I’m pretty surprised that you would go out of your way to defend Ackerman McQueen’s handiwork. That’s interesting.

https://www.oklahoman.com/story/sports/nba/thunder/2015/09/08/thunder-logo-ranked-worst-in-the-nba-could-be-changing/60724735007/

https://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/report-thunder-considering-revision-of-logo-because-it-is-terrible/amp/

https://www.jamesrobertwatson.com/thunderlogo.html

https://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=41146&page=3

https://thunderousintentions.com/2016/07/18/the-end-of-an-era-its-time-for-a-logo-change/

https://grantland.com/the-triangle/the-definitive-nba-logo-rankings/
Did you notice your links are from 2015 and before, and most are recycling the same blog post?

LOI said at least 750,000 sq. ft., or more - Urbanized mentioned this in an earlier post #2801 on this thread page 141.
The 750K refers to the total building, which would include arena, concourse, premium and back-of-house. The arena is HIGHLY unlikely to have exhibit hall space, such as what is in the OKC Convention Center (200K sq ft) or the Bennett Event Center at the fairgrounds (201K sq ft). An expansion of the convention center (ultimately desired by the City, though probably a decade away) would take our downtown expo hall space to around 400K, which is only 100K off from SLC.

I don't personally understand the hate on the logo. It's hard to conceptualize thunder without including lightning, which we are not. I'm not sure what you're after in a new logo with that in mind. You want a cloud on the logo? Boring.

I didn't realize the arena had any meaningful meeting space. I can't imagine why anyone would need to meet there compared to an actual convention space. What's it used for on a normal day with the arena?

I’m pretty surprised that you would go out of your way to defend Ackerman McQueen’s handiwork. That’s interesting.

https://www.oklahoman.com/story/sports/nba/thunder/2015/09/08/thunder-logo-ranked-worst-in-the-nba-could-be-changing/60724735007/

https://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/report-thunder-considering-revision-of-logo-because-it-is-terrible/amp/

https://www.jamesrobertwatson.com/thunderlogo.html

https://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=41146&page=3

https://thunderousintentions.com/2016/07/18/the-end-of-an-era-its-time-for-a-logo-change/

https://grantland.com/the-triangle/the-definitive-nba-logo-rankings/
Lol. Guess I just don’t understand recycling very old opinions just to keep being negative. The logo has proved to be just fine.

What is your Objective fact driven personal analysis of the effectiveness of the logo that supports your opinion?

And, if you actually knew me you’d know that defending Ackerman McQueen is the last thing I would like to do. My direct experience with them goes back over 4 decades. But, my opinion doesn’t mean everything they did was wrong. I tend to analyze things objectively and not emotionally.

…I didn't realize the arena had any meaningful meeting space. I can't imagine why anyone would need to meet there compared to an actual convention space. What's it used for on a normal day with the arena?
Paycom does NOT have meaningful meeting space. And I doubt significant meeting space would be proposed for the new arena, either. That’s the job of the convention center.

No, because these numbers are completely made up and have no backing with reality. This is a firm hired by the Chamber of Commerce to produce a good report to justify the arena, not an actual, empirically backed study. There's a reason why none of these PR firms actually submit their "findings" to peer review. This is a pretty good takedown of studies like this by an actual economist: https://x.com/jc_bradbury/status/1729132330294628773?s=20

Yes and the studies you repost over and over again that were created with with the goal of showing how arenas don’t provide a positive economic impact by individuals who are massive anti-public funding for sports nerds and peer reviewed by the same echo chamber of nerds are definitely bias free, completely accurate, and objectively neutral representations of subjective data.

I don't personally understand the hate on the logo. It's hard to conceptualize thunder without including lightning, which we are not. I'm not sure what you're after in a new logo with that in mind. You want a cloud on the logo? Boring.

I didn't realize the arena had any meaningful meeting space. I can't imagine why anyone would need to meet there compared to an actual convention space. What's it used for on a normal day with the arena?

I like the logo.

They should keep it.

Maybe I'm the minority.

Yes and the studies you repost over and over again that were created with with the goal of showing how arenas don’t provide a positive economic impact by individuals who are massive anti-public funding for sports nerds and peer reviewed by the same echo chamber of nerds are definitely bias free, completely accurate, and objectively neutral representations of subjective data.

I mean, at least there is some degree of peer-review. The alternative is the Chamber of Commerce Economic Impact "Study" which did not include even one validated method of study and only one "citation" implying validity - a citation stating that they were given Zip codes for ticket purchases.

