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

Don’t disagree with the maps part. Just the Thunder / arena part, Sport.

You sound pretty mad?

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

Transit and Education (both capital and operations) each need well over a billion dollars 10 years ago, let alone today, in order to be at a level that our city could be proud of.

This city needs a lot of beautification. This city needs to find ways to activate its citizenry physically speaking and that's going to take some out of the box and expensive thinking with our weather patterns. This city needs more businesses that import money into the state/city.

The money we're putting into this means we'll either have to tax ourselves more and soon to start tackling the above needs or wait until the mid 2030s if we want to keep ourselves at today's tax rates.

I'll tell you what, given what the final tax receipts for this will be, I would vote yes if we came out and said that the COOP site was the definitive location. We will absolutely be able to afford that site, remediation, and a great starter to that future district. The stadium itself shouldn't cost anywhere near a billion, so there's more than enough cushion to purchase the land+remediate.

I'll tell you what, given what the final tax receipts for this will be, I would vote yes if we came out and said that the COOP site was the definitive location. We will absolutely be able to afford that site, remediation, and a great starter to that future district. The stadium itself shouldn't cost anywhere near a billion, so there's more than enough cushion to purchase the land+remediate.

So it’s not actually about the other things the city needs for you? It’s more about the location?

So it’s not actually about the other things the city needs for you? It’s more about the location?

Sounds like a blend as the lower cost in that scenario takes less away from the other things the city needs while still getting a new arena and kicking off development on an empty site that no one seems to really know what to do with.

Sounds like a blend as the lower cost in that scenario takes less away from the other things the city needs while still getting a new arena and kicking off development on an empty site that no one seems to really know what to do with.

Do we know that the COOP site is a lower cost than Prairie Surf?

If it is a more cost effective location what is the difference in cost?

Transit and Education (both capital and operations) each need well over a billion dollars 10 years ago, let alone today, in order to be at a level that our city could be proud of.

This city needs a lot of beautification. This city needs to find ways to activate its citizenry physically speaking and that's going to take some out of the box and expensive thinking with our weather patterns. This city needs more businesses that import money into the state/city.

The money we're putting into this means we'll either have to tax ourselves more and soon to start tackling the above needs or wait until the mid 2030s if we want to keep ourselves at today's tax rates.

Is there a threshold in your mind? Like what would the count of buses and city routes need to be before the city could consider a project like a new arena?

Should we factor in the fact that a good chunk of the most recent MAPS went towards social endeavors?

Transit and Education (both capital and operations) each need well over a billion dollars 10 years ago, let alone today, in order to be at a level that our city could be proud of.

This city needs a lot of beautification. This city needs to find ways to activate its citizenry physically speaking and that's going to take some out of the box and expensive thinking with our weather patterns. This city needs more businesses that import money into the state/city.

The money we're putting into this means we'll either have to tax ourselves more and soon to start tackling the above needs or wait until the mid 2030s if we want to keep ourselves at today's tax rates.

a RTA (transit) will never take maps tax dollars ...

and education operations is not a city function also will never take maps dollars .

so try again .

Do we know that the COOP site is a lower cost than Prairie Surf?

If it is a more cost effective location what is the difference in cost?

I honestly wouldn’t know, it’s just spitballing as far as I know.


a RTA (transit) will never take maps tax dollars ...

and education operations is not a city function also will never take maps dollars .

so try again .

I don’t know one way or the other, but why do you say RTA won’t ever get MAPS money? Is it because the RTA covers the region rather than just Oklahoma City?

a RTA (transit) will never take maps tax dollars ...

and education operations is not a city function also will never take maps dollars .

so try again .

None of this is Maps (including this arena vote). Everything I am saying can be addressed with the city raising sales tax if we vote it through.

So it’s not actually about the other things the city needs for you? It’s more about the location?

It is about the city's needs. One of the biggest needs in downtown right now is addressing the Coop site and it has proven to be a nightmare for the private community. Additionally, the highest and beat use for the Cox site is not an arena.

The way you're asking this question is exactly why Pete is saying this is not a Binary decision. You (and many others) are refusing to take a nuanced approach to this problem.because you are so afraid of losing the Thunder.

We could drop $3B on a stadium and I would give it a yes if it were presented in a way that addressed a commensurate amount of issues.

As of today, what has been presented to us offers us little assurance. It could turn out amazing. It could turn out good. It could turn out meh. In the long run, it could turn out bad. But anyone saying they know how it's going to turn out (good or bad) has an argument that is based in hubris. I'm not willing to reward that approach to city politics with my yes.

It is about the city's needs. One of the biggest needs in downtown right now is addressing the Coop site and it has proven to be a nightmare for the private community. Additionally, the highest and beat use for the Cox site is not an arena.

The way you're asking this question is exactly why Pete is saying this is not a Binary decision. You (and many others) are refusing to take a nuanced approach to this problem.because you are so afraid of losing the Thunder.

We could drop $3B on a stadium and I would give it a yes if it were presented in a way that addressed a commensurate amount of issues.

As of today, what has been presented to us offers us little assurance. It could turn out amazing. It could turn out good. It could turn out meh. In the long run, it could turn out bad. But anyone saying they know how it's going to turn out (good or bad) has an argument that is based in hubris. I'm not willing to reward that approach to city politics with my yes.

