect the city to act responsibly and follow up on how effective efforts are?

Wanted to add something about the claims I only present one side of economic incentives...
Pete I don't want to give the impression that I believe you don't "get" the appeal of incentives. You and I have had many conversations away from this board and I know you are open-minded and that your criticism of them or of process comes from a good place.

What I am saying is that in discussions like this one when you throw out a number it's not uncommon for it to be a high-side number that completely ignores legitimate offsets. It has some shock value and makes a point to a casual listener, but it is not the whole story, and I believe you know this.

Throw money in the air and don't track it? That's terrible business by any standard. But yeah, why would we expect the city to act responsibly and follow up on how effective efforts are?

I don't disagree that follow-up numbers are worthwhile. We have seen them in the past on things like the Bass Pro and Skirvin deals, for what it's worth. But the performance of this will actually be very easy to track since the Chamber has years and years of tracking events and room nights. It's how their performance is graded, and those numbers are made public.

What I am saying is that in discussions like this one when you throw out a number it's not uncommon for it to be a high-side number that completely ignores legitimate offsets. It has some shock value and makes a point to a casual listener, but it is not the whole story, and I believe you know this.

Just like the Oklahoman repeatedly -- and in big headlines -- only touting the $85.4 million number?

Takes a hell of a lot to counteract that.

In all their reporting have they even mentioned the cost to the city will be over $100 million and estimated by the city's own finance director to be $135 million?

In fact, the headline on their lead given-to-them story was "Oklahoma City would pay $85 million for Omni hotel in proposed deal" which is abjectly false. OKC will PAY much more than that and those numbers are easily obtainable; Omni will GET the $85 million, which is a completely different thing.


My comments and information is in direct response to all of this, not in a vacuum.

Where are your demands for accountability on the other side?

I don't disagree that follow-up numbers are worthwhile. We have seen them in the past on things like the Bass Pro and Skirvin deals, for what it's worth. But the performance of this will actually be very easy to track since the Chamber has years and years of tracking events and room nights. It's how their performance is graded, and those numbers are made public.

That's not how I would grade it. I would grade it against cost and return. Number of events and room nights without regard to expense and return are meaningless.

The question of whether the city should use TIF to fund private investment downtown is a legitimate one. This isn't a neglected area anymore. Eventually I would hope that we can let the area grow economically without constantly injecting tax dollars into it. That is the point of all this investment, right? Now, we may or may not be at that point yet. Obviously things like First National wouldn't happen without a public/private partnership. Looking at OKC and comparing to other cities around the country, both peer cities and places like Chicago, Dallas, and NYC, would be helpful in letting us know how other people handle things like this.

Whether this particular agreement is a good idea depends on how important the convention center is to you. Obviously the chamber of commerce is 100% committed to the idea. It doesn't mean they're right, but they've already bought in. If the city has decided to jump into the convention business, then a convention hotel appears to be one of the standard things you need. Comparing this deal to those made by other cities would also be helpful. Is our deal worse or better than the deals made by the last thirty cities to do this?

Then, there's the role of Cathy O'Connor and the Alliance for Economic Development. They're a group with a clear agenda and they have been pushing it consistently. I don't think we can blame them for that, even if you may not agree with the agenda they're pursuing. That's like getting mad at a political party for pushing its platform. "I can't believe those Democrats/Republicans would try and do this Democrat/Republican policy thing." Of course they're going to do it. The bigger issue is whether the city council is just a rubber stamp for them. Is Cathy O'Connor just that damn good, that convincing? Or is the city council full of sheep who just go along with whatever is proposed to them?

Finally there's just lazy reporting by a certain state newspaper. I think we can all agree they do as little work as possible.

--

There's nothing necessarily sinister here. We have a motivated group representing local businesses, who have pushed really hard for this project. And we have a city council that is willing to spend a lot of money and goes along with what local businesses want. And a state newspaper that seems addicted to just publishing press releases and cheering on any new economic program. We definitely need a dissenting voice who can publish the other side of the argument (these are discussions we need to be having, and everybody holding hands together doesn't contribute to that). But the fact that the opposition doesn't have much of a voice doesn't automatically mean they're right.

