yeah using subjective phrasing like that probably want great. Of course he also could’ve thought they were contributing more at the time based on the state of negotiations .

So, he negotiated way down in private? Or did he deliberately mislead?

Please don't try to speak for me, thanks. If ownership pitched in at levels similar to other NBA teams I'd be much more amenable to this.

I assume you realize that the team revenues in OKC are near the bottom in the NBA because of the city size and economic demographics, as well as the lack of Fortune 500 and other large companies based here. You guys love to compare to Milwaukee, probably the closest to OKC in size that has recently built a new arena, and their revenue is about $75 million a year more than OKC.

Other owners contribute more because they expect more suites and other revenue generating ameneties that won't go for as much money in OKC and you can't sell as many of them. Heck, in OKC we struggle to pay for the beers, let alone suites.

Almost everyone in the OKC area -- and a lot of the state -- will be paying for this through sales tax. Tons of people in Edmond spend within the OKC limits.

In fact, you could easily argue this is unfair to them because they will be paying for it but unable to vote.

Same could be said for cities/states that Oklahoman's visit and vice versa. Everybody's paying for something they don't get to use.

I assume you realize that the team revenues in OKC are near the bottom in the NBA because of the city size and economic demographics, as well as the lack of Fortune 500 and other large companies based here. You guys love to compare to Milwaukee, probably the closest to OKC in size that has recently built a new arena, and their revenue is about $75 million a year more than OKC.

They also recently won an NBA championship.

The reason OKC sales tax is similar is that it is kept artificially low to accommodate 40 years of 'temporary' $.01 extra tax.

This is not a small point because it greatly reduces the revenue the City needs for police, fire and everything else.


And BTW, if you are going to take up this point it should also be mentioned you live in Tulsa. Shouldn't that disqualify your opinion as well? BoulderSooner also lives in Edmond and I suspect many of the people on your side of this issue do not live in the OKC city limits either... See how that works?

https://www.okctalk.com/blob:https://www.okctalk.com/a029d034-b53a-4087-9617-b7a38ab1b1e3
https://www.okctalk.com/blob:https://www.okctalk.com/3070a3f5-9814-4d67-a4b6-ac78bae64913
https://media.tenor.com/pSIkTaFeuvAAAAAd/lee-corso-not-so-fast.gif

https://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=47184&page=50&p=1243864#post1243864


And before anyone who’s read or actually happens to remember any thing from my posts over the last few years says anything, I’m moving back to OKC from Tulsa this fall and will be registered to vote on this lol.

See how that works? :p

^

The point being that it's absurd to try and dismiss someone's opinion based on whether they live within the OKC city limits or not.

The reason OKC sales tax is similar is that it is kept artificially low to accommodate 40 years of 'temporary' $.01 extra tax.

This is not a small point because it greatly reduces the revenue the City needs for police, fire and everything else.


And BTW, if you are going to take up this point it should also be mentioned you live in Tulsa. Shouldn't that disqualify your opinion as well? BoulderSooner also lives in Edmond and I suspect many of the people on your side of this issue do not live in the OKC city limits either... See how that works?

I understand that as well.
For the record I live next to Lake Hefner and have voted for 30 years on city/state/national ballots.

They also recently won an NBA championship.

Forbes listed OKC as having an operating income of 129 million in 2022. Higher than Denver, Atlanta, Phoenix, Miami, etc. This ownership group isn’t broke.

So, he negotiated way down in private? Or did he deliberately mislead?

Your guess is as good as mine.

To restate my position again: I don't love the proposal, would prefer more details on it, a more public process so that we didn't feel like we're rushing it to a vote and if the ownership group isn't paying rent and giving up their share of arena revenues, would definitely prefer that they at least put $100 million into it but will vote yes to avoid opening the door to any chance that the team is sold and leaves in similar fashion to Seattle. This isn't the hill I want to die on to push more government transparency and/or to try to get a better deal.

All that needs to happen is that City Council tables their vote until there can be an impartial analysis of how this deal compares with other NBA arenas. You know, actually have a public process instead of forcing the "we need to pay over $1 billion right this very minute otherwise the owners will immediately leave" narrative down everyone's throat.

There is nothing magical about the Dec. 12th public vote date, and if there was the people involved shouldn't have waited until mid-September before even broad details were released.

i agree with this ..


and you keep bring up the team leaving with a 25 year lease in place .... that has never happened ANY WHERE >>

I don't need precedent. All I can do is assure you that the buy out will not be high enough to prevent an over-zealous out of state owner to leave "po-dunk" OKC for wherever. Given the way we took the team away from Seattle, it would not be at all surprising for someone to do it, in part, in retaliation to our getting the team so long ago.

If you told me tomorrow that the lease buy out were structured something like before 2030 @ $350M, 2030-2035 @ $300M, 2035-2040 @ $250M, and $200M to end of lease, I'd vote yes in a heartbeat.

