Why I am voting No.

[andy157]

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.

You state. "If my owners were losing". Does that mean, that you own the owners? If so, who are you? Does Stern own the NBA and it's owners? Maybe the NBA owns Stern and the owners. If so then who owns the NBA? Maybe the owners own Stern and the NBA? What about the players. Who owns them?(no one I would hope) Who owns who? Who's on first? What's on second. Someone help me out here

[Doug Loudenback]

You state. "If my owners were losing". Does that mean, that you own the owners? If so, who are you? Does Stern own the NBA and it's owners? Maybe the NBA owns Stern and the owners. If so then who owns the NBA? Maybe the owners own Stern and the NBA? What about the players. Who owns them?(no one I would hope) Who owns who? Who's on first? What's on second. Someone help me out here

Nice try at being clever. Astonishingly persuasive.

[betts]

You state. "If my owners were losing". Does that mean, that you own the owners? If so, who are you? Does Stern own the NBA and it's owners? Maybe the NBA owns Stern and the owners. If so then who owns the NBA? Maybe the owners own Stern and the NBA? What about the players. Who owns them?(no one I would hope) Who owns who? Who's on first? What's on second. Someone help me out here

Stern works for the NBA owners as a group, but he appears to manage them individually, and they appear to follow his lead. Shinn calls him "the Pope", and others have said they basically take his advice on what to do. I've never seen any evidence of a rebellion against his wishes, for whatever reason. And, no, I was speaking theoretically, as if I were David Stern. Of course I'm not him.

[angel27]

I'm still new to this site but have really enjoyed all the diverse subject matter. I have been wavering on this issue. I certainly don't want to subsidize the rich when I am far from it and struggle as it is. But also I do love this city and marvel at and enjoy our recent progress. I think the turning point for me is that the team will be paying rent on the Ford Center and their practice facility, and then it makes sense for the City to make upgrades. The excitement and pride we felt when the Hornets were here was palpable, and I never went to a game. I think I'm changing to yes.

[andy157]

Nice try at being clever. Astonishingly persuasive.

I gave up on trying to be clever years ago. Smart move on my part, wouldn't you agree? Astonishingly persuasive? I'm not sure if I should be flattered, or pissed. No, I'm only attempting to understand how this whole NBA system functions. Who owns it, who runs it, who controls it, who calls the shots for it, who sets its policy, who protects who, and covers for who? That's really as simple as it gets

[andy157]

Stern works for the NBA owners as a group, but he appears to manage them individually, and they appear to follow his lead. Shinn calls him "the Pope", and others have said they basically take his advice on what to do. I've never seen any evidence of a rebellion against his wishes, for whatever reason. And, no, I was speaking theoretically, as if I were David Stern. Of course I'm not him.

I understood your were speaking theoretically, so was I. If it is true, that Stern manages the owners, that he works for, thats one helluva gig. Where else but in America can an employee tell his, or her boss what to do, and when to do it. And be given the title of "The Pope". Is this a great country or what?

[Doug Loudenback]

I gave up on trying to be clever years ago. Smart move on my part, wouldn't you agree? Astonishingly persuasive? I'm not sure if I should be flattered, or pissed. No, I'm only attempting to understand how this whole NBA system functions. Who owns it, who runs it, who controls it, who calls the shots for it, who sets its policy, who protects who, and covers for who? That's really as simple as it gets

Andy, with that explanation, it is clear that I jumped to the wrong conclusion concerning your post, and I apologize. Here's a well-deserved slap on my face!

[betts]

I understood your were speaking theoretically, so was I. If it is true, that Stern manages the owners, that he works for, thats one helluva gig. Where else but in America can an employee tell his, or her boss what to do, and when to do it. And be given the title of "The Pope". Is this a great country or what?