I appreciate Pete pointing out everything about how this works. He's probably one of the most knowledgeable people in the city on these topics, and I feel like I always learn something here. I still tend to be leaning towards the pro-hotel side though.

To be clear, I am not claiming anything sinister.

In fact, I have great respect and admiration for Cathy O'Connor and Brent Bryant, who do all the heavy lifting on these projects. And I've told them both that OKC is lucky to have them.

The problem is the lack of transparency and information being one-sided with almost no fact checking or investigative work being done. And that's why I've stepped up and devoted tons of my time and energy and to be honest, having to take the slings and arrows from those I challenge with virtually no reward.

I am not complaining, just trying to make it clear where I am coming from and why I've chosen to focus on this area and a few others.


Having said all that, I believe the deck is strongly stacked in favor of these considerable economic incentives and I can assure you there is virtually no objective data to justify these expenses. We are merely assuming we all somehow benefit and even when specific numbers are used, huge assumptions (again, unprovable) are baked into every equation.

And we clearly do not have the proper checks and balances in place.

For reasons that would take a full essay to explain, the city council always approves these matters and of course they do because the only numbers and perspective are provided by people with a huge interest in getting them passed. When you have a 100% pass record in hundreds of millions or even billions in local incentives, clearly that is not any sort of check.

and yet the others who applied to the RFP all requested the same incentives and some more so than Omni.

and yet the others who applied to the RFP all requested the same incentives and some more so than Omni.

That's not necessarily true.

I pulled the RFP responses and did my best to summarize the proposed terms for all (this is way back in this thread somewhere) and there was quite a bit of difference to begin with and of course many things got added by Omni down the line.

There were many variables in all the proposals and many not even addressed.

And, the amount of incentives was not the only criteria used by O'Connor to narrow down the choices and then ultimately decide to proceed with detailed negotiations with Omni.

I just want to throw this in about offsets. I've mostly shut my brain off after it devolved to "you're not being impartial", "no, YOU'RE not being impartial", "no, you", "no, YOU". But I just want to throw in Joe Sixpack's 2 cents here. In this case, I also happen to agree with Joe, for what it is worth.

Offsets mean nothing. If I give you $20, and you give me $10 back, then that 'offsets' the $20. I've effectively given you $10. This is really basic math, and everyone understands it. Know what else everyone understands? Doesn't change the fact that I have to cough up $20. We could change the numbers, even, make them insanely in my favor. I give you $20, you're going to give me $50. There's nobody, NOBODY, who will say that is a bad deal for the first party. But again, everyone understands that I have to give you $20 first.

Offsets aren't magic. I don't really think it's an unfamiliar concept, I think if you pulled a random person off the street and asked if they understood rebates, the answer would be yes, and offsets are pretty similar.

So that said, saying "you're ignoring offsets" is really just empty words. Everyone ignores offsets. Because the amount of the check I have to write is the same, with or without them, regardless of how much I do or do not get back.

I just want to throw this in about offsets. I've mostly shut my brain off after it devolved to "you're not being impartial", "no, YOU'RE not being impartial", "no, you", "no, YOU". But I just want to throw in Joe Sixpack's 2 cents here. In this case, I also happen to agree with Joe, for what it is worth.

Offsets mean nothing. If I give you $20, and you give me $10 back, then that 'offsets' the $20. I've effectively given you $10. This is really basic math, and everyone understands it. Know what else everyone understands? Doesn't change the fact that I have to cough up $20. We could change the numbers, even, make them insanely in my favor. I give you $20, you're going to give me $50. There's nobody, NOBODY, who will say that is a bad deal for the first party. But again, everyone understands that I have to give you $20 first.

Offsets aren't magic. I don't really think it's an unfamiliar concept, I think if you pulled a random person off the street and asked if they understood rebates, the answer would be yes, and offsets are pretty similar.

So that said, saying "you're ignoring offsets" is really just empty words. Everyone ignores offsets. Because the amount of the check I have to write is the same, with or without them, regardless of how much I do or do not get back.

Well, that just makes no sense to me whatsoever. The logical extension of this argument is that if I give you $20 and you get $100 back it's a bad deal for you. Obviously not to say that we're going to quintuple our money or even get it all back, but to say that offsets somehow don't count defies logic or is completely dishonest intellectually.

