You misread my intent. By civic arrogance I meant that Seattle’s attitude was “don’t worry, they won’t REALLY leave,” which is precisely the sentiment being stated above, in the post I was responding to. We have one shot to get this right. Anything else is folly.

And to be clear, I was EXTREMELY, day-to-day obsessed with the SuperSonics saga from the day Clay and Co. bought the team. The very day the purchase happened I was invited to sit down and read an embargoed copy of every word of the abysmal 95 page Key Arena lease, freshly faxed from Seattle. I read the Seattle Post-Intelligencer daily for a couple of years and spent far too much of each day reading and watching Seattle news, message boards, etc. I streamed news conferences and courtroom testimony. I followed and subscribed to related socials and blogs. It was admittedly obsessive. I promise I knew more about the process than did a broad swath of Seattle residents.

We absolutely cannot afford to play the same game of chicken with this team that Seattle did. The evidence of why not is starkly in front of our faces. There will be no do-over.

Glad to know I wasn’t the only crazy person doing all this back then LOL.

I wouldn’t give a home builder $500k before seeing a plan. Jerry Jones stated he started planning Jerry World in the 1990s. To think these guys don’t have exactly what they want to build is very naive. I’m sure they have it down to the exact square footage and how they will monetize every inch. It might turn out slightly different but they already have a good idea of what they want...
It’s not naive, it’s reality. There are no plans drawn, and no site yet determined. Do they know the general square footage intended? Of course. That would have been a primary focus of the negotiation. Do they know the expected premium areas to be added? Absolutely. These are all subject to current NBA facility best practices. Those numbers would also have been a focus of negotiation.

That said, there simply aren’t plans, a site plan, or even a firm location. Such is the limitation of any publicly-funded facility in OKC. The funding has to be identified and secured before the City starts spending money and devoting resources.

…We can stop with the pearl-clutching at whenever anyone asks for details or just name-calling them or crafting straw men about them.
Your posts on this topic are so consistently reductive and insulting towards those who don’t share your opinion. Explaining the way City government works to the uninitiated and acknowledging economic limitations based upon ordinance is NOT pearl clutching; it’s reality-based posting.

It’s not naive, it’s reality. There are no plans drawn, and no site yet determined. Do they know the general square footage intended? Of course. That would have been a primary focus of the negotiation. Do they know the expected premium areas to be added? Absolutely. These are all subject to current NBA facility best practices. Those numbers would also have been a focus of negotiation.

That said, there simply aren’t plans, a site plan, or even a firm location. Such is the limitation of any publicly-funded facility in OKC. The funding has to be identified and secured before the City starts spending money and devoting resources.

This isn’t fully publicly funded. There is a private ownership group involved unlike all the other MAPS projects at least to my knowledge. They’ve told the mayor the team will move unless an arena gets built, again that’s unlike any MAPS project. You’re willing to say Clay Bennet and co. don’t have a firm idea of what they would like to see? There has to be a large investment into a site plan at this point. The entire premise is we can’t generate the revenue needed based on the current arena’s footprint so we need to build a new facility. However, we have no idea on the additional amenities included to hit our target revenues?

^^^^^^^
OF COURSE they have an idea of what they like to see. And you can be certain they’ve shared it with the City. But what they would have shared is a list of specifications, not pretty pictures.

Those pretty pictures will only come after there is money to be spent, and there is none to spend until OKC and its voters have agreed to fund the PUBLICLY FUNDED project.

But again, as I mentioned above, I’d assume that after the Council approves sending it to the voters that the Chamber (who will be running the campaign, as usual) will have someone create a placeholder image for marketing materials, but probably an image short on details, including how it might relate to the skyline.

The “large investment in the site plan” won’t happen until a site is officially selected, and there’s a lot to be done before getting to that point. Are there logical sites, even expected ones? 100%. But trust Mayor Holt when he tells you a site has not been firmly selected. There is a process that the City must adhere to, legally and budgetarily

I wouldn’t give a home builder $500k before seeing a plan. Jerry Jones stated he started planning Jerry World in the 1990s. To think these guys don’t have exactly what they want to build is very naive. I’m sure they have it down to the exact square footage and how they will monetize every inch. It might turn out slightly different but they already have a good idea of what they want.

I think the crux of what you’re trying to convey is they don’t trust the public enough for the designs to not sway some to a “no”. In my opinion that’s a mistake.

