New Downtown Arena

[April in the Plaza]

Ever get proven so wrong you shouldn't respond? This is one of those. MAPS kept Devon in OKC. Most people know that.

Don’t disagree with the maps part. Just the Thunder / arena part, Sport.

You sound pretty mad?

[Teo9969]

maps tax is for capital projects ... what needs is this delaying ??

Transit and Education (both capital and operations) each need well over a billion dollars 10 years ago, let alone today, in order to be at a level that our city could be proud of.

This city needs a lot of beautification. This city needs to find ways to activate its citizenry physically speaking and that's going to take some out of the box and expensive thinking with our weather patterns. This city needs more businesses that import money into the state/city.

The money we're putting into this means we'll either have to tax ourselves more and soon to start tackling the above needs or wait until the mid 2030s if we want to keep ourselves at today's tax rates.

[Teo9969]

I'll tell you what, given what the final tax receipts for this will be, I would vote yes if we came out and said that the COOP site was the definitive location. We will absolutely be able to afford that site, remediation, and a great starter to that future district. The stadium itself shouldn't cost anywhere near a billion, so there's more than enough cushion to purchase the land+remediate.

[SouthOKC]

I'll tell you what, given what the final tax receipts for this will be, I would vote yes if we came out and said that the COOP site was the definitive location. We will absolutely be able to afford that site, remediation, and a great starter to that future district. The stadium itself shouldn't cost anywhere near a billion, so there's more than enough cushion to purchase the land+remediate.

So it’s not actually about the other things the city needs for you? It’s more about the location?

[Mississippi Blues]

So it’s not actually about the other things the city needs for you? It’s more about the location?

Sounds like a blend as the lower cost in that scenario takes less away from the other things the city needs while still getting a new arena and kicking off development on an empty site that no one seems to really know what to do with.

[SouthOKC]

Sounds like a blend as the lower cost in that scenario takes less away from the other things the city needs while still getting a new arena and kicking off development on an empty site that no one seems to really know what to do with.

Do we know that the COOP site is a lower cost than Prairie Surf?

If it is a more cost effective location what is the difference in cost?

[SouthOKC]

Transit and Education (both capital and operations) each need well over a billion dollars 10 years ago, let alone today, in order to be at a level that our city could be proud of.

This city needs a lot of beautification. This city needs to find ways to activate its citizenry physically speaking and that's going to take some out of the box and expensive thinking with our weather patterns. This city needs more businesses that import money into the state/city.

The money we're putting into this means we'll either have to tax ourselves more and soon to start tackling the above needs or wait until the mid 2030s if we want to keep ourselves at today's tax rates.

Is there a threshold in your mind? Like what would the count of buses and city routes need to be before the city could consider a project like a new arena?

Should we factor in the fact that a good chunk of the most recent MAPS went towards social endeavors?

[BoulderSooner]

Transit and Education (both capital and operations) each need well over a billion dollars 10 years ago, let alone today, in order to be at a level that our city could be proud of.

This city needs a lot of beautification. This city needs to find ways to activate its citizenry physically speaking and that's going to take some out of the box and expensive thinking with our weather patterns. This city needs more businesses that import money into the state/city.

The money we're putting into this means we'll either have to tax ourselves more and soon to start tackling the above needs or wait until the mid 2030s if we want to keep ourselves at today's tax rates.

a RTA (transit) will never take maps tax dollars ...

and education operations is not a city function also will never take maps dollars .

so try again .

[Mississippi Blues]

Do we know that the COOP site is a lower cost than Prairie Surf?

If it is a more cost effective location what is the difference in cost?

I honestly wouldn’t know, it’s just spitballing as far as I know.

a RTA (transit) will never take maps tax dollars ...

and education operations is not a city function also will never take maps dollars .

so try again .

I don’t know one way or the other, but why do you say RTA won’t ever get MAPS money? Is it because the RTA covers the region rather than just Oklahoma City?

[Teo9969]

a RTA (transit) will never take maps tax dollars ...

and education operations is not a city function also will never take maps dollars .

so try again .

None of this is Maps (including this arena vote). Everything I am saying can be addressed with the city raising sales tax if we vote it through.

[Teo9969]

So it’s not actually about the other things the city needs for you? It’s more about the location?

It is about the city's needs. One of the biggest needs in downtown right now is addressing the Coop site and it has proven to be a nightmare for the private community. Additionally, the highest and beat use for the Cox site is not an arena.

