I think I actually voted against the first MAPS. I know I thought it was dumb, especially that canal thing. And taking the baseball stadium away from the Fairgrounds was even worse.

I was wrong.

Then I began to think maybe I just didn't have "the vision" that our civic leaders had. I have come around to where I have decided to trust the process and support each MAPS. I support the stadium proposal.

And if the argument on the First Christian Church thread is that some civic expenditures don't make financial sense when using "the spreadsheet", but enhance our quality of life and image; then I suggest this stadium fits in that same category.

If you're looking for instant gratification on a stadium, you're not going to get it. There are not a whole lot of activities that will rush into the stadium once its constructed--it's all based on future forecast.

Look at it from a long-term investment strategy; you'll have a stadium for future events.

My observation of our state & sometimes our city is this; we don't look at the long-term strategy, more involved with do we need it today. Example: Same was said about the Chesapeake Arena when we couldn't fill the 13,500 seat Myriad. Truth be known, the Myriad couldn't lure the type of events capable of attracting the big event ticket; by this account, it would have been too small--attributed to the loss of the NFR to Las Vegas (Ouch!).

Also, when given the opportunity to support the NBA, calculations & predictions were underestimated. NBA predicted our market would be good for 12,250 average on the high side, Hornets drew 17,833 in 2006 & 18,168* in their final year (2007) in OKC, now listed as the *Pelicans highest attendance--you bet George Shinn didn't want to leave OKC.

Oklahoma City drew an all time NBA 2008-09 inaugural season high for our city of 18,693 average attendance in the first season here in the 19,130 seat Ford Center--prior to renovation and seat reduction to the present 18,203. Let's not underestimate our city's potential.

I'll post the NBA attendance link; there's confusion with the change of the Hornets to Pelicans and the Sonics to Thunder: http://www.espn.com/nba/attendance/_/year/2009 Keep track of the year OKC hosted NBA basketball and the team nickname.

If Funk would seriously pursue an MLS franchise I think a first class 20-25k seat stadium downtown would pass with OKC putting up 50-70% financing and Funk (or whoever the owner would be)putting in the balance. The USL is what it is and most folks look at that as minor league and will be turned off. They should get serious about MLS if they are touting expanding to 40 teams then OKC should have a legit shot.

Also +1

Wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the threat to sell the Energy FC; USL has gone on record about all USL teams occupying USSF regulation stadiums by 2020 or in some transition stage; our sister city (Tulsa) is in the same boat. USL will not approve a baseball park (ONEOK) as a legitimate soccer stadium. USL does have potential expansion markets: https://www.starsandstripesfc.com/2019/1/16/18184842/community-corner-usl-united-soccer-league-expansion-80-teams-championship-league-one

With the OKC Metro having 1.4 million people and a significant Hispanic population, I have to believe someone else will give pro soccer a shot here if Funk folds or moves the Energy. The Energy got 7,500+ people to a playoff game at Taft in their second year of existence and have proceeded to squander literally all of that momentum since then, but the potential is there.

This stadium will be for the Energy and any future incarnations.

Let them pay for it and stop trying to tell people it’s needed for these other uses, because we already have plenty of under-utilized facilities for those things.


i agree with you. i am in favor of okc having a major league soccer club that competes against the big city teams at the highest level as well as international tournaments but the owners and private investors for the team should build their own stadium with their own money and their own land. the city and state should facilitate for the team ownership group to have success but not by handing them free money, land or infrastructure. perhaps access roads, freeway exit ramps, bridges, sidewalks, street lighting, or some other type of public works infrastructure but not the stadium. think that soccer as a sport is on the rise and the tremendous business potential it generates is enough for people with money to gamble on it or not because if it is a big success, like it probably would be, the team's ownership group should rightly reap the benefits and profits of their investment by capturing and harnessing all the revenue streams from their own private property, in this case the stadium that they built with their own money. soccer is on the rise and now is the time to get on board if you're a big time investors. if you keep track of who's investing what and where in MLS right now you will see that it is people with deep pockets who are not relying on public money to push their projects forward. the sacramento republic ownership group that is about to be granted a major league soccer franchise will be spending half a billion dollars in it all. the expansion fee is about 200 million, the stadium is also about 200-250 million and the rest is hiring staff, players, operations, etc.

