New Downtown Arena

[Bellaboo]

Was anyone in attendance at Joe Hamon's 20 person anti arena echo chamber tonight? Surely PoliSci was front and center

I think the majority of us was watching the Thunder man handle the Lakers.

[Dob Hooligan]

Was anyone in attendance at Joe Hamon's 20 person anti arena echo chamber tonight? Surely PoliSci was front and center

I don't think PoliSciGuy is a hard no. After all, politics is the art of compromise made to look like victory.

[Anonymous.]

I got a mailer for voting YES the other day. I also am now seeing yard signs pretty frequently. With the team doing well, I am becoming increasingly confident in the YES vote. I have only seen a single NO item outside of social media

[chssooner]

The team doing well, and being a very young team with a bright future, can only help the vote. I think it would pass if the team sucked, of course. But them doing well helps it even further.

[caaokc]

The team doing well, and being a very young team with a bright future, can only help the vote. I think it would pass if the team sucked, of course. But them doing well helps it even further.

Im in the same boat, I’m going back and forth on what the voting margin will be, but it feels like Yes will win.

[BDP]

The only reason they are not "scientific" is because they cannot be re-tested in the exact same context.

Maybe not the only reason, but, yeah, a very important one.

[PoliSciGuy]

Oh hey an actual article by an actual economist that argues the arena is a financial boondoggle

[Dob Hooligan]

Oh hey an actual article by an actual economist that argues the arena is a financial boondoggle

She is engaged in an area of economic science and study that you might agree with. There are legitimate interpretations of economic data. I saw her quoted a few weeks ago as saying there are questions regarding return that are more “quality of life” that she can only answered as “maybe” or “don’t know”.

Can you say right now that it is your opinion that OKC was just as good with the Blazers playing minor league hockey, and the Cavalry were playing minor league basketball in the Myriad as OKC is today with the Thunder? And you believe, without question that spending a billion dollars on on homeless shelters and public transportation will increase the city’s reputation and daily quality of life for all taxpaying citizens?

[vaflyer]

Oh hey an actual article by an actual economist that argues the arena is a financial boondoggle

Academics have political views like everyone else. Some academics hold those views close to their chest while others use their credentials to promote their views. Dr. Cynthia Rogers is well-known in Norman politics. In the past, she has voiced her opposition to the proposed Norman (OU) basketball arena and the University North Park Tax Incremental Financing District so her opposition to the new Thunder arena is not a surprise. She has her fans and has her detractors. This article in the City Sentinel from a couple of years ago was written by authors who one could argue are not supporters of Professor Rogers.

https://www.citynewsokc.com/educatio...40f7e65ef.html

The lesson is that just because someone with credentials provides "expert testimony" does not mean that testimony is free from criticism.

[PoliSciGuy]

She is engaged in an area of economic science and study that you might agree with. There are legitimate interpretations of economic data. I saw her quoted a few weeks ago as saying there are questions regarding return that are more “quality of life” that she can only answered as “maybe” or “don’t know”.

Can you say right now that it is your opinion that OKC was just as good with the Blazers playing minor league hockey, and the Cavalry were playing minor league basketball in the Myriad as OKC is today with the Thunder? And you believe, without question that spending a billion dollars on on homeless shelters and public transportation will increase the city’s reputation and daily quality of life for all taxpaying citizens?

A good and fair question, and one that gets at the root of one of the bigger issues with spending $1b on a stadium: opportunity cost. What are we giving up by investing $1b in a stadium instead of investing that same amount in other areas, such as (as you identified) public transit or homelessness?

For public transit, numerous studies show that those projects produce economic benefits that more than pay for themselves:

https://www.apta.com/wp-content/uplo...nt-2020-ES.pdf

https://files.epi.org/2012/ib334-ass...ansit-rail.pdf

https://sonecon.com/docs/studies/returns_0505.pdf

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs...39456x02250317

Similar findings exist for investment in homelessness:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4046466/

https://isr.unm.edu/reports/2016/cit...port-final.pdf

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4679128/

These projects and initiatives have much more empirical backing of bettering the overall health of our metro area than building a new arena does.

