Yeah, I don't get it. What was in that email that indicated Holt would be upset if he doesn't get a publicly subsidized stadium? It seems like he merely mentioned beginning a discussion. Am I missing something?

You are missing the assumptions being made by the original poster of that email.

Yeah, I don't get it. What was in that email that indicated Holt would be upset if he doesn't get a publicly subsidized stadium? It seems like he merely mentioned beginning a discussion. Am I missing something?

I guess you and I need to put a tinfoil hat on first then reread the email

How is visiting a peer city “shady”?

It was a tour of a publicly subsidized soccer facility. He tweeted a lot about
the trip, but didn't mention this.

Hey, everyone. I just read this entire MAPS 4 thread and wanted to tell you all how much I appreciate the thought each of you are putting into our city's future. I do also encourage you to log your ideas officially at ideas4maps.com so everyone in the decision-making process has a shot at seeing them as this conversation continues over the course of the next year.

I also want to specifically respond to the soccer issue, since it seems to be a recurring theme on this thread. I view my role as mayor in the MAPS process as guiding the community toward a consensus. I'm a human being so I may see the merits in some things more than others, and vice versa, but I don't see it as my role to have any strong preference about any particular idea for MAPS 4 at this point. I want to see what the people of Oklahoma City have to say. There are, of course, quite a few ideas that have been floating around even before the kickoff of this ideas phase, and one of them is obviously soccer. It shouldn't surprise anyone that the supporters of the Energy would like to work with the city on a stadium, as some variation of that story has been reported for years throughout the media. But I view my role as simply navigating the community through a decision process about that. The e-mail posted above is exactly what you're going to see me doing on all the serious ideas that are presented in the months ahead. They each need to be explored and decisions must be made. As is obvious from the e-mail, no serious conversations about soccer have yet occurred. Also worth noting - earlier in this thread, someone took issue with my decision to respond to a media request from KWTV about soccer. I go back and forth on this general issue of commenting on ideas, because I don't want to show favor to any MAPS 4 ideas at this point, but I always hate to turn down any inquiry from the media. Transparency has always been at the core of my public service. So in this case, I did agree to talk to KWTV about the issue of soccer and they used 20 seconds of a 20-minute conversation. I certainly stand by my comments in that piece, but at no time in the piece or in the unaired portions did I express a preference for soccer to be a part of MAPS 4. I think it's very important that the people of Oklahoma City guide this process, and I assure you, I'm not going to support projects that are "unpopular." Now, that can be a squishy concept, and everyone needs to understand that MAPS has always inherently been a compromise. Sometimes you may not see the merits in an individual project, but a critical mass of other people do. But I can assure you, I'm not going to be a party to forcing the voters of OKC to do anything against their will, and I am confident they wouldn't let me anyways. But I'm also not going to cut any debates short at this point. If you don't like an idea, I want to hear that, for sure, but the very act of me allowing a debate to continue right now should not be interpreted as endorsement. The process needs to play out and people need to have their say. I trust the process.

Anyways, I would hope you all know how accessible I am. My e-mail is mayor@okc.gov. There is no need to speculate as to what I think or what I'm doing as if I'm the president of the United States. I'm just David and if you ever have a question to pose or a comment to share, just drop me a line.

Again, thanks for your passion for OKC. This MAPS 4 process is an awesome opportunity that we only get every decade or so. Let's work together and do it right.

I don't think it's shady at all for the mayor of OKC to be doing everything he can to learn about the soccer business before he considers supporting a proposal for OKC to build a soccer facility. He did his part with the Thunder, I think he has a bit of expertise in this area and I look forward to hearing his thoughts on the subject. It's no secret that local gazillionaire Bob Funk wants a stadium which he has no interest in paying for. Be worried if the mayor supported a stadium before he extensively inquired into the feasibility of the project.

I’m starting to regret my vote for Holt. He ran on the coattails of Mick and got my vote that way. So far he’s been a disappointment.
He’s been part of great things happening and has barely been in office. That’s a bit of premature statement if I must say and why exactly are you looking negatively upon Mayor Holt?

I think he’s been a fine mayor and I think he will do great things! I have no idea why that email was of any special interest.

It was a tour of a publicly subsidized soccer facility. He tweeted a lot about
the trip, but didn't mention this.
Your point is?

These meetups aren't dull, and only have lil' smokies available for the attendees to eat... you gotta
think, perhaps, he's going through the motions.... or maybe I am wrong? Like I said, there is a chance
this guy is close to the 180, and interested in doing the right thing... time will tell. But we can't just assume
that he's totally changed, these are pretty damn critical times for us all...

