I'm going to say what I think about the CC, and its the same thing I've always said. I suspect the consultants are exaggerating any financial windfall that the city will get from a new convention center. I think the C of C is motivated to believe their data, just like Ed is motivated to believe Mr. Sander's data: it fits with what they want to believe. However, I go to a lot of Thunder games and because it's warmer to walk inside than outside, I always walk through the Cox. I go to an occasional dog show there and a few other events. The Cox looks dated and it looks shabby. It is not a great way to present our city to visitors. Although I don't know if we have any chance to get bigger conventions, if I were a convention consumer, I wouldn't be very interested in coming here. So, I'm actually fine with a new convention center, because I think the city needs a fancier, more uptown face for the conventions we do get. That being said, I've always argued that the convention center needs to be close to the back of the timeline. Our biggest problem with attracting bigger conventions is the fact that there's not much for the conventioneer and or their family to do once they get here. If the other MAPS 3 projects were complete, we'd have a streetcar for transport, we'd have a park to visit, we'd have the river complete. Maybe we'd even have the Native American Cultural Center complete (a girl can hope). Maybe we'd have an Adventure line to transport visitors to the Adventure district. We're getting much better retail downtown and Steve says we're getting more. I like to shop when I go to a convention. I'd like the downtown to be all spiffed up when we welcome visitors to our new convention center, because I suspect that once it opens, it will be stuck for a while with the impressions of the first visitors. I suspect the convention business is a small world. Do it right, and people will come here, be impressed with the new convention center, but more importantly, be impressed with what OKC has to offer. That's more likely to happen if the CC is the last thing we complete.

This is all just my opinion, and I have absolutely no data to support it other than my personal reasons to select cities in which to go to conventions and my years of exposure to academic research and its inherent biases. I didn't vote for MAPS 3 because I was dying to have a new convention center. I wanted the park, streetcar and sidewalks. But, I respect the fact that other voters probably had the convention center as their primary reason for voting yes, and I believe that we need to keep the MAPS brand shiny .

As far as a hotel and phase II CC are concerned: There is no phase II in the MAPS 3 budget. Therefore, any phase II would have to be approved by the voters in a MAPS 4. If the city wants to try and do that, they're welcome. If the city wants to give a hotel company a stimulus to build a hotel here, it should not come out of any part of the MAPS 3 budget but the CC portion. If they find money elsewhere, fine. Big fancy hotels aren't a bad thing for a city. I'm extremely happy that the Skirvin was renovated. But, how to find that money is up to them. My attention, once we get the streetcars and line ordered, is to help improve our transit system - commuter rail and bus.

I might get behind the extended costs too. How about we talk about all that now that we know it might be an issue instead of blindly run the train full speed ahead?

I'm going to leave it at this and go make some money today:


do have a hypothetical question, is there any point along the trajectory of a public project that is going off the rails where it would be appropriate to inform the voters and check in with them again, or should a city just say "they voted for this" and run it off into the ditch?

The consensus here seems to be no, they should run it off into the ditch no matter what. The citizens voted for it.

Maybe we should eliminate the petition process too. It's so inconvenient.

It's called peer review, and his work is subject to that, like all academics. None of that ^ means he's the hack the cabal here has implied and will imply. If you are going to go there, how about challenging his work with other studies?

Actually that isn't implying he's a hack. It just means he has an agenda and you have to take that into account. One of my favorite professors in college was fond of saying "no one writes anything without a reason". You have to identify that reason when you analyze their work.

There's a middle ground between "no convention centers, ever" and "convention centers for everyone". Now I've been on OKCTalk for several years, and so perhaps I'm more informed than the average voter, but I remember quite clearly before the MAPS3 vote that this would only cover the first stage of the convention center, and we'd still need to arrange some sort of financing for a hotel. It was clear to me before the vote, certainly.

I might get behind the extended costs too. How about we talk about all that now that we know it might be an issue instead of blindly run the train full speed ahead?

No, it was talked about in 2009. A vote happened. It passed.

It's called peer review, and his work is subject to that, like all academics. None of that ^ means he's the hack the cabal here has implied and will imply. If you are going to go there, how about challenging his work with other studies?

Does he have peers? There aren't a lot of other people in that field. Again, I didn't say he's a hack. You overinterpret. I said he has motivation to see things in a light that supports his data. Every person who uses research to get promoted, get grants, etc. does. Bias is phenomenally difficult to remove for anyone. I doesn't mean his data is incorrect, but you don't know what information he's ignored. He's dealing with fuzzy science. How do you measure quality of life, civic pride? There are things that don't fit neatly into any research. I will stick with my statement that the truth is probably somewhere in between and every city is different - more different than his research indicates.

