Why I am voting No.

[Luke]

Talk about the role of government all you want, but, without the role of government being played out vis a vis the model of Ron Norick, today in the hands of Mick Cornett, you'd not be enjoying the vibrancy this city enjoys today, not only of downtown and Bricktown and the river, but more importantly the enormous change of perception of what Oklahoma Citians thought about themselves. In the past 2+ decades, Oklahoma City has gone from a city apologizing for itself to a vibrant and growing city busting its buttons with pride.

Credit is certainly due to the taxpayers who approved the amazing projects. Definitely a leap of faith. Thankfully some trustworthy true visionaries were some of the leaders at that time.

I like that "role of government" and it want it to continue into the NEXT century! Principle is a good thing. Figuring out which "principles" to pursue is not easy. I know that this is easy for me to say, but, I'll say it anyway: "Trust me" when I say, but for the role of government that has existed since 1993, you would NOT likely be the huge fan that you are of Oklahoma City today, because the Oklahoma City you know today would not exist. I want my children and grandchildren to continue to reap the benefits of the "role of government" that emerged with Mayor Ron Norick. Mistakes will be made, they always are. But, pursuit of the vision of what this city can be will be the driving force, and the March 4 vote is part of that vision.

I see your point. And I love the fact that visionaries were in place in order for the wonderful projects to take place. However, relying on government for these visionary ideas to take place isn't necessary.

I'm seriously saddened to hear your choice, because, at your age, you and your ideas represent what may lie ahead for this city after I'm dead but while my children and grandchildren survive. I want them to share in what has become and what this city will yet come to be.

Your assumption is that only the government can come up with good ideas for this city. Thankfully, VERY good ideas will come about from people who won't be given free tax money! Don't be sad! Fiscal prudence is something that may well keep this city alive even longer! Also, don't be disheartened! Visionaries are in every generation and there are plenty of visionaries who will not rely on government for dreams to come true.

By the way, growing up in Sulphur, we would come to OKC several times a month for fun. So even when I was very young I always had an adoration for OKC. Through my high school years I'd drive up to Blazers games with friends. I loved OKC before MAPS.

[gmwise]

I've blocked the losers who is most certain that I'm wrong for whatever reason except a honest dialogue.
It seems if you disagreed with the majority you should be slighted.
I try to be considerate of others during this and other debates, but to be honest my live doesn't depend on this forum.
That doesn't excuse my own bad behavior, but I still do not trust Little Micky, anymore then the day before.
All grammatical mistakes there maybe,but the concern is still there.
So my passion is all there and bare and not hidden by pretended names and aliases.
I have only one user name, my debaters.. more then one person should have except to make light of honest concerns of taxpayers.
Sounds like they have much to fear of losing if they try things like that now does it.

[SouthsideSooner]

Credit is certainly due to the taxpayers who approved the amazing projects. Definitely a leap of faith. Thankfully some trustworthy true visionaries were some of the leaders at that time.



I see your point. And I love the fact that visionaries were in place in order for the wonderful projects to take place. However, relying on government for these visionary ideas to take place isn't necessary.



Your assumption is that only the government can come up with good ideas for this city. Thankfully, VERY good ideas will come about from people who won't be given free tax money! Don't be sad! Fiscal prudence is something that may well keep this city alive even longer! Also, don't be disheartened! Visionaries are in every generation and there are plenty of visionaries who will not rely on government for dreams to come true.

By the way, growing up in Sulphur, we would come to OKC several times a month for fun. So even when I was very young I always had an adoration for OKC. Through my high school years I'd drive up to Blazers games with friends. I loved OKC before MAPS.

Would you please give some examples of the privately funded projects that have occurred in OKC to prove your point.

It's cool that you got to see the Blazers games in the publicly funded Myriad. You should get downtown more often, it's quite a bit nicer now.

[betts]

Your assumption is that only the government can come up with good ideas for this city. Thankfully, VERY good ideas will come about from people who won't be given free tax money! Don't be sad! Fiscal prudence is something that may well keep this city alive even longer! Also, don't be disheartened! Visionaries are in every generation and there are plenty of visionaries who will not rely on government for dreams to come true.

