New Downtown Arena

[PhiAlpha]

Pulling the “do you even live here?” card while not living here. I wouldn’t expect any less from a filthy Tulsan.

LOL, see above. Even just changed my voter registration

[Jake]

LOL, see above. Even just changed my voter registration

We only recognize the opinions of those who have been on this site since before 2010, sorry. I'm gonna have to ask you to vacate the website.

[FighttheGoodFight]

I can't vote on the proposal either. I'll show myself the door.

[PhiAlpha]

We only recognize the opinions of those who have been on this site since before 2010, sorry. I'm gonna have to ask you to vacate the website.

I guess you’ll be joining me?

[Jake]

I guess you’ll be joining me?

I've bribed my way to allow me to pass the 2010 threshold. I'm afraid I can't help you.

[warreng88]

One of the biggest changes in demographics after the implementation of MAPS was the growth in OKC's younger demographics. This was in large part due to more younger OKC residents choosing to stay, not nessecccarily because of some big influx of people from other areas. It singled to many of them that the city had a future when there was little to indicate that before. If anything, the presence of an international brand like the NBA, first with the success of the Hornets temporary residency and then with the relocation the Thunder, validated that. Obviously, that's sentimental and psychological, but to deny that those things affect people's personal economic, lifestyle, and career decisions is denying simple human nature.

This is a point that shouldn't be overlooked and I think it is. I grew up in the Tulsa area and moved to OKC in 1999 to go to OCU. At the time, I was thinking I live here and when I am done, I move back to Tulsa (made sense at the time), Dallas (a lot of my friends did that), Orlando (had a lot of family there) or NYC (more family there and friends moving there). I choose to stay in OKC because I got a pretty good paying job in 2002 and met my wife in 2006, married in 2007 and lived here ever since. I knew plenty of people that moved away after college but also a lot of people stayed because the city had come so long since we moved here. Also, cost of living was still pretty low and it wasn't hard to get around.

[PhiAlpha]

I've bribed my way to allow me to pass the 2010 threshold. I'm afraid I can't help you.

[fortpatches]

One of the biggest changes in demographics after the implementation of MAPS was the growth in OKC's younger demographics. This was in large part due to more younger OKC residents choosing to stay, not nessecccarily because of some big influx of people from other areas. It singled to many of them that the city had a future when there was little to indicate that before. If anything, the presence of an international brand like the NBA, first with the success of the Hornets temporary residency and then with the relocation the Thunder, validated that. Obviously, that's sentimental and psychological, but to deny that those things affect people's personal economic, lifestyle, and career decisions is denying simple human nature.

To me, it also seems disingenuous to laud MAPS, and the enormous benefits it has brought to the City, while supporting the current plan that will postpone new MAPS projects for at least 6 years, and probably longer due to the zero-debt, collect-first, spend-later structure of MAPS. OKC has had the MAPS program for 30, very successful, years, with multiple projects that build on one another to continually improve the city. Personally, it seems like a bad idea to forego so many projects (MAPS 4 included 16 projects for the city!) for just One debt-financed project downtown.

[warreng88]

To me, it also seems disingenuous to laud MAPS, and the enormous benefits it has brought to the City, while supporting the current plan that will postpone new MAPS projects for at least 6 years, and probably longer due to the zero-debt, collect-first, spend-later structure of MAPS. OKC has had the MAPS program for 30, very successful, years, with multiple projects that build on one another to continually improve the city. Personally, it seems like a bad idea to forego so many projects (MAPS 4 included 16 projects for the city!) for just One debt-financed project downtown.

I am going to play devil's advocate here: if there was a choice between a new arena and spending a billion on more MAPS projects, I assume you would choose the latter. If that is the case, what kind of projects would you like to see in a MAPS vote that would be MAPS 5?

[PhiAlpha]

To me, it also seems disingenuous to laud MAPS, and the enormous benefits it has brought to the City, while supporting the current plan that will postpone new MAPS projects for at least 6 years, and probably longer due to the zero-debt, collect-first, spend-later structure of MAPS. OKC has had the MAPS program for 30, very successful, years, with multiple projects that build on one another to continually improve the city. Personally, it seems like a bad idea to forego so many projects (MAPS 4 included 16 projects for the city!) for just One debt-financed project downtown.