The way you're asking this question is exactly why Pete is saying this is not a Binary decision. You (and many others) are refusing to take a nuanced approach to this problem.because you are so afraid of losing the Thunder.

We could drop $3B on a stadium and I would give it a yes if it were presented in a way that addressed a commensurate amount of issues.

As of today, what has been presented to us offers us little assurance. It could turn out amazing. It could turn out good. It could turn out meh. In the long run, it could turn out bad. But anyone saying they know how it's going to turn out (good or bad) has an argument that is based in hubris. I'm not willing to reward that approach to city politics with my yes.

[SouthOKC]

It is about the city's needs. One of the biggest needs in downtown right now is addressing the Coop site and it has proven to be a nightmare for the private community. Additionally, the highest and beat use for the Cox site is not an arena.

The way you're asking this question is exactly why Pete is saying this is not a Binary decision. You (and many others) are refusing to take a nuanced approach to this problem.because you are so afraid of losing the Thunder.

We could drop $3B on a stadium and I would give it a yes if it were presented in a way that addressed a commensurate amount of issues.

As of today, what has been presented to us offers us little assurance. It could turn out amazing. It could turn out good. It could turn out meh. In the long run, it could turn out bad. But anyone saying they know how it's going to turn out (good or bad) has an argument that is based in hubris. I'm not willing to reward that approach to city politics with my yes.

The Cox site is a perfect location. Keep in mind we’re still awaiting the initial renderings for what will be OKC’s town square. In my opinion it is binary since having a professional sports team is multifaceted in its benefits to a city.

Mayor Holt has proven to be an outstanding leader uniting people across the aisle, implementing and pushing through several social initiatives for all members of the community. To think for one minute he’s attempting to reward a few wealthy members and doesn’t have OKCs best interest at heart is asinine.

[Teo9969]

The Cox site is a perfect location. Keep in mind we’re still awaiting the initial renderings for what will be OKC’s town square. In my opinion it is binary since having a professional sports team is multifaceted in its benefits to a city.

Mayor Holt has proven to be an outstanding leader uniting people across the aisle, implementing and pushing through several social initiatives for all members of the community. To think for one minute he’s attempting to reward a few wealthy members and doesn’t have OKCs best interest at heart is asinine.

The Cox site is the most valuable land in the state of Oklahoma. Anything on that site is going to fit like a glove. Hopefully it's very clear what they want to do from a town square perspective before this goes up to vote - might contain something that convinces a "Yes" from me.

I sincerely doubt he's trying to reward wealthy people. I am not of the opinion we have to get more funds from the owners, but like, if we're not getting a multi hundred million buy out and only $50M, and we're committing $1.25B+ to this project, I want us to address additional needs in the city. After all, I have the city's beat interest at heart (see how easy that is). If the owners were like "we'll contribute $400M and keep the terms of the lease similar, but we want the Cox site" I'd say that's probably a good deal.

[Dob Hooligan]

The Cox site is the most valuable land in the state of Oklahoma. Anything on that site is going to fit like a glove. Hopefully it's very clear what they want to do from a town square perspective before this goes up to vote - might contain something that convinces a "Yes" from me.

I sincerely doubt he's trying to reward wealthy people. I am not of the opinion we have to get more funds from the owners, but like, if we're not getting a multi hundred million buy out and only $50M, and we're committing $1.25B+ to this project, I want us to address additional needs in the city. After all, I have the city's beat interest at heart (see how easy that is). If the owners were like "we'll contribute $400M and keep the terms of the lease similar, but we want the Cox site" I'd say that's probably a good deal.

I suggest you have your vision of the city's best interest at heart. And I'm guessing all who are on here feel they do, as well. But we differ.

[Teo9969]

I suggest you have your vision of the city's best interest at heart. And I'm guessing all who are on here feel they do, as well. But we differ.

OKCTalk is a great public forum to pass ideas back and forth. There have been various moments throughout the forums history where real decision makers have come and made comments and I do believe that more than zero attention is paid to the conversations that are held here.

As well, there are many people whose opinions are undecided who need to see a broad perspective to make a more informed determination for how they will use their vote.

Because of how critical I have been at this juncture, I will flip sides if I see enough reason to cast a "Yes" in December and make it clear what sold me on the "Yes"

[SouthOKC]

The Cox site is the most valuable land in the state of Oklahoma. Anything on that site is going to fit like a glove. Hopefully it's very clear what they want to do from a town square perspective before this goes up to vote - might contain something that convinces a "Yes" from me.

