Hmn. If this polls as a popular idea I would be fine with it being included. I want a MAPS 4 that can pass, and a soccer stadium may or may not be a good fit for that.

Can we get away from the MAPS mega projects this time around? At this point in MAPS history smaller, incremental investments at the neighborhood level will do more to transform our city and quality of life than high risk, high cost projects like this.

We need to evaluate the whole package of Ideas for MAPS 4. It's impossible for everyone to get all the projects they want & don't want on MAPS 4; that's always been the beauty of the Metropolitan Area ProjectS initiative; hopefully a project or two that will appeal to you will be among those on the ballot.

I have a suspension there are some posters on here who have voted 'NO' on all previous MAPS projects; you know who you are, you're IMHO just looking for an excuse to be a 'Naysayer.'

EVERYONE IS NOT GOING TO GET EVERY SINGLE THING THEY WANT ON THIS INITIATIVE; IT'S NOT ABOUT YOU. MAPS HAS ALWAYS BEEN ABOUT VARIETY. THOSE OF YOU WHO PRETEND THAT IF THERE'S SOMETHING ON THERE YOU DON'T WANT, YOU'RE GOING TO VOTE 'NO.' IS THAT FAIR--THINK ABOUT HOW SELFISH YOU SOUND.

Oklahoma City is ready to move to the next level.

Again, those of you who plan to vote 'NO,' let me ask you this question--'What have you submitted?" If you have submitted something and it doesn't appear on MAPS 4; there's not anything proposed on MAPS 4 you like, then we understand your 'No' vote.

Can we get away from the MAPS mega projects this time around? At this point in MAPS history smaller, incremental investments at the neighborhood level will do more to transform our city and quality of life than high risk, high cost projects like this.


What have you submitted?
What smaller projects would you propose that would transform neighborhoods?

You can submit some smaller neighborhood projects on MAPS; we could have dedicated MAPS 4 as a MAPS 4 NEIGHBORHOODS theme.

MAPS PROJECTS LEGALITY: OKC Central Chat transcript, October 12, 2018: https://newsok.com/article/5611486/okc-central-live-chat-with-steve-lackmeyer

Guest said:


Having the MAPS projects voted on as a package seems like logrolling which has been consistently condemned by the Oklahoma Supreme Court because it forces voters to levy a tax on themselves for something they don't want in order to tax themselves for another item that they do want. Why not allow the voters to vote on MAPS projects separately? If we were to consider a stadium for example, allow the people to vote yes or no on funding a stadium through a sales tax without logrolling seven other projects on the same vote.


Steve Lackmeyer replied:


The last ballot was not log-rolling. The council voted a resolution showing their intent on how to spend a capital projects tax if passed by voters and I suspect the same process will be followed with a proposed MAPS 4.

For what it's worth, however, the Better Streets Safer City did list the projects as you're suggesting. But there is a benefit for going the other way; I have no doubt the original MAPS would have failed if they weren't a "all or nothing" ballot which at that time was not determined to go against state statutes.

Here's a good idea for MAPS4: No new taxes. Current ~8% sales tax? Too much and too high. Let's reduce the local sales tax to 4% and work our way down from there. City government is too big. Payroll is too much and overhead is too much. Property taxes are out of control.

Let's get a list posted of how many total employees there are and how much each one is getting paid. I want to see the city budget.

https://www.okc.gov/departments/finance/financial-and-budget-reports/budget-and-tax-reports/budget-book-breakdown

Can’t believe they hid all this on Google...

I'm personally excited for this. I'm not sure that the whole league soccer complex is needed though. To be frank, we don't have a need in this area for little league soccer and really never will. There are clubs all over the city already and downtown isn't exactly lacking a club venue since there aren't very many kids living down there anyway. What it could do, is be a tournament space, but often tournies are hosted by clubs as a fundraiser for the club as well, so good luck there.

Rugby/Lacross lines, yeah again im not sure that's worth spending the money on those. Soccer and Football lines are plenty to get us all kinds of events...probably more than the place can really accommodate.

And i'm extra happy this would be at this location and not way up at Chisolm. You've seen my issues with that location, so no since in hashing that again.

Not a fan of Funk or virtually anything he's done

Not sure what you are referring to.

I've met Jr. several times. He's an extremely nice man. I really appreciate the work that his wife is doing with the family crisis center over at 11th and Hudson. When we met, one area he kept stressing was the need to help resolve mental health issues in our city and criminal justice reform. FWIW, I think that he would be extremely supportive of social services infrastructure in MAPS 4 to help deal with these city-wide problems.

I don't know much about him beyond The Energy and his opinions on these other mental health/criminal justice reform matters.

I'm personally excited for this. I'm not sure that the whole league soccer complex is needed though. To be frank, we don't have a need in this area for little league soccer and really never will. There are clubs all over the city already and downtown isn't exactly lacking a club venue since there aren't very many kids living down there anyway. What it could do, is be a tournament space, but often tournies are hosted by clubs as a fundraiser for the club as well, so good luck there.

Rugby/Lacross lines, yeah again im not sure that's worth spending the money on those. Soccer and Football lines are plenty to get us all kinds of events...probably more than the place can really accommodate.

