There is always a finite amount of money in a budget. Were the convention center operating costs to take money away from other things, it might depend on how much and what. There are some definite advantages I can see to having a better center than the Cox. I would love to see the Cox torn down. The city could sell that land and generate money that would add to the city budget. It would also remove the noxious superblock. I think a new convention center would be nice for city and regional events. If we see an increase in events for people who live outside Oklahoma City, it will increase tax revenues. Were it to cover its operating costs and add money to the budget, that would be a good thing. I think having it paid for in advance is a good thing and that dramatically decreases the financial risk to a new building.

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

And kind of creates his own credibility issues.

I think he makes a good case that the council may have glossed over the Stone numbers and not pressed for better supporting data. However, the first thing that hit was when he said that the LVCC only got 1M visitors a year. He even refutes that with his own data later. And when showing that facility's decline in attendance, he didn't even mention the recession ( at least not up to the point I watched ), when you can look at just about ANY economic data from 2008-2009 and it will show a decline ( unless you're looking at unemployment or foreclosures ). And really, the Las Vegas Convention Center comparison is specious at best and just plain retarded at worst. As an "expert" in the convention industry, he should know that Vegas as a city has a boat load of convention space beyond the LVCC, most notably the Venetian's 2.2M sq ft of convention space and Mandalay Bay's 1,000,000 square foot convention center. Anecdotally, I know that those hotels are getting some convention business that the LVCC used to host. Convention attendance in Las Vegas as a whole has been going up recently. However, a lot of it has been moving away from the LVCC to nicer facilities that are attached to nicer hotels like the Venetian and the Mandalay Bay. So, the fact the LVCC isn't sharing in the increases may be because it is not as nice as the other spaces that are connected to nicer hotels. Hmmmm...

And what I have watched so far was just a bunch of hocus pocus to create doubt. It didn't seem like he was making a case of his own, just shooting down another report and saying "YOU fill in the blanks. Wink. Wink." Kind of reminded me of those UFO and bigfoot shows on the Sci-Fi channel.

Now, does that mean the Stone numbers are good numbers? No. Does that mean we need a hotel? No. But it does show me that this guy has no less of an agenda than whatever is motivating the Stone report. Both seem to be misleading us for some reason. I can only speculate what those reasons are (best place to start is probably by seeing who selected them and signed their checks), but both seem to be using smoke and mirrors to come to a preconceived conclusion. Basically, it seems Stone was hired to tell us we need new space and a hotel. Sanders was hired to tell us we don't. It's a wash.

As for me, no one can convince me that we don't need new convention space, even if it were just for local use, and the voters have said they want one. So, that's my bias. But how big it should be, where it should be located, and whether or not it should have a subsidized hotel are all still worth discussing, imo. However, isn't Shadid trying to kill the convention center altogether? Isn't the hotel at present unfunded and just an idea? I don't get the tactics and all o fthis is just beginning to sound like vengeful politics at work.

There is always a finite amount of money in a budget. Were the convention center operating costs to take money away from other things, it might depend on how much and what. There are some definite advantages I can see to having a better center than the Cox. I would love to see the Cox torn down. The city could sell that land and generate money that would add to the city budget. It would also remove the noxious superblock. I think a new convention center would be nice for city and regional events. If we see an increase in events for people who live outside Oklahoma City, it will increase tax revenues. Were it to cover its operating costs and add money to the budget, that would be a good thing. I think having it paid for in advance is a good thing and that dramatically decreases the financial risk to a new building.

I always appreciate it when you ratchet down, make a more genuine and less spun post I can agree with, even when I don't say I do. Nice quality. Thanks.

And kind of creates his own credibility issues.