[mugofbeer]

Oh hey an actual article by an actual economist that argues the arena is a financial boondoggle

All those cities and all those sports venues that are "boondoggles" in virtually every country of the world. People like you argue on purely economic terms because you're incapable of seeing the purely entertainment and goodwill value. In major cities most anywhere, high quality sports, entertainment and meeting facilities are a necessity, both economically and for prestige and impressions.

[chssooner]

A good and fair question, and one that gets at the root of one of the bigger issues with spending $1b on a stadium: opportunity cost. What are we giving up by investing $1b in a stadium instead of investing that same amount in other areas, such as (as you identified) public transit or homelessness?

For public transit, numerous studies show that those projects produce economic benefits that more than pay for themselves:

https://www.apta.com/wp-content/uplo...nt-2020-ES.pdf

https://files.epi.org/2012/ib334-ass...ansit-rail.pdf

https://sonecon.com/docs/studies/returns_0505.pdf

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs...39456x02250317

Similar findings exist for investment in homelessness:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4046466/

https://isr.unm.edu/reports/2016/cit...port-final.pdf

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4679128/

These projects and initiatives have much more empirical backing of bettering the overall health of our metro area than building a new arena does.

So you don't think an arena is a QOL boost. Got it.

[Rover]

All those cities and all those sports venues that are "boondoggles" in virtually every country of the world. People like you argue on purely economic terms because you're incapable of seeing the purely entertainment and goodwill value. In major cities most anywhere, high quality sports, entertainment and meeting facilities are a necessity, both economically and for prstige and impressions.

We keep arguing the same thing over and over and over on this site. Polisci is just a one man justice squad campaigning against the arena. He won’t change his negative view and he won’t change others. All signs point to it passing comfortably. We shall see what the citizens think soon.

[mugofbeer]

So you don't think an arena is a QOL boost. Got it.

I'm not sure he can think in those abstract terms ....... unless triple peer reviewed with a clear agenda, outlined references and itemized points of what quality includes.

[PoliSciGuy]

We keep arguing the same thing over and over and over on this site. Polisci is just a one man justice squad campaigning against the arena. He won’t change his negative view and he won’t change others. All signs point to it passing comfortably. We shall see what the citizens think soon.

I’ve said from the get-go I fully expect this to pass, probably by a 66-33% margin or 60-40%. I know I’m in the minority here, but that doesn’t mean I have to be silent about it

[PhiAlpha]

We keep arguing the same thing over and over and over on this site. Polisci is just a one man justice squad campaigning against the arena. He won’t change his negative view and he won’t change others. All signs point to it passing comfortably. We shall see what the citizens think soon.

[Rover]

I’ve said from the get-go I fully expect this to pass, probably by a 66-33% margin or 60-40%. I know I’m in the minority here, but that doesn’t mean I have to be silent about it

Saying the same thing 184 times certainly isn’t staying silent, I’ll give you that.

[OKC_Chipper]

I’ve said from the get-go I fully expect this to pass, probably by a 66-33% margin or 60-40%. I know I’m in the minority here, but that doesn’t mean I have to be silent about it

Folks, this is called a hedge.

[Laramie]

Until Oklahoma City MSA exceeds 2 million in population (Est: 1.5 million) you can't expect OKC to compete with Los Angeles or cities above our tier. We don't have the corporate strength of cities like Nashville (2.0), Indianapolis (2.1) or Kansas City (2.2).

MAPS 4 has $55.7 million dedicated to public housing, $154 million to parks, $37 million for a 5th Senior Wellness Center and
$1 billion in bonds earmarked for replacing public schools. Rem: MAPS for Kids invested $700 million at the turn of the Century. Public transit is improving with the recent BRT line $28.8 million investment.

The Quality of Life in a city continues to impact people wanting to relocate here and corporation expansion and investment supported by Oklahoma's Quality Jobs Program (ACT).

