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

That may be a little unfair. I think PoliSci, April and some others disagree with the proposal because they genuinely don't think its best for OKC. I disagree with them because I think their reasoning is stupid, logic questionable, that they've put an overemphasis on flawed studies and that they massively under estimate the value of having a professional sports team in this market but I don't think anyone's objections are due to not wanting the best for OKC (at least not on OKCTalk).

Now the airport director on the other hand....

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

That may be a little unfair. I think PoliSci, April and some others disagree with the proposal because they genuinely don't think its best for OKC. I disagree with them because I think their reasoning is stupid, logic questionable, that they've put an overemphasis on flawed studies and that they massively under estimate the value of having a professional sports team in this market but I don't think anyone's objections are due to not wanting the best for OKC (at least not on OKCTalk).

Now the airport director on the other hand....

Living rent free.

At least move to OKC before bashing people on an OKC board.

Living rent free.

At least move to OKC before bashing people on an OKC board.

I’d fly there if it wasn’t for the ineptitude of the airport director!

(but in seriousness I mostly have moved back there/here but also grew up in OKC and lived there all but 3 years of my life, posting here for the last 12…only a temporary hiatus)

Also don't you live in San Antonio?

Pulling the “do you even live here?” card while not living here. I wouldn’t expect any less from a filthy Tulsan.

Pulling the “do you even live here?” card while not living here. I wouldn’t expect any less from a filthy Tulsan.

LOL, see above. Even just changed my voter registration

LOL, see above. Even just changed my voter registration

We only recognize the opinions of those who have been on this site since before 2010, sorry. I'm gonna have to ask you to vacate the website.

I can't vote on the proposal either. I'll show myself the door.

We only recognize the opinions of those who have been on this site since before 2010, sorry. I'm gonna have to ask you to vacate the website.

I guess you’ll be joining me?

I guess you’ll be joining me?

I've bribed my way to allow me to pass the 2010 threshold. I'm afraid I can't help you.

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.

This is a point that shouldn't be overlooked and I think it is. I grew up in the Tulsa area and moved to OKC in 1999 to go to OCU. At the time, I was thinking I live here and when I am done, I move back to Tulsa (made sense at the time), Dallas (a lot of my friends did that), Orlando (had a lot of family there) or NYC (more family there and friends moving there). I choose to stay in OKC because I got a pretty good paying job in 2002 and met my wife in 2006, married in 2007 and lived here ever since. I knew plenty of people that moved away after college but also a lot of people stayed because the city had come so long since we moved here. Also, cost of living was still pretty low and it wasn't hard to get around.

I've bribed my way to allow me to pass the 2010 threshold. I'm afraid I can't help you.

:wink:

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.

To me, it also seems disingenuous to laud MAPS, and the enormous benefits it has brought to the City, while supporting the current plan that will postpone new MAPS projects for at least 6 years, and probably longer due to the zero-debt, collect-first, spend-later structure of MAPS. OKC has had the MAPS program for 30, very successful, years, with multiple projects that build on one another to continually improve the city. Personally, it seems like a bad idea to forego so many projects (MAPS 4 included 16 projects for the city!) for just One debt-financed project downtown.

To me, it also seems disingenuous to laud MAPS, and the enormous benefits it has brought to the City, while supporting the current plan that will postpone new MAPS projects for at least 6 years, and probably longer due to the zero-debt, collect-first, spend-later structure of MAPS. OKC has had the MAPS program for 30, very successful, years, with multiple projects that build on one another to continually improve the city. Personally, it seems like a bad idea to forego so many projects (MAPS 4 included 16 projects for the city!) for just One debt-financed project downtown.

I am going to play devil's advocate here: if there was a choice between a new arena and spending a billion on more MAPS projects, I assume you would choose the latter. If that is the case, what kind of projects would you like to see in a MAPS vote that would be MAPS 5?

To me, it also seems disingenuous to laud MAPS, and the enormous benefits it has brought to the City, while supporting the current plan that will postpone new MAPS projects for at least 6 years, and probably longer due to the zero-debt, collect-first, spend-later structure of MAPS. OKC has had the MAPS program for 30, very successful, years, with multiple projects that build on one another to continually improve the city. Personally, it seems like a bad idea to forego so many projects (MAPS 4 included 16 projects for the city!) for just One debt-financed project downtown.