I sincerely doubt he's trying to reward wealthy people. I am not of the opinion we have to get more funds from the owners, but like, if we're not getting a multi hundred million buy out and only $50M, and we're committing $1.25B+ to this project, I want us to address additional needs in the city. After all, I have the city's beat interest at heart (see how easy that is). If the owners were like "we'll contribute $400M and keep the terms of the lease similar, but we want the Cox site" I'd say that's probably a good deal.

Sometimes is about trusting the leaders we put in place and it’s especially true when they have a proven track record. It’s my expectation that Holt has done his due diligence and pushed for the best possible deal for the city. From my experience it requires very little effort to point out the flaws within a plan as it’s put forth from someone in a leadership role. Often times the decisions and plans made by leaders get very little applause and credit when it goes well and all the blame if it fails.

Obviously, from his point of view he feels like this was the best deal he could bring the community. He also understands the importance of keeping the Thunder and building what would be the crown jewel of OKC’s efforts over the past 30+ years to reinvent itself. This kinda of investment is rare and very few cities have put $1B into one facility.

Asking why we’re not spending more on other services and items is the equivalent of asking why we didn’t use some of the funds from the canal to build a major inlet sea port.

We’re OKC not Milwaukee, Dallas, NYC, or Atlanta. The circumstances and ownership groups differ so all the comparisons are irrelevant.

Questioning the deal is fine and what most citizens will do.

However, a “no” vote is saying you understand the landscape better than the people behind the scenes and trusted elected officials.

[April in the Plaza]

Sometimes is about trusting the leaders we put in place and it’s especially true when they have a proven track record. It’s my expectation that Holt has done his due diligence and pushed for the best possible deal for the city. From my experience it requires very little effort to point out the flaws within a plan as it’s put forth from someone in a leadership role. Often times the decisions and plans made by leaders get very little applause and credit when it goes well and all the blame if it fails.

Obviously, from his point of view he feels like this was the best deal he could bring the community. He also understands the importance of keeping the Thunder and building what would be the crown jewel of OKC’s efforts over the past 30+ years to reinvent itself. This kinda of investment is rare and very few cities have put $1B into one facility.

Asking why we’re not spending more on other services and items is the equivalent of asking why we didn’t use some of the funds from the canal to build a major inlet sea port.

We’re OKC not Milwaukee, Dallas, NYC, or Atlanta. The circumstances and ownership groups differ so all the comparisons are irrelevant.

Questioning the deal is fine and what most citizens will do.

However, a “no” vote is saying you understand the landscape better than the people behind the scenes and trusted elected officials.

Not exactly. Every ownership group, including the PCB, will receive anywhere between $250M and $400M in 2025-26 during league expansion.

So, let's be real, these guys can do a lot better than $50M.

https://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/n...ba-would-want/

https://sportsnaut.com/las-vegas-nba-expansion-update/

[Jake]

If there’s one thing the last several years have taught me, it’s that it’s a good idea to just kinda trust people in power and assume they’re doing what’s in your personal best interest without question.

[PoliSciGuy]

I wonder how much of an impact length of time in OKC has on this vote. And if I'm generalizing please let me know, but I think it's telling that some of the stronger advocates of this deal are folks who have lived here longer. One of the more common arguments here is about just how bad OKC was before MAPS/Thunder came to town. There's lots of allusions to how dead the town was, how little there was to do and how overlooked the city was by the country writ large. For these folks, the fear seems to be that if the Thunder leave, we're right back to the 1990s and the bad old days, as there's nothing else to do around here and our city core will wither on the vine and we will be a national afterthought, or even worse, another Tulsa. I think the specter of this past has overshadowed just how much OKC has grown and developed outside of the Thunder in the last couple decades. I read posts about how we have nothing else to do around here or how the Thunder is the only thing we have and I wonder if we're even living in the same city.

