This really isn't fair and misses the mark. Can you show me that the Thunder have brought in $1b in tax collection and revenue over the last 15 years? Or anywhere close to that amount?

Detractors aren't saying it won't bring in any money at all; rather, that it won't bring in anywhere close to the investment we're pouring in, and that the biggest beneficiaries of this massive outlay of public money will be the billionaire private owners of the Thunder, not the public, as research shows.

Oh yes, it's totally fair. People who don't realize the impact the Thunder has had on OKC's economic growth, investment, population growth, international profile, etc. truly are dunces -- or at least very myopic.

The arena is an amenity. It doesn't have to bring in a billion dollars. However, we will use it for at least 25-30 years. Assuming the ownership can get this franchise winning again, it will have enormous economic impact.

But what you're ignoring is the inverse. Losing the Thunder, which make no mistake we will if this isn't approved, would be catastrophic to this city. Cities in decline do not have enough money to invest in homeless shelters, new animal shelters, new schools, etc. They wither.

OKC is booming, and the Thunder is a significant factor why. It shouldn't be hard for you to understand but you are being argumentative and obtuse.

wait until yall see the Tif ask for the related development .. lol

Oh yes, it's totally fair. People who don't realize the impact the Thunder has had on OKC's economic growth, investment, population growth, international profile, etc. truly are dunces -- or at least very myopic.

The arena is an amenity. It doesn't have to bring in a billion dollars. However, we will use it for at least 25-30 years. Assuming the ownership can get this franchise winning again, it will have enormous economic impact.

But what you're ignoring is the inverse. Losing the Thunder, which make no mistake we will if this isn't approved, would be catastrophic to this city. Cities in decline do not have enough money to invest in homeless shelters, new animal shelters, new schools, etc. They wither.

OKC is booming, and the Thunder is a significant factor why. It shouldn't be hard for you to understand but you are being argumentative and obtuse.


How did the Thunder contribute to our population growth? How many people did the team convince to move here? How much money did they contribute to the economy here? I’m not being myopic or obtuse, I’m asking you to back up your assumptions. That’s not an unreasonable ask.

Seattle seemed to do fine when the Sonics left, Austin is doing great without a single major league team, Detroit has four major league teams yet is struggling… you’re making a lot of claims without an iota of evidence and instead is just relying on insulting people who disagree with you. If the Thunder are a “significant factor” why we are booming, it shouldn’t be hard for you to actually back up your point with evidence instead of ad hominem deflections.


Edit: \/\/ interesting. Can you point to which businesses came to OKC because of the Thunder?

There are tons of memories and stories generated by the Thunder and other arena events throughout the years. These stories have inspired business owners to invest to have a business in Oklahoma City. I'm sure the suburbs would see a little bit more money if there were no Thunder but not OKC.

Yes, I'm sure there is a point where having an NBA team brings no value, but OKC is nowhere that point. We would only get to that point if their is millions more spent on education a year. When you compare that total cost over a decade, a one time cost of 1 billion for area that will last at least 20 years seems like a good deal.

Poli Sci, it seems, wouldn't care if OKC lost the Thunder. Or at least thinks there would be no change to OKC and its perception if they pissed off and left. Arguing with that is fruitless.

Poli Sci, it seems, wouldn't care if OKC lost the Thunder. Or at least thinks there would be no change to OKC and its perception if they pissed off and left. Arguing with that is fruitless.

Nope. Just asking for folks to back up their points. Building straw men doesn't really help here. Please don't put words in my mouth.

Nope. Just asking for folks to back up their points. Building straw men doesn't really help here. Please don't put words in my mouth.

Out here accusing everyone who disagrees with you of “building strawmen.” You have said or insinuated everything that the other poster said you have.

I’m living proof. I was born and raised just outside of Atlanta. Sports has always been a huge part of my life so my first thought of any city is the skylines and pro sports teams (what I’ve seen on TV). Watching the Thunder make the finals as a teen and be competitive every single year without a doubt put OKC on the map in my eyes. I saw a loud, passionate fan base. I saw downtown aerial shots and the Bricktown canal on ABC’s commercial cuts. I saw just enough that I thought of OKC as a big league town. When the time came and I moved out here I felt an appreciation for the town. I loved this city before I even moved out here. The Thunder are a big reason why.

Hey look! A tangible example on this board of someone being more interested in or less resistant to moving to OKC because of all the exposure the thunder gave it! It’s like everything all of us have been saying might have some merit!

Thats really cool! Happy you moved here and have decided to hang around!

This made me want to see fan interview of people who became Thunder fans. Would be a cool series.

You could probably even do that with current players on the team. Several young players have said that they were interested in playing here after watching Russ, KD (boo), harden and others play here and enjoyed watching those teams play for a decade.

How did the Thunder contribute to our population growth? How many people did the team convince to move here? How much money did they contribute to the economy here? I’m not being myopic or obtuse, I’m asking you to back up your assumptions. That’s not an unreasonable ask.

Seattle seemed to do fine when the Sonics left, Austin is doing great without a single major league team, Detroit has four major league teams yet is struggling… you’re making a lot of claims without an iota of evidence and instead is just relying on insulting people who disagree with you. If the Thunder are a “significant factor” why we are booming, it shouldn’t be hard for you to actually back up your point with evidence instead of ad hominem deflections.


Edit: \/\/ interesting. Can you point to which businesses came to OKC because of the Thunder?

Comparing Seattle (which had 2 other major professional sports franchises when the sonics left and a thousand other entertainment options both in the city and outdoors between the ocean and the mountains) and Austin (which does have an MLS team but is doing fine largely because it’s the capital of Texas and also has a ton of things to do in the city and outdoors nearby) to OKC is so completely disingenuous that it hurts the argument you’re already failing to make.

Also, is Detroit really still struggling? It certainly was but many people I know from there indicate otherwise since the auto industry was bailed out and the economy improved.

Notice that it’s not just one person calling you names and at minimum disagreeing with you. It’s the majority of the board other than now banned broken record Kerry/JTF (who hilariously reappeared after a 10 year hiatus to complain again and hasn’t even lived here for like 7 years). Many of us on vastly different ends of the political spectrum (hell soonerguru and I are fairly far apart on a lot of things and I couldn’t agree with him more on this, MAPS and city government in general), from very different backgrounds and walks of life in OKC and elsewhere…are all uniting to fervently disagree with you…what does that tell you?