By the way, growing up in Sulphur, we would come to OKC several times a month for fun. So even when I was very young I always had an adoration for OKC. Through my high school years I'd drive up to Blazers games with friends. I loved OKC before MAPS.

Yes, if you grew up in Sulphur, the old Oklahoma City might have looked wonderful. For those of us who moved here from bigger, more interesting cities, the old Oklahoma City was pretty grim.

I think you'll wait a very, very, very long, long time for someone other than the government to make professional team dreams to come true. I haven't seen too many privately funded parks, libraries, or art museums that could equal those the government has created.

It would have saved a lot of time and energy on the part of posters here if you'd just explained that you are anti-tax, regardless of what the tax is paying for. I recognize that anyone who is knee jerk anti-tax is never going to support something like an arena, no matter what their interests are.

[betts]

Why did the Hornets Move from Charlotte (sp)?

Initially, the Hornets were the success story of the NBA. They had a huge arena (23-24,000, I think), and wildly enthusiastic fans. They had an incredibly long run of sell-outs, and incredibly high season ticket sales (maxed at 21,000), despite the fact that Charlotte was one of the smaller cities in the league. The team made it to the playoffs frequently, but didn't advance. There were some questionable trades and contracts that left the team in disarray. But, what killed the deal was when George Shinn was accused of rape by a former employee. He had the poor judgement to allow the trial to be shown on court tv. It also came out that he had had an affair with a Honeybee. Reportedly, the first Mrs. Shinn was a pillar of the Charlotte community, and although Shinn was acquitted of rape, the on and off court issues completely killed fan support for the team. Their fan support fell to the bottom of the league in rankings. Shinn requested a new arena, and his request obviously was not supported by the populace, since he was basically a pariah. He then requested a move. although the city of Charlotte requested Stern force him to sell the team. Stern reluctantly let him move the Hornets, most likely because of the poisonous relationship between him and almost the entire city of Charlotte, and one year later granted the city of Charlotte the Bobcats expansion franchise. Once Shinn was out of the picture, the city built the new arena.

[betts]

Your assumption is that only the government can come up with good ideas for this city. Thankfully, VERY good ideas will come about from people who won't be given free tax money! Don't be sad! Fiscal prudence is something that may well keep this city alive even longer! Also, don't be disheartened! Visionaries are in every generation and there are plenty of visionaries who will not rely on government for dreams to come true.

There's only one problem with this concept. The "visionaries" who aren't relying on the government are probably going to want some sort of return on their investment. Probably a much higher return than the Sonics owners are contemplating. We are talking about capitalism here aren't we? Oklahoma City and it's populace isn't going to get something for nothing. Were a "visionary" to come up with the money to refurbish the Ford Center, s/he is going to require compensation for his or her investment for those who want to attend events at the Ford Center. Ticket prices could escalate to the point where they aren't affordable to anyone but the well off and the wealthy. The way things are now, the owners of a sports team can make tickets available for modest amounts so that families of low and moderate income can afford to go to events. I see that as a good thing. Perhaps you don't. Compare Hornets' ticket prices to Mavericks ticket prices, and you'll find Mavericks' tickets are about double those of the Hornets. The Mavericks arena is partially privately funded. You don't get something for nothing.

[andy157]

Initially, the Hornets were the success story of the NBA. They had a huge arena (23-24,000, I think), and wildly enthusiastic fans. They had an incredibly long run of sell-outs, and incredibly high season ticket sales (maxed at 21,000), despite the fact that Charlotte was one of the smaller cities in the league. The team made it to the playoffs frequently, but didn't advance. There were some questionable trades and contracts that left the team in disarray. But, what killed the deal was when George Shinn was accused of rape by a former employee. He had the poor judgement to allow the trial to be shown on court tv. It also came out that he had had an affair with a Honeybee. Reportedly, the first Mrs. Shinn was a pillar of the Charlotte community, and although Shinn was acquitted of rape, the on and off court issues completely killed fan support for the team. Their fan support fell to the bottom of the league in rankings. Shinn requested a new arena, and his request obviously was not supported by the populace, since he was basically a pariah. He then requested a move. although the city of Charlotte requested Stern force him to sell the team. Stern reluctantly let him move the Hornets, most likely because of the poisonous relationship between him and almost the entire city of Charlotte, and one year later granted the city of Charlotte the Bobcats expansion franchise. Once Shinn was out of the picture, the city built the new arena.