Once a league gives you the title of "commisioner", you are probably are the only employee in the world with that kind of power. At the risk of sounding sexist, which I'm not, I'll make a little joke (must make it clear this is a joke). Actually, the only other job in the world with that kind of power has the title of "wife'.
I've often wondered why the owners let David Stern push them around like he clearly does and I figured it was because they respect how clearly intelligent he is. They've all made a lot of money, and I would guess they bought a team because they love basketball, or they like what owning a team brings them, because believe me,buying a team at this point in time, constitutes one of the worst investments you could make with that kind of money. It is true that teams have, in the past, appreciated very nicely, but like the housing market, that can stop at any time, and you have to sell your team to get the appreciation. Most of these people don't want to sell their teams. Some of them want to pass them on to their children, who have to pay inheritance tax on the appreciation. Also, there are owners who've tried to sell their teams and not been able to find a buyer. On a year to year basis, the return on the multimillions spent is peanuts. So, after that digression, I believe the owners don't want to deal with the minutiae of running a league, figuring out the finances, promoting the league. They're busy businessmen, for the most part. So, in order to escape that kind of involvement in the league, they give the commissioner a great deal of power. Once they're used to him having it, and he's used to having it, they fall into line like meek schoolchidren. I dont' really understand it, but I've seen it happen. Some sort of variation of the Stockholm syndrome or something (that was another joke).

[Doug Loudenback]

I rarely post what I receive via Private Messages here or in other forums ... but exceptions do exist ... never if they are personal and communicated to discuss ... never if I'm asked to keep a message private ... but maybe if they are blatantly polemic and serve no other purpose and I've not been asked to keep the message private.

This one fall into the latter category. In this one, I received a PM from a banned poster at HornetsCentral.com & SonicsBeat.com Forums :: Index. There, the same InClayWeTrust thought I'd like to know his/her point of view. He/she was right about that. I thought it might be uplifting to give that private message the light of day. The Private Message reads ...

Hey Doug,
Great work on the site! Here's an image I created to help with the recruitment efforts of the Sonics!

Note the "Xs" (symbolic for dead) over the Honeybee's image. I post this so that you'll know some of the not often reported "hidden" stuff that goes on, and so that New Orleans and/or Seattle fans can make their appropriate responses, if any they care to make ... and also because I'm pretty much fed up with getting this kind of crap thrown my way.

As for my response, see Doug Dawgz Blog .

[solitude]

That's sick.

[Doug Loudenback]

This isn't the worst example. The internet hosts some really really pathologically depraved people.

[HOT ROD]

OK GUYS, I've tried to catch up on this forum (Ive been in Japan for a couple of weeks).

Now, Im going to address some points for Luke and Andy and Bornhere. Please be sure to read the entire post, it will answer many of your questions and concerns.

1) Why WAS Clay Bennett willing to pitch in for an arena in Renton and not in OKC?

Answer: Because the Sonics franchise is already in Seattle and WE (Seattle residents) wont approve an arena proposal, especially if ownership does not contribute. Bennett in fact, never said an amount. It was ASSUMED to be 100M but he never actually committed to that. This in fact, is a sore point of many Sonics fans up here!!

Answer two: Bennett can not contribute in OKC YET because, the Sonics are still located in Seattle. That would be a HUGE conflict of interest, if Bennett paid for an arena upgrade in OKC when he has an existing lease in Seattle and is complaining about it. Dont you see that WE would cry foul if he offered to fund an arena upgrade there at this point in time, when he SHOULD have an obligation to do that here since the team IS HERE.

2) Why does OKC have to upgrade the Ford Center, it worked for the Hornets.

Answer: sure it worked temporarily, but look at the revenue streams, they were marginal. Everyone said, long term that would not work. You need to tap into all income levels of your city, especially the rich. Why should rich people in OKC enjoy a marginal suite experience at Ford Center for 1000 per game when at other cities they have better suites and have to pay ten times that? Yes, the TRUE reason from the NBA prospective as to why Ford needs upgrading is to tap into that LONG TERM investment group, a city's rich community. Actually, this is a fault of our Key Arena in Seattle. Our Luxury suites suck as well, and since our building can't be expanded again, we also do not tap into the EXTREME WEALTH of this region (which is why a team in RICH Seattle loses money!!!).

Another Answer: OKC wants to have a team for a LONG TIME, so you need to tap the top income groups, so you can have LOWER TICKET PRICES for the 'common seats'. Other cities do this, so why should OKC only rely on filling an arena (as opposed to filling the TOP seats with butts from their BUCKS).

3) Clay Bennett et al bought the team, why dont they pay for the arena?

