The Buy Your Own Arena website is very out of touch with reality. For instance, saying the Paycom Center is "only" 25 years old. Have they looked at how old the rest of the NBA arenas are?

Can't believe there's this much pushback. Do people actually want the team to leave?

30 Arenas in the NBA.

OKC has the 10th newest arena, opened in 2002 as Ford Center, the same time as San Antonio Spurs opened ATT Center/Frost Bank Center built for the Spurs after they became disenchanted with the cavernous and only 10 year old Alamodome.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_National_Basketball_Association_arenas

However, using a car analogy...

OKC got the compact sedan that sits 2 people comfortably, but can hold 5 people if you squeeze them in and through the years we have added the bluetooth and smart dash capabilities, replaced the headlights with LED ones, got a nicer set of tires, and even got heated seats.

However, at the end of the day, it's still a compact sedan, while just about every other arena in the NBA (even the older ones) are the full size SUV's and offer a much more comfortable ride for five people and have a lot more bells and whistles than you could ever get with the compact sedan.

I don't think the majority of people in OKC want the team to leave, I think the general public was expecting the team ownership to contribute more than 5% of the new building costs.

At the end of the day it comes down to who shows up and votes on Tuesday in December.

A reminder too for those passionate Thunder season ticket holders in Edmond, Norman, Yukon, Midwest City, etc, you can't vote.

30 Arenas in the NBA.

OKC has the 10th newest arena, opened in 2002 as Ford Center, the same time as San Antonio Spurs opened ATT Center/Frost Bank Center built for the Spurs after they became disenchanted with the cavernous and only 10 year old Alamodome.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_National_Basketball_Association_arenas

However, using a car analogy...

OKC got the compact sedan that sits 2 people comfortably, but can hold 5 people if you squeeze them in and through the years we have added the bluetooth and smart dash capabilities, replaced the headlights with LED ones, got a nicer set of tires, and even got heated seats.

However, at the end of the day, it's still a compact sedan, while just about every other arena in the NBA (even the older ones) are the full size SUV's and offer a much more comfortable ride for five people and have a lot more bells and whistles than you could ever get with the compact sedan.

I don't think the majority of people in OKC want the team to leave, I think the general public was expecting the team ownership to contribute more than 5% of the new building costs.

At the end of the day it comes down to who shows up and votes on Tuesday in December.

A reminder too for those passionate Thunder season ticket holders in Edmond, Norman, Yukon, Midwest City, etc, you can't vote.

Yeah of course, as you touched on, that doesn’t consider large buildings that were built to NBA specs initially and have been massively renovated since 2002. Madison square garden for example says it was built in 1968 but was renovated substantially in 1991 and underwent a $1 billion renovation in 2013 or the United center which was built in 1992 but underwent major renovations between 2009-2014 (couldnt find the cost but based on the description it had to have been in the multiple hundreds of millions) and then a $300 million expansion in 2016. I would imagine if it was seen as cost effective/feasible to expand Paycom, they would elect to do that over building a new one but at some point you have to know when to punt.

Also, it would be at least 12th on the last by 2030 if no other arenas are proposed and built.

If Oklahoma Progress Now is the group behind this, I’m not all that concerned. That group seems a little nuts based on their blog posts. Trying to think of a good local nutty right wing equivalent.

It seems by your comment you have an issue with the messanger and not the message.
538.com rates Emerson polling A- and that polling data is what should concern you.

What's interesting is that the question is "do you support or oppose a 1% sales tax in Oklahoma city that would fund a new $900 Million (arena) stadium for the Oklahoma City Thunder?"

Yeah, I'd vote 'no' on that.

But, in reality, we'll be voting on a 1% (.01 cent) sales tax in Oklahoma City that would fund a new $900 million arena for the city of Oklahoma City, of which, an NBA team, the Oklahoma City Thunder, has agreed to be be a tenant for 25+ years.

I would love to have such an arena in Oklahoma City, because of all it would bring to the city, But I would not vote for one without there being anchor tenant.

The irony is that the only reason a $900 million arena is even being considered as a possibility in Oklahoma City is because of the Thunder.