That's not how I would grade it. I would grade it against cost and return. Number of events and room nights without regard to expense and return are meaningless.

Has the Chesapeake arena and the NBA upgrades to it been worthwhile for the City? Have we gotten our $34 million back on the ballpark? How is the library panning out for taxpayers, financially?

Just like the Oklahoman repeatedly -- and in big headlines -- only touting the $85.4 million number?

Takes a hell of a lot to counteract that.

In all their reporting have they even mentioned the cost to the city will be over $100 million and estimated by the city's own finance director to be $135 million?

In fact, the headline on their lead given-to-them story was "Oklahoma City would pay $85 million for Omni hotel in proposed deal" which is abjectly false. OKC will PAY much more than that and those numbers are easily obtainable; Omni will GET the $85 million, which is a completely different thing.


My comments and information is in direct response to all of this, not in a vacuum.

Where are your demands for accountability on the other side?

From Steve's column (italics mine):


...The Omni deal, which will require a starting amount of $85.4 million with millions more in bond interest...

Pete, you know I do everything I can not to get involved in OKCTalk vs The Oklahoman discussions here (which is tough these days because about every third post here is about how bad The Oklahoman sucks). My comments were not directed at their coverage of this. Believe me, I have privately taken Steve to task many times on things I disagreed with that made it to the paper, to the point where it has strained our friendship occasionally. Maybe I should have just stuck to texting you or chatting about this over a beer, but I know that you do a good job of differentiating between simple disagreement and personal attack. I'm commenting HERE about the way the story is told HERE because you have much well-deserved credibility on OKCTalk, and I just want to see the story of this topic told completely and fairly on this site.

I know you look at your comments as only trying to counteract Chamber-driven puff pieces, but if you have to omit some of the truth to sell a point then maybe the point isn't quite as clear-cut as you believe it is. And the same can be said of the other side, of course.

When you don't even bother to ask a question where the answer can be obtained within minutes (as I did) then saying "millions" when in fact it was $50 million -- fully more than half above the only number reported --- that is either irresponsible or an intentional omission.


It's absolutely ridiculous to expect the press not to be held accountable, as you are attempting to do with me.

If the Oklahoman doesn't want to get criticized, do a better job. Period.

Pete, have you thought about running for Mayor? It would be a great way to combat the irresponsibility, ineptness, and possible corruption that you believe and document as occurring. I know you are passionate, so why not take it up a notch and serve to make it better. Your experience puts you in a unique position to see and clean things up. You make it seem so simple and matter of fact. I think you are way more trusted than Shadid.

Well, that just makes no sense to me whatsoever. The logical extension of this argument is that if I give you $20 and you get $100 back it's a bad deal for you. Obviously not to say that we're going to quintuple our money or even get it all back, but to say that offsets somehow don't count defies logic or is completely dishonest intellectually.

Your logic is flawed. But at least I stand corrected on the nobody thinking that would be a bad deal for the first party.

I hope I don't come across as thinking that the city is rife with "irresponsibility, ineptness, and possible corruption".

Merely try and shine a light on things where I think I can make a difference.

I also recognize there is a penalty to pay for putting myself out there in this way.


I also put a ton of effort into promoting all the amazing things happening in OKC and at the same time see the downside if all we get from the press is blind boosterism.

Has the Chesapeake arena and the NBA upgrades to it been worthwhile for the City? Have we gotten our $34 million back on the ballpark? How is the library panning out for taxpayers, financially?

The convention center was sold as a money maker much more than local quality of life amenity, unlike most of the other Maps projects. I would not use the same yardstick to measure a library, or school enhancements as I would for the convention center and hotel deal, even though the CC will be used some by locals too. If you live here, you don't need a hotel to use the CC. All of your arguments I've seen lately have been about that haven't they, how much money outsiders are going to bring to the city? Obviously there are other aspects to it too.

Plus, none of the other projects have required the kind of post MAPs vote budget enlargement shenanigans the CC has either. This one screams for some accountability.

Not that it really matters in the end, but this seems to be getting plenty of negative attention on social media, aided by TLO's sarcastic (and, some would argue, very misinformed) article. https://www.thelostogle.com/2017/07/19/great-news-were-getting-the-convention-center-hotel-really-nobody-wanted/

It's obviously a complicated subject, but if Twitter is any indication, the Council didn't exactly win the PR game here.