I don't need precedent. All I can do is assure you that the buy out will not be high enough to prevent an over-zealous out of state owner to leave "po-dunk" OKC for wherever. Given the way we took the team away from Seattle, it would not be at all surprising for someone to do it, in part, in retaliation to our getting the team so long ago.

If you told me tomorrow that the lease buy out were structured something like before 2030 @ $350M, 2030-2035 @ $300M, 2035-2040 @ $250M, and $200M to end of lease, I'd vote yes in a heartbeat.

Again, find an example of a team breaking a lease and leaving a city, that approved and built one of the most expensive arenas in the league, before the end of the first lease term.

What numbers are you using to estimate that it will break even over 25 years?

I did some math up thread and it's very inexact. I recognize that part of the money that comes in because of the Thunder just walks out the door if they leave. Based on Forbes and a few other napkin math things, $50M/year imported value seems like the minimum annual impact of the Thunder (of course about 60% belongs to state of OK, but that's still money that would vanish overnight).

So after 25 years and inflating the numbers let's say annual totals of $35M state + $25M OKC = $875M state and $625M OKC during 25 years of impact.

Again, find an example of a team breaking a lease and leaving a city, that approved and built one of the most expensive arenas in the league, before the end of the first lease term.

There is not an example of that. It has never happened. I'm not willing to bet a billion dollars that it won't though.

Is there any indication there will be publicly available polling on this before the vote? I'd also be curious to see how the demographics break down.

I myself am still mulling it over, but being in my 20's, that does start tilt the cost-to-benefit ratio more in my favor (in other words, pay for it sooner, as costs will likely only trend upwards, and then I get the decades ahead to use the new arena, compared to waiting another 20+ years). And if this does help keep the Thunder here until at least the 2050's, then that means I'd get to experience being able to raise kids (knock on wood) and bring them to games and hopefully make some good memories for them. Now, if the opportunity cost is worth it to the city at large (i.e. what would happen if we put those hundreds of millions to other public projects instead) is what I'm still deciding on. It has been useful to see other people's take on this.

There is not an example of that. It had never happened. I'm not willing to bet a billion dollars that it won't though.

18261

18261

:lol2:

I don't need precedent. All I can do is assure you that the buy out will not be high enough to prevent an over-zealous out of state owner to leave "po-dunk" OKC for wherever. Given the way we took the team away from Seattle, it would not be at all surprising for someone to do it, in part, in retaliation to our getting the team so long ago.

If you told me tomorrow that the lease buy out were structured something like before 2030 @ $350M, 2030-2035 @ $300M, 2035-2040 @ $250M, and $200M to end of lease, I'd vote yes in a heartbeat.

in seattle there was NO buyout built into the lease ... for the Thunder there was not a buyout built into the last lease ..

there likely won't be a buy out in this lease ..

How about the Arcadia Thunder?

Let’s fix up the round barn and get it NBA ready!

Seriously if this doesn’t pass I would think PBC LLC would entertain options in Edmond or NE OK County or possibly even the UNP development in Norman—that would certainly solve the OU arena problem also

I am torn—partial yes and partial no so honestly at the moment I will abstain in December unless the deal improves

But I see the side of Holt & ownership—the arena will belong to OKC not the team so why should the team pony up more?

Stanley Draper would certainly be proud of this process tho no doubt about it—and if we had the old Oklahoman regime we would be flooded with 3 editorials a day saying take the deal!

This truly is the OKC way and it really is quite a package overall—I agree with those that say there is no comparison to our situation due to the way we got the Thunder in the first place—another only in OKC event

We are special and unique as a city from birth to bust to MAPS—why not (as Russ would say) just embrace it?

Now I am talking myself into voting for it even tho I haven’t attended a game since before COVID

in seattle there was NO buyout built into the lease ... for the Thunder there was not a buyout built into the last lease ..

there likely won't be a buy out in this lease ..

I know. I suspect all we're getting out of this from the team is the $50M and a verbal commitment to staying along with a lease that will pay OKC under $100M.

Maybe we make $300M revenue (not profit) in Thunder concessions over 25 years and bring in another $100M of revenue from additional entertainment "above and beyond" what we could bring to Paycom.

The city is carrying 100% of the risk here. All I can say is I hope it works out if everyone else votes yes. If anything goes wrong, it will set this city back by more than a decade and will likely kill any future tax increase initiatives from point of failure forward for another 15+ years

I know. I suspect all we're getting out of this from the team is the $50M and a verbal commitment to staying along with a lease that will pay OKC under $100M.

Maybe we make $300M revenue (not profit) in Thunder concessions over 25 years and bring in another $100M of revenue from additional entertainment "above and beyond" what we could bring to Paycom.

