The renovated schools I've seen look great. That's the extent of my interaction so far, although I hope to be an OKPS volunteer soon.

That does bring up a question that deserves it's own thread probably. What's the general consensus on the overall value of Maps for Kids now that a most or lot of it is complete? I don't see where it is talked about here except that when people roll it out as an example of a city wide effort vs downtown centric. Izzat being discussed anywhere on this forum?

That's probably going to be more a long term judgement, I'd think, but just a guess.

The renovated schools I've seen look great. That's the extent of my interaction so far, although I hope to be an OKPS volunteer soon.

I did a presentation at Douglass. It was nicer than either of the high schools I went to--McGuiness and Edmond North.

I've seen a good number of the schools, through the years, before during and after Maps for Kids. IMO the money was well spent and needed to be spent. Part of what I'm am curious about is the perception and reality of the effects for doing that, in the larger context, but knowing reality would be hard to measure. What metric(s) would be used? School pride? Neighborhood pride? Citizen satisfaction with their kids' education? Student test scores? Neighborhood stability?

My curiosity is in part related to this exchange between Pete and Sid where Pete mentioned Maps for Kids.

Stage Center Tower - OKCTalk (http://www.okctalk.com/showwiki.php?title=Stage%20Center%20Tower&page=46#post728912)

Seems like that whole can of worms might need it's own place to discuss. The angst on the CC topic is far from over.

That does bring up a question that deserves it's own thread probably. What's the general consensus on the overall value of Maps for Kids now that a most or lot of it is complete? I don't see where it is talked about here except that when people roll it out as an example of a city wide effort vs downtown centric. Izzat being discussed anywhere on this forum?

My two kids go to different OKCPS high schools. Plus between their extra curricular activities (both in Middle and High School), I think we've been to all or most of the Middle and High Schools in the district. My very arbitrary/non-scientific personal grade for MAPS for Kids is a B. It's a net positive gain overall, definitely needed to happen (hard to believe we got by with how things were all that time, looking back), things generally look good, and the new schools really bring up (from say a B-) the grade (hopefully they are well maintained over the years), but I feel some of the renovations fall a little short (though others exceeded expectations). However, any shortcomings I cannot blame on MAPS or the government as I don't think they could have foreseen the issues in particular. Some improvements were cut, for example, due to budget overruns. While I'm sure they could have reasonably expected budget overruns, I'm not sure they could have known what would end up getting cut or watered down at particular schools.

That does bring up a question that deserves it's own thread probably. What's the general consensus on the overall value of Maps for Kids now that a most or lot of it is complete? I don't see where it is talked about here except that when people roll it out as an example of a city wide effort vs downtown centric. Izzat being discussed anywhere on this forum?

I don't know that question can ever be answered in an up or down fashion.

The only thing we can see right now are the immediate results necessarily visible from construction projects. The necessity of building new or remediating old schools was hard to argue, but whether creating new buildings does anything for their "interior," eg administration, staffing, philosophy, parent involvement, etc. is a great deal harder to measure, and even harder to assess is the specific aspect of that change that attributable to Maps for Kids. I've heard some good stories and some bad stories - bad stories about new, MAPS-paid facilities getting damaged and vandalized because the core attendance group was not affected at all, and a new building had little chance of affecting change. And I've heard the opposite, that in tandem with new buildings, other projects were initiated that improved staffing, student participation, and parent involvement - but those projects weren't MAPS funded.

But, those projects, while not MAPs4Kids funded, were most likely inspired because the consumers of the school benefited through MAPs4Kids

Lots of assumptions there and there are alternate possibilities... here's one. What's it going to do when we build a major project that doesn't live up to what was sold and they follow it by throwing good money after bad using the same hype?

Jeeves, your not going to drag me into a politics conversation, but I want to be clear on this. What you described above is true about most all things. All projects are over-hyped. All relationships (are over-hyped..... goood at the beginning, not so good later, ha ha.) Every product we purchase, is over-hyped. The adults that voted for MAPS 3, know this. They understand this.