The convention center was sold as a money maker much more than local quality of life amenity, unlike most of the other Maps projects. I would not use the same yardstick to measure a library, or school enhancements as I would for the convention center and hotel deal, even though the CC will be used some by locals too. If you live here, you don't need a hotel to use the CC. All of your arguments I've seen lately have been about that haven't they, how much money outsiders are going to bring to the city? Obviously there are other aspects to it too.

Plus, none of the other projects have required the kind of post MAPs vote budget enlargement shenanigans the CC has either. This one screams for some accountability.
That's fair; it is a project that is much more focused on bringing new money to the economy (I will say the Thunder deal was also about that to some extent). But as I have also said it is going to be quite possible to document first-level impact simply based on event days booked at facility, and by taxes and rent paid by the property (this will be public).

The next level of impact will be room nights booked overall (not just at this facility, as it will be a driver of room nights all over the city), and this is carefully tracked by the CVB. If there is a spike in bed tax and sales tax collections in and around downtown after the opening of the facility, it will be very easy to track back. Other than the sales tax reports - which would require some City assistance - all of this can be obtained through open records requests, and much of it WITHOUT such requests, so someone would not have to rely on self-reporting by an entity they are questioning.

When you don't even bother to ask a question where the answer can be obtained within minutes (as I did) then saying "millions" when in fact it was $50 million -- fully more than half above the only number reported --- that is either irresponsible or an intentional omission.


It's absolutely ridiculous to expect the press not to be held accountable, as you are attempting to do with me.

If the Oklahoman doesn't want to get criticized, do a better job. Period.

You're doing a fine - and valuable - job of holding them accountable all by yourself. I'm only saying your telling of the tale would be more compelling if it acknowledged some of the nuance.

You're doing a fine - and valuable - job of holding them accountable all by yourself. I'm only saying your telling of the tale would be more compelling if it acknowledged some of the nuance.

I understand and really do respect your point of view.

And the last thing I want to do is use this site and my limited power to bully or censor.

What I think might be valuable would be some sort of graphical representation of known expense, potential additional expense, known payback, potential additional payback, plus harder-to-quantify economic impact rippling elsewhere in the city if the whole thing is successful.

Don't know what to say or where to start.

There were a lot of questions, concerns & excitement on this board when MAPS III was approved in December 2009. The least popular project (Convention Center) turned out to be the most expensive of the 8 projects listed on this initiative.

We observed the selection process for a convention center HQ hotel in action for months. We were told that an anchor HQ hotel was needed to make the convention center a success.

Many of us have attended conventions in other cities like Dallas, Denver, Corpus Christi, Boston, Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, New Orleans, Phoenix, San Francisco, San Diego & Seattle; If you've been to any of these places, you know our current Cox Convention Center just doesn't measure up.

OKCTalk posters have provided a lot of insight about this process. It came down to two hotel brands--Omni vs. a combined bid by Marcus (Hilton, Starwood, IHG, Westin & Marriott) & Mortensen (Hyatt Recency, Hilton, Ritz-Carlton & Marriott).

Omni was eventually selected. Many on this board drew raves for Omni.

The City selected Omni; they submitted the winning bid.

IMHO: If you look at the deals other cities (Nashville, Louisville, Fort Worth) crafted with hotel developments, Oklahoma City negotiated a pretty good agreement.

What I think might be valuable would be some sort of graphical representation of known expense, potential additional expense, known payback, potential additional payback, plus harder-to-quantify economic impact rippling elsewhere in the city if the whole thing is successful.

Go right ahead! :)

I sure wish I had more time to delve into such projects.

I expect no less before I vote on an enlargement to the CC, assuming that happens. A vote I mean.

The thing that makes me the most confident regarding the future success of the convention center is the fact that Omni is on board.

The $85 million that they'll be getting from OKC is a nice chunk of change, but it won't come close to paying for the building. They're committing to a long term deal with the city, and they wouldn't do that if they thought they couldn't make money with the arrangement. They clearly expect to do a lot of business here. We can debate how realistic the numbers coming from the convention-pushers are, but I don't think Omni lies to itself about that stuff.

^^^^^^
Might be the best point in the thread. Could have saved me a lot of typing!