And i'm extra happy this would be at this location and not way up at Chisolm. You've seen my issues with that location, so no since in hashing that again.

By this area do you mean Okc or downtown/south side? Because there is already a smaller soccer complex a few blocks south of Wheeler where last I checked it was heavily used. These fields would just complement those or replace which is needed. For comparison I believe they are about to add a bunch more fields to the NOKC complex or c. b. Cameron park which again is heavily used.
The field at Chisholm was always a temp use if I remember all the post correctly. They have to be at a official sized field by a certain date and I see no way this downtown one could be built in time so I'm sure they have a temp plan already in place.

Can we get away from the MAPS mega projects this time around? At this point in MAPS history smaller, incremental investments at the neighborhood level will do more to transform our city and quality of life than high risk, high cost projects like this.

You couldn't of said it any better!

Remember the Chamber of Commerce is the group that pays for and runs the MAPS promotional campaigns (something this is very usual and should be at least openly questioned).

And they want big, shiny projects in the core that they can use in their marketing efforts.


This time around, they are absolutely behind the I-235 cap, the State Fair Coliseum and this stadium.

It's easy to be cynical of government in today's world but I really don't think we should be aiming our crosshairs at MAPS. It's a true political success story which seems pretty rare these days. "high risk/ high cost" Maybe, but how many MAPS projects "failed"? If anything, the fact that citizens get to vote yes or no on this and that these projects are fully funded before completion is a sign to me that the MAPS model is one of the least risky ways to build large scale public projects. How bad would our roads be if we didn't invest in these projects that help create tax revenue and promote the parts of the city that help subsidize infrastructure for the 622 square miles of land area of this city. I don't like every project but its hard to deny that MAPS has been essential in the transformation we've seen in our city.

With that being said, I'm 1000% open to Maps including some neighborhood beautification/bike/ped money, maintenance money, and money for social services like has been discussed.

Remember the Chamber of Commerce is the group that pays for and runs the MAPS promotional campaigns (something this is very usual and should be at least openly questioned).

And they want big, shiny projects in the core that they can use in their marketing efforts.


This time around, they are absolutely behind the I-235 cap, the State Fair Coliseum and this stadium.

If this is the case then I think it will fail miserably. I've also voted Yes for every previous MAPS too.

I'm also for neighborhood beautification and more sidewalks ect. What are the chances of proposing to extend streetcar up to Wilshire and the tracks and south to some point to create park and ride stations with maybe one of two stop in between?

With that being said, I'm 1000% open to Maps including some neighborhood beautification/bike/ped money, maintenance money, and money for social services like has been discussed.

1000000000% chance that will be in Maps4. The mayor is behind it and the 2 new councilors are as well.

Something for everyone, NOT everything for some.

There’s a lot of people in okc who are deeply skeptical government can fix complex social issues. Like homelessness and poverty. Governments tracked record is very bad. Everyone complains about how public schools are so bad but then acts like more government will fix it. It’s like saying more booze will help sober up. Government can’t fix the fact school achievement starts with a stable family home life.

The point is, if maps4 gets loaded up with purely social problems, it will fail. The other half of the city that loves sports, doubts govt’s ability to do anything other than build roads and enforce laws, they will shoot it down.

Just like if it’s only a stadium, another stadium, and a bridge cap, it will fail. It’s going to be a balance between the two.

I agree on some points but schools, facilities and quality, are so far below other states it's embarrassing. Even teacher pay is still pitifully low but that's a state matter in OK.

I agree that social programs should be separate and not part of MAPS. Those are more permanent cost issues.

I agree on some points but schools, facilities and quality, are so far below other states it's embarrassing. Even teacher pay is still pitifully low but that's a state matter in OK.

I agree that social programs should be separate and not part of MAPS. Those are more permanent cost issues.

But a temporary sales tax is not the way to help OKC schools, in my opinion. Sure, the endowment would be nice. But other than that, increasing property tax revenue and income tax revenue, due to new jobs, are the best way to increase funding for schools.

We need to evaluate the whole package of Ideas for MAPS 4. It's impossible for everyone to get all the projects they want & don't want on MAPS 4; that's always been the beauty of the Metropolitan Area ProjectS initiative; hopefully a project or two that will appeal to you will be among those on the ballot.

I have a suspension there are some posters on here who have voted 'NO' on all previous MAPS projects; you know who you are, you're IMHO just looking for an excuse to be a 'Naysayer.'

EVERYONE IS NOT GOING TO GET EVERY SINGLE THING THEY WANT ON THIS INITIATIVE; IT'S NOT ABOUT YOU. MAPS HAS ALWAYS BEEN ABOUT VARIETY. THOSE OF YOU WHO PRETEND THAT IF THERE'S SOMETHING ON THERE YOU DON'T WANT, YOU'RE GOING TO VOTE 'NO.' IS THAT FAIR--THINK ABOUT HOW SELFISH YOU SOUND.

Oklahoma City is ready to move to the next level.

Again, those of you who plan to vote 'NO,' let me ask you this question--'What have you submitted?" If you have submitted something and it doesn't appear on MAPS 4; there's not anything proposed on MAPS 4 you like, then we understand your 'No' vote.

