New Downtown Arena

[SouthOKC]

The owners have no doubt been approached by potential buyers from other cities, or else this wouldn't be a thing in 2023 (more likely would be in 2027 or so). But they know they have the city by the short and curlys, so here we are. If you think they won't sell by the end of December, then you are selling the owners short.

I'm not saying they will, but they could the day after a no vote if they wanted (and they would have buyers aplenty).

If the Thunder stay through the new preliminary lease term of 2050. I believe that puts the team in OKC 1 year longer than they were in Seattle.

[HOT ROD]

Urban: this is all I'm asking for. Before the vote, put something together so there's expectations. The city can be sure the vote will pass, so why not give the public a bone so we can feel better about the price tag and relative lack of contribution by ownership.

I'm sure people would feel much better about voting blind if ownership were contributing half, and the OKC contribution of say $500 million. But that's not the case, it's $9XX million public + $70 million MAPS IV + $50 million ownership for ?? at ?? (um) downtown.

I think we can do better than that, no other city has treated it's residents like this and I'm almost certain more than half of the "no" vote would disappear if they show something for the dollars. Rover, doesn't have to be perfect, a straw rendering or even nailed down plan for the site (or an existing arena to benchmark) is sufficient IMO since this was all decided behind closed doors already - ie, Holt's "we have a plan" with ownership. Chamber could/should easily put something together if ownership cant just like they do/did for the fairgrounds arena, Bennett Center, on and on that they want passed.

^^^^^^
It’s not December yet. The council has not even voted on whether to send this to the people for a vote. Voters and taxpayers are currently not being asked to do a single thing at this point, despite what the posts above say.

Just as there were with MAPS proposals, there will be marketing materials. The marketing materials will likely include an artist’s rendering of a generic building, just like those efforts did. It will bear zero resemblance to the finished product, just as those did.

In the original MAPS marketing materials they guessed the ultimate location of the Paycom, which was pretty easy (it was a run-down, city-owned bus transfer station and an abandoned, dilapidated commercial bakery). But they guessed the ballpark location to be about where the Bass Pro south parking lot is now in place, and got the alignment of the canal completely wrong. The arena looked nothing like what was built.

You can go down the list of every similar campaign and you will see the same. Generalized marketing pics, few if any firm site locations (except, for instance, fairgrounds). I’m sure there will be something similar.

But until they are empowered by voters, the City can spend exactly zero money on this project. And they cannot even make a firm site selection until they are vetted via appraisals, engineering studies, title work in the case of potential land swaps, on and on and on.

And regardless of whether or not random folks on a message board believe it, there are multiple sites in the mix.

These things take money, and again, until empowered by voters, the City has none to spend.

[Urbanized]

The City ABSOLUTELY has a say in site selection. It's a public building, paid for largely by public funds. The variables that come into play, however, include these:

• Existing leases in desired locations, and the termination thereof
• Mechanicals in existing sites(s) that must be relocated
• Environmental concerns
• Engineering requirements
• Demolition budgets
• Demolition timing
• Desired timing for building completion and dedication ('29-'30 stated)

My point is, there are a lot of variables, some of which have yet to be studied, and also a very strong desire to be in the building sooner rather than later.

[BoulderSooner]

The owners have no doubt been approached by potential buyers from other cities, or else this wouldn't be a thing in 2023 (more likely would be in 2027 or so). But they know they have the city by the short and curlys, so here we are. If you think they won't sell by the end of December, then you are selling the owners short.

I'm not saying they will, but they could the day after a no vote if they wanted (and they would have buyers aplenty).

this became a thing because their lease was up ..

[Urbanized]

Urban: this is all I'm asking for. Before the vote, put something together so there's expectations. The city can be sure the vote will pass, so why not give the public a bone so we can feel better about the price tag and relative lack of contribution by ownership.

I'm sure people would feel much better about voting blind if ownership were contributing half, and the OKC contribution of say $500 million. But that's not the case, it's $9XX million public + $70 million MAPS IV + $50 million ownership for ?? at ?? (um) downtown.

I think we can do better than that, no other city has treated it's residents like this and I'm almost certain more than half of the "no" vote would disappear if they show something for the dollars. Rover, doesn't have to be perfect, a straw rendering or even nailed down plan for the site (or an existing arena to benchmark) is sufficient IMO since this was all decided behind closed doors already - ie, Holt's "we have a plan" with ownership. Chamber could/should easily put something together if ownership cant just like they do/did for the fairgrounds arena, Bennett Center, on and on that they want passed.

I will reiterate: the public has not been asked to do ANYTHING yet. Not to vote, not to pay taxes. How is it so possible for people to take the position that we are somehow being sold short when it's not even on a ballot yet?