The city is carrying 100% of the risk here. All I can say is I hope it works out if everyone else votes yes. If anything goes wrong, it will set this city back by more than a decade and will likely kill any future tax increase initiatives from point of failure forward for another 15+ years

the city has 0.00% of risk here ..

for point of comparison the orlando magic pay 1 mil a year in rent period that doesn't go up at all over 25 years ..

the thunder will pay over 3 mil a year

Forbes listed OKC as having an operating income of 129 million in 2022. Higher than Denver, Atlanta, Phoenix, Miami, etc. This ownership group isn’t broke.

Here's the comparative revenue: https://www.statista.com/statistics/193704/revenue-of-national-basketball-association-teams-in-2010/

And no one claims they are broke. Is that the criteria?

It's time this board admit how small this city thinks. We talk and talk about wanting great things but are only willing to support just okay things. Maybe it is time we just admit to being mediocre in what we do here.

It seems every great city I go to has great public buildings and facilities that have been built over time. Here, we don't support things other than the basic utilitarian standards and it is reflected in our minimalistic approach to architecture and design, as well as the ameneties of our public facilities. The first chance we have to actually make a statement and it sounds like we are throwing up on ourselves. Maybe we deserve the reputation we have to the rest of the world who doesn't think OKC even deserves something like pro sports.

The mindset reminds me of the old 'Oklahoma is OK' license plates....not good, not great, but meh - ok.

As someone who lived in Seattle through all of that back in the day and an expat from OKC, I truly believe that Bennett DID try to negotiate in good faith. They didn't want to uproot the Sonics, they wanted the New Orleans team OR an expansion. I can guarantee you if Bennett were able to get Seattle to build a new arena, the NBA would have expanded and teams would have been awarded to Oklahoma City and Vancouver. OKC had already saved the NBA once with the hosting of the Hornets, IF Bennett could have saved the NBA in Seattle?? OMG - he would have been awarded a team and the NBA would be at the magic 32 teams.

That didn't happen, very much due to the hurdles and roadblocks that Seattle, King County, and Washington put in place to prohibit public funding of a new arena. Period. There were COUNTLESS groups assembled that attempted to FORCE the OKC ownership to being locked into KeyArena, or else. I recall I-91, which is a citizen initiative that prohibited public funding of stadiums in King County. NOBODY here thought Bennett would move the team, so even FANS were suckered into the bullying that Clay had to put up with.

I, being from OKC, knew and told everybody that the Sonics were history. I knew OKC wanted a team and since the state/city/county didn't want to play - I knew they'd figure out a way to move. The question was if they had to play out the 2-years or move early. MOST here thought they'd have to play out and in doing so they'd LOSE so much money that they'd force to sell. That's why the seats were not filled during the 2007-2008 season. It was a gamble that the SOS, government agencies, and likely Schultz himself had tried since NOBODY here ever thought the team would move - just somebody else own it.

Schultz' agreement with Bennett was a promise that he'd pursue an arena deal for the next year. Just one year. Bennett did that. Then when the gut punch came from the horrible 2007-2008 attendance; Bennett negotiated with Seattle on the $45 million way out of the lease early and the team was approved and then MOVED to Seattle. All of the SoS folks and fans were shocked that the city settled and let the team go; THAT is what people here are pissed about - Bennett is just the scapegoat; but why would he keep a team here?

I know Aubrey and many other OKC investors WANTED a team, and they may have become part of the group with the intentions of owning a team, but they WERENT formed to buy and move the Sonics. That idea came much later.

Now as to the current situation. It should not be forgotten what Bennett and OKC ownership had to go through to purchase and move the franchise. I think the amount they paid is more than what OKC and the residents have paid for the Ford Center, upgrading it into the current Paycom Center, and both practice facilities all combined. Im not saying the ownership shouldn't contribute more, hopefully they will cover more than just the interest on the line of credit (I'd like to hear they will cover cost overruns too rather than the usual economizing scale backs that OKC does with MAPS). But we need to be clear on what they have done and not get lost on the investment they made, in 2006-7 dollars mind you, of north of $400 million.

As someone who lived in Seattle through all of that back in the day and an expat from OKC, I truly believe that Bennett DID try to negotiate in good faith. They didn't want to uproot the Sonics, they wanted the New Orleans team OR an expansion. I can guarantee you if Bennett were able to get Seattle to build a new arena, the NBA would have expanded and teams would have been awarded to Oklahoma City and Vancouver. OKC had already saved the NBA once with the hosting of the Hornets, IF Bennett could have saved the NBA in Seattle?? OMG - he would have been awarded a team and the NBA would be at the magic 32 teams.

That didn't happen, very much due to the hurdles and roadblocks that Seattle, King County, and Washington put in place to prohibit public funding of a new arena. Period. There were COUNTLESS groups assembled that attempted to FORCE the OKC ownership to being locked into KeyArena, or else. I recall I-91, which is a citizen initiative that prohibited public funding of stadiums in King County. NOBODY here thought Bennett would move the team, so even FANS were suckered into the bullying that Clay had to put up with.