Meanwhile, some of the folks more skeptical of the deal seem to be more recent transplants (myself included - I moved to the area in 2015). For us, OKC has a lot of trappings of a modern, growing midsized American city. Speaking for myself, I've been to a handful of Thunder games but I also take my family to Scissortail Park and the Famer's Market there, to the Zoo, the Science Museum, musicals and performances at the Civic Center, countless little festivals and weekends at the Paseo and downtown and up in Edmond. We have Olympic events coming before the end of the decade, a massive facility opening up on the waterfront with Okana and countless other developments. All that is to say, if the Thunder leave, OKC is in a much better place today to weather their loss than a couple decades ago. However, as recent transplants we absolutely lack the memory or context of what this place looked like in 1990s and as result we downplay or ignore those older voices. This also leads to us diminishing or overlooking how much this team means to the more long-term residents as a keystone of OKCs comeback story, and that value cannot be captured on a balance sheet.

Note that this isn't saying one side is more right than other or one side's votes should matter more than others, just an interesting dynamic that I think might be at play here. Maybe this'll help us understand the other side better.

[chestercheetah]

I wonder how much of an impact length of time in OKC has on this vote. And if I'm generalizing please let me know, but I think it's telling that some of the stronger advocates of this deal are folks who have lived here longer. One of the more common arguments here is about just how bad OKC was before MAPS/Thunder came to town. There's lots of allusions to how dead the town was, how little there was to do and how overlooked the city was by the country writ large. For these folks, the fear seems to be that if the Thunder leave, we're right back to the 1990s and the bad old days, as there's nothing else to do around here and our city core will wither on the vine and we will be a national afterthought, or even worse, another Tulsa. I think the specter of this past has overshadowed just how much OKC has grown and developed outside of the Thunder in the last couple decades. I read posts about how we have nothing else to do around here or how the Thunder is the only thing we have and I wonder if we're even living in the same city.

Meanwhile, some of the folks more skeptical of the deal seem to be more recent transplants (myself included - I moved to the area in 2015). For us, OKC has a lot of trappings of a modern, growing midsized American city. Speaking for myself, I've been to a handful of Thunder games but I also take my family to Scissortail Park and the Famer's Market there, to the Zoo, the Science Museum, musicals and performances at the Civic Center, countless little festivals and weekends at the Paseo and downtown and up in Edmond. We have Olympic events coming before the end of the decade, a massive facility opening up on the waterfront with Okana and countless other developments. All that is to say, if the Thunder leave, OKC is in a much better place today to weather their loss than a couple decades ago. However, as recent transplants we absolutely lack the memory or context of what this place looked like in 1990s and as result we downplay or ignore those older voices. This also leads to us diminishing or overlooking how much this team means to the more long-term residents as a keystone of OKCs comeback story, and that value cannot be captured on a balance sheet.

Note that this isn't saying one side is more right than other or one side's votes should matter more than others, just an interesting dynamic that I think might be at play here. Maybe this'll help us understand the other side better.

There may be something to what you are saying. I have lived here 55 years and I absolutely don't want to lose the Thunder. I do fear going backwards or at least lose momentum. This city is way better than it used to be before the Thunder. I will vote Yes even if I have to hold my nose doing it.

[SouthOKC]

I wonder how much of an impact length of time in OKC has on this vote. And if I'm generalizing please let me know, but I think it's telling that some of the stronger advocates of this deal are folks who have lived here longer. One of the more common arguments here is about just how bad OKC was before MAPS/Thunder came to town. There's lots of allusions to how dead the town was, how little there was to do and how overlooked the city was by the country writ large. For these folks, the fear seems to be that if the Thunder leave, we're right back to the 1990s and the bad old days, as there's nothing else to do around here and our city core will wither on the vine and we will be a national afterthought, or even worse, another Tulsa. I think the specter of this past has overshadowed just how much OKC has grown and developed outside of the Thunder in the last couple decades. I read posts about how we have nothing else to do around here or how the Thunder is the only thing we have and I wonder if we're even living in the same city.

Meanwhile, some of the folks more skeptical of the deal seem to be more recent transplants (myself included - I moved to the area in 2015). For us, OKC has a lot of trappings of a modern, growing midsized American city. Speaking for myself, I've been to a handful of Thunder games but I also take my family to Scissortail Park and the Famer's Market there, to the Zoo, the Science Museum, musicals and performances at the Civic Center, countless little festivals and weekends at the Paseo and downtown and up in Edmond. We have Olympic events coming before the end of the decade, a massive facility opening up on the waterfront with Okana and countless other developments. All that is to say, if the Thunder leave, OKC is in a much better place today to weather their loss than a couple decades ago. However, as recent transplants we absolutely lack the memory or context of what this place looked like in 1990s and as result we downplay or ignore those older voices. This also leads to us diminishing or overlooking how much this team means to the more long-term residents as a keystone of OKCs comeback story, and that value cannot be captured on a balance sheet.