Answer: OKC is not a top major league city (yet). It is just starting. Name me ONE city that got a privately financed arena for its first major league team? NONE except maybe NY, Chi, LA. Even here in Seattle, ALL OF OUR stadiums have been publicly funded!!! ALL (Seattle Coluseum, Kingdome, Tcoma Dome, renovated Coluseum/aka Key Arena, Safeco Field, Qwest Field).. All of them, despite we have the richest people in the world living in our backwoods.

Answer too: Clay Bennett and co already paid a hefty price to buy the team. They DID NOT do so to make money!!! Counting legal fees, relocation, settlement, they will be out $500M before a team gets to OKC. Tell me if you think they will EVER make a profit on that investment, let alone when they expect to break even in the 3rd (not 2nd) smallest market [OKC is ahead of New Orleans and Salt Lake, and soon will be ahead of Memphis in a year or two]. Considering this you and the fact that Bennett will make (im optimistic) $20M in OKC per year, they will need 25 years to break even !!! Does not sound like a profit making investment, now does it. Instead, it's their love for OKC - they dont care about making money. Thjey want their toy here, and at the same time - improve OKC's image. This philanthropy is shared by most other owners (esp in the NBA) since they DONT MAKE HUGE PROFITS, if any. And, in order to make profit, you need LUXURY amenities such as those in the Ford Center upgrade.

Answer three: Clay Bennett will be the top tenant at the Ford Center no doubt, but he will NOT have exclusivity for the facility, OKC will determine who and what plays there. So, given Bennett wont OWN the facility why should you expect him to pay for it? He will be paying rent. So.....

Answer four: Considering Bennett's investment already (assumed to be $500M when all is said and done and a ball bounced in OKC), and that Bennett wont be the exclusive tenant [yes, OKC plans to market the building for the other teams, concerts, sporting events [ncaa, big xii, ou/osu/ocu], conventions and since Bennett is not asking OKC to pitch in to help buy the team, OKC should pay for the facility. The cost to benefit for OKC is $500M vs. $121M (since $90M is already sunk cost). I'd take the $121M to get a top facility that gives you a NBA team for the forseeable future (since Bennett assured it meets all of his needs), guarantees you to be in the hunt for the top sport events and concerts (yes, competition in Tulsa is coming!!!), assures continued downtown and central city investment (look at the investment around AA arena in Dallas or even Key Arena here in Seattle, i expect the same there).

Answer five: considering the NBA portion of the upgrade is rather minimal (roughly $30M for the arena itself), and that REALLY the upgrade is for Oklahoma City to get a top facility, OKC should pay for it. The arena is and will not be NBA ONLY, it will continue to be a multipurpose facility OWNED BY OKC!!!

Answer again: Let me give you a scenario. You just bought a car that will be used by your brother, you will lease it to him. You paid for it outright, for $350K plus fees to relocate it to your brother's house in OKC but you are leasing it to him because you really want him to have this car in OKC (assumed to be a total of $500K when all is said and done, because the car is coming from Seattle). You plan to drive it but it mostly will benefit him because of the prestigue and image gain he will get. Your brother plans to park the nice car at his house, but he needs to upgrade his garage so it will house the car and have proper amenities (like CNG, eletric plug-ins, so forth). After you upgrade the garage, you will still own it and determine what goes in and when.

DO YOU REALLY EXPECT YOUR BROTHER WHO BOUGHT THE CAR TO PAY FOR YOUR GARAGE UPGRADE???


4) Why does OKC have to foot the bill for a practice facility?

Answer: I agree this is touchy. But, for OKC to be competitive, this is required. OKC is viewed by many around the country as backwater, small, and rather insignificant on a national scale. We, of course, know this to be otherwise in many cases. But, considering that OKC is viewed as small and new, OKC needs to put forth MUCH EFFORT to secure a ticket to the big leagues. In all realitay, $20M is not really a lot of money. And, hopefully the facility could be used by the local colleges (im advocating they locate it at OCU to assist with their NCAA attractiveness, spruce up that part of the inner city, it would be easily accessible to city residents and PUT PLAYERS IN THE CITY, perhaps even it could be a joint venture which would reduce the tax burden [maybe even allow MORE Ford Center amenities with the dollars]). I do agree that it would have been nice to see if Bennett would pay for the practice facility (my guess is that he or somebody would have, and probably would have located it at OCU like I am advocating), but there's no time for that. .. Given OK's laws, they HAD to act fast to put the ballot in register. And since OKC JUST got the OK to negotiate with Bennett, sort of - they didn't have time to get that commitment yet. Further, we in Seattle would cry a fit if Bennett funds ANYTHING in Oklahoma City while the Sonics are still here.

