New Downtown Arena

[shai2022]

? Where? I see no links in your post history

https://www.amazon.com/Reversing-Urb.../dp/1482206218

[HangryHippo]

Honestly, the impact is no greater than it already is, we have been paying a penny for MAPS projects consistently for years, if this passes, we will continue to pay that penny towards this project. I think people are caught up with the 900 million price tag. You as an individual aren't having to come up with 900 million, you essentially keep paying the $1 for this when you buy your weekly groceries for $100.

Excellent point and well said.

[PoliSciGuy]

https://www.amazon.com/Reversing-Urb.../dp/1482206218

Oh, Rosentraub? Yeah he used case studies of projects he was a consultant on, such as Petco Park in San Diego, and shockingly found that those projects produced economic growth for the region (though even his studies find that the stadium itself is an economic loser). However he doesn't really tease out correlation/causation, a similar mistake that Mayor Holt makes when he points to the population growth that OKC experienced after the Thunder moved here. There are countless other confounding explanations that aren't controlled for.

[chssooner]

Oh, Rosentraub? Yeah he used case studies of projects he was a consultant on, such as Petco Park in San Diego, and shockingly found that those projects produced economic growth for the region (though even his studies find that the stadium itself is an economic loser). However he doesn't really tease out correlation/causation, a similar mistake that Mayor Holt makes when he points to the population growth that OKC experienced after the Thunder moved here. There are countless other confounding explanations that aren't controlled for.

Keep moving those goalposts.

There are arguments on both sides. Bashing the other side while holding yours up as high and mighty is why no one ever discusses things (see the entire political spectrum nowadays). Each situation is unique, so it is hard to compare apples to apples. OKC has so little going for it, on a national scale, that losing the one thing that gets you publicity on an ESPN-level, cannot help your city, in terms of growing in the future, aside form people just wanting to leave the Arnett's of the world to come to the city.

[PoliSciGuy]

? what goalposts did I move?

[chssooner]

? what goalposts did I move?

Oh, he only compared this, that, and this. Nothing I would consider appropriate.

Someone offers you a counter to your point, and rather than discuss it, you toss it to the side because of some other reason. Hence, moving goalposts.

[cornhusker740]

Interesting article on this by KOCO: https://www.koco.com/article/oklahom...under/45331202

I hope the arena vote passes with flying colors but my gut says this will be closer than some people think, maybe too close for comfort. I want it to pass, but I have some doubts that it will. Seems like concerns about what ownership is chipping in and spending that kind of money on an arena are pretty real to some people.

[Pete]

Interesting article on this by KOCO: https://www.koco.com/article/oklahom...under/45331202

I hope the arena vote passes with flying colors but my gut says this will be closer than some people think, maybe too close for comfort. I want it to pass, but I have some doubts that it will. Seems like concerns about what ownership is chipping in and spending that kind of money on an arena are pretty real to some people.

There was a survey conducted about a month ago with pretty much the same terms as will be voted on and even though we don't know the results, they wouldn't have moved forward unless they were positive.

Also, as with MAPS, there is really no organized opposition while the City and Mayor (and Chamber) use their massive platforms and resources to hammer home the benefits to the community with zero counterpoints. There will be some negativity on social media (as with anything) and that's about it.


I'm not taking a position on the vote, but from an objective point of view I'd be shocked if this doesn't pass, and by probably close to 60%.

[BDP]

There are countless other confounding explanations that aren't controlled for.

That's the problem with ALL of these studies, even the ones you like to cite. Because you can't control for all other variables that are economic factors within a given market to isolate the effects of a single project like a stadium development. You can't make precise calculations in a broader economic analysis without making assumed correlations. At some point they also have to rely on a made up zero sum association that just doesn't exists in the real world.

Now, if these were all small towns where the economic success of the market is hinged upon or disrupted by a single economic industry or entity, it can become clearer, but none of these studies are dealing which such markets and none of the markets economic portfolios are exactly alike. Furthermore, no two civics projects that contain both public funding and participation of private entities are structured the same way, either. Again, you simply cannot create the controls, in reality or mathematically, that you are seeking and every time one is presented in the studies, all it does it betray the biases of the approach.