I like the logo.

They should keep it.

Maybe I'm the minority.

i am not a thunder fan so i don't really care either way ... but their logo is fine ..

i am not a thunder fan so i don't really care either way ... but their logo is fine ..I don't love it but I don't hate it. Saying it's the worst to me is a stretch. Between the NBA, NHL, NFL, MLB, MLS and colleges there are some really bad logos. The Cleveland Guardians and the Tennessee Titans for instance are much worse.

I mean, at least there is some degree of peer-review. The alternative is the Chamber of Commerce Economic Impact "Study" which did not include even one validated method of study and only one "citation" implying validity - a citation stating that they were given Zip codes for ticket purchases.

Sounds about like having a bunch of people who agree with you review your study and then calling it “peer reviewed”

Sounds about like having a bunch of people who agree with you review your study and then calling it “peer reviewed”

Man, this really shows how little you know about how economics (or any other scholarly field) actually works. Yikes.

Man, this really shows how little you know about how economics (or any other scholarly field) actually works. Yikes.

No it just shows that I’m incredibly skeptical of "scholarly" articles and studies from any academic field, especially after reviewing the links you’ve used to support your position on this. A bunch of biased crap just as you suggest the chamber’s study is. That's what happens when there's no objective and specific data for large portions of what's being analyzed.

But this is the response I would expect from someone who has such a joke of a degree field as his user name.

#FakeThunderFan

No, because these numbers are completely made up and have no backing with reality. This is a firm hired by the Chamber of Commerce to produce a good report to justify the arena, not an actual, empirically backed study. There's a reason why none of these PR firms actually submit their "findings" to peer review. This is a pretty good takedown of studies like this by an actual economist: https://x.com/jc_bradbury/status/1729132330294628773?s=20

Most of these types of analysis is NOT academic and not "peer reviewed". I don't know that I've ever had any business analysis studies my competitors or I have done that have been "peer reviewed", just client reviewed :). The numbers you refer to are estimates based on assumptions. They aren't bogus, but that doesn't make them spot on either. If you are looking for definitive economic data to move the needle on this decision, I doubt you will find it. This is here, and at other places where these types of decisions are being made, an emotional decision of the voters. Both sets of "studies", yours and theirs, are just emotional gas for the fire.

It amuses me that many who are transit fans claim all downtown development activity since the streetcar is to the credit of the streetcar, but then don't credit the Thunder for any of the increased status OKC enjoys and the business growth we enjoy.

Man, this really shows how little you know about how economics (or any other scholarly field) actually works. Yikes.

I admit I don't know a lot about the structure and governance of academic studies and peer review. I did notice that when looking at some of the studies linked to upthread a couple months ago, that the authors seem to be adjunct, or associate, professors at universities I am not familiar with. My point being that a study that says "stadiums bad" is sure to gain notice from writers looking to get balance for their local new stadium stories. Then the author and school get increased publicity for their contrarian views.

So far as peer review goes, I assume there is large component that is comprised of "This is my study. These are my parameters. Does the conclusions in this study fit those parameters?" That would make me think it largely "garbage in-garbage out".

Most of these types of analysis is NOT academic and not "peer reviewed".

I'd say that they are academic, but they aren't scientific. And, as such, when they are peer reviewed, they're not peer reviewed in the same way that a scientific study is. A scientific review of a study will mostly focus on if the right controls were used to test the variable in question. In social sciences, like economics, a review will largely focus on what assumptions were made and if those assumptions were correctly applied to support the conclusion and a good one will fully acknowledge those assumptions.

As you pointed out, that doesn't make economic studies or their conclusions wrong or not useful. They're just not scientific, because that's impossible, and they can't be reviewed in the same way and should not be presented as such.

Essentially, any economic study presented as definitive should be viewed as dubious, because any "economist" claiming their study as such is not what they claim to be.

Campaign is a full go. I’ve gotten about 3 mailers and see ads everywhere.

I like the logo.

They should keep it.

Maybe I'm the minority.

I have no problem with the logo. Some on here thought it looks like a slice of pizza, but it looks like a basketball to me.

I'd say that they are academic, but they aren't scientific. And, as such, when they are peer reviewed, they're not peer reviewed in the same way that a scientific study is. A scientific review of a study will mostly focus on if the right controls were used to test the variable in question. In social sciences, like economics, a review will largely focus on what assumptions were made and if those assumptions were correctly applied to support the conclusion and a good one will fully acknowledge those assumptions.