MAPS is working in-spite of these expectations. That is what is so unique about OKC for the past 20 years with MAPS. We (The People) get to decide on a list of projects, save a few pennys up for a few years, and build that ballpark, ...central park, ...and an Oklahoma River. Are you kidding me? ...this works.

The entire reason it works, is because (We The People) decided that ( 1. If it is to succeed, then it must be OUT of the hands of the politicians & not in a general fund & special interest groups cant touch it or derail it ).

If we wanted to open it up for faillure, we would have let it the way it was, and the current system we call ( local / state / federal ) government. So, if you / Ed / Edgar and any other group tries to "Undo" what We The People put together in MAPS, that has placed Pride in our hearts again and has brought our city & state back from the dust bowl of economics, ask yourself why?

If The PEOPLE are not asking for it, then why are you? We The People, aleady voted on the CC.

If The PEOPLE are not asking for it,

We're talking about a process for The PEOPLE to petition for a vote. That's The PEOPLE asking for it, if it happens to come to a vote and it will be The People voting it down if they do. That's a valid process.

We're talking about a process for The PEOPLE to petition for a vote. That's The PEOPLE asking for it, if it happens. That's a valid process.

No, just a couple of guys w/ Bullhorns, Microphones, and a couple of blogs.

and 6000 citizens willing to sign their name on a petition, per the law. Which remains to be seen.

and 6000 citizens willing to sign their name on a petition, per the law. Which remains to be seen.

Like I said before, just because you can, doesn't mean you should. Don't go there.

No, just a couple of guys w/ Bullhorns, Microphones, and a couple of blogs.

Pssst, when you find yourself in a hole, the first best option is to stop digging. The only way it comes to a vote is if the people want it to come to a vote. Any Idgits with a blog and any Foghorn Leghorn with a mic can try to stir things up, but it takes real people to sign a 6000 name petition.

I'm not crazy on the notion of what the noise makers are doing, but, well, yes, the people have the absolute right to shoot themselves in their collective feet if they decide to do that.
Democracy. It ain't always pretty, and sometimes it down right sucks, and sometimes it is the worst process there is ... except for all the others.

Keep in mind, too, that the initiative petition process isn't a slam dunk. As popular as the general idea of storm shelters in schools is, the organization that set out to put it to a ballot couldn't get enough signatures. Realize it isn't a perfect analogy, but the idea holds. I think the whole discussion about the CC/hotel is so married now to Shadid's personal agenda that the notion of a more frank, objective discussion of the issues at hand has become just about impossible. I think, right now, you put that petition out there, when people hear "maps/stop the convention center" they're going to almost immediately hear "Shadid" in the back of their heads and just walk away.

That said, ultimately, the whole thing may be decided in the confines of the Shadid campaign, at least what's left of it; if there are still 6K acolytes of his out there, and they're determined enough to torpedo the thing, that organization itself might be enough to get it on the ballot. Don't pretend to know if there are 6K people out there willing to identify themselves as his supporters these days. (Okay, 5,999, assuming Edgar is real and is eligible to sign the petition..forgive the intense sarcasm.....)

If the petition folks know their stuff, and get the opportunity, they can get 6000 signatures. If they hand off the effort to someone with true believer syndrome but no experience, then they'll probably come up short.

and 6000 citizens willing to sign their name on a petition, per the law. Which remains to be seen.

I wonder if the petition was on the bus of people protesting the street car. How many churches to you have to go to with that bus to get 6,000 signatures?

I wonder if the petition was on the bus of people protesting the street car. How many churches to you have to go to with that bus to get 6,000 signatures?

Between hard core fiscal conservatives and progressives who will convince themselves the money can go to buses instead, and the I hates the gol ol boy stuff, there are several crops of attitude to harvest. All it takes is the right farmers.

From an armchair play by play perspective, part of me thinks this initiative would have more chance of success if it had an alternate proposal attached, be it some masstrans issue or whatever. That would have been a heck of lot harder to put together though and as has been pointed out, if Ed has a real plan, he hasn't shared it. The majority of The People want to spend money on our city.

Then again, a complete redirect would have complicated the matter quite a bit and some voters aren't up for that either. The CC was a napkin sketch when it was voted on.