I, being from OKC, knew and told everybody that the Sonics were history. I knew OKC wanted a team and since the state/city/county didn't want to play - I knew they'd figure out a way to move. The question was if they had to play out the 2-years or move early. MOST here thought they'd have to play out and in doing so they'd LOSE so much money that they'd force to sell. That's why the seats were not filled during the 2007-2008 season. It was a gamble that the SOS, government agencies, and likely Schultz himself had tried since NOBODY here ever thought the team would move - just somebody else own it.

Schultz' agreement with Bennett was a promise that he'd pursue an arena deal for the next year. Just one year. Bennett did that. Then when the gut punch came from the horrible 2007-2008 attendance; Bennett negotiated with Seattle on the $45 million way out of the lease early and the team was approved and then MOVED to Seattle. All of the SoS folks and fans were shocked that the city settled and let the team go; THAT is what people here are pissed about - Bennett is just the scapegoat; but why would he keep a team here?

I know Aubrey and many other OKC investors WANTED a team, and they may have become part of the group with the intentions of owning a team, but they WERENT formed to buy and move the Sonics. That idea came much later.

Now as to the current situation. It should not be forgotten what Bennett and OKC ownership had to go through to purchase and move the franchise. I think the amount they paid is more than what OKC and the residents have paid for the Ford Center, upgrading it into the current Paycom Center, and both practice facilities all combined. Im not saying the ownership shouldn't contribute more, hopefully they will cover more than just the interest on the line of credit (I'd like to hear they will cover cost overruns too rather than the usual economizing scale backs that OKC does with MAPS). But we need to be clear on what they have done and not get lost on the investment they made, in 2006-7 dollars mind you, of north of $400 million.

well said

I still think this passes but I think it’ll be closer than expected.

Here's the comparative revenue: https://www.statista.com/statistics/193704/revenue-of-national-basketball-association-teams-in-2010/

And no one claims they are broke. Is that the criteria?

It's time this board admit how small this city thinks. We talk and talk about wanting great things but are only willing to support just okay things. Maybe it is time we just admit to being mediocre in what we do here.

It seems every great city I go to has great public buildings and facilities that have been built over time. Here, we don't support things other than the basic utilitarian standards and it is reflected in our minimalistic approach to architecture and design, as well as the ameneties of our public facilities. The first chance we have to actually make a statement and it sounds like we are throwing up on ourselves. Maybe we deserve the reputation we have to the rest of the world who doesn't think OKC even deserves something like pro sports.

Sounds an awful lot like you were defending the owners for not pitching in more for the arena relative to other cities because they didn’t have enough money. Then you created a straw man argument that the reason people on here are hesitant about the price tag are because we don’t have have high enough goals.

Thank you HotRod, not only well said but a masterpiece.

Sounds an awful lot like you were defending the owners for not pitching in more for the arena relative to other cities because they didn’t have enough money. Then you created a straw man argument that the reason people on here are hesitant about the price tag are because we don’t have have high enough goals.

other cities have completely different lease models then we do .. it is apples to oranges except for orlando and memphis

Here's the comparative revenue: https://www.statista.com/statistics/193704/revenue-of-national-basketball-association-teams-in-2010/

And no one claims they are broke. Is that the criteria?

It's time this board admit how small this city thinks. We talk and talk about wanting great things but are only willing to support just okay things. Maybe it is time we just admit to being mediocre in what we do here.

It seems every great city I go to has great public buildings and facilities that have been built over time. Here, we don't support things other than the basic utilitarian standards and it is reflected in our minimalistic approach to architecture and design, as well as the ameneties of our public facilities. The first chance we have to actually make a statement and it sounds like we are throwing up on ourselves. Maybe we deserve the reputation we have to the rest of the world who doesn't think OKC even deserves something like pro sports.

How's Seabiscuit? I'm sure the view from up there is riveting.

I still think this passes but I think it’ll be closer than expected.

It’s just a very tough time to ask The City for $1B plus.

A lot of folks out there working two jobs, just trying to stay afloat amidst this historic inflation.

It’s just a very tough time to ask The City for $1B plus.

A lot of folks out there working two jobs, just trying to stay afloat amidst this historic inflation.
This isn’t near historic inflation. You must be too young to know.

Sounds an awful lot like you were defending the owners for not pitching in more for the arena relative to other cities because they didn’t have enough money. Then you created a straw man argument that the reason people on here are hesitant about the price tag are because we don’t have have high enough goals.
Then you didn’t comprehend what I wrote.

Mayor Holt laid it out perfectly on sports radio.
There is only a small segment of the population that’s going to vote. Within that segment you have 20% that will vote “no” regardless of the amount, deal structure, etc… because that’s who those people are and it’s pretty evident by the comments who that is on this board. There is 20% of the population that will vote “yes” regardless of the deal.
His campaign is working to try and reach that 60% that would like some additional details.

