Ford Center improvements up for March 4 vote

[SouthsideSooner]

Interesting Cuban comments for those that think the Ford Center remodel isn't crucial to us getting a team.

Seattle Sonics Blog


Mark Cuban on the Sonics situation
We caught Mavericks owner Mark Cuban on his stepmaster before the Mavericks-Sonics game and he gave his thoughts on the Sonics potential move and the city's reaction to potentially losing the team.

"The question is whether Seattle even wants the team," he said while working up a sweat exercising. "If they want them, they have to figure out a way for them to stay. And if they don't it's just a question of where. I'd love to see them stay in Seattle. It's a great city, great fans, just a shame, you know? But I guess sometimes the rain gets to people."

Cuban said the people of city should make a bigger ruckus if they don't want the Sonics to relocate to Oklahoma City or another locale.
"It's not one of those things where you can force people to want them to stay," he said. "If they want them to stay, they want them to stay. And if they don't, they don't. It wasn't like it was a big uproar and that's the thing. You can play politics all you want but it wasn't like people we're screaming and that's a shame because it's a great basketball city."

Cuban is not sold that the Sonics are headed for Oklahoma and he said he is open to any new ideas.
"I don't know that they're going to Oklahoma City, we have to see," he said. "At least as far as my personal vote, I am going to keep all options open. It's a question of what's the biggest available market and what's going to help the NBA the most. So we'll see.
And if it's not better than Seattle, I'll vote against it. It's all right but they have a (expletive) lease. That's what it is. People can make the argument that's the lease you sign but business changes and that's what's happened."

Cuban said the economics of the league has changed since refurbishing of KeyArena in 1994, making the team's lease even more of an issue.

"The reality of the NBA has changed," he said. "There was a day where you can always depend on the TV contract going way up and that meant all teams got the same boost in revenue. If the TV revenue went up x Seattle got the same as Dallas as New York, but now, national revenue is a declining percentage of team revenues, which means you are more dependant on local revenues."

He continued.

"And the more dependent you are on local revenue, the more important your lease and arena deal is. And the more important you're lease and arena deal is, the worst position that Seattle's in competitively. So I think that the piece the people don't quite understand in Seattle. I think they think it's 1996 and if they can do it think they can do it now.

"But the difference between 10 years ago and today, with the economics of the NBA and the way the collective bargaining agreement is structured is night and day. Night and day. That just puts Seattle is a significant competitive disadvantage.

Cuban isn't sold on Oklahoma City and said he will not vote along with other owners just for the sake of agreement.
"Isn't Oklahoma City bigger than Seattle?" he asked. "In a metropolitan city, I don't know. I haven't seen the numbers. But I don't think it's strong enough. If it isn't I'll vote against it. I am not going in with any preset notions, so we'll see what happens, I am open minded like that."
Posted by gary washburn at January 19, 2008 5:55 p.m.

[Midtowner]

ChamberCyn, I'm curious as to how much of the 75 million dollars the Citizens of OKC recently assessed themselves, and gave to the Chamber to promote economic development, will fund this campaign.

haha.. that's precisely why I was so outspoken against that terrible piece of legislation.

Technically, I can see the money being available for that purpose since it's going to attract jobs which earn more than the city's average.

[Slivermoon]

ChamberCyn, I'm curious as to how much of the 75 million dollars the Citizens of OKC recently assessed themselves, and gave to the Chamber to promote economic development, will fund this campaign.

The bond funds recently approved by the voters were for economic development incentives that will have oversight of a new City Trust. The City has few resources as compared with peer cities for job creation, other than scarce State incentives. The bond issue is completely unrelated to potential relocation of the Sonics, as I have no doubt ChamberCyn will attest.

The City is in a position to inform only. It is up to others to persuade, one way or the other.

[venture]

Hmm..the Dallas Mav's owner not being very positive on OKC. I wonder why? Is he affraid of a revenue impact he might suffer by losing a fan base north of the Red River? Then again...I don't think I've ever met a Mavs fan ever. LOL

[andy157]

The bond funds recently approved by the voters were for economic development incentives that will have oversight of a new City Trust. The City has few resources as compared with peer cities for job creation, other than scarce State incentives. The bond issue is completely unrelated to potential relocation of the Sonics, as I have no doubt ChamberCyn will attest.