I think ypur post is disingenuous for the most part.

You blanket label people with serious questions as having been no votes on previous MAPS, and you have no idea how they voted.

Deciding what is big city has different meanings. Do people want to be Dallas with all its traffic headaches or OKC which has plenty of amenities yet not so large to have same problems. The more we grow fast the more problems to solve from that growth. I love OKC for the size and features we have not for what it can be. You paint it like we must grow so large we become just another massive city. I like moderate growth but also taking care of what we have without spending our kids money on pet projects.

For the record I voted yes on all 3 MAPS to date. Keep in mind when MAPS 1 was passed and completed we had nothing downtown it was dead. So MAPS 1 changed downtown in a transformative way. It was such a hit we used its success to advertise and sell MAPS 2 and 3. At this point we now have to use MAPS 3 as the selling point and herein lies the problem. Streetcar is so new have no idea if if its going to work well or not. So we can’t use it to sell MAPS 4. If one gets away from downtown and truly asks citizens about SC the feeling is about 75% think its a failure. These will be MAPS 4 voters. We can’t use MAPS 1 any longer as selling point its been overused already. OMNI and Convention center not done yet neither is park.

Each MAPS has passed by smaller percentages than the prior one and now I feel there is a high chance of the next one being defeated. I like every project all 3 MAPS were about except I am skeptical about SC. We’ve had at least 2 other SC systems in oir history and both were stopped being used. I personally want to see at least 2-3 years of it working to see if its a long term viable system. Its not just the initial price tag either we will all spend tax dollars on long term SC upkeep/labor/other costs. As we keep adding projects there are “down the road” costs we will need to spend money on. At time of MAPS 1 we had no big costs. We need to evaluate all the extra long term costs of what we are and have built.

This time around it almost seems we are looking for ways to spend money vice having a real need or desire for something. The cap looks fine but its an expensive item we don’t need. How is it going to increase quality of life? We have a massive new park being built nearby already. And thats why MAPS 4 seems pet project driven.

I submitted Aquarium, Soccer stadium, Bus service hubs plus improved overall bus system and roads fixed. Our roads are still way below standard.

Another point on roads. Paycom is HQ’ed in OKC which is great for taxes. They have over 3,000 employees here alone. Yet it takes 15-20 minutes for employees just to get out of parking lot at end of shift due to OKC not spending any money to help them/roads. They hire “at their own expense” 3 OKC off duty police each shift change to help direct traffic. How long before other states/cities come calling and offer a nice new HQ with nice roads and tax breaks to move away? Are we going to work to keep them here or will it be too late before we realize it? I would bet there are 3,000 Paycom employees who fight this traffic and will vote no on next MAPS for downtown projects, plus their spouses vote too. OKC has spent zero dollars on ingress/egress problems (local roads) at Paycom. How many more areas are like this? This is just one example of how the city is starting to lose touch with residents. You think Paycom workers care about SC? For record I do not work there but know many who do.

I like we have done so much with downtown and have no problem with being selective on new projects. But we have to be wise how we go about it. Once any MAPS fails at voting time that will mean residents have lost confidence in it going forward. If we bundle so much into it then its going to fail. Thats where we differ, I think we need to be more selective or even put projects as seperate votes. I think Soccer stadium would pass alone but putting SC extension and Cap in package will doom all of it.

Bundling was fine at first we had nothing to start with. Now we have a lot and need to be wiser with the ask.

I agree on some points but schools, facilities and quality, are so far below other states it's embarrassing. Even teacher pay is still pitifully low but that's a state matter in OK.

I agree that social programs should be separate and not part of MAPS. Those are more permanent cost issues.

The endowment is a very smart way to fund it. Fiscally it makes sense.

I'm just saying some of the problems we ask the government to fix like the school system, it has a lot more to do it the kids home environment than just throw more money at it. Culture matters most. And government can't force people to be better parents/people. (just using this as an example, I'm well aware schools are a state issue) New Mexico funds their schools at the upper middle level on a per pupil basis and their education system is even worse than OK.

I don't think the city will be able through social programs fix the mental health and homelessness going on. Government by nature is good at making laws, enforcing laws, infrastructure, and military. Beyond that successes become very mixed.

My overall point was simply, Maps4 will need to be a blend of both. A very large segment of the OKC voting population will want a soccer stadium and tolerate the social programs.

I think ypur post is disingenuous for the most part.

You blanket label people with serious questions as having been no votes on previous MAPS, and you have no idea how they voted.

Deciding what is big city has different meanings. Do people want to be Dallas with all its traffic headaches or OKC which has plenty of amenities yet not so large to have same problems. The more we grow fast the more problems to solve from that growth. I love OKC for the size and features we have not for what it can be. You paint it like we must grow so large we become just another massive city. I like moderate growth but also taking care of what we have without spending our kids money on pet projects.

For the record I voted yes on all 3 MAPS to date. Keep in mind when MAPS 1 was passed and completed we had nothing downtown it was dead. So MAPS 1 changed downtown in a transformative way. It was such a hit we used its success to advertise and sell MAPS 2 and 3. At this point we now have to use MAPS 3 as the selling point and herein lies the problem. Streetcar is so new have no idea if if its going to work well or not. So we can’t use it to sell MAPS 4. If one gets away from downtown and truly asks citizens about SC the feeling is about 75% think its a failure. These will be MAPS 4 voters. We can’t use MAPS 1 any longer as selling point its been overused already. OMNI and Convention center not done yet neither is park.