No, it was talked about in 2009. A vote happened. It passed.

I added this (unanswered) question again while you were posting.


do have a hypothetical question, is there any point along the trajectory of a public project that is going off the rails where it would be appropriate to inform the voters and check in with them again, or should a city just say "they voted for this" and run it off into the ditch?

The consensus here seems to be no, they should run it off into the ditch no matter what. The citizens voted for it.

Maybe we should eliminate the petition process too. It's so inconvenient.

The petition process is a valid way to get a redo. This has nothing to do with killing the convention center though. Let's be honest. Shadid just wants to make sure there's an anti-MAPS part of the ballot to draw his kind of voter out. Very smart stuff politically, but let's not get caught up and think this has anything to do with sound public policy.

I added this (unanswered) question again while you were posting.


do have a hypothetical question, is there any point along the trajectory of a public project that is going off the rails where it would be appropriate to inform the voters and check in with them again, or should a city just say "they voted for this" and run it off into the ditch?

The consensus here seems to be no, they should run it off into the ditch no matter what. The citizens voted for it.

Maybe we should eliminate the petition process too. It's so inconvenient.


You're going with the presumption that the convention center is going off the rails though. To me the information available is exactly the same as it was when people voted for it.

MKJeeves,

The reason people ignore your questions here is you don't have honest dialogue. You frame questions as you want, people respond with facts challenging the basis of your questions, and then you change the subject by asking new questions. People see through your "Oh, I'm open minded and may vote for this" facade, just as they see through your "I'll probably hold my nose and vote for Cornett" facade, after which you spend three weeks tearing into Cornett and putting patron saint Shadid on a pedestal.

Crickets.

MKJeeves,

The reason people ignore your questions here is you don't have honest dialogue. You frame questions as you want, people respond with facts challenging the basis of your questions, and then you change the subject by asking new questions. People see through your "Oh, I'm open minded and may vote for this" facade, just as they see through your "I'll probably hold my nose and vote for Cornett" facade, after which you spend three weeks tearing into Cornett and putting patron saint Shadid on a pedestal.

Crickets.

I don't always expect people to answer them but when asking them is a valid response to regurgitated and repeated mindless statements it's appropriate to respond again in kind.

The petition process is a valid way to get a redo. This has nothing to do with killing the convention center though. Let's be honest. Shadid just wants to make sure there's an anti-MAPS part of the ballot to draw his kind of voter out. Very smart stuff politically, but let's not get caught up and think this has anything to do with sound public policy.

There's a vetting process to bring it to the vote which includes more than one person's effort. Maybe this will meet that vetting and maybe we won't. If we vote on it, it won't be because Shadid acted alone.

I don't always expect people to answer them but when asking them is a valid response to regurgitated and repeated mindless statements it's appropriate to respond again in kind.

"Mindless statements?" That's rich, even for you. You're condescending to a group of people more educated on the MAPS 3 process than any group in the city. People were here well before it, arguing endlessly over all projects -- including the convention center.

You might check out the election poll on this site and see where Shadid stands with this audience. I think he has 6 votes compared to Cornett's 82. Nobody here is buying Shadid's bulls-it, and so we're not interested in hearing you regurgitate his mindless talking points, to use your terminology.

I'm going to say what I think about the CC, and its the same thing I've always said. I suspect the consultants are exaggerating any financial windfall that the city will get from a new convention center. I think the C of C is motivated to believe their data, just like Ed is motivated to believe Mr. Sander's data: it fits with what they want to believe. However, I go to a lot of Thunder games and because it's warmer to walk inside than outside, I always walk through the Cox. I go to an occasional dog show there and a few other events. The Cox looks dated and it looks shabby. It is not a great way to present our city to visitors. Although I don't know if we have any chance to get bigger conventions, if I were a convention consumer, I wouldn't be very interested in coming here. So, I'm actually fine with a new convention center, because I think the city needs a fancier, more uptown face for the conventions we do get. That being said, I've always argued that the convention center needs to be close to the back of the timeline. Our biggest problem with attracting bigger conventions is the fact that there's not much for the conventioneer and or their family to do once they get here. If the other MAPS 3 projects were complete, we'd have a streetcar for transport, we'd have a park to visit, we'd have the river complete. Maybe we'd even have the Native American Cultural Center complete (a girl can hope). Maybe we'd have an Adventure line to transport visitors to the Adventure district. We're getting much better retail downtown and Steve says we're getting more. I like to shop when I go to a convention. I'd like the downtown to be all spiffed up when we welcome visitors to our new convention center, because I suspect that once it opens, it will be stuck for a while with the impressions of the first visitors. I suspect the convention business is a small world. Do it right, and people will come here, be impressed with the new convention center, but more importantly, be impressed with what OKC has to offer. That's more likely to happen if the CC is the last thing we complete.