The City is in a position to inform only. It is up to others to persuade, one way or the other.

Explain to me if you will please how proposition 11 is completely unrelated to the potential relocation of the Sonics.

[andy157]

haha.. that's precisely why I was so outspoken against that terrible piece of legislation.

Technically, I can see the money being available for that purpose since it's going to attract jobs which earn more than the city's average.

Midtowner, Technically I think you are absolutly right. I was so hoping we could utilize lets say 25 Mill of our 75 Mil in bond money for economic development, and high paying jobs. 5 Mil to the Chamber for the Get Out the YES Vote to pass the sales tax extension to upgrade the FC. The other 20 Mil could build the practice facility. The Sonics come to town, all is well, everyone is happy, everyone gets what they want, the City moves forward. I thought I had a solution to our problem. But I guess not.

[dcsooner]

Cuban knows an NBA team in OKC will impact the maverics. If OKC is a successful franchise like SA, then some of the large native Oklahomans in DFW will shift to supporting an OKC franchise. Even more reason to vote YES on the Ford Center improvements. Dallas has always wanted OKC to remain small to keep Oklahomans coming and spending in texas.

[betts]

I think what Cuban is saying is that Oklahoma City has to do more than Seattle to convince him that moving the Sonics here is a good idea. The team has 40 years history with the city of Seattle, and they have been good fans for those 40 years. Seattle is a far bigger city with more national prominence. To move the Sonics from Seattle, Oklahoma City has to step up and do more. That's why anyone who thinks we can get the Sonics here without improving the Ford Center and building a practice facility is not being realistic. We ARE a small market, and we do have only 2 years of decent support of the Hornets under our belts. We have to do it better than bigger cities to get a look from the NBA, and I think we're really, really lucky to be able to get away with only a Ford Center remodel, at a price tag one fourth of what Seattle was being asked for and Orlando has just agreed to give.

[FritterGirl]

ChamberCyn, I'm curious as to how much of the 75 million dollars the Citizens of OKC recently assessed themselves, and gave to the Chamber to promote economic development, will fund this campaign.

Reply With Quote

Andy, I am reasonably sure none of the $75 from the recent bond issue is going into this campaign. Passage of the bond issue just occurred in December. No money from that bond issue will be available for City projects (including Economic Development), until the 2008-09 Fiscal Year, after council passes the budget sometime in March/April. Further, monies for 2008-09 will be dedicated to those initiatives designated as priority projects for that year.

Contrary to popular belief, bond issues to not give "blank checks" to the City. All projects must be pre-approved before funds are allocated.

[AmyOKC]

"No one is forcing us to do this,” Cornett said. "This is a choice. We can choose to be an NBA city, or we can choose not to be. We're not going to get a franchise if we don't pass it.”

I rather feel that Mr. (How does one refer properly to the mayor? Does he have a title? ie, "The Honorable"?) Cornett is forcing to do this. Like you are a bad person if you don't jump right on this NBA bandwagon.

I don't think I like that.

I for one, cannot afford most of the things that happen Downtown. I am also disabled, and there are still places that are not wheelchair accessible! Do you all know that? I'd love a ride on the canal. I'd love to go and look at lights at Christmas... maybe we should be sure that everyone has a fair chance to use what is already there, before we are forced to pay more taxes for yet another new thing?

And....when will the City be "good enough"? Are we going to be on MAPS 598 and still going? Is there any sort of end game here?

I just do not understand why all Oklahoma City residents have to pay for a stadium that will make money for restaurant and hotel owners, and then not ever be allowed to attend a game because the tickets are astronomically priced. And when will it end? And put in some darn wheelchair access, please!

Thanks.

[Slivermoon]

Explain to me if you will please how proposition 11 is completely unrelated to the potential relocation of the Sonics.

A legitimate question.

The incentives contemplated under Prop 11 are to be considered and perhaps approved by a new City Economic Development Trust, a public process, for the pupose of job creation incentives.

No doubt moving a basketball team here will have the direct effect of creating 100 - 125 (we'll say) average paying salaries and a number of moon-level-orbiting salaries. There will also be a secondary job impact as demonstrated in the Chamber/City economic impact report from the Hornets' 2005-2006 season in Oklahoma City. No doubt the report's $66 million+ annual impact on the city and state's economy is significant, but the focus of Prop 11 is on primary job creation.