Comparing Seattle (which had 2 other major professional sports franchises when the sonics left and a thousand other entertainment options both in the city and outdoors between the ocean and the mountains) and Austin (which does have an MLS team but is doing fine largely because it’s the capital of Texas and also has a ton of things to do in the city and outdoors nearby) to OKC is so completely disingenuous that it hurts the argument you’re already failing to make.

Also, is Detroit really still struggling? It certainly was but many people I know from there indicate otherwise since the auto industry was bailed out and the economy improved.

Notice that it’s not just one person calling you names and at minimum disagreeing with you. It’s the majority of the board other than now banned broken record Kerry/JTF (who hilariously reappeared after a 10 year hiatus to complain again and hasn’t even lived here for like 7 years). Many of us on vastly different ends of the political spectrum (hell soonerguru and I are fairly far apart on a lot of things and I couldn’t agree with him more on this, MAPS and city government in general), from very different backgrounds and walks of life in OKC and elsewhere…are all uniting to fervently disagree with you…what does that tell you?

Sadly it probably means in 2023 to dig their heels in and scream louder :(

All I know is pre Thunder when I told people I was from Oklahoma, they would assume Tulsa or make a snide comment about Oklahoma/ OKC. Since the Thunder when I say I'm from Oklahoma or OKC, it's met with Thunder talk or at least acceptance that Oklahoma City, has a seat at the Big League Table and has garnered some respect nationally and Globally.

In 2013 I went to Ultra Music Festival in Miami. My buddy and I noticed someone with a Serge jersey and said hey to them. They were from Spain.

TTFU! Looking forward to renderings!

A grade schoolteacher performed on Britian's Got Talent and his students were in the audience, One of his students was wearing a Thunder shirt.

I spotted Thunder shirts in Florence, Italy recently.

Comparing Seattle (which had 2 other major professional sports franchises when the sonics left and a thousand other entertainment options both in the city and outdoors between the ocean and the mountains) and Austin (which does have an MLS team but is doing fine largely because it’s the capital of Texas and also has a ton of things to do in the city and outdoors nearby) to OKC is so completely disingenuous that it hurts the argument you’re already failing to make.

Also, is Detroit really still struggling? It certainly was but many people I know from there indicate otherwise since the auto industry was bailed out and the economy improved.

Notice that it’s not just one person calling you names and at minimum disagreeing with you. It’s the majority of the board other than now banned broken record Kerry/JTF (who hilariously reappeared after a 10 year hiatus to complain again and hasn’t even lived here for like 7 years). Many of us on vastly different ends of the political spectrum (hell soonerguru and I are fairly far apart on a lot of things and I couldn’t agree with him more on this, MAPS and city government in general), from very different backgrounds and walks of life in OKC and elsewhere…are all uniting to fervently disagree with you…what does that tell you?

Detroit is doing great. Lived there for years - went to the new Little Caesars Arena numerous times for concerts and games - totally reinvigorated the area. Hotels, shops, restaurants, entertainment. It is awesome.

I spotted Thunder shirts in Florence, Italy recently.

I recently spotted some Thunder apparel for sale in Barcelona.

The Thunder probably have impacts in ways that are hard to measure. For example, I haven't lived in OKC for over a decade, but I've maintained a share of season tickets. I therefore have been making extra weekend trips back to OKC to visit friends for 10 years. While I would have visited friends regardless, I guarantee you the Thunder have at least doubled my trips back because they provide a schedule and motivation to make plans. I stay with friends so I don't show up in hotel numbers. I know of a lot of stories of people visiting OKC only because of the Thunder. I recently made recommendations to a friend of a friend from Philadelphia who was traveling to different NBA arenas with her son and caught the New Year's game. I'm sure there's a lot more regional visits from rural areas, Tulsa, Wichita, etc. A lot of these trips and visits just wouldn't have happened without the Thunder. I suspect it's hard to isolate the value of these visits for OKC, but I suspect cumulatively it's substantial.

This really isn't fair and misses the mark. Can you show me that the Thunder have brought in $1b in tax collection and revenue over the last 15 years? Or anywhere close to that amount?

Detractors aren't saying it won't bring in any money at all; rather, that it won't bring in anywhere close to the investment we're pouring in, and that the biggest beneficiaries of this massive outlay of public money will be the billionaire private owners of the Thunder, not the public, as research shows.

What about the biggest beneficiaries being the attendees who go to events in this arena? I'd rather watch a show at the Thelma Gaylord PA theater (Civic Center) rather than Chapman Music Hall (Tulsa PAC). Likewise, I'd rather spend a whole day in The Gathering Place vs. Scissortail Park. None of those places are bad, but certain experiences are absolutely better in one vs. the other and it's investment that largely drives that difference. Experiences in this new arena will be elevated by having a nicer facility.

I should also state this which should shut down any sort of "is this worth it" rhetoric: given that any way we slice this, the arena is probably going on the Cox site, we sure as hell do not want to invest less than a $1B on literally the most valuable property within ~200 mile radius. $1B isn't being invested to plop down gold plated seats...there will be very real amenities that will be part of the fabric of the city beyond the Thunder and its ownership group.

Yes, exactly, those places and others. It’s not like folks just didn’t spend money or not go out when the NBA lockout happened or when the Thunder didn’t allow fans in the stadium post-COVID, they just went and did other things. The Thunder is a great destination for folks to spend money at, but they spend that money at other places year-round and all of that has an equal economic impact, as the studies I linked to show.

As for alternatives, there are numerous so I’ll just pick one as an example. Studies show that investments on public transit yield a 4x return on investment and can generate up to 50,000 jobs per $1b invested (https://www.apta.com/research-technical-resources/economic-impact-of-public-transit/). Can the Thunder do that?

How ironic you assume as fact an article published by a public transit advocacy group that makes arguably similar exaggerated claims (and convenient omissions) about benefits and job creation while so quick to dismiss figures supporting the economic impact of a major league sports franchise and arena as "widely abused figures of Chambers of Commerce and sports franchises." LOL

In Denver, we have a very nice bus & light rail system that is vastly underused, is billions of $$ over budget, has major maintenance problems & costs, is heavily in debt, uses massive amounts of energy, relies on massive Federal subsidies, chronically can't find enough drivers, has been the scene of many crimes, required massive real estate purchases, is a daytime bedroom for homeless and has inconvenient park & ride options. It really IS a nice system.