The Cox site is a perfect location. Keep in mind we’re still awaiting the initial renderings for what will be OKC’s town square. In my opinion it is binary since having a professional sports team is multifaceted in its benefits to a city.

Mayor Holt has proven to be an outstanding leader uniting people across the aisle, implementing and pushing through several social initiatives for all members of the community. To think for one minute he’s attempting to reward a few wealthy members and doesn’t have OKCs best interest at heart is asinine.

The Cox site is a perfect location. Keep in mind we’re still awaiting the initial renderings for what will be OKC’s town square. In my opinion it is binary since having a professional sports team is multifaceted in its benefits to a city.

Mayor Holt has proven to be an outstanding leader uniting people across the aisle, implementing and pushing through several social initiatives for all members of the community. To think for one minute he’s attempting to reward a few wealthy members and doesn’t have OKCs best interest at heart is asinine.

The Cox site is the most valuable land in the state of Oklahoma. Anything on that site is going to fit like a glove. Hopefully it's very clear what they want to do from a town square perspective before this goes up to vote - might contain something that convinces a "Yes" from me.

I sincerely doubt he's trying to reward wealthy people. I am not of the opinion we have to get more funds from the owners, but like, if we're not getting a multi hundred million buy out and only $50M, and we're committing $1.25B+ to this project, I want us to address additional needs in the city. After all, I have the city's beat interest at heart (see how easy that is). If the owners were like "we'll contribute $400M and keep the terms of the lease similar, but we want the Cox site" I'd say that's probably a good deal.

The Cox site is the most valuable land in the state of Oklahoma. Anything on that site is going to fit like a glove. Hopefully it's very clear what they want to do from a town square perspective before this goes up to vote - might contain something that convinces a "Yes" from me.

I sincerely doubt he's trying to reward wealthy people. I am not of the opinion we have to get more funds from the owners, but like, if we're not getting a multi hundred million buy out and only $50M, and we're committing $1.25B+ to this project, I want us to address additional needs in the city. After all, I have the city's beat interest at heart (see how easy that is). If the owners were like "we'll contribute $400M and keep the terms of the lease similar, but we want the Cox site" I'd say that's probably a good deal.

I suggest you have your vision of the city's best interest at heart. And I'm guessing all who are on here feel they do, as well. But we differ.

I suggest you have your vision of the city's best interest at heart. And I'm guessing all who are on here feel they do, as well. But we differ.

OKCTalk is a great public forum to pass ideas back and forth. There have been various moments throughout the forums history where real decision makers have come and made comments and I do believe that more than zero attention is paid to the conversations that are held here.

As well, there are many people whose opinions are undecided who need to see a broad perspective to make a more informed determination for how they will use their vote.

Because of how critical I have been at this juncture, I will flip sides if I see enough reason to cast a "Yes" in December and make it clear what sold me on the "Yes"

The Cox site is the most valuable land in the state of Oklahoma. Anything on that site is going to fit like a glove. Hopefully it's very clear what they want to do from a town square perspective before this goes up to vote - might contain something that convinces a "Yes" from me.

I sincerely doubt he's trying to reward wealthy people. I am not of the opinion we have to get more funds from the owners, but like, if we're not getting a multi hundred million buy out and only $50M, and we're committing $1.25B+ to this project, I want us to address additional needs in the city. After all, I have the city's beat interest at heart (see how easy that is). If the owners were like "we'll contribute $400M and keep the terms of the lease similar, but we want the Cox site" I'd say that's probably a good deal.

Sometimes is about trusting the leaders we put in place and it’s especially true when they have a proven track record. It’s my expectation that Holt has done his due diligence and pushed for the best possible deal for the city. From my experience it requires very little effort to point out the flaws within a plan as it’s put forth from someone in a leadership role. Often times the decisions and plans made by leaders get very little applause and credit when it goes well and all the blame if it fails.

Obviously, from his point of view he feels like this was the best deal he could bring the community. He also understands the importance of keeping the Thunder and building what would be the crown jewel of OKC’s efforts over the past 30+ years to reinvent itself. This kinda of investment is rare and very few cities have put $1B into one facility.

Asking why we’re not spending more on other services and items is the equivalent of asking why we didn’t use some of the funds from the canal to build a major inlet sea port.

We’re OKC not Milwaukee, Dallas, NYC, or Atlanta. The circumstances and ownership groups differ so all the comparisons are irrelevant.

Questioning the deal is fine and what most citizens will do.

However, a “no” vote is saying you understand the landscape better than the people behind the scenes and trusted elected officials.

Sometimes is about trusting the leaders we put in place and it’s especially true when they have a proven track record. It’s my expectation that Holt has done his due diligence and pushed for the best possible deal for the city. From my experience it requires very little effort to point out the flaws within a plan as it’s put forth from someone in a leadership role. Often times the decisions and plans made by leaders get very little applause and credit when it goes well and all the blame if it fails.

Obviously, from his point of view he feels like this was the best deal he could bring the community. He also understands the importance of keeping the Thunder and building what would be the crown jewel of OKC’s efforts over the past 30+ years to reinvent itself. This kinda of investment is rare and very few cities have put $1B into one facility.

Asking why we’re not spending more on other services and items is the equivalent of asking why we didn’t use some of the funds from the canal to build a major inlet sea port.