If they propose a 100 mil dollar stadium on Maps for minor league soccer I'm out. That would be the biggest and most foolish waste of money I have seen yet. As far as I'm concerned they can play in one of the parks. Set up tents and bring in food trucks or whatever their little band of players want.

I don't think a soccer stadium is an amazing idea, but I've heard a lot of people suggest that we build one. When they were proposing ideas for MAPS 3, one of the most popular suggestions was a stadium for soccer/bowl game/eventual NFL. While the OKCTalk crowd has turned against the idea over the last year or so (honestly I thought everybody here was for it up until quite recently), I haven't seen anything to indicate that the general public is opposed to it.

Having a very nice minor league stadium that can be expanded to major league size/amenities falls right in line with previous MAPS projects. I don't think there's anything sinister about it. It might even be very successful if you put it on the south side where there is a large Hispanic population. Again, I don't think it's really the best project possible (we're probably too far behind to realistically compete for an MLS team at this point), but there's nothing inherently wrong with the idea.

Yah South Side would be the way to do it. At some point, the insanely wealthy should pay for this stuff... I think
now would be a ***great*** time to start on that! Use MAPS money for something better....

Now that I think about it, what about a MAPS 4 Connections, or something like that with a better name. Focus on 3 areas of the city, and how we connect them to downtown.

So we could have a South Side Connection, which would involve running the streetcar down to Capitol Hill, and putting a $30M soccer stadium there. Include $10M or so for renovations of Oliver Park (which is terrible right now), some money for improved streets/sidewalks in the area, and improvements to Lightning Creek (which right now is basically an ugly drainage ditch). The idea is that we're not only creating improvements to the neighborhood, but also connecting it to other vibrant parts of the city. What is now a place that most people don't go would instead become a part of the larger downtown area. Your average person would now have a reason to go to Capitol Hill.

We could also have a Northeast Side Connection. Streetcar over to OUHSC, then up Lottie to 23rd. Put in some kind of "big ticket" attraction similar to the soccer stadium, price-wise. Improvements to local parks, streetscape, street lights, sidewalks, etc. I really can't think of a major attraction to put in. The Adventure District is already in that area, maybe we'd want to run a long streetcar line all the way there. But that's kind of a long way.

Then you could have a Northwest Side Connection. Streetcar over to Plaza/Gatewood, up past OCU, and maybe up to 39th street. Do a bunch of street improvements there, in what is basically OKC's "gay district". Again, I'm blanking on any kind of major project, the equivalent to a minor league stadium, but I'm sure people can come up with something.

--

The whole idea would be to create places where people who are downtown might want to go, and also to serve existing neighborhoods at the same time. Somebody who lives within those neighborhoods would see a huge improvement in their quality of life, while somebody who lives outside of those neighborhoods would still see the benefit of these upgrades because it creates another "public space" for everyone to use. If downtown is OKC's living room, then we'd be making the living room bigger.

He’s been part of great things happening and has barely been in office. That’s a bit of premature statement if I must say and why exactly are you looking negatively upon Mayor Holt?

I think he’s been a fine mayor and I think he will do great things! I have no idea why that email was of any special interest.

First off I said starting to, haven't full regretted it, so I think I'm right on target with my feelings.

I'm well aware of what he's done in the past, behind the scenes, but as Mayor you definitely get more scrutiny.

I think my biggest complaint, and this is purely my opinion, but he comes off as arrogant and a little smug a lot of the time. I follow him on Twitter, and watch a lot of his videos, and while he definitely plays off the idea that he's open to all this public input, I just get the notion that he already has a good idea of the direction he'd like to see things go. Now that's not to say he doesn't get nudged in a different direction if it's just blatantly obvious there is something better, but it just appears to me anyways, he's got a plan, and he mostly plans to stick to it.

Overall it's hard to explain, I don't mean to come off harsh, because as of right now, if I could go back in time, I'd still vote for him. I still think he was the better choice. But there is something about him that I just am not a huge fan of, and all I can chalk it up to is his demeanor. You know sometimes people rub you the wrong way, and you can't always quantify it logically, that's where I am. I'm absolutely rooting for his success and for me to be proven wrong, as a OKC resident I'd be crazy not too.

I am for or against a soccer stadium more or less 100% based on how popular the idea is. If the general public really wants one, then it sounds like a great thing to include on the list of projects with the aim of having a vote that will pass. If not, then no thanks.

Now that said, I love the potential synergy of a southside streetcar connection that passes right by a southside soccer stadium.

Hey, everyone. I just read this entire MAPS 4 thread and wanted to tell you all how much I appreciate the thought each of you are putting into our city's future. I do also encourage you to log your ideas officially at ideas4maps.com so everyone in the decision-making process has a shot at seeing them as this conversation continues over the course of the next year.

