then if they lose money then they aren't bringing in the revenue that was posted earlier. So which one is it?

Are we making money because of the horse shows or losing money? If we're making money then that means the fairgrounds has a revenue stream that it could begin to use for its own capital development. If we're losing money on the horse shows then maybe its time to re-evaluate what we're doing because it appears we're subsidizing the fairgrounds with public money to benefit a small portion of the city's economy. Does OKC even capitalize on the moniker Horseshow Capital of the World?

I honestly don't know what the answer to these questions but I think such a cost-to-benefit analysis should be done because it appears to me the fairgrounds is always showing up for MAPS but I fail to see the benefit of the investment. (in all fairness, perhaps in due time there will be payoff but I think analysis should be done to indicate if this is true or not).

We invested money to build a downtown arena with full knowledge even before it was built that it would need to be retrofitted to the desire/specification of a major league tenant(s). Now that that has been completed the arena doesn't keep showing up on Maps but instead has its revenue source(s) and we all can witness the benefit of the initial investment and subsequent retrofit. I'd want to see the same approach (at least analysis and vote/expectation) done with the fairgrounds and not just their showing up at EVERY MAPS so to make it a city wide proposal when funds truly should be directed where it is most definitely needed [Transit, Beautification, Neighborhood infrastructure].

How come you can understand the economic benefits of the arena, but not the fairgrounds? It's the same thing. We spent over $100 million additional dollars on the arena to attract a bigger, more marquee tenant that did not pay for ANY of those improvements. (It should noted that the arena did not show up in MAPS for these improvement, because it essentially got its OWN MAPS vote). We then gave that tenant a sweetheart lease and tax breaks. If that tenant did not have that lease or had to foot the bill for the improvements itself, it would lose money and would not be in Oklahoma City and the city would miss out on the estimated $80 million annual economic impact, most of which is NOT from the operations of that tenant or revenue generated for that tenant, but the economic impact of bringing people into the city to spend money at its stores, restaurants, and hotels.

As for the fairgrounds and horse shows: same thing. We have spent additional money on facilities to bring in bigger, more marquee events more often. In turn, the estimated economic impact of those shows is over $100 million a year. Again, that is NOT revenue generated by and for the tenants. It is the impact on the city's economy as a whole. Also, in contrast to the bulk of the revenue generated by activities at the arena, a lot of horse show money comes from out of state, and even from all over the world, so it's often a true net gain to the economy. The reality is that the numbers associated with economic activity from horse shows are probably more justified than the estimates associated with the arena, because much more of the horse show money is coming from outside the metro area's economy, relative to most of the events at the arena.

Just so you know, I haven't been on a horse in probably 25 years and I do not attend horse shows. These are just the numbers provided by people who have done the analysis that I sourced in a previous post. You can certainly question those numbers, but I don't see how anyone could question the veracity of the horse show numbers, but give credence to numbers associated with the arena. You can also ideologically question the strategy of generating economic activity by using public money to build facilities and subsidize tenants whose business models would not allow them to make money otherwise, but the reality is that when it comes to both the fairgrounds and the arena, the exact same strategic model is being used to justify those public expenditures.

The horse shows themselves aren't necessarily making money. I'm guessing that entry fees or whatever are just enough to cover costs of operation. But it draws people here, and when they get here they spend money on lots of other crap. And so the city makes money on it.

I doubt the "City" makes a profit at all. The people making the money are business owners and their employees. That is the flaw in all of these "economic benefit" projections. The cost is public but all the economic gains are private.

The City collects 4 cents in sales tax for every dollar spent. To get back the $100 million in construction non-residents would have to spend $2.5 billion. Since the total economic projection is only $100 million per year (and for fun lets say that is 100% generated by non-residents), it would take 25 years just break even on the construction cost - and we would still have to pay for 25 years of operations.

This why every city in America is strapped for cash despite all the revenue generation of City funded projects.

I doubt the "City" makes a profit at all. The people making the money are business owners and their employees. That is the flaw in all of these "economic benefit" projections. The cost is public but all the ecominic gains are private.