Note that this isn't saying one side is more right than other or one side's votes should matter more than others, just an interesting dynamic that I think might be at play here. Maybe this'll help us understand the other side better.

I would agree with this to some extent.

The one point I would disagree with is the fear we return to the dark days of the late 90s/early 2000s. I believe we’re past those times and OKC is more diverse in so many different areas to the point we won’t be that city again anytime soon. We’ve been voted one of the top cities for public art by a respected publication, created numerous districts with a soul and feel all their own, professional sports team, and actual destinations for tourism. I’m saying that to say this, I fully understand what that investment meant to our city and firmly believe those things I mentioned are a direct result of the MAPS investments. OKC has been able to outpace not all but a majority of cities of similar size within the past 30 years. For as long as I can remember most people viewed Tulsa the premier city in Oklahoma and OKC was devoid of any type of soul/culture. Take a look at the list of developers doing projects/deals in our city and you’ll find a much younger demographic than a Dallas for example. The reason being our visionaries and creators are staying home they’re no longer leaving for greener pastures. I credit that 100% to our civic investments.

[SouthOKC]

Not exactly. Every ownership group, including the PCB, will receive anywhere between $250M and $400M in 2025-26 during league expansion.

So, let's be real, these guys can do a lot better than $50M.

https://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/n...ba-would-want/

https://sportsnaut.com/las-vegas-nba-expansion-update/

I would want to see a P/L or balance sheet before making any assumptions on the profitability of the ownership group. Especially, when speculating on potential league expansion.

Keep in mind we have a young core that’s aging out of rookie deals and most likely pushing the team into the luxury tax within the next couple years. Around the time increased arena revenues could help offset those increased costs.

[Shortsyeararound]

There may be something to what you are saying. I have lived here 55 years and I absolutely don't want to lose the Thunder. I do fear going backwards or at least lose momentum. This city is way better than it used to be before the Thunder. I will vote Yes even if I have to hold my nose doing it.

I'm a few years younger than you and agree with the fear of losing momentum.

Do I feel like it will be 1990 and the only thing in Bricktown is the Haunted Warehouse or the Plaza area being hookers and drug deals, or SOSA/Midtown area having more of that same element- no, because those positive changes aren't going to revert back. The loss of the Thunder would be huge blow to the city whether you go or not. Is this the right deal? Could the Paycom undergo a rebuild that would satisfy for a fraction of the cost?

At my age, my friends and I (they grew up here as well) bitch and moan about what the younger generation has here that we never had. The opportunities presented to them just weren't available to us. It was suburban sprawl vs inner core Okc at the time. In 93 when I graduated high school there weren't legitimate living options downtown which led to really stay in the area I grew up in. People my age just didn't move to Okc, they left.

[Dob Hooligan]

Not exactly. Every ownership group, including the PCB, will receive anywhere between $250M and $400M in 2025-26 during league expansion.

So, let's be real, these guys can do a lot better than $50M.

https://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/n...ba-would-want/

https://sportsnaut.com/las-vegas-nba-expansion-update/

That is speculation, pure and simple. I can't make the expansion fee pencil out for a team buyer. Add in the $500 million it will take to build out a team for the first game and it is a huge outlay. How are they going to make a return on investment? The debt service alone would be something like $100 million a year.

Brings me to another angle. It is getting almost impossible for a team owner to have the team as their only, or even main, business. I think that is why the Buss family keeps selling off shares of the Lakers. They don't own their arena and the lease is weak by today's standards. Now, my heart bleeds pizz for these team owners. But castles cost a lotta money to keep up.

[Rover]

That is speculation, pure and simple. I can't make the expansion fee pencil out for a team buyer. Add in the $500 million it will take to build out a team for the first game and it is a huge outlay. How are they going to make a return on investment? The debt service alone would be something like $100 million a year.

Brings me to another angle. It is getting almost impossible for a team owner to have the team as their only, or even main, business. I think that is why the Buss family keeps selling off shares of the Lakers. They don't own their arena and the lease is weak by today's standards. Now, my heart bleeds pizz for these team owners. But castles cost a lotta money to keep up.

There are 32 teams. There is no way their expansion fee would be $8-12 BILLION. I wish everyone would just stop with the fantasy hyperbole.