But the main reason people are going to vote against it is because of the Thunder.

It seems by your comment you have an issue with the messanger and not the message.
538.com rates Emerson polling A- and that polling data is what should concern you.

Definitely have an issue with the messenger. Admittedly have never heard of Emerson polling. Just have seen how wildly inaccurate polls have been in general over the last few years.

What's interesting is that the question is "do you support or oppose a 1% sales tax in Oklahoma city that would fund a new $900 Million (arena) stadium for the Oklahoma City Thunder?"

Yeah, I'd vote 'no' on that.

But, in reality, we'll be voting on a 1% (.01 cent) sales tax in Oklahoma City that would fund a new $900 million arena for the city of Oklahoma City, of which, an NBA team, the Oklahoma City Thunder, has agreed to be be a tenant for 25+ years.

I would love to have such an arena in Oklahoma City, because of all it would bring to the city, But I would not vote for one without there being anchor tenant.

The irony is that a only reason a $900 million arena is even being considered as a possibility in Oklahoma City is because of the Thunder.

But the main reason people are going to vote against it is because of the Thunder.

Thank you. You saved me a lot of typing and did a much better job then I would’ve in trying to explain why I have an issue with the group steering the anti arena discussion and that was behind the poll.

Definitely have an issue with the messenger. Admittedly have never heard of Emerson polling. Just have seen how wildly inaccurate polls have been in general over the last few years.

Emerson is a major political pollster, one of the most reputable out there. Not sure how that holds up for "questions" like this though.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/emerson-college/

…are we sure this is actually going to pass?

https://emersoncollegepolling.com/oklahoma-poll-gov-stitt-and-biden-with-low-approval-ratings/


Ho dang that's surprising. I don't think the proposal is that underwater, but given how the other findings of the poll (Biden, Stitt approval ratings) seem to jive with overall sentiment, that's certainly got to be worrying for the Mayor's office.

However, note that the only thing that matters here is the Oklahoma City poll, which, with only 82 respondents, is limited in generalizability.

Okay, yeah, I thought as much. The poll that is being discussed surveyed 82 people in OKC.

Okay, yeah, I thought as much. The poll that is being discussed surveyed 82 people in OKC.

Yet Holt refuses to release his polling. Why?

Yet Holt refuses to release his polling. Why?

I’m also wondering why he won’t release the study supporting his claim that the team generates $600 million in direct economic impact to the city.

Okay, yeah, I thought as much. The poll that is being discussed surveyed 82 people in OKC.

I’m not incredibly familiar with the methodology of polling, but the idea is that you can get fairly accurate indications with low numbers like that through random sampling and weighting, which is intended to account for the demographics polled in relation to census data. Many pollsters favor smaller sample sizes as once they start polling beyond a certain level, resources are being wasted to get a reading that statistically won’t change enough to make a difference. I believe it’s more about the wording of a question and the randomness of the polls than the raw number of people polled.

Am I wrong to think that the question SHOULD be stated as; "Do you favor keeping the tax rate the same as it's been since 1995 to fund a $900 million arena?"

Yet Holt refuses to release his polling. Why?

Holt doesn't have any of his own polling .. he has nothing to release ..


private entities have their own polling .. but what they do with it is up to them

I’m not incredibly familiar with the methodology of polling, but the idea is that you can get fairly accurate indications with low numbers like that through random sampling and weighting, which is intended to account for the demographics polled in relation to census data. Many pollsters favor smaller sample sizes as once they start polling beyond a certain level, resources are being wasted to get a reading that statistically won’t change enough to make a difference. I believe it’s more about the wording of a question and the randomness of the polls than the raw number of people polled.

82 people is just about meaninglessly small, which you can see up in Pete's post with that picture that has the confidence interval listed as +/- 10.8%.

This wasn't even a poll about this issue specifically, it was a larger statewide political poll and they threw in the stadium question as a freebie. That's why it has the pointless opinion rating for all of Oklahoma for a question that will only be voted on by OKC residents.

Yet Holt refuses to release his polling. Why?

I don't know, but I kind of also don't care since that is meaningless to the point I am arguing.