Why anyone who loves OKC would vote “no” is beyond my understanding. It’s a $.01 sales tax that nobody misses or even thinks about for something transformative in a city our size. If the city owns the arena I could care less about any of the remaining details. My hope is that the total price tag exceeds $1.5B and we get a development that includes shopping, restaurants, and more to create an amazing modern town square.

Mayor Holt laid it out perfectly on sports radio.
There is only a small segment of the population that’s going to vote. Within that segment you have 20% that will vote “no” regardless of the amount, deal structure, etc… because that’s who those people are and it’s pretty evident by the comments who that is on this board. There is 20% of the population that will vote “yes” regardless of the deal.
His campaign is working to try and reach that 60% that would like some additional details.

Why anyone who loves OKC would vote “no” is beyond my understanding. It’s a $.01 sales tax that nobody misses or even thinks about for something transformative in a city our size. If the city owns the arena I could care less about any of the remaining details. My hope is that the total price tag exceeds $1.5B and we get a development that includes shopping, restaurants, and more to create an amazing modern town square.

It’s too bad that people can’t even (or don’t want to try to) understand the opposition. That lack of curiosity or empathy is probably why our politics writ large is so toxic. I may be a no but I at least understand the arguments of the yes crowd and agree that some of them are compelling, just not enough to overcome my concerns.

Let me try to help you understand. Can you identify a single example in recent history where a new NBA arena was “transformative” for a city?

This isn’t near historic inflation. You must be too young to know.

You must not know the definition of "historic." Here you go, Old Sport:

1. famous or important in history, or potentially so.
"we are standing on a historic site"

It’s too bad that people can’t even (or don’t want to try to) understand the opposition. That lack of curiosity or empathy is probably why our politics writ large is so toxic. I may be a no but I at least understand the arguments of the yes crowd and agree that some of them are compelling, just not enough to overcome my concerns.

Let me try to help you understand. Can you identify a single example in recent history where a new NBA arena was “transformative” for a city?

Let’s start with exhibit A - Oklahoma City. I grew up and visited downtown frequently throughout the 90’s when downtown OKC was dead and city leaders had the foresight after losing out on major corporate players to invest in their downtown. The initial MAPS projects got the ball rolling and the Ford Center was built on speculation in hopes that we could land an NHL team. The Devon tower and jobs for that company stayed in OKC due to our investment in ourselves. Amenities like a professional sports team, parks, arenas that can accommodate top level talent are what appeal to a young workforce. Who can forget Thunder Alley during the playoffs that was one of most impressive turnouts I have ever witnessed in OKC. It’s a shame we couldn’t figure out how to police a gathering of 30-40k people when NYC does it on 10x the scale all the time.

Think of any historic city dating back to Ancient Rome and you can probably name that primary venue that synonymous with that city. I can create a list of the most recent arenas/stadiums and gather some data on how these $1B+ monsters are spurring all types of development within the immediate vicinity. Any type of public investment on that scale is followed by lots of private investment too.

What are your direct concerns? Based on your statements it sounds like you’re really struggling to understand that you belong in the 20% “no” category?

I can create a list of the most recent arenas/stadiums and gather some data on how these $1B+ monsters are spurring all types of development within the immediate vicinity.

I would absolutely love to see you try, because studies show that these stadiums don't actually pay off, and that these types of subsidies only help the wealthy while failing to even earn back their spending. You can start informing yourself on this here:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4022547

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4022547

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00036846.2010.491464

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1111/0735-2166.00027

I would absolutely love to see you try, because studies show that these stadiums don't actually pay off, and that these types of subsidies only help the wealthy while failing to even earn back their spending. You can start informing yourself on this here:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4022547

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4022547

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00036846.2010.491464

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1111/0735-2166.00027

I guess this is where our opinions start to diverge. You’re only interested in the direct monetary impact based on your hand selected studies. You can say you’d like to understand both sides but your bullets are already loaded in the chamber. If I want to find information to back my opinion in todays media climate there is more than enough clickbait and cookie monitoring for Yahoo to serve up my favorite taste. You’re not questioning wether or not speculating and build the Ford Center was transformative to OKC.

You’re a grown adult. In a city in the middle of one of the greatest American renaissance stories of this generation. Just take a walk outside downtown and tell me your thoughts.

I guess this is where our opinions start to diverge. You’re only interested in the direct monetary impact based on your hand selected studies. You can say you’d like to understand both sides but your bullets are already loaded in the chamber. If I want to find information to back my opinion in todays media climate there is more than enough clickbait and cookie monitoring for Yahoo to serve up my favorite taste. You’re not questioning wether or not speculating and build the Ford Center was transformative to OKC.