I’m not sure why it’s disingenuous:

1) The new arena proposal is about building on former maps projects to continually improve the city.

2) MAPS literally built and renovated on multiple occasions the arena we’re replacing.

3) Were you for renovating the publicly funded Myriad so that it could better serve as a convention center as part of the first MAPS? Were you also for building a new convention center to replace Myriad/cox convention center as part of MAPS 3? Were you in favor of building paycom as part of the original MAPS to replace the 30 year old Myriad arena which was also publicly funded?

There is a pattern here. Other than having a higher price tag and bonus…a private entity chipping in some of the cost, how is replacing paycom different than replacing a publicly funded Myriad arena that was too small to warrant a renovation and a MAPS funded renovated cox convention center that had become too small to serve its purpose? Would you rather the arena be lumped in with 5 other projects and the total cost be two billion instead?

1) I’m not sure why it’s disingenuous. MAPS literally built and renovated on multiple occasions the arena we’re replacing.

2) Were you for renovating the publicly funded Myriad so that it could better serve as a convention center as part of the first MAPS? Were you also for building a new convention center to replace Myriad/cox convention center as part of MAPS 3? Were you in favor of building paycom as part of the original MAPS to replace the 30 year old Myriad arena which was also publicly funded?

Other than having a higher price tag and bonus…a private entity chipping in some of the cost, how is replacing paycom different than replacing a publicly funded Myriad arena that was too small to warrant a renovation and a MAPS funded renovated cox convention center that had become too small to serve its purpose? Would you rather the arena be lumped in with 5 other projects and the total cost be two billion instead?

1) Because it does away with MAPS for debt financing - the opposite of what made MAPS such a successful and popular project.
2) Of those, I think I would have only been eligible to vote in MAPS 3 based on my age, I'm only 36.... And that convention center was one of 8 projects, and funded without taking on more debt. Seems apples to oranges comparison.

I'd rather we get a more reasonable price-tag. Drop the price by 20% and I wouldn't care if the owners put in anything at all. I don't care about the actual construction cost of the Arena - I care about the actual cost of the arena to the citizens through taxes and repaying debt for the financing. Hell, make the $900MM the cap for the project even, and I would be much, much more supportive.

And, yes, I'd rather it be lumped in with additional projects to other improvements to the city through MAPS arent stagnant for over half a decade.

1) Because it does away with MAPS for debt financing - the opposite of what made MAPS such a successful and popular project.
2) Of those, I think I would have only been eligible to vote in MAPS 3 based on my age, I'm only 36.... And that convention center was one of 8 projects, and funded without taking on more debt. Seems apples to oranges comparison.

I'd rather we get a more reasonable price-tag. Drop the price by 20% and I wouldn't care if the owners put in anything at all. I don't care about the actual construction cost of the Arena - I care about the actual cost of the arena to the citizens through taxes and repaying debt for the financing. Hell, make the $900MM the cap for the project even, and I would be much, much more supportive.

And, yes, I'd rather it be lumped in with additional projects to other improvements to the city through MAPS arent stagnant for over half a decade.

Is prospect of getting no arena and losing the team worth a no vote because you want the price reduced by 20%?

Is prospect of getting no arena and losing the team worth a no vote because you want the price reduced dropping the price by 20%?

100% agree with this. Losing the team over $200 million is so short-sighted, and would damage this city's reputation by well over that.

To me, it also seems disingenuous to laud MAPS, and the enormous benefits it has brought to the City, while supporting the current plan that will postpone new MAPS projects for at least 6 years, and probably longer due to the zero-debt, collect-first, spend-later structure of MAPS. OKC has had the MAPS program for 30, very successful, years, with multiple projects that build on one another to continually improve the city. Personally, it seems like a bad idea to forego so many projects (MAPS 4 included 16 projects for the city!) for just One debt-financed project downtown.

this is pretty much MAPS under a different name ..

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.

