Printable View
Why would the city own it if the Thunder ownership group built and paid for their own area? I would expect that they purchase land, design and build whatever they want in an arena. This would have no city involvement other than permits and inspections.Quote:
Originally Posted by BoulderSooner
I have only been to the Target Center and I can say with complete certainty that the Paycom is much better.Quote:
Originally Posted by chssooner
Not much of a good standard. We all know what the Timberwolves have done the past twenty years.
I think the Thunder should promote this proposal to the public. I have heard Holt's campaign on sports radio, but dead air on the Thunder's part. Maybe they could try sell the public. They are asking for a lot.
This is going to pass overwhelmingly. Hamon alone might vote against it at the council and recieve enormous vitriol for her trouble. The public will pass by wide margins.
And, sigh, once again the Chamber gets to do whatever the f*** they want, in secret, and with minimal to no concessions made to the taxpayers and once again the voters will reward them for it. I guess this is the system working?
I mean if the public overwhelmingly wants to get fleeced by billionaires, there’s not much that can stop them.Quote:
Originally Posted by DoctorTaco
Maybe we can get lawyers to pay for the courthouses they use too. And publishers and authors to pay for libraries . Who needs public buildings anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by brunnesa
At least sports teams pay rent.
Still need more information on the new Oklahoma City arena that will house our NBA Thunder.
It looks like a major loan will be needed to construct the new arena--who will be the lender or lenders.
Still no specifications on the new arena like seating capacity, total square footage, number of levels and amenities - lodge boxes, suites etc.
They ownership group and the city are in the design and construction stage; yet the project cost for the new arena will be a minimum of $900 million.
Money available: $120 million = $70 million on pause from MAPS 4 and ownership commits $50 million.
Has an architect & design firm been identified.
A 900 million dollar arena in OKC with NBA Thunder as 'major tenant' will be a 'win' for Oklahoma.
Definitely want to see what this Taj Mahal arena will look like.
Strange to see a $900 million price tag minimum unless some firm has already been further along in the design stages or something already designed.
Because most of us enjoy watching the thunder as well as attending any number of other events that have been held at paycom over that last 25 years and don’t feel like we’re getting fleeced by billionaires?Quote:
Originally Posted by PoliSciGuy
Do you just think you’re smarter than everyone else because you have a different opinion?
As she should.Quote:
Originally Posted by DoctorTaco
Love me some JoBeth, appreciate her raising questions and looking out for Ward 6 she represents and her being an active member on the Oklahoma City Council.Quote:
Originally Posted by PhiAlpha
Leaning toward a 'Yes" vote; still want to see more information and pics on the new arena.
Look i love the Thunder. I am a season ticket holder. But this deal sucks. And having one person who is willing to point out, "this deal sucks" is a value add to our democracy. OKC has rarely made good decisions when the prevailing "go along to get along" mindset is in full swing. Vote in favor if you want to (most will), but not sure why an elected official deserves vitriol for pointing out the obvious (this deal is less generous to OKC taxpayers than similar deals in similar cities, the whole thing was designed in secret, etc.).Quote:
Originally Posted by PhiAlpha
Her main issue is the lack of transparency; how these huge deals are pre-decided behind closed doors long before she as a member of City Council knew any details -- let alone the public.Quote:
Originally Posted by DoctorTaco
And she's not wrong. This plays out over and over again and just because most people like most of the outcomes, it does not begin to justify the means when the expenditure of hundreds of millions in public funds is involved.
It is not good for OKC when someone rightly points out how wrong all this is and then is publically lynched for it. I get the same treatment every time I raise issues that are merely common sense or point out completely intentional disinformation. This is all part of the let-the-rich-guys-decide-how-to-spend-tax-money authoritarianism that the Gaylords helped to establish and then promoted through unethical means for a century.
It should be okay to separate something that may be good for the City from the messed up process -- and have a healthy and open discussion about fair terms. Unfortunately, there is no way to do that in this town and thus there is tremendous and continuous exploitation by bad actors.
Well said. Asking for more scrutiny in how almost $1b of public money is outlaid should not result in loud dog-piling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete
I think there will be more opposition to this than realized. In my group of friends, most are all avid Thunder fans and we've discussed this very issue and all four of us are adamantly against this proposal for various reasons.
Yeah this is a bad deal. I really feel like the ownership and the NBA should poney up 200 million and the rest is paid for by the city. The NBA is going into a new media deal. And the thunder has a wealth of talent + picks. So they will start making some pretty deep playoff runs soon.
Most likely by the time the arena opens they may have a few finals appearances. This is a big pill to swallow and I would much rather this money be spent on a street car network. Or more money on parks, bike lanes, improving streets, health and wellness, increasing teacher pay. Its kind of insulting to see ownership say "here's 50 mil." They might as well put up 50 million dong.
At this stage, any vote is completely binary: either support the Thunder and keep them here by agreeing to terms that have already been decided, or you don't love OKC and are going to lose one of the best things to happen here.