To be honest with you, his behavior now actually makes all the sordid divorce details seem more plausible.
I've been keeping myself at a distance to see how this all develops (meaning the topic of this thread as well as the mayoral election, generally), as I still am of the same position that I was earlier ... undecided. And, I've found some degree of peace just reading and not participating in the incredibly eriudite discussion present on both of these topics in the forum. But, Jill, I give you my prize for making the finest such contribution that I have read thus far, above. Way to go, girl!

I've been keeping myself at a distance to see how this all develops (meaning the topic of this thread as well as the mayoral election, generally), as I still am of the same position that I was earlier ... undecided. And, I've found some degree of peace just reading and not participating in the incredibly eriudite discussion present on both of these topics in the forum. But, Jill, I give you my prize for making the finest such contribution that I have read thus far, above. Way to go, girl!I was surprised by his facebook mention of your blog. Made me think perhaps you'd decided to support him although it doesn't say that.

I've not seen Ed's facebook page in quite some time nor have I spoken with him since a random chance meeting a couple of months ago when my wife and I were at the farmer's market buying some veggies ... some event was going on in the general area (I don't know what) and we bumped into each other and exchanged some pleasantries but nothing particular about the campaign which, as I recall, I described as "interesting." Notwithstanding the views of many in this forum who have nothing but villanous comments about him and which go well beyond his political views and are wholly personal, I have a great deal of respect for the man, share several but not all of his viewpoints, and most certainly wish him no ill will, regardless of how I may decide to vote.

Perhaps his facebook links to my blog relate to rather stale posts, e.g., where I took the Oklahoman to task (http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2012/07/why-cant-oklahoman-get-over-ed-shadid.html) for its own apparent campaign against him or the poor treatment he received at the city council, e.g., its refusal to grant a continuance (http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2011/09/what-is-deal-with-councilman-ed-shadid.html) on a matter when he was unavoidably detained (and even though he had been told it would be routinely granted), as well as my prior advocacy in his ward 2 campaign. Or, it might relate to the deceit of/by Cathy O'Connor (http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2013/07/yes-we-can-have-convention-hotel-for.html#o%27connor_why) when she said, before the council, that, "The convention center hotel project WAS [emphasis hers] mentioned as a part of the MAPS 3 campaign literature and campaign materials as a part of the Phase 1 development of a new convention center."

I recognize, Doug, that your comment about my comment was not really complimentary. But past behavior is a window into character, which is pretty much set once one reaches adulthood.

Ya know, had Ed been a good Councilman, I still might have supported Mayor Cornett, but quietly. All Ed's behind the scenes attempts to manipulate the streetcar vote made me angry. This attempt to subvert what I saw as a democratic process with MAPS 3 makes me angry. I've also seen him do some things I'm not going to talk about that made me angry. His hiring of a Washington lawyer digging for dirt on the mayor made me angry, and he did that before anyone sought to unseal his divorce records. His attempt to get a lawyer to challenge the constitutionality of MAPS and then pretend he had nothing to do with it made me angry. His manipulation of the information Jarrett Walker received before he brought him here made me angry. Unfortunately, I could keep going on an on. On top of it, he didn't even vote in any of these elections.

Neither side is perfect, I will grant you. And Ed has some good ideas. The problem is, he has no workable ideas of how to implement them. He has many of the other Councilmen so disaffected that I'm not sure he could put a coalition together to accomplish anything even slightly groundbreaking. He is willing to throw anyone or anything under the bus to try to accomplish his ends. Had he acted as a good Councilman and person, we all might be working hard to help him accomplish some of those goals - the practical ones, anyway. But at this point, the thought of him as the spokesperson for our city is so terrifying to me that I cannot be silent.

I believe Steve posted a link to an article here that showed the hotel was mentioned Pre-MAPS. I was completely disinterested in the convention center pre-MAPS so probably wasn't paying attention. Steve or someone else can correct me if I am wrong.

My prize wasn't given because of your substantive thoughts about Shadid, Jill, it was given because of your remark, "[H]is behavior now actually makes all the sordid divorce details [query: which ones] seem more plausible [query: how so?]. You are a class act, Jill ... heck, I even recall having suggested that YOU should run for mayor many months ago. But your remark was anything but classy, imo.