Prop 11 is about competing with other markets in other states that have lots more tools in their suitcase than Oklahoma City does. Oklahoma city's have the State Quality Jobs Act and little else. Oklahoma City has been fortunate in recent years creatively using federal grant programs and other limited resources for special projects like the Hilton Skirvin and the Dell project, but those resources are tapped out.

If Oklahoma City wants to compete competitively for new major employers, a new, major, incentive resource was needed. That's what Prop 11 was all about. $75 million for performance-based, job creating, corporate incentives.

For that matter, that's part of what having the NBA, a resident philharmonic, touring Broadway shows, a viable convention center, vibrant museums, trails and recreational opportunities, etc. in Oklahoma City is about. Adding to resident quality of life and making Oklahoma City more appealing to new corporations.

That’s my point of view and I’m sticking to it. Hope you find it helpful. Again, great question from someone that has obviously taken the time to be informed of local issues.

[AmyOKC]

Here's a larger pic:

My first thought when i saw that was "Oh look! Tom Cruise is building a center here for Scientology!"

;-)


amy

[AmyOKC]

Up until this point, I've pretty much considered myself one of those "undecided" folk, and quite frankly go back and forth on the issue each and every day.

I don't have problems with improvements to the Ford Center itself, understanding that this will help attract more than just an NBA team. I am convinced it will help us continue on our track of getting bigger and more impressive concerts, as well as vie for other large sporting events such as the Big XII Bball tournament and NCAA Tourney rounds. In this capacity, it will keep us in the competitive mix, so to speak.

For the record, I asked the opinion of a good friend who worked as an Events Coordinator at the Ford Center for several years and knows the facility intimately. She believes the improvements will help tremendously in the areas I cited above.

Further, I am a "big picture" person, and honestly believe this is the FIRST step in realizing the much larger "Core to Shore" dream (especially IF an NBA team were to come here - and for the record I'd prefer the Hornets).

My biggest sticking point is the practice facility. I just don't see why IT, in particular, should be tax-payer funded, and would rather see that $20 million go towards making improvements to the Cox Center, realizing that eventually, it too will need to be replaced completely with a much larger facility (again, part of the Core to Shore initiative). It's those twenty million little sticking points that really keep me in the yellow zone.

That being said, thanks to SHUNT and his tactics regarding the issue, I'm starting to lean closer and closer to a "YES" vote!!

So good job, SHUNT! Your efforts have just pretty much landed a vote against you!

Oh, don't do that!! Look into the issue, please - you could be, as my Mom says, "Cutting off your nose to spite your face" if you throw a vote one way because you don't like a message board poster (who might be a real person, or could be here just to get to do what you just did!). I really am interested in this next MAPS business, I come here, and it's like Dysfunctional Message Board Feud. :-(

Look, I know I'm a "newbie" on this board, but I have been on the planet since just before man was on the Moon! (There, I have now broken my own - and others - rule about a lady not announcing her age to one and all). I just got to this board today, and I've seen nothing but arguing, people being accused of being in league with that MONSTER who killed people i know in the Murrah Building (please people, be careful being flip about that. It is a terrible thing to accuse a person of and one should not do it unless one has EXACT proof!)..... I guess I'll just leave you to it.

:-(

[Karried]

I just got to this board today, and I've seen nothing but arguing,

Welcome to the board Amy... yes, we do have some posters that like to debate more than others... and as you can see, there are some who push the limit, don't follow our very loose Terms of Service and now are no longer welcome on the board.

You will find thousands of very positive and helpful comments here and yes, you will also find some negativity. It's easy to say and write any thing from behind a computer screen. Any message board you visit will have very similar discussions taking place.

Enjoy the board, take the good with the bad and the moderators will attempt to control issues before they get too out of hand.

[CuatrodeMayo]

And....when will the City be "good enough"? Are we going to be on MAPS 598 and still going? Is there any sort of end game here?

I just do not understand why all Oklahoma City residents have to pay for a stadium that will make money for restaurant and hotel owners, and then not ever be allowed to attend a game because the tickets are astronomically priced.

The city will never be "good enough". If we do not continually make progress then we will be in trouble. Take a look up the turnpike to see a city who still thinks it's "good enough".

There are tons of economically-priced tickets available. Did you never buy tickets for the Hornets?