Really, JTF, do you just pull your "bets" out of your ear or do you have some basis for them? First you said you bet the horse shows dont make a profit, then you said the city doesnt. Do you really think the sole reason these shows are held is so the Chili's gets a few extra patrons and little Becky gets a ribbon on her prize pony? Yes, much of the reason those businesses exist in the area is because of the horse shows. Hotels exist near yellowstone because of Yellowstone and Cancun exists because of the ocean. The city invests because it gets millions in sales and hotel taxes.

You,ve truly become a downer.

I am positive the city does it so local businesses get increased traffic. There is no way the City does it for the money because they don't make any. OKC collects about $9 million per year in hotel/motel taxes. What percentage of that do you think comes directly from horse shows?

I wonder what the City does with that $9 million.

On edit: found out where it goes.
(1) Four-elevenths of the revenues shall be expended for any projects, items, costs and/or expenses that encourage, promote and/or foster the convention and/or tourism (visitor) development of the City; and
(2) Six-elevenths of the revenues shall be expended for improvements to the Oklahoma City Fairgrounds, not including operational costs; and
(3) One-eleventh of the revenues shall be expended for the sponsorship and/or promotion of events recommended by the Oklahoma City Convention and Visitors Commission and anticipated to enhance the local economy though increased convention and/or tourism (visitor) activity in the City.

That sounds great to me! Its called reinvestment.

I doubt the "City" makes a profit at all. The people making the money are business owners and their employees. That is the flaw in all of these "economic benefit" projections. The cost is public but all the economic gains are private.

The City collects 4 cents in sales tax for every dollar spent. To get back the $100 million in construction non-residents would have to spend $2.5 billion. Since the total economic projection is only $100 million per year (and for fun lets say that is 100% generated by non-residents), it would take 25 years just break even on the construction cost - and we would still have to pay for 25 years of operations.

This why every city in America is strapped for cash despite all the revenue generation of City funded projects.

Yes, but a great deal of that money gets spent in the city over and over again.

Yea, now you start getting into all the multiplier factors which more art and science, and lets not forget every time the money transfer from employer to employee between 10% and 30% of it leaves the state via federal taxes. When one buys from a chain store 40% to 60% leaves immediately. It doesn't hang around in the local economy long.

Whether it hangs long or not, was it going to be thrre before incentives or not?

Whether it hangs long or not, was it going to be thrre before incentives or not?

Who should give the incentives? If the City does it the incentives are more than the benefit to the City. All the benefits go to the private sector that caters to the attendees. Wouldn't it make sense to attach a surcharge to hotels, restaurants, and retail outlets that most benefit from the horse shows and the money returned to the general fund so that it lowers the tax burden on all residents?

But again, JTF, the first recipient might be business. But secondaily will once again be the City through other taxes. The City is not in business to make a profit. They are in the business of providing incentives and investment. As with MAPS, these investments hit a critical mass where private development took over.

But again, JTF, the first recipient might be business. But secondaily will once again be the City through other taxes. The City is not in business to make a profit. They are in the business of providing incentives and investment. As with MAPS, these investments hit a critical mass where private development took over.

That is a very good point. We put far more than that is MAPS and received a far greater return. It is a good thing we were willing to gamble on it. All the convention center arguments were used on the Chesapeake Arena. Heard it all before.

But again, JTF, the first recipient might be business. But secondaily will once again be the City through other taxes. The City is not in business to make a profit. They are in the business of providing incentives and investment. As with MAPS, these investments hit a critical mass where private development took over.

That's fine - just realize that is a public subsidy to private business (which was HotRods original point). The question will soon become, how long can the City continue to lose money on these transactions? I will also add that it isn't so much a quality of life issue as say a convention center or basketball arena where the vast majority of attendees are residents.

I doubt the "City" makes a profit at all. The people making the money are business owners and their employees. That is the flaw in all of these "economic benefit" projections. The cost is public but all the economic gains are private.

The City collects 4 cents in sales tax for every dollar spent. To get back the $100 million in construction non-residents would have to spend $2.5 billion. Since the total economic projection is only $100 million per year (and for fun lets say that is 100% generated by non-residents), it would take 25 years just break even on the construction cost - and we would still have to pay for 25 years of operations.

This why every city in America is strapped for cash despite all the revenue generation of City funded projects.