As you pointed out, that doesn't make economic studies or their conclusions wrong or not useful. They're just not scientific, because that's impossible, and they can't be reviewed in the same way and should not be presented as such.

Essentially, any economic study presented as definitive should be viewed as dubious, because any "economist" claiming their study as such is not what they claim to be.
Any *study* presented as definitive should be viewed as dubious. That's way (almost all) study authors never make such a claim - "Journalists" reporting on the studies do.

Also, that's only part of the methodology. You also have to look at what methodologies have been used before, state why the methodology / scales you are using are validated for the variables you are interested in, use the correct statistical analysis based on the validated scales - or if you are developing a new scale, validate that scale, then use the correct statistical analysis.

The only reason they are not "scientific" is because they cannot be re-tested in the exact same context. Also, they are almost always looking in the past and no one wants to risk implementing the suggested changes because the suggested changes usually go against the all-powerful and all-knowing "common sense". But even then, you can still test the hypothesis on historic and unseen data, or new data, as a proxy for repeating test - once that is performed a significant number of times, there may be significance to the relationships tested for.

Was anyone in attendance at Joe Hamon's 20 person anti arena echo chamber tonight? Surely PoliSci was front and center

Was anyone in attendance at Joe Hamon's 20 person anti arena echo chamber tonight? Surely PoliSci was front and center

I think the majority of us was watching the Thunder man handle the Lakers.

Was anyone in attendance at Joe Hamon's 20 person anti arena echo chamber tonight? Surely PoliSci was front and center

I don't think PoliSciGuy is a hard no. After all, politics is the art of compromise made to look like victory.

I got a mailer for voting YES the other day. I also am now seeing yard signs pretty frequently. With the team doing well, I am becoming increasingly confident in the YES vote. I have only seen a single NO item outside of social media

The team doing well, and being a very young team with a bright future, can only help the vote. I think it would pass if the team sucked, of course. But them doing well helps it even further.

The team doing well, and being a very young team with a bright future, can only help the vote. I think it would pass if the team sucked, of course. But them doing well helps it even further.

Im in the same boat, I’m going back and forth on what the voting margin will be, but it feels like Yes will win.

The only reason they are not "scientific" is because they cannot be re-tested in the exact same context.

Maybe not the only reason, but, yeah, a very important one.

Oh hey an actual article by an actual economist that argues the arena is a financial boondoggle (https://www.oklahoman.com/story/opinion/2023/12/01/okc-voters-will-decide-if-new-nba-arena-is-worthwhile-ou-professor-says/71746298007/)

Oh hey an actual article by an actual economist that argues the arena is a financial boondoggle (https://www.oklahoman.com/story/opinion/2023/12/01/okc-voters-will-decide-if-new-nba-arena-is-worthwhile-ou-professor-says/71746298007/)
She is engaged in an area of economic science and study that you might agree with. There are legitimate interpretations of economic data. I saw her quoted a few weeks ago as saying there are questions regarding return that are more “quality of life” that she can only answered as “maybe” or “don’t know”.

Can you say right now that it is your opinion that OKC was just as good with the Blazers playing minor league hockey, and the Cavalry were playing minor league basketball in the Myriad as OKC is today with the Thunder? And you believe, without question that spending a billion dollars on on homeless shelters and public transportation will increase the city’s reputation and daily quality of life for all taxpaying citizens?

Oh hey an actual article by an actual economist that argues the arena is a financial boondoggle (https://www.oklahoman.com/story/opinion/2023/12/01/okc-voters-will-decide-if-new-nba-arena-is-worthwhile-ou-professor-says/71746298007/)

Academics have political views like everyone else. Some academics hold those views close to their chest while others use their credentials to promote their views. Dr. Cynthia Rogers is well-known in Norman politics. In the past, she has voiced her opposition to the proposed Norman (OU) basketball arena and the University North Park Tax Incremental Financing District so her opposition to the new Thunder arena is not a surprise. She has her fans and has her detractors. This article in the City Sentinel from a couple of years ago was written by authors who one could argue are not supporters of Professor Rogers.

https://www.citynewsokc.com/education/the-black-hole-for-open-records-at-the-university-of-oklahoma/article_af3edf92-2d07-58d2-9e67-be440f7e65ef.html

The lesson is that just because someone with credentials provides "expert testimony" does not mean that testimony is free from criticism.