Thank you.

[Doug Loudenback]

Though off-topic, if you've not see this video of a Charlotte City Council meeting by a nut case citizen discussing George Shinn, you'll get a chuckle from it ... it's a classic.

[Doug Loudenback]

I see your point. And I love the fact that visionaries were in place in order for the wonderful projects to take place. However, relying on government for these visionary ideas to take place isn't necessary.

Your assumption is that only the government can come up with good ideas for this city. Thankfully, VERY good ideas will come about from people who won't be given free tax money! Don't be sad! Fiscal prudence is something that may well keep this city alive even longer! Also, don't be disheartened! Visionaries are in every generation and there are plenty of visionaries who will not rely on government for dreams to come true.

By the way, growing up in Sulphur, we would come to OKC several times a month for fun. So even when I was very young I always had an adoration for OKC. Through my high school years I'd drive up to Blazers games with friends. I loved OKC before MAPS.

Thanks, Luke.

The only way of fixing downtown pre-maps was via government (well, actually via the citizens who accepted Norick's leadership and passed MAPS). There was simply too much to be done which only government was in a position to do ... the brilliantly improved Civic Center, the river project which became the Oklahoma River, the Bricktown Canal and Ballpark, improvements to the then named Myriad Convention Center, the sports arena, and the downtown library. Probably I've left things out. The overall plan focused on "mass." As I said in my review of OKC: 2nd Time Around, Doug Dawgz Blog: OKC 2nd Time Around

A principle of Norick's vision was "mass" -- for most of the projects to be centered downtown so that one project could feed off of one another ... some elements of which were contrary to the wishes of formidable Oklahoma Citians and/or interests, e.g., E.L. Gaylord wanted a new arena at the Fairgrounds, some wanted a totally new cultural center and not just an updated Civic Center Music Hall, etc., etc., etc. However, Mayor Norick, firmly involved in the process, held his ground. Of course, other projects were also involved ... upgrading the Convention Center, a new library, river improvement and development through south of downtown – and – canals and stuff in that ignored part of town that Neal Horton's dreams were hooked upon, Bricktown.

Such a comprehensive plan could come from none other than the government. At least, if that's not so, private investment wasn't in the wings to do it ... private investment had pretty much given up on downtown and was focusing on areas outside the city's core. The Skirvin Hilton is another good example of the benefits of a proactive city government working with private investors, as has been said before.

That doesn't at all mean that private development will not or has not taken place. What has become of Bricktown is an example of that. But it was the city that provided the foundation. There would be no "Oklahoma River" projects and development without the city laying the foundation. No Chesapeake Boathouse, no international rowing competition, no future plans for the river's development. It was a sand dune with weeds and a TV set sitting in the river bottom. Private development will continue to develop on the river, but only because the city (you and me) paved the way for that to happen. Midtown development is another good example of private development ... but that wouldn't have been possible without a revitalized downtown. The Colcord Hotel project wouldn't have happened without a renewed downtown, nor would have the Oklahoma City Art Museum, most probably. I fully expect that some new major private developments will occur downtown, even this year. But, again, without a revitalized downtown, probably they would not. Private development and city leadership can go hand-in-hand, as it has. But that wouldn't have happened by penny-pinching. Not ever ... well, not within my lifetime, anyway.

It is obvious from your comments that you care a great deal about Oklahoma City. You weren't reared here ... neither was I, even though I was born at St. Anthony's. Like you, I came to visit, me when I was a kid growing up in Lawton. Unlike you, when I came to visit, going to the downtown shops (John A. Browns, Rothschilds, etc.) was a treat, as was going to the now destroyed downtown movie houses which got whacked by an earlier vision by city leaders ... the Urban Renewal plan which went bust when oil and Penn Square Bank did.