I also want to specifically respond to the soccer issue, since it seems to be a recurring theme on this thread. I view my role as mayor in the MAPS process as guiding the community toward a consensus. I'm a human being so I may see the merits in some things more than others, and vice versa, but I don't see it as my role to have any strong preference about any particular idea for MAPS 4 at this point. I want to see what the people of Oklahoma City have to say. There are, of course, quite a few ideas that have been floating around even before the kickoff of this ideas phase, and one of them is obviously soccer. It shouldn't surprise anyone that the supporters of the Energy would like to work with the city on a stadium, as some variation of that story has been reported for years throughout the media. But I view my role as simply navigating the community through a decision process about that. The e-mail posted above is exactly what you're going to see me doing on all the serious ideas that are presented in the months ahead. They each need to be explored and decisions must be made. As is obvious from the e-mail, no serious conversations about soccer have yet occurred. Also worth noting - earlier in this thread, someone took issue with my decision to respond to a media request from KWTV about soccer. I go back and forth on this general issue of commenting on ideas, because I don't want to show favor to any MAPS 4 ideas at this point, but I always hate to turn down any inquiry from the media. Transparency has always been at the core of my public service. So in this case, I did agree to talk to KWTV about the issue of soccer and they used 20 seconds of a 20-minute conversation. I certainly stand by my comments in that piece, but at no time in the piece or in the unaired portions did I express a preference for soccer to be a part of MAPS 4. I think it's very important that the people of Oklahoma City guide this process, and I assure you, I'm not going to support projects that are "unpopular." Now, that can be a squishy concept, and everyone needs to understand that MAPS has always inherently been a compromise. Sometimes you may not see the merits in an individual project, but a critical mass of other people do. But I can assure you, I'm not going to be a party to forcing the voters of OKC to do anything against their will, and I am confident they wouldn't let me anyways. But I'm also not going to cut any debates short at this point. If you don't like an idea, I want to hear that, for sure, but the very act of me allowing a debate to continue right now should not be interpreted as endorsement. The process needs to play out and people need to have their say. I trust the process.

Anyways, I would hope you all know how accessible I am. My e-mail is mayor@okc.gov. There is no need to speculate as to what I think or what I'm doing as if I'm the president of the United States. I'm just David and if you ever have a question to pose or a comment to share, just drop me a line.

Again, thanks for your passion for OKC. This MAPS 4 process is an awesome opportunity that we only get every decade or so. Let's work together and do it right.

I'm quoting this post from the Mayor because as a new poster, it was in the moderation queue and may have been missed.

I'm quoting this post from the Mayor because as a new poster, it was in the moderation queue and may have been missed.

Thanks, Pete.

I saw him (or a user account with the name) lurking on the thread earlier and was wondering.

Props to Mayor Holt for reading this thread and responding. I’ve been impressed with his outreach thus far. Hopefully, he can make OKC’s government more transparent than it has been in the past.

But I view my role as simply navigating the community through a decision process about that. The e-mail posted above is exactly what you're going to see me doing on all the serious ideas that are presented in the months ahead.

Mayor Holt, can you please tell us if you've initiated meetings about other serious ideas for MAPS 4?

I don't think a soccer stadium is an amazing idea, but I've heard a lot of people suggest that we build one. When they were proposing ideas for MAPS 3, one of the most popular suggestions was a stadium for soccer/bowl game/eventual NFL. While the OKCTalk crowd has turned against the idea over the last year or so (honestly I thought everybody here was for it up until quite recently), I haven't seen anything to indicate that the general public is opposed to it.

Having a very nice minor league stadium that can be expanded to major league size/amenities falls right in line with previous MAPS projects. I don't think there's anything sinister about it. It might even be very successful if you put it on the south side where there is a large Hispanic population. Again, I don't think it's really the best project possible (we're probably too far behind to realistically compete for an MLS team at this point), but there's nothing inherently wrong with the idea.

OKC is not on the list for MLS. If OKC does get on the list for MLS expansion then that would be the time to talk soccer stadiums. I don't think that will be any time soon. And a soccer stadium and an NFL spec. stadium are two totally different animals. Most MLS stadiums built today are gonna cost 100-200 mil. NFL stadium is prob close to 1.5 Bil.

Mayor Holt, can you please tell us if you've initiated meetings about other serious ideas for MAPS 4?

Certainly. Everything is still pretty early in the MAPS 4 conversation, of course, but yes, off the top of my head I would say I've had meetings relative to the following MAPS 4 concepts (don't think I'm revealing any topics that would surprise anyone paying any attention to the issues in our community): domestic violence, homelessness, veterans, transit, parks, youth centers & youth sports, arts, river, state fair, animal welfare, education, mental illness, highway beautification, innovation district... That is likely not comprehensive as I'm not necessarily keeping a list of discussions I've had, but that's probably a pretty good portrayal of it so far. But keep in mind, this is not remotely as intense as it will be in the spring and summer. This conversation has just begun. And we have three new Councilmembers coming in the next six months, so nothing will get all the way down the road without their input.