82 people is just about meaninglessly small, which you can see up in Pete's post with that picture that has the confidence interval listed as +/- 10.8%.

This wasn't even a poll about this issue specifically, it was a larger statewide political poll and they threw in the stadium question as a freebie. That's why it has the pointless opinion rating for all of Oklahoma for a question that will only be voted on by OKC residents.

So Oklahoma Progress Now is making dishonest or inflated claims based on that report while at the same time pushing the narrative that David Holt and the city are the ones making dishonest or inflated claims…politics in a nutshell lol.

Look, billionaires will get more and more wealthy, whether we have a new arena or not, and whether we have an NBA team or not. Why not have OKC prosper and keep up its growth with the Thunder, rather than without them?

It's truly that simple.

Am I wrong to think that the question SHOULD be stated as; "Do you favor keeping the tax rate the same as it's been since 1995 to fund a $900 million arena?"

Probably. For starters, $900M is just the minimum figure. The final bill will be closer to $1.5 Billion.

Also, folks need to remember that we will be looking at an additional RTA tax at some point in the next 5 to 10 years. That’s going to be in the neighborhood of 0.0025 to 0.005 on top of the existing sales tax rates.

The voters will decide if they want the Thunder to remain in Oklahoma City long term; if not, suggest that if this vote fails, relocate the team to Tulsa's 17,839 seat BOK Center for the 2025-26, 2026-27 and 2027-28 season (three years) and survey the voters in 2028 when the tax expires and decide what kind of arena does Oklahoma City want to build for the future. At all cost, don't let this team leave our state.

City won't have to be concerned about a loan, and once the team resides in Tulsa, allow OKC voters an opportunity
to retain the team in 2028 with a MAPS 4 extension vote. If that vote passes, move back to the Paycom Center until the new arena is built.

You will see a different opinion on a future arena vote once this team resides in Tulsa.

https://news.pollstar.com/2023/10/18/fiserv-forum-double-bill-bucks-and-burr/

The Bucks had a game at noon on a Sunday and then Bill Burr performed at 8 that evening. Since the arena is set up with a better back stage area, they were able to do this on the same day. Paycom could never pull that off.

The voters will decide if they want the Thunder to remain in Oklahoma City long term; if not, suggest that if this vote fails, relocate the team to Tulsa's 17,839 seat BOK Center for the 2025-26, 2026-27 and 2027-28 season (three years) and survey the voters in 2028 when the tax expires and decide what kind of arena does Oklahoma City want to build for the future. At all cost, don't let this team leave our state.

City won't have to be concerned about a loan, and once the team resides in Tulsa, allow OKC voters an opportunity
to retain the team in 2028 with a MAPS 4 extension vote. If that vote passes, move back to the Paycom Center until the new arena is built.

You will see a different opinion on a future arena vote once this team resides in Tulsa.

Nothing will make me give up my season tickets faster than making me go to ****ing Tulsa to see Thunder games.

the voters will decide if they want the thunder to remain in oklahoma city long term; if not, suggest that if this vote fails, relocate the team to tulsa's 17,839 seat bok center for the 2025-26, 2026-27 and 2027-28 season (three years) and survey the voters in 2028 when the tax expires and decide what kind of arena does oklahoma city want to build for the future. At all cost, don't let this team leave our state.

City won't have to be concerned about a loan, and once the team resides in tulsa, allow okc voters an opportunity
to retain the team in 2028 with a maps 4 extension vote. If that vote passes, move back to the paycom center until the new arena is built.

You will see a different opinion on a future arena vote once this team resides in tulsa.

lol wut?

The voters will decide if they want the Thunder to remain in Oklahoma City long term; if not, suggest that if this vote fails, relocate the team to Tulsa's 17,839 seat BOK Center for the 2025-26, 2026-27 and 2027-28 season (three years) and survey the voters in 2028 when the tax expires and decide what kind of arena does Oklahoma City want to build for the future. At all cost, don't let this team leave our state.

City won't have to be concerned about a loan, and once the team resides in Tulsa, allow OKC voters an opportunity
to retain the team in 2028 with a MAPS 4 extension vote. If that vote passes, move back to the Paycom Center until the new arena is built.