This is all just my opinion, and I have absolutely no data to support it other than my personal reasons to select cities in which to go to conventions and my years of exposure to academic research and its inherent biases. I didn't vote for MAPS 3 because I was dying to have a new convention center. I wanted the park, streetcar and sidewalks. But, I respect the fact that other voters probably had the convention center as their primary reason for voting yes, and I believe that we need to keep the MAPS brand shiny .
As far as a hotel and phase II CC are concerned: There is no phase II in the MAPS 3 budget. Therefore, any phase II would have to be approved by the voters in a MAPS 4. If the city wants to try and do that, they're welcome. If the city wants to give a hotel company a stimulus to build a hotel here, it should not come out of any part of the MAPS 3 budget but the CC portion. If they find money elsewhere, fine. Big fancy hotels aren't a bad thing for a city. I'm extremely happy that the Skirvin was renovated. But, how to find that money is up to them. My attention, once we get the streetcars and line ordered, is to help improve our transit system - commuter rail and bus.

This is the Critical point we MUST keep in mind when any of us decided to do anything in a "formal setting" regarding our MAPS initiatives. For OKC, this IS the Goose/ Chicken that lays the golden egg for us. It is what makes us/OKC successful, is the part when we ALL get behind and push.

The PEOPLE have already voted on this CC in MAPS 3. That is done. Let's move forward people. ( Dont go there, the PEOPLE already voted on this). I dont care about a mayor / city council election(s), our MAPS initiaitves in the future are at stake here. Let's not monkey w/ the one thing we have going for us, MAPS.

This is the Critical point we MUST keep in mind when any of us decided to do anything in a "formal setting" regarding our MAPS initiatives. For OKC, this IS the Goose/ Chicken that lays the golden egg for us. It is what makes us/OKC successful, is the part when we ALL get behind and push.

The PEOPLE have already voted on this CC in MAPS 3. That is done. Let's move forward people. ( Dont go there, the PEOPLE already voted on this). I dont care about a mayor / city council election(s), our MAPS initiaitves in the future are at stake here. Let's not monkey w/ the one thing we have going for us, MAPS.

I never thought I'd say this but... I agree with OKVision4U... That was weird.

You're going with the presumption that the convention center is going off the rails though. To me the information available is exactly the same as it was when people voted for it.

yeah, because they still won't let anyone have a peek at the CS&L study.

yeah, because they still won't let anyone have a peek at the CS&L study.

This is BS, already addressed (and ignored). You haven't seen it, but others have.

This is BS, already addressed (and ignored). You haven't seen it, but others have.

Everything from Edgar, (Ed), (Steve Hunt), (?) is BS....It's all a diversion to skirt the facts that have been repeated over and over and over again.

It's too bad this board doesn't have a troll rate option. When it's obvious we're being trolled, we should be able to troll rate posters. Other boards do this and it's highly effective. The point is not to mute honest discussion, the point is to encourage informed, enlightening discussion. Trolls ignore facts, don't actually have a conversation, and shift meaningful discussions off topic.

It's amazing how much time has been wasted responding to a couple of obvious trolls on this board.

In some of my trial work, we use expert witnesses. I'll have an expert who is well-credentialed who will say in no uncertain terms that my theory of the case is correct. The other side will also have a well-credentialed expert who will try poke holes in my theory. What these guys do is they take big fees and argue for the plausibility of the position they're paid to advocate.

It's even better if you can get paid to argue both sides, ala the arena consultant in the Seattle Sonics lawsuit.


Sanders was one of the consultants who said that this convention center would not be revenue neutral. I'm not sure the CC was ever sold to us as being revenue neutral. This CC will be a gathering place for all of the citizens of OKC. High school graduations will be held there, my law school graduation was at the Cox, etc. Cities of our size need large convention centers and the Cox just isn't cutting it. It's like roads and bridges and other bits of public infrastructure. We need space to accommodate large gatherings. I'm interested to hear more on what a large hotel would bring, but I'm not sure we need to subsidize a large hotel. If the demand for rooms is there, let's talk TIF and other ordinary incentives. Building a large hotel for the benefit of a multibillion dollar company isn't something I can get behind without some more solid evidence.

Agree. This is much more than a convention center. Everytime I go into the Cox it is in use for something. It's far busier than the Civic Center, which does not support itself, I believe.

Quote Originally Posted by Midtowner View Post
Sanders was one of the consultants who said that this convention center would not be revenue neutral. I'm not sure the CC was ever sold to us as being revenue neutral.


It's even better if you can get paid to argue both sides, ala the arena consultant in the Seattle Sonics lawsuit.

