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


Oklahoma County Commissioners will ask voters to approve a $55 million bond issue to acquire a shuttered General Motors plant.

NewsOK (http://www.newsok.com/)

It still amazes me that that plant completely shut down and there has been hardly a blip on the overall OKC economy.

I know part of that is due to the current state of the oil & gas industry but still... Pretty amazing if you think about it and a testament to the diversification and size of the market.

I hope you don't mind if I ask a couple of questions.

1. Why in the hell would we want to buy that?

2. Since you live in California why do you care?

3. Aren't there anymore places in California to fix up?

You are talking to the owner of this site. I would watch your snarky comments.

I hope you don't mind if I ask a couple of questions.

1. Why in the hell would we want to buy that?

2. Since you live in California why do you care?

3. Aren't there anymore places in California to fix up?

why are you acting like a doosh? Pete doesn't need to be questioned about his devotion and/or contribution to the OKC community, especially by a troll.

I apologize profusely if you misinterpreted what I wrote.
I'm sure some man who owns this site is perfectly able
to read my questions, understand what I wrote, and answer
some perfectly legitimate questions. I'm a little sick of the word
snarky. It ranks right up there with awesome.

Did you call me a doosh?

How about "assy" then?

Did you call me a doosh?

learn how to quote troll.... and if you read what I wrote I obviously did not call you a doosh..... but you are acting like one.....

My guess is you are a red-a$$ed Pacific Northwesterner, but I have always been one for conspiracy theories......

Serious questions need to be considered about this bond issue. I'm not saying I'm against it, just need many questions answered.

Here a just a few:

Why do we need to be involved if Tinker is already doing OK with the buildings it has? Tinker always rates near the top in efficiency, etc.

I believe and know that the municipal bond market is VERY tight right now. That means higher costs than Mr Vaughn might imagine.

I know there will be many more, getting ready for vacation.

Bob&...

Do you live in Tulsa?

If not, do you plan to move to Tulsa? When?

Can we help you pack?

I hope you don't mind if I ask a couple of questions.

1. Why in the hell would we want to buy that?

2. Since you live in California why do you care?

3. Aren't there anymore places in California to fix up?

Either find something constructive to contribute to this site or your posting privileges will be revoked.

Differences of opinion are welcome but those here just to cause problems are not.

I, maybe even against the TOS, called you out as a troll after you had only 18 posts. Your comments to one of the good posters on this board had to be removed they were so over-the-top. This latest post of yours is just another attack.

Back on topic: I fully support the measure for Tinker to aquire the old GM plant.

There are some out there who are unaware of how critical Tinker is to the OKC economy. Tinker brings about $2.79 Billion to the local economy every year! Tinker is also the largest single-site employer in the state of Oklahoma, employing close to 30,000 people, not including the 20,000+ contractors who do business with DOD in some form or fashion. That's a lot of jobs. When GM left, less than 2,000 lost their job. Imagine what would happen if Tinker left.

Others may also be unaware of what's happening at the DOD level. Smaller bases are dying out and their missions are going with them. These missions are being moved and consolidated at larger 'super bases'. Tinker is only going to get larger and OKC is going to benefit if this vote passes. These smaller cities are learning the effects of losing DOD dollars. We need to ensure Tinker stays and gets stronger. Other cities' loss will be our gain.

We need Tinker to become one of those 'super bases'. I'm telling you, in the next 20-30 years, we're going to witness the military consolidate a lot of its resources. The cities with DOD presence are going to thrive! If you voted YES on March 4th, this is a no-brainer.

Why do we have to pay to purchase the GM plant? Why can't tinker just purchase the plant as their own. I'm not sure I support using tax dollars to lease the GM plant to Tinker. This is no different than Bass Pro.

Why do we have to pay to purchase the GM plant? Why can't tinker just purchase the plant as their own.

This is the part I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around as well.

Unless the powers that be at Tinker have some back-room bargaining going on because the BIG brass is telling them they can't have the $$$ from the AF to purchase it themselves.

No idear

I am not sure what abandoned car plants cost these days , but 55 million seems a bit much.

I am all for the city, the state, or TAFB doing something with the building.

I am not sure what abandoned car plants cost these days , but 55 million seems a bit much.

I am all for the city, the state, or TAFB doing something with the building.

Didn't GM build a BILLION dollar paint facility there just a couple of years ago?

It's all ironic in a way. As I recall GM was enticed to build the plant in part by promises of certain tax exemptions and incentives. But a lawsuit was filed and the incentives were found to be unconstitutional. That turned out to be very embarrassing for Oklahoma efforts to secure future business. In fact I recall being reminded of it as late as 1994 in Chicago at a meeting with several bankers who remembered it very clearly.

I don't recall the exact numbers and these may be wrong. But I think the original plant was something on the order $400 Million or so which was a lot in 1974. I know a major remodel was completed in 2001 at nearly a $ Billion.