She is engaged in an area of economic science and study that you might agree with. There are legitimate interpretations of economic data. I saw her quoted a few weeks ago as saying there are questions regarding return that are more “quality of life” that she can only answered as “maybe” or “don’t know”.

Can you say right now that it is your opinion that OKC was just as good with the Blazers playing minor league hockey, and the Cavalry were playing minor league basketball in the Myriad as OKC is today with the Thunder? And you believe, without question that spending a billion dollars on on homeless shelters and public transportation will increase the city’s reputation and daily quality of life for all taxpaying citizens?

A good and fair question, and one that gets at the root of one of the bigger issues with spending $1b on a stadium: opportunity cost. What are we giving up by investing $1b in a stadium instead of investing that same amount in other areas, such as (as you identified) public transit or homelessness?

For public transit, numerous studies show that those projects produce economic benefits that more than pay for themselves:

https://www.apta.com/wp-content/uploads/APTA-econ-impact-transit-investment-2020-ES.pdf

https://files.epi.org/2012/ib334-assessing-economic-benefits-transit-rail.pdf

https://sonecon.com/docs/studies/returns_0505.pdf

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0739456x02250317

Similar findings exist for investment in homelessness:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4046466/

https://isr.unm.edu/reports/2016/city-of-albuquerque-heading-home-initiative-cost-study-report-final.pdf

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4679128/

These projects and initiatives have much more empirical backing of bettering the overall health of our metro area than building a new arena does.

Oh hey an actual article by an actual economist that argues the arena is a financial boondoggle (https://www.oklahoman.com/story/opinion/2023/12/01/okc-voters-will-decide-if-new-nba-arena-is-worthwhile-ou-professor-says/71746298007/)

All those cities and all those sports venues that are "boondoggles" in virtually every country of the world. People like you argue on purely economic terms because you're incapable of seeing the purely entertainment and goodwill value. In major cities most anywhere, high quality sports, entertainment and meeting facilities are a necessity, both economically and for prestige and impressions.

A good and fair question, and one that gets at the root of one of the bigger issues with spending $1b on a stadium: opportunity cost. What are we giving up by investing $1b in a stadium instead of investing that same amount in other areas, such as (as you identified) public transit or homelessness?

For public transit, numerous studies show that those projects produce economic benefits that more than pay for themselves:

https://www.apta.com/wp-content/uploads/APTA-econ-impact-transit-investment-2020-ES.pdf

https://files.epi.org/2012/ib334-assessing-economic-benefits-transit-rail.pdf

https://sonecon.com/docs/studies/returns_0505.pdf

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0739456x02250317

Similar findings exist for investment in homelessness:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4046466/

https://isr.unm.edu/reports/2016/city-of-albuquerque-heading-home-initiative-cost-study-report-final.pdf

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4679128/

These projects and initiatives have much more empirical backing of bettering the overall health of our metro area than building a new arena does.

So you don't think an arena is a QOL boost. Got it.

All those cities and all those sports venues that are "boondoggles" in virtually every country of the world. People like you argue on purely economic terms because you're incapable of seeing the purely entertainment and goodwill value. In major cities most anywhere, high quality sports, entertainment and meeting facilities are a necessity, both economically and for prstige and impressions.

We keep arguing the same thing over and over and over on this site. Polisci is just a one man justice squad campaigning against the arena. He won’t change his negative view and he won’t change others. All signs point to it passing comfortably. We shall see what the citizens think soon.

So you don't think an arena is a QOL boost. Got it.

I'm not sure he can think in those abstract terms ....... unless triple peer reviewed with a clear agenda, outlined references and itemized points of what quality includes.

We keep arguing the same thing over and over and over on this site. Polisci is just a one man justice squad campaigning against the arena. He won’t change his negative view and he won’t change others. All signs point to it passing comfortably. We shall see what the citizens think soon.

I’ve said from the get-go I fully expect this to pass, probably by a 66-33% margin or 60-40%. I know I’m in the minority here, but that doesn’t mean I have to be silent about it :tongue:

We keep arguing the same thing over and over and over on this site. Polisci is just a one man justice squad campaigning against the arena. He won’t change his negative view and he won’t change others. All signs point to it passing comfortably. We shall see what the citizens think soon.

https://www.okctalk.com/blob:https://www.okctalk.com/d363ecbb-e1be-4b48-b72e-afc3a9f32442https://www.okctalk.com/blob:https://www.okctalk.com/69acb866-ce34-41bd-b39b-41d64252f78118487

I’ve said from the get-go I fully expect this to pass, probably by a 66-33% margin or 60-40%. I know I’m in the minority here, but that doesn’t mean I have to be silent about it :tongue:

Saying the same thing 184 times certainly isn’t staying silent, I’ll give you that.