When you run for public office, your character is part of the package. As I said, character changes remarkably little when you're in your 30s and 40s. If you think that remark was out of line, I apologize. My passionate dislike of him got in the way of good behavior. I shouldn't be mayor, and maybe I shouldn't always say what I think, but at least people know where I stand. I'll keep standing there. And I try very hard never to lie or manipulate people.

I still think you'd be a fine mayor, Jill. Were you running THIS term, you would have my vote.

While I can certainly understand why most private citizens would never want to make a run for any office, I can not disagree with Doug that betts, were she inclined to run, would do the office and the voters of OKC proud.

I believe Steve posted a link to an article here that showed the hotel was mentioned Pre-MAPS. I was completely disinterested in the convention center pre-MAPS so probably wasn't paying attention. Steve or someone else can correct me if I am wrong.
You stand corrected. :cool:

I believe Steve posted a link to an article here that showed the hotel was mentioned Pre-MAPS. I was completely disinterested in the convention center pre-MAPS so probably wasn't paying attention. Steve or someone else can correct me if I am wrong.

The hotel was reported in the newspaper twice before the election.
http://newsok.com/flashback-oklahoma-city-chamber-urges-city-to-look-at-large-conference-hotel/article/3919984
http://newsok.com/flashback-development-of-conference-hotel-needed-with-new-convention-center/article/3919986

But Doug is also right in saying the hotel was not mentioned in campaign literature. Whether it was adequately discussed or reported is up for debate.
Some further background to clear things up a bit ...
The time period of 2006 through 2008 was a very different era in which you still had thriving, if not reckless investment banks pumping money into various real estate ventures. One can argue that if the Skirvin deal had been attempted post-2009, it couldn't have been done for this very reason. The lending climate for these sort of developments changed dramatically.
There was no mention of a need to publicly subsidize a hotel in that early HOK report (which I read, in full, at the chamber's office). But it did mention that a larger hotel was part of what Oklahoma City needed to aspire for a larger share of the convention business.
Was there an understanding or awareness that some sort of public participation might be needed? Of course. Several million was needed to get the Renaissance Hotel developed. And of course far more was needed with the Skirvin. Even 21C Museum Hotel, in the midst of this discussion, was unanimously approved for a few million in TIF funding.
I suspect city leaders back in 2006 to 2008 were assuming they might need to come up with about $20 million or so for a conference hotel, or certainly not more than they paid toward the Skirvin. And at that time, it's realistic to think they could have achieved that through a mix of TIF, tax rebates and new markets tax credits.
This is, again, is up for debate - it's just my observation and I was talking to the various decision makers and watching what was happening. Whether such financing is right or wrong is also for each person to decide.
So what happened?
First, remember, the banking system changed. And the performance of these hotels - not all of them, but enough - caused banks to be far more cautious in lending. It required an amount of equity that most developers could not take on in this new reality unless it was really, really a sure thing. So in this instance, if a city wants this sort of development, and you have that gap, these financial "tools" come into play.
After the election, at a mayor's development roundtable in 2010, was the first time I'm aware of that we first learned about the new realities involving conference hotels, and that public participation was now a must and far more significant than before. The next year a panel from the Urban Land Institute visited Oklahoma City and delivered a presentation at City Hall (which Mick Cornett chose not to attend) which cautioned that a minimum of $50 million might be needed for a conference hotel in Oklahoma City.
Now, a big clarification here: I NEVER HEARD OR SAW ANY EVIDENCE THAT ANYONE WAS LOOKING TO USE MAPS 3 FUNDING FOR THE HOTEL. Let me repeat this: I NEVER HEARD OR SAW ANY EVIDENCE THAT ANYONE WAS LOOKING TO USE MAPS 3 FUNDING FOR THE HOTEL.
I challenge anyone to prove otherwise.
Also, there has yet to be any formal proposal to publicly finance a hotel. To date, we've seen studies and exploration.
Another clarification: I NEVER HEARD OR SAW ANY EVIDENCE THAT THIS SUBSIDY WILL BE $200 MILLION. Let me repeat that again: I NEVER HEARD OR SAW ANY EVIDENCE THAT THIS SUBSIDY WILL BE $200 MILLION.
The recent batch of studies indicated that the total cost will be about $200 million.
This is the history that I am aware of when it comes to the convention center and hotel, and I am not making any comment at all on the mayor's race.