I think he makes a good case that the council may have glossed over the Stone numbers and not pressed for better supporting data. However, the first thing that hit was when he said that the LVCC only got 1M visitors a year. He even refutes that with his own data later. And when showing that facility's decline in attendance, he didn't even mention the recession ( at least not up to the point I watched ), when you can look at just about ANY economic data from 2008-2009 and it will show a decline ( unless you're looking at unemployment or foreclosures ). And really, the Las Vegas Convention Center comparison is specious at best and just plain retarded at worst. As an "expert" in the convention industry, he should know that Vegas as a city has a boat load of convention space beyond the LVCC, most notably the Venetian's 2.2M sq ft of convention space and Mandalay Bay's 1,000,000 square foot convention center. Anecdotally, I know that those hotels are getting some convention business that the LVCC used to host. Convention attendance in Las Vegas as a whole has been going up recently. However, a lot of it has been moving away from the LVCC to nicer facilities that are attached to nicer hotels like the Venetian and the Mandalay Bay. So, the fact the LVCC isn't sharing in the increases may be because it is not as nice as the other spaces that are connected to nicer hotels. Hmmmm...

And what I have watched so far was just a bunch of hocus pocus to create doubt. It didn't seem like he was making a case of his own, just shooting down another report and saying "YOU fill in the blanks. Wink. Wink." Kind of reminded me of those UFO and bigfoot shows on the Sci-Fi channel.

Now, does that mean the Stone numbers are good numbers? No. Does that mean we need a hotel? No. But it does show me that this guy has no less of an agenda than whatever is motivating the Stone report. Both seem to be misleading us for some reason. I can only speculate what those reasons are (best place to start is probably by seeing who selected them and signed their checks), but both seem to be using smoke and mirrors to come to a preconceived conclusion. Basically, it seems Stone was hired to tell us we need new space and a hotel. Sanders was hired to tell us we don't. It's a wash.

As for me, no one can convince me that we don't need new convention space, even if it were just for local use, and the voters have said they want one. So, that's my bias. But how big it should be, where it should be located, and whether or not it should have a subsidized hotel are all still worth discussing, imo. However, isn't Shadid trying to kill the convention center altogether? Isn't the hotel at present unfunded and just an idea? I don't get the tactics and all o fthis is just beginning to sound like vengeful politics at work.

Agree. I haven't watched Sanders presentation closely enough yet to examine all his claims, but looking at his two "academic" papers, he's as capable of sweeping generalizations and ignoring data that doesn't fit his preconceived notions as those he criticizes. All I want is answers from someone who isn't paid to have a particular point of view.

best place to start is probably by seeing who selected them and signed their checks)


FWIW...I did hear him say on the video he wasn't being paid for speaking. That was at or near the end of his presentation when someone asked him how much a typical report made by consultants for a city cost. Yes, I know all those book sales and professor perks for adding the High Noon Club on his CV, even if it's true he didn't get paid. He sells millions of books right? There's a copy on every nightstand.

Did Ed pay him for speaking at the town hall? Does anyone know? I doubt he came to OKC on his own dime. Or maybe he's independently wealthy and just likes seeing his name in the paper. There is always a reward. Regardless, he's no high level dispassionate economist.

Context can be important. It followed a late introduction by the MC. (The question about consultants fees was in the Q&A period but his quote wasn't part of his answer to that question.) Starts about the 41-42 minute mark "I'm not saying it because people are paying me a lot of money because they aren't paying me anything."

And kind of creates his own credibility issues.

I think he makes a good case that the council may have glossed over the Stone numbers and not pressed for better supporting data. However, the first thing that hit was when he said that the LVCC only got 1M visitors a year. He even refutes that with his own data later. And when showing that facility's decline in attendance, he didn't even mention the recession ( at least not up to the point I watched ), when you can look at just about ANY economic data from 2008-2009 and it will show a decline ( unless you're looking at unemployment or foreclosures ). And really, the Las Vegas Convention Center comparison is specious at best and just plain retarded at worst. As an "expert" in the convention industry, he should know that Vegas as a city has a boat load of convention space beyond the LVCC, most notably the Venetian's 2.2M sq ft of convention space and Mandalay Bay's 1,000,000 square foot convention center. Anecdotally, I know that those hotels are getting some convention business that the LVCC used to host. Convention attendance in Las Vegas as a whole has been going up recently. However, a lot of it has been moving away from the LVCC to nicer facilities that are attached to nicer hotels like the Venetian and the Mandalay Bay. So, the fact the LVCC isn't sharing in the increases may be because it is not as nice as the other spaces that are connected to nicer hotels. Hmmmm...