Unfortunately, I can not read the Sage study, but even the abstract states its findings are based on assumptions found in other research. I'm not sayin that makes the study wrong or unworthy, I'm just pointing out that of course it does, because that's the only way you can do it.

In any event, we're talking about Oklahoma City. A city that was flat out told by potential economic influencers that they did not want to be in the market because they felt the quality of life sucked. MAPS was a response to that, The arena was a part of MAPS and the arena led to the NBA locating in the market. Since then, there have been consistent economic and quality of life gains that are apparent to anyone who has been associated with the market before and since these improvements. Can I say those improvements were entirely because of the arena and the NBA? No, of course not, and mostly because I don't believe that. I do believe it was a part of it, but isolating and quantifying an amount of impact tied solely to one single variable in a muti-variable uncontrollable system is inherently unscientific. I assume these researchers and the peers that review these studies know this, but I'm not sure those that hold them up in political or public policy settings know this. That doesn't mean that they are not useful or helpful, but they don't usually represent the surety with which they are often presented outside of academic environments,

[citywokchinesefood]

Unfortunately, I would personally put more value into a bucket of cow **** as good fertilizer than any article written by a local reporter. The Oklahoman is an absolute rag. KOCO, KFOR, News 9, etc. are all not doing much in the way or hard hitting or meaningful reporting. It is mostly just juicing up the same people that pay to play without any sort of real criticism. The state of journalism today is an absolute travesty.

[April in the Plaza]

Honestly, the impact is no greater than it already is, we have been paying a penny for MAPS projects consistently for years, if this passes, we will continue to pay that penny towards this project. I think people are caught up with the 900 million price tag. You as an individual aren't having to come up with 900 million, you essentially keep paying the $1 for this when you buy your weekly groceries for $100.

Weekly groceries are like $350 these days unless you’re trying to eat Ramen and Potatoes

[Canoe]

Weekly groceries are like $350 these days unless you’re trying to eat Ramen and Potatoes

This is my face I make when I check out at the grocery store.

[onthestrip]

OKC has so little going for it, on a national scale, that losing the one thing that gets you publicity on an ESPN-level, cannot help your city, in terms of growing in the future, aside form people just wanting to leave the Arnett's of the world to come to the city.

These takes are hilarious to me. That OKC is such a poor, pitiful, pathetic place if not for the Thunder. Good thing random dudes around the country see our name on ESPN though, its propelled OKC forward in immeasurable ways!

[Pete]

Unfortunately, I would personally put more value into a bucket of cow **** as good fertilizer than any article written by a local reporter. The Oklahoman is an absolute rag. KOCO, KFOR, News 9, etc. are all not doing much in the way or hard hitting or meaningful reporting. It is mostly just juicing up the same people that pay to play without any sort of real criticism. The state of journalism today is an absolute travesty.

The political reporters for the Oklahoman do a good job IMO.

But the Oklahoman had a ridiculously cursory article attempting to compare our arena deal to others and then tried to claim they are reporting 'all sides'. They take way more Thunder advertising than anyone, so they are nowhere near an objective party in this matter and should include that disclaimer, which they never do.

[Laramie]

Interesting take Pete, about the Oklahoman's objectivity and the advertising angle, you can take that to the bank in their favor. They stand
to benefit from the Thunder and the new arena.

[soonerguru]

Weekly groceries are like $350 these days unless you’re trying to eat Ramen and Potatoes

This is absurd hyperbole. We get our groceries from Whole Foods each week for about $200. That's for a family of three and we dine at home at least 6 nights a week plus food for lunches.

[Bill Robertson]

This is absurd hyperbole. We get our groceries from Whole Foods each week for about $200. That's for a family of three and we dine at home at least 6 nights a week plus food for lunches.

It's just the two of us but we spend around $125 per week at the "expensive" Homeland. If we cut out wine and beer, which we really should, we'd be around $100.

[Pete]

Don't know why we are talking about groceries, almost everything you buy is subject to sales tax, including things online.

[john60]

I was listening to the deal about cost overages yesterday. Basically the city pays for 100% overbudget unless it is a change requested by the Thunder, then the Thunder pays 100% (was my understanding).