I would still vote “yes”, but it feels like a forced compliance vote versus an excited decision.

The mayor has very clearly said that design images won't be created until it is funded. It quite literally can't be. Can you imagine the loss of trust if the City surreptitiously and illegally spent tax payer funds for a design company to give us images of a possible stadium build? THAT would be something to give the naysayers solid ground to stand on.

Both of the examples you give involve private parties. Not relevant here.

The mayor has very clearly said that design images won't be created until it is funded. It quite literally can't be. Can you imagine the loss of trust if the City surreptitiously and illegally spent tax payer funds for a design company to give us images of a possible stadium build? THAT would be something to give the naysayers solid ground to stand on.

Both of the examples you give involve private parties. Not relevant here.

The City routinely provides at least conceptual renderings for other public vote projects, such as virtually everything for the MAPS programs (multi-purpose stadium, State Fair Coliseum, animal shelter, etc.).

In fact, this arena project has already received $70 million in MAPS4 funding.

The mayor has very clearly said that design images won't be created until it is funded. It quite literally can't be. Can you imagine the loss of trust if the City surreptitiously and illegally spent tax payer funds for a design company to give us images of a possible stadium build? THAT would be something to give the naysayers solid ground to stand on.

Both of the examples you give involve private parties. Not relevant here.

The arena is getting built because a private party told us they would move their business if we don’t build it. I’m not saying the city has any renderings but the Thunder does.

Also, they kicked in $50M as a private party. A private party is completely involved all the way up to paying for it.

As for the location......what about the Producers Co-op site? The ground contamination that has been documented there and the cost for clean-up likely prevents any reasonable chance for residential development there. I know there is (was?) supposedly a plan to build a MLS level soccer stadium in that area if Energy FC returns to play. Why not make that entire area OKC's pro sports district? The remediation may even cost less since there may not be any need to replace the contaminated soil if the arena is designed in such a way the bowl ends up extending below grade.

Then OKC ends up with three large superblocks downtown for redevelopment that would (ok, could) add incredible density to downtown. I wonder which one would end up being the most expensive real estate in the state......

Admittedly I don't have any experience designing anything like this so there are probably considerations I haven't thought of. But I don't think it hurts to ask "why not?" (Yukong could probably enlighten me though.)

The City routinely provides at least conceptual renderings for other public vote projects, such as virtually everything for the MAPS programs (multi-purpose stadium, State Fair Coliseum, animal shelter, etc.).

In fact, this arena project has already received $70 million in MAPS4 funding.
That $70 million is contingent upon the vote passing, and I'm not even 100% sure whether that is from existing MAPS4 funds that have already been collected. Are you?

And like I said above, I would expect an artist's conceptual (that ultimately bears little similarity to the finished product) to be included in election marketing materials, which is all that has EVER been the case for similar votes to fund capital projects in OKC. Last but not least, as I pointed out, the public isn't yet being asked to vote on this. That's three months away. First it has to receive Council approval to place it on the ballot. People are seriously putting the cart before the horse in this thread.

Folks, this is a public building. It will be paid for (largely) with public money. The way the City does business is restricted by ordinance and City charter. The architect will be selected via public process. They cannot be hired until AFTER the vote is approved. If the Thunder or the Chamber or anyone else separately hires someone to create an artist's rendering for marketing purposes, that's all fine and good, but it almost certainly would not be done by the firm selected to design the building, so what good is it, really? 100% chance that it would bear little resemblance to the finished product. The site has not been decided, so how can renderings properly show the relationship to the skyline? Answer: they can't.

That $70 million is contingent upon the vote passing, and I'm not even 100% sure whether that is from existing MAPS4 funds that have already been collected. Are you?

I am sure that $1.1 million of that $70 million budget has already been obligated (which means bills have been incurred) and $838,000 of that has been spent on the Master Plan, per MAPS 4 reports.

They clearly are not waiting to spend from this allocation until after the public vote.

$838K spent on master plan of what? Paycom improvements that were shelved in favor of reallocation to the proposed new arena?

$838K spent on master plan of what? Paycom improvements that were shelved in favor of reallocation to the proposed new arena?