We’re OKC not Milwaukee, Dallas, NYC, or Atlanta. The circumstances and ownership groups differ so all the comparisons are irrelevant.

Questioning the deal is fine and what most citizens will do.

However, a “no” vote is saying you understand the landscape better than the people behind the scenes and trusted elected officials.

Not exactly. Every ownership group, including the PCB, will receive anywhere between $250M and $400M in 2025-26 during league expansion.

So, let's be real, these guys can do a lot better than $50M.

https://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/nba-expansion-adam-silver-calls-reported-2-5-billion-target-fee-very-low-compared-to-what-nba-would-want/

https://sportsnaut.com/las-vegas-nba-expansion-update/

If there’s one thing the last several years have taught me, it’s that it’s a good idea to just kinda trust people in power and assume they’re doing what’s in your personal best interest without question.

I wonder how much of an impact length of time in OKC has on this vote. And if I'm generalizing please let me know, but I think it's telling that some of the stronger advocates of this deal are folks who have lived here longer. One of the more common arguments here is about just how bad OKC was before MAPS/Thunder came to town. There's lots of allusions to how dead the town was, how little there was to do and how overlooked the city was by the country writ large. For these folks, the fear seems to be that if the Thunder leave, we're right back to the 1990s and the bad old days, as there's nothing else to do around here and our city core will wither on the vine and we will be a national afterthought, or even worse, another Tulsa. I think the specter of this past has overshadowed just how much OKC has grown and developed outside of the Thunder in the last couple decades. I read posts about how we have nothing else to do around here or how the Thunder is the only thing we have and I wonder if we're even living in the same city.

Meanwhile, some of the folks more skeptical of the deal seem to be more recent transplants (myself included - I moved to the area in 2015). For us, OKC has a lot of trappings of a modern, growing midsized American city. Speaking for myself, I've been to a handful of Thunder games but I also take my family to Scissortail Park and the Famer's Market there, to the Zoo, the Science Museum, musicals and performances at the Civic Center, countless little festivals and weekends at the Paseo and downtown and up in Edmond. We have Olympic events coming before the end of the decade, a massive facility opening up on the waterfront with Okana and countless other developments. All that is to say, if the Thunder leave, OKC is in a much better place today to weather their loss than a couple decades ago. However, as recent transplants we absolutely lack the memory or context of what this place looked like in 1990s and as result we downplay or ignore those older voices. This also leads to us diminishing or overlooking how much this team means to the more long-term residents as a keystone of OKCs comeback story, and that value cannot be captured on a balance sheet.

Note that this isn't saying one side is more right than other or one side's votes should matter more than others, just an interesting dynamic that I think might be at play here. Maybe this'll help us understand the other side better.

I wonder how much of an impact length of time in OKC has on this vote. And if I'm generalizing please let me know, but I think it's telling that some of the stronger advocates of this deal are folks who have lived here longer. One of the more common arguments here is about just how bad OKC was before MAPS/Thunder came to town. There's lots of allusions to how dead the town was, how little there was to do and how overlooked the city was by the country writ large. For these folks, the fear seems to be that if the Thunder leave, we're right back to the 1990s and the bad old days, as there's nothing else to do around here and our city core will wither on the vine and we will be a national afterthought, or even worse, another Tulsa. I think the specter of this past has overshadowed just how much OKC has grown and developed outside of the Thunder in the last couple decades. I read posts about how we have nothing else to do around here or how the Thunder is the only thing we have and I wonder if we're even living in the same city.

Meanwhile, some of the folks more skeptical of the deal seem to be more recent transplants (myself included - I moved to the area in 2015). For us, OKC has a lot of trappings of a modern, growing midsized American city. Speaking for myself, I've been to a handful of Thunder games but I also take my family to Scissortail Park and the Famer's Market there, to the Zoo, the Science Museum, musicals and performances at the Civic Center, countless little festivals and weekends at the Paseo and downtown and up in Edmond. We have Olympic events coming before the end of the decade, a massive facility opening up on the waterfront with Okana and countless other developments. All that is to say, if the Thunder leave, OKC is in a much better place today to weather their loss than a couple decades ago. However, as recent transplants we absolutely lack the memory or context of what this place looked like in 1990s and as result we downplay or ignore those older voices. This also leads to us diminishing or overlooking how much this team means to the more long-term residents as a keystone of OKCs comeback story, and that value cannot be captured on a balance sheet.

Note that this isn't saying one side is more right than other or one side's votes should matter more than others, just an interesting dynamic that I think might be at play here. Maybe this'll help us understand the other side better.

There may be something to what you are saying. I have lived here 55 years and I absolutely don't want to lose the Thunder. I do fear going backwards or at least lose momentum. This city is way better than it used to be before the Thunder. I will vote Yes even if I have to hold my nose doing it.

I wonder how much of an impact length of time in OKC has on this vote. And if I'm generalizing please let me know, but I think it's telling that some of the stronger advocates of this deal are folks who have lived here longer. One of the more common arguments here is about just how bad OKC was before MAPS/Thunder came to town. There's lots of allusions to how dead the town was, how little there was to do and how overlooked the city was by the country writ large. For these folks, the fear seems to be that if the Thunder leave, we're right back to the 1990s and the bad old days, as there's nothing else to do around here and our city core will wither on the vine and we will be a national afterthought, or even worse, another Tulsa. I think the specter of this past has overshadowed just how much OKC has grown and developed outside of the Thunder in the last couple decades. I read posts about how we have nothing else to do around here or how the Thunder is the only thing we have and I wonder if we're even living in the same city.