[betts]

There were lots of $10 tickets to the Hornets available, and I have a friend with a family of 6 who bought them when he wanted to have a great family night out. There were also nights when you could get 4 tickets for $44 dollars that included four meals. I don't think you can take a family of four to the movies and buy popcorn and a drink for close to that. I went to the movies last night, bought a medium popcorn and medium drink and it was $9.50. Then there was the price of my movie ticket on top of that.

I agree with Cuatro. A city is never "finished", because that's when it stagnates. Entropy and all.... There are so many great things planned in the Core to Shore proposals, things that will make this a much nicer city in which to live and work.

[Doug Loudenback]

The city will never be "good enough". If we do not continually make progress then we will be in trouble. Take a look up the turnpike to see a city who still thinks it's "good enough".

Agreed with CuatrodeMayo & Betts in her reply. In the early '50s, all was thought to be cool. Illusion. Big mistake. Almost ALL downtown commercial moved to the burbs. Downtown decay followed. Pre-maps efforts witnessed about two-fifths to half of downtown's destruction in a major attempt to turn things around, only to be dashed by the oil bust/Penn Square bank crash.

Years were spent trying to fix broken things before pre-MAPS things both succeeded and failed in mixed doses. But, only after downtown rigor mortis had set in did Mayor Norick's maps plan have a chance of reviving downtown ... puhleese, let's not go down that road again. We don't want to take Tulsa as our model, we want to take post-Maps OKC as our model ... we know that it works.

Consider the human body and how it progresses/regresses ... but, please, not mine! This Dawg missed the curve on that principle, personally! Big time wishes that I could change that now, but, alas, the human model just doesn't work that way!

Physical cities, though, are not as limited as the citizens that populate them ... remember the early day benefactors who are dead but who benefited us today ... Colcord, Classen, Shartel, Overholser are benefactors gone by ... I'm certain that Ron Norick will be included in that class years from now after he has passed, though I add him today ... his legacy turned things around in the 1990s ... and there will be others yet to come. "Static" just isn't the way things work well. Mick Cornett may yet join that auspicious historic group ... but his stage is not yet done and at least one closing curtain remains. His inclusion still remains to be seen.

But, "static" doesn't work for flourishing cities. It never will.

[ChamberCyn]

Reply With Quote

Andy, I am reasonably sure none of the $75 from the recent bond issue is going into this campaign. Passage of the bond issue just occurred in December. No money from that bond issue will be available for City projects (including Economic Development), until the 2008-09 Fiscal Year, after council passes the budget sometime in March/April. Further, monies for 2008-09 will be dedicated to those initiatives designated as priority projects for that year.

Contrary to popular belief, bond issues to not give "blank checks" to the City. All projects must be pre-approved before funds are allocated.

First - the bond issue we passed was for $750 million, not $75 and it was dedicated to public infrastructure improvements (streets, roads, parks), with the exception of Prop 11, which is very accurately described in another post by SilverMoon. One thing I would add regarding economic development incentives at the local level is that Texas has a state law that allows municipalities to collect up to a full penny sales tax that goes into a permanent economic development fund. Most cities take advantage and have funds far larger than what we approved with Prop 11. The last thing we want is to consistently lose to Texas.
It is important when you get to the end of negotiations with a company to have a tool like this to compete. Without it, we would have nothing.

The campaign to pass this election is entirely privately funded. It would be a violation of state law for the city to spend a penny on this campaign. The campaign has/will file all documents required by local ordinance and state law, as we did in both the Citizens for Kids (school bond) and OKC YES (bond issue) campaigns. Both of those campaigns were funded privately as well.

[FritterGirl]

Oh, don't do that!! Look into the issue, please - you could be, as my Mom says, "Cutting off your nose to spite your face" if you throw a vote one way because you don't like a message board poster (who might be a real person, or could be here just to get to do what you just did!). I really am interested in this next MAPS business, I come here, and it's like Dysfunctional Message Board Feud.

I am very well aware of the issues, thank you, Amy. I have educated myself. I have been in on the Core to Shore meetings for the past year, and understand very clearly many of the projects that are needed to move OKC from a "Tier III" to a "Tier II" convention city. The Ford Center improvements are just one of many, many things, and I believe its immediacy is what has caught so many people off guard.

I'm not a huge NBA fan myself, and have never been to an NBA game. I have been to other Ford Center events.