There are 5 line items in the MAPS 4 Downtown Arena budget:

Phases I&II: for Paycom Arena, such as the new scoreboard and seating
Master Plan: for the new arena
Phases III & IV: also for the new arena

My guess is the Thunder have submitted/discussed sites they would accept. I doubt it’s the city reviewing the options to speculatively build a new $1B+ arena.

I feel like I am fully aware it’s publicly funding and there is a “process”. However, everyone is aware the Thunder don’t stay if it’s not what they’re expecting.

They have to go through the charade of a public process due to the City's regulations.

But of course they know where they want the new arena to go and it's long since been decided, just like the budget was long decided before it was ever made public.

My guess is the Thunder have submitted/discussed sites they would accept. I doubt it’s the city reviewing the options to speculatively build a new $1B+ arena.

I feel like I am fully aware it’s publicly funding and there is a “process”. However, everyone is aware the Thunder don’t stay if it’s not what they’re expecting.
No question...both the Thunder and the City have surely discussed the potential sites that each would accept. And clearly site selection conversation will be driven by what properties the City already owns, because I don't believe the proposed budget includes costs for site acquisition. That narrows things down very quickly. That said, land swaps and other elements could still potentially come into play. Due diligence will require quite a bit of study, and studies cost money.

No question...both the Thunder and the City have surely discussed the potential sites that each would accept. And clearly site selection conversation will be driven by what properties the City already owns, because I don't believe the budget includes cost for site acquisition. That narrows things down very quickly. That said, land swaps and other elements could still potentially come into play. Due diligence will require quite a bit of study, and studies cost money.

Do you know anything specific to lead you to believe that the arena will be anywhere other than the Cox site?


Because I've been hearing from multiple sources for over a year that it will be there.

$838K spent on master plan of what? Paycom improvements that were shelved in favor of reallocation to the proposed new arena?

To be fair, I can't confirm that $838K was spent on the new arena. At least some and maybe all had to do with Phases I & II.


Regardless, this shouldn't affect the City's ability to include conceptual plans before the December vote. They do have Populous under contract.

No question...both the Thunder and the City have surely discussed the potential sites that each would accept. And clearly site selection conversation will be driven by what properties the City already owns, because I don't believe the proposed budget includes costs for site acquisition. That narrows things down very quickly. That said, land swaps and other elements could still potentially come into play. Due diligence will require quite a bit of study, and studies cost money.

I’m not sure the city has any say in the site location. The entire project is based on the Thunder needing to hit a revenue target. The city can suggest all the sites it wants, but if the Thunder don’t feel it’s viable then there is no arena project. The ownership is made up of guys that currently run or have been associated with Fortune 500 companies and they forecast revenues several years in advance.

If the Thunder need to generate more revenue from a more exclusive stream, like an arena and that’s how we get a $1B facility and investment into a key core area of downtown. I am all for it.

In my opinion releasing any sort of rendering only allows people to form an opinion. You can’t have an opinion on something “doesn’t exist”. Which makes it feel like the businessmen believe they know better than the public on how to get an extremely delicate process through and built. I believe the ownership want the Thunder here and want to enhance their legacies along with that of OKC. That’s why they went through the purchase and process to bring the team here.

I just think it’s a mistake to not let the public get behind you’re concepts that already exist.

On Tuesday, City Council will consider a measure to enter into a Letter of Intent with the Thunder for a long-term lease. Very few details other than a 25-year lease term and a minimum budget of $900 million (below, the City estimates a minimum of $976 in sales tax, plus the $70 million from MAPS 4 and $50 million from the owners -- that's actually a minimum of $1.1 billion and probably does not include the value of the land). There is this bit that is important since based on MAPS history I estimated sales tax collection could be considerably more than $976 million:


Any surplus revenues ultimately collected from the temporary
sales tax that come in above project costs and any related financing costs will be utilized
either to complete the New Arena and/or placed in a capital improvement fund for
future capital maintenance of and improvements to the New Arena.


