New Downtown Arena

[April in the Plaza]

Pretty loud vocal minority regarding the $50mil contribution. Really curious what the voting margin plus turnout will be.

Yeah, it's pretty fair to say that $50MM is not enough when viewed against the backdrop of:

(a) the recent contributions made by ownership groups in peer markets;
(b) this ownership group is, very obviously, sitting on a reasonably large amount of FU Money (see, e.g., Dobson's art installation at Oak https://www.okctalk.com/showthread.p...#post1243388); and
(c) the cash windfall from NBA Expansion in 2025-2026 will be enormous.

Each existing team will receive an equal share of roughly ~$8 to 10 Billion. They can do a lot better than $50MM.

[BDP]

Yeah, it's pretty fair to say that $50MM is not enough when viewed against the backdrop of:

(a) the recent contributions made by ownership groups in peer markets;
(b) this ownership group is, very obviously, sitting on a reasonably large amount of FU Money (see, e.g., Dobson's art installation at Oak https://www.okctalk.com/showthread.p...#post1243388); and
(c) the cash windfall from NBA Expansion in 2025-2026 will be enormous.

Each existing team will receive an equal share of roughly ~$8 to 10 Billion. They can do a lot better than $50MM.

Is the idea that ownership should contribute more without any expectation of reciprocation? That is, how much should they donate towards the construction before it's reasonable they should expect terms tied to revenue generated from the venue?

Are the recent contributions made by ownership groups in peer markets not tied to any increased returns or revenue share stemming from the operations of the venue other than the potential increase in market value of the team which would be realized when they sell it vs what they would participate in had they not contributed / invested / donated towards the public venue?

What is the acceptable amount (maybe as a percent) an anchor tenant should participate in a civics project that benefits their organization?

I'm seriously asking. It seems the 50MM figure has been the trigger the last day or so, but how much should it be, why, and how should it be structured? Is it really just "these people have FU money and they didn't commit enough of it unqualified, so FU."?

The problem is that we don't know any of the details and probably won't before a vote. And the comps with peers cities really don't mean much without the details of those deals either, which I can't find. It's easy to find gross figures, but are we assuming that in all these cases ownership contributed what they did by simply writing a check from their FU Money account without asking for any terms? It may simply be that I am being naive and skeptical at the same time (or just ignorant), but I find that hard to believe.

For example, they could easily turn that $50MM into, say $350MM to satiate public concern and get it passed, but then get a larger rake of the overall gross operating revenue of the venue for all events during the term of the lease and it could be a worse deal for the city over the life of the deal rather than just taking a $50MM unqualified contribution upfront.

Maybe it's just me, but I can't determine whether a $50MM participation is small or big without knowing what the back end associated with that participation is.

[progressiveboy]

$50Million is a paltry sum for ownership to contribute towards this project. I wish OKC had more philanthropic billionaires and individuals to contribute to large quality of life projects. Hoping this passes when it comes to a vote.

[Bellaboo]

I remember back in the early 80's the National Finals Rodeo up and left to Las Vegas due to the fact the hotels (casino groups) subsidized a package they couldn't turn down. When the rodeo happened the arena was half full and basically dead.Turns out the early December time frame was the slowest LV season, which is why they went after the rodeo in the first place.
What I remember the most was OKC was in a state of DEPRESSION for a few weeks due to the loss.
Let's don't let something like this happen again.

[PoliSciGuy]

I remember back in the early 80's the National Finals Rodeo up and left to Las Vegas due to the fact the hotels (casino groups) subsidized a package they couldn't turn down. When the rodeo happened the arena was half full and basically dead.Turns out the early December time frame was the slowest LV season, which is why they went after the rodeo in the first place.
What I remember the most was OKC was in a state of DEPRESSION for a few weeks due to the loss.
Let's don't let something like this happen again.

So we need to spend $900m to avoid a few weeks of depression?

[Rover]

It’s like the mayor says… if you want to say no, there are no answers that will make you say yes. So we need to accept that we have some people who will say no and fight everything, some who will go for anything, and most who will be rational in their decision process. Most will want to keep moving the OKC brand forward and will see how the rising tide lifts all boats, even theirs. This should pass comfortably.