The process underway now is discussion at the Council level, and presumably a vote to place the project on a ballot in December. If that happens, THEN the public will be asked to vote, and ultimately to pay taxes to fund the building.

And I am quite sure there will be much more communicated to the public in advance of the vote, should it make it to the ballot. Glossy marketing materials, flashy commercials, probably some more details on the lease, and maybe even a pretty artist's conceptual of what a modern arena looks like (but most likely NOT an actual representation of what OUR building would look like, since that will thankfully take considerable time and budget to figure out).

[Pete]

I will reiterate: the public has not been asked to do ANYTHING yet. Not to vote, not to pay taxes. How is it so possible for people to take the position that we are somehow being sold short when it's not even on a ballot yet?

City Council votes on Tuesday and Wednesday and they represent their constituents.

Nothing formal was even posted until a couple of hours ago and it's still very hazy. And as JoBeth has mentioned, she only heard about the broad strokes about a month ago.

AND the public vote will happen in less than 3 months.

[April in the Plaza]

I will reiterate: the public has not been asked to do ANYTHING yet. Not to vote, not to pay taxes. How is it so possible for people to take the position that we are somehow being sold short when it's not even on a ballot yet?

The process underway now is discussion at the Council level, and presumably a vote to place the project on a ballot in December. If that happens, THEN the public will be asked to vote, and ultimately to pay taxes to fund the building.

And I am quite sure there will be much more communicated to the public in advance of the vote, should it make it to the ballot. Glossy marketing materials, flashy commercials, probably some more details on the lease, and maybe even a pretty artist's conceptual of what a modern arena looks like (but most likely NOT an actual representation of what OUR building would look like, since that will thankfully take considerable time and budget to figure out).

let's be real: it's pretty evident there is a max of two nays on this council. this is absolutely going to a December vote.

[BoulderSooner]

Urban: this is all I'm asking for. Before the vote, put something together so there's expectations. The city can be sure the vote will pass, so why not give the public a bone so we can feel better about the price tag and relative lack of contribution by ownership.

I'm sure people would feel much better about voting blind if ownership were contributing half, and the OKC contribution of say $500 million. But that's not the case, it's $9XX million public + $70 million MAPS IV + $50 million ownership for ?? at ?? (um) downtown.

.

no ownership group has contributed anything close to half with the lease terms the thunder has with OKC

[Urbanized]

let's be real... ...this is absolutely going to a December vote.

Of course. I too believe that this will be the case.

[Pete]

I wanted to go on the record and state I am 100% for a new arena and know darn well it is needed. I don't think I have to explain what a big deal this would be to me personally, as I'll be out there taking drone shots for years on end!

Just trying to call attention to issues around this, especially the process.


As always with any election, I won't be taking a public stance.

[PoliSciGuy]

no ownership group has contributed anything close to half with the lease terms the thunder has with OKC

Where are you finding the lease agreements of all NBA teams?

[caaokc]

I wanted to go on the record and state I am 100% for a new arena and know darn well it is needed. I don't think I have to explain what a big deal this would be to me personally, as I'll be out there taking drone shots for years on end!

Just trying to call attention to issues around this, especially the process.


As always with any election, I won't be taking a public stance.

Those will be some awesome drone shots (assuming it passes)

[BDP]

Where are you finding the lease agreements of all NBA teams?

Marquette School of Law has some summaries you can look at, as well as some in other other sports.

[BoulderSooner]

Marquette School of Law has some summaries you can look at, as well as some in other other sports.

and you can also find them in city council agendas ... just have to know where to look

[HOT ROD]

I wanted to go on the record and state I am 100% for a new arena and know darn well it is needed. I don't think I have to explain what a big deal this would be to me personally, as I'll be out there taking drone shots for years on end!

Just trying to call attention to issues around this, especially the process.

As always with any election, I won't be taking a public stance.

Pete, I too agree it will pass and I also fully support - as I'm sure MOST are, even those who have reservations or opinions on the process (almost sure Polisci as well); while I also agree with you this "process" needs to be called out. OKC can't keep doing this, like it's a small backwater town run by good ole-boys or a corrupt dem city. I totally understand the need for closed door negotiations and what not, but that's been a year in the making if not more - they should be able to be transparent now about the desires and have a carrot for the public to get on board with for the price tag they're asking.

Hopefully Tuesday and Wednesday will solve some of this hunger and remove the likely last bit of doubt or sour taste that some of us have with this PROCESS. As you said, totally on board with the arena (regardless of the cost in my mind) but NO longer on board with this "take it or leave it" process. Yes, I'm not an OKC resident but I am a passionate expat who does not want to see OKC fail; and I will continue to contribute to the OKC MAPS and 1 cent fund and transfer as many dollars from the Pac NW where I can.