Each MAPS has passed by smaller percentages than the prior one and now I feel there is a high chance of the next one being defeated. I like every project all 3 MAPS were about except I am skeptical about SC. We’ve had at least 2 other SC systems in oir history and both were stopped being used. I personally want to see at least 2-3 years of it working to see if its a long term viable system. Its not just the initial price tag either we will all spend tax dollars on long term SC upkeep/labor/other costs. As we keep adding projects there are “down the road” costs we will need to spend money on. At time of MAPS 1 we had no big costs. We need to evaluate all the extra long term costs of what we are and have built.

This time around it almost seems we are looking for ways to spend money vice having a real need or desire for something. The cap looks fine but its an expensive item we don’t need. How is it going to increase quality of life? We have a massive new park being built nearby already. And thats why MAPS 4 seems pet project driven.

I submitted Aquarium, Soccer stadium, Bus service hubs plus improved overall bus system and roads fixed. Our roads are still way below standard.

Another point on roads. Paycom is HQ’ed in OKC which is great for taxes. They have over 3,000 employees here alone. Yet it takes 15-20 minutes for employees just to get out of parking lot at end of shift due to OKC not spending any money to help them/roads. They hire “at their own expense” 3 OKC off duty police each shift change to help direct traffic. How long before other states/cities come calling and offer a nice new HQ with nice roads and tax breaks to move away? Are we going to work to keep them here or will it be too late before we realize it? I would bet there are 3,000 Paycom employees who fight this traffic and will vote no on next MAPS for downtown projects, plus their spouses vote too. OKC has spent zero dollars on ingress/egress problems (local roads) at Paycom. How many more areas are like this? This is just one example of how the city is starting to lose touch with residents. You think Paycom workers care about SC? For record I do not work there but know many who do.

I like we have done so much with downtown and have no problem with being selective in new projects. But we have to wise who we go about it. Once any MAPS fails at voting time that will mean residents have lost confidence in it going forward. If we bundle so much into it then its going to fail. Thats where we differ, I thonk we need to be more selective or even put projects seperate. I think Soccer stadium would pass alone but putting SC extension and Cap in package will doom all of it.

Bundling was fine at first we had nothing to start with. Now we have a lot and need to be wiser with the ask.

For the record all Chad would have to do is pick up the phone, call Governor Stitt, and threaten to leave unless the Turnpike builds him on ramps at Council so his employees can get on and off the turnpike easier and quicker. A bridge just east of Council but west of Paycom with on and off ramps would work too. Kind like the one between MacArthur and Meridian. Paycom is huge OKC success story and they'll protect it.

The reason that parking lot takes so long is there's no eastbound on/off ramps at council. So you have to drive to Council, turnaround to go back east, all the way down to Rockwell (now getting caught in Farmers traffic) to get onto Eastbound Kilpatrick. It's why they're building that road from the east side of campus onto Rockwell.

I’m interested to see the price tag on this project... to be fair, this is only an 8500-10,000 seat stadium. Every single MLS stadium is above 18,000 seats with construction costs from $40 million to $500 million. We aren’t building a billion dollar palace. I assume this stadium won’t cost anywhere near that much.

The proposal (http://aplacetobringustogether.com/documents/Proposal.pdf) pins the expected total price for the stadium at somewhere between $71 million to $97 million, plus an additional approx. $4 million for the Wheeler Park sports complex.


Correct me if I’m wrong, but would the Maps money only build the stadium? Everything around it (shopping centers, restaurants etc.) would be investor built?

My interpretation of the written proposal, linked above, is that MAPS money would indeed only build the stadium and the additional fields at Wheeler Park. The rest of the district would be built out by private investors.


Although, I'd rather see the grassy banks near the corner ends of the stadium; this stadium is built for future expansion.

The grassy bank on the short side of the stadium (left), can be used for overflow crowds like The Brick. Beginning to like this design & concept. Current cost tag reported by KFOR-TV is $71-$97 million.

Prefer we go ahead with an MLS 22,000-seat stadium where the venue will be MLS ready. Budget $120 million for an MLS stadium instead of $71-$97 million for a USL 8,000-10,000 seat starter stadium.

As you noted, and as laid out in the proposal, the current design is designed to be expandable. While I totally get the desire to go big and make it MLS-ready out of the box, that's really not a smart use of money, in my opinion. The design as proposed is intended for the realities of today, but can be made ready for the needs of the future. Two ready tenants of the facility are the OKC Energy soccer team, as well as the OKC Crusaders rugby team; both of them are listed in the "on behalf of" list on Page 4 of the proposal. This smaller design gets our foot in the door, and then when the MLS becomes a possibility, we can spend a little more money to upgrade it to MLS standards. Really, it's not unlike what we did with the 'Peake.


Probably the reason they are floating this for MAPS 4 isn’t just the great location or the “free” public money.... it’s the Imminent Domain rights that the City of OKC possesses to force the owners into a negotiation for a much lower land price and therefore create a predetermined outcome.