I’ve said from the get-go I fully expect this to pass, probably by a 66-33% margin or 60-40%. I know I’m in the minority here, but that doesn’t mean I have to be silent about it :tongue:

Folks, this is called a hedge.

Until Oklahoma City MSA exceeds 2 million in population (Est: 1.5 million) you can't expect OKC to compete with Los Angeles or cities above our tier. We don't have the corporate strength of cities like Nashville (2.0), Indianapolis (2.1) or Kansas City (2.2).

MAPS 4 has $55.7 million dedicated to public housing, $154 million to parks, $37 million for a 5th Senior Wellness Center and
$1 billion in bonds earmarked for replacing public schools. Rem: MAPS for Kids invested $700 million at the turn of the Century. Public transit is improving with the recent BRT line $28.8 million investment.

The Quality of Life in a city continues to impact people wanting to relocate here and corporation expansion and investment supported by Oklahoma's Quality Jobs Program (ACT).

We're getting there PoliSciGuy and others--turn just a grain of your research toward what OKC is doing right instead of attempting to derail one of our most impactful organizations in the Oklahoma City Thunder--cherish the jewel we have representing our city and state--say something nice, maybe once of twice--it won't hurt you at all.

The new $900 million arena will benefit more than our NBA team, like concerts, touring acts, major rodeos and others. Very few
of these arenas actually pay for themselves--they are an investment in bringing more quality-of-life projects that enhance our community.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bRomzX-jyQ

A good and fair question, and one that gets at the root of one of the bigger issues with spending $1b on a stadium: opportunity cost. What are we giving up by investing $1b in a stadium instead of investing that same amount in other areas, such as (as you identified) public transit or homelessness?

For public transit, numerous studies show that those projects produce economic benefits that more than pay for themselves:

https://www.apta.com/wp-content/uploads/APTA-econ-impact-transit-investment-2020-ES.pdf

https://files.epi.org/2012/ib334-assessing-economic-benefits-transit-rail.pdf

https://sonecon.com/docs/studies/returns_0505.pdf

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0739456x02250317

Similar findings exist for investment in homelessness:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4046466/

https://isr.unm.edu/reports/2016/city-of-albuquerque-heading-home-initiative-cost-study-report-final.pdf

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4679128/

These projects and initiatives have much more empirical backing of bettering the overall health of our metro area than building a new arena does.

Opportunity costs are of course real for any fixed amount of resources, and I'm a strong advocate for both public transit and housing first policies, etc. My issue with this framing is it implies that if we didn't spend the $1B on the arena we could instead spend it on these things. Money has not been allocated for those things as an alternative option and it assumes people would vote in favor of these things. Would OKC residents agree to put $1B toward homelessness and transit? Maybe.... maybe not. But this framing I keep seeing implying that if not for the arena we could have so much more investment in these other issues, as if the arena were stealing directly from them, seems very disingenuous to me.

I'm not sure he can think in those abstract terms ....... unless triple peer reviewed with a clear agenda, outlined references and itemized points of what quality includes.

So many peers. So little time

Opportunity costs are of course real for any fixed amount of resources, and I'm a strong advocate for both public transit and housing first policies, etc. My issue with this framing is it implies that if we didn't spend the $1B on the arena we could instead spend it on these things. Money has not been allocated for those things as an alternative option and it assumes people would vote in favor of these things. Would OKC residents agree to put $1B toward homelessness and transit? Maybe.... maybe not. But this framing I keep seeing implying that if not for the arena we could have so much more investment in these other issues, as if the arena were stealing directly from them, seems very disingenuous to me.
100%. Thanks for putting that into words.

100%. Thanks for putting that into words.

Second that . . .

Opportunity costs are of course real for any fixed amount of resources, and I'm a strong advocate for both public transit and housing first policies, etc. My issue with this framing is it implies that if we didn't spend the $1B on the arena we could instead spend it on these things. Money has not been allocated for those things as an alternative option and it assumes people would vote in favor of these things. Would OKC residents agree to put $1B toward homelessness and transit? Maybe.... maybe not. But this framing I keep seeing implying that if not for the arena we could have so much more investment in these other issues, as if the arena were stealing directly from them, seems very disingenuous to me.