Out of genuine curiosity what other investments could the city make and see 100% roi? Are there any studies out there that show directly investing $xxx,xxx,xxx into a specific civic type endeavor and getting it all back?

What other things would you offer up as an alternative?

We have a problem folks. In surveys, 50% of the population doesn't support this.

Holt responded to a comment I made about not having anything to show the public what they were voting on. It's wasn't a very promising reply. Basically, all he said was that it's what's best for the city. That's a pretty thin argument in my book. Not having renderings or models to show someone before the vote is a big hurdle. People don't like voting on promises. They want STUFF. They want to see what they are voting to spend money on and know how it's going to benefit them.

I honestly feel like the city hasn't done their best effort in selling this and isn't really putting their best foot forward to try to make it attractive to residents. It's not a MAPS program, but it is an extension between MAPs programs. I'm thinking they would have done better to make it a part of the next MAPs.

I also do not think the team is contributing enough for what they're pushing for. Double it and I think you have an honest offer and attempt to being a partner as the biggest tenant and the SOLE reason for the update.

I'm going to vote Yes because I know what this means for us.....well I guess i would vote yes if i lived in OKC still. But there's some pretty hefty ground to make up and it's been a LONG time since OKC lost a vote like this. I just do not see why the city isn't doing more to try to save the vote. Just replying on Facebook posts from articles by the city isn't going to cut it.

Out of genuine curiosity what other investments could the city make and see 100% roi? Are there any studies out there that show directly investing $xxx,xxx,xxx into a specific civic type endeavor and getting it all back?

What other things would you offer up as an alternative?

It would never happen here in Car Town America, but a full-on Public Transportation infrastructure. Light rail from downtown to Edmond, Moore, Norman, and Midwest City to Yukon. Create two more bus hubs. That would be nice. Long commuters would definitely pay for a cheaper way to get to work. All that money spent will be made back.

Obviously this would take way longer to do and probably cost more, but it would at least make me happy.

We have a problem folks. In surveys, 50% of the population doesn't support this.

One survey with a tiny sample size of OKC voters. No need to exaggerate.

We have a problem folks. In surveys, 50% of the population doesn't support this.

Holt responded to a comment I made about not having anything to show the public what they were voting on. It's wasn't a very promising reply. Basically, all he said was that it's what's best for the city. That's a pretty thin argument in my book. Not having renderings or models to show someone before the vote is a big hurdle. People don't like voting on promises. They want STUFF. They want to see what they are voting to spend money on and know how it's going to benefit them.

I honestly feel like the city hasn't done their best effort in selling this and isn't really putting their best foot forward to try to make it attractive to residents. It's not a MAPS program, but it is an extension between MAPs programs. I'm thinking they would have done better to make it a part of the next MAPs.

I also do not think the team is contributing enough for what they're pushing for. Double it and I think you have an honest offer and attempt to being a partner as the biggest tenant and the SOLE reason for the update.

I'm going to vote Yes because I know what this means for us.....well I guess i would vote yes if i lived in OKC still. But there's some pretty hefty ground to make up and it's been a LONG time since OKC lost a vote like this. I just do not see why the city isn't doing more to try to save the vote. Just replying on Facebook posts from articles by the city isn't going to cut it.

I agree. They need to release some detailed renderings that show how this will become a “town square” and benefit the city from multiple angles.

Right now it’s coming off as the mayor attempting to run interference for his rich benefactors. This will end up being Clays dream if we’re not able to criticize the design and confirm it will be a boost to the citizens and downtown outside of just keeping the Thunder.

I agree. They need to release some detailed renderings that show how this will become a “town square” and benefit the city from multiple angles.

Right now it’s coming off as the mayor attempting to run interference for his rich benefactors. This will end up being Clays dream if we’re not able to criticize the design and confirm it will be a boost to the citizens and downtown outside of just keeping the Thunder.

Good luck with that. I was told many times that Renderings aren't made for the public and our opinion on said renderings does not matter. Ha!