The $100 million was spent in the local economy a few times too. Yes, a chunk of it went to the feds in payroll taxes and the direct cost of materials not produced locally left. But there is an offset to those construction costs. Prosperity in recent years for some is due to this tax and spend model. Like you said, it's an art to calculate. Either way, it isn't sustainable.

Some people just don't believe in any civic investment unless it is in support of their personal beliefs. So be it. This topic has nothing to do with the COOP but has again been hijacked so a certain poster can pontificate about their dogma. Happens in nearly every thread these days.

You're in luck Rover so here is my new personal rule. Starting today with this thread, I will no longer comment in any thread after you make a comment. That way I don't offend you.

Peace out.

Yea, now you start getting into all the multiplier factors which more art.

Haha. That's true, but the difficulty of tracking or calculating it doesn't mean it doesn't take place.

Your math was certainly simple, but that doesn't make it any more accurate. You can pretty much get 5 different people with masters degrees in Economics together and they will argue over how one should estimate economic multipliers and their relative impacts, but none would claim that they don't occur.

You're in luck Rover so here is my new personal rule. Starting today with this thread, I will no longer comment in any thread after you make a comment. That way I don't offend you.

Peace out.

Did you think I was talking about you? Huh.

So, can we please move all of the horse show comments to a new thread and get back on topic, please?

This is good news, right?

Producers Cooperative Oil Mill members set vote on sale | News OK (http://newsok.com/article/5486039)

Yes, very good news.

My bet is either on Fred Mazaheri (already owns the Lumberyard to the north) or perhaps a group led by Bob Funk Jr. for a soccer stadium and more.

perhaps a group led by Bob Funk Jr. for a soccer stadium and more.

That would get me very excited.

That would get me very excited.

Any chance it would be built for an MLS team? If not,I wouldn't build a soccer stadium there. That is some prime real estate and I would like to see a few Skyscrapers there.

It looks like someone's got this property under contract. The Daily Oklahoman reported (http://newsok.com/article/5486039) on Friday, 18 Mar 2016, that PCOM members will be voting to approve a sale agreement on 01 June. However, details were not disclosed as to the buyer, the purchase price, or further plans for the property.

Any chance it would be built for an MLS team? If not,I wouldn't build a soccer stadium there. That is some prime real estate and I would like to see a few Skyscrapers there.

Agree

Any chance it would be built for an MLS team? If not,I wouldn't build a soccer stadium there. That is some prime real estate and I would like to see a few Skyscrapers there.

I don't mean to be a negative nancy but we can barely get skyscrapers in our Business District…Build a solid, integrated urban development that attracts more residential downtown bringing more retail and vibrancy and THEN the skyscrapers can come in the form of high-rise condos.

will they be able to keep any of the buildings on this site or will they all need to come down for site remediation?

It would be cool to keep one of the buildings and incorporate it into the site.

I think it would be cool to keep all of the buildings and create the densest rollercoaster park in the world with large coasters packed together and they could do something like Space Mountain in the warehouses. It would be pretty noisy though.

I think it would be cool to keep all of the buildings and create the densest rollercoaster park in the world with large coasters packed together and they could do something like Space Mountain in the warehouses. It would be pretty noisy though.

Oh boy.... Lol

I agree, I think it is ridiculous to expect skyscrapers to come to every new area.

We need to be realistic and focus skyscrapers on the cbd and districts that are built out - that NEED highrises (like Deep Deuce and Automobile Alley may be approaching) rather than expecting skyscrapers to be a mile away from the CBD in Producers Coop.

will they be able to keep any of the buildings on this site or will they all need to come down for site remediation?

It would be cool to keep one of the buildings and incorporate it into the site.


http://kwtv.images.worldnow.com/images/12015246_BG2.jpg

The historical angle; it would be nice; however, you talking about preservation of a metal building. That whole site is toxic; it will have to be excavated because of what was previously produced there.

Cleaning & site preparation will be costly. This parcel of land may be on the market for a long time before there are any takers.

This would be an idea location for a soccer specific or American football stadium. Just don't think the time is ripe to spend $125 million on land acquisition & clean up. A project of this magnitude would require someone with deep pockets; don't think the City of Oklahoma City is ready to put something on the site that would justify 1/3 ($125 million) of its budget for site acquisition/preparation if you had $500 million to invest in a stadium teaser like what we did with The Peake.