You will see a different opinion on a future arena vote once this team resides in Tulsa.

There is no way you seriously believe this could or should happen, right? Is this an The Onion piece on OKCTalk? Like, REALLY?

Vote down the MAPS 4 extension: Tulsa or Louisville . . . or 17 other municipalities wanting an NBA franchise.

Keep this franchise in the State of Oklahoma.

Vote down the MAPS 4 extension: Tulsa or Louisville . . .

Nope and Nope.

Nope and Nope.

There's a city in Washington with a ton of NBA history that would use their contacts in the NBA to CRANK up pressure for a sale and relocation there.

There's a city in Washington with a ton of NBA history that would use their contacts in the NBA to CRANK up pressure for a sale and relocation there.

Spokane?

Least kept secret in the league is that Seattle and Las Vegas will get expansion teams in the coming years.

Spokane?

Nah man, Everett! They are getting a team in the supposed new Arena Football League, so why not the NBA?

Nah man, Everett! They are getting a team in the supposed new Arena Football League, so why not the NBA?

okay. as long as it isn't Tacoma!

Look, billionaires will get more and more wealthy, whether we have a new arena or not, and whether we have an NBA team or not. Why not have OKC prosper and keep up its growth with the Thunder, rather than without them?

It's truly that simple.

Because that economic growth is independent of a presence of an NBA team, and we can invest $1b elsewhere that better maintains and expands that growth.


It's truly that simple.

Spokane?

Was thinking Pullman.

Because that economic growth is independent of a presence of an NBA team, and we can invest $1b elsewhere that better maintains and expands that growth.


It's truly that simple.

That is not how it works

Was thinking Pullman.

pullman makes perfect sense... it's almost a twin cities scenario when you pull in that Moscow Idaho viewing audience too

Because that economic growth is independent of a presence of an NBA team, and we can invest $1b elsewhere that better maintains and expands that growth.


It's truly that simple.

Yeah I bet a mass a $1 billion mass transit project in the least dense city in the country where everyone drives anyway will make OKC look way more interesting and attractive to young professionals who are weighing their options between OKC, Denver, Austin, Nashville, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, KC, LA, etc. than a successful NBA franchise who plays in a world class arena that also hosts major entertainment acts. Pictures of busses and trains would make a way better center piece for OKC promotional materials and videos. "Why go take in a Nuggets game on Friday night when you could ride the train from Edmond to Norman instead!" "Who needs 3 awesome concerts over a three day weekend when you could take the bus to Yukon and back!"

I heard Albuquerque has a pretty nice mass transit system, maybe we'll start beating them out if we build one too!

I'm sorry but your insistence on minimizing the PR impact that the Thunder have is dumb (though again, if you weren't here before 2008...I guess I shouldn't expect you to get it). As a city in the middle of the country with little to distinguish itself from other peer cities or make us competitive with the next tier of cities, we need big city amenities and the appearance that potential relocatees or employees of companies who plan to relocate can have a similar experiences in OKC as they can in larger cities. Mass transit and other projects are important and we need them but they don't matter if no one wants to move here because of the perception that it's a podunk, boring small town with nothing to do here. Losing the Thunder would be a massive blackeye on the perception of the city that it would take years to recover from.

nm

Did people move to Milwaukee because the Bucks have a new arena and won a title?

I mean it might give them some additional exposure but it isn't a great comparison. Milwaukee is a 2 pro sport city and the bucks have been there since 1968. The comparison is a professional sports team vs. no professional sports team and a lack of other attractions that compare to big larger cities in the eyes of people looking to move here. I would argue that Milwaukee has more going for it as a destination with more stand out things like beer culture, being on the banks of what might as well be an ocean and being under two hours from Chicago, etc than OKC does.