Certainly. Everything is still pretty early in the MAPS 4 conversation, of course, but yes, off the top of my head I would say I've had meetings relative to the following MAPS 4 concepts (don't think I'm revealing any topics that would surprise anyone paying any attention to the issues in our community): domestic violence, homelessness, veterans, transit, parks, youth centers & youth sports, arts, river, state fair, animal welfare, education, mental illness, highway beautification, innovation district... That is likely not comprehensive as I'm not necessarily keeping a list of discussions I've had, but that's probably a pretty good portrayal of it so far. But keep in mind, this is not remotely as intense as it will be in the spring and summer. This conversation has just begun. And we have three new Councilmembers coming in the next six months, so nothing will get all the way down the road without their input.

Which, if any of those discussions/meetings, directly involved the Chamber?

Which, if any of those discussions/meetings, directly involved the Chamber?

Looking at that list item by item, I don't think any discussions on any of those topics included any one you would reasonably describe as being a representative of the Greater OKC Chamber of Commerce.

Continue to submit your ideas: What you want to see on MAPS 4. Lately, there have been a number of posts about what you don't want on MAPS.

Have heard about incorporation of the current MAPS penny sales tax extension as apart of the city's budget and scrapping MAPS. Don't forget, MAPS allows you input into these projects. Once you do away with MAPS, you lose a valuable voter vehicle initiative device.

USL: League announces intention to house all 24 teams in soccer-specific stadiums by 2020: https://www.mlssoccer.com/post/2015/05/13/usl-league-announces-intention-house-all-24-teams-soccer-specific-stadiums-2020

USL Louisville: https://www.bizjournals.com/louisville/news/2018/06/26/louisville-city-fc-ups-number-of-seats-cost-for.html

We have the NBA in OKC. Would like to see OKC expand its sports entertainment options beyond 2020; a soccer specific/American football stadium will serve more than just soccer.

Mayor Holt, in order to help the forthcoming RTA thrive (arguably possibly every bit as important as MAPS), please consider allowing MAPS 4 to be reduced to .5 cents (with a longer collection period so we still get the amount we need for community/capital projects), and on the same ballot having the OKC RTA funding vote at another .5 cents (this would be permanent). Without non-general fund-dependent funding, I fear we may end up with a less hardy RTA. For example, our current bus system is good, but not nearly what it could be if it weren't so dependent on the ebbs and flows of the general fund.

I would love to see a public garden in south okc (south of 74th) focused on native plants that incorporates sculptures, classes, and a farmer's market.

I like seeing the input from the Mayor.

I can tell you this much I’ve been on board with all the MAPS up to this point and typically urge fellow residents to vote yes because I understand the impact. I understand these projects are meant to hit several items and are always going to be a bit of a compromise, but I agree with an earlier poster I’m all on board as long as the top projects that have consensus are the ones that get picked. I’m not a stadium fan but if everyone feels strongly that they want it, I’d still consider voting yes.

I would love to see a public garden in south okc (south of 74th) focused on native plants that incorporates sculptures, classes, and a farmer's market.

Super idea. The Roman Catholic Archdiocese has plans for a 2,000-seat Basilica & Father Stanley Rother Shine on SE 89th Street between Interstate 35 & Shields Boulevard; incorporate a public garden/farmer's market would complement the development in this area.

And the people need to be very weary, and hold them accountable. Remember when the Hornets were considering coming to town... they had a meeting scheduled w/ City planners, but Cornett had a big event handing the key to the city to Mary Hart, so he told Couch "Give them whatever they want!! We need this!!!" and Couch ignored him and negotiated away some of their ridiculous demands.... I doubt Holt would do something similar, but he IS doing way more on this than anything else for a reason, and we need to make sure the people he is talking to, who warrant our distrust, don't sway him in the wrong direction....


I don't think it's shady at all for the mayor of OKC to be doing everything he can to learn about the soccer business before he considers supporting a proposal for OKC to build a soccer facility. He did his part with the Thunder, I think he has a bit of expertise in this area and I look forward to hearing his thoughts on the subject. It's no secret that local gazillionaire Bob Funk wants a stadium which he has no interest in paying for. Be worried if the mayor supported a stadium before he extensively inquired into the feasibility of the project.

I really really hope that we can just say no to **VIBRANT!***
please read my buddy Thomas Frank's essay on the matter, it is excellent.