You claimed you could show the economic impact of these billion dollar arenas. Also, your evidence of the Ford Center being transformative is...that Devon decided to stay in OKC because of it? Do you have any proof to that claim? Can you show actual tangible evidence of how it was transformative beyond an unsourced anecdote?

You claimed you could show the economic impact of these billion dollar arenas. Also, your evidence of the Ford Center being transformative is...that Devon decided to stay in OKC because of it? Do you have any proof to that claim? Can you show actual tangible evidence of how it was transformative beyond an unsourced anecdote?

I stated these $1B+ arenas spur development in the immediate vicinity. I could chase down articles to prove that point but I feel that just playing into your desire.

I gave you a personal viewpoint from someone that’s lived in this city. An actual citizen that’s watched the Thunder and the arena transform my city. If that’s providing a sports entertainment live event in the middle of February, live concert from a top artist, or an amazing event. You don’t even disagree with those points. However, you keep asking about how we’re gonna get paid back?

I stated these $1B+ arenas spur development in the immediate vicinity. I could chase down articles to prove that point but I feel that just playing into your desire.

I gave you a personal viewpoint from someone that’s lived in this city. An actual citizen that’s watched the Thunder and the arena transform my city. If that’s providing a sports entertainment live event in the middle of February, live concert from a top artist, or an amazing event. You don’t even disagree with those points. However, you keep asking about how we’re gonna get paid back?

That’s some interesting framing to somehow justify not actually backing up your point re:$1b arenas. And I very much do disagree with your narrative, which is based on a single anecdote and some unsourced claims about Devon only staying here because of the arena.

As for getting events in February, we can easily update Paycom for a mere portion of the unprecedented outlay we are being asked to pay and still get acts, concerts, tournaments and other things. This isn’t an all or nothing proposition like some are trying to paint it.

This back and forth started with you claiming you couldn’t understand the other side. I’ve laid out some of the evidence to explain why some don’t see this as a good deal. I hope this was educational for you at least.

That’s some interesting framing to somehow justify not actually backing up your point re:$1b arenas. And I very much do disagree with your narrative, which is based on a single anecdote and some unsourced claims about Devon only staying here because of the arena.

As for getting events in February, we can easily update Paycom for a mere portion of the unprecedented outlay we are being asked to pay and still get acts, concerts, tournaments and other things. This isn’t an all or nothing proposition like some are trying to paint it.

This back and forth started with you claiming you couldn’t understand the other side. I’ve laid out some of the evidence to explain why some don’t see this as a good deal. I hope this was educational for you at least.

This is an all or nothing proposition. The NBA has an expectation for teams to generate specific revenues and those owners attempting to run a profitable venture. Without the new arena it becomes much tougher to generate the forecasted revenues.

I would absolutely love to see you try, because studies show that these stadiums don't actually pay off, and that these types of subsidies only help the wealthy while failing to even earn back their spending. You can start informing yourself on this here:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4022547

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4022547

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00036846.2010.491464

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1111/0735-2166.00027

the good old studies the are based on cities taking on long term debt .. super relevant .

Why anyone who loves OKC would vote “no” is beyond my understanding. It’s a $.01 sales tax that nobody misses or even thinks about for something transformative in a city our size. If the city owns the arena I could care less about any of the remaining details. My hope is that the total price tag exceeds $1.5B and we get a development that includes shopping, restaurants, and more to create an amazing modern town square.

It's really quite simple: because we have many needs as a city, and using the funds for this rather than that means we will at best delay those other needs and at worst lose the faith in our citizenry to keep taxing themselves for projects/programs that matter and thereby never have those needs met.

Let me try to help you understand. Can you identify a single example in recent history where a new NBA arena was “transformative” for a city?

WINNER


MAPS I Oklahoma City Downtown Arena, led to Larry Nichols building the 845 foot high $750 million Devon Tower in our City. Larry Nichols was seriously looking at moving Devon Energy to Houston and building his tower there. He felt that our NBA city's status could attract young professionals to our city. The bare-bones minimum arena we built led to construction of that super skyscraper in OKC.

City built our downtown arena to attract NHL or NBA. We knew we had a change of getting one of those franchises thru expansion or relocation.

The New Orleans Hornets would have moved to Louisville instead of OKC had we not built our arena. The
two years we hosted the Hornets showed the NBA that our city was ready for its own franchise. Clay Bennett, Aubrey McClendon purchased the Supersonics, relocated the team to our city.

Mick Cornett was our mayor at the time the arena was built. NBA Commissioner David Stern referred to Cornett as the Mayor who wouldn't go away.

Now our $900 million proposed new NBA arena will be just as transformative at the one we built for $90 million. Our 'quality of life' has improved with corporate growth and expansion; MAPS brand has led to more projects being approved by voters bring more jobs into our city with increased
housing.

BTW: MAPS 4 approved $55.76 million for more affordable housing.

.