Oh boy.... Lol

I know. It is a pipe dream fantasy. It would be cool though.

I was talking with the GM of the Energy a year or so ago and he said their ultimate goal is to build a big enough stadium to qualify for MLS expansion within the next 5-8 years. He specifically mentioned this area of downtown as a point of interest.

Any chance it would be built for an MLS team? If not,I wouldn't build a soccer stadium there. That is some prime real estate and I would like to see a few Skyscrapers there.

While I agree to a point, if we had that line of thinking in the late 90s, we wouldn't have the Thunder. I don't see anything wrong with building a minor league stadium that could be expanded if/when we get an mls team.

I don't see the problem with having an outdoor stadium that could potentially host the MLS…pretty sure it could be used for High School athletic events or other outdoor events as well…

The average soccer specific MLS stadium size is less than 25,000. We could have Jenks and Union come down to OKC to play ever 3 years :tongue:

I would prefer to see this area including the lumber yard returned to the original street grid and build a mixed use neighborhood like a Deep Deuce south. Even though it's difficult in that its bounded by the railroad viaduct to the west, I-40 to the south and boulevard-freeway to the north, a neighborhood here would come with some good benefits to the surrounding areas in the following ways:
• Help to put pressure to urbanize Lower Bricktown and add a degree of permeability across the boulevard;
• Provide connectivity to the east side of MAPS3 park via SW 4th & 7th so the convention center doesn't sap life from that side of the park, and it would help the few opportunities of private development left over there;
• Add life to the south end of the canal and the park surrounding it;
• Create a new connection to the river by possibly connecting Santa Fe across I-40 (and redeveloping the pull-apart yard) and adding a pedestrian/cycling bridge from the neighborhood to Regatta park.

As for a future soccer stadium, I'd prefer to see that south of the river in Capitol Hill to help add energy (pun intended) to that neighborhood in similar ways that BBVA Compass stadium has done in EaDo Houston

^ I like those ideas, especially returning the street grid and it being developed as a mixed-use neighborhood. I would like to see Oklahoma Ave and Joe Carter Ave brought south to connect to the Boulevard, though I'm not sure if it would be possible with Joe Carter Ave because I don't know where exactly the Boulevard is at grade level again after crossing the canal.

Since the Hispanic population is going to continue to go up, it only makes since to build a MLS stadium. All of the Hispanics guys I work with are obsessed with soccer and are big fans of the Energy.

I would prefer to see this area including the lumber yard returned to the original street grid and build a mixed use neighborhood like a Deep Deuce south. Even though it's difficult in that its bounded by the railroad viaduct to the west, I-40 to the south and boulevard-freeway to the north, a neighborhood here would come with some good benefits to the surrounding areas in the following ways:
• Help to put pressure to urbanize Lower Bricktown and add a degree of permeability across the boulevard;
• Provide connectivity to the east side of MAPS3 park via SW 4th & 7th so the convention center doesn't sap life from that side of the park, and it would help the few opportunities of private development left over there;
• Add life to the south end of the canal and the park surrounding it;
• Create a new connection to the river by possibly connecting Santa Fe across I-40 (and redeveloping the pull-apart yard) and adding a pedestrian/cycling bridge from the neighborhood to Regatta park.

As for a future soccer stadium, I'd prefer to see that south of the river in Capitol Hill to help add energy (pun intended) to that neighborhood in similar ways that BBVA Compass stadium has done in EaDo Houston

I am as a big an advocate for returning to street grid as there is, but the COOP site is 88 years old, was there ever actually a street grid there to return to? (I'm asking because I don't honestly know)

^^^^^^^^
Not really, unless they were informal shanties or something. I think the Katy depot - which ran E/W down Reno for several blocks - kept the area mostly cut off from development. Here is a picture from the twenties, and you can clearly see the Santa Fe track alignment, the Katy depot and the land where the coop sits, which appears to be mostly low commercial buildings and such, none of which appear to be oriented to the grid:

https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8610/16143819297_7124a90fab.jpg

I think Steve's Bricktown book has a better aerial for seeing this. I'll have to look later.

One thing about it though; I don't think of "restoring the grid" here so much in terms of going back to what once was, so much as returning to the concept of the grid for an undeveloped/raw area.

great ideas, as usual!