As a postscript to Steve's note ... sure, a convention hotel was mentioned by the Chamber in the articles Steve noted ... pre-MAPS 3. I see now that I didn't read Jill's post correctly. Both articles were written BEFORE the decision was made as to what MAPS 3 would embrace and would subsequently be put to a vote (the articles were published on 1/18/2007 and 3/11/2009). After the MAPS 3 plan was announced (9/17/2009) and during its campaign through the public vote (12/8/2009), a convention hotel was never mentioned.

The hotel was reported in the newspaper twice before the election.
Flashback: Oklahoma City Chamber Urges City to Look at Large Conference Hotel | News OK (http://newsok.com/flashback-oklahoma-city-chamber-urges-city-to-look-at-large-conference-hotel/article/3919984)
Flashback: Development of Conference Hotel Needed With New Convention Center | News OK (http://newsok.com/flashback-development-of-conference-hotel-needed-with-new-convention-center/article/3919986)

But Doug is also right in saying the hotel was not mentioned in campaign literature. Whether it was adequately discussed or reported is up for debate.
Some further background to clear things up a bit ...
The time period of 2006 through 2008 was a very different era in which you still had thriving, if not reckless investment banks pumping money into various real estate ventures. One can argue that if the Skirvin deal had been attempted post-2009, it couldn't have been done for this very reason. The lending climate for these sort of developments changed dramatically.
There was no mention of a need to publicly subsidize a hotel in that early HOK report (which I read, in full, at the chamber's office). But it did mention that a larger hotel was part of what Oklahoma City needed to aspire for a larger share of the convention business.
Was there an understanding or awareness that some sort of public participation might be needed? Of course. Several million was needed to get the Renaissance Hotel developed. And of course far more was needed with the Skirvin. Even 21C Museum Hotel, in the midst of this discussion, was unanimously approved for a few million in TIF funding.
I suspect city leaders back in 2006 to 2008 were assuming they might need to come up with about $20 million or so for a conference hotel, or certainly not more than they paid toward the Skirvin. And at that time, it's realistic to think they could have achieved that through a mix of TIF, tax rebates and new markets tax credits.
This is, again, is up for debate - it's just my observation and I was talking to the various decision makers and watching what was happening. Whether such financing is right or wrong is also for each person to decide.
So what happened?
First, remember, the banking system changed. And the performance of these hotels - not all of them, but enough - caused banks to be far more cautious in lending. It required an amount of equity that most developers could not take on in this new reality unless it was really, really a sure thing. So in this instance, if a city wants this sort of development, and you have that gap, these financial "tools" come into play.
After the election, at a mayor's development roundtable in 2010, was the first time I'm aware of that we first learned about the new realities involving conference hotels, and that public participation was now a must and far more significant than before. The next year a panel from the Urban Land Institute visited Oklahoma City and delivered a presentation at City Hall (which Mick Cornett chose not to attend) which cautioned that a minimum of $50 million might be needed for a conference hotel in Oklahoma City.
Now, a big clarification here: I NEVER HEARD OR SAW ANY EVIDENCE THAT ANYONE WAS LOOKING TO USE MAPS 3 FUNDING FOR THE HOTEL. Let me repeat this: I NEVER HEARD OR SAW ANY EVIDENCE THAT ANYONE WAS LOOKING TO USE MAPS 3 FUNDING FOR THE HOTEL.
I challenge anyone to prove otherwise.
Also, there has yet to be any formal proposal to publicly finance a hotel. To date, we've seen studies and exploration.
Another clarification: I NEVER HEARD OR SAW ANY EVIDENCE THAT THIS SUBSIDY WILL BE $200 MILLION. Let me repeat that again: I NEVER HEARD OR SAW ANY EVIDENCE THAT THIS SUBSIDY WILL BE $200 MILLION.
The recent batch of studies indicated that the total cost will be about $200 million.
This is the history that I am aware of when it comes to the convention center and hotel, and I am not making any comment at all on the mayor's race.