And what I have watched so far was just a bunch of hocus pocus to create doubt. It didn't seem like he was making a case of his own, just shooting down another report and saying "YOU fill in the blanks. Wink. Wink." Kind of reminded me of those UFO and bigfoot shows on the Sci-Fi channel.

Now, does that mean the Stone numbers are good numbers? No. Does that mean we need a hotel? No. But it does show me that this guy has no less of an agenda than whatever is motivating the Stone report. Both seem to be misleading us for some reason. I can only speculate what those reasons are (best place to start is probably by seeing who selected them and signed their checks), but both seem to be using smoke and mirrors to come to a preconceived conclusion. Basically, it seems Stone was hired to tell us we need new space and a hotel. Sanders was hired to tell us we don't. It's a wash.

As for me, no one can convince me that we don't need new convention space, even if it were just for local use, and the voters have said they want one. So, that's my bias. But how big it should be, where it should be located, and whether or not it should have a subsidized hotel are all still worth discussing, imo. However, isn't Shadid trying to kill the convention center altogether? Isn't the hotel at present unfunded and just an idea? I don't get the tactics and all o fthis is just beginning to sound like vengeful politics at work.

Congratulations. You've just created a post with far too much substance and far too few ad hominem attacks to fit in on this thread. You may have broken the Internet. Heads are exploding.

That's even vaguer. Again, he is getting something out of this even if it is just a free plane ride, hotel and applause. I suppose we could ask Ed. But even if he is doing this out of the goodness of his heart, that doesn't make his data any more or less detailed or applicable.

That's even vaguer. Again, he is getting something out of this even if it is just a free plane ride, hotel and applause. I suppose we could ask Ed. But even if he is doing this out of the goodness of his heart, that doesn't make his data any more or less detailed or applicable.

You could ask both Ed and HS. I bet you get an answer from both. Maybe even the same one. Or not.

A plane ride and dinner against a $50K-$150k fee on the other side just doesn't sway me all that much that it's equal and "they're both getting paid".

It's probably all the hot poli-sci groupies.

My point was that some people manipulate data for money, some for adulation, some for press. Different things drive different people. You cannot make the determination that $50k means more. We have children dying every day in the US because a researcher faked data about a connection between autism and immunizations. What was his reward? A published paper and press clippings.

Having two family members in high level academia, I have a different viewpoint. Not everyone who gets a fee, a meal or a line on their CV is a whore and lying to you. Sometimes people do good work. Heywood Sanders biggest point was to suspect the consultants and get your head in the game.

How's that different than what you are saying when you aren't fallaciously attacking the source? Are you and he both fear mongers too?

Yes, you've told me what you do.

Of course not everyone does, that's why I used the word "some". Some people do research for fun, some for the intellectual challenge, some to help mankind, to some it's just their job. But many of them on the rubber chicken circuit do it for money or adulation.

Heywood Sanders is saying more than just to get your head in the game, although I think that is a useful take away message. And he does shove data under the rug that doesn't suit him, just as our hotel consultant does. As I've said, likely the truth is somewhere in between.

How's that working out for you? Where is the Oklahoman on reporting on the Town Hall?

Bill is still working on it.

Isn't that what we're all saying? Or, I'm not even saying I necessarily support a CC hotel, but am interested in discussing its feasibility and funding options. I think there's some dissembling on one side of the argument and some drama and hysteria on the other side (I am not referring to you here Spartan). As usual, the truth is likely somewhere in between and I think we can likely get at the truth. But I also dont think it's fair to assume our council members won't be interested in the same information.

Well for one I don't think our council reads anything before they just vote (y'know, gut will never lead ya wrong)

I for one just can't get over the fact that a candidate thinks that calling the majority of voters on an issue "uninformed idiots" is somehow a strategic and valuable plan. Of course, seeing what he's doing on the chicken issues (trying to force that into a vote) pretty much exposes his hypocrisy and lies. It's all about motivating a certain base to come out and vote for him. He'll go down in local history with folks like the Taco Bell guy. What a joke.

Hey now. Not sure Hunt deserved that slap.

Having two family members in high level academia, I have a different viewpoint. Not everyone who gets a fee, a meal or a line on their CV is a whore and lying to you. Sometimes people do good work. Heywood Sanders biggest point was to suspect the consultants and get your head in the game.