On Wednesday, there will be a special meeting of City Council to consider putting the 1% sales tax up for public vote:


Public hearing regarding Ordinance No. 27,420 relating to taxation; amending the Oklahoma City
sales tax code, codified as Article II of Chapter 52 of the Oklahoma City Municipal Code, 2020;
enacting Section 52-23.8 of said Article II of Chapter 52, which levies an excise tax of one percent
(1%) on the gross proceeds or gross receipts derived from all sales taxable under the sales tax laws
of the State of Oklahoma; specifying that the excise tax levied by said Section 52-23.8 may be
expended only for the limited purpose of funding all expenses related in any manner to
constructing, establishing, providing, or maintaining an arena facility to be owned by the City;
defining the term “City;” defining the term “expenses;” providing non-exclusive examples of such
expenses, to include payment of financing costs for obligations related to the stated limited purpose
that are issued by a public trust having the City as its beneficiary; creating the Arena Facility Sales
Tax Fund; providing that the excise tax levied by said Section 52-23.8 begins at the same time the
excise tax levied by City Ordinance No. 26,255 ends; providing that, once effective, the tax levied
by this section lasts for a limited term of 72 months, and then such tax ends; and providing further
that, as required by Section 2705 of Title 68 of the Oklahoma Statutes, the excise tax levied by
Section 1 of this Ordinance will become effective only if it is approved by a majority vote of the
qualified, registered voters of The City of Oklahoma City voting on such question at a special
election called for that purpose by the City Council of the City.

Background:
Oklahoma City opened new publicly-owned arenas to improve and maintain the city’s quality of
life in 1937, 1972 and 2002. The most recent arena helped the city to secure major league
professional sports for the first time. Beginning with the 2008-2009 NBA season, the Oklahoma
City Thunder of the National Basketball Association has called Oklahoma City home, due to a use
license agreement signed by both parties in 2008. In 2023, the initial term of the 2008 use license
agreement expired. The Thunder exercised an option to extend the agreement for three years. Over
the past 14 months, Oklahoma City and Thunder leadership have been engaged in discussions
concerning the concepts that would allow for the Thunder and the City to agree to a new long-term
use license agreement. Earlier this month, representatives of the parties preliminarily agreed to a
letter of intent that establishes mutual agreement for a new use license agreement that will keep
the Thunder in Oklahoma City beyond 2050. A new state-of-the-art arena is required to receive
this long-term commitment from the Thunder.

Ordinance No. 27,420, as presented today, proposes to levy a temporary special sales tax of one
percent (1%) for the special purpose of funding all expenses related in any manner to constructing,
establishing, providing, or maintaining an arena facility to be owned by the City.
The special sales tax to be levied by this Ordinance No. 27,420, following approval by the voters
on December 12, 2023, will begin at the same time the excise tax levied by City Ordinance No.
26,255 ends. (Ordinance No. 26,255 is the 1% sales tax currently funding the ongoing MAPS 4
Program. Ordinance No. 26,255 one-percent sales tax ends at 12:00 a.m. on April 1, 2028.) Once
effective, the tax levied by this Ordinance No. 27,420 will last for a limited term of 72 months and
then such tax will end.

It is anticipated that the temporary sales tax levied by Ordinance No. 27,420 will generate
approximately $976M during its 72-month term. The revenues will be deposited in a special sales
tax fund called the Arena Sales Tax Fund. The proceeds in this Fund can be expended only for
the purpose of funding all expenses related in any manner to constructing, establishing,
providing, or maintaining an arena facility to be owned by the City. The term “expenses” is
defined in Subsection 52-23.8(d) of Ordinance No. 27,420.

I’m not sure the city has any say in the site location. The entire project is based on the Thunder needing to hit a revenue target. The city can suggest all the sites it wants, but if the Thunder don’t feel it’s viable then there is no arena project. The ownership is made up of guys that currently run or have been associated with Fortune 500 companies and they forecast revenues several years in advance.

If the Thunder need to generate more revenue from a more exclusive stream, like an arena and that’s how we get a $1B facility and investment into a key core area of downtown. I am all for it.

In my opinion releasing any sort of rendering only allows people to form an opinion. You can’t have an opinion on something “doesn’t exist”. Which makes it feel like the businessmen believe they know better than the public on how to get an extremely delicate process through and built. I believe the ownership want the Thunder here and want to enhance their legacies along with that of OKC. That’s why they went through the purchase and process to bring the team here.

I just think it’s a mistake to not let the public get behind you’re concepts that already exist.

the city 100% has a say in site location ....

the city 100% has a say in site location ....

It’s my opinion that the city input only goes to the extent the Thunder will allow it. Then it’s up to a vote of the people. We need them far more than they need us in this situation and everyone knows it.