Agree. This is much more than a convention center. Everytime I go into the Cox it is in use for something. It's far busier than the Civic Center, which does not support itself, I believe.

The majority of the voters might be just fine with that now. They might have been just fine with that then. However...WRT what the voters were sold and what they voted for:




The proposed $280 million convention center is the largest part of the $777 million MAPS 3 plan. Williams, president of the Greater Oklahoma City Chamber, said most people consider the convention center a project for business owners and out-of-towners.

Everyone needs dress socks, though.

"It is the biggest economic engine of MAPS,” Williams said of the convention center. "These people come in from out of town, they spend the money and they leave.”

The Greater Oklahoma City Chamber commissioned a study earlier this year to determine how much convention space the city needs.

The results showed the Cox Convention Center to be inadequate. Worse still, the building is landlocked by major streets and can’t be expanded. The Cox Convention Center brings in an estimated $30 million a year to the local economy, including $10 million in salaries and 400 jobs, Williams said.

"Essentially the new convention center would triple that,” Williams said. "The impact would go up to nearly $80 million. Salaries and wages would go to about $30 million and employment would go to 1,100.”



From the newsok website link upthread. Yep, memories do tend to fade.

Now it seems to have changed to the economics were overstated and:


This CC will be a gathering place for all of the citizens of OKC. High school graduations will be held there,

This is BS, already addressed (and ignored). You haven't seen it, but others have.

I remember reading a piece in the Gazette. They allowed the reporter to have like half an hour with the sacred document, no photocopying or pics of course. Believe they may have let him take notes, not positive. Most everyone who cast a MAPSIII ballot was an uninformed voter because that was the plan.

I remember reading a piece in the Gazette. They allowed the reporter to have like half an hour with the sacred document, no photocopying or pics of course. Believe they may have let him take notes, not positive. Most everyone who cast a MAPSIII ballot was an uninformed voter because that was the plan.

Edgar, like I said before...

This is the Critical point we MUST keep in mind when any of us decided to do anything in a "formal setting" regarding our MAPS initiatives. For OKC, this IS the Goose/ Chicken that lays the golden egg for us. It is what makes us/OKC successful, is the part when we ALL get behind and push.
The PEOPLE have already voted on this CC in MAPS 3. That is done. Let's move forward people. ( Dont go there, the PEOPLE already voted on this). I dont care about a mayor / city council election(s), our MAPS initiaitves in the future are at stake here. Let's not monkey w/ the one thing we have going for us, MAPS.

I remember reading a piece in the Gazette. They allowed the reporter to have like half an hour with the sacred document, no photocopying or pics of course. Believe they may have let him take notes, not positive. Most everyone who cast a MAPSIII ballot was an uninformed voter because that was the plan.

Kind of like every voter who voted for Ed Shadid was deliberately kept an uninformed voter regarding prostitutes, pornography, his drug use and wife abuse? Can we get do-overs on his Council seat election as well?

Most people who vote for MAPS don't do so because of economic development promises. They vote for quality of life reasons and civic pride.

Maybe Ed should join the chamber as a member! LOL

Maybe Ed should join the chamber as a member! LOL

Quite honestly UP, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if he did.

He panders to every group, in a few weeks he will be Pro-business group and pro convention center.

LETS GO GET THESE JOBS AND EXPAND OUR TAX BASE. LETS GO CHAMBER WOOT WOOT

Edgar, like I said before...

This is the Critical point we MUST keep in mind when any of us decided to do anything in a "formal setting" regarding our MAPS initiatives. For OKC, this IS the Goose/ Chicken that lays the golden egg for us. It is what makes us/OKC successful, is the part when we ALL get behind and push.
The PEOPLE have already voted on this CC in MAPS 3. That is done. Let's move forward people. ( Dont go there, the PEOPLE already voted on this). I dont care about a mayor / city council election(s), our MAPS initiaitves in the future are at stake here. Let's not monkey w/ the one thing we have going for us, MAPS.

Vision, I don't think there's any doubt or question that the people voted for a CC as one of the projects on the MAPS3 ROI. The question, now, is whether a convention hotel is truly as essential to the success of the CC as the consultants are now suggesting, and if it is, how does it get funded? And there's all manner of discussion here about whether a vote for MAPS3 back then was an implicit vote for a "Phase II" for the "rest" of the CC complex, and to me that's definitely subject to question.

If one is jaundiced about some motivations on the political side, and certainly I tend to be, I think there are some legitimate questions to be asked and answered about the CC process going forward, and as a matter of practicality, can we limit the project to just the convention center, or does doing so really limit its upside?