Maybe I'm naïve, but I do think that more people would support this if a site was already selected and there was even just one conceptual rendering of the exterior. "Downtown" isn't specific. Say it's going on the myriad superblock or on the block between the botanical gardens and scissortail park, or wherever they want to put it. Also, put out a flashy concept from some big name architectural firm. It doesn't have to look anything like it in the end, but I agree that people want to see what they are voting for. I think those two things alone would bolster support significantly.

That, and the thunder doing great between now and the vote.

I’m more pissed about the proposed timeline than anything else. Starting demo/construction 3 or 4 years before tax collection begins is just insane. The city could do a lot of very nice things with ~300 Million (which will be consumed by interest payments and carrying costs), but apparently we have to do this deal on The Thunder’s schedule or else.

I have a hard time believing that the team would walk if the facility opened in 2031 instead of 2029.

I’m more pissed about the proposed timeline than anything else. Starting demo/construction 3 or 4 years before tax collection begins is just insane. The city could do a lot of very nice things with ~300 Million (which will be consumed by interest payments and carrying costs), but apparently we have to do this deal on The Thunder’s schedule or else.

I have a hard time believing that the team would walk if the facility opened in 2031 instead of 2029.

I’m not sure if this 100% relates from the financial end, but Shai is on a 5-year deal that ends in 2028/2029. He’s set to most likely sign one of if not the highest deal ever for an NBA player if he stays in OKC. That combined with all the other young players coming off their rookie deals will materially alter the Thunders payroll costs. Based on the CBA that’s reached between the players and owners it could put the Thunder in the luxury tax for several years. I believe the team gets a majority of proceeds from arena revenues and they split a percentage with the NBA. So based on that timeline it kinda makes sense.

So to the Thunder ownership they have a brand in excellent shape, a massive collection of young assets/picks, and what appears to be a winning team that could contend for a championship soon. They’re approaching peak value for the team right now and staring down a dramatic increase in payroll costs. It could be this simple to the ownership group based on the vote:
1. Sell the team at peak value before cost rise
2. Get a new arena to help offset new rising costs and keep the team

We have a problem folks. In surveys, 50% of the population doesn't support this.

Holt responded to a comment I made about not having anything to show the public what they were voting on. It's wasn't a very promising reply. Basically, all he said was that it's what's best for the city. That's a pretty thin argument in my book. Not having renderings or models to show someone before the vote is a big hurdle. People don't like voting on promises. They want STUFF. They want to see what they are voting to spend money on and know how it's going to benefit them.

I honestly feel like the city hasn't done their best effort in selling this and isn't really putting their best foot forward to try to make it attractive to residents. It's not a MAPS program, but it is an extension between MAPs programs. I'm thinking they would have done better to make it a part of the next MAPs.

I also do not think the team is contributing enough for what they're pushing for. Double it and I think you have an honest offer and attempt to being a partner as the biggest tenant and the SOLE reason for the update.

I'm going to vote Yes because I know what this means for us.....well I guess i would vote yes if i lived in OKC still. But there's some pretty hefty ground to make up and it's been a LONG time since OKC lost a vote like this. I just do not see why the city isn't doing more to try to save the vote. Just replying on Facebook posts from articles by the city isn't going to cut it.

I’ve said it before on this thread but Holt and the official vote yes campaign limiting replies on social media is just a bad look no matter how you spin in.

One survey with a tiny sample size of OKC voters. No need to exaggerate.

Correct. The survey was a *statewide* survey and to get the arena numbers they had to extract the OKC sample, which was small. With that said, Emerson is a very well-respected and accurate pollster, so even though this poll showing high opposition was not ideally constructed for this issue and thus may overstate the opposition (and support!), arena proponents should take it seriously.

The State of Oklahoma also needs to step up. The team is an asset for the state as well.
The State makes considerable sales tax and liquor tax money off this team. If the state can spend money to benefit Pryor they can show some love to OKC.

The State of Oklahoma also needs to step up. The team is an asset for the state as well.
The State makes considerable sales tax and luquor tax money off this team. If the state can spend money to benefit Pryor they can show some love to OKC.

Agree 100%

I am going to play devil's advocate here: if there was a choice between a new arena and spending a billion on more MAPS projects, I assume you would choose the latter. If that is the case, what kind of projects would you like to see in a MAPS vote that would be MAPS 5?


this is pretty much MAPS under a different name ..