There is also this item on the agenda for Tuesday's Council meeting:


Resolution declaring the intent to require the selected operator(s) of the new arena, proposed to be funded by City Ordinance No. 27,420, agree to utilize a workforce intermediary program to focus recruitment and training for new arena jobs in certain areas and peoples of the city; and further directing the City Manager to negotiate the payment of regionally competitive wages commensurate with those paid by The City of Oklahoma City and its Trusts; and further directing the creation of a working group to study and deliver findings and potential recommendations regarding the use of a labor peace agreement in the operations of the new arena; provided, that these directives to the City Manager are subject to a favorable vote by city voters on the 1% sales tax for the new arena proposed by Ordinance No. 27,420.
Councilmember Cooper

the city 100% has a say in site location ....

Exactly. You can’t ask someone to commit $1B in capital + land value and then, in the same breath, tell them they have no say in the location.

On Tuesday, City Council will consider a measure to enter into a Letter of Intent with the Thunder for a long-term lease. Very few details other than a 25-year lease term and a minimum budget of $900 million (below, the City estimates a minimum of $976 in sales tax, plus the $70 million from MAPS 4 and $30 from the owners -- that's actually a minimum of $1.08 billion and probably does not include the value of the land). There is this bit that is important since based on MAPS history I estimated sales tax collection could be considerably more than $976 million:




On Wednesday, there will be a special meeting of City Council to consider putting the 1% sales tax up for public vote:

I thought it was $50. Was this a typo?

I thought it was $50. Was this a typo?

Yes, thanks, I corrected my post.

The owners have no doubt been approached by potential buyers from other cities, or else this wouldn't be a thing in 2023 (more likely would be in 2027 or so). But they know they have the city by the short and curlys, so here we are. If you think they won't sell by the end of December, then you are selling the owners short.

I'm not saying they will, but they could the day after a no vote if they wanted (and they would have buyers aplenty).

Yes, thanks, I corrected my post.

Yep, just making sure it didn't go down, again...

The owners have no doubt been approached by potential buyers from other cities, or else this wouldn't be a thing in 2023 (more likely would be in 2027 or so). But they know they have the city by the short and curlys, so here we are. If you think they won't sell by the end of December, then you are selling the owners short.

I'm not saying they will, but they could the day after a no vote if they wanted (and they would have buyers aplenty).

If the Thunder stay through the new preliminary lease term of 2050. I believe that puts the team in OKC 1 year longer than they were in Seattle.

Urban: this is all I'm asking for. Before the vote, put something together so there's expectations. The city can be sure the vote will pass, so why not give the public a bone so we can feel better about the price tag and relative lack of contribution by ownership.

I'm sure people would feel much better about voting blind if ownership were contributing half, and the OKC contribution of say $500 million. But that's not the case, it's $9XX million public + $70 million MAPS IV + $50 million ownership for ?? at ?? (um) downtown.

I think we can do better than that, no other city has treated it's residents like this and I'm almost certain more than half of the "no" vote would disappear if they show something for the dollars. Rover, doesn't have to be perfect, a straw rendering or even nailed down plan for the site (or an existing arena to benchmark) is sufficient IMO since this was all decided behind closed doors already - ie, Holt's "we have a plan" with ownership. Chamber could/should easily put something together if ownership cant just like they do/did for the fairgrounds arena, Bennett Center, on and on that they want passed.


^^^^^^
It’s not December yet. The council has not even voted on whether to send this to the people for a vote. Voters and taxpayers are currently not being asked to do a single thing at this point, despite what the posts above say.

Just as there were with MAPS proposals, there will be marketing materials. The marketing materials will likely include an artist’s rendering of a generic building, just like those efforts did. It will bear zero resemblance to the finished product, just as those did.

In the original MAPS marketing materials they guessed the ultimate location of the Paycom, which was pretty easy (it was a run-down, city-owned bus transfer station and an abandoned, dilapidated commercial bakery). But they guessed the ballpark location to be about where the Bass Pro south parking lot is now in place, and got the alignment of the canal completely wrong. The arena looked nothing like what was built.

You can go down the list of every similar campaign and you will see the same. Generalized marketing pics, few if any firm site locations (except, for instance, fairgrounds). I’m sure there will be something similar.