Maybe, but it's important to note that the authors of this proposal have already done some preliminary negotiation with the current owner of the land, who estimated that they'd be willing to sell the needed land for between $6 - $12 million. This cost is broken out on Page 21 of the proposal.


I'm personally excited for this. I'm not sure that the whole league soccer complex is needed though. To be frank, we don't have a need in this area for little league soccer and really never will. There are clubs all over the city already and downtown isn't exactly lacking a club venue since there aren't very many kids living down there anyway. What it could do, is be a tournament space, but often tournies are hosted by clubs as a fundraiser for the club as well, so good luck there.

Rugby/Lacross lines, yeah again im not sure that's worth spending the money on those. Soccer and Football lines are plenty to get us all kinds of events...probably more than the place can really accommodate.

OKC does have a rugby team - the OKC Crusaders - and they've signed onto the proposal as well.

Agree with gopokes88's assessment. We did the one time fix MAPS for Kids to fix up the schools to provide an environment conducive to learning. Some school district aren't passing millage levies anymore--I remember mills as a kid; they were coins with a holes in them last circulated in the late 50s. with a value of 1/10 of a penny if I recall.

The problems you have with neighborhood schools, many of the property owners where schools are located no longer have children in schools; therefore they don't see the need or responsibility to pass school millage levies anymore with the exception of those whose property values will be affected by a dilapidated school building.

As grandchildren inherit these properties as a vested interest; you will see passage of the school millage levies resurface.

MAPS' big ticket debt free items is what makes Oklahoma City approach to this particular initiative so unique. Do we need to address more beatification of neighborhood, yes. Neighborhood beautification should be an on-going project with planters, lighted areas, bike lanes and trails.

Can we make a real impact through a MAPS targeted initiative--is a good question.

I just hate that taxpayers are now expected to pay for stadiums, corporate relocations, and just about anything else the Bourgeoisie deems necessary. It's a far cry from the Capitalism we used to know.

For the record all Chad would have to do is pick up the phone, call Governor Stitt, and threaten to leave unless the Turnpike builds him on ramps at Council so his employees can get on and off the turnpike easier and quicker. A bridge just east of Council but west of Paycom with on and off ramps would work too. Kind like the one between MacArthur and Meridian. Paycom is huge OKC success story and they'll protect it.

The reason that parking lot takes so long is there's no eastbound on/off ramps at council. So you have to drive to Council, turnaround to go back east, all the way down to Rockwell (now getting caught in Farmers traffic) to get onto Eastbound Kilpatrick. It's why they're building that road from the east side of campus onto Rockwell.

Yet OKC has spent zero on Memorial expansion. Zero on making a Cali Uturn over Council and Rockwell. Zero on roads feeding to Council or Rockwell. Zero on any improvements which is my point. I understand the turnpike is a different agency but OKC roads are trash out there. This is a huge growing OKC based company yet zero from OKC. We need to ne proactive not reactive. The side road will still not help much due to their constant growth. By time its done the growth is bigger. And it only dumps onto unready Rockwell.

So while we talk Maps downtown there is huge pain for many citizens around our city not being addressed. Same thing is happening at Chisolm Creek roads/area. Cosco alone will overun roads.

Hmn. If this polls as a popular idea I would be fine with it being included. I want a MAPS 4 that can pass, and a soccer stadium may or may not be a good fit for that.

Why worry? The convention center polled at 18%!

Those next gen Penn Square bank F$#%s still get tax payer money.. I know people are tired of me saying that, but...



Remember the Chamber of Commerce is the group that pays for and runs the MAPS promotional campaigns (something this is very usual and should be at least openly questioned).

And they want big, shiny projects in the core that they can use in their marketing efforts.


This time around, they are absolutely behind the I-235 cap, the State Fair Coliseum and this stadium.

The two big ticket items: New State Fair Arena and the Soccer Specific/American football stadium will address the needs of the horse shows we have. We don't necessarily need a $600 million 14,000 seat Fort Worth Dixie's Arena to accommodate the horse shows, exhibits & events we currently have contracted at the Norick State Fair Arena.

The new State Fair Arena will be a lot more cozy in a 5,500-seat arena. Just wish we had something to accommodate ice hockey. It would have a better chance to survive than the AHL Barons who played in the outdated Cox Convention Center.

The question about multi-millionares build their own venues, you have very few who go this route. Paul Allen built the Moda Center in Portland where the NBA Trailblazers play--it is now owned by the City of Portland.

Portland's Providence Park built in 1893 has gone thru a number of expansions, renovation; formerly Jeld-Wen Field; PGE Park; Civic Stadium; originally Multnomah Stadium. It hosted AAA-PCL baseball for years until the city renovated it for MLS soccer. The Rose City no longer has baseball on the AAA level.

Oklahoma City is blessed with debt-free MAPS' projects like Chesapeake Energy Arena, Chickasaw Bricktown Ballpark & Civic Center Music Hall. We do need to provide upkeep with technology, possibly replace seats and office renovation for many of these city owned facilities.