Dead End on Shakin’ Street (https://thebaffler.com/salvos/dead-end-on-shakin-street)



....., but also connecting it to other vibrant parts of the city. What is now a place that most people don't go would instead become a part of the larger downtown area. Your average person would now have a reason to go to Capitol Hill....
.

I think some of you just need to accept the fact this town loves sports, and will want things related to sports.

First off I said starting to, haven't full regretted it, so I think I'm right on target with my feelings.

I'm well aware of what he's done in the past, behind the scenes, but as Mayor you definitely get more scrutiny.

I think my biggest complaint, and this is purely my opinion, but he comes off as arrogant and a little smug a lot of the time. I follow him on Twitter, and watch a lot of his videos, and while he definitely plays off the idea that he's open to all this public input, I just get the notion that he already has a good idea of the direction he'd like to see things go. Now that's not to say he doesn't get nudged in a different direction if it's just blatantly obvious there is something better, but it just appears to me anyways, he's got a plan, and he mostly plans to stick to it.

Overall it's hard to explain, I don't mean to come off harsh, because as of right now, if I could go back in time, I'd still vote for him. I still think he was the better choice. But there is something about him that I just am not a huge fan of, and all I can chalk it up to is his demeanor. You know sometimes people rub you the wrong way, and you can't always quantify it logically, that's where I am. I'm absolutely rooting for his success and for me to be proven wrong, as a OKC resident I'd be crazy not too.

i believe they call that leadership.

He was elected to implement his vision for the city, he’s open to input but he has an idea of he wants to do. You know like most policticians, at least he’s receptive.

Merely mentioned beginning a discussion if you skip the part where he says "I've visited with Bob and his team a lot over the last year..."


Yeah, I don't get it. What was in that email that indicated Holt would be upset if he doesn't get a publicly subsidized stadium? It seems like he merely mentioned beginning a discussion. Am I missing something?

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51CQeHCyrzL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

I was impressed with David Holt from his release of 'Big League City.' If you haven't read his book, please purchase a copy. You will feel his dedication to Oklahoma City and the behind-the-scenes efforts it took to bring the first major league sport to Oklahoma.

We initially set our sights on the NHL and landed an NBA franchise. There were many key players involved.

Mayor Holt wants & welcomes your input; he's ready to make plans for our city's future.

Whatever you feel about Holt, you have to give him credit on being responsive to individual constituents, even going back to his state senate days and being quick to respond to questions via social media.

As for a soccer stadium. I have a hard time putting much more than about $30mil towards a soccer stadium, unless we can demonstrate that it will be used for many different events. We arent even on the radar for MLS and building an expensive soccer stadium for one of the minor leagues for pro soccer is just dumb imo. Especially when you have the fair grounds wanting a new $95mil arena.

If it can remain fairly simple and relatively cheap in price, can show that it would be used for many high school sporting events (state football, soccer, anything else championships), concerts, etc., then maybe I could get behind building a stadium for our minor league soccer team.

Whatever you feel about Holt, you have to give him credit on being responsive to individual constituents, even going back to his state senate days and being quick to respond to questions via social media.

As for a soccer stadium. I have a hard time putting much more than about $30mil towards a soccer stadium, unless we can demonstrate that it will be used for many different events. We arent even on the radar for MLS and building an expensive soccer stadium for one of the minor leagues for pro soccer is just dumb imo. Especially when you have the fair grounds wanting a new $95mil arena.

If it can remain fairly simple and relatively cheap in price, can show that it would be used for many high school sporting events (state football, soccer, anything else championships), concerts, etc., then maybe I could get behind building a stadium for our minor league soccer team.

30 mil might buy the land and make ready for a few tents. That is if you are building out of the core. For some reason that is not the vibe I'm getting. Kinda sounds like a push for a first class soccer stadium. 30 mil. isn't gonna touch that. Pretty sure in Louisville the owners are paying the bills along with a decent sized TIF. The old Cotton Seed place would be a perfect spot for an MLS stadium if we had an MLS team. I guess that's not happening any time soon though. I think it would be a slam dunk on the MAPS ballot if they were awarded a MLS franchise.

OKC will not get an MLS franchise unless it has a stadium under construction or a temporary home.

Taft Stadium, Wantland Stadium (Edmond) & Gaylord Family Memorial Stadium (Norman) does not meet USSF FIFA regulations for Lamar Hunt U. S. Open Cup Competition with minimum field requirements: 'A playing surface of at least 68 yds by 110 yds Smooth, flat, and level playing surface.'

Major League Soccer (MLS): https://www.athleticbusiness.com/stadium-arena/twelve-cities-struggle-to-meet-mls-stadium-requirements.html

Once an MLS franchise is awarded; we would need a stadium with a minimum seating capacity of 18,000.