This is a rather seriously knarled situation right now. The answers, as best I can tell, aren't easy. I'm not about to join the Ed/Edgar crowd and throw the whole thing out in the scorched earth approach, nor am I likely to blindly support several hundred million more dollars merely on the strength of a given consultant's report. I'm not sure what the right answer is. I felt (and still do) we needed a new convention center, regardless of the presence of a hotel.

I wish I were smart enough to know if the hotel really were as essential to the success of the CC as is it now is asserted to be. At some point, I'm going to have to trust one side or the other, but right now, those on either side seem to have their own agendas, and that makes me suspicious of both. So I don't know what to believe. I just want what's best for OKC, and I also think a new CC is part of that equation. As for the rest, I think I just don't know whom or what to believe, or which side to support. Its very frustrating.

And I think a lot of other people are in the same boat.

Vision, I don't think there's any doubt or question that the people voted for a CC as one of the projects on the MAPS3 ROI. The question, now, is whether a convention hotel is truly as essential to the success of the CC as the consultants are now suggesting, and if it is, how does it get funded? And there's all manner of discussion here about whether a vote for MAPS3 back then was an implicit vote for a "Phase II" for the "rest" of the CC complex, and to me that's definitely subject to question.

If one is jaundiced about some motivations on the political side, and certainly I tend to be, I think there are some legitimate questions to be asked and answered about the CC process going forward, and as a matter of practicality, can we limit the project to just the convention center, or does doing so really limit its upside?

This is a rather seriously knarled situation right now. The answers, as best I can tell, aren't easy. I'm not about to join the Ed/Edgar crowd and throw the whole thing out in the scorched earth approach, nor am I likely to blindly support several hundred million more dollars merely on the strength of a given consultant's report. I'm not sure what the right answer is. I felt (and still do) we needed a new convention center, regardless of the presence of a hotel.

I wish I were smart enough to know if the hotel really were as essential to the success of the CC as is it now is asserted to be. At some point, I'm going to have to trust one side or the other, but right now, those on either side seem to have their own agendas, and that makes me suspicious of both. So I don't know what to believe. I just want what's best for OKC, and I also think a new CC is part of that equation. As for the rest, I think I just don't know whom or what to believe, or which side to support. Its very frustrating.

And I think a lot of other people are in the same boat.

I agree with what I bolded above, SoonerDave. Count me as one in that boat.

Amen, SoonerDave

Vision, I don't think there's any doubt or question that the people voted for a CC as one of the projects on the MAPS3 ROI. The question, now, is whether a convention hotel is truly as essential to the success of the CC as the consultants are now suggesting, and if it is, how does it get funded? And there's all manner of discussion here about whether a vote for MAPS3 back then was an implicit vote for a "Phase II" for the "rest" of the CC complex, and to me that's definitely subject to question.

If one is jaundiced about some motivations on the political side, and certainly I tend to be, I think there are some legitimate questions to be asked and answered about the CC process going forward, and as a matter of practicality, can we limit the project to just the convention center, or does doing so really limit its upside?

This is a rather seriously knarled situation right now. The answers, as best I can tell, aren't easy. I'm not about to join the Ed/Edgar crowd and throw the whole thing out in the scorched earth approach, nor am I likely to blindly support several hundred million more dollars merely on the strength of a given consultant's report. I'm not sure what the right answer is. I felt (and still do) we needed a new convention center, regardless of the presence of a hotel.

I wish I were smart enough to know if the hotel really were as essential to the success of the CC as is it now is asserted to be. At some point, I'm going to have to trust one side or the other, but right now, those on either side seem to have their own agendas, and that makes me suspicious of both. So I don't know what to believe. I just want what's best for OKC, and I also think a new CC is part of that equation. As for the rest, I think I just don't know whom or what to believe, or which side to support. Its very frustrating.

And I think a lot of other people are in the same boat.

Good post, but you're repeating one of Ed's lies: that the hotel will lead to "hundreds of millions" more in spending. Just think about how absurd that number is.

Good post, but you're repeating one of Ed's lies: that the hotel will lead to "hundreds of millions" more in spending. Just think about how absurd that number is.

Unintentional, I assure you. The effort was merely to highlight the extremes at issue in the CC problems, that's all. Last thing I want to do is ally myself with "The Ed Side." Kinda makes me feel dirty now.

Well said Soonerdave. In a more perfect world, the powers that be would unite around the possibility that we might have a bad apple in the barrel pending more review, put the brakes on, look deeper into it and address it with the voters. The Maps brand would be healthier for it. If not the possibility of a bad apple, one that is far different than what the voters approved.

Good post, but you're repeating one of Ed's lies: that the hotel will lead to "hundreds of millions" more in spending. Just think about how absurd that number is.