The multipurpose stadium will have an anchor tenant, allow OKC to bid to host a number of events of which our central location will be attractive; bid on events with what appears to be a competitive venue that will get OKC in the game.

I like this from Thomas Frank, really some good words as to why this crap needs to end. It is the reason for what he states here:

There was a time when average Americans knew whether we were going up or going down—because when the country prospered, its people prospered, too. But these days, things are different. From the middle of the Great Depression up to 1980, the lower 90 percent of the population, a group we might call “the American people,” took home some 70 percent of the growth in the country’s income. Look at the same numbers beginning in 1997—from the beginning of the New Economy boom to the present—and you find that this same group, the American people, pocketed none of America’s income growth at all. Their share of the good times was zero. The gains they harvested after all their hard work were nil. The upper 10 percent of the population—the country’s financiers, managers, and professionals—ate the whole thing. The privileged are doing better than at any time since economic records began.



I just hate that taxpayers are now expected to pay for stadiums, corporate relocations, and just about anything else the Bourgeoisie deems necessary. It's a far cry from the Capitalism we used to know.

Im having a hard time wondering how a 10,000 seat soccer stadium (in renderings it hardly even looks like a stadium) could cost upwards of $100 million. Seems much higher than it should be.

Also, any bets on whether they also ask for TIF money to develop around the stadium?

Im having a hard time paying $100 million each for two different stadiums, here and state fair, in the same maps. I think we need to evaluate which is more necessary and go with that. Its seems the state fair arena is and would be used much more than this soccer stadium.

The two big ticket items: New State Fair Arena and the Soccer Specific/American football stadium will address the horse shows we have. We don't necessarily need a $600 million 14,000 seat Fort Worth Dixie's Arena to accommodate the horse shows, exhibits & events we currently have contracted at the Norick State Fair Arena.

The new State Fair Arena will be a lot more cozy in a 5,500-seat arena. Just wish we had something to accommodate ice hockey. It would have a better chance to survive than the AHL Barons who played in the outdated Cox Convention Center.

The question about multi-millionares build their own venues, you have very few who go this route. Paul Allen built the Moda Center in Portland where the NBA Trailblazers play--it is now owned by the City of Portland.

Portland's Providence Park original built in 1893 has gone thru a number of expansions, renovation; formerly Jeld-Wen Field; PGE Park; Civic Stadium; originally Multnomah Stadium. It hosted AAA-PCL baseball for years until the city renovated it for MLS soccer. The Rose City no longer has baseball on the AAA level.

Oklahoma City is blessed with debt-free MAPS' projects like Chesapeake Energy Arena, Chickasaw Bricktown Ballpark & Civic Center Music Hall. We do need to provide upkeep with technology, possibly replace seats and office renovation for many of these city owned facilities.

The multipurpose stadium will have an anchor tenant, allow OKC to bid to host a number of events of which our central location will be attractive; bid on events with what appears to be a competitive venue that will get OKC in the game.

AND it's important to note that city ownership of the facility gives us control over what happens there, enabling us to use the facility for special events that private ownership might not be willing to allow. It also helps ensure that the facility can be shared between multiple uses/tenants.

This S@$% was FUNNY in Lackmeyer's article, ol' dudes justification for MORE stuff in the downtown/midtown area rather than in one of the long neglected areas:

The team of supporters, which also includes veteran developer Chuck Wiggin, proposes the stadium be built in the center of the city as a way to strengthen ties between south and north Oklahoma City. They also suggest the stadium can serve as an anchor for a district of restaurants, housing and retail.

Im having a hard time wondering how a 10,000 seat soccer stadium (in renderings it hardly even looks like a stadium) could cost upwards of $100 million. Seems much higher than it should be.

Also, any bets on whether they also ask for TIF money to develop around the stadium?

Im having a hard time paying $100 million each for two different stadiums, here and state fair, in the same maps. I think we need to evaluate which is more necessary and go with that. Its seems the state fair arena is and would be used much more than this soccer stadium.

My guess is since it would be expandable some extra costs are infrastructure related. Like if you built a 3 story building but someday might want to grow it to 7 stories, there is extra costs to make foundation/footers/walls/floors support the future expansion. You just don’t build the floors 4-7 yet but could.

If you designed it as a 3 floor building its cheaper but you could never expand it to 7 later on without starting over.

Something like that is my guess.

Maps is for everyone, which is why most of the projects have been downtown. use maps for a big project anywhere else and it's exclusionary. not the other way around like some of you suggest.

I just hate that taxpayers are now expected to pay for stadiums, corporate relocations, and just about anything else the Bourgeoisie deems necessary. It's a far cry from the Capitalism we used to know.

but sadly, we allowed our free markets to actually get regulated by the largest corporations because we refused to put things in place to keep the market fair and balanced... and that is what got us to this point

Maps is for everyone, which is why most of the projects have been downtown. use maps for a big project anywhere else and it's exclusionary. not the other way around like some of you suggest.

Name change then?

Metro Area means citywide


Change to DTPS or DPS for downtown?

People using bad bus service will never use Streetcar.

but sadly, we allowed our free markets to actually get regulated by the largest corporations because we refused to put things in place to keep the market fair and balanced... and that is what got us to this point

That's what Sheldon Wolin referred to as "inverted totalitarianism" .. he's got some good stuff out there. Check him out!