Louisville (State gives final OK for Louisville City FC soccer stadium financing): https://www.courier-journal.com/story/sports/soccer/louisville-city-fc/2018/05/31/louisville-city-fc-soccer-stadium-financing-approval/654946002/http://

Expansion of Major League Soccer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansion_of_Major_League_Soccerhttp://


2022 expansion candidates: Major League Soccer has reported MLS aspirations from United Soccer League (USL) clubs in Charleston,[96] Charlotte,[97] Cincinnati,[98] Louisville,[99] and Oklahoma City.[100] Commissioner Garber has also stated that he expects Sacramento to be in next round's expansion discussions, St. Louis as a front-runner with the NFL Rams' departure, and that Austin, Cincinnati, Detroit, San Antonio, San Diego,[101] and Las Vegas[102] as potential expansion candidates for teams No. 25 through No. 28.

Current MLS Stadiums: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Soccer_stadiums

OKC will not get an MLS franchise unless it has a stadium under construction or a temporary home.

Taft Stadium, Wantland Stadium (Edmond) & Gaylord Family Memorial Stadium (Norman) does not meet USSF FIFA regulations for Lamar Hunt U. S. Open Cup Competition with minimum field requirements: 'A playing surface of at least 68 yds by 110 yds Smooth, flat, and level playing surface.'

Major League Soccer (MLS): https://www.athleticbusiness.com/stadium-arena/twelve-cities-struggle-to-meet-mls-stadium-requirements.html

Once an MLS franchise is awarded; we would need a stadium with a minimum seating capacity of 18,000.

Louisville (State gives final OK for Louisville City FC soccer stadium financing): https://www.courier-journal.com/story/sports/soccer/louisville-city-fc/2018/05/31/louisville-city-fc-soccer-stadium-financing-approval/654946002/http://

Expansion of Major League Soccer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansion_of_Major_League_Soccerhttp://



Current MLS Stadiums: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Soccer_stadiums

the sourced article for that is this
https://www.mlssoccer.com/post/2016/04/09/oklahoma-city-usl-owners-share-long-term-vision-mls-expansion-bid

and if you read that... the only person who says we are candidates is Bob Funk Jr... cause that is all that article is about... how he thinks that is the long term plan... that is no commitment or even suggestion that OKC is even on any potential list for actual expansion.

And I think it's important to reiterate that we WILL lose the minor league soccer we currently have without a new stadium. USL has mandated that teams MUST play in a soccer-specific stadium by the 2020 season, either one owned by the team or one where the team is the primary tenant. https://www.mlssoccer.com/post/2015/05/13/usl-league-announces-intention-house-all-24-teams-soccer-specific-stadiums-2020

I am definitely in favor of building a new soccer-specific stadium as part of MAPS 4, but we need to be careful. Personally, I'd like to see it built as a stadium that fits current USL requirements, but can then be expanded easily to meet MLS standards if we do happen to land an MLS expansion team (or if we move one here). The fan experience is paramount to driving attendance at pro soccer games, and the experience at Taft is lackluster compared to a purpose-built stadium. It's one of the primary reasons I haven't yet attended an Energy FC game.

And I think it's important to reiterate that we WILL lose the minor league soccer we currently have without a new stadium. USL has mandated that teams MUST play in a soccer-specific stadium by the 2020 season, either one owned by the team or one where the team is the primary tenant. https://www.mlssoccer.com/post/2015/05/13/usl-league-announces-intention-house-all-24-teams-soccer-specific-stadiums-2020

I am definitely in favor of building a new soccer-specific stadium as part of MAPS 4, but we need to be careful. Personally, I'd like to see it built as a stadium that fits current USL requirements, but can then be expanded easily to meet MLS standards if we do happen to land an MLS expansion team (or if we move one here). The fan experience is paramount to driving attendance at pro soccer games, and the experience at Taft is lackluster compared to a purpose-built stadium. It's one of the primary reasons I haven't yet attended an Energy FC game.

and that is why i supported the pop-up stadium idea... just thought Chisholm Creek was a dumb location for it. they can find a spot for the pop-up stadium, that meets the USL requirements, and then if there is a possible chance for MLS expansion down the road, then look at a stadium plan to support it.

if they had the money for a pop-up stadium at Chisholm Creek, they should have the money for a team owned pop-up stadium somewhere else. there are already plenty of concert venues, etc around OKC that are already underutilized.. so there isn't a need for this stadium for any reason other than soccer, and thus should be on the onus of the team ownership.

i'd even be okay with the city chipping in some money for that pop-up stadium if necessary... but we do not currently have the need for a full fledged stadium build on the cities dime.

and that is why i supported the pop-up stadium idea... just thought Chisholm Creek was a dumb location for it. they can find a spot for the pop-up stadium, that meets the USL requirements, and then if there is a possible chance for MLS expansion down the road, then look at a stadium plan to support it.

if they had the money for a pop-up stadium at Chisholm Creek, they should have the money for a team owned pop-up stadium somewhere else. there are already plenty of concert venues, etc around OKC that are already underutilized.. so there isn't a need for this stadium for any reason other than soccer, and thus should be on the onus of the team ownership.

i'd even be okay with the city chipping in some money for that pop-up stadium if necessary... but we do not currently have the need for a full fledged stadium build on the cities dime.