In both cases, there are dozens of assumed benefits and negatives. How about just agreeing you dislike sports and let those who love sports have their facilities? Both are net positives for a city.

Look back in time when Oklahoma City started to see more exposure on the National scale when we built the downtown arena. Oklahoma City got a chance to have a 'trial run' on its support of the NBA.

We built the bare-bone minimum downtown arena for $89.2 million which hosted the New Orleans Hornets following Katrina in 2005. Our city answered the bell, drawing average attendance 18,168 in support of a team we didn't own: See #11 Pelicans https://www.espn.com/nba/attendance/_/year/2006

Unfortunately, for NOLA, the team had to remain in OKC for another year. The now referred to New Orleans-Oklahoma City Hornets drew an average 17,833 in 2006. Then team owner George Shinn didn't want to leave OKC. Thanks to the Ford Center, the Hornets were also being courted by Louisville's Freedom Hall as a temporary home.

In 2000 #26 Louisville's city population was 553,960 vs. #30 Oklahoma City's 507,579 https://www.biggestuscities.com/2000
MSA 2000 #48 Oklahoma City, OK MSA 1,083,346 vs 49 Louisville, KY--IN MSA 1,025,598.
Today, #20 Oklahoma City 697,763 vs. #26 Louisville 621,764.
MSA 2020: Oklahoma City 1,459,380 vs Louisville 1,284,553 - lost MSA population 2010 1,285,439.

Much of this is IMO attributed to MAPS continuous passage of initiatives since 1993. OKC hasn't built
all the projects approved in the MAPS 4 like housing and addressing homelessness: https://www.okc.gov/government/timeline

In 2007, Saving Grace is an American crime drama television series which aired on TNT from July 23, 2007, to June 21, 2010. The show stars Holly Hunter as well as Leon Rippy, Kenny Johnson, Laura San Giacomo, Bailey Chase, Bokeem Woodbine, Gregory Norman Cruz and Yaani King. It is set in Oklahoma City—including numerous shots of local buildings and landmarks (such as the Oklahoma City National Memorial and the downtown skyline, prior to Super Skyscraper Devon Tower and BOK Park Plaza Tower.

Larry Nichols, who built the 50 story, $750 million Super Skyscraper in 2012, said that if it wasn't for MAPS, he would have moved the Energy Giant to Houston.

A group of Oklahoma businessmen, who saw our city's potential from hosting the Hornets, purchased the Seattle Supersonics in 2006 and relocated the team to Oklahoma City in 2008. NBA warned the ownership group that the then Ford Center would need major improvements to sustain the franchise long term. Over the next decade we learned the total square footage of the Paycom Center does not possess the amenities to sustain the franchise long-term, a lesson we learned during the Supersonics relocation.

We can see-saw back and forth--MAPS has been a financial economic engine that has addressed Oklahoma City needs and improved our overall image and appearance. So has being on the national stage thru the Oklahoma City Thunder and the NBA.

Although our city leaders strive to address all the needs of our city, like many cities you can only chip away and fine-tune and try to create a balance: https://www.okc.gov/government/timeline

Sure a billion arena won't address all our needs, it will create a lasting impression to attract more businesses and firms to create jobs that will help make OKC more from an economic and quality of life stand point. The comparison made between Louisville and Oklahoma City was just an example of the
direction both cities have been going--much of which IMO is also attributed to having an NBA franchise.

You bet Louisville wanted to temporarily hosts the Hornets, they like OKC's experience with United Airlines led to Kentucky's largest city building the 'KFC Yum Center, ' a $228 million arena opened in 2010
serving the City and the University of Louisville. You bet 'Louisville' is NBA Ready.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoXtA0K9jaQ
Really like Louisville's investment - that $238 million arena is worth closer to $400 million today.

As for the Thunder, they have created an image for Oklahoma City that is priceless, you can't buy that type of advertisement on New York's Madison Avenue that improves the image of OKC like being a member of the Elite 30 cities in the NBA.

Build an arena that will be a Cathedral-like showcase for Oklahoma City, one that will host our NBA franchise, concerts and large gatherings to maintain our city's image on the International as well as the national stage.

.

Most arenas have 1 shiny grand entrance (I keep coming back to Fiserv Forum) - I wonder if OKC goes that route, what direction it will face. Towards Myriad Gardens maybe?

In summary, Oklahoma City is growing in population. Much attributed to in State migration and some to out-of-state. The fact remains that our City and MSA continues to grow.

Also want to give credit to Oklahoma Quality Jobs program: https://www.okcommerce.gov/doing-business/business-relocation-expansion/incentives/quality-jobs-incentive-program/


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=081g2YuMGao

It's impressive to see the Oklahoma City skyline on an NBA nationally televised games much like the shots you see in the drone above.

Having an NBA presence in our city had led more people to inquire about Oklahoma City, misspell myths that have been around since the days of Oklahoma's Grapes of Wrath era.

We now how more being invested in our city as exhibited on OKCTalk.com forum; special thanks to Pete for his up-to-date reporting.

It's about continued improvements in our city. Investments like our last MAPS 4 sixteen projects initiative. Much like the Devon Tower (State's largest skyscraper), you have to invest in something that will be 'bold and beautiful.

Nice vid Laramie!

How did the Thunder contribute to our population growth? How many people did the team convince to move here? How much money did they contribute to the economy here? I’m not being myopic or obtuse, I’m asking you to back up your assumptions. That’s not an unreasonable ask.

Seattle seemed to do fine when the Sonics left, Austin is doing great without a single major league team, Detroit has four major league teams yet is struggling… you’re making a lot of claims without an iota of evidence and instead is just relying on insulting people who disagree with you. If the Thunder are a “significant factor” why we are booming, it shouldn’t be hard for you to actually back up your point with evidence instead of ad hominem deflections.


Edit: \/\/ interesting. Can you point to which businesses came to OKC because of the Thunder?

I’m not going to bother doing research for someone when it’s readily available. Also, when they are intentionally being closed minded, argumentative and obtuse.

I’m not going to bother doing research for someone when it’s readily available. Also, when they are intentionally being closed minded, argumentative and obtuse.

Thank you for proving my point.