There is no aspect of this that is similar to MAPS other than a 1% tax.

This is only a single project.
This starts before any funds are collected.
It is a larger expense than any other MAPS project by a large margin even adjusting for inflation.

There is no aspect of this that is similar to MAPS other than a 1% tax.

This is only a single project.
This starts before any funds are collected.
It is a larger expense than any other MAPS project by a large margin even adjusting for inflation.

This is why we (taxpayers) would like to see what a $900 million arena is going to look like.


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ee/Sprint_Center_entrance_Kansas_City_Missouri.jpg/220px-Sprint_Center_entrance_Kansas_City_Missouri.jpg
We want to see renderings that are at least comparable to Kansas City's T-Mobile Center

Does the City of Oklahoma City have renderings or not.

To me, it also seems disingenuous to laud MAPS, and the enormous benefits it has brought to the City, while supporting the current plan that will postpone new MAPS projects for at least 6 years, and probably longer due to the zero-debt, collect-first, spend-later structure of MAPS. OKC has had the MAPS program for 30, very successful, years, with multiple projects that build on one another to continually improve the city. Personally, it seems like a bad idea to forego so many projects (MAPS 4 included 16 projects for the city!) for just One debt-financed project downtown.

I wasn't really trying to laud MAPS and its effects on OKC over the last 30 days a direct endorsement of this specific project and the way it was funded. I was more trying to diffuse the actually disingenuous arguments that these projects never benefit cities nor do they make them more attractive for younger people beginning their life and careers. I saw the effects in real time and there is demographic statistics to back it up. I watched how, in an incredibly short period of time, people went from "I can't wait to get out of here" to buying and selling t-shirts proudly championing the city, often with a Thunder adjacent theme.

Can I quantify that that? No. Can anyone do a study that isolates the effects of one project or brand's effect on the local economy as a whole in a way that will satisfy the skeptic or change the mind of the cynical? No. But there also isn't anything that quantifiably supports the concept that spending money on these projects was a bad thing or that having the city participate in the expense of a major league sports team that brings near constant international branding has been some sort of albatross impeding progress and development (or spending) in other areas.

how is replacing paycom different than replacing a publicly funded Myriad arena that was too small to warrant a renovation and a MAPS funded renovated cox convention center that had become too small to serve its purpose? Would you rather the arena be lumped in with 5 other projects and the total cost be two billion instead?

This is looking back to understand the present. Do we want to go back to when the best use of our publicly funded aging arena is hosting one of the better supported singe A hockey teams in North America?

Of course, those teams aren't worth as much and their owners don't make as much money off of them as major league owners do, so maybe some do want that.

I am going to play devil's advocate here: if there was a choice between a new arena and spending a billion on more MAPS projects, I assume you would choose the latter. If that is the case, what kind of projects would you like to see in a MAPS vote that would be MAPS 5?


100% agree with this. Losing the team over $200 million is so short-sighted, and would damage this city's reputation by well over that.

Just to be clear, I did not exactly say that. I said knock 20% off the price or cap it at $900MM. Voting to pay for some unknown, arbitrarily large value is a nonstarter for me. Like, the tax is estimated to bring in around $1.3BB, so, 20% off that is still over $1 Billion.

I gotta admit I don't recall the first MAPS vote (and later ones) giving specifics on location or drawings. Seems like the baseball stadium could have been built at the Fairgrounds, and other loosely defined items. But we stepped up for our city and voted yes

I gotta admit I don't recall the first MAPS vote (and later ones) giving specifics on location or drawings. Seems like the baseball stadium could have been built at the Fairgrounds, and other loosely defined items. But we stepped up for our city and voted yes

It was 30 years ago, so a lot of us either didn't live in OKC, or were too young to vote. However, check out this video that includes the original renderings the 1993 MAPS 1 campaign. Start it at the 2:06 mark.