I’m not sure why it’s disingenuous:

1) The new arena proposal is about building on former maps projects to continually improve the city.

2) MAPS literally built and renovated on multiple occasions the arena we’re replacing.

3) Were you for renovating the publicly funded Myriad so that it could better serve as a convention center as part of the first MAPS? Were you also for building a new convention center to replace Myriad/cox convention center as part of MAPS 3? Were you in favor of building paycom as part of the original MAPS to replace the 30 year old Myriad arena which was also publicly funded?

There is a pattern here. Other than having a higher price tag and bonus…a private entity chipping in some of the cost, how is replacing paycom different than replacing a publicly funded Myriad arena that was too small to warrant a renovation and a MAPS funded renovated cox convention center that had become too small to serve its purpose? Would you rather the arena be lumped in with 5 other projects and the total cost be two billion instead?

[fortpatches]

1) I’m not sure why it’s disingenuous. MAPS literally built and renovated on multiple occasions the arena we’re replacing.

2) Were you for renovating the publicly funded Myriad so that it could better serve as a convention center as part of the first MAPS? Were you also for building a new convention center to replace Myriad/cox convention center as part of MAPS 3? Were you in favor of building paycom as part of the original MAPS to replace the 30 year old Myriad arena which was also publicly funded?

Other than having a higher price tag and bonus…a private entity chipping in some of the cost, how is replacing paycom different than replacing a publicly funded Myriad arena that was too small to warrant a renovation and a MAPS funded renovated cox convention center that had become too small to serve its purpose? Would you rather the arena be lumped in with 5 other projects and the total cost be two billion instead?

1) Because it does away with MAPS for debt financing - the opposite of what made MAPS such a successful and popular project.
2) Of those, I think I would have only been eligible to vote in MAPS 3 based on my age, I'm only 36.... And that convention center was one of 8 projects, and funded without taking on more debt. Seems apples to oranges comparison.

I'd rather we get a more reasonable price-tag. Drop the price by 20% and I wouldn't care if the owners put in anything at all. I don't care about the actual construction cost of the Arena - I care about the actual cost of the arena to the citizens through taxes and repaying debt for the financing. Hell, make the $900MM the cap for the project even, and I would be much, much more supportive.

And, yes, I'd rather it be lumped in with additional projects to other improvements to the city through MAPS arent stagnant for over half a decade.

[PhiAlpha]

1) Because it does away with MAPS for debt financing - the opposite of what made MAPS such a successful and popular project.
2) Of those, I think I would have only been eligible to vote in MAPS 3 based on my age, I'm only 36.... And that convention center was one of 8 projects, and funded without taking on more debt. Seems apples to oranges comparison.

I'd rather we get a more reasonable price-tag. Drop the price by 20% and I wouldn't care if the owners put in anything at all. I don't care about the actual construction cost of the Arena - I care about the actual cost of the arena to the citizens through taxes and repaying debt for the financing. Hell, make the $900MM the cap for the project even, and I would be much, much more supportive.

And, yes, I'd rather it be lumped in with additional projects to other improvements to the city through MAPS arent stagnant for over half a decade.

Is prospect of getting no arena and losing the team worth a no vote because you want the price reduced by 20%?

[chssooner]

Is prospect of getting no arena and losing the team worth a no vote because you want the price reduced dropping the price by 20%?

100% agree with this. Losing the team over $200 million is so short-sighted, and would damage this city's reputation by well over that.

[BoulderSooner]

To me, it also seems disingenuous to laud MAPS, and the enormous benefits it has brought to the City, while supporting the current plan that will postpone new MAPS projects for at least 6 years, and probably longer due to the zero-debt, collect-first, spend-later structure of MAPS. OKC has had the MAPS program for 30, very successful, years, with multiple projects that build on one another to continually improve the city. Personally, it seems like a bad idea to forego so many projects (MAPS 4 included 16 projects for the city!) for just One debt-financed project downtown.

this is pretty much MAPS under a different name ..