Meanwhile, some of the folks more skeptical of the deal seem to be more recent transplants (myself included - I moved to the area in 2015). For us, OKC has a lot of trappings of a modern, growing midsized American city. Speaking for myself, I've been to a handful of Thunder games but I also take my family to Scissortail Park and the Famer's Market there, to the Zoo, the Science Museum, musicals and performances at the Civic Center, countless little festivals and weekends at the Paseo and downtown and up in Edmond. We have Olympic events coming before the end of the decade, a massive facility opening up on the waterfront with Okana and countless other developments. All that is to say, if the Thunder leave, OKC is in a much better place today to weather their loss than a couple decades ago. However, as recent transplants we absolutely lack the memory or context of what this place looked like in 1990s and as result we downplay or ignore those older voices. This also leads to us diminishing or overlooking how much this team means to the more long-term residents as a keystone of OKCs comeback story, and that value cannot be captured on a balance sheet.

Note that this isn't saying one side is more right than other or one side's votes should matter more than others, just an interesting dynamic that I think might be at play here. Maybe this'll help us understand the other side better.

I would agree with this to some extent.

The one point I would disagree with is the fear we return to the dark days of the late 90s/early 2000s. I believe we’re past those times and OKC is more diverse in so many different areas to the point we won’t be that city again anytime soon. We’ve been voted one of the top cities for public art by a respected publication, created numerous districts with a soul and feel all their own, professional sports team, and actual destinations for tourism. I’m saying that to say this, I fully understand what that investment meant to our city and firmly believe those things I mentioned are a direct result of the MAPS investments. OKC has been able to outpace not all but a majority of cities of similar size within the past 30 years. For as long as I can remember most people viewed Tulsa the premier city in Oklahoma and OKC was devoid of any type of soul/culture. Take a look at the list of developers doing projects/deals in our city and you’ll find a much younger demographic than a Dallas for example. The reason being our visionaries and creators are staying home they’re no longer leaving for greener pastures. I credit that 100% to our civic investments.

Not exactly. Every ownership group, including the PCB, will receive anywhere between $250M and $400M in 2025-26 during league expansion.

So, let's be real, these guys can do a lot better than $50M.

https://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/nba-expansion-adam-silver-calls-reported-2-5-billion-target-fee-very-low-compared-to-what-nba-would-want/

https://sportsnaut.com/las-vegas-nba-expansion-update/

I would want to see a P/L or balance sheet before making any assumptions on the profitability of the ownership group. Especially, when speculating on potential league expansion.

Keep in mind we have a young core that’s aging out of rookie deals and most likely pushing the team into the luxury tax within the next couple years. Around the time increased arena revenues could help offset those increased costs.

There may be something to what you are saying. I have lived here 55 years and I absolutely don't want to lose the Thunder. I do fear going backwards or at least lose momentum. This city is way better than it used to be before the Thunder. I will vote Yes even if I have to hold my nose doing it.

I'm a few years younger than you and agree with the fear of losing momentum.

Do I feel like it will be 1990 and the only thing in Bricktown is the Haunted Warehouse or the Plaza area being hookers and drug deals, or SOSA/Midtown area having more of that same element- no, because those positive changes aren't going to revert back. The loss of the Thunder would be huge blow to the city whether you go or not. Is this the right deal? Could the Paycom undergo a rebuild that would satisfy for a fraction of the cost?

At my age, my friends and I (they grew up here as well) bitch and moan about what the younger generation has here that we never had. The opportunities presented to them just weren't available to us. It was suburban sprawl vs inner core Okc at the time. In 93 when I graduated high school there weren't legitimate living options downtown which led to really stay in the area I grew up in. People my age just didn't move to Okc, they left.

Not exactly. Every ownership group, including the PCB, will receive anywhere between $250M and $400M in 2025-26 during league expansion.

So, let's be real, these guys can do a lot better than $50M.

https://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/nba-expansion-adam-silver-calls-reported-2-5-billion-target-fee-very-low-compared-to-what-nba-would-want/

https://sportsnaut.com/las-vegas-nba-expansion-update/

That is speculation, pure and simple. I can't make the expansion fee pencil out for a team buyer. Add in the $500 million it will take to build out a team for the first game and it is a huge outlay. How are they going to make a return on investment? The debt service alone would be something like $100 million a year.

Brings me to another angle. It is getting almost impossible for a team owner to have the team as their only, or even main, business. I think that is why the Buss family keeps selling off shares of the Lakers. They don't own their arena and the lease is weak by today's standards. Now, my heart bleeds pizz for these team owners. But castles cost a lotta money to keep up.

That is speculation, pure and simple. I can't make the expansion fee pencil out for a team buyer. Add in the $500 million it will take to build out a team for the first game and it is a huge outlay. How are they going to make a return on investment? The debt service alone would be something like $100 million a year.