This is because there is zero public process. We are merely presented with something fully formed and then asked to vote a simple yes or no.
And I'm 100% sure they already have the support of at least 5 members of City Council long before this even hits their agenda. This is the way every single big public project is handled and has been for decades.
The fact that this doesn't concern most people is a testament to how manipulative and controlled the process truly is.
Let's pump the brakes on this a bit. We had Kevin Durant, Russell Westbrook, and James Harden on the team at one time and only made one NBA finals for a variety of reasons, primarily injury. We have a team that has at best gone 40-42 and has a potential cornerstone that hasn't even played a game yet because of injury. Assuming that we have a few finals runs coming down the pipe just because we have draft picks and a decent team now is way..way to presumptuous. Though not likely, we could just as easily be a .500 team for the next 5 seasons there is nothing guaranteed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cocaine
Are you and your friends that are avid fans okay with losing the team if this doesn't pass? Because in all likelihood that is what will happen and quickly if you all can't stomach continuing the MAPS tax for an additional 72 months on top of the last approx. 360 months it's been in place.Quote:
Originally Posted by MagzOK
You and your friends can not like the plan, be pissed that the ownership group isn't chipping in more, think Paycom is fine or that this plan is too elaborate or whatever, but at the end of the day, you're voting to keep taxes the same for an additional 6 years on top of the 30 plus that its been in place to keep the team that yall are supposedly avid fans of in OKC. How will continuing the sales tax for 6 more years negatively impact you and your friends vs not having an NBA team anymore?
Agree that it sucks that there was no public process...but it is what it is and we all knew that would be the case as soon as Holt announced the need for a new arena last year.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete
Vote to keep the Thunder and spend the next 30-50 years trying to change the process for the next vote while watching an NBA team from our new arena or we can enjoy them for a few more years and then be left with a mostly empty aging arena next to an eyesore of an old convention center or the pile of dirt where it stood in the middle of downtown until its developed.
This may be the last arena vote (at least for a brand new arena) during the lifetimes of many people on this board might as well go all out with it and get it right if (at least on paper) the only cost is an extension of the sales tax we've been paying for 30 plus years.
^
If this is voted down it's not like the Thunder would just pull up stakes and leave.
It would force all involved to actually negotiate in a public way and we would almost certainly still end up keeping the team and building a new arena, just on more favorable terms to taxpayers.
I don't expect any of that to happen, but again this shouldn't be and is not the binary choice being presented.
I understand that many are not happy with how the process works, but using the arena and the possibility of losing the Thunder isn't really a great hill to die on to get changes made. Just my opinion. There are ways to affect change but losing something that has been such a great thing for OKC is really short sided. Plus, I know in certain circles it's pretty standard to just hate pro sports teams owners on general principle. However, the Thunder ownership group have been fantastic stewards for the city and the state. There are a lot of really crappy owners out there, but the Thunder are definitely on the opposite end of the spectrum. From the beginning they went out of their way to get a team for OKC. When they bought the team, everyone said they paid double of what they should have paid. They girded for a PR battle and a civic battle that was years in the making and took a great deal of fortitude to complete to get the team here.
While a debate can certainly be made that how pro sports work is a backwards system, it's what you have to pay to play at this point. It would only be to OKC's detriment to be the ones to stand up to the system and make an example out of an ownership group that is one of the least deserving of it.
i think if this vote were to fail the owners would pretty quickly look to sell the team .. and with NO long term lease in place the new owner would very quickly look to move the teamQuote:
Originally Posted by Pete
I'd love to hear more about this. Other than moving the team here, how has ownership and the team been a good steward of the city and the state? What has the ownership done that makes them one of the better ownership groups in the NBA?Quote:
Originally Posted by OkieinGeorgia
They would have plenty of time to work out a deal and I don't believe for a minute they would just throw up their hands and sell.Quote:
Originally Posted by BoulderSooner
Best case, the new arena wouldn't be open until around 2030. Assuming 2 years for construction, that allows for almost five years until work would need to start.
if this vote passes in dec 2023 i think they plan on being in the new area in 2027 or soonerQuote:
Originally Posted by Pete
I personally don't like her all that much (which I've made obvious) but I do agree with you and agree with her that the process should be more out in the open. Especially for something like this that already has so much public support anyway, it seems counter intuitive to do it all behind closed doors and then shove it down everyone's throats.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete
I think if she can frame her argument as being for the arena but against the process, she might have much more success in gaining support for her position that may be extremely valuable in future situations and at the same time avoid getting dragged by the public for it. Other council people have gone after MAPS like they had a personal vendetta against it, campaigned to vote no, tried to get injunctions filed to stop it, etc and they were written off, ignored and ridiculed by virtually everyone for it...despite making some good points about the process involved in selecting those projects. If she comes out hardcore swinging against the arena itself, she's going to get absolutely slammed especially if the team leaves...just look at what happened to elected officials in Seattle back in 2006-2007 and that city had two other professional sports franchises with a political climate much more likely to support their positions against an arena proposal.