But, even though it didn't fully succeed, something like it was clearly necessary as downtown was dying in front of everyone's eyes ... private investment was investing all right, but not downtown. At least we got some things done with the Urban Renewal plan ... the Myriad Convention Center, Myriad Gardens and several new downtown buildings via private investment during that period ... Kerr McGee Center, Oklahoma Tower, Corporate Tower, Leadership Square, Kerr Park. Things don't always work as expected or hoped, but I am convinced that government and private enterprise working together is the way to go.

March 4 provides another opportunity to do the same.

[solitude]

Doug, Your best post. Ever.

[Kerry]

Let me say up front, I don't dislike Bennett and Co.. Yes they have been wonerful local and corporate citizens. Nevertheless. What if the citizens Sea. Wash. or the Washington Legislature would have built them their new arena, would they still be moving to OKC?

If Seattle had built an arena then they would have stayed in Seattle no questions. However, moving the team to OKC was Plan A. Staying in Seattle was plan B. They had to agree to keep the team in Seattle in order to buy the team. They were outbid by Larry Elison from Oracle but Larry wanted to move the team to San Jose the day he cloased on the sale. He wasn't going to wait for the lease to expire or NBA approval. He was just going to move the team and let the chips fall where they may.

The owners knew that Seattle wouldn't build the arena though so it was a safe bet. Plus, staying in Seattle an additional year bought them time to get things in place in OKC, further demonstrate Seattle's opposition to the NBA, and get 1 year closer to the end of the lease. I also suspect that if Seattle had built an arena they would have been able to trade Shin for the Hornets when the N.O. lease expired in 2012. Thus bringing the Hornets to OKC (see Plan A).

As predicted the City of Seattle did not build a new arena - and they aren't going to. For all of the sabre rattling in Seattle they simply don't have the political nor the money. They have to replace a key bridge that is going to cost $4 billion and they have to do without any federal funds since it is a state road. They can't even come close to the $4 billion so far, so there is no way they are going to contribute to a new arrena.

[jbrown84]

Or maybe an assemblage of Bricktown restaurants and downtown hotels and businesses could chip in.

That could never work. It's an unprecedented method that would never be agreed to. Is it just Bricktown or does it include Midtown and Arts District restaurants? Is it the Harkins Theatre and the comedy club too? What about the Meridian restaurants? It would be unfair not to include them. See, that idea is just a huge clusterf***. It could never work.

then where there is a will (and large pocketbooks) there is a way.

That will, and that pocketbook, ends somewhere. It certainly seems likely that a failure of this vote would be a signal for Clay to give up on this city. I wouldn't count on anything. By voting no, you're taking a lot of risk that it won't mean no NBA at all.

[andy157]

If Seattle had built an arena then they would have stayed in Seattle no questions. However, moving the team to OKC was Plan A. Staying in Seattle was plan B. They had to agree to keep the team in Seattle in order to buy the team. They were outbid by Larry Elison from Oracle but Larry wanted to move the team to San Jose the day he cloased on the sale. He wasn't going to wait for the lease to expire or NBA approval. He was just going to move the team and let the chips fall where they may.

The owners knew that Seattle wouldn't build the arena though so it was a safe bet. Plus, staying in Seattle an additional year bought them time to get things in place in OKC, further demonstrate Seattle's opposition to the NBA, and get 1 year closer to the end of the lease. I also suspect that if Seattle had built an arena they would have been able to trade Shin for the Hornets when the N.O. lease expired in 2012. Thus bringing the Hornets to OKC (see Plan A).

As predicted the City of Seattle did not build a new arena - and they aren't going to. For all of the sabre rattling in Seattle they simply don't have the political nor the money. They have to replace a key bridge that is going to cost $4 billion and they have to do without any federal funds since it is a state road. They can't even come close to the $4 billion so far, so there is no way they are going to contribute to a new arrena.

Seems to have been a very complex plan. Did they have their fingers crossed when they had to agree to keep the team in Seattle?