I know the practice facility is forced on you, but that is the way it is. I know many of you who plan to vote no would probably vote yes for the arena in a line item, but that is not how this is. You should take solice to the fact that 1) the $20M does not get collected if no NBA team signs a lease with OKC. So, in effect, if you get a team then you have to pay for it. If not, then you dont.

I think this wsa the city's way of finding an OUT for the most controversial portion of the ballot, just-in-case.

5) I dont like/support pro sports or the NBA, why should I pay for it?

Answer: unfortunately, you can't pick and chose what you support in a big city. I have no children yet I support property tax increases to fund school and library improvements. I dont use them, BUT it makes the city better - so I approve most of those issues. Even if you dont plan to go to a game, isn't it nice to have the ABILITY to chose? I think we all can agree that having a major league team will raise OKC's image and has the potential to generate significant growth long term, so you will benefit even if it is indirectly (due to increased tax dollars, potential investment, people having something positive to see/say about OKC).

6) Why do we need to upgrade the Ford Center again?

Answer: to remain economically viable as a host city for concerts, sporting events, and conventions. OKC has been accused around the nation of having an inferiour arena (since it was built "on the cheap" for $90M). Upgrading the facility and getting luxury amenities built in not only guarantees OKC will be in those top even discussions as an economically viable and desireable city IN THE NATION but it also puts those negative 'on the cheap' discussions to a rest, not to mention just about guarantees OKC an NBA team to boot. David Stern is on record as of Saturday, basically guaranteeing the Sonics will relocate from Seattle (just a matter of when, next season or 2010) and we know that OKC is that location. Also, the Hornets could possible return if the Sonics do/can not because of their OUT with regard to attendance there. So, you need to upgrade the Ford Center because you want to remain an up and coming city, and attract an NBA team! You dont want Tulsa and Wichita (of all places) all of sudden attracting concerts and events that OKC is used to getting? So, OKC has to stay one leg up, just like Dallas has always stayed one let up on OKC.

7) why dont we have other tax methods pay for it?

Answer: because they take too long and add debt unnecessarily to the city. You have to remember, OKC is still a rather small metro area by comparison with a very small convention business to date. Yes, I think OKC should raise its hotel taxes a bit (yet still remain the lowest in the region) but that incremental raise would NOT pay for a $121M upgrade of the Ford Center for decades. Even look at us here in Seattle, we're STILL paying for a Kingdome that doesn't even exist. And it will be a few decades before we're expected to finish paying for the two stadiums we care about (and we're using restaurant, hotel, rental car, and other 'tourist' taxes and Seattle is a more respectable convention/tourist city than OKC). Some day OKC might get there and have a critical mass of hotel rooms and events to fill them up, but right now OKC is near the bottom of Tier II - so you need a tax that will get the money in and finish it and leave no debt. Honestly, it would be awesome if we could do something like that up here, but there is NO WAY that would fly in our/Seattle's anti-tax environment - even though we are a bit more well off and certainly could afford something like a MAPS style tax. Nope, it wont work here, but it sure does do well there. Don't fight the advantage you have over us and other major cities. 15 months to raise $121M+ is phenominally impressive and short duration!!!

8) why didn't the city ask for Clay to pay for 'some' of it?

Answer: like I mentioned, there is that conflict of interest thing that some of us in Seattle would surely start crying if Cornett asked Clay to pay for anything outside of Seattle at this point (because the team hasn't left yet, yet he is complaining).

Answer two: You also have to know that Cornett must have found out from Stern that OKC is guaranteed a franchise with the NBA specific additions [NBA locker-rooms, NBA on-site warm-up, NBA offices which you can lease back, NBA practice facility], especially since OKC wants/needs to upgrade the Ford Center anyways to make it economically viable (more luxury, expanded footprint, more fixtures, kid friendly amentities, bunker/party suites). OKC's gonna do that anyways, to continue to be ahead of the Tulsa's and Wichita's of the region (who are getting smaller yet still impressive arenas).