I missed it too. But I agree with SoonerDave that I support the convention center as we voted on it. I'm conflicted about the hotel concept..... maybe. Of course, we don't have any information on what a hotel would entail or where the funding would come from. We don't know what the Council will even debate so this is a bit premature and speculative.

Vision, I don't think there's any doubt or question that the people voted for a CC as one of the projects on the MAPS3 ROI. The question, now, is whether a convention hotel is truly as essential to the success of the CC as the consultants are now suggesting, and if it is, how does it get funded? And there's all manner of discussion here about whether a vote for MAPS3 back then was an implicit vote for a "Phase II" for the "rest" of the CC complex, and to me that's definitely subject to question.

If one is jaundiced about some motivations on the political side, and certainly I tend to be, I think there are some legitimate questions to be asked and answered about the CC process going forward, and as a matter of practicality, can we limit the project to just the convention center, or does doing so really limit its upside?

This is a rather seriously knarled situation right now. The answers, as best I can tell, aren't easy. I'm not about to join the Ed/Edgar crowd and throw the whole thing out in the scorched earth approach, nor am I likely to blindly support several hundred million more dollars merely on the strength of a given consultant's report. I'm not sure what the right answer is. I felt (and still do) we needed a new convention center, regardless of the presence of a hotel.

I wish I were smart enough to know if the hotel really were as essential to the success of the CC as is it now is asserted to be. At some point, I'm going to have to trust one side or the other, but right now, those on either side seem to have their own agendas, and that makes me suspicious of both. So I don't know what to believe. I just want what's best for OKC, and I also think a new CC is part of that equation. As for the rest, I think I just don't know whom or what to believe, or which side to support. Its very frustrating.

And I think a lot of other people are in the same boat.

I'm with ya Dave. We need to be very careful on this "slippery" slope of "Formal Actions". The Scorched Earth approach could undo decades of success for our beautiful city.

The debate of the Hotel is seperate. Let's keep it seperate. Let's make it a better process for the MAPS 4 initiatives.

Regarding the Proposed CC Hotel, the consultants are guessing. Both sides. The one thing that insures the success of a convention center & hotel, is a thriving economy. This is a certainty that the consultants will not state. The Convention Center ( our Living Room , Urban Pioneer) needs to be a " statement & welcome "at the same time.

The CC Hotel is not a requirement for the success of the Convention Center, but it does go well together ( ie, Denver ). And, OKC could certainly benefit from another Tower Hotel that makes a statement.

Well said Soonerdave. In a more perfect world, the powers that be would unite around the possibility that we might have a bad apple in the barrel pending more review, put the brakes on, look deeper into it and address it with the voters. The Maps brand would be healthier for it. If not the possibility of a bad apple, one that is far different than what the voters approved.

jeeves, Putting the brakes on what? MAPS 3 Convention Center... No.

We can learn from things for the MAPS 4 process, but we are certainly NOT going to go backwards, or hit the brakes. Lets have a dialogue of ideas for MAPS4... sure. Keeping the MAPS brand healthy, is making sure our future continues to look brighter than our past. MAPS 3 is done.

The People already addressed it with our city, the answer was YES, let's keep going. Let's keep building. Let's make something that the future generations will be proud of. ...that's what the voters said.

...just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should.

Good post, but you're repeating one of Ed's lies: that the hotel will lead to "hundreds of millions" more in spending. Just think about how absurd that number is.

Learning from the experience of other towns, it'll take less than a decade to reach the $100million level.

No city is the same; no time is the same. That's just fear-mongering to advance your agenda.

I'm with ya Dave. We need to be very careful on this "slippery" slope of "Formal Actions". The Scorched Earth approach could undo decades of success for our beautiful city.

The debate of the Hotel is seperate. Let's keep it seperate. Let's make it a better process for the MAPS 4 initiatives.

Regarding the Proposed CC Hotel, the consultants are guessing. Both sides. The one thing that insures the success of a convention center & hotel, is a thriving economy. This is a certainty that the consultants will not state. The Convention Center ( our Living Room , Urban Pioneer) needs to be a " statement & welcome "at the same time.

The CC Hotel is not a requirement for the success of the Convention Center, but it does go well together ( ie, Denver ). And, OKC could certainly benefit from another Tower Hotel that makes a statement.

Very well said! You're on a roll, OKVision. Keep it up!

Can we get do-overs on his Council seat election as well?


If Shadid is trying to get a petition to recall portions of MAPS 3, you might be able to find enough ward 2 constituents who were hoodwinked by Ed and now want to see him headed out of town on either of our 3 major interstates.

Maybe Ed should join the chamber as a member! LOL

Not sure that would work. Doesn't the chamber encourage its members to vote regularly?