Papa Murphy’s Park Is where the Sacramento republic play. It hold 11569 and was built in 2014 for 3 million dollars

I am fine with okc spending more and building a little bit of a nicer stadium. 10-20 mil we could have a very very nice minor league soccer stadium

Papa Murphy’s Park Is where the Sacramento republic play. It hold 11569 and was built in 2014 for 3 million dollars

I am fine with okc spending more and building a little bit of a nicer stadium. 10-20 mil we could have a very very nice minor league soccer stadium

I said this earlier in the thread and I agree. 10-20 million would build a perfectly fine minor league stadium.

I said this earlier in the thread and I agree. 10-20 million would build a perfectly fine minor league stadium.

for the cost to build the stadium, perhaps yes... but unless we put it at the fairgrounds, there is going to have to be a purchase of land... and that will raise the cost quite a bit

Papa Murphy’s Park Is where the Sacramento republic play. It hold 11569 and was built in 2014 for 3 million dollars

I am fine with okc spending more and building a little bit of a nicer stadium. 10-20 mil we could have a very very nice minor league soccer stadium

It amazes me that the Energy brought in an executive from Sacramento's USL team for the express purpose of facilitating a move to a pop-up stadium, and the immediate thought wasn't just to build a pop-up stadium at the Fairgrounds like they did in Sacramento. They've essentially wasted away their window of opportunity to get something going for the 2019 season, and I have to think that attendance at Taft next year is going to be even worse than it was this year, given how poorly they've handled this.

And there is tons and tons of open fields and parking at the fairgrounds.

That seems like a great solution, at least in the medium term.

And rental / revenue could be shared with the city/fairgrounds.

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

And there is tons and tons of open fields and parking at the fairgrounds.

That seems like a great solution, at least in the medium term.

And rental / revenue could be shared with the city/fairgrounds.

if if they are going a pop-up stadium, i'm okay with that idea.

With all of the worry about vagrants taking over our new trolley cars, how about we do some massive public investment in the homeless? The city could build affordable housing, expand services for mental illness. It isn't sexy, but it would fill a serious community need and save lives.

With all of the worry about vagrants taking over our new trolley cars, how about we do some massive public investment in the homeless? The city could build affordable housing, expand services for mental illness. It isn't sexy, but it would fill a serious community need and save lives.

Any recurring revenues in mind to keep the doors open for it?

With all of the worry about vagrants taking over our new trolley cars, how about we do some massive public investment in the homeless? The city could build affordable housing, expand services for mental illness. It isn't sexy, but it would fill a serious community need and save lives.

I'm afraid Dallas and other cities would be shipping them up by the bus loads again if the City Of OKC was giving away free housing/sleep - living qtrs. They may still be doing that anyways.

I just got back from a trip to Austin where they have a big vote next week on something called Proposition A, which is supposed to provide more "affordable" housing. Here's one viewpoint:
https://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2018-10-05/point-austin-affordable-housing-and-the-promised-land/

I'm afraid Dallas and other cities would be shipping them up by the bus loads again if the City Of OKC was giving away free housing/sleep - living qtrs. They may still be doing that anyways.

Is there evidence to support the claim that the City of Dallas or other cities in the region “ship” their homeless population to other cities? Thanks in advance.

Is there evidence to support the claim that the City of Dallas or other cities in the region “ship” their homeless population to other cities? Thanks in advance.
Some cities have programs where they pay for bus tickets for homeless who show they have somewhere they can go where they have a place to stay or someone they can live with but can’t afford to get there.
This is viewed as humanitarian by liberals and nefarious by conservatives.

Are we in need of an indoor Olympic size swimming facility inside Oklahoma City limits.


Sechrist cited $280,000 per year in annual maintenance, and a architecturally-generated estimate of $6 million to repair.


Could the city purchase and take over the one at OCCC: https://swimswam.com/historic-occc-pool-in-oklahoma-city-will-close-in-august-after-25-years/

http://www.occc.edu/images/news/naiaswimdivefinal2013.jpg
OCCC Aquatic Center features a 50-meter long competitive pool; separate diving well equipped with 2 one-meter springboards, 2 three-meter springboards and platforms at five, seven and 10 meters

Any idea what a new Aquatic swimming pool facility would cost; might be a perfect fit for the Boathouse or Adventure Districts. ASA Hall of Fame Stadium area possesses city owned land.