No comparison is full proof but just look at the growth comparison between OKC and other regional metros that we were once compared to since 2000:

1990-2000: OKC - 13.0%, Omaha - 13.1%, Tulsa - 12.9%, Wichita - 11.8%, Albuquerque - 21.7%, Little Rock - 14.1%
2000-2010: OKC - 15.7%, Omaha - 12.8%, Tulsa - 9.1%, Wichita - 9.1%, Albuquerque - 21.6%, Little Rock - 14.6%
2010-2020: OKC - 13.8%, Omaha - 11.8%, Tulsa - 8.3%, Wichita - 3.9%, Albuquerque - 3.3%, Little Rock - 6.9%

With exception to Little Rock with a slight bump in 2010, all of those cities have declined in growth since after 2000. Omaha and Little Rock were both actually outgrowing OKC prior to 2000 with some experiencing significant drops between 2010-2020. It obviously wasn't just the Thunder that has helped OKC out grow those cities (Memphis for example dropped off quite a bit during the same timeframe but had a number of other things working against it) but as far as major differences go, it is an easy and highly publicized one that you can point out.

nm

https://i.giphy.com/media/2Xflxzn7jWsjCVlx13q/giphy.webp

So what you're saying is that young professionals look at whether a city has a professional sports team before they consider transit options while pondering a potential relocation? Or are they "nerds" if they don't care?

So what you're saying is that young professionals look at whether a city has a professional sports team before they consider transit options while pondering a potential relocation? Or are they "nerds" if they don't care?

young professionals look to see what amenities a new city has to offer when they are looking at potential moves.... yes. my neighbor and his wife just moved to OKC from Amarillo, because they said while the pay was the same for his new job, they wanted to be in a place that had fun activities to do and events to attend and go see. so in a way, yes. because a professional sports team is easy massive exposure for there being things for those young professionals to do.

What young professionals look for when considering relocation is "buzz" and big city amenities. Most young people starting a career are not seeking out backwaters, if looking to change locations. The presence of major league sports is shorthand for "this is an actual city," even if someone doesn't specifically intend to go to games.

Huh, I always thought people were looking for jobs and places to live. TIL

What young professionals look for when considering relocation is "buzz" and big city amenities. Most young people starting a career are not seeking out backwaters, if looking to change locations. The presence of major league sports is shorthand for "this is an actual city," even if someone doesn't specifically intend to go to games.

This is so true and it's odd that people argue that "sports ball" isn't worth a city investing more in just to prove we should vote no... sports is simply a major part of human culture so the cities that are known for it are going to be more successful.

If we don’t approve a new arena, we will lose our NBA franchise and we will lose the ability to land the best concerts that perform in arena’s. I just don’t understand why so many are willing to accept that happening by voting against the arena. The benefits for the city of Oklahoma City far outweigh any negatives you can think of.

Downtown OKC/Bricktown will be a ghost town the majority of the time if we lose the Thunder and even more concerts, especially October-June.

The restaurants and Harkins are nice but most people aren’t going to just go to Bricktown to eat and watch a movie. Especially with so many other options in those regards around the city now.

Huh, I always thought people were looking for jobs and places to live. TIL

If you had job offers from two companies that you really liked identical compensation packages (adjusted for cost of living), would you choose to live in Wichita or OKC?

Huh, I always thought people were looking for jobs and places to live. TIL

you are just trolling at this point right? to think that people don't look at where a city is, and what it offers when choosing to relocate? you are just being disingenuous at this point.

So what you're saying is that young professionals look at whether a city has a professional sports team before they consider transit options while pondering a potential relocation? Or are they "nerds" if they don't care?

I think the point is that major league sports are an attraction. And it's a part of a mix of attractions. Any attempts to reduce a city's economy to one variable is inherently flawed and unscientific.

No one is going to move anywhere for a singular reason, with the exceptions of money or family.

And yes, they will consider attractions before public transit, simply because a city with public transit but nothing to do is not more appealing to anyone than a city with stuff to do and no public transit. Good cities do both, but, especially in US, there are many large cities that continue to grow despite inadequate public transit. (If we're being honest, there aren't that many great examples of good public transit in the US.)

And if we do not pass this measure, there is not $1 Billion dollars to invest in other areas. OKC has spent multiple billions of dollars in civics projects through MAPS and we have continue to pass and spend billions of dollars in public infrastructure and services. Opportunity cost is a real concept, but the zero sum assumption often made in an opportunity cost analysis isn't always real.