Thank you Steve. That was a very intelligent analysis that makes a lot of sense. And thank you for clarifying the funding issue. We need to neither push this discussion under the rug nor use innuendo and exaggeration to deceive the public.

Glad this made it into the Oklahoman.

Shadid voted in few Oklahoma City elections in contrast to mayor | NewsOK.com (http://m.newsok.com/shadid-voted-in-few-oklahoma-city-elections-in-contrast-to-mayor/article/3922811)

From the above article: "Candidate filing in the mayor's race is Jan. 29-31."

Jill, there is still time. Do it.

If a true cut all taxes to the bone tea party believer filed and an aggressive public transit advocate filed and a look ma, no dope, and I only punch walls to check for fires public safety believer filed, the current challenger might be wandering the streets sputtering whu whu whu whu happened.

Glad this made it into the Oklahoman.

Shadid voted in few Oklahoma City elections in contrast to mayor | NewsOK.com (http://m.newsok.com/shadid-voted-in-few-oklahoma-city-elections-in-contrast-to-mayor/article/3922811)

He's really flailing in those quotes.

It's absurd he didn't even vote in the MAPS 3 election and now he feels justified in trying to dismantle the projects one way or the other, by hook or by crook.

So because there is apparently a conspiracy to control all of the land in OKC by corporate interests through the use of eminent domain (his campaign video claims this), there's no point in voting. Gotcha. Well, if MAPS is what having our land controlled by corporate interests look slike, where do we find these corporate interests and how do we get more?

How about him not voting for MAPS for Kids? Or the 2007 bond issue for streets and sidewalks? Using his logic these two make no sense. It was futile voting for or against them? They both passed so I'm assuming he thought it was futile to vote against them. He's not even a good liar.

Him not voting on MAPS for Kids would be very inconsistent with his statement re: the cabal secretly running OKC. Only a few competitive bid construction contractors and subs made any money on that one.

Having a viable oppenent could have been a plus, even though I believe the mayor would have won easily. Having a worthy oppenment can make you examine your strong and weak points and improve who and what you are.

Too bad Mr. Shadid doesn't walk his talk!!!

We know the cabal will be talking about it tomorrow...so who's going?

Tonight 6:30 - 8:30PM

OKC's $200 million Convention Center Hotel: A Town Hall Meeting with Heywood Sanders

Heywood Sanders, professor, author, activist and the nation's preeminent authority on convention centers will speak on the issues facing OKC. Give us 90 minutes and we will explain the significant risks associated with massive public subsidies, if not complete public ownership of a $200 million convention center hotel.

Mr. Sanders will explain his recent statement that "OKC is highly unusual, if not unique, in the lack of transparency and the absence of public information on the proposed convention center and convention center hotel."

A publicly owned or largely publicly financed convention center hotel would compete against our existing downtown hotel stock and we invite you to OKC's largest locally owned downtown hotel.

Bring your questions. Refreshments provided. Free to the public. Free parking. No taxpayer dollars used in financing the event.

Bricktown Hotel & Convention Center
2001 E. Reno Avenue, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

https://www.facebook.com/events/192257570975347/

It's cold, it's downtown, I'd rather stay home but I might.

Not me. It's cold, it's not downtown and I'm not interested in the company. I've read Mr. Heywood's work and so I don't need to hear it in person.

I'm curious... The title of the email I got from Ed's campaign is "Convention Center Town Hall" (with ZERO mention in the body of the message about the hotel), but what you just posted (presumably from an email or web post) very much seems like it's all about the hotel. I'm not arguing either way on either issue (CC or hotel), but I'd like to know why the completely different emails/mixed messages.


Also, Eastern and Reno is not technically downtown.

not downtown

Worse. I have to go a few blocks past downtown.