[Kerry]

No fingers were crossed, but Seattle building an arena wouldn't have been a problem for them. Seattle builds the arena, they trade the Sonics for the Hornets, and move the Hornets to OKC in 2012. But everyone knew Seattle wasn't going to build a new arena. Two previous owners from Seattle tried to get either a new arena or renegotiate the lease and the City of Seattle woldn't budge on either. Why do you think only two groups were interested in buying the team and neither were from Seattle?

Some of the conspiracy theorist think the sales was in secret and that minority owners were not notified. Having been the CEO of a company I can tell you that it is simply not possible. The Schultz group was an LLC and they would have had a shareholders meeting to discuss selling the companies sole asset. I have not seen the LLC by-laws but I know there were contingency plans for owners wanting out or selling the team.

When I opened a checking account in the name of the company I was CEO for I had to submmit a Banking Resolution to the Board of Directors, have it signed and sealed by the Corporate Secretary, and then have it voted on at special meeting of the Board. All of that just to open a checking account. Does anyone honestly think that the sale of the primary asset would be taken less likly. Just not possible.

[andy157]

No fingers were crossed, but Seattle building an arena wouldn't have been a problem for them. Seattle builds the arena, they trade the Sonics for the Hornets, and move the Hornets to OKC in 2012. But everyone knew Seattle wasn't going to build a new arena. Two previous owners from Seattle tried to get either a new arena or renegotiate the lease and the City of Seattle woldn't budge on either. Why do you think only two groups were interested in buying the team and neither were from Seattle?

Some of the conspiracy theorist think the sales was in secret and that minority owners were not notified. Having been the CEO of a company I can tell you that it is simply not possible. The Schultz group was an LLC and they would have had a shareholders meeting to discuss selling the companies sole asset. I have not seen the LLC by-laws but I know there were contingency plans for owners wanting out or selling the team.

When I opened a checking account in the name of the company I was CEO for I had to submmit a Banking Resolution to the Board of Directors, have it signed and sealed by the Corporate Secretary, and then have it voted on at special meeting of the Board. All of that just to open a checking account. Does anyone honestly think that the sale of the primary asset would be taken less likly. Just not possible.

Again this all seems very complex. It also appears that you have a great deal of knowledge regarding the finite details of their master plans. I don't. Thanks for the insight.

[Kerry]

No great insight, just connecting the dots. I looked at this from my own point of view. If I was trying to bring a team to OKC how would I go about doing it. I would have made almost every move Bennett made. However, in my plan I would have prefered that Seattle build an arena as I would rather have the Hornets. However, I think Bennett is following Stern's lead on this. The NBA wants out of Seattle if they won't play ball and I think they want to make an example out of Seattle to keep other multi-sport cities in line. I will guarantee you the P.F. was 100% Stern's idea. No P.F. no team in OKC.

[betts]

I will guarantee you the P.F. was 100% Stern's idea. No P.F. no team in OKC.

Again, no guarantee from me, but as soon as I heard the news from the mayor, I was pretty sure the NBA was behind this vote. New Orleans upgraded their arena for the Hornets, and they had the promise of a practice facility written in their contract. The only reason the practice facility wasn't built initially was because of difficulty coming to an agreement with Shinn on where it should be built, and now because Shinn was willing to waive it's construction to get an out in his contract. The NBA was also willing to go along with the PF waiver, because they want to get the Hornets out of New Orleans before 2012 if they continue to do poorly.

[bornhere]

The NBA wants out of Seattle if they won't play ball and I think they want to make an example out of Seattle to keep other multi-sport cities in line.

Exactly the kind of people we want to do business with.

[betts]

Exactly the kind of people we want to do business with.

I don't know. If my owners were losing $15+ million a year, I might want to try and protect them from further loss. People act as if a professional team should be available at no cost to them, that the team owners shouldn't mind if they're losing money, that they should never consider moving because, after all, it's that city's team, and yet we think there is something wrong with the league because they would like to see the team able to make a profit, or at least lose less money or break even? I realize, bornhere, that you have no interest in the NBA, so it colors your response, but I'd like any people who bring a business to Oklahoma City to make a reasonable profit, especially if it's one that, I believe, adds so much to that city, and that brings so much enjoyment to people who like the game.