"Why not do the NBA upgrades while you're at it, and I all but guarantee you a franchise (either Bennett's Sonics OR the Hornets OR somebody else in the near future)." Im sure this statement was made by Stern or the NBA (hopefully only verbal at this point, not written so we dont give any ammunition to Seattle to start whining about).. ... You must know this statement was given tho, considering Cornett started talking to the NBA in November and he had planned to announce the upgrade vote in December (but decided against due to the storms).

That's the bottom line, you're going to upgrade the Ford Center anyways, why not shell in the few NBA specifics - which will guarantee you not only a team but a lease that will be indefinite given the local ownership. Seems like "an offer you can't refuse", which explains the rush to vote!

9) Why do we have to have a MAPS for Millionaires/Billionaires?

Answer: it is not. In fact, the Ford Center upgrade wont really help the owners at all. It will help OKC be more economically viable and popular as a venue and will enhance the city's chances (like 100&) to successfully land its first permanent Big-4 major-league team. Most (say 80%) of the upgrades are for the Ford Center experience itself!!! The NBA specific portion is relatively small yet doing the NBA specifics now all but guarantees OKC a team. And since it is owned by local ownership, that team stands to be around indefinitely, since they dont care about making profit in OKC. On that note, consider the fact that OKC is now the 45th largest media market, 40th largest metro, yet has an expanded region anticipated to put it in the 20's in both categories. Seattle is the 15th largest (in both I think) yet Bennett LOST at least $17M in a RICH CITY like Seattle last year!!!

Also consider the economic value added so far: OKC has paid $90M for the Ford Center, which should be considered sunk cost since that has basically been generated more than double in revenue and tax streams to the city already. OKC stands to add $121M with a Yes Vote.

Bennett and Co have OVER paid $350M for the team, stand to pay some $50M in a settlement with Seattle, $30M to relocate, $40M+ in legal fees (assumption), and losses of roughly $20M per year in Seattle = and you get an economic value lost of $500M (half a billion).

That's half a billion vs $121M to get YOU a team, so you COULD enjoy and be proud of, so YOUR CITY could regularly get mentioned with the big boys, so YOUR downtown will be hoppin' during the slow winter months, so YOUR hotel rooms get filled, airport gets used, and restaurants and retail get's used by out-of-towners and residents alike (who otherwise would NOT use or not visit as much). Like I mentioned, I anticipate the profit from OKC to be $20M-$30M per year assuming the upgraded Ford Center, a nice lease, an expanded media market, a huge corporate contribution(s) and sponsorship(s), and concessions/retail from NBA nights/materials.

Keep in mind, the NBA will not get exclusivity to the Ford Center!!! Oklahoma City will get revenue from events on other nights and certainly with those luxury amenities available to the city (and the other teams), those could prove quite profitable to the city, not JUST ensuring the NBA will stay for a very long time!!!

10) the NBA didn't make other cities major league?

Answer: not true. You know of Seattle as an up and coming city, because of our major league teams!!! Sure, you know about Microsoft, Amazon, Costco, and some of the corporate presence here - but you MOSTLY think of Seattle as a fun attractive city because there are things to do here. This wasn't always the case. Seattle started with the NBA 40 years ago. Prior to that, Seattle was also considered backwater (even for several years after getting the NBA it was still pretty backwater). Sure, we had the worlds fair in 1962 which introduced the Space Needle, but it is our major league teams which broadcast that skyline on TV during games which you all SEE and equate to Seattle being a cool city - even though you've never been here!!