I didn't much pay attention to or RSVP the email I got. That facebook link and info from the facebook link is what came up when I googled it. I expect Haywood Sanders is going to primarily talk about the context of OKCs convention center, et al, in the lay of the convention center land nationwide. That's his area of study and research.

Based on what happened when Jarett Walker was here, if Mr. Heywood hasn't been very proactive in obtaining the facts himself, what people will hear is information based on the skewed data Ed has fed him. I went to Jarett Walker's presentation and was impressed with what he didn't know about Oklahoma City's history and the MAPS initiatives. Ed had left a few things out in his briefing.

Might as well spin it before he speaks. Why wait until after you haven't gone and haven't heard it?

Ya know, I don't really care that much about the convention center. I have no reason to spin anything. I think Ed is very quick to mislead the people who don't bother checking their facts. He skews data and he leaves out information that doesn't support his position. It's him I find dangerous for Oklahoma City. I think his attempt to undo MAPS is dangerous for Oklahoma City. I think him implying that he knows more than other people, or that other people are somehow being dishonest or less than forthcoming with information is the pot calling the kettle black. My problem with what is going to be said tonight has nothing to do with the convention center. Heyward might be right, or at least more right than wrong. As I've said, I am always inclined to think the truth is somewhere in between. There's very little in life that is black and white. But I also think that unless he's done a lot of very recent and intensive research on Oklahoma City and its economics and he truly understands MAPS and what it has done in Oklahoma City, the listeners are going to be getting a rehashed version of the same thing he says everywhere. My personal experience also says that people who make a living, or part of a living, speaking get lazy and tend to rehash their old talks. That's what happened when Jarrett Walker was here. He just gave his usual talk, without complete understanding of how Oklahoma City is a bit different from a lot of other cities, what MAPS does and has done precisely.

Might as well spin it before he speaks. Why wait until after you haven't gone and haven't heard it?

There is nothing to spin. For people who actually paid attention to the MAPS 3 (unlike Shadid) we all know exactly what Sanders is going to say about the convention center.

I like to think of myself as a reasonably level-headed bloke. But I'm just completely baffled by the idea that there is a desire to have a vote regarding something we already voted for (even if a "logroll", the specific list was later approved by our city representatives in the council), in order to then take the extra money (not debt, and which wouldn't even exist if not for aforementioned vote) raised via that vote, and apply it to something else, which, regardless of your opinions about previous votes and legalities, we definitely didn't vote for. Truth be told I would LOVE to see an huge influx of money go toward the bus system (and transit at large), but this is just not the right way to go about it. It feels like a worse hoodwink than anything that may or may not have gone down with the so called "convention center junta", even if every adverse assumption about the CC and related studies, etc, turned out to be completely true.

I'm curious... The title of the email I got from Ed's campaign is "Convention Center Town Hall" (with ZERO mention in the body of the message about the hotel), but what you just posted (presumably from an email or web post) very much seems like it's all about the hotel. I'm not arguing either way on either issue (CC or hotel), but I'd like to know why the completely different emails/mixed messages.


Also, Eastern and Reno is not technically downtown.


Full disclosure, the above referenced email was received yesterday. Today, just moments ago, I got one that referenced it as a "convention center & hotel town hall meeting", but with nowhere near the tone of MK's post from FB.

Arguably, some people somewhere mentioned a hotel in the same breath as the convention center. I'm going to bet they plan to discuss both, how they might relate to each other, Oklahoma City and how they have related in other cities. I would be disappointed if I went and they didn't do that and didn't get H. Sanders comments on all of it.

Looking forward to Bill Crum's article on the event if I can't make it.

Sheer hilarity that Ed is hosting his event at that dump. Does he think that is an adequate convention hotel?

They had a video camera running. I imagine you'll get to see it without having to lower yourself. Yep. Hilarious we (OKC) are where we are.

They had a video camera running. I imagine you'll get to see it without having to lower yourself. Yep. Hilarious we (OKC) are where we are.

And what a convenient location for conventions -- more than a mile east of the convention center. It does have good access to truck stops and hookers.

And what a convenient location for conventions -- more than a mile east of the convention center...