But until they are empowered by voters, the City can spend exactly zero money on this project. And they cannot even make a firm site selection until they are vetted via appraisals, engineering studies, title work in the case of potential land swaps, on and on and on.

And regardless of whether or not random folks on a message board believe it, there are multiple sites in the mix.

These things take money, and again, until empowered by voters, the City has none to spend.

The City ABSOLUTELY has a say in site selection. It's a public building, paid for largely by public funds. The variables that come into play, however, include these:


Existing leases in desired locations, and the termination thereof
Mechanicals in existing sites(s) that must be relocated
Environmental concerns
Engineering requirements
Demolition budgets
Demolition timing
Desired timing for building completion and dedication ('29-'30 stated)

My point is, there are a lot of variables, some of which have yet to be studied, and also a very strong desire to be in the building sooner rather than later.

The owners have no doubt been approached by potential buyers from other cities, or else this wouldn't be a thing in 2023 (more likely would be in 2027 or so). But they know they have the city by the short and curlys, so here we are. If you think they won't sell by the end of December, then you are selling the owners short.

I'm not saying they will, but they could the day after a no vote if they wanted (and they would have buyers aplenty).

this became a thing because their lease was up ..

Urban: this is all I'm asking for. Before the vote, put something together so there's expectations. The city can be sure the vote will pass, so why not give the public a bone so we can feel better about the price tag and relative lack of contribution by ownership.

I'm sure people would feel much better about voting blind if ownership were contributing half, and the OKC contribution of say $500 million. But that's not the case, it's $9XX million public + $70 million MAPS IV + $50 million ownership for ?? at ?? (um) downtown.

I think we can do better than that, no other city has treated it's residents like this and I'm almost certain more than half of the "no" vote would disappear if they show something for the dollars. Rover, doesn't have to be perfect, a straw rendering or even nailed down plan for the site (or an existing arena to benchmark) is sufficient IMO since this was all decided behind closed doors already - ie, Holt's "we have a plan" with ownership. Chamber could/should easily put something together if ownership cant just like they do/did for the fairgrounds arena, Bennett Center, on and on that they want passed.
I will reiterate: the public has not been asked to do ANYTHING yet. Not to vote, not to pay taxes. How is it so possible for people to take the position that we are somehow being sold short when it's not even on a ballot yet?

The process underway now is discussion at the Council level, and presumably a vote to place the project on a ballot in December. If that happens, THEN the public will be asked to vote, and ultimately to pay taxes to fund the building.

And I am quite sure there will be much more communicated to the public in advance of the vote, should it make it to the ballot. Glossy marketing materials, flashy commercials, probably some more details on the lease, and maybe even a pretty artist's conceptual of what a modern arena looks like (but most likely NOT an actual representation of what OUR building would look like, since that will thankfully take considerable time and budget to figure out).

I will reiterate: the public has not been asked to do ANYTHING yet. Not to vote, not to pay taxes. How is it so possible for people to take the position that we are somehow being sold short when it's not even on a ballot yet?

City Council votes on Tuesday and Wednesday and they represent their constituents.

Nothing formal was even posted until a couple of hours ago and it's still very hazy. And as JoBeth has mentioned, she only heard about the broad strokes about a month ago.

AND the public vote will happen in less than 3 months.

I will reiterate: the public has not been asked to do ANYTHING yet. Not to vote, not to pay taxes. How is it so possible for people to take the position that we are somehow being sold short when it's not even on a ballot yet?

The process underway now is discussion at the Council level, and presumably a vote to place the project on a ballot in December. If that happens, THEN the public will be asked to vote, and ultimately to pay taxes to fund the building.

And I am quite sure there will be much more communicated to the public in advance of the vote, should it make it to the ballot. Glossy marketing materials, flashy commercials, probably some more details on the lease, and maybe even a pretty artist's conceptual of what a modern arena looks like (but most likely NOT an actual representation of what OUR building would look like, since that will thankfully take considerable time and budget to figure out).

let's be real: it's pretty evident there is a max of two nays on this council. this is absolutely going to a December vote.

Urban: this is all I'm asking for. Before the vote, put something together so there's expectations. The city can be sure the vote will pass, so why not give the public a bone so we can feel better about the price tag and relative lack of contribution by ownership.

I'm sure people would feel much better about voting blind if ownership were contributing half, and the OKC contribution of say $500 million. But that's not the case, it's $9XX million public + $70 million MAPS IV + $50 million ownership for ?? at ?? (um) downtown.