Seattle had to build an arena for their first team (in fact, we had to build for all teams), why should OKC be different. Furthermore, why shouldn't the NBA do what it did for Seattle? Im not saying it will be on the same scale, but OKC will benefit with the NBA - nobody up here is denying that. That's the truth! Look at Salt Lake. Again, pretty backwater prior to the Jazz (and still somewhat backwater). But look at the expansion in both population of the region and corporate presence since the Jazz came to town. It wasn't the Jazz that single handedly did it for them, but they were the cheerleader - you know Stockton and Malone days of the Utah Jazz competing against Michael Jordan and Scottie Pippen of the Chicago Bulls!!!!! Tell me that did not help Salt Lake City.... Having a major league team helps your city attract other top events too (makes it easier to JUSTIFY having a final four or an AFL team or a Democratic Convention, ask Denver) and keeps your city in the water cooler consciousness of the nation, the same as having an OU type college football team does with one exception, OKLAHOMA CITY gets mentioned along with the likes of New York, Chicago, and LA on a regular basis!!!! That DOES transform a city's image and for that reason ALONE, you should support this initiative.

Who knows, after Clay moves the team here - they might pay for the next arena 20 years from now themselves. The team will be in OKC and they wont have conflict of interest issues with another city. .. Considering They will pay half a billion for OKC's image and so you will have expanded entertainment options and they can recruit more and better talent to their OKC companies...

I think you should consider doing your part by voting YES to upgrade the Ford Center. Don't let some other city swoop in and take OKC's virtually HAND DELIVERED first permanent Big-4 major-league franchise (sure, OKC had the AFL and USFL, but this is the first permanent Big 4 franchise). This is more than Clay Bennett, or the NBA, or even the city pushing a tax extension - it is about Oklahoma City's Continued Renaissance!!!!

OK, I hope I have cleared up all of the dissention a bit with a bit of 'common sense' of sorts. This is not an attack of those who 'hopefully previously' planned to vote no. I am simply answering each of the issues raised with some counterarguments that I feel are valid and have not yet been received by some of the NO people. I do agree with a lot of what has been said, that the vote is too soon, we should have waited and asked Bennett after the league (why put our foot in our mouth so soon). I agree, but what is done is done. There must have been an INSIDE reason for it, SO, based on what we've discussed and the impact that a team WILL have on Oklahoma City.......



Please Vote Yes on March 4!!!

[betts]

Thanks hot rod, as always. That was well thought out and clearly took a huge amount of work.

[Doug Loudenback]

If this was reported locally, it slipped by me. According to Results of SurveyUSA Election Poll #13273 , Channel 4 commissioned this survey with the question,

On the proposal to use a 1-cent sales tax to pay for improvements to The Ford Center, are you ... Certain to vote yes? Certain to vote no? Or not certain? {"Not Certain" voters were asked: At this hour, do you lean toward yes? lean toward no, or do you not lean?}

1,300 Oklahoma City adults were interviewed by SurveyUSA 01/26/08 - 01/28/08. Of them, 1,110 were registered to vote. Of them, 438 were determined by SurveyUSA to be likely to vote on the sales tax extension. When the likely voters in today's release are first asked about the Amendment, 18% are Not Certain. When the Not Certain voters are then asked whether they lean toward Yes or lean toward No, the number of Not Certain voters drops from 18% to 5%, Yes increases from 40% to 47%, and No increases from 42% to 48%.

While this poll was about 3 weeks ago, it clearly shows that a "Yes" vote is certainly not a sure thing.

Get to work, people!

[CuatrodeMayo]

This arrived in my inbox this morning:

Thought you might find this interesting. Charlie Meadows, chairman of the OK Conservative PAC, sends out weekly emails about politics and government stuff.

I urge the VOTERS in OKC to vote NO on March 4th. However, not because I oppose the Sonics coming to OKC. I believe it to be a very good thing for OKC to have an NBA team, especially since the ownership of the Sonics is a group of Oklahomans. I would just like to see it done differently than is currently being proposed.

The Ford center originally cost the taxpayers around $92 million to build. Today it is easily worth twice that if not much more. I propose that the city sell the Ford Center at public auction for a minimum bid of $92 million, with the most likely bidders being the millionaires and billionaires who own the Sonics. That way OKC would be donating the appreciated value of the Ford Center and the taxpayers would get their original investment back.

Then the owners would own the facility and could put their own money into the remodeling of the arena. That might actually cost much less than is currently being proposed. They might want to contract with some of the local colleges for a training facility, at least in the immediate future, and they might want to delay or downsize the expense of a new South entrance into the Ford Center yet making the necessary improvements to the interior to satisfy the NBA.