And the project will almost definitely be over budget once it is finished. I know the number floated by the city in all this has been 900 million, but is the city obligated to put forth an arena with that price tag, or can the city put forth an arena for slightly less in order to account for inevitable overages so that the final contribution by the city actually ends up being 900 million?

[Pete]

^

That is my understanding as well but "changes from the Thunder" from what exactly?

We're told there isn't even a site yet. So, at what point does the baseline of the entire project get set to where something would represent a 'change' by the Thunder? And up until then, do we have to accommodate all their desires?

We already know that if sales tax collections exceed the $976MM estimate -- which you can almost guarantee -- the letter of intent requires all that money be spent on the arena, either the original build or a reserve for future improvements (not maintenance).


Just more questions to throw on a growing mountain.

[Teo9969]

Do we have the letter of intent?

Nvm...found it https://www.okc.gov/home/showpublish...13106434970000

[Pete]

Do we have the letter of intent?

Yes, it was approved by City Council yesterday.

[BoulderSooner]

the letter of intent requires all that money be spent on the arena, either the original build or a reserve for future improvements (not maintenance).
.

Any surplus revenues ultimately collected from the temporary
sales tax that come in above project costs and any related financing costs will be utilized
either to complete the New Arena and/or placed in a capital improvement fund for
future capital maintenance of and improvements to the New Arena

[BoulderSooner]

C. Budget and Construction and Sources of Funds: The budget and the funds available
for the New Arena are initially estimated to be a minimum of $900,000,000. The
parties agree that continued joint development of the budget and its revenue sources
may increase the budget before construction commences, but the budget and the funds
available will not diminish below $900,000,000. The minimum budget and funds
available of $900,000,000 are dedicated to the project costs itself, excluding any
financing costs. This budget amount for the New Arena does not include the additional
value of any publicly-owned land that may ultimately be utilized as the site for the New
Arena. The funds for this budget will be supplied from the proceeds of the temporary
72-month sales tax to be considered by the voters of Oklahoma City before the end of
2023, as well as a minimum of $70,000,000 of MAPS 4 funds already earmarked for
the City's downtown arena, and a $50,000,000 contribution from the Team toward the
project. The final budget and funds available for the New Arena - an amount no less
than $900,000,000 - will be jointly agreed upon by the parties as they jointly work
through financial estimates, financing approvals, and other factors that are set forth in
the Development Agreement. The parties agree that all reasonable efforts will be made
to maximize resources. Any surplus revenues ultimately collected from the temporary
sales tax that come in above project costs and any related financing costs will be utilized
either to complete the New Arena and/or placed in a capital improvement fund for
future capital maintenance of and improvements to the New Arena. The parties agree
to work together in good faith to build to the final budget ultimately agreed upon by
the parties, and both parties acknowledge there is no major public source of project
funding beyond that which is provided for here for the New Arena, though the parties
agree to work diligently and creatively to maximize available resources within the
sources identified here. The Team shall not be responsible for any cost overruns with
respect to the budget except to the extent that such cost overrun is a result of
modifications to the project requested by the Team after the design is finalized, and
such request increases the budget for the New Arena. In such instance, the Team is
only responsible for the increase above the previously agreed-upon budget that is
attributable to their request.

entire section

[Pete]

^

Also note the wording explicitly says, "This budget amount for the New Arena does not include the additional value of any publicly-owned land that may ultimately be utilized as the site for the New Arena."

As I mentioned previously, if the Cox Site is chosen they will not be factoring in the value of that land into the budget.

Remember, way back in 2015 Bob Howard & Co. were asking $100MM for their land west of Paycom. When the City initiated eminent domain believing this number to be outrageous, they quickly dropped their lawsuit when it became clear that the independent commissioners appointed by the court were going to end up determining a land value much closer to that number than the City was prepared to pay. If you wait until the formal appraisal comes in with eminent domain, then the value is binding.

Long way of saying the value of the land is not insignificant, especially by the time this project kicks off.

I've said all the way along the total budget for this arena is going to be a lot closer to $1.5B than $1B.