I have to say I was pulling for Omni the whole time.

Heck, nobody loves big, shiny, sexy commercial projects more than me.

After seeing the Omni's in Ft Worth and Dallas up close this summer, I'm pretty excited to see us get something in that neighborhood, hotel quality wise.

Does anyone on this board seriously believe that Robert Rowling could not do this deal without a subsidy? He has indicated that he is paying his $150 million IN CASH. No interest. He has a net worth of $7 Billion. He cannot finance the other $85 million on amazing terms with 2/3 of the equity in cash? This becomes a self-fullfilling prophecy. He says he cannot do it without a subsidy, gets it, then goes to the next city and says everyone is doing it. Very telling that the first we heard of the need for a convention center hotel was an event in which it was proposed by fellow oil/gas oligarch Larry Nichols in 2007. Rumours, including on this site, have circulated for years that the decision to go with Omni was made years ago. I think Lackmeyer may be sending a not so subtle message when, in his article this morning, quotes Robert Rowling discussing what he thought of the hotel site when viewing it "from the top of Devon Tower". Any bets on whose office he was in?

Does anyone on this board seriously believe that Robert Rowling could not do this deal without a subsidy? He has indicated that he is paying his $150 million IN CASH. No interest. He has a net worth of $7 Billion. He cannot finance the other $85 million on amazing terms with 2/3 of the equity in cash? This becomes a self-fullfilling prophecy. He says he cannot do it without a subsidy, gets it, then goes to the next city and says everyone is doing it. Very telling that the first we heard of the need for a convention center hotel was an event in which it was proposed by fellow oil/gas oligarch Larry Nichols in 2007. Rumours, including on this site, have circulated for years that the decision to go with Omni was made years ago. I think Lackmeyer may be sending a not so subtle message when, in his article this morning, quotes Robert Rowling discussing what he thought of the hotel site when viewing it "from the top of Devon Tower". Any bets on whose office he was in?

He was at Vast.

^

To be fair, at the top of Devon Tower is Vast and I took that comment to mean he was having a meal and/or drinks up there.

After seeing the Omni's in Ft Worth and Dallas up close this summer, I'm pretty excited to see us get something in that neighborhood, hotel quality wise.

I agree with this completely. Omni's are excellent hotels. It should start going up pretty quick if they expect to have it complete by 2020.

Does anyone on this board seriously believe that Robert Rowling could not do this deal without a subsidy? He has indicated that he is paying his $150 million IN CASH. No interest. He has a net worth of $7 Billion. He cannot finance the other $85 million on amazing terms with 2/3 of the equity in cash? This becomes a self-fullfilling prophecy. He says he cannot do it without a subsidy, gets it, then goes to the next city and says everyone is doing it. Very telling that the first we heard of the need for a convention center hotel was an event in which it was proposed by fellow oil/gas oligarch Larry Nichols in 2007. Rumours, including on this site, have circulated for years that the decision to go with Omni was made years ago. I think Lackmeyer may be sending a not so subtle message when, in his article this morning, quotes Robert Rowling discussing what he thought of the hotel site when viewing it "from the top of Devon Tower". Any bets on whose office he was in?

I am sure he could afford to do it without a subsidy. Billionaires can afford to do all sorts of things. That does not mean that he WOULD do it without a subsidy.

I have had similar conversations with my girlfriend about things she could easily do. Doesn't mean she says "yes" though.

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but part of the point of the subsidy is that so the city has buy in and rights to the blocks of rooms for conventions. We aren't subsidizing a hotel just to get one built, we are subsidizing a hotel that the city and convention center has an active, symbiotic relationship with. There's more to this than just wanting a big attached hotel.

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but part of the point of the subsidy is that so the city has buy in and rights to the blocks of rooms for conventions. We aren't subsidizing a hotel just to get one built, we are subsidizing a hotel that the city and convention center has an active, symbiotic relationship with. There's more to this than just wanting a big attached hotel.

What is the commitment to blocks of rooms to the City? I am asking because I don't know. The presentation to Council on Tuesday was one and a half hours long; there was no mention of it. Seems like if that was what we were getting for our $150 million ($85 +$50interest+$10 parking garage + land for parking garage) it would have been mentioned in the presentation. I am sure there is a comittment, just not sure it is as robust as you seem to assume.