.

no ownership group has contributed anything close to half with the lease terms the thunder has with OKC

let's be real... ...this is absolutely going to a December vote.
Of course. I too believe that this will be the case.

I wanted to go on the record and state I am 100% for a new arena and know darn well it is needed. I don't think I have to explain what a big deal this would be to me personally, as I'll be out there taking drone shots for years on end!

Just trying to call attention to issues around this, especially the process.


As always with any election, I won't be taking a public stance.

no ownership group has contributed anything close to half with the lease terms the thunder has with OKC

Where are you finding the lease agreements of all NBA teams?

I wanted to go on the record and state I am 100% for a new arena and know darn well it is needed. I don't think I have to explain what a big deal this would be to me personally, as I'll be out there taking drone shots for years on end!

Just trying to call attention to issues around this, especially the process.


As always with any election, I won't be taking a public stance.

Those will be some awesome drone shots (assuming it passes)

Where are you finding the lease agreements of all NBA teams?

Marquette School of Law has some summaries you can look at, as well as some in other other sports.

Marquette School of Law has some summaries you can look at, as well as some in other other sports.

and you can also find them in city council agendas ... just have to know where to look

I wanted to go on the record and state I am 100% for a new arena and know darn well it is needed. I don't think I have to explain what a big deal this would be to me personally, as I'll be out there taking drone shots for years on end!

Just trying to call attention to issues around this, especially the process.

As always with any election, I won't be taking a public stance.

Pete, I too agree it will pass and I also fully support - as I'm sure MOST are, even those who have reservations or opinions on the process (almost sure Polisci as well); while I also agree with you this "process" needs to be called out. OKC can't keep doing this, like it's a small backwater town run by good ole-boys or a corrupt dem city. I totally understand the need for closed door negotiations and what not, but that's been a year in the making if not more - they should be able to be transparent now about the desires and have a carrot for the public to get on board with for the price tag they're asking.

Hopefully Tuesday and Wednesday will solve some of this hunger and remove the likely last bit of doubt or sour taste that some of us have with this PROCESS. As you said, totally on board with the arena (regardless of the cost in my mind) but NO longer on board with this "take it or leave it" process. Yes, I'm not an OKC resident but I am a passionate expat who does not want to see OKC fail; and I will continue to contribute to the OKC MAPS and 1 cent fund and transfer as many dollars from the Pac NW where I can.

As to renderings. Let's say OKC came up with a quick rendering to appease voters that need something to see in order to get behind the proposal. Then after lots of back and forth discussion between the parties involved the actual building was something completely different. The public would, and justifiably so, throw a hissy fit that they voted on A but got B.

As to renderings. Let's say OKC came up with a quick rendering to appease voters that need something to see in order to get behind the proposal. Then after lots of back and forth discussion between the parties involved the actual building was something completely different. The public would, and justifiably so, throw a hissy fit that they voted on A but got B.

But at that point it's a fait accompli, so who cares? Holt will be termed out, the building done and the deal signed. What would the public do, other than just be generally ticked off...until the Thunder make the playoffs and all is forgiven?

But at that point it's a fait accompli, so who cares? Holt will be termed out, the building done and the deal signed. What would the public do, other than just be generally ticked off...until the Thunder make the playoffs and all is forgiven?

Why will he be termed out? Does OKC allow for 3 term mayors? I know Tulsa does.

Why will he be termed out? Does OKC allow for 3 term mayors? I know Tulsa does.

Mick Cornett was elected and served for 4 terms.

Ah my bad, conflating the mayor with the governor.

Still, by the time the stadium is actually built I expect Holt to have moved on to another position (Representative or Governor)

^^^^^^^
OF COURSE they have an idea of what they like to see. And you can be certain they’ve shared it with the City. But what they would have shared is a list of specifications, not pretty pictures.

Those pretty pictures will only come after there is money to be spent, and there is none to spend until OKC and its voters have agreed to fund the PUBLICLY FUNDED project.

But again, as I mentioned above, I’d assume that after the Council approves sending it to the voters that the Chamber (who will be running the campaign, as usual) will have someone create a placeholder image for marketing materials, but probably an image short on details, including how it might relate to the skyline.