I was a member of the chamber at one time. I quit from the PITA of the other members marketing to me 24/7. It's not called the Chamber of Commerce for nothing.

I don't belong to the OKC Chamber of Commerce. They've obviously got a pro-business bias, have the numbers to generate a fair amount of political power and their agenda doesn't always jibe with mine. But when I look at what they have accomplished for OKC over the years and compare it with what Ed has done, its no contest. All Ed has done is sow dissension and division. He's made nothing good happen for Oklahoma City. He's alienated his peers, he's ignored the demonstrated desires of his constituency, he's lied, he's undercut other Councilors, he's spit on the voters of Oklahoma City. I should worry about the Chamber? They may be the lesser of two evils, but Shadid makes the Chamber look like neophytes in the evil department.

I get what you are noting betts. At the same time, the day a chamber of commerce doesn't have a pro business slant, given its membership, they probably ought to reorganize under a different banner. :)

And the prospect of having Ed as mayor excites developers....not.

http://m.newsok.com/oklahoma-citys-year-in-review-for-downtown-development/article/3921308

"City Hall politics may throttle other prospects, with the first contentious mayoral race underway since Kirk Humphreys prevailed over Guy Liebmann in 1998. I've been told by a handful of developers they are holding out on moving forward with some riskier ventures until the outcome of the election is known."

And the prospect of having Ed as mayor excites developers....not.

Oklahoma City's year in review for downtown development | NewsOK.com (http://m.newsok.com/oklahoma-citys-year-in-review-for-downtown-development/article/3921308)

"City Hall politics may throttle other prospects, with the first contentious mayoral race underway since Kirk Humphreys prevailed over Guy Liebmann in 1998. I've been told by a handful of developers they are holding out on moving forward with some riskier ventures until the outcome of the election is known."

Wait, wait, wait. That can't be right. Because didn't Ed or one of his cronies say that businesses were going to flock here if he became Mayor?

An Oklahoman writer blogging against Ed? Naw...Who woulda thought.

An Oklahoman writer blogging against Ed? Naw...Who woulda thought.

Have you read most of Steve columns or know who he is? Did you read the article? He is saying that he is hearing from developers that they are holding off on moving forward until the election outcome is known. He did not say anything about Ed.

An Oklahoman writer blogging against Ed? Naw...Who woulda thought.

You really think that blog makes a difference now?

Have you read most of Steve columns or know who he is? Did you read the article? He is saying that he is hearing from developers that they are holding off on moving forward until the election outcome is known. He did not say anything about Ed.

Both you and Betts said it was about Ed, so make up your mind. Yes, I know who Steve is. We've met actually, though he would be unlikely to remember.

Both you and Betts said it was about Ed, so make up your mind. Yes, I know who Steve is. We've met actually, though he would be unlikely to remember.

I said it and Betts said, sure. I will give you that. My point is Steve did not say it.

An Oklahoman writer blogging against Ed? Naw...Who woulda thought.

I think Steve deserves quite a bit more credit than you're giving him here. I think he's been remarkably free of bias in his reporting of this race. Now, if you want to read something with so much bias that it gives you a saccharine headache, I'll give you the Red Dirt "reporter".

While Steve didn't say it, does anyone seriously think he was talking about Mick?

I think Steve deserves quite a bit more credit than you're giving him here. I think he's been remarkably free of bias in his reporting of this race. Now, if you want to read something with so much bias that it gives you a saccharine headache, I'll give you the Red Dirt "reporter".

Steve's pretty unbiased most of the time.

This discussion belongs in Mayors Race doesn't it?

This discussion belongs in Mayors Race doesn't it?

Yes, mea culpa. Maybe Pete will move some of these last posts to that thread.

If Shadid is trying to get a petition to recall portions of MAPS 3, you might be able to find enough ward 2 constituents who were hoodwinked by Ed and now want to see him headed out of town on either of our 3 major interstates.

This is what has happened to me. I lived in that ward during the last election and liked Shadid's promises of transparency and call for more openness in city government. I was concerned about some of his statement on MAPS 3 projects, so I reached out to his campaign and was assured that Shadid supported the completion of MAPS3 as proposed and he publicly reinforced that sentiment before the election.