The county plans to lease about two-thirds of the building to Tinker and lease the remaining third to the 'private sector.'

The county plans to lease about two-thirds of the building to Tinker and lease the remaining third to the 'private sector.'

Yeah, that's me. I'm going to use the space for my aglet collection.

From what I've read, the AF will lease the building. I don't know how that would work. Why not just purchase the entire building and move on?

We have done a couple of stories on this, and Im pretty confident that the city already owns the land under the GM plant.

The state owns it. That's part of an E. L. Gaylord-era project where dozens of businesses were put on state-owned land so they wouldn't have to pay property taxes. It turned into a pretty big scandal at the time.

The country collects just under $900,000 per year in property tax from GM. Now Tinker wants Oklahoma County to buy the building which will cause the county to lose that $900,000 per year. Over the 15 years of the bonds this is $18.5 million. It seems to me that spending $55 million to lose $18.5 million isn't a smart move. That would have to be one heck of a lease to cover the loss and exposure.

I still don't see why the federal government with an annual budget of $3.1 trillion can't buy the building. Plus, it isn't like Tinker is going to leave town over it so what is the worst that can happen under the status quo; the county continues to collect nearly a million per year from GM. Here is a new slogan - "No Taxes for Government Trillionaires".

http://oklahomacounty.org/tacVote/images/tacVoteAd.jpg

Tinker Bond Issue 2008
Vote May 13, 2008

“The Board of County Commissioners of Oklahoma County has set a bond election on May 13, 2008, to ask the registered voters of Oklahoma County to vote regarding whether to approve bond issues which will allow the County of Oklahoma County, through the Board of County Commissioners, to do the following: Proposition I—issue bonds in the amount of 55 Million Dollars to purchase the GM facility and allow Tinker Air Force Base to lease the facility from the county with potential of transferring the property to the Air Force at some future time. Proposition II—issue bonds in the amount of 10.5 Million Dollars to provide necessary funds to renovate the plumbing, air conditioning, heating and other structural necessities in the Oklahoma County Courthouse. Proposition III—issue bonds in the amount of 5.75 Million Dollars to provide necessary storage space to retain and protect official records and documents which must be kept secure and protected in a facility large enough to kept current records and improve file access to such records. Proposition IV—issue bonds in the amount of 7.250 Million Dollars for the construction of a new facility for the Oklahoma County OSU Cooperative Extension Service in order to provide sufficient space for the numerous county programs offered through 4-H, Master Gardeners, Nutrition education, and other home, family and community education programs. Proposition V—issue bonds in the amount of 6 Million Dollars to alleviate flooding problems in the Northwestern and Central areas of Oklahoma County, which would also provide for flood control, wildfire prevention and other disaster relief projects throughout the County, with the ability to have the funds of this bond issue matched with federal monies to be applied to provide natural hazard and disaster mitigation, roads, bridges and drainage facilities in these specified areas in Oklahoma County.”

1. Tinker Air Force Base ($55M)
2. County Courthouse Renovation ($10.5M)
3. County Record Retention ($5.75M)
4. County Cooperative Extension Service ($7.25M)
5. Natural Hazard Mitigation and Flood Relief ($6M)

Item 1 is the only sticky point for me. If Oklahoma County is the landlord is the US Government going to pay near market value rent?
If the arrangement is one of those "dollar a year" arrangements, who will receive the revenue if Tinker sublets part of the building/site to others?

Item 1 is the only sticky point for me. If Oklahoma County is the landlord is the US Government going to pay near market value rent?
If the arrangement is one of those "dollar a year" arrangements, who will receive the revenue if Tinker sublets part of the building/site to others?

A good question that probably should have a good answer before you cast your vote.

What I find amusing and amazing at the same time is how often several items that have little if anything to do with the main issue and lumped into a large bond and shopped to the people for a vote. Why not just take the $55 million bond issue and make it fly solo? Is it because there is a sense that it won't pass on its own merits?

The courthouse renovation is desperately needed.

The courthouse renovation is desperately needed.

No doubt... so why is it lumped in with a $55 million issue that has nothing at all to do with it?

My point is supposed to be this. If the other issues are worthy of voting on in their own right and deserve our taxpayer's support, why not put them up as separate issues? That way, how can anyone say that an attempt to obfuscate or try the old 'end around' isn't being attempted?

Why doesn't the state do a state wide bond issue. WHy should only the residents of OKC pay for this.
The employees of Tinker live all across the state but are most concentrated in the 5 county's around OKC.
Why doesn't Norman and Cleveland county pony up???????

Norman certainly benefits from the salarys that are brought to their town.:tiphat:

I think it may have to do with the actual property residing in OK County.

And they're doing all these propositions at once because it's cheaper to have a single election than five of them. Each, by law, will have its own line on the ballot anyway.

And they're doing all these propositions at once because it's cheaper to have a single election than five of them. Each, by law, will have its own line on the ballot anyway.