How's that different than what you are saying when you aren't fallaciously attacking the source? Are you and he both fear mongers too?

Yes, you've told me what you do.

I am also confused over the hatred of Haywood Sanders in this thread. He is undoubtedly the national expert on this issue. What is exactly has he done wrong?

I am also confused over the hatred of Haywood Sanders in this thread. He is undoubtedly the national expert on this issue. What is exactly has he done wrong?

My assessment of Heywood Sanders is a lot like and perhaps biased by those of the people in academia I know (and love) who study, teach, do research, write books and papers, and make public appearances. He's in academia because he has a passion for developing tools and knowledge to better understand the world AND for sharing all of that with others. The macro view of his presentation IMO was to give people an entry point into the data and some context, AND empower people to take it from there.

Yep, that's a very scary thing if you want to sit on the council and when/if things blow up, blame it on the consultants. And it's a very scary thing for some people if the public uses those tools and empowerment to decide the whole project is on rails to be a boondoggle. I understand that.

I tend to think OKC residents are smart people who want to improve their city and they (we) will continue to work in the direction of improving it, whatever it may be. Discourse all along the way is a good thing for our city.

I also think we need to replace the Cox center with something that makes sense.

I am also confused over the hatred of Haywood Sanders in this thread. He is undoubtedly the national expert on this issue. What is exactly has he done wrong?

I think the internet is playing tricks because I've never said I hate Haywood Sanders. My question is: While we acknowledge he is the national expert, is he really? The only hard evidence we have of his academic career is some papers he wrote, the last one of which was written in 2005. Since then, all I could find were periodicals acknowledging him as the expert. I read his last papers on convention centers and convention center hotels. If you look back a few pages, you can find a very brief evaluation of his article on CC hotels. It was allright, but there are some big holes. His CC paper, as I said before, was basically sociology with some economics thrown in. Neither was a comprehensive economic evaluation. Both contained sweeping generalizations. Last night I watched his presentation to the High Noon Club. It was pretty much the same as his papers. I don't want to write a tome here, but basically, he showed a graph that demonstrated rising convention space relative to demand. I need to go back and look at the units on the graph because as we all know, make the units small enough and your graph looks a lot more impressive. The graph came from CEIR, and I tried to look at it on their website, but you have to be a member to look at most of their data. I'm going to see what it costs to join or even if I can, because I think that might be good information. He spent a fair amount of time demonstrating that Oklahoma City is at the bottom of places people want to go to for a convention. OK. Probably true. Is there a possibility that that could change as downtown OKC improves? No discussion of what has happened in OKC over the past 20 years and how that could conceivably impact our desirability as a destination. He looked at hotel data. Never did he state what kind of occupancy a hotel needs to make a profit. He threw out the fact that he can find hotel rooms in convention center hotels on priceline for $50-$60. I discussed the fallacy in that statement a few pages ago too. BDP talked about why his Las Vegas data was skewed a few pages ago too. All buried by silly arguments here. He talked about cities owning hotels and how dangerous that could be, but again, gave no specific data. He never compared convention centers built with bonds versus convention centers paid for during construction and how that might impact economic data. I'd just like to know more. I'm not saying he's wrong, just that he never really proves he's right to my satisfaction.

No hate at all. I don't hate the convention center and convention center hotel "experts" either. I question their data and think they exaggerate. I'm just saying that I can't find concrete evidence that Sanders is not doing the same. So, I ask you to read his two papers and watch the video of his presentation with an open mind and maybe we can discuss it. No one here wants to read a detailed analysis of the articles, I'm sure. But, it was an interesting experience. Too often, I think we (and the City Council) accept data because it came from an "expert". My point is that experts are prone to bias, just like all of us, and it's a mistake to blindly accept their data, no matter which side of the argument they're on.

So, I ask you to read his two papers and watch the video of his presentation with an open mind and maybe we can discuss it.

Sorry if I missed it. Do you have links to those two papers? Thanks.

The only hard evidence we have of his academic career is some papers he wrote, the last one of which was written in 2005.