I really wish they could revise this plan and go with 750 rooms instead of 600. The study recommended over 700 to compete for the larger conventions so why not do it right the first time? Invest a little more now to gain a lot more $$$ later. Rising tides lift all boats and downtown area businesses will be profiting from the larger conventions coming in. Lets get it right! In this case bigger is better IMO.

And hopefully they build a 1st class garage for this hotel. The Omni Hotel will be renting the spaces at market value so it's not like a freebie.

You know if they had mentioned a HQ hotel along with the push for the convention center it would have killed MAPS III. Sure there's a lot that voters don't understand; that's why you elect a councilperson from your Ward to represent you on these matters.

That question was brought up by Dr. Ed Shadid at the council meeting; if Shadid ever becomes Mayor of Oklahoma City, you can bet that OKC will be as stagnant with growth as it experienced from 1970 to 1990, twenty years of 'very little growth.'

Example: When we finally got the bond issue passed in the 70s to support building the 15,000-seat Myriad in 1973 (current Cox CC) we didn't have any downtown hotels to anchor conventions. IIRC the 395 room Sheraton Century Center didn't open until 1976?

Did we not learn anything from the building of the Myriad?

You know if they had mentioned a HQ hotel along with the push for the convention center it would have killed MAPS III. Sure there's a lot that voters don't understand; that's why you elect a councilperson from your Ward to represent you on these matters.

That question was brought up by Dr. Ed Shadid at the council meeting; if Shadid ever becomes Mayor of Oklahoma City, you can bet that OKC will be as stagnant with growth as it experienced from 1970 to 1990, twenty years of 'very little growth.'

Example: When we finally got the bond issue passed in the 70s to support building the 15,000-seat Myriad in 1973 (current Cox CC) we didn't have any downtown hotels to anchor conventions. IIRC the 395 room Sheraton Century Center didn't open until 1976?

Did we not learn anything from the building of the Myriad?

I agree 100% Shadid would put the brakes on the momentum IMO. OKC needs people in charge that are go getters and not afraid to take chances. I'm not talking about spending unwisely but I'm talking about not being afraid to spend money to make money. There's no doubt in my mind that CC and Hotel will be worth every penny the city is investing and then some. I just wish they would have went a bit farther and built bigger and better.

Two points in all of this discussion:

1. Regarding the "non-compete" agreement on offering subsidies directly to hotels. This is a reasonable request by OMNI and it should not have any bearing on any truly important projects within the city since the First National project is underway. Furthermore, there are a multitude of ways to divert the money to something related but not a hotel. The Strawberry Fields example was put up: It would be perfectly feasible to subsidize a market+park+15 story residential building and then the developer provides private incentives to a hotelier to build a particular hotel. The non-public nature of the Alliance will ensure there's plenty of ways to send that money to one place or another. Even if you force the process into maximum transparency, the initial planning will always be private as long as the Alliance is directing public incentives, and I have a feeling that no matter how hard we try, that's a foregone conclusion for at least the next decade.

2. Regarding the incredible valuable back and forth between Pete and Urbanized and to try and truly create some middle ground here: What I think is being missed in the middle of the back and forth is that, in reality, the average OKC citizen (and any citizen for that matter) is not capable of understanding the nuance that an issue like this demands, nor will they think critically enough to look at a variety of sources and come to their own conclusions. You both present incredibly well-informed cases for positions that lie quite decidedly far away from the middle ground. It seems to me that you are staying put to these positions because you have "met your match" and it's easy to get entrenched in devil's advocate. You both show hints of relenting to the other's argument here and there but, by and large, you stand as pillars firmly in the middle of two distinct "opposing" camps. Neither pillar is particularly close to the center (though certainly not way out in left/right field either), but neither of you are as far from the center as it would seem.

Either way, I'm pretty sure most of us on this site see the common-ground, including both of you all. The debate has certainly helped illuminate that and for that I want to give a round of applause and a hearty Thank You! You are both real assets to this city and we're lucky to have you all as intermediaries between the "ordinary" citizen and the truly "in-the-know/influential" people of this city. I hope that we can find ways for these conversations to build consensus across the city.

How long would the non-compete clause be applicable? Is there an expiration date on it?