Thank you for proving my point.

Wait- Polisciguy- are you saying that the Thunder have not contributed anything to change the perception of OKC, or helped with the population growth? Do you not believe the perception of our dusty town changed in the eyes of those around the U.S. once we got a professional team and a likeable one such as the Thunder. I think you have underestimated the domino effect of this. I’m not saying that people just moved here just because of them, but that the possibility of being in an affordable big league city is appealing. This does have the effect on someone maybe moving here vs somewhere else. You reference Seattle, Austin, and Detroit earlier but failed to mention that those places have been historically light years ahead of Okc in terms of industry, higher salaries, and innovation. The Thunder have transformed the city from having pipe dreams to making them into our reality.

Wait- Polisciguy- are you saying that the Thunder have not contributed anything to change the perception of OKC, or helped with the population growth? Do you not believe the perception of our dusty town changed in the eyes of those around the U.S. once we got a professional team and a likeable one such as the Thunder. I think you have underestimated the domino effect of this. I’m not saying that people just moved here just because of them, but that the possibility of being in an affordable big league city is appealing. This does have the effect on someone maybe moving here vs somewhere else. You reference Seattle, Austin, and Detroit earlier but failed to mention that those places have been historically light years ahead of Okc in terms of industry, higher salaries, and innovation. The Thunder have transformed the city from having pipe dreams to making them into our reality.

He wants tangible proof of a perception change, which is impossible to prove. So it isn't worth debating with him.

Wait- Polisciguy- are you saying that the Thunder have not contributed anything to change the perception of OKC, or helped with the population growth? Do you not believe the perception of our dusty town changed in the eyes of those around the U.S. once we got a professional team and a likeable one such as the Thunder. I think you have underestimated the domino effect of this. I’m not saying that people just moved here just because of them, but that the possibility of being in an affordable big league city is appealing. This does have the effect on someone maybe moving here vs somewhere else. You reference Seattle, Austin, and Detroit earlier but failed to mention that those places have been historically light years ahead of Okc in terms of industry, higher salaries, and innovation. The Thunder have transformed the city from having pipe dreams to making them into our reality.

actually, a person commented on this forum that the Thunder was a big reason why he seeked to move to OKC and because of the team he had a positive image of the city. And that he moved from a much larger metro - Atlanta.

I;'m sure there are countless other examples and near examples but some people want to hear what they want and ignore reality for the sake of statistics and argument. Just say you don't like professional sports already - that would make you more credible than bringing up other cities that OKC isn't yet in the league of.

Thank you for proving my point.

I think you’re funnin’ us. An intangible argument. Asking for proof and too busy to back up your side regularly.

But, I will say this. I don’t recall ever hearing that leadership and citizenry of any city that lost any “Big 4” sports league franchise thinks the city is better off after they left. Nobody ever said “good riddance”. No one in St. Louis is glad the Rams are gone. They still lament the Hawks leaving over 50 years ago. Seattle never wanted the SuperSonics to leave, they were just exhausted after getting squeezed for two 50,000 seat stadiums by the Mariners and Seahawks. Both of whom threatened to move. Omaha wishes they still had half the Kings. Cleveland wishes they still had the Barons. Heck, I bet Fort Wayne wishes they still had the Pistons, and Syracuse with the Nationals!

A city losing a major sports team is an embarrassment, regardless of the city’s size. A city losing it’s only major sports team is a sign of a shrinking city.

Thank you for proving my point.

Your “point” has not been proven. You have proven to the board that you refuse to consider information and lack advanced thinking skills. Asking for someone’s opinion and then just ignoring their comments does not stimulate discussion.

I ask you, what proof do you have that the Thunder is not a factor in Oklahoma City’s economic, cultural, and population growth? Please provide tangible proof. Flow charts and data are welcome.

Your “point” has not been proven. You have proven to the board that you refuse to consider information and lack advanced thinking skills. Asking for someone’s opinion and then just ignoring their comments does not stimulate discussion.

I ask you, what proof do you have that the Thunder is not a factor in Oklahoma City’s economic, cultural, and population growth? Please provide tangible proof. Flow charts and data are welcome.

Nah my point about you deflecting and relying on insults instead of actually providing evidence was pretty well proven. And what hard information or evidence has been provided that I’m not considering? All I’ve seen are anecdotes about people in LA being mean to Pete about OKC or one person who might make an extra trip here to align with the Thunder schedules or someone in Britain wearing a Thunder shirt. Not exactly a robust dataset. What hard empirical proof am I disregarding?

And again, the burden of proof is on the folks arguing that the Thunder are worth a $1b investment to back up their point. Though numerous studies and economists argue that these sorts of investments don’t pay off (http://https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/page1-econ/2017-05-01/the-economics-of-subsidizing-sports-stadiums/), studies I’ve already linked several times in this thread but I’ll do your research for you again (http://https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4022547).

Nah my point about you deflecting and relying on insults instead of actually providing evidence was pretty well proven. And what hard information or evidence has been provided that I’m not considering? All I’ve seen are anecdotes about people in LA being mean to Pete about OKC or one person who might make an extra trip here to align with the Thunder schedules or someone in Britain wearing a Thunder shirt. Not exactly a robust dataset. What hard empirical proof am I disregarding?

And again, the burden of proof is on the folks arguing that the Thunder are worth a $1b investment to back up their point. Though numerous studies and economists argue that these sorts of investments don’t pay off (http://https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/page1-econ/2017-05-01/the-economics-of-subsidizing-sports-stadiums/), studies I’ve already linked several times in this thread but I’ll do your research for you again (http://https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4022547).
I am enjoying the debate. It isn’t personal. Nor must I be right and anyone be wrong. I see this as a public chance for us “pro arena” people to tune up our argument and see the opposing viewpoints quickly and intelligently. The more I see, the better I can understand and adjust.

And to be clear I am not trying to be an ass about this! I'm glad the Thunder will be here long term and will continue to take my family to games. I just think we need to critically examine the fact that a lot of the talking points that will come out - that the Thunder "spur economic growth" and "helped grow OKC's population" or that "the arena will pay for itself" - are wafer thin with no empirical evidence, just anecdotes, and that the actual data out there shows this will be a bad investment, financially, for the city. It's thus up to voters to really decide if things like civic pride, reputation, prestige, being a "big league city", continuing our well-earned feeling of superiority over Tulsa :tongue: etc. are worth making a bad financial investment. Clearly for folks on this board, the answer is a resounding "yes," and I can totally understand that. I just want to make sure we're laying bare what the actual facts about this deal will be.