We're getting there PoliSciGuy and others--turn just a grain of your research toward what OKC is doing right instead of attempting to derail one of our most impactful organizations in the Oklahoma City Thunder--cherish the jewel we have representing our city and state--say something nice, maybe once of twice--it won't hurt you at all.

The new $900 million arena will benefit more than our NBA team, like concerts, touring acts, major rodeos and others. Very few
of these arenas actually pay for themselves--they are an investment in bringing more quality-of-life projects that enhance our community.

[LocoAko]

A good and fair question, and one that gets at the root of one of the bigger issues with spending $1b on a stadium: opportunity cost. What are we giving up by investing $1b in a stadium instead of investing that same amount in other areas, such as (as you identified) public transit or homelessness?

For public transit, numerous studies show that those projects produce economic benefits that more than pay for themselves:

https://www.apta.com/wp-content/uplo...nt-2020-ES.pdf

https://files.epi.org/2012/ib334-ass...ansit-rail.pdf

https://sonecon.com/docs/studies/returns_0505.pdf

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs...39456x02250317

Similar findings exist for investment in homelessness:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4046466/

https://isr.unm.edu/reports/2016/cit...port-final.pdf

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4679128/

These projects and initiatives have much more empirical backing of bettering the overall health of our metro area than building a new arena does.

Opportunity costs are of course real for any fixed amount of resources, and I'm a strong advocate for both public transit and housing first policies, etc. My issue with this framing is it implies that if we didn't spend the $1B on the arena we could instead spend it on these things. Money has not been allocated for those things as an alternative option and it assumes people would vote in favor of these things. Would OKC residents agree to put $1B toward homelessness and transit? Maybe.... maybe not. But this framing I keep seeing implying that if not for the arena we could have so much more investment in these other issues, as if the arena were stealing directly from them, seems very disingenuous to me.

[PhiAlpha]

I'm not sure he can think in those abstract terms ....... unless triple peer reviewed with a clear agenda, outlined references and itemized points of what quality includes.

So many peers. So little time

[Urbanized]

Opportunity costs are of course real for any fixed amount of resources, and I'm a strong advocate for both public transit and housing first policies, etc. My issue with this framing is it implies that if we didn't spend the $1B on the arena we could instead spend it on these things. Money has not been allocated for those things as an alternative option and it assumes people would vote in favor of these things. Would OKC residents agree to put $1B toward homelessness and transit? Maybe.... maybe not. But this framing I keep seeing implying that if not for the arena we could have so much more investment in these other issues, as if the arena were stealing directly from them, seems very disingenuous to me.

100%. Thanks for putting that into words.

[Laramie]

100%. Thanks for putting that into words.

Second that . . .

[Tyson]

Opportunity costs are of course real for any fixed amount of resources, and I'm a strong advocate for both public transit and housing first policies, etc. My issue with this framing is it implies that if we didn't spend the $1B on the arena we could instead spend it on these things. Money has not been allocated for those things as an alternative option and it assumes people would vote in favor of these things. Would OKC residents agree to put $1B toward homelessness and transit? Maybe.... maybe not. But this framing I keep seeing implying that if not for the arena we could have so much more investment in these other issues, as if the arena were stealing directly from them, seems very disingenuous to me.

This... this ^^ just yes

[PoliSciGuy]

Opportunity costs are of course real for any fixed amount of resources, and I'm a strong advocate for both public transit and housing first policies, etc. My issue with this framing is it implies that if we didn't spend the $1B on the arena we could instead spend it on these things. Money has not been allocated for those things as an alternative option and it assumes people would vote in favor of these things. Would OKC residents agree to put $1B toward homelessness and transit? Maybe.... maybe not. But this framing I keep seeing implying that if not for the arena we could have so much more investment in these other issues, as if the arena were stealing directly from them, seems very disingenuous to me.

Fair points, though I’m not saying that this $1b is stealing from those outlays directly, more pointing to examples of where that money could be spent. It’s by no means “either or” and I’m not trying to frame it as such. There are lots of different ways to spend this money (hence the concept of opportunity cost in general).