The stated reason for meeting there: It's a locally and independently owned hotel with owners who will be directly affected by the city subsidizing a downtown hotel should we do that. Especially if and when it's one we don't need, that floods the market with subsidized empty rooms built on fluffed hotel and convention center attendance numbers.


From my own experience, it's not as nice as some places I've stayed and much nicer than many. The meeting hall, lobby, public restrooms and parking lot were clean, well lit and accommodating.

Out of curiosity. Is there a hotel anywhere in OKC metro, locally owned or corporate owned, that is not potentially impacted at some level when another hotel opens, be it private funded, city subsidized or city purchased and then passed on, ala Skirvin (the latter which certainly doesn't appeared to have even remotely stopped downtown hotel rooms from being added afterwards.

Somewhat more to the point, if someone wishes to single out one property as being directly impacted be a new convention center and the potential of a new hotel, what specific data exists to show prior hits to the property as newer hotels have opened closer to the existing civic center in recent years.

Perhaps I am too skeptical, but from south of the city, more and more it sounds like the would be emperor is truly in need of a new tailor.

Out of curiosity. Is there a hotel anywhere in OKC metro, locally owned or corporate owned, that is not potentially impacted at some level when another hotel opens, be it private funded, city subsidized or city purchased and then passed on, ala Skirvin (the latter which certainly doesn't appeared to have even remotely stopped downtown hotel rooms from being added afterwards.

Somewhat more to the point, if someone wishes to single out one property as being directly impacted be a new convention center and the potential of a new hotel, what specific data exists to show prior hits to the property as newer hotels have opened closer to the existing civic center in recent years.

Perhaps I am too skeptical, but from south of the city, more and more it sounds like the would be emperor is truly in need of a new tailor.

Yep. There are plenty of unanswered questions to go around. For the actual stated reason, you'll have to wait for the video. I may have misquoted the stated reason. The actual quote may or may not have included the words "is an example of the type of hotel".

I don't have the time or inclination to attempt to fully inform you about what was said, especially when I expect the video to be out at some point.

The stated reason for meeting there: It's a locally and independently owned hotel with owners who will be directly affected by the city subsidizing a downtown hotel should we do that. Especially if and when it's one we don't need, that floods the market with subsidized empty rooms built on fluffed hotel and convention center attendance numbers.


From my own experience, it's not as nice as some places I've stayed and much nicer than many. The meeting hall, lobby, public restrooms and parking lot were clean, well lit and accommodating.

As far as as the Bricktown Hotel is from any convention center hotel that might be built, the only business they might lose is from people who confusedly think the Bricktown Hotel is actually in Bricktown. I know people who were sorry to have made that mistake. The Skirvin was subsidized and I think most of us are quite happy it was. In addition, at this point there's no hotel in the MAPS proposals. And if there is a subsidized hotel proposed, no one knows what the subsidy might be. You can call all this hoo-ha being proactive or you can call it politicking via fear-mongering. As usual, people's pre-existing biases will affect their choice of words.

The stated reason for meeting there: It's a locally and independently owned hotel with owners who will be directly affected by the city subsidizing a downtown hotel should we do that. Especially if and when it's one we don't need, that floods the market with subsidized empty rooms built on fluffed hotel and convention center attendance numbers.


From my own experience, it's not as nice as some places I've stayed and much nicer than many. The meeting hall, lobby, public restrooms and parking lot were clean, well lit and accommodating.

Right, because I don't know how many times I have thought, "Hey, let's stay at either the Skirvin (which will probably be close in price point to the CC hotel) or the Bricktown hotel and convention center. The Skirvin is $229/night, a four star, interior room hotel in the heart of DT OKC that opened in 1911 and has been beautifully restored with all the high end finishes, restaurant, bar, room service and valet. The BT Hotel and Convention Center is $99/night, a three star, exterior room hotel a mile east of BT/DT with truck stop/Indian grocery store across the street. Hmmm, which one should I pick?"

The BT Hotel and Convention Center is $99/night, a three star, exterior room hotel a mile east of BT/DT with truck stop/Indian grocery store across the street.

3 star? Are you being generous? I thought Aloft was in the 3-3.5 star range...