What other evidence could be used specifically for OKC? I think OKC's situation is unique which is why I believe even though anecdotal the evidence is indicative of positive impacts.

And to be clear I am not trying to be an ass about this! I'm glad the Thunder will be here long term and will continue to take my family to games. I just think we need to critically examine the fact that a lot of the talking points that will come out - that the Thunder "spur economic growth" and "helped grow OKC's population" or that "the arena will pay for itself" - are wafer thin with no empirical evidence, just anecdotes, and that the actual data out there shows this will be a bad investment, financially, for the city. It's thus up to voters to really decide if things like civic pride, reputation, prestige, being a "big league city", continuing our well-earned feeling of superiority over Tulsa :tongue: etc. are worth making a bad financial investment. Clearly for folks on this board, the answer is a resounding "yes," and I can totally understand that. I just want to make sure we're laying bare what the actual facts about this deal will be.

LMAO. You're acting as if you've provided empirical "proof" that a new publicly financed arena will be a "bad investment." It will not, and we know it. If your goal is to raise the level of the debate, your arguments have not been compelling.

We know what the naysayers are going to say; their arguments are predictable. But, OKC residents know intrinsically how adding an NBA franchise, one which led to a best selling book about Oklahoma City, a cover story about our city on New York Times magazine, media coverage worth billions of dollars on multiple national and international outlets, is worth the investment. Frankly, a billion dollars isn't even that much for a 25-30-year venue for NBA and major concert events. It is the next logical step to take after having an arena on the cheap for about the same length of time.

Everything has improved in OKC since the Thunder came to town. Even our food scene is gaining national and international acclaim.

Your argument seems to be that all of these transformational things would have happened for OKC anyway without the NBA, and that is a laughable suggestion. Certainly you are the only person on this thread that seems to believe that.

I don't know when you moved to OKC, but I moved here in 1993, and things were really bad. We had one downtown hotel -- which managed to lose its flag from, gulp, Sheraton, because it was so run down. Automobile Alley was a wasteland. Midtown was a wasteland. The city couldn't even get the citizens to support school bond issues. Obviously, MAPS was a factor in turning that around, my first vote as an OKC resident in December of 1993.

And, Bueller, what was included in that MAPS vote? A spec arena. An arena that has changed our fortunes.

If you would actually bother to step off of your debate dais and do some basic Internet research, you will find numerous articles about companies putting OKC in consideration for expansion. You will find stories of artists and entrepreneurs moving here, or adding a location. You will of course note that the "can this little podunk town support an NBA franchise?" stories are gone now.

For those of us who have been here a while, we know that the NBA exposure has been absolutely transformational for OKC.

Finally, for one last time, I would like to see you argue that losing the Thunder would somehow be good for OKC and we would just move on down the road, because that is part and parcel of your claims.

Man, I try to disengage gracefully and then we see this sort of stuff posted. Let's dive in.


LMAO. You're acting as if you've provided empirical "proof" that a new publicly financed arena will be a "bad investment." It will not, and we know it. If your goal is to raise the level of the debate, your arguments have not been compelling.


How do you know it? I've cited numerous studies that show time and again these investments don't work out. You cite some sort of "intrinsic knowledge" without any actual leg to stand on. I strongly advise you to actually think critically about your assumptions and what you're basing them on, because what you cite (which I get to here in a second) doesn't actually work. And what was wrong with the methodology of the studies I've posted? What concerns do you have with their underlying theories and work?



Everything has improved in OKC since the Thunder came to town. Even our food scene is gaining national and international acclaim.

Your argument seems to be that all of these transformational things would have happened for OKC anyway without the NBA, and that is a laughable suggestion. Certainly you are the only person on this thread that seems to believe that.


The Thunder came to town in 2008-2009, the same year Barack Obama won the presidency. Maybe OKC's growth is due to the Obama era? Or the recovery from the 2008 recession? Or oil prices? Or countless other factors? In short, your argument relies upon post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy without actually showing that the Thunder caused this growth.


If you would actually bother to step off of your debate dais and do some basic Internet research, you will find numerous articles about companies putting OKC in consideration for expansion. You will find stories of artists and entrepreneurs moving here, or adding a location.

Care to point to some examples, especially ones that cite the presence of an NBA team as a deciding factor in their decision? I've done the courtesy of showing my research, asking you to do the same isn't unreasonable.



Finally, for one last time, I would like to see you argue that losing the Thunder would somehow be good for OKC and we would just move on down the road, because that is part and parcel of your claims.

That's not my argument at all. What I'm arguing is that the Thunder should pay more, or that this money can be used in countless other areas that do spur economic growth, such as mass transit. If the Thunder are so essential to this city's economy and turnaround, as you claim, then it's on you to prove it, and to do so beyond claims of "intrinsic knowledge."

Again, it's fine if you want to say the arena is worth it for the fringe benefits of reputation and prestige, but if you're going to argue that this is a good financial investment then the onus is on you to actually back that up.

LMAO. You're acting as if you've provided empirical "proof" that a new publicly financed arena will be a "bad investment." It will not, and we know it. If your goal is to raise the level of the debate, your arguments have not been compelling.

We know what the naysayers are going to say; their arguments are predictable. But, OKC residents know intrinsically how adding an NBA franchise, one which led to a best selling book about Oklahoma City, a cover story about our city on New York Times magazine, media coverage worth billions of dollars on multiple national and international outlets, is worth the investment. Frankly, a billion dollars isn't even that much for a 25-30-year venue for NBA and major concert events. It is the next logical step to take after having an arena on the cheap for about the same length of time.

Everything has improved in OKC since the Thunder came to town. Even our food scene is gaining national and international acclaim.

Your argument seems to be that all of these transformational things would have happened for OKC anyway without the NBA, and that is a laughable suggestion. Certainly you are the only person on this thread that seems to believe that.

I don't know when you moved to OKC, but I moved here in 1993, and things were really bad. We had one downtown hotel -- which managed to lose its flag from, gulp, Sheraton, because it was so run down. Automobile Alley was a wasteland. Midtown was a wasteland. The city couldn't even get the citizens to support school bond issues. Obviously, MAPS was a factor in turning that around, my first vote as an OKC resident in December of 1993.