This is what we don't have today. What we also don't have today is any vision on how the money might be spent, which, at this stage of the process, is at least mildly disappointing.

The point that there is an official public process to play out is not wrong, but it is short sighted. It's short sighted because the mayor has already decidcated many hours to pitching this idea. And it's with little doubt in anyone's mind that discussions of what details we will be pursuing with this civic project have already been in discussion.

If you're going to go ahead and start advertising and laying the groundwork for what we can expect from PBC and what the ask will be for the city, we should know a bit more about what we're getting for our money should we vote this through. Every statement can be couched with a "budget and location providing", but give me more than an arena for $1B in Oklahoma City.

This is what we don't have today. What we also don't have today is any vision on how the money might be spent, which, at this stage of the process, is at least mildly disappointing.

The point that there is an official public process to play out is not wrong, but it is short sighted. It's short sighted because the mayor has already decidcated many hours to pitching this idea. And it's with little doubt in anyone's mind that discussions of what details we will be pursuing with this civic project have already been in discussion.

If you're going to go ahead and start advertising and laying the groundwork for what we can expect from PBC and what the ask will be for the city, we should know a bit more about what we're getting for our money should we vote this through. Every statement can be couched with a "budget and location providing", but give me more than an arena for $1B in Oklahoma City.

So, you want the city to pay for designs so you can see where the doors are located and what color the roof is? That will make you vote for it?

If you’ve listened to date they’ve talked plenty about the shortcomings of our current arena and what a new arena should include at a minimum.

So, you want the city to pay for designs so you can see where the doors are located and what color the roof is? That will make you vote for it?

If you’ve listened to date they’ve talked plenty about the shortcomings of our current arena and what a new arena should include at a minimum.

No. I’ll translate for you. He’s asking: are we getting FiServ, Little Caesar’s or Papa John’s?

So, you want the city to pay for designs so you can see where the doors are located and what color the roof is? That will make you vote for it?

If you’ve listened to date they’ve talked plenty about the shortcomings of our current arena and what a new arena should include at a minimum.

No. Read again and attempt to understand the other side.

Ah my bad, conflating the mayor with the governor.

Still, by the time the stadium is actually built I expect Holt to have moved on to another position (Representative or Governor)
OKC mayors don’t win statewide office. At least none have since I started paying attention in the 1970s. US Representative would be a lot of work, a waste of his talent, and a step down IMO. I think Holt can do more as mayor, and can probably keep the job 16-20 years if he wants.

No. Read again and attempt to understand the other side.

Oh, I do understand. Just saying that fake pictures of a facility that doesn’t represent the actual plans shouldn’t be what sells people. I know people like pretty pictures but I would hope they understand issues, not titillating graphics.

OKC mayors don’t win statewide office. At least none have since I started paying attention in the 1970s. US Representative would be a lot of work, a waste of his talent, and a step down IMO. I think Holt can do more as mayor, and can probably keep the job 16-20 years if he wants.

He has a unique brand and, depending on how the upcoming national election goes, his brand may become attractive.to the Republican base. It also may not, but if it does, I think he probably takes it.

Oh, I do understand. Just saying that fake pictures of a facility that doesn’t represent the actual plans shouldn’t be what sells people. I know people like pretty pictures but I would hope they understand issues, not titillating graphics.

While fake pictures shouldn't be the selling point, getting any sort of real information other than "we want to build a new arena" could and should influence decisions on the vote. A graphic would likely help people visualize all the additional items that will come with this arena and how they will interact, but it's those items that we need to know and that the powers that be have yet to bring to the table.

No. I’ll translate for you. He’s asking: are we getting FiServ, Little Caesar’s or Papa John’s?

I don't think they need drawings, but they do need to provide a direct comparison Arena to highlight what they think the money asked for will get them. Maybe that's harder because you would be admitting that they already have a site in mind which everyone pretty much knows where it's going unless your being super dense.

Edit: You as in them.

I don't think they need drawings, but they do need to provide a direct comparison Arena to highlight what they think the money asked for will get them. Maybe that's harder because you would be admitting that they already have a site in mind which everyone pretty much knows where it's going unless your being super dense.

Edit: You as in them.

they don't need to do anything too elaborate. just a few high level renderings and a short video would convert a lot of the "No, this plan is just too shady" folks into Yes votes.

18315

18316

source: https://populous.com/project/fiserv-forum