[SouthOKC]

Because that economic growth is independent of a presence of an NBA team, and we can invest $1b elsewhere that better maintains and expands that growth.


It's truly that simple.

Out of genuine curiosity what other investments could the city make and see 100% roi? Are there any studies out there that show directly investing $xxx,xxx,xxx into a specific civic type endeavor and getting it all back?

What other things would you offer up as an alternative?

[bombermwc]

We have a problem folks. In surveys, 50% of the population doesn't support this.

Holt responded to a comment I made about not having anything to show the public what they were voting on. It's wasn't a very promising reply. Basically, all he said was that it's what's best for the city. That's a pretty thin argument in my book. Not having renderings or models to show someone before the vote is a big hurdle. People don't like voting on promises. They want STUFF. They want to see what they are voting to spend money on and know how it's going to benefit them.

I honestly feel like the city hasn't done their best effort in selling this and isn't really putting their best foot forward to try to make it attractive to residents. It's not a MAPS program, but it is an extension between MAPs programs. I'm thinking they would have done better to make it a part of the next MAPs.

I also do not think the team is contributing enough for what they're pushing for. Double it and I think you have an honest offer and attempt to being a partner as the biggest tenant and the SOLE reason for the update.

I'm going to vote Yes because I know what this means for us.....well I guess i would vote yes if i lived in OKC still. But there's some pretty hefty ground to make up and it's been a LONG time since OKC lost a vote like this. I just do not see why the city isn't doing more to try to save the vote. Just replying on Facebook posts from articles by the city isn't going to cut it.

[OkieBerto]

Out of genuine curiosity what other investments could the city make and see 100% roi? Are there any studies out there that show directly investing $xxx,xxx,xxx into a specific civic type endeavor and getting it all back?

What other things would you offer up as an alternative?

It would never happen here in Car Town America, but a full-on Public Transportation infrastructure. Light rail from downtown to Edmond, Moore, Norman, and Midwest City to Yukon. Create two more bus hubs. That would be nice. Long commuters would definitely pay for a cheaper way to get to work. All that money spent will be made back.

Obviously this would take way longer to do and probably cost more, but it would at least make me happy.

[David]

We have a problem folks. In surveys, 50% of the population doesn't support this.

One survey with a tiny sample size of OKC voters. No need to exaggerate.

[SouthOKC]

We have a problem folks. In surveys, 50% of the population doesn't support this.

Holt responded to a comment I made about not having anything to show the public what they were voting on. It's wasn't a very promising reply. Basically, all he said was that it's what's best for the city. That's a pretty thin argument in my book. Not having renderings or models to show someone before the vote is a big hurdle. People don't like voting on promises. They want STUFF. They want to see what they are voting to spend money on and know how it's going to benefit them.

I honestly feel like the city hasn't done their best effort in selling this and isn't really putting their best foot forward to try to make it attractive to residents. It's not a MAPS program, but it is an extension between MAPs programs. I'm thinking they would have done better to make it a part of the next MAPs.

I also do not think the team is contributing enough for what they're pushing for. Double it and I think you have an honest offer and attempt to being a partner as the biggest tenant and the SOLE reason for the update.

I'm going to vote Yes because I know what this means for us.....well I guess i would vote yes if i lived in OKC still. But there's some pretty hefty ground to make up and it's been a LONG time since OKC lost a vote like this. I just do not see why the city isn't doing more to try to save the vote. Just replying on Facebook posts from articles by the city isn't going to cut it.

I agree. They need to release some detailed renderings that show how this will become a “town square” and benefit the city from multiple angles.

Right now it’s coming off as the mayor attempting to run interference for his rich benefactors. This will end up being Clays dream if we’re not able to criticize the design and confirm it will be a boost to the citizens and downtown outside of just keeping the Thunder.

[OkieBerto]

I agree. They need to release some detailed renderings that show how this will become a “town square” and benefit the city from multiple angles.