Even if the NBA were not involved, I would still be very much in support of these improvements. Why? Because the project was under-funded in the first place. We built a "bargain basement" arena, not having enough money to do it "right" in the first place (don't get me started on that larger issue, which is the "Oklahoma is OK (and just ok)" attitude.

Again, my sticking point has been and continues to be a $20 million practice facility. I still don't like that, as I stated earlier, the benefits outweigh this one sticking point with me.

In all likelihood, I will vote "yes" anyway. I was really just trying to stick it to Shunt a bit.

First - the bond issue we passed was for $750 million, not $75 and it was dedicated to public infrastructure improvements (streets, roads, parks), with the exception of Prop 11, which is very accurately described in another post by SilverMoon.

I was referring to the total of Prop 11, which is $75 million. Obviously, I didn't make myself clear enough. The total amount of the bond issue was $835 million, not $750 million.

[andy157]

Reply With Quote

Andy, I am reasonably sure none of the $75 from the recent bond issue is going into this campaign. Passage of the bond issue just occurred in December. No money from that bond issue will be available for City projects (including Economic Development), until the 2008-09 Fiscal Year, after council passes the budget sometime in March/April. Further, monies for 2008-09 will be dedicated to those initiatives designated as priority projects for that year.

Contrary to popular belief, bond issues to not give "blank checks" to the City. All projects must be pre-approved before funds are allocated.

FritterGirl, I know that none of the bond proposition (11) 75 Mil is going to be used to help bring in the Sonics. But it could be. Although proposition (11) may not be in its purist sense a "Blank Check" it gives this "Economic Development Trust" plenty of wiggle room.

The other bond projects contained in propositions (1-10) were "Pre-Approved" as specified at the time of passage and have nothing to do with the Citys F/Y general budget. On the subject "Economic Development" deals. When the City gave Quad-Graphics millions of dollars to re-locate here they (Quad-Graphics) promised to bring in 1,000 new jobs. Have they? I would bet not.

I support using the sales tax to upgrade the FC 100%. Furthermore I'm for helping business come to our great City through economic incentives. If we give them these incentives they should be held accountable to fullfill their end of the bargain. I don't support using the sales tax to pay for a separate "Practice Facility" right or wrong thats why I'm going to have to vote NO

[Easy180]

You are voting no because you disagree with a 1/6th of the entire 120 mil proposal?

Doubt any large city project would get passed if everyone subscribed to that line of thinking

If you grade the proposal it comes back with an 83...Solid B...Legally you must vote yes on a proposal that scores that high

[bretthexum]

I wish they'd stop spinning this stupid "penny" tax. It's a penny for every dollar. So basically a 1% tax increase.

Even though I'll probably vote yes, they should stop distorting the full facts. And what the heck goes into a 20 mil PRACTICE facility? What does this place seat 5K?

[solitude]

I wish they'd stop spinning this stupid "penny" tax. It's a penny for every dollar. So basically a 1% tax increase.

Even though I'll probably vote yes, they should stop distorting the full facts. And what the heck goes into a 20 mil PRACTICE facility? What does this place seat 5K?

I agree with you. The spin has not been completely honest. I also hate hearing about how the practice facility is "only" 20 million dollars. As I said in a post earlier in this thread (to put a little perspective to it), the funding for the "practice facility" alone at $20,000,000.00 is TWO BILLION PENNIES.

[andy157]

You are voting no because you disagree with a 1/6th of the entire 120 mil proposal?

Doubt any large city project would get passed if everyone subscribed to that line of thinking

If you grade the proposal it comes back with an 83...Solid B...Legally you must vote yes on a proposal that scores that high

Easy180, I don't know if your questions and comments are directed to me, but if they are then 1: I'm voting no because I don't like being extorted by the NBA on how my tax dollars have to be used. If you feel differently about the issue great, I respect that. 2: If voted on all proposed projects pass or fail, regardless of which line of thinking you or I subscribe to. 3: Do what?

[Easy180]

I agree with you. The spin has not been completely honest. I also hate hearing about how the practice facility is "only" 20 million dollars. As I said in a post earlier in this thread (to put a little perspective to it), the funding for the "practice facility" alone at $20,000,000.00 is TWO BILLION PENNIES.

Can also put a little perspective in it and say the the practice facility will cost you about the same as a Snickers