We (They) got exactly what they voted for, the only overage I am aware of was "finishing MAPS" right to correctly build the arena under Mayor Humphreys.


https://youtu.be/0MdH014ucyw?si=1LWj7p3YZYGSuow-&t=126

Just to be clear, I did not exactly say that. I said knock 20% off the price or cap it at $900MM. Voting to pay for some unknown, arbitrarily large value is a nonstarter for me. Like, the tax is estimated to bring in around $1.3BB, so, 20% off that is still over $1 Billion.

I get that on principle …that extra cash, even if we blow through the cost, just has such a minimal effect on you, me and everyone compared to the prospect of not having the thunder anymore if you’re a fan of the team or the publicity it brings the city. If you don’t like sports or just don’t care about whether OKC has in NBA team, I certainly get objecting to it but again, it just isn’t the hill I want to die on (though I freely admit that I’d vote for it if it was $3 Billion proposal with a gold dome on top LOL).

I do wish the city and Holt would get a little more out in the public and openly discuss this. Thunder as well.

This is looking back to understand the present. Do we want to go back to when the best use of our publicly funded aging arena is hosting one of the better supported singe A hockey teams in North America?

Of course, those teams aren't worth as much and their owners don't make as much money off of them as major league owners do, so maybe some do want that.

Definitely is. Also goes to show that maps has a history of replacing pervious Maps and otherwise publicly funded projects with better buildings that improve the city.

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.

This got buried a bit but I think it’s relevant enough to the discussion around the intangible benefit of having the thunder here to bump.

Again…the population increase vs similar cities in the region isn’t directly tied to the thunder being here but it is one easily identifiable difference between the cities that was added during the time that those population growth figures started to change.

Having worked on civic campaigns, municipal elections can be very difficult to poll. That said, polling I saw in recent mayoral elections was remarkably stable and consistent, regardless of how much money was spent.

Civic issue elections -- and state questions -- are generally more volatile to poll. Most polling for MAPS 4 indicated a somewhat negative bent by voters, and then it just passed overwhelmingly. That same thing could happen in this case.

My gut tells me that once the campaign is under way, and civic influencers of all stripes begin putting out there that they support the arena, it will pass fairly comfortably. But, to define comfortably, MAPS used to pass by around 8 percent, which is actually fairly comfortable.

I also believe that more people will be more motivated to vote FOR something than voting against something.

When you take into account the wording of the polling question, it is a bit leading: building a "stadium" for the Thunder as opposed to building a new arena that will be owned and operated by OKC. Big difference? Maybe not, but definitely a leading question.

Most people in surveys are very happy with the way OKC is managed and its future. Like, crazy high numbers in the 70s. The people who are adamantly against this arena are often the same people who seem to be unhappy with one thing or another about OKC.

This will be about turnout, obviously, as all elections are, and I think the YES folks have the edge in terms of the way people feel about the progress of our city and the central arguments that support a new arena.

I do wish the city and Holt would get a little more out in the public and openly discuss this. Thunder as well.


This is going to happen, but it's too early for a December election date. Virtually no one is paying attention to this right now, except for the people on this board (and, of course, everyone's best friends or work buddies, Twitter followers, and cousins-in-law twice removed, etc.). You will likely see a flood of campaign activity right after Thanksgiving, if I had to guess, because that's when people will tune into this issue. You'll see some activity starting now, but it will be subtle or it will be basic stuff to lay the ground work for the true campaign.

[/B]

This is going to happen, but it's too early for a December election date. Virtually up no one is paying attention to this right now, except for the people on this board (and, of course, everyone's best friends or work buddies, Twitter followers, and cousins-in-law twice removed, etc.). You will likely see a flood of campaign activity right after Thanksgiving, if I had to guess, because that's when people will tune into this issue. You'll see some activity starting now, but it will be subtle or it will be basic stuff to lay the ground work for the true campaign.

Hope so, it just seems a lot quieter than it was leading up to other votes. I’d actually be interested in getting involved with the campaign. Had a good time helping a little with campaigns for maps 3 and Cornett and met some really cool people including Soonerguru, Catch and doctorTaco (I think) at one of them. Good times.