Here's his CV dated 2009 from the link at University of Texas where presumably he teaches. I found one paper listed on the CV online by searching for it. Later pages in the CV list more recent professional papers up to 2008. Do not know if that means they aren't generally available or not, I didn't look for them. So is the title of his upcoming book.

It's a PDF


http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCwQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcopp.utsa.edu%2Fassets%2Fuploads% 2Fpublic_administration%2Fresumes%2FVita_Jan_2009. pdf&ei=puXnUsPNFemdyQHz64DYDg&usg=AFQjCNEDjMdUqoL2nmOhp2SP7K7JIj63nA&sig2=ejF8nIdi35Y56Q2ak-xkSQ&bvm=bv.60157871,d.aWc

I am also confused over the hatred of Haywood Sanders in this thread. He is undoubtedly the national expert on this issue. What is exactly has he done wrong?

FACEPALM. "Hatred?" "Undoubtedly the national expert..." WTF?

I for one just can't get over the fact that a candidate thinks that calling the majority of voters on an issue "uninformed idiots" is somehow a strategic and valuable plan. Of course, seeing what he's doing on the chicken issues (trying to force that into a vote) pretty much exposes his hypocrisy and lies. It's all about motivating a certain base to come out and vote for him. He'll go down in local history with folks like the Taco Bell guy. What a joke.

idiot seems a bit harsh, but uninformed voters is just what the chamber junta had in mind by keeping the fabled CS&L report under lock and key. An outfit that received $5.3 million in taxpayer money last year and wants citizens to build them a new toy won't let voters have a look. Seems fair.

Of course not everyone does, that's why I used the word "some". Some people do research for fun, some for the intellectual challenge, some to help mankind, to some it's just their job. But many of them on the rubber chicken circuit do it for money or adulation.

Heywood Sanders is saying more than just to get your head in the game, although I think that is a useful take away message. And he does shove data under the rug that doesn't suit him, just as our hotel consultant does. As I've said, likely the truth is somewhere in between.
Perhaps it's his crusade. Before Houdini's mother passed he promised to try and contact her from the afterlife. He quickly realized mediums are shisters preying on desperate people and went on a crusade exposing their trick effects, kind of like HS is doing with the CS&L hucksters. Bet their report to the OKC chamber didn't include the poll conducted for Milwakee that had OKC near dead last as a convention destination, just edging out Detroit.

$5.3M? The annual contract with the Chamber is $900K for promoting OKC and recruiting new businesses (which the CC will help in that effort, obviously). Where did the $5.3M figure come from?

out of the sky, like the rest of Ed's campaign figures

You'd take Steve Hunt's word right? He gets Couch all tongue tied over the issue a few minutes in.
MAPS 3 City Council Meeting November 17, 2009 - www.okcissues.com - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0H7Htt2xrfk)

I am also confused over the hatred of Haywood Sanders in this thread. He is undoubtedly the national expert on this issue. What is exactly has he done wrong?

Honestly, I have no idea who the guy is and my first exposure to him was watching the video posted in the thread, but for an "expert" he brought very little real data of his own to the table and openly misrepresented it. He really just questioned someone else's data and, again, his command of the Las Vegas convention situation seemed lacking and without nuance. His whole approach seems like it is about isolating a single variable fro convenience instead of placing it within the many variables applicable to this market.

“Promises and Performance of Headquarters Hotels,” Economic Development Journal, volume 4 no. 1, Winter 2005, pp. 33-43.
“Convention Myths and Markets: A Critical Review of Convention Center Feasibility Studies,” Economic Development Quarterly, volume 16 no. 3, August 2002, pp. 195 to 210.

These are the two I read. They were the most current articles listed in all of the academic search engines I used that were considered scholarly and not labeled as "periodical".

“Promises and Performance of Headquarters Hotels,” Economic Development Journal, volume 4 no. 1, Winter 2005, pp. 33-43.
“Convention Myths and Markets: A Critical Review of Convention Center Feasibility Studies,” Economic Development Quarterly, volume 16 no. 3, August 2002, pp. 195 to 210.

These are the two I read. They were the most current articles listed in all of the academic search engines I used that were considered scholarly and not labeled as "periodical".