Brings me to another angle. It is getting almost impossible for a team owner to have the team as their only, or even main, business. I think that is why the Buss family keeps selling off shares of the Lakers. They don't own their arena and the lease is weak by today's standards. Now, my heart bleeds pizz for these team owners. But castles cost a lotta money to keep up.

There are 32 teams. There is no way their expansion fee would be $8-12 BILLION. I wish everyone would just stop with the fantasy hyperbole.

I wonder how much of an impact length of time in OKC has on this vote. And if I'm generalizing please let me know, but I think it's telling that some of the stronger advocates of this deal are folks who have lived here longer. One of the more common arguments here is about just how bad OKC was before MAPS/Thunder came to town. There's lots of allusions to how dead the town was, how little there was to do and how overlooked the city was by the country writ large. For these folks, the fear seems to be that if the Thunder leave, we're right back to the 1990s and the bad old days, as there's nothing else to do around here and our city core will wither on the vine and we will be a national afterthought, or even worse, another Tulsa. I think the specter of this past has overshadowed just how much OKC has grown and developed outside of the Thunder in the last couple decades. I read posts about how we have nothing else to do around here or how the Thunder is the only thing we have and I wonder if we're even living in the same city.

Meanwhile, some of the folks more skeptical of the deal seem to be more recent transplants (myself included - I moved to the area in 2015). For us, OKC has a lot of trappings of a modern, growing midsized American city. Speaking for myself, I've been to a handful of Thunder games but I also take my family to Scissortail Park and the Famer's Market there, to the Zoo, the Science Museum, musicals and performances at the Civic Center, countless little festivals and weekends at the Paseo and downtown and up in Edmond. We have Olympic events coming before the end of the decade, a massive facility opening up on the waterfront with Okana and countless other developments. All that is to say, if the Thunder leave, OKC is in a much better place today to weather their loss than a couple decades ago. However, as recent transplants we absolutely lack the memory or context of what this place looked like in 1990s and as result we downplay or ignore those older voices. This also leads to us diminishing or overlooking how much this team means to the more long-term residents as a keystone of OKCs comeback story, and that value cannot be captured on a balance sheet.

Note that this isn't saying one side is more right than other or one side's votes should matter more than others, just an interesting dynamic that I think might be at play here. Maybe this'll help us understand the other side better.


If you only moved here in 2015, I can definitely understand why this isn’t as big of deal to you as it is to most of us who grew up here or at least lived here prior to mid 2000s.

There are 32 teams. There is no way their expansion fee would be $8-12 BILLION. I wish everyone would just stop with the fantasy hyperbole.

Never said that. You should try reading the articles.

$4 Billion x 2 = $8 Billion
$5 Billion x 2 = $10 Billion

"And that is why an expansion fee in the $4 billion to $5 billion range is so important. It’s so much easier to pencil out the owners coming out ahead than if the fee were, say, in the $3 billion to $3.5 billion range."

Source: https://theathletic.com/4030329/2022/12/23/g-league-showcase-nba-expansion-hollinger/

"While there’s no timeline for NBA expansion, Las Vegas is widely expected around the league to eventually be awarded a franchise. If that happens, an ownership group would then need approximately $4 billion to cover the NBA expansion fee."

Source: https://sportsnaut.com/las-vegas-nba-expansion-update/

Never said that. You should try reading the articles.

$4 Billion x 2 = $8 Billion
$5 Billion x 2 = $10 Billion

"And that is why an expansion fee in the $4 billion to $5 billion range is so important. ItÂ’s so much easier to pencil out the owners coming out ahead than if the fee were, say, in the $3 billion to $3.5 billion range."

Source: https://theathletic.com/4030329/2022/12/23/g-league-showcase-nba-expansion-hollinger/

"While thereÂ’s no timeline for NBA expansion, Las Vegas is widely expected around the league to eventually be awarded a franchise. If that happens, an ownership group would then need approximately $4 billion to cover the NBA expansion fee."

Source: https://sportsnaut.com/las-vegas-nba-expansion-update/

This isn’t Clays arena, it’s not Kaisers arena, and it’s not Aubreys heir’s arena. This belongs to and will be Oklahoma City’s arena. Similar to the time we bet on us and built the Ford Center without a major tenant. All in hopes we would land a professional hockey team, then low and behold we got something even better an NBA team. How’d that happen? It was because a city that had no business with a professional basketball team created its own luck. As Mayor Holt pointed out it’s nice that the owners are pitching in $50M towards the new facility something we didn’t have the first go round. Personally, I could care less if they stand to make $75M/annually and get a nice potential carrot of $300M+ “IF” the NBA decides to expand. I could care less if Tempe voted down their proposal, if NYC built Yankee stadium with private money, if Jerry Jones paid for half of Jerry World…I DONT CARE. This is OKC and we do things via MAPS and public funding so far it’s worked amazingly.

If there’s one thing the last several years have taught me, it’s that it’s a good idea to just kinda trust people in power and assume they’re doing what’s in your personal best interest without question.

I tend to trust a mayor with a proven track record that’s telling us not to roll the dice. Before I would trust some biased opinions regurgitating a message from Oklahoma Progress Now about a better deal that’s supposedly out there.

Never said that. You should try reading the articles.

$4 Billion x 2 = $8 Billion
$5 Billion x 2 = $10 Billion

"And that is why an expansion fee in the $4 billion to $5 billion range is so important. It’s so much easier to pencil out the owners coming out ahead than if the fee were, say, in the $3 billion to $3.5 billion range."