[Bill Robertson]

As to renderings. Let's say OKC came up with a quick rendering to appease voters that need something to see in order to get behind the proposal. Then after lots of back and forth discussion between the parties involved the actual building was something completely different. The public would, and justifiably so, throw a hissy fit that they voted on A but got B.

[PoliSciGuy]

As to renderings. Let's say OKC came up with a quick rendering to appease voters that need something to see in order to get behind the proposal. Then after lots of back and forth discussion between the parties involved the actual building was something completely different. The public would, and justifiably so, throw a hissy fit that they voted on A but got B.

But at that point it's a fait accompli, so who cares? Holt will be termed out, the building done and the deal signed. What would the public do, other than just be generally ticked off...until the Thunder make the playoffs and all is forgiven?

[chssooner]

But at that point it's a fait accompli, so who cares? Holt will be termed out, the building done and the deal signed. What would the public do, other than just be generally ticked off...until the Thunder make the playoffs and all is forgiven?

Why will he be termed out? Does OKC allow for 3 term mayors? I know Tulsa does.

[unfundedrick]

Why will he be termed out? Does OKC allow for 3 term mayors? I know Tulsa does.

Mick Cornett was elected and served for 4 terms.

[PoliSciGuy]

Ah my bad, conflating the mayor with the governor.

Still, by the time the stadium is actually built I expect Holt to have moved on to another position (Representative or Governor)

[Teo9969]

^^^^^^^
OF COURSE they have an idea of what they like to see. And you can be certain they’ve shared it with the City. But what they would have shared is a list of specifications, not pretty pictures.

Those pretty pictures will only come after there is money to be spent, and there is none to spend until OKC and its voters have agreed to fund the PUBLICLY FUNDED project.

But again, as I mentioned above, I’d assume that after the Council approves sending it to the voters that the Chamber (who will be running the campaign, as usual) will have someone create a placeholder image for marketing materials, but probably an image short on details, including how it might relate to the skyline.

This is what we don't have today. What we also don't have today is any vision on how the money might be spent, which, at this stage of the process, is at least mildly disappointing.

The point that there is an official public process to play out is not wrong, but it is short sighted. It's short sighted because the mayor has already decidcated many hours to pitching this idea. And it's with little doubt in anyone's mind that discussions of what details we will be pursuing with this civic project have already been in discussion.

If you're going to go ahead and start advertising and laying the groundwork for what we can expect from PBC and what the ask will be for the city, we should know a bit more about what we're getting for our money should we vote this through. Every statement can be couched with a "budget and location providing", but give me more than an arena for $1B in Oklahoma City.

[Rover]

This is what we don't have today. What we also don't have today is any vision on how the money might be spent, which, at this stage of the process, is at least mildly disappointing.

The point that there is an official public process to play out is not wrong, but it is short sighted. It's short sighted because the mayor has already decidcated many hours to pitching this idea. And it's with little doubt in anyone's mind that discussions of what details we will be pursuing with this civic project have already been in discussion.

If you're going to go ahead and start advertising and laying the groundwork for what we can expect from PBC and what the ask will be for the city, we should know a bit more about what we're getting for our money should we vote this through. Every statement can be couched with a "budget and location providing", but give me more than an arena for $1B in Oklahoma City.

So, you want the city to pay for designs so you can see where the doors are located and what color the roof is? That will make you vote for it?

If you’ve listened to date they’ve talked plenty about the shortcomings of our current arena and what a new arena should include at a minimum.

[April in the Plaza]

So, you want the city to pay for designs so you can see where the doors are located and what color the roof is? That will make you vote for it?

If you’ve listened to date they’ve talked plenty about the shortcomings of our current arena and what a new arena should include at a minimum.

No. I’ll translate for you. He’s asking: are we getting FiServ, Little Caesar’s or Papa John’s?

[Teo9969]

So, you want the city to pay for designs so you can see where the doors are located and what color the roof is? That will make you vote for it?

If you’ve listened to date they’ve talked plenty about the shortcomings of our current arena and what a new arena should include at a minimum.

No. Read again and attempt to understand the other side.

[Dob Hooligan]

Ah my bad, conflating the mayor with the governor.

Still, by the time the stadium is actually built I expect Holt to have moved on to another position (Representative or Governor)

OKC mayors don’t win statewide office. At least none have since I started paying attention in the 1970s. US Representative would be a lot of work, a waste of his talent, and a step down IMO. I think Holt can do more as mayor, and can probably keep the job 16-20 years if he wants.