All previous MAPS initiatives have benefited pubic & private endeavors in many ways:

Chesapeake Energy Arena, Civic Center Music Hall, Chickasaw Bricktown Ballpark & State Fair Arena to name several... ...yet we don't have a regulation soccer-American football stadium

If you want to make a case of wealthy ownership; then our Thunder ownership consists of one billionaire & six multimillionaires, much greater funding source than the ownership group of the Energy FC. Oklahoma City is fortune to be the home to one of 30 NBA franchises.

In all fairness, are Thunder ownership being asked to pay one penny toward the improvements to our city-owned arena?

All previous MAPS initiatives have benefited pubic & private endeavors in many ways:

Chesapeake Energy Arena, Civic Center Music Hall, Chickasaw Bricktown Ballpark & State Fair Arena to name several... ...yet we don't have a regulation soccer-American football stadium

If you want to make a case of wealthy ownership; then our Thunder ownership consists of one billionaire & six multimillionaires, much greater funding source than the ownership group of the Energy FC. Oklahoma City is fortune to be the home to one of 30 NBA franchises.

In all fairness, are Thunder ownership being asked to pay one penny toward the improvements to our city-owned arena?

i appreciate your passion for this Laramie but comparing this to the Thunder is ridiculous and you know it. As one of the smallest market teams, they’ve gone heavy in to the repeater tax for the last several years and carried one of the highest payrolls in the NBA to compete at the highest level...We have the second highest winning percentage in the NBA over the last decade... Our investment as a city and their excellent lease terms go a long way in making that possible. It’s been an excellent investment for the city and the Energy don’t belong in the same discussion.

After doing a little research, it’s obvious that very few soccer stadiums are being built now without a very heavy investment from the team. What is Funk willing to contribute?

I would hope that we would have learned from our experience with the convention center that the Coop site should be completely out of the discussion without knowing exactly what the land will cost and how much will need to be spent on cleaning up the soil contamination...

I have no problem with my portion of $70 million going towards an outdoor stadium. It would be a major leap for OKC and it isn’t costing half a billion like a lot of other sporting venues are. Stadiums always get a bad rap when using public funds. For perspective, the streetcar cost $136 million for 13 people to ride it every other day.

I have no problem with my portion of $70 million going towards an outdoor stadium. It would be a major leap for OKC and it isn’t costing half a billion like a lot of other sporting venues are. Stadiums always get a bad rap when using public funds. For perspective, the streetcar cost $136 million for 13 people to ride it every other day.

Study after study has shown that stadiums don’t spur surrounding economic development especially when wrapped In parking like the 2700 spaces being proposed. Can you give me an example in the state where it has? I think your numbers on the streetcar might be a little off and we’ll see what they look like once the new convention center is up and running...

This is the deal that Louisville is working with and it’s in a very depressed area In a fairly close proximity to downtown.

‘’Louisville Metro Government is leveraging a $30 million bond to partially fund the project. The city paid $24.1 million for four pieces of land for the development and will use leftover money for infrastructure improvements. The deal approved by Metro Council says club owners must spend at least $130 million in private capital on the development, including $45 million on the stadium itself’’

https://www.courier-journal.com/story/sports/soccer/louisville-city-fc/2018/01/25/preliminary-approval-finance-louisville-city-fc-stadium/1065296001/

For perspective, the streetcar cost $136 million for 13 people to ride it every other day.