Source: https://theathletic.com/4030329/2022/12/23/g-league-showcase-nba-expansion-hollinger/

"While there’s no timeline for NBA expansion, Las Vegas is widely expected around the league to eventually be awarded a franchise. If that happens, an ownership group would then need approximately $4 billion to cover the NBA expansion fee."

Source: https://sportsnaut.com/las-vegas-nba-expansion-update/
It doesn’t indicate an expansion fee of $4 Billion. It says some team might get a sale price of $4 Billion. All the more reason we needn’t tempt the Thunder owners to sell to owners who move it to cities where it would get more revenue and be worth much more. Or, if you are right, to buy it to save from having to pay expansion fees… just buy a team.

Thanks for the info which supports the value of keeping them in the city and why we should make a deal.

It doesn’t indicate an expansion fee of $4 Billion. It says some team might get a sale price of $4 Billion. All the more reason we needn’t tempt the Thunder owners to sell to owners who move it to cities where it would get more revenue and be worth much more. Or, if you are right, to buy it to save from having to pay expansion fees… just buy a team.

Thanks for the info which supports the value of keeping them in the city and why we should make a deal.

Yeah, it does. You should try reading it again.

If the owners were like "we'll contribute $400M and keep the terms of the lease similar, but we want the Cox site" I'd say that's probably a good deal.

What's a good example of that happening in the league?

From what I can tell, and full details are sometimes hard to come by, when a team has contributed that much, they end up with significantly more (or total) participation in all arena operations than what's in the Thunder lease. The precedent seems to be that if ownership contributes upwards of 50%, the city forfeits participation in direct revenue from arena operations.

What's a good example of that happening in the league?

From what I can tell, and full details are sometimes hard to come by, when a team has contributed that much, they end up with significantly more (or total) participation in all arena operations than what's in the Thunder lease. The precedent seems to be that if ownership contributes upwards of 50%, the city forfeits participation in direct revenue from arena operations.

this is correct .. his example doesn't exist anywhere

I know this is apples to oranges, but still sports venue-related. The Tampa Bay Rays baseball team is going to build a new stadium in St. Petersburg.

"the stadium is expected to have a fixed dome roof and artificial turf field, seat around 30,000 and cost in excess of $1.2 billion, with contributions from the team, St. Petersburg and Pinellas County. He (principal owner) also said the team expected to “pay for half or more” of the stadium project, and that the Rays were talking to investors to contribute to the $600 million or more cost in exchange for shares in the team."

What's a good example of that happening in the league?

From what I can tell, and full details are sometimes hard to come by, when a team has contributed that much, they end up with significantly more (or total) participation in all arena operations than what's in the Thunder lease. The precedent seems to be that if ownership contributes upwards of 50%, the city forfeits participation in direct revenue from arena operations.

My point is that it's not the ownerships decision on the site. To that end, we should not utilize the most prime real estate in the state of Oklahoma.for a stadium whose success will be entirely unaffected by it's location (assuming the location is reasonable). It's a way for OKC to reduce opportunity costs and given the enormity of the budget here, we need to make the right decision and put it on the coop site.

My point is that it's not the ownerships decision on the site. To that end, we should not utilize the most prime real estate in the state of Oklahoma.for a stadium whose success will be entirely unaffected by it's location (assuming the location is reasonable). It's a way for OKC to reduce opportunity costs and given the enormity of the budget here, we need to make the right decision and put it on the coop site.

How would the co-op site get cleaned up and who would pay for it?

My point is that it's not the ownerships decision on the site. To that end, we should not utilize the most prime real estate in the state of Oklahoma.for a stadium whose success will be entirely unaffected by it's location (assuming the location is reasonable). It's a way for OKC to reduce opportunity costs and given the enormity of the budget here, we need to make the right decision and put it on the coop site.

I’m not against the city considering alternative locations within the downtown area. However, it’s not a huge cost to the city with the prairie surf building. Also, it’s putting what will be the nicest facility in the region outside of Texas in the most prime piece of real estate. What better location to build off? You say it’s success is unaffected by location but it’s had no development plans and sits within blocks of other undeveloped parking lots.

I personally don’t understand the obsession with the COOP site. I don’t think that’s going to be as cheap as you think to acquire. Also, why that spot over nearly anywhere else along the river front etc… Is it because it’s leveled and you can visualize it better? Have you compared any other locations?

COOP site would be a massive mistake. Land acquisition costs, remediation costs, we'd waste millions picking that option for no good reason.

we need to make the right decision and put it on the coop site.

that would not be a good location for this arena

that would not be a good location for this arena

Why not?

How would the co-op site get cleaned up and who would pay for it?

Do we have an estimate on the cost to clean up the site?

Why not?

much further away from both parks and the omni .. for starters ..

which with how this development is all going to come together we wan this more centralized ..

much further away from both parks and the omni .. for starters ..

which with how this development is all going to come together we wan this more centralized ..

How is this development going to come together? You seem to know more than has been announced to the public.

All we know right now is that we're voting on an arena that's an improvement over Paycom with nicer suites (and ostensibly a better concourse and bowl setup). That's it.