MAPS I Oklahoma City Downtown Arena, led to Larry Nichols building the 845 foot high $750 million Devon Tower in our City. Larry Nichols was seriously looking at moving Devon Energy to Houston and building his tower there. He felt that our NBA city status could attract young professionals to our city. The bare-bones minimum arena we built led to construction of that super skyscraper in OKC.

.

I keep seeing this claim, and I am generally unaware of this history. Can you provide a source that speaks more to this, where Nichols makes this connection? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just personally unfamiliar with this tie.

It's really quite simple: because we have many needs as a city, and using the funds for this rather than that means we will at best delay those other needs and at worst lose the faith in our citizenry to keep taxing themselves for projects/programs that matter and thereby never have those needs met.

maps tax is for capital projects ... what needs is this delaying ??

I keep seeing this claim, and I am generally unaware of this history. Can you provide a source that speaks more to this, where Nichols makes this connection? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just personally unfamiliar with this tie.

without maps devon would have moved .. that is what nichols said ....

the connection is that the arena was part of maps

without maps devon would have moved .. that is what nichols said ....

the connection is that the arena was part of maps

Not necessarily saying you are wrong, but this def feels like a reach my guy.

I keep seeing this claim, and I am generally unaware of this history. Can you provide a source that speaks more to this, where Nichols makes this connection? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just personally unfamiliar with this tie.
From 2010:

https://www.oklahoman.com/story/business/local/2010/05/16/devon-energy-ceo-larry-nichols-looks-back-at-companys-40-years/61247072007/


Devon Energy’s rise to where it is today coincides with the resurgence of downtown Oklahoma City following voters’ approval of the Metropolitan Area Projects initiatives in 1993. Nichols doubts the company would still call Oklahoma City home if not for MAPS.

"Certainly during the late 1980s and early 1990s Oklahoma City was a pretty depressing place. But in fairness, everyplace else in the oil and gas industry, Houston, Midland, Dallas, Fort Worth and Denver, there was no one immune from the bust.

"If Oklahoma City had stayed the way it was in 1990, before Mayor (Ron) Norick got us to where we are with MAPS, we couldn’t have hired the people we needed to be where we are.

"When we were trying to recruit people to come to Oklahoma City, even a decade ago, it was very difficult. Now it’s a very interesting proposition, and the city has grown incredibly and the reputation of the city has grown incredibly.

"Now in the last year or two we’ve gotten so much press, the effort to get them down here is less than it was five years ago. They’ve read about us, they’ve seen the stories about the Hornets, about the Thunder — that gives us credibility in being major league. They read stories in the New York Times about the growth of downtown or they’ve talked to someone who has been here. It’s a gradually changing yet perceptively changing momentum.”
It was a simple Google search, and there is far more available out there on this topic. If your question was sincere you wouldn’t have even had to ask it.

I keep seeing this claim, and I am generally unaware of this history. Can you provide a source that speaks more to this, where Nichols makes this connection? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just personally unfamiliar with this tie.



Devon Energy’s rise to where it is today coincides with the resurgence of downtown Oklahoma City following voters’ approval of the Metropolitan Area Projects initiatives in 1993. Nichols doubts the company would still call Oklahoma City home if not for MAPS.


"If Oklahoma City had stayed the way it was in 1990, before Mayor (Ron) Norick got us to where we are with MAPS, we couldn’t have hired the people we needed to be where we are.

Link: https://www.oklahoman.com/story/business/local/2010/05/16/devon-energy-ceo-larry-nichols-looks-back-at-companys-40-years/61247072007/

v v v Thank you, Urbanized v v v for the full interview.

More:

https://www.metrolibrary.org/archives/audio/2021/03/oklahoma-voices-larry-nichols


Wendy: “It would be easy thinking of the success of Devon and yourself to relocate to one of the other cities, maybe Houston or other places. Why did you choose to stay here in Oklahoma City?”

Larry: “Well, we of course started here. And this is home, which is probably the simplest answer. Although I must say if you looked at Oklahoma City in how it was in that 1989, 90, 91 after the bust that we had this was a pretty broken down beat up city and I give tremendous credit to Ron Norick in the MAPS program, historic wisdom, historic vision to go do what he did because if Oklahoma City had stayed where it was in that early period in the early 1990s, we would not have been able to attract people here from other parts of the world and we would have been forced to move to Houston and you can just see the evolution, the attractiveness of Oklahoma City change over time when 10 or 15 years ago it was really hard work you know, the 1995 to 2000 time frame. It was really hard work to persuade someone to move to Oklahoma City because the city, not just the downtown but the entire city was pretty beat up. The Great Depression we had in the mid-80s on banks on real estate on oil and gas had taken its toll not only on jobs, but I think on people's psyche. So, you know, the way they felt, their attitude, we're a pretty beat up group of people. That was a tough time. But with the progress of MAPS, that evolution has been dramatic where today with all the success we've had with the series of MAPS the success the Devon and others have had in a variety of industries and building this up. It's no problem at all to get someone to seriously look at Oklahoma City and you can see that reflected not only me selfishly talking about Devon, but getting Boeing to move over a variety of high paid people from Los Angeles here, you just see that ratified and time and time again, and I think what Devon is doing both the building that we're building and the center that we're building will be a, you know, a stake in the ground that this is a company that's put a lot of money into this is a great place to be and the spin off money for improving downtown. What other what Clay Bennett has done and bringing the Thunder basketball team here that you go down a long list of people, the river, which who would of ever dreamt that we'd have a river that would have a rowing events on it, where people from either coast would come and praise Oklahoma City as a great place to do world-class rowing events. Ten years ago we did not have a river, just incredible, incredible success we've had in that that momentum just builds on itself.”