If your going to criticize the streetcar and compare it to the stadium then use actual facts instead of creating false narratives.

if your argument is solely based on economic development return, then read this. $1.6 billion isn’t a bad return for $130 million.

https://www.greateroklahomacity.com/news/2018/10/09/press-release/greater-okc-chamber-releases-streetcar-investment-impact-study/

We all need to take a step back, there are missing pieces to the MAPS 4 stadium proposal (site selection & option 1 or 2) situation much like the convention center before the site was determined.

Im back to saying it could host the 5a and 6a OBA marching contests. 5A is normally hosted by a 6A school (Moore/BA/Mustang/etc) and the 6a rotates between places like UCO/Broken Arrow/Union and this year Owasso. For both, they collect two ticket amounts, prelims and finals. They clear the stadiums between the two halves. Prelims has a trickle in and out all day long but finals fills the places.

We would need surface parking for this though. That's one big reason why UCO can host it beacuse there's surface lot for trucks/busses/warmup areas/etc. Without that, this will never be an event for this stadium.

High schools currently get a cut of t;hings when events are hosted. Even if OSSAA takes the tickets, the schools still get concessions. For OBA, it tries to rotate between East/West for each year, but it depends on places being able and willing to host. So if UCO has a game that week, the west is out. It's been 3 years now since the west was able to host 6a OBA because of this. I'd LOVE to see another venue available.

When I made the comment about the streetcar it was obviously an exaggeration. Believe it or not I am a streetcar fan. However nothing is in concrete for the stadium yet. Hopefully wherever it goes a wave of development and quality projects can follow.

i appreciate your passion for this Laramie but comparing this to the Thunder is ridiculous and you know it. As one of the smallest market teams, they’ve gone heavy in to the repeater tax for the last several years and carried one of the highest payrolls in the NBA to compete at the highest level...We have the second highest winning percentage in the NBA over the last decade... Our investment as a city and their excellent lease terms go a long way in making that possible. It’s been an excellent investment for the city and the Energy don’t belong in the same discussion.

After doing a little research, it’s obvious that very few soccer stadiums are being built now without a very heavy investment from the team. What is Funk willing to contribute?

I would hope that we would have learned from our experience with the convention center that the Coop site should be completely out of the discussion without knowing exactly what the land will cost and how much will need to be spent on cleaning up the soil contamination...

The Thunder wouldn't be here if the arena wasn't a part of MAPS. It was passed with no guarantee of a NBA or NHL team relocating here. The city needed a new arena.

Now, everyone is against a new stadium because the Energy aren't "major league", or they just don't like soccer. The reality is, OKC is lacking an multipurpose outdoor stadium that every other large city has. The Energy would just happen to be the primary tenants. I swear, everyone here is a bunch of hypocrites. Let's throw money at an arena for basketball/hockey (pre-Thunder), but screw throwing money at a stadium for a soccer team that we already have.

Franchise fees for the USL have skyrocketed from $250,000 in 2012 to $7 million in 2018. If we lose the Energy, it might be a long time before we get another team. If that's the case, we're going to regret it 20 years from now....

I wouldn't say everyone, more like a vocal subset.

i agree with you. i am in favor of okc having a major league soccer club that competes against the big city teams at the highest level as well as international tournaments but the owners and private investors for the team should build their own stadium with their own money and their own land. the city and state should facilitate for the team ownership group to have success but not by handing them free money, land or infrastructure. perhaps access roads, freeway exit ramps, bridges, sidewalks, street lighting, or some other type of public works infrastructure but not the stadium. think that soccer as a sport is on the rise and the tremendous business potential it generates is enough for people with money to gamble on it or not because if it is a big success, like it probably would be, the team's ownership group should rightly reap the benefits and profits of their investment by capturing and harnessing all the revenue streams from their own private property, in this case the stadium that they built with their own money. soccer is on the rise and now is the time to get on board if you're a big time investors. if you keep track of who's investing what and where in MLS right now you will see that it is people with deep pockets who are not relying on public money to push their projects forward. the sacramento republic ownership group that is about to be granted a major league soccer franchise will be spending half a billion dollars in it all. the expansion fee is about 200 million, the stadium is also about 200-250 million and the rest is hiring staff, players, operations, etc.