Cox site needs something that brings thousands of people to those 4 blocks all day, all night, every day of the year. It sounds like we're getting something that brings people less than 100 evenings per year and sits vacant during the day.

Do we have an estimate on the cost to clean up the site?

If cost to purchase and clean up is under $200M, we should go to the coop.

Cox site needs something that brings thousands of people to those 4 blocks all day, all night, every day of the year. It sounds like we're getting something that brings people less than 100 evenings per year and sits vacant during the day.

What exactly are you talking about that would bring thousands of people all day, all night, everyday of the year. Is there even a proposal for such a thing on the table?

Also, why not just put whatever that is on the Paycom site and now you have both, right across the street from each other and you'd have thousands of people coming to that area all day, all night, every day of the year and, on top of that, you'd have thousands of additional people coming there 100 evenings a year.

I mean, as long as we're just using our imaginations.

The proposed arena is imagination at this point. $1.2B can realize a lot of imagination.

At any rate, Pete has already raised the concern that using the Cox site would be in direct conflict with the previously paid for planning study: https://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=47184&p=1243813#post1243813


OKC should use the Sony Center in Berlin as a template for what we could do on the Cox site: https://youtube.com/watch?v=61_FIiuaTwI&si=RgZNsU_BLmt9-5U_

You could easily fit 1,000 apartments along with a HQ level office space, hotel, and copious amounts of entertainment on this site, all in the heart of downtown. If 1,000+ people live there and 2,000+ people work there, that pretty well covers all day, all night, every day of the year.

It's not like we've ever put the Cox site out for RFP, so asking why there isn't a proposal is not particularly relevant.

The proposed arena is imagination at this point. $1.2B can realize a lot of imagination.

At any rate, Pete has already raised the concern that using the Cox site would be in direct conflict with the previously paid for planning study: https://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=47184&p=1243813#post1243813


OKC should use the Sony Center in Berlin as a template for what we could do on the Cox site: https://youtube.com/watch?v=61_FIiuaTwI&si=RgZNsU_BLmt9-5U_

You could easily fit 1,000 apartments along with a HQ level office space, hotel, and copious amounts of entertainment on this site, all in the heart of downtown. If 1,000+ people live there and 2,000+ people work there, that pretty well covers all day, all night, every day of the year.

It's not like we've ever put the Cox site out for RFP, so asking why there isn't a proposal is not particularly relevant.

I'm curious what the time scale would be for something like this to be feasible to developers. If any of the other sites in that study were starting to build out on their own, then I'd be more in favor of this approach. If someone was to come into town wanting to build, I'm guessing a private developer would rather take the site in between Myriad and Scissortail before the Cox site--less demolition. That said, seeing how pretty much all the OKC districts still have empty lots to fill, I'm guessing it would be another 10-20 years before something of that scale would become enticing to developers without sizeable city assistance. Granted, the Boardwalk towers in Bricktown could be the ignition source for other developments (sometimes it really does come down to "if you build it, they will come"), albeit showing that likely each of those areas in the study will need sizeable TIF to get developed.

10-20 years is a totally reasonable amount of time to wait. We get one shot at the next development since it will likely stand for 100+ years.

How is this development going to come together? You seem to know more than has been announced to the public.

All we know right now is that we're voting on an arena that's an improvement over Paycom with nicer suites (and ostensibly a better concourse and bowl setup). That's it.

Cox site needs something that brings thousands of people to those 4 blocks all day, all night, every day of the year. It sounds like we're getting something that brings people less than 100 evenings per year and sits vacant during the day.

you are missing the biggest city need for a new arena .. .

which is the loading docks / set up area ...

the peake currently can NOT host back to back events .. because of loading and set up space .. that is a major issue for OKC .. and events .. and a huge reason why we need a new arena .. .

the suites are not really an issue ...

the new arena will have tons more restaurants bars/clubs the 300 level of the new building will actually have bar / restaurant space .. the peake doesn't and that space is for the lowest priced tickets ..


there are different big plans for the co-op site ..

I know this is apples to oranges, but still sports venue-related. The Tampa Bay Rays baseball team is going to build a new stadium in St. Petersburg.

"the stadium is expected to have a fixed dome roof and artificial turf field, seat around 30,000 and cost in excess of $1.2 billion, with contributions from the team, St. Petersburg and Pinellas County. He (principal owner) also said the team expected to “pay for half or more” of the stadium project, and that the Rays were talking to investors to contribute to the $600 million or more cost in exchange for shares in the team."

I'll comment because l've seen their current dome. When you travel around FL you see concrete domed sewage treatment ponds. The St. Pete dome was built to withstand hurricanes and looks exactly like a giant sewage teatment pond. They very badly need something more positively iconic.

https://www.oklahoman.com/story/news/local/2023/09/19/okc-thunder-new-arena-oklahoma-city-council-workforce-benefits-resolution/70890206007/

https://www.oklahoman.com/story/news/local/2023/09/19/okc-thunder-new-arena-oklahoma-city-council-workforce-benefits-resolution/70890206007/

no thanks ..

doing things to make our arena less competitive in the market place .. is a bad idea ..

Couple of thoughts on a couple of comments.