Maps is for everyone, which is why most of the projects have been downtown. use maps for a big project anywhere else and it's exclusionary. not the other way around like some of you suggest.

HAHAHAH! Awesome...you've got a bright future at CMA Strategies w/ glorpspeak™ like that! No offense....

I'm guessing part of this "strengthen ties between north and south OKC" talk is an attempt to dance around their belief that Hispanics from south OKC will like soccer and go to matches there. Or something to that effect. I would suggest that soccer has a younger and more ethnically diverse demographic. And I, as an old white guy, might not see the benefit and dismiss it's benefit.

I like the thought of the City owning this massively important piece of property. I worry about implementation of the vision. If they build a decent looking stadium and extend the canal I'll be supportive of it. I'm voting in favor of MAPS4 regardless. I believe in investing in the City. Our state is unwilling to do so and MAPS gives OKC the edge.

Yet OKC has spent zero on Memorial expansion. Zero on making a Cali Uturn over Council and Rockwell. Zero on roads feeding to Council or Rockwell. Zero on any improvements which is my point. I understand the turnpike is a different agency but OKC roads are trash out there. This is a huge growing OKC based company yet zero from OKC. We need to ne proactive not reactive. The side road will still not help much due to their constant growth. By time its done the growth is bigger. And it only dumps onto unready Rockwell.

So while we talk Maps downtown there is huge pain for many citizens around our city not being addressed. Same thing is happening at Chisolm Creek roads/area. Cosco alone will overun roads.

I think some of that will fall under turnpikes responsibility not okc.

Or perhaps a young hispanic will come down there, see all the fancy stuff, do what it takes to get a big downtown PR gig...and then sell out his family and friends for a new $300,000,000 whirly-gig installation for MAPS 5 when the time comes....


I'm guessing part of this "strengthen ties between north and south OKC" talk is an attempt to dance around their belief that Hispanics from south OKC will like soccer and go to matches there. Or something to that effect. I would suggest that soccer has a younger and more ethnically diverse demographic. And I, as an old white guy, might not see the benefit and dismiss it's benefit.

Im having a hard time wondering how a 10,000 seat soccer stadium (in renderings it hardly even looks like a stadium) could cost upwards of $100 million. Seems much higher than it should be.

Also, any bets on whether they also ask for TIF money to develop around the stadium?

Im having a hard time paying $100 million each for two different stadiums, here and state fair, in the same maps. I think we need to evaluate which is more necessary and go with that. Its seems the state fair arena is and would be used much more than this soccer stadium.

This will be a riverfront permanent stadium--instead of a temporary pop up. As Plutonic Panda mentioned about building on 'the cheap,' this stadium will not be cheap or inexpensive by today soccer standards, looks to have good quality. Notice the Bricktown Canal in the video, was this a hint about the canal extension...

We'll need both facilities; therefore, don't feel like we have to pick & choose. Each project will be approximately $100 million each; what we initially paid for The Peake; then we had to add $90 million in upgrades (NBA ready) along with a $10 million practice facility.

https://cdn2.newsok.biz/cache/large960_blur-58542f703e3a280ac4ff3fc9c649db1e.jpg
Renderings of Oklahoma City Energy FC’s new training facility at the Northeast Regional Health and Wellness Campus at 2600 NE 63rd St Oklahoman, 2015

Energy FC already have an MLS style practice facility. This increases Energy FC chances to elevate to MLS which has a national television contract with ESPN runs from 2014 expires in 2022.

There's a huge soccer & international TV fan base in Tulsa with greater potential to support MLS than OKC. Thunder have large season ticket fan base from Tulsa and Wichita.

Today at work there were a few people talking about this proposal. It’s unbelievable how much wrong info is already out there. They all believe that everything in that proposal is getting built. When I said no it’s just the stadium. They all were like that doesn’t sound right why would they show all this other stuff. So it’s clear this whole proposal is a plot to trick people into believing they are getting a bunch more than what would actually happen if this were to get votes on and pass. I sure hope that if this makes the cut, that they do a better campaign of telling the truth that it’s only the stadium.

... I sure hope that if this makes the cut, that they do a better campaign of telling the truth that it’s only the stadium.

Why would "they" want the truth out there when the nice pretty pictures are already doing their job for them and drumming up support for it among the people? And by "they", I mean the Chamber, powers-that-be, etc.

When Mike Dover wanted to put a sign in my yard when he was running for City Council, I told him to hold off until I researched all the candidates and their positions to see if he was the one that would get my vote (he didn't, Cooper did), and both him and his wife were kind of surprised that I'd do that kind of research (they did say it was a good thing, though). So most people (like your co-workers) will just see the pretty pics and skim over it and think that the whole thing is getting built. It's going to be up to folks like you and me and all of us to clear up the misinterpretations...

Maps for stadiums so certain groups of people can make even more money.

Good idea folks! Just wish I was one of them that was getting the benefits.