Just one point: The Energy wouldn't be handed this stadium for free. The City would own it, and would charge the Energy for their use of the facility - exactly how the Bricktown Ballpark and the 'Peake operate today.

City gets naming right money as well.

Just one point: The Energy wouldn't be handed this stadium for free. The City would own it, and would charge the Energy for their use of the facility - exactly how the Bricktown Ballpark and the 'Peake operate today.



but how much would those payments allocated to the city for renting the space be? i have a feeling it may be a symbolic amount, like say for example, a hundred dollars. different sources point out that major league soccer has been operating with losses every year since its creation 25 years ago. so what kind of payments should the city expect from a team/league that is growing but struggling to make a profit? MLS has made it clear how critical to their business plan is a stadium owned by the team in order to control ALL the revenue streams in an effort to NOT lose money. it appears, to be fair, that just recently some teams in the bigger markets are beginning to see profit after many years operating on red numbers. another point to consider is that MLS is about to cap off expansion once they reach the 30 team limit with cities like phoenix, charlotte, las vegas, detroit and san antonio trying to secure that final slot after sacramento and saint louis become teams number 28 and 29 respectively. to me that means that okc is not even on the radar for MLS because it is considered too small of a market and therefore the chances of producing a successful team that makes money rather than lose it are slim. in other words okc is simply not a priority for MLS. that being said, the city should look carefully at the dynamics of the business model, projections and other hard pressing local priorities like teachers salaries before committing any money to a soccer stadium. i want to have a major league soccer team in the city and i want their stadium to be somewhere between downtown and the river but i also want for bob funk to pile a big group of heavy investors and corporate sponsorships and build his own stadium with his own money and keep all the profits or losses it may generate. i will leave a link below just to cite a reference to the major league soccer operating business model and why logic shows should be an all private endeavor and not a place to allocate public tax payer money with other hard pressing necessities at hand, like the quality of the city's public school system for example.


https://medium.com/@isaac_krasny/unpacking-the-major-league-soccer-business-model-827f4b784bcd

Out of curiosity, does anyone have numbers on how much rent the city gets from the Thunder for their use of city facilities? I would be pretty shocked if it actually was some symbolic amount.

The Thunder pay $1,640,000 in annual Arena Rent ($40,000 per game) for forty-one (41) regular season NBA home games.

(PDF) https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=2ahUKEwiNu9GJxPjjAhUjnq0KHW7LCFAQFjAAegQIAhAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Flaw.marquette.edu%2Fassets%2Fspo rts-law%2Fpdf%2Flease-summary-oklahoma-city-thunder.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2yU0YeHpX-G4g5NdNYdbVB

There are many more perks in that PDF file.

These were the locations Bob Funk Jr. mentioned in Lackmeyer's chat on Monday.

https://oklahoman.com/article/5638471/farmers-market-area-an-option-for-proposed-maps-4-soccer-stadium


Funk: Obviously the Producers Cooperative Oil Mill property, we thought that would be a good location three years ago. We also think Wheeler Park is a good location. I like the (recently cleared) Exchange site south of Farmers Public Market. It's only seven acres. I like Strawberry Fields west of Scissortail Park if we could ever find a way to make it work.

We also looked at Wiley Post Park but access is the biggest issue there.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/stadium081419a.jpg

lol so basically forget about capitol hill.

Honestly I'd like to see Strawberry Fields built out as mixed use with no large scale attraction. Producers Coop would be a nice growth area for Bricktown, the canal, entertainment type options, and housing.

Wheeler Park and Wiley Post Park both get me pretty excited. Both have access to the southside residents - Wheeler by pedestrian bridge (to be built) and Wiley Post could have a Pedestrian bridge connected from lower Scissortail Park.

The only downside is less immediate access to amenities like bars/restaurants but maybe that could develop around the stadium.

lol so basically forget about capitol hill.