What young professionals look for when considering relocation is "buzz" and big city amenities. Most young people starting a career are not seeking out backwaters, if looking to change locations. The presence of major league sports is shorthand for "this is an actual city," even if someone doesn't specifically intend to go to games.

Yes. This is what my response was going to be.

Without that, you have to resort to things like paying people $10,000 to work remotely from your city or yelling at Elon on twitter until he visits to generate national buzz. I've loved living in Tulsa, it is a great city with a ton to offer but you just can't buy the leg up in publicity and national prominence (at least perceived) that the Thunder have given OKC.

Huh, I always thought people were looking for jobs and places to live. TIL

Lost of places have jobs and you'll find that a lot of people are qualified for jobs in more than just one place.

If you had job offers from two companies that you really liked identical compensation packages (adjusted for cost of living), would you choose to live in Wichita or OKC?

I mean, depends on what the jobs are. Think these two cities are a little too close. Maybe Austin and Baton Rouge would be a little more fair of a comparison.

I mean, depends on what the jobs are. Think these two cities are a little too close. Maybe Austin and Baton Rouge would be a little more fair of a comparison.

I don’t think either has a pro sports team.

What about Austin vs. New Orleans? Which would you choose?

I mean, depends on what the jobs are. Think these two cities are a little too close. Maybe Austin and Baton Rouge would be a little more fair of a comparison.

right. so if people just want jobs/place to live based upon cost of living and availability everyone is choosing Baton Rouge according to you. got it.

I mean, depends on what the jobs are. Think these two cities are a little too close. Maybe Austin and Baton Rouge would be a little more fair of a comparison.

Close in proximity, population or in amenities?

I don’t think either has a pro sports team.

What about Austin vs. New Orleans? Which would you choose?

Austin has the MLS entities and a million other things going for it between lakes, hill country, mass corporate relocations, music culture, is a major tourism destination, capital of the largest state in the US, etc. New Orleans has the NFL, NBA, cajun culture/food, bourbon street, and is a massive tourism destination. Not a great comparison in general.

I don’t think either has a pro sports team.

What about Austin vs. New Orleans? Which would you choose?

I wasn't around during the founding of either of those cities so I don't think I really "get it." Don't know if I deserve to have opinions on them.

What young professionals look for when considering relocation is "buzz" and big city amenities. Most young people starting a career are not seeking out backwaters, if looking to change locations. The presence of major league sports is shorthand for "this is an actual city," even if someone doesn't specifically intend to go to games.

One of the biggest changes in demographics after the implementation of MAPS was the growth in OKC's younger demographics. This was in large part due to more younger OKC residents choosing to stay, not nessecccarily because of some big influx of people from other areas. It singled to many of them that the city had a future when there was little to indicate that before. If anything, the presence of an international brand like the NBA, first with the success of the Hornets temporary residency and then with the relocation the Thunder, validated that. Obviously, that's sentimental and psychological, but to deny that those things affect people's personal economic, lifestyle, and career decisions is denying simple human nature.

I wasn't around during the founding of either of those cities so I don't think I really "get it." Don't know if I deserve to have opinions on them.

LOL dude quit being a troll. You know my comment was targeting people who didn't live here before and after the Thunder's arrival in 2008 (not 1800) and don't have a frame of reference for the comparison.

Also don't you live in San Antonio? (edit: NM that's "josh")

I wasn't around during the founding of either of those cities so I don't think I really "get it." Don't know if I deserve to have opinions on them.

yep. so just trolling at this point..

Trolls and people who truly don’t want what’s best for Oklahoma City on a forum called OKCTalk. Sad, very sad.

Austin has the MLS entities and a million other things going for it between lakes, hill country, mass corporate relocations, music culture, is a major tourism destination, capital of the largest state in the US, etc. New Orleans has the NFL, NBA, cajun culture/food, bourbon street, and is a massive tourism destination. Not a great comparison in general.

Austin's public transit sucks, so I choose New Orleans.


(j/k)