I feel lied to on both counts. He essentially has become nothing more than an obstructionist. I'm not a big fan of the CC in the mix of MAPS3 projects, but that is mainly due to where they want to put it and the "CC first" agenda that has given it priority over other projects that will enhance the life of those that live here the most. However, every time I walk through the Cox Convention center it is readily apparent that we need new convention space, even for the convention business we already get. However, I think there are better places for it and probably better integration concepts than what we've seen. Also, it seems to me that placing the CC closer to other hotels and attractions (say adjacent to or in bricktown) both mitigates the need for extra rooms and the risk to potential hotel developers because they can better leverage the demand across more attractions downtown, rather than being so dependent on convention business. I'm no hotel manager, but I would think that the value of being branded as the only full service hotel in bricktown COMBINED with being THE convention center adjacent hotel would be a winning proposition. But, obviously, and like usual, the process of selecting a CC site and the potential hotel development seemed to have taken a piecemeal approach instead of a holistic approach of evaluating how the CC and hotel could both contribute to the economy AND leverage current market assets.

But anyway, Shadid's approach is to shut it all down. I don't like that on many levels. It's very much like those in congress who didn't get their way and said "fine, then we're not going to play and at the same time, no else can either". They're operating more just to make a political point than to better our country. Shadid has acted much in the same way in his service to our city and this is just the cherry on top of his obstructionist policy portfolio. He can't seem to sell anyone on his vision ( in large part because I don't think he's really presented a coherent one ), so all he wants to do is wreck the vision of others. I just think he could have contributed more positively to the whole process, but he has used up so much of his political capital being an antagonist, that no one wants to work with him, even if he did offer up some constructive and genuinely productive ideas. What I thought he was going to be, and what I think he could have been, was a better advocate and representative for the ideas and opinions that come from people or independent groups in the broader community that otherwise have little organized representation within city government. He has helped some along the way, but in general he seems to have spent more time attacking processes than constructively contributing to the process.

So, I guess it's my turn to do the same. There are things wrong with the CC plan as it to date, imo. But this action is the wrong process and the wrong precedent to set.

Edgar, the document doesn't belong to you. It belongs to an organization. One made up of members, voting members. They are more than capable of releasing anything they'd like. If OKC Beautiful did a CC study, you'd have just as much right to read it then -- which is zero.

The CC study is a red herring and once again, just makes Ed appear really inexperienced.
The Chamber doesn't owe you, me, taxpayers, or the city anything. They campaigned for what they wanted in MAPS 3 and that's the same right you have.

I don't necessarily agree that it's not a public document. It depends on how OKC Alliance is funded. If they receive any public money for funding, I don't see how they can say it's not a public document. On the other hand, if they're paid consulting fees and these are purely internal documents, it may be privileged. That'd take a fair bit of research.

Regardless of what they say, we need a new convention center. Our current facility was built in 1972 and is no longer suitable for a city of our current size. I'm not talking about having it to attract out of town business. We need something to host local events and the Cox ain't cutting it. Whether we build a convention hotel is probably something best left for another day unless a major hotel reaches out about a public-private partnership, but this is a city facility and most (maybe all) of our city facilities are not profitable. That's why we have to pay taxes to subsidize them. We pay taxes because there are things we can all do together which we couldn't otherwise do alone.

BDP, take heart.
The cc turns out not to have been moved up to first despite reports to the contrary.

They've yet to lock down its location. Meanwhile, on other parts of the urban prairie:

Trails are being built, sidewalks have been set in place, and despite cutbacks, more miles are back in the mix. the streetcar route is set. Things are moving along well on acquisition on Santa Fe station. Park is moving along. Stuff is progressing at the fairgrounds, the river and the whitewater area breaks ground within the year (few months?) and they are still fussing about with the aquatic centers. All while they are still trying to find a way to put the cc at its desired and as yet unpurchased location.

Coulda been a whole lot worse.

No city is the same; no time is the same. That's just fear-mongering to advance your agenda.

Right, it isn't 2012, and OKC ain't Boston. $30 million in Boston money- what would the conversion rate be for OKC? Ed is merely asking the pertinent questions obvious questions as should a good steward and is branded anti-mo and an obstructionist.

Right, it isn't 2012, and OKC ain't Boston. $30 million in Boston money- what would the conversion rate be for OKC? Ed is merely asking the pertinent questions obvious questions as should a good steward and is branded anti-mo and an obstructionist.

I would say he is doing more than asking question.

Don't you mean the CoC? And taking public money for other contract work doesn't mean all the work you do is suddenly the public's, right?

Right. And there is nothing about the CoC which is a public document unless it was paid for with public money. Then that's more of a gray area. I actually know of an AG's opinion which took a CoC-like group, the old Oklahoma Industry Authority had to turn over its records. I think Alliance, depending on its structure could be more public/private, but even then, I think them having confidential records is questionable unless some sort of privilege applies.

Great post BDP. Do you mind if I repost that to Facebook?

I would say he is doing more than asking question.

That is called the "Polite while Slashing & Burning" maneuver when (just doing a little looking into / good stewardship) regarding the MAPS3 Already Voted By the People Convention Center.