15521

I think Wiley Post would absolutely bring Capitol Hill into the mix.

There are tons of possible sites on the southside but Funk obviously has his mind set and for some reason the big projects just have to be downtown.

https://i.imgur.com/7QEWYpi.png

https://i.imgur.com/AlvepRS.png

https://i.imgur.com/SW5svaA.png

Site #1: In the Wheeler District area. Wheeler is focused on the first phase without any real plans for the second phase east of Western and a new plan around a soccer stadium could be had. This is my least favorite option but it is there.

Site #2: Closest to Capitol Hill with the most influence(due to proximity). Requires buying a few properties and demoing none of which are historically significant or architectural interesting and they are arguably blighted. This is probably my favorite spot. It would require the densest and most compact stadium(footprint) but seems like a MLS level stadium could exist. The blighted 25th St. serves as an industrial area and arguably the city should have more compacted industrial parks. It could stand to loose a few and the businesses relocate to existing ones.

Site #3: A chance to turn an industrial street into a mixed-use with several great buildings that could be restored. The remaining metal buildings are cheap and easy demo with land costs likely not too high. Great catalysts for a new urban area outside of downtown and giving life into a stagnant part of town.

Site #4: Former Crossroads Mall. Complete tear down of the buildings in the area and a huge potential for a new urban district with a possible commuter rail stop and working with OkDOT for better access under the adjacent interstate to interstate interchange rebuild gives a great location. Has the means to be a huge boost and great infill not contributing to urban sprawl. Other deals could be worked to develop millions of SF of retail(a bigger Oak), another regional draw(Medieval Times/world class aquarium, etc.), thousands of new residential units, etc.

Downtown already has momentum and this stadium could also be a great real estate tool in addition to bringing soccer for the fans. It gives something an undeserved part of the city can truly be proud of and brings more money to it. The Strawberry Fields and Lumberyard site will develop just fine without this stadium, albeit likely taking longer but not nearly as long as it will for these sites.

I think Wiley Post would absolutely bring Capitol Hill into the mix.

I understand but judging by Funks already negative tone on it(the only location he's said anything bad about) and the fact they will be taking away a highly used park makes the location a bit iffy.

Really like the Crossroads site. Already tons of parking, so no new parking footprint should be needed. Good chance to improve the area. Will be connected to future transit. Close highway access.

Just lots going for that site really.

^^^^ It is prime for redevelopment. Unfortunately the Hispanic targeted retail aspect didn't work out for one reason or another but this can be a huge multicultural draw and boon for the area. Lot's of redevelopment and land opportunities to build the Crossroads Urban District and build a new POI outside of downtown.

also, in the unlikely scenario MLS ever does come, it's the best site with enough expansion room for a bigger stadium.

There is a scroll on espn that Saint Louis was awarded a franchise today.

https://www.stltoday.com/sports/soccer/st-louis-ownership-group-makes-presentation-to-mls-expansion-committee/article_f6ebcb60-54e0-5bd0-bc62-05950042175f.html

The St. Louis ownership group, led by Kindle Betz and World Wide Technology CEO Jim Kavanaugh, has proposed a primarily privately funded 22,500-seat stadium next to Union Station on Market Street just west of downtown.

So why do we need to completely fund the stadium for the Funk's? Do they not have the cash to pay for it? Do they not want to? Just curious.

I think we also have to realize that the ship has pretty much left the dock for MLS, so the stadium if built will be for the USL team

Problem with Crossroads is that there's nothing else around it. There are only minimal hotels on 240 and you really have to go to Moore to "do" anything else. So the city loses out on people eating nearby and maybe a trolly between parking/eating/soccer (and back)/etc. Lot's of intangibles that are indirectly tied to it being on the NORTH side of the river.

There is room and a road network already setup for new restaurants and hotels right next to the old mall. It’s a good site for a “build it and they will come” approach.