[chssooner]

So we need to spend $900m to avoid a few weeks of depression?

Glad that you see the trees, but can't see the forest. Got it.

[jn1780]

That is quite the slippery slope fallacy to claim that losing this single election would doom future MAPS elections based upon...what? The lack of an NBA team? The first MAPS passed just fine without the Thunder being here. Furthermore, $900m isn't a bargain. It'd be the single largest outlay of public money for a stadium in the entire NBA. And last I checked, metros like Seattle, Vancouver, Kansas City and Cincinnati have all been doing just fine lately. In fact, Seattle got a brand new stadium for an NHL team that will likely host an expansion NBA team too, all completed by private funding alone.

Well yeah, that's called inflation. Unless there is some kind of recession/depression the city that builds the next arena will be paying more than that.

Its only 1 day after the news hit, Thunder ownership are playing it cool now and judging public sentiment. It will be interesting what they say if they feel public opinion is going the wrong way.

[PoliSciGuy]

Well yeah, that's called inflation. Unless there is some kind of recession/depression the city that builds the next arena will be paying more than that.

Its only 1 day after the news hit, Thunder ownership are playing it cool now and judging public sentiment. It will be interesting what they say if they feel public opinion is going the wrong way.

No, other NBA stadiums are more expensive or similar to this, but they all cost much less in terms of public outlays because ownership is covering a much larger chunk. It's not just inflation.

[mugofbeer]

So we need to spend $900m to avoid a few weeks of depression?

Don't you live in Edmond (my appologies if you are in OKC)? If so, there is no "we." Just don't attend anything there.

[April in the Plaza]

Don't you live in Edmond (my appologies if you are in OKC)? If so, there is no "we." Just don't attend anything there.

tbf, I would think Edmondites still pay a lot of OKC sales tax

Especially the ones who live in or near Fake Edmond

[PhiAlpha]

Don't you live in Edmond (my appologies if you are in OKC)? If so, there is no "we." Just don't attend anything there.

Exactly…is he even in within the city limits to vote no or is that why he’s trying to convince everyone here to do it.

And before anyone who’s read or actually happens to remember any thing from my posts over the last few years says anything, I’m moving back to OKC from Tulsa this fall and will be registered to vote on this lol.

[LocoAko]

Doesn't sound like anyone should expect to see renderings prior to the vote...

https://twitter.com/davidfholt/statu...61YyoCXUQ&s=19

[Teo9969]

It’s like the mayor says… if you want to say no, there are no answers that will make you say yes. So we need to accept that we have some people who will say no and fight everything, some who will go for anything, and most who will be rational in their decision process. Most will want to keep moving the OKC brand forward and will see how the rising tide lifts all boats, even theirs. This should pass comfortably.

I don't think everyone who is saying "no" here want to say no. That's like saying if we put RTD funding up to a vote this December with what we know that "well, it's just the negative nellies who are voting no". Do you have an equal opinion that because big league cities should have viable public transport that we don't really need to present a good package for what we want we should just vote yes? Do you think most people with a yes here, are just always going to vote "yes"?

I'd vote yes right now to raise sales tax by an additional penny just to fund City Operations.

I'd vote yes right now to raise sales tax dedicated to transit.

I'd vote yes right now to raise taxes for permanent beautification.

I'd vote yes today to raise taxes for education in OKC/Putnam district operations

My problem is that, I don't actually know what the city is getting for $1.25B+ of its money. If enough is revealed that I feel comfortable with it, great! But $1.25B > than the fear of losing the Thunder believing that Pete is probably right that a new proposal will come to the table. And if it doesn't, the team is getting sold anyway and I have no faith that the lease is going to be so iron clad that new ownership couldn't just buy their way out and take the team anyway. In that situation the city does not come out of the other side having made a good decision.

This yes delays MAPS 5, likely delays RTD funding, gives up the Cox block and gives us something that we have a less nice version of already. Maybe it's worth it, but we have no guarantee that it will be.