Our Republican house has forgotten about this recently :)

Just calling for the vote is estimated to cost over $140,000.00. Who owns the land? Who is the real estate agent on the deal? I thought I heard one of the commanders say that he didn't think it was necessary?

I thought I heard one of the commanders say that he didn't think it was necessary?

You "thought you heard" . . .please. . . Who, What, When, Where. . .

And I once thought I thaw a puddy tat, but that doesn't mean there was one.

Were I a county resident, I wouldn't have an issue voting in favor of any of the fiv e. I recognize some may differ ... tis why they put such things to a vote I suppose :)

It would be a great deal for the base if they can get this done. There are alot of buildings on the base that need to be demolished. There is more than enough room at GM to house alot of the backshops and offices from the buildings that would be torn down.

It is 4,000,000 square feet on 430 acres. If the county can get it for $55 million it seems like a tremendous bargain to me.

Considering a practice facility costs 20 million :) , 4mil sf at this rate does seem a bit of a bargain

I doubt very much that a private investor could get it for $55 million. That's less than $14 per sf.

The old Western Electric plant has 1.8 million square feet on about 250 acres and it finally sold for $14 million. But it was a much older building and more difficult to utilize in my opinion.

The GM plant's location relative to Tinker makes a lot of difference, too.

If Tinker wants the building so bad, THEY can buy it. Why should tax payers foot the bill?

Pretty complicated and difficult to get the feds to do anything that's not already approved, budgeted, and authorized. And that's especially ture with military bases and especially right now.

There will be another round of base closings. It isn't such a bad thing to be proactive for once.

I personally prefer to get these bug projects under some kind of beneficial use as quickly as possible. I was happy to read last December that a company was buying the old Dayton Tire plant and converting it into an industrial park. Haven't heard how that effort is progressing but it is good in my opinion to have movement on these kinds of properties.

All things considered I think the GM redevelopment is a worthwhile project.

Flinty, I understand that a large part of that building has been converted to server space for some sort of online company.

Hadn't heard that.

That building was about 2.5 million sf on 300 acres and sold for $7.8 million.

Considering a practice facility costs 20 million :) , 4mil sf at this rate does seem a bit of a bargain

Smokin' idea! Just put the practice facility in the old paint shop! They can get their rides pimped while they ballin'!

Corporate welfare.

If Tinker wants the building so bad, THEY can buy it. Why should tax payers foot the bill?That's what i don't understand, why does the county have to buy it, taxpayers flipping the bill, and then the county turns around and sells it? Why can't Tinker, or anybody else just buy it? I do not live in Oklahoma Co., so do not have a lot of say, if i did, i would vote no.

I'm voting No.

Wouldn't the tax payers techinically be paying twice for it? OK County buys it with tax money from this levy. Then they think they can turn around and sell it to the USAF...who gets their money from...the tax payers.

Only way this should fly...if deal can't be done with the USAF in a couple years, the city has the right to secure another auto maker or other company to take it over. Screw GM. :)

I'm a little torn by this.. I as a tax payer don't want to foot the bill.. on the other hand, Tinker being our largest employer, and base closings still a real reality... i'd hate to see Tinker close and it be like in the 80's with the oil bust. So.. where should I look?

I'm a little torn by this.. I as a tax payer don't want to foot the bill.. on the other hand, Tinker being our largest employer, and base closings still a real reality... i'd hate to see Tinker close and it be like in the 80's with the oil bust. So.. where should I look?

Based on what I just learned from Commisioner Vaughn's office, vote NO!

The details of the lease are not final, nor will they be before the vote. The lease terms will be "low cost/low consideration" which I perceive to mean well below market value. If Tinker does not use the entire space they can sublet to others and Tinker will receive that rent money. I don't see Tinker charging below market value for any space they sublet.
Summary: A BIG RIPOFF!!!!!

Something tells me that this is all a move by GM to get out from under the property taxes on the property while also not having to sell to another auto maker.

I'll be voting "no" for the bond at the top of the ticket and yes for everything else. The courthouse is in dire need of help.

I'm Voting NO!

T.A.C. 2008 - Tinker Aerospace Complex (http://www.oklahomacounty.org/tacvote/)

Seems like a no brainer to me...But I'm basing that solely on the Friends for Tinker ads running on tv

Honestly I don't really see a downside to it

Anyone see the Tinker article in the OK Gazette? Apparently they are afraid of BRAC doing another closing and don't want Tinker to appear to be under utilizing the available space and have them shut down. The Air Force is also cutting down on cost since a lot of their money is being spent on operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm still voting hell NO on this one.

No!!!!! We'd be paying for an Oklahoma County cash cow.

I just can't see this happening....it seems like every 2 or 3 years, the tax payers have to do something to keep Tinker. I'm afraid the reasoning behind this one has not been explained enough to go forward with it.