This... this ^^ just yes

Opportunity costs are of course real for any fixed amount of resources, and I'm a strong advocate for both public transit and housing first policies, etc. My issue with this framing is it implies that if we didn't spend the $1B on the arena we could instead spend it on these things. Money has not been allocated for those things as an alternative option and it assumes people would vote in favor of these things. Would OKC residents agree to put $1B toward homelessness and transit? Maybe.... maybe not. But this framing I keep seeing implying that if not for the arena we could have so much more investment in these other issues, as if the arena were stealing directly from them, seems very disingenuous to me.

Fair points, though I’m not saying that this $1b is stealing from those outlays directly, more pointing to examples of where that money could be spent. It’s by no means “either or” and I’m not trying to frame it as such. There are lots of different ways to spend this money (hence the concept of opportunity cost in general).

Folks, this is called a hedge.

Not a hedge at all. I’ve been consistently saying this since July (https://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=47184&p=1238974#post1238974).

Fair points, though I’m not saying that this $1b is stealing from those outlays directly, more pointing to examples of where that money could be spent. It’s by no means “either or” and I’m not trying to frame it as such. There are lots of different ways to spend this money (hence the concept of opportunity cost in general).

Money has been pouring down the "other things" rathole for 70 years or more and those "other things" are worse than ever. "Other things" is a bottomless pit. MAPS has proven 100x over that sometimes you best improve QOL by spending on yourself - keep your house with what you want.

For me personally, I am glad that 30 years ago in 1993 the voters didn’t say “We built the last arena 21 years ago in 1972, we don’t need no new arena, I’m voting no on MAPS.”

This vote on the 12th is about leaving our city in a better situation than it was given to us. About thinking bigger than just the here and now. This false dichotomy about investing in an arena or social services precludes investing in both. The opposition undercuts its own argument about the private sector making this investment when they simultaneously highlight the possible financial losses attached to large arenas. The fact is, government, not the private sector, does large scale public works projects, invests in communal assets to improve the quality of life, character, and long term stability for their citizens.

Voting ‘Yes’ on December 12 is a simple decision for me…the impact if ‘No’ wins out won’t be immediate, in fact a few years will probably go by with nothing changing. OKC will lose out on some concerts that most of the public will never hear that we were in contention for, the Thunder’s owners, after Mr. Bennett passes away will likely start their search for a larger, more profitable market, and we will slowly slide in to the mediocrity that Oklahoma City has been known for. The momentum that Oklahoma City has experienced over the years will slow, a MAPS 5 will be more difficult to secure, out of state investors will see that our citizens have decided that we have invested in ourselves enough and will likely look to other cities where public works projects are approved and appreciated.

This is so much bigger than ‘oh the Thunder owners can pay for their own arena.’ I am saddened by the lack of truly civically minded people in my generation and am concerned for the longer term willingness to try and do big things in this city.

The thing is a new arena isn’t a maps project. If it was then maybe more people would be in favor of it. If this was maps 5 and it had a new aren, bike lanes, improvement in schools, street car extensions and investment in mental health some of the people against it might be more in favor of it. As of now it’s $900 million for a new arena when the current arenas age is average for an NBA arena. You can be against this current plan for the arena and still be civic minded “ENOUGH.” The because question if this passes when will be able to vote again on quality of life civic civic improvements again?

What 2032 at the earliest or maybe 2035? Or I suppose they’ll try and get a Maps 5 earlier but the catch is they’ll want add an additional 1 cent tax. This most likely will pass and in 10 years people will wonder why public transportation hasn’t improved and why so many other aspects of quality in life improvement froze a few years after 2025. But at least a bunch of people at banks, the thunder and construction companies will get rich.

The thing is a new arena isn’t a maps project. If it was then maybe more people would be in favor of it. If this was maps 5 and it had a new aren, bike lanes, improvement in schools, street car extensions and investment in mental health some of the people against it might be more in favor of it. As of now it’s $900 million for a new arena when the current arenas age is average for an NBA arena. You can be against this current plan for the arena and still be civic minded “ENOUGH.” The because question if this passes when will be able to vote again on quality of life civic civic improvements again?