Repeatedly denying that there was/is significant, real and palpable economic benefit in OKC driven DIRECTLY by MAPS investments (including an NBA-capable arena) is at best frustratingly obtuse and at worst incredibly dishonest.

If you didn’t experience OKC prior to MAPS, and prior to the arrival of the Thunder, it’s admittedly difficult to fully grasp the changes wrought. If someone was here during that time, this issue would almost certainly be crystal clear to them.

Not necessarily saying you are wrong, but this def feels like a reach my guy.

Aside from the public statements, my family and I know the guy and he’s made that comment in private as well. If not for the city investing in itself and improving, they would be in Houston with all the other companies that left Oklahoma between the late 80s and early 2000s

Repeatedly denying that there was/is significant, real and palpable economic benefit in OKC driven DIRECTLY by MAPS investments (including an NBA-capable arena) is at best frustratingly obtuse and at worst incredibly dishonest.

If you didn’t experience OKC prior to MAPS, and prior to the arrival of the Thunder, it’s admittedly difficult to fully grasp the changes wrought. If someone was here during that time, this issue would almost certainly be crystal clear to them.

Yes. Absolutely.

Aside from the public statements, my family and I know the guy and he’s made that comment in private as well. If not for the city investing in itself and improving, they would be in Houston with all the other companies that left Oklahoma between the late 80s and early 2000s
This is another great point. In the eighties and nineties especially there were multiple out-of-state relocations of Oklahoma-grown Fortune 500 companies. Some via acquisition and merger, some simply seeking greener pastures. Conoco, Phillips, Kerr-McGee, Fleming and others.

But even in the case of acquisitions and mergers everyone knew immediately when one was announced that the merged company would surely locate to the other city. They couldn’t get out of Oklahoma fast enough. Quality of life investments have allowed this city to move forward with confidence and to experience previously-unimagined economic and population growth. The fact that our municipal tax base is nearly twice what it was only recently ($1.9 billion projected this year vs as little $1 billion as recently as 2018) was no accident. It’s intentional.

Not necessarily saying you are wrong, but this def feels like a reach my guy.

Ever get proven so wrong you shouldn't respond? This is one of those. MAPS kept Devon in OKC. Most people know that.

It's really quite simple: because we have many needs as a city, and using the funds for this rather than that means we will at best delay those other needs and at worst lose the faith in our citizenry to keep taxing themselves for projects/programs that matter and thereby never have those needs met.

I understand this concern and it is always brought up by other interest groups when any initiative is brought to voters that doesn't include those interests. That's just a good political strategy to draw attention to a campaign. However, MAPS and its $.01 sales tax funding mechanism began in 1993 and since then the city has continued to pass other funding initiatives for other needs. Sure, the city has issues that will still continue to need to be addressed, but I am not aware of anything that has failed because the majority no vote was based on the existence of the MAPS sales tax.

If there is an opportunity cost to consider in this measure, I think it would be the potential of other MAPS projects during the life of the arena tax. We've passed significant school and infrastructure bond measures during the life of MAPS, so that wouldn't be my immediate consideration, but I do think it would be hard to add a broader multi-project MAPS initiative while funds for the arena are being raised. with the penny tax.

I understand this concern and it is always brought up by other interest groups when any initiative is brought to voters that doesn't include those interests. That's just a good political strategy to draw attention to a campaign. However, MAPS and its $.01 sales tax funding mechanism began in 1993 and since then the city has continued to pass other funding initiatives for other needs. Sure, the city has issues that will still continue to need to be addressed, but I am not aware of anything that has failed because the majority no vote was based on the existence of the MAPS sales tax.

If there is an opportunity cost to consider in this measure, I think it would be the potential of other MAPS projects during the life of the arena tax. We've passed significant school and infrastructure bond measures during the life of MAPS, so that wouldn't be my immediate consideration, but I do think it would be hard to add a broader multi-project MAPS initiative while funds for the arena are being raised. with the penny tax.

Nuance isn’t allowed. You’re either zealously in support of this new arena or you’re wholeheartedly against it. Pick a side.

This is Reddit, uh, I mean OKCTalk after all.