There are plans for a rail link that would connect both Moore and Bricktown 2, which would make it a good option for eating in one place and catching an event in another.

Building the Stadium where it can benefit from already existing amenities is nice. But past MAPS projects have also been the drivers for new development. How many restaurants are in Bricktown because Foot traffic from the Peake brings in business? Building at the mall could result in a greater economic impact than building somewhere “safe”.

I hate the idea of a suburban stadium. Farmers Market and Coop might be my two favorite ideas. Putting the stadium west of downtown would be a boom for that end and Coop runs the risk of being empty for years if the stadium isn’t put there (it’s also an blank canvas). Just south of the river isn’t bad either. Crossroads ain’t it

https://deadspin.com/report-mls-will-expand-to-st-louis-might-not-complet-1837269624

"Perhaps more importantly, St. Louis’s MLS team has what appears to be a pretty solid stadium deal that shouldn’t rob the city’s taxpayers blind in its construction. Compared to FC Cincinnati’s terrible stadium deal, the plans for St. Louis’s new venue are downright generous. After asking for $80 million and then $60 million from the city to build the downtown stadium—both of which were rejected, the first through political maneuvering and the latter in a public vote by a 53-47 margin—the ownership group came back with a deal that would require no public funding whatsoever. Additionally, the stadium would be owned by the city, and its maintenance costs would be covered by a tax on tickets and items sold within the stadium. Remember that the next time billionaires cry poor and try to guilt a city into giving them free money."

https://deadspin.com/report-mls-will-expand-to-st-louis-might-not-complet-1837269624

"Perhaps more importantly, St. Louis’s MLS team has what appears to be a pretty solid stadium deal that shouldn’t rob the city’s taxpayers blind in its construction. Compared to FC Cincinnati’s terrible stadium deal, the plans for St. Louis’s new venue are downright generous. After asking for $80 million and then $60 million from the city to build the downtown stadium—both of which were rejected, the first through political maneuvering and the latter in a public vote by a 53-47 margin—the ownership group came back with a deal that would require no public funding whatsoever. Additionally, the stadium would be owned by the city, and its maintenance costs would be covered by a tax on tickets and items sold within the stadium. Remember that the next time billionaires cry poor and try to guilt a city into giving them free money."

I wish OKC had more philanthropic billionaires. But we don't, so these are the hands we are dealt. And OKC doesn't really try to build more billionaires, either.

Even if we have to put public money for a small stadium, I live with it. Coop seems the smartest way to go.
But let s not fool ourself with the MLS and their expansion fee nobody in OK will pay.
30 teams is too much for a soccer league which to be top tier any way.

https://deadspin.com/report-mls-will-expand-to-st-louis-might-not-complet-1837269624

"Perhaps more importantly, St. Louis’s MLS team has what appears to be a pretty solid stadium deal that shouldn’t rob the city’s taxpayers blind in its construction. Compared to FC Cincinnati’s terrible stadium deal, the plans for St. Louis’s new venue are downright generous. After asking for $80 million and then $60 million from the city to build the downtown stadium—both of which were rejected, the first through political maneuvering and the latter in a public vote by a 53-47 margin—the ownership group came back with a deal that would require no public funding whatsoever. Additionally, the stadium would be owned by the city, and its maintenance costs would be covered by a tax on tickets and items sold within the stadium. Remember that the next time billionaires cry poor and try to guilt a city into giving them free money."

I haven’t seen the details of the deal, but it looks like the owners are FINANCING the deal for the stadium, not donating it to the city. Big difference. Let’s wait and see how the financing is to be repaid.

I haven’t seen the details of the deal, but it looks like the owners are FINANCING the deal for the stadium, not donating it to the city. Big difference. Let’s wait and see how the financing is to be repaid.

the owners won't want to "own" the staduim they will want to control the staium .. . making in a public building saves them the property taxes .. the dallas cowboys stadium ATT is owned by the city of arlington but fully operated by Jerry jones ..and the cowboys

I haven’t seen the details of the deal, but it looks like the owners are FINANCING the deal for the stadium, not donating it to the city. Big difference. Let’s wait and see how the financing is to be repaid.