What 2032 at the earliest or maybe 2035? Or I suppose they’ll try and get a Maps 5 earlier but the catch is they’ll want add an additional 1 cent tax. This most likely will pass and in 10 years people will wonder why public transportation hasn’t improved and why so many other aspects of quality in life improvement froze a few years after 2025. But at least a bunch of people at banks, the thunder and construction companies will get rich.
I’d take a bet against this NAS (negative affect syndrome) view.

OKC has excellent prospects for a much improved future with quality growth. I think the arena would showcase the optimism and commitment to quality civic standards for its citizens.

Opportunity costs are of course real for any fixed amount of resources, and I'm a strong advocate for both public transit and housing first policies, etc. My issue with this framing is it implies that if we didn't spend the $1B on the arena we could instead spend it on these things. Money has not been allocated for those things as an alternative option and it assumes people would vote in favor of these things. Would OKC residents agree to put $1B toward homelessness and transit? Maybe.... maybe not. But this framing I keep seeing implying that if not for the arena we could have so much more investment in these other issues, as if the arena were stealing directly from them, seems very disingenuous to me.

"as if the arena were stealing directly from them" is the key sentence here and where your point mostly gets in trouble is the "as if" (or the "implies" earlier). I imagine the problem is less what is being argued and more the understanding of the argument (though if someone is outright saying this, then your counter is solid IMO).

I'm not going to say that we've done enough for transit or any other number of initiatives this city needs to see. It is also plainly evident that the arena does not prevent pursuit of those initiatives in any short-term or medium-term future. What passing this measure very obviously does is present risk to other initiatives that will require substantial resources from voters. The limited resources starts with the people that are being taxed. I myself would be very comfortable paying 10% in sales tax to fund a variety of initiatives (including things like arenas) in an effort to continually make this city the best place it can be. However, I'm acutely aware that one segment of our population would vote to reduce all taxes to zero and will never vote to raise taxes, another segment of our population can't really afford to increase taxes beyond their current rate, another segment of our population won't vote for something that doesn't directly impact them regardless of what it means for the city's health overall. So additional funding for these things is very much an uphill battle. We're giving the "easy vote" of "keep taxes the same" to the project that most likely would win out even if it were an additional tax.

None of this is to say we don't need a new arena. We do. But it's coming at a steeper price than it needs to. It's worth noting that a large percentage of every penny we spend on interest for this project is about as tangible an opportunity cost as you will find in the market.

If you think a 'quality of life' arena is going to get any less expensive, wait another decade--it will double to $1.8 billion, and you'll be in a bigger financial hole than you think the cost to replace Paycom Center is now.

Let's not forget, MAPS was crafted for Capital improvements. Had we dedicated more than $90 million (say $180 million) on this arena back in the 90s, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Build the 'best' arena for the long-term use for our city; then remodel every decade.

There are lots of different ways to spend this money (hence the concept of opportunity cost in general).

actually there are not ..

actually there are not ..

Exactly - There isn’t another option. It’s yes or no. This money isn’t sitting around in a safe somewhere that it can be spent somewhere else.

PoliSciGuy- complain and argue against it all. After it passes complain some more. If the amount of homeless in our city is what your driving argument for the money usage is then why don't you start a kickstarter for funds to create something that you can be in charge of or let them filter in/out of your house.

Nah I won’t complain when an outcome I’ve expected to happen for 6 months actually happens. Heck, I’ll still go to Thunder games and other events at the new arena and also vote for Holt for whatever office he runs for after mayor.

Exactly - There isn’t another option. It’s yes or no. This money isn’t sitting around in a safe somewhere that it can be spent somewhere else.

Counterpoint, isn't this whole question effectively the next MAPS project in terms of the sales tax penny that is getting continued? It's pretty easy to argue that if the powers that be weren't pushing for a new arena we'd be gearing up for an eventual MAPS 5 program with lots of smaller projects spread throughout the city. That absolutely counts as "lots of different ways to spend this money".

Counterpoint, isn't this whole question effectively the next MAPS project in terms of the sales tax penny that is getting continued? It's pretty easy to argue that if the powers that be weren't pushing for a new arena we'd be gearing up for an eventual MAPS 5 program with lots of smaller projects spread throughout the city. That absolutely counts as "lots of different ways to spend this money".

The difference is MAPS has to wait for the money to be collected to be spent. This project will take out advanced loans so the arena can be constructed sooner.

The difference is MAPS has to wait for the money to be collected to be spent. This project will take out advanced loans so the arena can be constructed sooner.

True, but not really related to my point.

Just got my 3rd "vote yes" mailer today.