To the point about the vote with the residence that have been here longer, i think you're on to something. I can think back to when i was a kid before MAPS and downtown was dead. Urban Renewal had failed, the oil bust killed any hope of coming out of that renewal with an ACTUAL renewal. Bricktown was only a collection of a couple of buildings that had only partially been made functional. In general, OKC wasn't a place that people wanted to live. MAPS changed everything, little by little. It directly made and impact but also had a MASSIVE indirect impact. We used to have to go down to Dallas to see certain things or get certain stores/etc. But nowadays, you can basically get everything here at home. That wasn't even true10-15 years ago. OKC wasn't an cultural center of art like it is now. OKC wasn't on any radar as far as conventions. We weren't on a map for any sports outside of collegiate. The city grew and was given a spotlight because of what the MAPS projects allowed us to bring in. The local city (and not state) leaders helped foster an environment that was friendly to those groups, but was set up in a way that the residents felt was fair. Spreading the love with each MAPS program is what has kept it going. Everyone gets something with each round. If you weren't here to experience the drought that was the 1990s, well you may not be as excited to keep voting for the tax because you didn't feel the drab state the city was in at the time. If you moved here now from another city and brought the political baggage with you, you may not reset your thoughts to how MAPS is different.....and more importantly why those of us that have been here, are so protective of continuing the push and never going back to the way it was.

To Teo - I think you're underestimating the impact those 100 days of only a handful of hours, brings to the city. This is just like Football at OU. That 85k person stadium only houses 5 events all year that bring in those people. But the financial impact that those games bring both inside and outside the stadium, spur money all year round. Merchandising is one thing. Yes you can say it's generic to OU and not specific to football, but I think most of us would agree that football is the main reason for that merch. All the people that go eat in Norman before or after the games. All the parking money made from various groups around the campus. Jobs for people in concessions or the concession runners inside. The list goes on and on. And that list is the same for Thunder games.

Part of why the current sites are successful, is BECAUSE it's in prime real estate area. Yes the Thunder would still have people go to games if it was in say, Yukon, but do you get excited to go to Yukon? No. But you do get excited to go downtown, walk through Scissortail. Eat in Bricktown, walk the canal. And you are more likely to spend money around the area. Nothing against Yukon, but it's not downtown OKC of today. So yes, the location being in prime area is absolutely a benefit for all of us and should continue to stay there.

you are missing the biggest city need for a new arena .. .

which is the loading docks / set up area ...

the peake currently can NOT host back to back events .. because of loading and set up space .. that is a major issue for OKC .. and events .. and a huge reason why we need a new arena .. .

the suites are not really an issue ...

the new arena will have tons more restaurants bars/clubs the 300 level of the new building will actually have bar / restaurant space .. the peake doesn't and that space is for the lowest priced tickets ..


there are different big plans for the co-op site ..

You know, having restaurants open looking into the stadium with natural light coming into the stadium would activate the area 24/7. Also having the ability to go to these restaurants while the game or concert is on without paying for a ticket would provide value to more people. Imagine not having tickets to the Taylor swift concert, but have reservations for dinner that night at a restaurant. I think this provides value to more citizens. Then just build a maximum amount or residential around the stadium.

a RTA (transit) will never take maps tax dollars ...

and education operations is not a city function also will never take maps dollars .

so try again .

Wait what was Maps for Kids. Couldn't the city always have a redo of that? And its more than just about an RTA. Maps money could be spent on a street car network that actually takes people places. Like from downtown to OCCC, or to the zoo or even to nw expressway.

Wait what was Maps for Kids. Couldn't the city always have a redo of that? And its more than just about an RTA. Maps money could be spent on a street car network that actually takes people places. Like from downtown to OCCC, or to the zoo or even to nw expressway.

maps for kids built school buildings in the OKC city limits .. that is far different then education operations ..


and new transit projects for sure could be part of another maps .. but without RTA funding that is pretty limited .. a dedicated vote for RTA funding needs to happen if we want wide spread transit growth ..

The bottomline to all of this is in the event this does not pass I will be leaving this city. The only reason I have stayed here the last decade is because this city has continually reinvested in itself. I am not a paragon of local business. I made some good calls in the 90s/00s for stocks and crypto and I am going to coast on it for the rest of my life. OKC voting down this arena proposal will be the death knell of this city's growth.

The bottomline to all of this is in the event this does not pass I will be leaving this city. The only reason I have stayed here the last decade is because this city has continually reinvested in itself. I am not a paragon of local business. I made some good calls in the 90s/00s for stocks and crypto and I am going to coast on it for the rest of my life. OKC voting down this arena proposal will be the death knell of this city's growth.

Not Necessarily:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/NGMP36420

Cooper believes work on the community benefits agreement could be a huge opportunity for collaboration among the city council members. He said he and Ward 6 City Councilwoman JoBeth Hamon had consulted organizers in Milwaukee, and that he was working closely with Ward 4 City Councilman Todd Stone on finalizing the language of the resolution for the agreement.

Clever how Councilperson James Cooper works to see how the new arena can benefit those needing jobs; he also works with JoBeth Harmon, he could be key to bringing her on board.

Not Necessarily:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/NGMP36420

I could absolutely be wrong, I have been wrong several times before. To me the general population turning this down would be a turning point for this city. I don't have a lot keeping me here outside of the convenient central location, solid food scene, and low cost of living. Worst case scenario I will just move to Denver.