And, Bueller, what was included in that MAPS vote? A spec arena. An arena that has changed our fortunes.

If you would actually bother to step off of your debate dais and do some basic Internet research, you will find numerous articles about companies putting OKC in consideration for expansion. You will find stories of artists and entrepreneurs moving here, or adding a location. You will of course note that the "can this little podunk town support an NBA franchise?" stories are gone now.

For those of us who have been here a while, we know that the NBA exposure has been absolutely transformational for OKC.

Finally, for one last time, I would like to see you argue that losing the Thunder would somehow be good for OKC and we would just move on down the road, because that is part and parcel of your claims.

I grad high school in 93 and our ceremony was at the Myriad/Cox/PSM. The area was desolate around, Bricktown had been going for a few years (Spaghetti Warehouse, Haunted Warehouse during Oct, a club called Pylon), midtown was prostitutes and rent by the hour motels, the Civic Center area had the rent boys, etc). Maps started the progress we see today of course, but the item not talked about is the Bombing. After that there was so much pride in our city and a movement to improve. IMO, I really think this was a huge catalyst for changing the perception of Okc. You may not remember but there was a huge hubbub about what Connie Chung said that upset locals and made me mad that we were looked at as inferior. Hosting the Hornets put us on the stage for greatness that allowed the possibility of gaining a pro team and being mentioned in articles for best places to live or secret gems. Articles that in our past would have never happened.
Polisciguy-
You want tangible proof- then seek out new Oklahomans and ask them when you are out.
One thing leads to another and having the Thunder helps grow our city.
On that note - the Okc bombing killed 167 plus the first responder for 168 but how many other people may have lost their life due to the event? I ask because a girl I was dating at the time lost her grandma hours later to a heart attack. My gf’s mom worked near there and her grandma could not get in touch and then had the heart attack. Related - I am sure. Tangible but not listed in the statistics.
I’m voting for the Arena because I believe the Thunder have been exceptional for Okc and the state.

A thing that is cool to think about is if this arena opens in 2027 or 2028, that’s when SGA will be in his prime with the young players coming up as well

And to be clear I am not trying to be an ass about this! I'm glad the Thunder will be here long term and will continue to take my family to games. I just think we need to critically examine the fact that a lot of the talking points that will come out - that the Thunder "spur economic growth" and "helped grow OKC's population" or that "the arena will pay for itself" - are wafer thin with no empirical evidence, just anecdotes, and that the actual data out there shows this will be a bad investment, financially, for the city. It's thus up to voters to really decide if things like civic pride, reputation, prestige, being a "big league city", continuing our well-earned feeling of superiority over Tulsa :tongue: etc. are worth making a bad financial investment. Clearly for folks on this board, the answer is a resounding "yes," and I can totally understand that. I just want to make sure we're laying bare what the actual facts about this deal will be.

First of all, don't know of any major city where the arena actually 'paid for itself financially.'

Where in the bowels did you dig deep enough to say 'well-earned feeling of superiority over Tulsa,' this is as messy of a statement as a missed wipe.'

Thunder are Oklahoma's first and only major league sports franchise, supported by Tulsa entrepreneurs--Tulsa provides the greatest support for team outside of our locals.

Since you brought it up, can you name one city where a multi-million dollar arena or stadium has actually paid for itself.

Your best bet is to design an arena that will last over time (20-25 years), minimizing maintenance--upgrades every decade generally wipes out any gains cities make on these types of facilities.

Cities are not designed to make a profit; but to act as an Administrative town also have law courts, police stations, government departments associated with developmental works, etc. OKC addressed many of these items in previous MAPS Initiatives.

OKC is replacing the State Fair Arena (opened 1965) with a new $125 million coliseum that will be booked prior to its opening with rodeo related events.

Proud of Mayor Holt, because he wants to do it right this time, as eye catching as our Super Skyscraper--with a competitive venue living up to the higher standards of the NBA. Our arena should be a jewel among those MSA cities like Memphis, Salt Lake City and New Orleans below us.

Man, I try to disengage gracefully and then we see this sort of stuff posted. Let's dive in.



How do you know it? I've cited numerous studies that show time and again these investments don't work out. You cite some sort of "intrinsic knowledge" without any actual leg to stand on. I strongly advise you to actually think critically about your assumptions and what you're basing them on, because what you cite (which I get to here in a second) doesn't actually work. And what was wrong with the methodology of the studies I've posted? What concerns do you have with their underlying theories and work?



The Thunder came to town in 2008-2009, the same year Barack Obama won the presidency. Maybe OKC's growth is due to the Obama era? Or the recovery from the 2008 recession? Or oil prices? Or countless other factors? In short, your argument relies upon post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy without actually showing that the Thunder caused this growth.



Care to point to some examples, especially ones that cite the presence of an NBA team as a deciding factor in their decision? I've done the courtesy of showing my research, asking you to do the same isn't unreasonable.




That's not my argument at all. What I'm arguing is that the Thunder should pay more, or that this money can be used in countless other areas that do spur economic growth, such as mass transit. If the Thunder are so essential to this city's economy and turnaround, as you claim, then it's on you to prove it, and to do so beyond claims of "intrinsic knowledge."

Again, it's fine if you want to say the arena is worth it for the fringe benefits of reputation and prestige, but if you're going to argue that this is a good financial investment then the onus is on you to actually back that up.
I have to take exception to mass transit being an economic benefit to OKC. Or rather, a front burner, important investment. I think OKC is a massive, plains, car centric city that is going to require massive investment to function at the scale required to be effective. OKC is over 600 square miles, is well served with cars, and our streetcar was a $125 million toy. Hard for me to believe we could build an effective system for less than $10 billion total. And I’m trying to understand how many of our 1.3-ish million people would be made better served and more fully employed. And how that drives population growth and wealth?

Honestly I don’t agree with PoliSciGuy’s point and I absolutely support an arena and I do believe in the larger picture it would pay off for OKC but the burden of proof isn’t on him to collect. The point being made about a new Thunder arena having a positive impact is a claim being made by people who need to show proof and not criticize those asking for proof.