[April in the Plaza]

I don't think everyone who is saying "no" here want to say no. That's like saying if we put RTD funding up to a vote this December with what we know that "well, it's just the negative nellies who are voting no". Do you have an equal opinion that because big league cities should have viable public transport that we don't really need to present a good package for what we want we should just vote yes? Do you think most people with a yes here, are just always going to vote "yes"?

I'd vote yes right now to raise sales tax by an additional penny just to fund City Operations.

I'd vote yes right now to raise sales tax dedicated to transit.

I'd vote yes right now to raise taxes for permanent beautification.

I'd vote yes today to raise taxes for education in OKC/Putnam district operations

My problem is that, I don't actually know what the city is getting for $1.25B+ of its money. If enough is revealed that I feel comfortable with it, great! But $1.25B > than the fear of losing the Thunder believing that Pete is probably right that a new proposal will come to the table. And if it doesn't, the team is getting sold anyway and I have no faith that the lease is going to be so iron clad that new ownership couldn't just buy their way out and take the team anyway. In that situation the city does not come out of the other side having made a good decision.

This yes delays MAPS 5, likely delays RTD funding, gives up the Cox block and gives us something that we have a less nice version of already. Maybe it's worth it, but we have no guarantee that it will be.

2 or 3 billion in liquidated damages might solve that issue. or at least set the damages at the construction cost of the facility (plus financing). but i have little to no faith that the patsies negotiating on our behalf possess the chutzpah to pull that off.

[PoliSciGuy]

KOCO story highlighting the pushback https://www.koco.com/article/oklahom...arena/45126362

[chssooner]

Some people on here probably need new pants after reading that.

[Rover]

On this site we have so many that talk about OKC becoming a high quality modern city with visions competing with major world cities and no longer competing with mid level cities in the US for relocations, job growth, quality of living improvements, better transportation options, etc. But now when we actually have an opportunity to think big and to compete at another level we have a whole group on here that says “just kidding”. We either are a competitive city or just “one of the others”. Are we Omaha or Denver? Are we Little Rock or Kansas City? Are we Tulsa or Charlotte? Do we step up to the plate and back up our boasting or take a pass?

[DoctorTaco]

It’s like the mayor says… if you want to say no, there are no answers that will make you say yes. So we need to accept that we have some people who will say no and fight everything, some who will go for anything, and most who will be rational in their decision process. Most will want to keep moving the OKC brand forward and will see how the rising tide lifts all boats, even theirs. This should pass comfortably.

This is entirely disingenuous. I want to say yes but will vote no on this deal. This take it or leave it, "I guess you hate OKC then" attitude is the worst thing I've seen out of Holt in his tenure.

[chssooner]

This is entirely disingenuous. I want to say yes but will vote no on this deal. This take it or leave it, "I guess you hate OKC then" attitude is the worst thing I've seen out of Holt in his tenure.

He's probably heard that the owners want out unless they get this. Wouldn't surprise me, either.

[Jake]

Any guesses/bets on whether this will pass or not?

[BoulderSooner]

And if it doesn't, the team is getting sold anyway and I have no faith that the lease is going to be so iron clad that new ownership couldn't just buy their way out and take the team anyway. In that situation the city does not come out of the other side having made a good decision.

this hasn't happened anywhere ...

[BoulderSooner]

Any guesses/bets on whether this will pass or not?

very very likely to pass by over 55%

[BoulderSooner]

, likely delays RTD funding,

RTD funding is a fully separate issue that will require a vote to raise taxes .. it was never going to touch MAPS funding ... (and it shouldn't) despite some who want it to

[BoulderSooner]

On this site we have so many that talk about OKC becoming a high quality modern city with visions competing with major world cities and no longer competing with mid level cities in the US for relocations, job growth, quality of living improvements, better transportation options, etc. But now when we actually have an opportunity to think big and to compete at another level we have a whole group on here that says “just kidding”. We either are a competitive city or just “one of the others”. Are we Omaha or Denver? Are we Little Rock or Kansas City? Are we Tulsa or Charlotte? Do we step up to the plate and back up our boasting or take a pass?

very very well said .