Some cities have programs where they pay for bus tickets for homeless who show they have somewhere they can go where they have a place to stay or someone they can live with but can’t afford to get there.
This is viewed as humanitarian by liberals and nefarious by conservatives.

Yeah, that’s absolutely a waste of taxpayer money. I’d rather finance/subsidize low-income housing in the core.

I know this won’t be popular but I say we do a 100% road Maps until all roads are up to par. We’ve spent a majority of money subsidizing downtown its time to spend zero downtown and fix roads all over the city. They have one going now but its not enough, its a bandaid to go from worst in country to still below average.

A lot of new jobs are not in downtown. People from out of area travel all over the city and our roads are an impression on them. And if we could fix our roads to high standards that would be good for business as much as downtown projects. It would let voters have a break from over 20 years of mostly MAPS being spent downtown. It would be seen by every voter too. This would be positive in the big scheme and at least get voters to buy back in to MAPS type projects.

Right now it seems they want to spend money just because, with no clear plan ahead. To ask for ideas means you have none of your own, and want to find new ways to spend our money.

I am on record as saying the streetcar will not be a smashing hit long term. I feel people are weary of most money going downtown. If the city fails to recognize this then future MAPS will fail and all momentum lost. You have to appease all residents to keep support. Other than here on this posting board I have not found one person who is for street car, because of other needs.

To illistrate how problems are getting worse for city services, I use the city app to report problems. 3-4 years ago when I reported a problem they were fixed fast. I was super impressed. I reported tree branches obscuring school zones and they got fixed within a few days. Same for potholes. At that time the app showed all “active” reports so you knew if someone already reported it plus could tell how fast it was fixed. Then at some point they changed the app and took off ability to see other active reports other than your own. I thought that was fishy, as if to hide bad service.

Fast forward to this year and its almost criminal what is going on. I reported tree branches covering up a flashing school signal 2 weeks prior to school starting. Over 3 weeks it never got fixed but check this out “it was signed off as completed”! So I called it in using the app work order number and lady said they would get to it but after Labor day was over. So a week after I had to call again now mid Sep. still no dice. So I got in touch with superviser and he said they were short staffed and had to subcontract it out. It finally got fixed. But my point is they signed it off as done.

So 3 weeks ago I reported potholes on my street. Waited and waited finally noticed “they signed it off as completed again”. Both of them, I used 2 reports to report 4 bad potholes (2 each were close to each other). So again they are intentionally signing off uncompleted work! And yet now we want to spend more money dreaming up more projects?

I am all for what MAPS has done to our downtown. But ots time to fix the rest of our city. I will vote against any new MAPS that does not address other parts of our city first. And I am not alone.

A good use of MAPS a could be used to widen I-35 and add HOT lanes which would actually bring back revenue for the city.

A good use of MAPS a could be used to widen I-35 and add HOT lanes which would actually bring back revenue for the city.

No, that is Fed road and should not be paid for by MAPS. ODOT is involved in interstate projects and should have factored that in years ago to at least start it when roads are expanded.

Another point I told my friends when they moved I-40 crosstown. Even though we were not ready for light rail we should have designed light rail into the plans. By that I mean spemd a bit extra and engineer it so we could build it in future. Meaning you make sure groundwork is done so don’t have to move things later. Overpasses designed so room for light rail someday. Yes it costs more but you save cause you already have it tore up and equipment there.

If we wanted to run light rail east to west then 40 is the best path. If anyone notices all overpasses have massive pillars in middle so it would be major cost to ever undo/redo that. They could have built them just as strong using 2 pillars on each side of middle for a bit more cost yet not major. Now its too late to ever put light rail in middle. We never plan ahead.

Many major cities use sources of funds such as MAPS to pay for freeway and transportation improvements. So I’m not sure why you think that isn’t feasible. I had no idea what your second sentence means.

MAPS 4 would be a great source of funds to use to partially fund HOT lanes on I-35. They’d bring back revenue for MAPS. Could be used to pay for maintenance for other MAPS projects. It would provide a steady stream of revenue.

The former Speeedway location at State Fair Park is the best location for a soccer stadium, IMO. Less than one mile from a cross country interstate intersection, traffic access and control in unmatched. The land has no long term use dedicated. It is a bland sea of asphalt, and has poorly designed traffic layout in it’s current configuration. Ideal for an aluminum bleacher and colorful fabric siding panels pop up stadium. Which could be expanded and enclosed with more permanent materials as the revenue steams grow. Much as the Chickasaw tribe did with the WinStar casino: enclosed and expanded out of free cash flow, every part of the original casino from 20 years ago is still there.