I have to take exception to mass transit being an economic benefit to OKC. Or rather, a front burner, important investment. I think OKC is a massive, plains, car centric city that is going to require massive investment to function at the scale required to be effective. OKC is over 600 square miles, is well served with cars, and our streetcar was a $125 million toy. Hard for me to believe we could build an effective system for less than $10 billion total. And I’m trying to understand how many of our 1.3-ish million people would be made better served and more fully employed. And how that drives population growth and wealth?

1000% agree. It would begin with Will Rogers to Tinker (connecting through downtown) and Edmond to Norman (connecting through downtown) but that alone would not come close to paying for itself. There would need to be spurs out to NW OKC, West from Will Rogers and even SW OKC. There would still need to be spurs in Edmond to gain additional riders and same with Norman. Like you mentioned, a minimum of 10 billion would be needed and NO WAY WOULD IT PAY FOR ITSELF! and oh btw, a massive amount of riders would come from the Thunder playing downtown along with all the concerts and events that would come from being in a new arena.

Honestly I don’t agree with PoliSciGuy’s point and I absolutely support an arena and I do believe in the larger picture it would pay off for OKC but the burden of proof isn’t on him to collect. The point being made about a new Thunder arena having a positive impact is a claim being made by people who need to show proof and not criticize those asking for proof.

He is asking a question with no answer. He wants proof of something intangible, which, by definition, is just that, intangible, and can't really be supported by empirical facts. We have had plenty of anecdotal stories about the perception of OKC changing, which is what he was arguing at one point. Then he moved the goal posts.

He is asking a question with no answer. He wants proof of something intangible, which, by definition, is just that, intangible, and can't really be supported by empirical facts. We have had plenty of anecdotal stories about the perception of OKC changing, which is what he was arguing at one point. Then he moved the goal posts.
I don’t believe what he is asking is intangible.

I don’t believe what he is asking is intangible.

How do you prove with empirical studies, the perception of OKC has changed? It would have to be anecdotes and stories from outsiders, which this thread has plenty of. He didn't like that.

No, I'm asking for empirical proof that this is a good financial move. I ceded that this bolsters prestige, perception, reputation, etc. but not at the rate of $1b.

We've had the Thunder for 15 years. If the only evidence of them being an economic boost to the region are anecdotes and T-shirts, then it's worth questioning just how valuable that boost has been.

No, I'm asking for empirical proof that this is a good financial move. I ceded that this bolsters prestige, perception, reputation, etc. but not at the rate of $1b.

We've had the Thunder for 15 years. If the only evidence of them being an economic boost to the region are anecdotes and T-shirts, then it's worth questioning just how valuable that boost has been.

Again, you are so stupidly focused on the Thunder. The Thunder don't get to take this asset with them. OKC owns it. The arena hots 100s of events a year, all bringing in 10s of thousands of people, and the city makes money off every event. I don't, and no one does, aside from the city, access to the amount per event OKC makes on the arena. But it will pay for itself in the long-run. But just because the Thunder are the main tenant, it doesn't solely benefit them. Think of how much money goes to Tulsa for big concerts that don't even consider OKC for tour stops. I would say millions a year. Plus, those people stay in hotels, spending extra money they could spend in OKC at stores or restaurants. Keeping those people here for shows and events, and getting new events for the city, which new arenas do tend to get at a high clip, would greatly benefit OKC. It keeps more money here, and allows less spent in Tulsa or Dallas.

Is a $1 billion arena necessary? Maybe not. But go big or go home. If OKC can figure out a package to pay for this that doesn't just completely bankrupt the city (based on all I have seen, it won't hurt the city at all, basically), then shoot for the moon.

I know we won't agree on this, but that is my opinion. I don't have true #s that show it is a benefit to have a nice arena or to keep an NBA team in the city, but most sane people can understand both of those. Our arena is garbage when compared to most NBA arenas. Having ownership of the arena is a great feature, in my opinion. Allows OKC to work with whoever they want to manage the arena and schedule events.

All this is just arguing for arguing's sake, as the vote will very likely pass, fairly significantly. Why not hope for the best arena possible, to instill civic pride in OKC, and very likely (again, no proof, because that doesn't exist, and never will) spur immense development in downtown OKC.

I've read most of this thread and the general insults directed at PoliSciGuy are uncalled for. PoliSciGuy is asking a fair question about the real financial impact of the Thunder. I personally agree that financial impact of the team is probably overstated AND I also support building a new arena to keep the team in OKC because of a lot of the intangibles the team brings to the community (which PoliSciGuy concedes are important). A lot of these responses that call PoliSciGuy "stupid" concede his very points in their own post (e.g., "Is a $1 billion arena necessary? Maybe not."). The animus seems unnecessary.

When we begin seeing architectural and design work (late 2023) on this $1 billion arena then voters will decide if it's worth the Big League hype. It's obvious that Mayor Holt has seen something.

... The arena hots 100s of events a year, ...

Um, no. setlist.fm shows 9 events there in 2023 so far. That's in addition to the Thunder games, of course. Not going to bother going back further, because 100s of events per year is nowhere close to what it has probably ever had any year since it's been built. And yes, I know that doesn't include graduations, etc., but there's just no way it hosts 100s of events per year.

Looks like Paycom has 20 events scheduled for the last 5 months of the year:

https://www.paycomcenter.com/events-tickets/upcoming-events/calendar

PoliSciGuy isn’t stupid. He parrots the same point of view of many. He wants proof that doesn’t exist. Using that measuring stick, almost any public works is questionable. What is the economic return on a park? Why do we have an airport when a majority of OKC residents never fly? What is the economic viability of building sidewalks when most or many people won’t use them. What is the economic viability of a fire station? Most of us will never have a fire, so why do we pay for all those that do?

A competitive modern city has amenities. If we wish to compete in the higher levels, we should have comparable amenities, shouldn’t we. It isn’t just about the Thunder, though the Thunder has positioned the city in the top tier of US cities in the minds of millions. It is about all sorts of amenities… art museums, performance halls, arenas, airports, parks, etc.

Oklahoma City -- and more precisely, Oklahoma Citians -- continues to invest in itself and the results are inarguable.

Most aren't old enough to remember the malaise from the mid-80s through the 90s but trust me, there is almost no way to put it into present-day context. It was just so incredibly bad... Bad enough that arguably the person that loves it the most (yours truly) left for 25 years, something I never thought I'd do.