One thing about it though; I don't think of "restoring the grid" here so much in terms of going back to what once was, so much as returning to the concept of the grid for an undeveloped/raw area.

Agreed; akin to Wheeler in that regard.

^ Wheeler had grid streets before the downtown airpark appeared, according to a 1940s map on Doug Dawgz Blog.

I guess I should say then akin to how Wheeler exists today. Whether or not a complete street grid existed at one time or not shouldn't preclude the creation of a new one/integration with an adjacent one with redevelopment.

I guess I should say then akin to how Wheeler exists today. Whether or not a complete street grid existed at one time or not shouldn't preclude the creation of a new one/integration with an adjacent one with redevelopment.

Yep.

For reference, Wheeler was platted (partially) in a grid originally, but the Cotton Gin has always been an industrial plat, with some grid streets to the east.

http://www.oklahoman.com/article/5504908?embargo_redirect=yes

Does any one have a clue to what this prop. will be used for? And will the FEDS pay to cleanup contamination that people talk about?

And will the FEDS pay to cleanup contamination that people talk about?

It's a very good candidate for up to $200K in assessment funds and another $200K in cleanup funds through EPA Brownfield grants. Also, the City of Oklahoma City has a Brownfield program with several million available in the form of revolving low interest loans, if I recall correctly.

http://www.oklahoman.com/article/5504908?embargo_redirect=yes

Can someone give us a run down of what this article says? For us that dont have a subscription

Just says they Coop board announced they have approved a sale to an unnamed buyer and they have 9 months to do due diligence.

Does anything think this site is being targeted as an all-sports site? Soccer stadium, new Thunder arena, etc. Both of those could fit onto this site easily, with an entertainment connection to Bricktown

The city would definitely be involved if it was for a new NBA arena. Let's be real, owners will never build an NBA arena when the taxpayers are already willing to foot the bill while also paying for tickets. The entire industry is ridiculously cushy for NBA owners.

A new basketball arena on this site would be such a colossal waste of money.

Are there any whispers as to who the "unnamed buyer" might be? If no one has any info I'd love to hear what you think will happen, Pete.

My first thought was that it was the Mazaheri group, as they already own the Lumberyard to the north and have been very aggressive.

But that is just a hunch, not based on anything I've heard.

Can someone give us a run down of what this article says? For us that dont have a subscription

Producers Cooperative Oil Mill gets approval of members to sell Oklahoma City plant

By Brianna Bailey
June 18, 2016



Producers Cooperative Oil Mill said Friday that its members have approved a sale of the shuttered downtown Oklahoma City plant.

The industrial property sits on nearly 40 acres southeast of downtown Oklahoma City along the Oklahoma River. Membership approval was a condition for the sale.

Austin Rose, Producers Cooperative president, said in a news release that the transaction was to close in about nine months if everything goes smoothly.

The Producers Cooperative has not disclosed the identity of the buyer or the sale price.

“This is a complex transaction. We have other due-diligence hurdles to meet," Rose said.

"That said, we are pleased with membership support and anticipate the sale will continue to move in a positive direction.”

Rose announced in July 2015 the property was being put up for sale and that the mill was shutting down processing of cotton seed oil.

The end of the operation and the sale of the property marks an end to one of the oldest industrial presences in Bricktown — one that dated to territorial days.

The plant previously processed cotton and canola seed, but ceased operations last year and has since relocated its remaining operations to Altus.

Before the shutdown, the operation employed about 80 people in Oklahoma City.

BTW, I wouldn't be surprised if a stadium for the Energy is part of this project and the owners may be the buyers or part of a larger development group.

BTW, I wouldn't be surprised if a stadium for the Energy is part of this project and the owners may be the buyers or part of a larger development group.

One can certainly dream. Do we think a stadium for the Energy would be a "shoe-in" for getting MLS status? I would think the MLS would look at that move very favorably. I cannot wait to see what south central OKC looks like in a post-Producers Coop/Central Park world.

(sidenote - is it really going to be named Central Park?)

The MAPS 3 park has yet to be officially named.

We decided here it would be called Union Commons, or something like that, remember?

:-P

(sidenote - is it really going to be named Central Park?)

Yeah, we gotta stop with using these NYC names like Central Park and Times Square. Hopefully those are just placeholders and they're not serious about those names.