Right now it’s coming off as the mayor attempting to run interference for his rich benefactors. This will end up being Clays dream if we’re not able to criticize the design and confirm it will be a boost to the citizens and downtown outside of just keeping the Thunder.

Good luck with that. I was told many times that Renderings aren't made for the public and our opinion on said renderings does not matter. Ha!

[cinnamonjock]

Maybe I'm naïve, but I do think that more people would support this if a site was already selected and there was even just one conceptual rendering of the exterior. "Downtown" isn't specific. Say it's going on the myriad superblock or on the block between the botanical gardens and scissortail park, or wherever they want to put it. Also, put out a flashy concept from some big name architectural firm. It doesn't have to look anything like it in the end, but I agree that people want to see what they are voting for. I think those two things alone would bolster support significantly.

That, and the thunder doing great between now and the vote.

[April in the Plaza]

I’m more pissed about the proposed timeline than anything else. Starting demo/construction 3 or 4 years before tax collection begins is just insane. The city could do a lot of very nice things with ~300 Million (which will be consumed by interest payments and carrying costs), but apparently we have to do this deal on The Thunder’s schedule or else.

I have a hard time believing that the team would walk if the facility opened in 2031 instead of 2029.

[SouthOKC]

I’m more pissed about the proposed timeline than anything else. Starting demo/construction 3 or 4 years before tax collection begins is just insane. The city could do a lot of very nice things with ~300 Million (which will be consumed by interest payments and carrying costs), but apparently we have to do this deal on The Thunder’s schedule or else.

I have a hard time believing that the team would walk if the facility opened in 2031 instead of 2029.

I’m not sure if this 100% relates from the financial end, but Shai is on a 5-year deal that ends in 2028/2029. He’s set to most likely sign one of if not the highest deal ever for an NBA player if he stays in OKC. That combined with all the other young players coming off their rookie deals will materially alter the Thunders payroll costs. Based on the CBA that’s reached between the players and owners it could put the Thunder in the luxury tax for several years. I believe the team gets a majority of proceeds from arena revenues and they split a percentage with the NBA. So based on that timeline it kinda makes sense.

So to the Thunder ownership they have a brand in excellent shape, a massive collection of young assets/picks, and what appears to be a winning team that could contend for a championship soon. They’re approaching peak value for the team right now and staring down a dramatic increase in payroll costs. It could be this simple to the ownership group based on the vote:
1. Sell the team at peak value before cost rise
2. Get a new arena to help offset new rising costs and keep the team

[caaokc]

We have a problem folks. In surveys, 50% of the population doesn't support this.

Holt responded to a comment I made about not having anything to show the public what they were voting on. It's wasn't a very promising reply. Basically, all he said was that it's what's best for the city. That's a pretty thin argument in my book. Not having renderings or models to show someone before the vote is a big hurdle. People don't like voting on promises. They want STUFF. They want to see what they are voting to spend money on and know how it's going to benefit them.

I honestly feel like the city hasn't done their best effort in selling this and isn't really putting their best foot forward to try to make it attractive to residents. It's not a MAPS program, but it is an extension between MAPs programs. I'm thinking they would have done better to make it a part of the next MAPs.

I also do not think the team is contributing enough for what they're pushing for. Double it and I think you have an honest offer and attempt to being a partner as the biggest tenant and the SOLE reason for the update.

I'm going to vote Yes because I know what this means for us.....well I guess i would vote yes if i lived in OKC still. But there's some pretty hefty ground to make up and it's been a LONG time since OKC lost a vote like this. I just do not see why the city isn't doing more to try to save the vote. Just replying on Facebook posts from articles by the city isn't going to cut it.

I’ve said it before on this thread but Holt and the official vote yes campaign limiting replies on social media is just a bad look no matter how you spin in.

[king183]

One survey with a tiny sample size of OKC voters. No need to exaggerate.

Correct. The survey was a *statewide* survey and to get the arena numbers they had to extract the OKC sample, which was small. With that said, Emerson is a very well-respected and accurate pollster, so even though this poll showing high opposition was not ideally constructed for this issue and thus may overstate the opposition (and support!), arena proponents should take it seriously.