Just look at Tulsa. A very nice city and they are doing some great things but there is no question it was a better city with a much better reputation than OKC in the 1980s. Trust me, I heard it all the time from my Tulsa friends while at OU and I couldn't really argue with them.

Now Tulsa is merely trying to catch up, but they never will because OKC raced ahead and keeps growing and improving at a fast rate.


In other words, the city that chose to invest in itself earliest and continually is the one that now has a lead that it will never relinquish. And not just because of what we did in the past, but due to what we will continue to do.

Simply put, OKC spent the money and then made our own luck with first the Hornets and then the Thunder. And similarly, the investment in the river and the whitewater facility is going to bring the freaking Olympics to town!

Anybody that has lived here for more than 10 years understands the value of being a Big League City and also understands the related cost.

PoliSciGuy isn’t stupid. He parrots the same point of view of many. He wants proof that doesn’t exist. Using that measuring stick, almost any public works is questionable. What is the economic return on a park? Why do we have an airport when a majority of OKC residents never fly? What is the economic viability of building sidewalks when most or many people won’t use them. What is the economic viability of a fire station? Most of us will never have a fire, so why do we pay for all those that do?

A competitive modern city has amenities. If we wish to compete in the higher levels, we should have comparable amenities, shouldn’t we. It isn’t just about the Thunder, though the Thunder has positioned the city in the top tier of US cities in the minds of millions. It is about all sorts of amenities… art museums, performance halls, arenas, airports, parks, etc.

Nah, that's not a good comparison. For all those public works, who is the Thunder in those analogies, the private company that gains hundreds of millions due to the public use of funds? Parks and sidewalks boost property values, which in turn generates more tax revenue. Fire stations lower insurance costs and prevent widespread destruction from fires - an ounce of prevention being cheaper than a pound of cure and all that. For the airport, you can clearly see their budget and income in public documents like this one (https://flyokc.com/sites/default/files/News/ACFR_FY22_Final.pdf), and that's not counting the tertiary benefits that comes with that facility. Where can I find similar documentation about Paycom and the Thunder?

Your examples abstract away too much. The unique issue with the new arena is that its construction will significantly increase the value and profit of an organization that is only contributing pennies on the dollar that the public is spending. That organization seems to be seen as a panacaea in this thread - an organization that has amazingly increased our population, bolstered our economy, been the singular cause of businesses coming to Oklahoma and revitalizing downtown - yet that perception doesn't have any actual empirical backing to it beyond some sort of divine intuition.

Now Tulsa is merely trying to catch up, but they never will because OKC raced ahead and keeps growing and improving at a fast rate.

In other words, the city that chose to invest in itself earliest and continually is the one that now has a lead that it will never relinquish. And not just because of what we did in the past, but due to what we will continue to do.

Simply put, OKC spent the money and then made our own luck with first the Hornets and then the Thunder. And similarly, the investment in the river and the whitewater facility is going to bring the freaking Olympics to town.

Look at the list of projects for OKC’s MAPS vs Tulsa’s “Improve Our Tulsa” projects and other previous packages. While OKC was approving its first MAPS, Tulsa resoundingly voted no on a similar plan. And they’ve voted down several other ones over the years.

It’s fascinating to think were Tulsa would be today had they invested in themselves sooner.

Nah, that's not a good comparison. For all those public works, who is the Thunder in those analogies, the private company that gains hundreds of millions due to the public use of funds? Parks and sidewalks boost property values, which in turn generates more tax revenue. Fire stations lower insurance costs and prevent widespread destruction from fires - an ounce of prevention being cheaper than a pound of cure and all that. For the airport, you can clearly see their budget and income in public documents like this one (https://flyokc.com/sites/default/files/News/ACFR_FY22_Final.pdf), and that's not counting the tertiary benefits that comes with that facility. Where can I find similar documentation about Paycom and the Thunder?

Your examples abstract away too much. The unique issue with the new arena is that its construction will significantly increase the value and profit of an organization that is only contributing pennies on the dollar that the public is spending. That organization seems to be seen as a panacaea in this thread - an organization that has amazingly increased our population, bolstered our economy, been the singular cause of businesses coming to Oklahoma and revitalizing downtown - yet that perception doesn't have any actual empirical backing to it beyond some sort of divine intuition.
Face it, there is no logic, facts or rational argument that would shake you from your opinion. Fine. You can spin, ignore and obfuscate. But for what. You don’t appreciate what being in the NBA list of cities does for OKC and you wish to ignore the other events an arena hosts, so power to you.

No I’ve been pretty consistent in saying that empirical proof that the arena will bring in $1b in revenue or that the Thunder generate that much income for the city would make me reconsider. It’s why I’ve been asking for it. Instead all I get in return is abuse and gross distortions of my positions, like your post, or anecdotes.

No I’ve been pretty consistent in saying that empirical proof that the arena will bring in $1b in revenue or that the Thunder generate that much income for the city would make me reconsider. It’s why I’ve been asking for it. Instead all I get in return is abuse and gross distortions of my positions, like your post, or anecdotes.

So you are voting no for the arena, moving on.

No, I'm asking for empirical proof that this is a good financial move. I ceded that this bolsters prestige, perception, reputation, etc. but not at the rate of $1b.

We've had the Thunder for 15 years. If the only evidence of them being an economic boost to the region are anecdotes and T-shirts, then it's worth questioning just how valuable that boost has been.

As emperical evidence - This doesn't apply to OKC, but Taylor Swift's 2 concerts at Mile Hi Football Stadium @70,000 / per concert is estimated to have had a $140 million economic impact in the metro. That's not Chamber of Commerce propaganda.

The new arena on existing land (4 square block PSM) will save $150 - $175 million.

New arena construction costs will be $800 million - $1 billion range. Demolition costs as high as $15 million; also there's room to sell parcels.

Safe to budget on the higher figure--avoid a Paycom Center repeat.

Like many committed life-long residents, build something reflective of the direction we want our city to be in the next decade. Focus on Milwaukee and the next level of NBA cities.

Speaking of reflective,I was in Nashville and saw renderings of their new downtown Titans arena that's ready to be built. I don't have time to dig for renderings but it's $2.1 billion for a 60000 seat arena. If we could do something similar but on a smaller scale it would be the best outcome possible. I never seen an arena use it's surroundings as an advantage.