[bretthexum]

I don't know. If my owners were losing $15+ million a year, I might want to try and protect them from further loss. People act as if a professional team should be available at no cost to them, that the team owners shouldn't mind if they're losing money, that they should never consider moving because, after all, it's that city's team, and yet we think there is something wrong with the league because they would like to see the team able to make a profit, or at least lose less money or break even? I realize, bornhere, that you have no interest in the NBA, so it colors your response, but I'd like any people who bring a business to Oklahoma City to make a reasonable profit, especially if it's one that, I believe, adds so much to that city, and that brings so much enjoyment to people who like the game.

Give me a freakin break. You act like Bennett and Co are doing us all a favor by bringing the NBA to town. They wouldn't bring the Sonics here if they didn't plan on making money. Period. If the NBA fad wears off in a few years and attendance is horrible at the Ford Center, do you think they are going to stay and lose money? I highly doubt it. Those poor billionaire owners huh? I sure feel sorry for them.

[CuatrodeMayo]

Jealousy is a terrible thing.

It's called philanthropy.

[betts]

Give me a freakin break. You act like Bennett and Co are doing us all a favor by bringing the NBA to town. They wouldn't bring the Sonics here if they didn't plan on making money. Period. If the NBA fad wears off in a few years and attendance is horrible at the Ford Center, do you think they are going to stay and lose money? I highly doubt it. Those poor billionaire owners huh? I sure feel sorry for them.

Yes, that is what I believe. Clearly, we disagree. I've seen so little evidence that proves they will make money, or get what I consider a decent return on an investment, that I like my opinion better. I'd be delighted to see evidence to the contrary, though.

[andy157]

No great insight, just connecting the dots. I looked at this from my own point of view. If I was trying to bring a team to OKC how would I go about doing it. I would have made almost every move Bennett made. However, in my plan I would have prefered that Seattle build an arena as I would rather have the Hornets. However, I think Bennett is following Stern's lead on this. The NBA wants out of Seattle if they won't play ball and I think they want to make an example out of Seattle to keep other multi-sport cities in line. I will guarantee you the P.F. was 100% Stern's idea. No P.F. no team in OKC.

Good, maybe I've found someone that can, or will be able to explain how this NBA thing really works. You say the P.F. is Sterns idea. Guaranteed, 100%. I think your 100% right. My question. Is Stern the Boss, the God, the supreame authority, the ultimate ruler of the NBA? Does he tell the owners when to jump, and how high? Does Stern appoint, and then tell the B.O.G. how they will vote? Just curious.

[Doug Loudenback]

Combining a pair of related posts ...

1st Pair:

Clay Bennett, et. al. have shown that they really, really support Oklahoma City. They've put a substantial part of their net worths on the line. I think it's right for the city to pass this thing. This is an "atta boy" to Clay and company.

Their confidence in their hometown should be and will be rewarded.
Midtowner, while I agreed with ALL of your message, the above part is so rarely stated that I wanted to give it singular attention. I completely agree.

2nd Pair:

Give me a freakin break. You act like Bennett and Co are doing us all a favor by bringing the NBA to town. They wouldn't bring the Sonics here if they didn't plan on making money. Period. If the NBA fad wears off in a few years and attendance is horrible at the Ford Center, do you think they are going to stay and lose money? I highly doubt it. Those poor billionaire owners huh? I sure feel sorry for them.

Yes, that is what I believe. Clearly, we disagree. I've seen so little evidence that proves they will make money, or get what I consider a decent return on an investment, that I like my opinion better. I'd be delighted to see evidence to the contrary, though.

Bretthexum, you seem to assume "the worst" and not "the best" about Bennett & partners in all of this and it does not appear that you are open minded about their possible motives.

Why is that?

Do you have some special knowledge that you've not shared? Is it because you have an inherent distrust about the motives of people who are extremely affluent? To be sure, if there was a "track record" about those who are partners in the Sonics ownership group which pointed to them as being dishonorable corporate citizens in Oklahoma City or elsewhere, then your point would be deserving of serious attention. However, you mention nothing in that regard nor am I aware of anything like that.