I haven't read those, but it is clear that he has a well known unfavorable opinion of the feasibility and potential benefits of convention infrastructure. That's fine and I think it's always good to hear from many perspectives. But it seems to me, and maybe I'm just being skeptical, that he was asked to speak, not because of some in depth knowledge of Oklahoma City's convention business and facility needs, but specifically because of his published opinion that investment in convention infrastructure is unwise. It's obvious to me that it was his task, either assigned to him or self imposed, to apply his opinion to Oklahoma City's situation, not to objectively analyze the city's needs.

I would like to know if he thinks it's at all even currently possible for a city to need some new convention space.

Steve Hunt evidently.

You'd take Steve Hunt's word right? He gets Couch all tongue tied over the issue a few minutes in.
MAPS 3 City Council Meeting November 17, 2009 - www.okcissues.com (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0H7Htt2xrfk) - YouTube


Steve Hunt evidently.

Yup, he's never been able to resist promoting videos of himself. Although I actually think multiple people are using the Edgar screen name. Or, we've got our own forum Sibyl.

Ed Shadid posted this to twitter just before attending the State of the City speech (he was there, I saw him leaving): @EdShadid: Despite the cold, convention center & cc hotel petition signature gatherers have passed the 4,000 signature mark on day 13 of 90. 2K to go

He may get 6000 signatures but I don't see him convincing a majority of the city to vote it down.

He may get 6000 signatures but I don't see him convincing a majority of the city to vote it down.

Let's just hope all the "uninformed idiots" (as ES likes to call them) show up in droves.

It will certainly be an interesting experience. It will not only be a vote on a MAPS project but also a referendum on what direction citizens want the city to go.

And true to form, Ed throws a lie in. There's no CC hotel in MAPS.

Dr. Shadid is running a risky campaign going up against MAPS. He's putting the City's future at risk. It's obvious that he doesn't have any real platform to run on so he's using what was the least popular and most costly item on MAPS III.

The new downtown convention center/hotel will keep Oklahoma City in competition with cities like Memphis, Albuquerque and Omaha which are getting second looks by conventioneer planners.

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSjONzxzumDM3HKKp-J9NpjrWQer3EjVz3gwjdeHhb9WQ2bL6jEIg
Memphis, Tennessee

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQfEKvgb2oHkScB4rrpe2hUwbLdOEbw7 V4PU0pgTU5e_FGlaFhHpg
Albuquerque, New Mexico

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQMq0zg31qc47sabrGtSEreeOvkYgCnp biO1ObmKbotDFf1hwsJ
Omaha, Nebraska

We are not going to be able to compete for Tier II type conventions without the needed convention center exhibition space & facilities and the continued building of quality downtown hotels. We are missing out on what cities like Atlanta & Dallas have enjoyed--an influx of out-of-state money building the local economy.


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

Yeah, but if you were a challenger to a fairly popular mayor, what would you want folks talking about:

(a) personal issues that some feel the challenger tended to misstate downplay and/or mischaracterize

(b) an apparent lack of a coherent plan to move the city forward, other than lead a fuss about better bus shelters.

(c) the fairly decent national and local reputation of the incumbent

(d) a streetcar system that as a council candidate the challenger said one thing, then did another as a member of council, including some tactics not typically seen regarding MAPs issues

(e) a convention center, that was never majorly popular to begin with, with a few paranoid accusations tossed on about a non existent hotel commitment of hundreds of millions to help generate a feeding frenzy.

And hey, guess what's been the primary conversation for a few weeks. Ya know, his handlers may not be quite the rubes they were appearing to be a while back.