Today at work there were a few people talking about this proposal. It’s unbelievable how much wrong info is already out there. They all believe that everything in that proposal is getting built. When I said no it’s just the stadium. They all were like that doesn’t sound right why would they show all this other stuff. So it’s clear this whole proposal is a plot to trick people into believing they are getting a bunch more than what would actually happen if this were to get votes on and pass. I sure hope that if this makes the cut, that they do a better campaign of telling the truth that it’s only the stadium.

Did you get the sense that they thought all of it is being proposed as a MAPS project? That is, that the housing and retail would be funded by a penny sales tax?

I can see how some may feel misled by the renderings, but it would be interesting to know if those who felt misled supported it more or less when they learned that the city wasn't paying for the commercial developments shown in the renderings.

What you saw in that video wasn't any different than previous MAPS proposals--lots of placeholders along the way or route of the Bricktown Ballpark, The Peake, Streetcar and others...

Good job Zuplar, you were able to clarify what projects will be on the MAPS 4 initiative so far. Our city leaders IMO have always been upfront and transparent about these initiatives. Don't know if any of these drafts on the arena & stadium have been finalized; many will come to fruition in some form or another as all previous projects followed with development.

Can't wait to see the draft of Bricktown Canal extension.

Pappa Murphy’s Park. The Sacramento Republic USL stadium (one of the best in the league ). http://papamurphyspark.com/tickets-seating/seat-map/

It cost 3 mil to build. On city(or county) owned land

There is no way Okc should be spending 70-100 mil for a usl team And a mls team is years and years off. If ever

https://c1.vgtstatic.com/thumb/2/1/218787-v1-l/papa-murphys-park.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d5/Bonney_Field_2015-05-20.jpg/1280px-Bonney_Field_2015-05-20.jpg
Pappa Murphy's Park Stadium

Nice facility for USL soccer; this would never qualify as an MLS stadium with seat expansion & upgrades. Sacramento is on MLS radar for an MLS franchise; however this facility could be expanded and used as a temporary venue. Sacramento would have to comment to a quality venue with seats; not bleachers and plastic chair back seats like you see in Taft Stadium.

The main concern the MLS have with the current Columbus Crews' Mapfre Stadium--predominantly bleachers. Columbus has proposed a new MLS stadium to keep the team in Ohio vs. a relocation to Austin, Texas.

^^^^ that stadium sucks. Been there in person. Hopefully we can do better than that.

Pappa Murphy’s Park. The Sacramento Republic USL stadium (one of the best in the league ). http://papamurphyspark.com/tickets-seating/seat-map/

It cost 3 mil to build. On city(or county) owned land

There is no way Okc should be spending 70-100 mil for a usl team And a mls team is years and years off. If ever
I think we are apples and oranges. Sacramento stadium sounds like cost is bleachers only. We need to know all acquisition and preparation costs for both OKC and SAC before we make assumptions, IMO.

Did you get the sense that they thought all of it is being proposed as a MAPS project? That is, that the housing and retail would be funded by a penny sales tax?

I can see how some may feel misled by the renderings, but it would be interesting to know if those who felt misled supported it more or less when they learned that the city wasn't paying for the commercial developments shown in the renderings.

Yes they thought it was housing, retail, everything. What I saw on the network was calling it a new adventure disctrict, which I can see why would be confusing.

So did any of your co workers say where they got this wrong impression from? After being told the truth did any voice a change of mind, one way or the other on how they would vote?

This Stadium crap is only good if you are 100% collapsatarian. Great way to prepare for a post America Oklahoma City. This crap is killing us.

Not my area of expertise but I wonder if it would make sense to try and get an AAF expansion team with a new stadium. With the league playing when no CFB is going on it might have a decent fan base.

I would be in favor of a Papa Murphy type with a cost of 5 mil. max.

This Stadium crap is only good if you are 100% collapsatarian. Great way to prepare for a post America Oklahoma City. This crap is killing us.

Exactly. But the Young Influencers should be able to make some excellent Instagram posts in the stadium. And isn’t that ultimately what life is all about?

(I.e., convincing everyone that you’re doing better than you actually are)

Papa Murphy Stadium is not a permanent stadium, and I doubt it would spur a lot of growth and investment considering it could go away any given year.

That’s why I supported that kind of stadium as a temporary solution in CC.

So did any of your co workers say where they got this wrong impression from? After being told the truth did any voice a change of mind, one way or the other on how they would vote?

One of the local news channels. And yes they are all reasonable people in when I told them, Hey you know that's just for the stadium, they said oh, Well not sure I'd vote on just a stadium.

Which I tend to think would be the majority of people. A stadium alone for a minor league team that might not even be here in 5 years due to who run/operates it, or even a slim chance at a MLS franchise just isn't worth it IMO. I know soccer is gaining traction, but realistically it's still far from even something like hockey, which isn't wildly popular here like football or basketball. (not saying it's not popular, just not same level) I know some point to the AAA baseball we've had here, to which I'd say the only reason it survives, is because MLB doesn't care if it makes money. It's a development league. So even if no one showed up, they'd still most likely continue to stay here. Maybe not quite that extreme, but the bar is much much lower. And at the end of the day I know we like options, but do we have the population to support so many options? I tend to think not yet. So at the end of the day my priority is keeping the Thunder, and if that means sacrificing things like not building a soccer stadium and losing the Energy, so be it.