[/B]

This is going to happen, but it's too early for a December election date. Virtually no one is paying attention to this right now, except for the people on this board (and, of course, everyone's best friends or work buddies, Twitter followers, and cousins-in-law twice removed, etc.). You will likely see a flood of campaign activity right after Thanksgiving, if I had to guess, because that's when people will tune into this issue. You'll see some activity starting now, but it will be subtle or it will be basic stuff to lay the ground work for the true campaign.

This is the exact cadence they used for the school bond election in OKC last year. Didn't start pushing much until 2-3 weeks out it seemed.

Standing outside the arena before and after thunder games handing out vote info should be high priority of the YES campaign. Actual fans attending the games are fish in a barrel.

There is 10 home games before the vote. And the last one before the vote is November 30th against the Lakers.

Standing outside the arena before and after thunder games handing out vote info should be high priority of the YES campaign. Actual fans attending the games are fish in a barrel.

There is 10 home games before the vote. And the last one before the vote is November 30th against the Lakers.

Thunder have a home game against the Jazz on Monday, December 11. Not bad timing for a final push. I would even push for voter registration in the concourse in the months leading up to the election until the cutoff for OKC residents.

Oh you are right. I had the date of the vote wrong in my head. So yes, 11 home games - the Jazz game is the night before the election. That is good timing.

Most likely there is going to be another home game added on December 6th or 8th as well, depending on how the in-season tournament goes for the Thunder.

Does anyone have a link to the old convention center concept rendering that was inspired by a rose rock (I believe it was before the east park location was chosen)? I always thought that was a really cool concept and wanted to remind myself of what it looked like. I wonder if that idea could be revisited for the new arena (assuming it passes).

Hope so, it just seems a lot quieter than it was leading up to other votes. I’d actually be interested in getting involved with the campaign. Had a good time helping a little with campaigns for maps 3 and Cornett and met some really cool people including Soonerguru, Catch and doctorTaco (I think) at one of them. Good times.

That makes me pretty sure we've crossed paths IRL.......

That makes me pretty sure we've crossed paths IRL.......

maybe it was captain Dave instead of doctorTaco ;)

Does anyone have a link to the old convention center concept rendering that was inspired by a rose rock (I believe it was before the east park location was chosen)? I always thought that was a really cool concept and wanted to remind myself of what it looked like. I wonder if that idea could be revisited for the new arena (assuming it passes).

Definitely remember the Rose Rock Convention Concept rendering. IMO would be a good fit for the new Oklahoma City Arena.

I'm sure their is someone on here who can locate that convention center design.

It was 30 years ago, so a lot of us either didn't live in OKC, or were too young to vote. However, check out this video that includes the original renderings the 1993 MAPS 1 campaign. Start it at the 2:06 mark.

We (They) got exactly what they voted for, the only overage I am aware of was "finishing MAPS" right to correctly build the arena under Mayor Humphreys.


https://youtu.be/0MdH014ucyw?si=1LWj7p3YZYGSuow-&t=126

Interesting. As I reflected on what was shown, I began to remember that there wasn't much internet then. So, the only thing most of us really got to see was from the Oklahoman or on TV news. I'm certain that video that follows the canal to the baseball park (which reminds me of that video game from back then I think was called Wolfenstein, or something like that) would have only been a TV news snippet.

World has changed in a short period of time

Seems like the plans for this arena are as secret as the financial records of the Fairgrounds

Does anyone have a link to the old convention center concept rendering that was inspired by a rose rock (I believe it was before the east park location was chosen)? I always thought that was a really cool concept and wanted to remind myself of what it looked like. I wonder if that idea could be revisited for the new arena (assuming it passes).

I posted this last year... https://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=23863&p=1210902&highlight=#post1210902

Seems like the plans for this arena are as secret as the financial records of the Fairgrounds
There ARE no plans. They literally cannot officially land on a location OR hire an architect to draw plans until taxpayers have approved the initiative. I’m not sure why this is so difficult for posters here to understand.

There ARE no plans. They literally cannot officially land on a location OR hire an architect to draw plans until taxpayers have approved the initiative. I’m not sure why this is so difficult for posters here to understand.
So how’d they do that with MAPS 3?

The only thing maps 3 that was known was the location of the park. I could be wrong.