The owners of Enterprize/National Car rental are paying for the STL Stadium. They are investing right around 500 mil. for stadium and expansion fee. I think the city of Stl is giving the land. But no taxing the citizens for the stadium or the upkeep. Sounds like a sweet deal for Stl.

Problem with Crossroads is that there's nothing else around it. There are only minimal hotels on 240 and you really have to go to Moore to "do" anything else. So the city loses out on people eating nearby and maybe a trolly between parking/eating/soccer (and back)/etc. Lot's of intangibles that are indirectly tied to it being on the NORTH side of the river.

If you built a stadium and made it mixed use in design I bet periphery things would start to happen. The cool thing about crossroads in this scenario is that the old mall is ringed by those other business spaces that could quickly get filled up with restaurants and such...

The owners of Enterprize/National Car rental are paying for the STL Stadium. They are investing right around 500 mil. for stadium and expansion fee. I think the city of Stl is giving the land. But no taxing the citizens for the stadium or the upkeep. Sounds like a sweet deal for Stl.
The deal is backed by significant tax breaks and other yet unresolved city financial support. And, there are promises of city maintenance and other costs. The financing deal has not been completed. There is still concern for the amount of money it can potentially cost the city.

This is being presented as a "gift" to the city, when the citizens are being asked to pay for 100% of it. Great spin! This gift will be another building the taxpayers will be asked to pay to maintain.

We argue aboutt $50 million in city investment. Meanwhile Austin is expanding its public facilities by billions. We are left to wonder why Austin has moved so far ahead of us. Lol. https://austin.curbed.com/2019/8/12/20802030/austin-hotel-tax-rate-increase

We argue aboutt $50 million in city investment. Meanwhile Austin is expanding its public facilities by billions. We are left to wonder why Austin has moved so far ahead of us. Lol. https://austin.curbed.com/2019/8/12/20802030/austin-hotel-tax-rate-increase

Austin has a proven track record of using these improvements to get 1,000's of new citizens and jobs in town. OKC doesn't, and may never have that draw. So we can't even compare with them.

Austin has a proven track record of using these improvements to get 1,000's of new citizens and jobs in town. OKC doesn't, and may never have that draw. So we can't even compare with them.

Right .... let’s aim low and maybe we can hit it. We talk big league and act small town Oklahoma.

Right .... let’s aim low and maybe we can hit it. We talk big league and act small town Oklahoma.

But we don't talk big league! Every single project that has any public involvement gets ripped to shreds on this board! I actually think the city should fund this stadium. But I also think there are better projects to help increase jobs and QOL.

There is no reason our hotel tax shouldn't be higher. Look at your hotel bills when you are in other cities next time. We refuse to put some tax on the hotels because the higher ups in the city are scared it would hurt tourism. FALSE.

Right .... let’s aim low and maybe we can hit it. We talk big league and act small town Oklahoma.

+1. MAPS is the best thing OKC has put forth to even try and compete with cities of our same comparables. Everyone squabbling about one part of the package and stating they'll vote "no" if "X" is included is comical.

+1. MAPS is the best thing OKC has put forth to even try and compete with cities of our same comparables. Everyone squabbling about one part of the package and stating they'll vote "no" if "X" is included is comical.
+1

If you built a stadium and made it mixed use in design I bet periphery things would start to happen. The cool thing about crossroads in this scenario is that the old mall is ringed by those other business spaces that could quickly get filled up with restaurants and such...

I'm not so convinced about that. Those businesses can't survive on the hand full of days in the year that there's activity there (speaking of Crossroads). Dont get me wrong, there are a lot of land benefits to being there. Parking, growth room, nearby rail lines, 2 interstates. BUUUUUT, there's a reason why those businesses and the mall failed. It's not the hub it once was. And i just dont see anything surviving there on only event traffic. And there's really no incentive to build there given 240 West and Moore are so close.