Denver has done very nicely with primarily regional events. We don't necessarily even need to shoot for national conventions. I think what the CC promoters need to avoid is too much hyperbole. Is the Cox an acceptable venue for our city going forward? If we don't build a new convention center with MAPS 3 money, we're looking at a 2030+ completion date, even if it got put on a MAPS 4 ballot and passed. Might we lose what regional business we now enjoy if other comparable cities are building newer convention centers? As I've said, the Cox is pretty shabby. I'd be embarrassed if a friend of mine wrote me and said s/he was coming to a convention here. I'm proud of the changes that have occurred in our downtown and I'd be excited to show them off. But, to me, the Cox Center is indicative of what we were in the 70s and 80s, not what we are becoming in this century. That's why I've done an about face and am now in favor of building a new convention center with existing MAPS money. If it comes to a vote, I'll be voting in favor of a new building. I'll still withhold judgement on the hotel, but that was never what we voted on to begin with and Ed's vote isn't about a hotel either. It's about stopping a project that was democratically approved by the people for his theoretical political gain. He doesn't care about a new bus system. If he did, he would understand what he's doing. He clearly doesn't care about passing future tax measures, because what he is doing is instilling mistrust in city government and in civic projects. All he cares about is getting elected. Good luck with that, Ed.

I think it's a mistake to talk about the CC as if we're doing it to make money. Any major city, major capitol city, needs a convention center. It's a gathering place for the community. It's a place where we graduate from high schools and sometimes college. It's a place where our businesses can meet. It'll host all kinds of events that the Cox just isn't able to do. When I think of the fact that Bricktown will be walkable, I start to think that this convention center is going to be more attractive than a lot of those I've been to which tend to be a little isolated.

We could have used the new convention center today at the Mayor's State of the City luncheon. There were over 1600 there. Ed should have gone. Maybe he would have picked up some pointers on how to have a good turn out.

We could have used the new convention center today at the Mayor's State of the City luncheon. There were over 1600 there. Ed should have gone. Maybe he would have picked up some pointers on how to have a good turn out.

Hosted by the Chamber of Commerce? Did I read that right earlier today?

Yes. 1250.00 per corporate table.

Sounds cozy.

it was kind of tight.

How was the food?

I was actually good considering the number of people that they fed. It was one of the better meals that I had at a large event. I could not tell you what it was called though. I was a chicken breast cut up over rice and other ingredients.

I had lunch with my wife, a subway sandwich and a bowl of chili for me, $20 with the tip for both of us. I win.

Can you tell me the history of the State of the City speech. This seems like kind of an odd arrangement, or is this the usual one?

This is an annual event that the Mayor presents. It started with Ron Norrick I believe..

Always with the same group?

No I noticed that the crowd was mixed and a lot of young professionals.

I meant always hosted by the Chamber. I'd think it kind of odd if the president of the US always gave the State of the Union at the Chamber of Commerce. I guess that was never the point of the State of the City, to be similar.

It was at the Cox center and was a Chamber event. It is typically a good presentation on what is coming down the pipeline for OKC. The table sponsors were all types of companies and I noticed several new companies that were all a younger crowd (30ish). There we lots of accolades on OKC from various national publications. I am sure that the video will be posted somewhere out there soon.

I think I read it will be on the Chamber's website today or tomorrow.

2014 State of the City: Mayor Mick Cornett address (http://m.newsok.com/video/3123739046001)

How's that working out for you? Where is the Oklahoman on reporting on the Town Hall?


Bill is still working on it.

No reporting of the town hall beforehand. No timely reporting after the event. That's an editorial position, as opposed to presenting the news.

No surprise.

No reporting of the town hall beforehand. No timely reporting after the event. That's an editorial position, as opposed to presenting the news.

No surprise.

DOK investigative journalism found no sordid details in HS's past.

No reporting of the town hall beforehand. No timely reporting after the event. That's an editorial position, as opposed to presenting the news.

No surprise.

At least you and Edgar are consistent. When in doubt, attack the Oklahoman. Maybe they didn't report on it because it was completely insignificant and rehashes everything that was argued and decided 4 YEARS AGO. Just because Village Idiot Shadid brings it up again and is trying to get a revote (like every other MAPS Project...noticing a pattern?), doesn't make it worth reporting. Here's to hoping Shadid gets shamed out of OKC politics next month. His lunacy is starting to rival this guy's:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oc1zGRUPztc

We decided four years ago to build a hotel? I thought that was still up for current and future debate. Guess not.

You might want to tell the DOK to stop talking about it, they haven't gotten the word yet.

Where do you keep bringing a hotel in to this?

We never voted on a hotel, and a hotel is not being built. What is the major malfunction?

At some point in the future, the city may want to pay for a hotel, but that will be up to a vote of the people. Again, what is the malfunction?