On its face, it sounds to me as though you distrust/dislike these guys just because they are extremely affluent. You don't appear willing to consider that at least a part of their motivation might actually involve a wish to to do something uniquely good for Oklahoma City, something which they are uniquely in a position of being able and willing to do and which no other Oklahoma Citians have ever been in the position to do before. You seem to assume that these guys are only motivated by the (risky) potential of economic gain to them, period, paragraph.

As has been aptly said,

Jealousy is a terrible thing. It's called philanthropy.

As for me, I see that Bennett & partners have put up a heck of a lot of "front money" to be "philanthopic," if it ever came to that. IF they had gotten what they wanted in Washington, we'd probably not be seeing the "philanthropic" part today. Whether that request/demand on Seattle/Washington would predictably fail is anyone's guess. Certainly they did try, and spent bucks and lots of them in the process. That didn't happen.

So, now the Sonics investors are willing to move from a TV market which is 14th or so in the nation to one which is 45th or so (and that factor alone is a sizable piece of the economic pie) ... and from a metropolitan area which is 3,200,000 + to one which is 1,200,000+ ... and from a "gateway to the Pacific Rim" to a "gateway to Texas," and one which many Americans still perceive to be located in the "Dust Bowl."

These guys aren't asking the City (you and me) to repay their substantial out-of-pocket expenses and investment -- they will continue to own the Sonics as well as the potential for loss or gain. They aren't asking for the items included in the March 4 vote, it's the NBA which is doing that asking.

Whether or not Bennett & partners will ever turn a profit in OKC or not is anyone's guess. I'd personally be proud for that to happen and hope that it does. They are willing to take the risk ... and, then, if the move happens, we'd be in the same position that New Orleans is today ... will the city, the fans, support the team and put butts in the seats, buy suites, etc. I think that we'll do our part but I might be wrong about that. It's a risk and these guys are willing to take it.

Who else but Bennett et al. can you possibly think of that would be willing to take such a risk in Oklahoma City, with its 1.2M metropolitan area residents and its 45th TV national market. Investors from New York ... from Chicago ... from Dallas? I think that only investors from Oklahoma City would be willing to take such a leap of faith. They probably didn't even get a "credit check"on the market before the request to relocate was filed with the NBA. Now ... what would explain that?

Would you, were you in their position and had the bucks, do so? If "Yes," congratulations! You'd be an Oklahoma City benefactor, maybe even a philanthropist. You'd be in their company! If "No," do you mean that you'd not be willing to take a gamble on Oklahoma City's support for the team? If you say, "No," you'd not be in their company, since they are willing to take the risk, and you'd not be in their league.

[Midtowner]

Let me say up front, I don't dislike Bennett and Co.. Yes they have been wonerful local and corporate citizens. Nevertheless. What if the citizens Sea. Wash. or the Washington Legislature would have built them their new arena, would they still be moving to OKC?

I think not. I think they would be staying put. Then at a later date and time, sold the team for a tidy profit. Why, if in fact it's always been their motive and civic pride agenda, to bring the NBA to OKC did they offer to stay in Seattle? Was that some sort of smoke screen? Did they know before hand for a fact their offer to stay was going to be rejected? Maybe you and/or others may know. In my opinion OKC was their fall back plan-B. Yes it is true they most likely can make more money in Sea. If their offer to stay would have been accepted they stood to make alot of money. Yes they may not make as much money here, thats why they demand that the citizens agree to become their partners with our tax dollars. Not for the reason of cutting their losses, but for the reason of maintaining their future profits

The city of Seattle would disagree with you. A strong component of their court argument is that Bennett and company dealt with the city in bad faith when they required a $500 million dollar public investment to remain.

Every businessman has his price. The plan as Aubrey McClendon said (and was subsequently fined for) was always to move the team. These businessmen, however, like all businessmen have their price. If you can turn around a $350 million dollar investment around for oh.. say half a billion in a year's time, I think you're going to have to take the deal. These guys did walk into a win-win situation, but at the same time, as I said, through their investment they communicated to the whole country that OKC is now on the map -- we're a real threat. We can get your basketball team to move here today. Tomorrow, it'll be the corporate headquarters.