There is no reason our hotel tax shouldn't be higher. Look at your hotel bills when you are in other cities next time. We refuse to put some tax on the hotels because the higher ups in the city are scared it would hurt tourism. FALSE.

Especially with the convention coming soon a lot of hotel costs are covered by businesses having conventions

Exactly. I think the proposal was adding $5 to each bill, or something like that. Which they claimed we would have some the highest taxed rates in the country. However, I would argue that the actual hotel rates are some of the lowest in the country too. So if you are thinking about coming here and you are hung up on that extra $5 you might have to spend over the entirety of your stay, then you have bigger problems to deal with.

Exactly. I think the proposal was adding $5 to each bill, or something like that. Which they claimed we would have some the highest taxed rates in the country. However, I would argue that the actual hotel rates are some of the lowest in the country too. So if you are thinking about coming here and you are hung up on that extra $5 you might have to spend over the entirety of your stay, then you have bigger problems to deal with.

exactly, i mean Las Vegas is paying for the Raiders new stadium solely through a hotel tax

We argue aboutt $50 million in city investment. Meanwhile Austin is expanding its public facilities by billions. We are left to wonder why Austin has moved so far ahead of us. Lol. https://austin.curbed.com/2019/8/12/20802030/austin-hotel-tax-rate-increase


Right .... let’s aim low and maybe we can hit it. We talk big league and act small town Oklahoma.
+1000

Reminder that OKC is spending half a billion on its new convention center plus hundreds of millions more on the adjacent park. And there is plenty of land to the south to expand in the future.

And of course we have already sunk billions of public money in the immediate area in the last 15 years or so.


We've spent plenty but that doesn't mean every idea is a great idea or that it should be funded through sales tax.

We argue aboutt $50 million in city investment. Meanwhile Austin is expanding its public facilities by billions. We are left to wonder why Austin has moved so far ahead of us. Lol. https://austin.curbed.com/2019/8/12/20802030/austin-hotel-tax-rate-increase


I'm not so convinced about that. Those businesses can't survive on the hand full of days in the year that there's activity there (speaking of Crossroads). Dont get me wrong, there are a lot of land benefits to being there. Parking, growth room, nearby rail lines, 2 interstates. BUUUUUT, there's a reason why those businesses and the mall failed. It's not the hub it once was. And i just dont see anything surviving there on only event traffic. And there's really no incentive to build there given 240 West and Moore are so close.
Arguably that happened because of a lack of investment in the area. I am in this area often and it is horrible. Ugly, no character, no design elements, many businesses do the bare minimum, the infrastructure sucks, etc. It is not hard to see why this area isn't that desirable especially when standards in other parts of the city are skyrocketing.

OkDOT's final design of the future interchange will leave us with a subpar interchange by the time it opens. Still have cloverleafs, service roads don't go through the interchange, limited access, etc. Shields could easily maintain access and open ramps but it would require more money. Many many cities do this yet OKC, yet again, gets a halfassed interchange.

It can be modified and the train tracks though they exists aren't utilized like they could be. With the right investment this area could easily become a hub again. The traffic is already there.

exactly, i mean Las Vegas is paying for the Raiders new stadium solely through a hotel tax

Vegas could probably pay down the national debt with their hotel taxes (excuse me... resort fees).

Vegas could probably pay down the national debt with their hotel taxes (excuse me... resort fees).

The sheep are paying to help build Vegas up. It's like a big flock of sheep streaming into Vegas to give their money away on one thing or the other. OKC needs a good legal scam like that.


BTW,If Funk doesn't get his stadium for the Energy and moves his team maybe someone can buy the Stl USL team and move them here. I assume they prob. won't be keeping that team now since they are getting a major league soccer team.

The USL wouldn’t approve the movie because, as has been mentioned a few times, Oklahoma City doesn’t have a stadium with a regulation size field.