I always want the private sector to own and control businesses rather than government. And of course that is what the Ford Center is, an event venue business. Remember, there are 3 basic kinds of capitalism.
Free market capitalism, where the private sector or individuals own the business, Socialist capitalism, where the government owns the business (as in the case of the Ford Center), and Fascist capitalism, where the government doesn't own the business but they control and regulate who owns the business and who gets the privileged opportunities and locations (which is why I want to sell the Ford Center to the highest bidder and not just automatically to the owners of the Sonics).

In the long run, this could be very beneficial to the private sector owners (most likely the team owners) as they would put into place a management team and would make a profit off of every event in the Ford Center, as well as be a home for their team. Of course there is some risk here, but the Ford Center is a proven commodity which will only get better with completion of the remodel.

The next question is what would OKC do with the $92 million? It should be placed in an endowment called something like, "Making Oklahoma City The Greatest Foundation." Unlike university endowments which don't seem to want to spend their money but just watch it grow, this endowment would require 80% of the EARNINGS to be spent each year to improve the infrastructure of OKC. The other 20% would be reinvested into the endowment to INCREASE its size and future earnings power. In addition, people in the private sector could also make tax deductible donations to the endowment which would accelerate its growth and make it an ever more powerful engine of wealth creation.

As an example, the first full year's earnings might be around $5 million. One million would be reinvested and $4 million would be used to improve the "bricktown," "core to shores," or "Oklahoma River"
areas of OKC. As the endowment grows each year, the amount available to improve the city would also grow each year. The money could be used to improve and beautify streets, sidewalks, lighting, parking, parks, landscapes and etc.

This endowment would lessen the need or size of future tax increases.
While I believe that in the initial years the earnings should be spent in the downtown area, future earnings could be spent for infrastructure anywhere in the city. I believe the new private sector owners of the Ford Center would make a profitable return of their investment, the taxpayers would get their original investment back and the city would be improved throughout the future. I call that a win, win, win situation for everyone involved.

Two other points to note. If the sales tax is defeated the sales tax rate for OKC will go down by about 27%. OKC would then have the lowest sales tax of any community in central Oklahoma and would become an increased draw for citizens to spend their money there and save on the things they purchase. This would also increase the revenues to the city that weren't earmarked for a particular project as the current sales tax is.

Not my words...I support the tax. Just another perpective.

[Kerry]

Some people just don't get it and it is very frustrating. Selling the Ford Center is not on the ballot! The decision on how to raise the funds has already been made. It is a one shot deal. Another thing I can't figure out is why conservatives (me included) are pushing for a national sales tax (The Fair Tax) as the best way to raise revenue but when we have a chance to actually put that idea to work we come up with some other half-baked ideas instead.

[Doug Loudenback]

Were the quoted language from Charlie Meadows' e-mail Okc's prevalent attitude in past votes, Oklahoma City ...

1. Would NOT have built the Bricktown Ballpark
2. Would NOT have built the Ford Center
3. Would NOT have purchased the Skirvin and located a viable developer/owner

Years and years of Mr. Meadows' viewpoint led to a stagnant and decaying downtown ... private investors did spend a lot of money developing the Northwest Expressway corridor ... but that didn't help the downtown problems get solved in any way and probably contributed to them. Downtown must not be left to chance solely by the decisions of private investors who may or may not give a flip about a vital downtown. We now know that it is the citizens who can "take care of business" in downtown civic projects. To use his terms, and call it "capitalist socialism" or whatever you want, but it has worked. Pure "free market capitalism" failed Oklahoma City. We need no more such failures. And, frankly, it pleases me to know that, as a citizen, I'm an owner of the Ford Center, as are you and you and you. As an owner, I want to take care of it on March 4.

[Midtowner]

Were the quoted language from Charlie Meadows' e-mail Okc's prevalent attitude in past votes, Oklahoma City ...

1. Would NOT have built the Bricktown Ballpark
2. Would NOT have built the Ford Center
3. Would NOT have purchased the Skirvin and located a viable developer/owner

Years and years of Mr. Meadows' viewpoint led to a stagnant and decaying downtown ... private investors did spend a lot of money developing the Northwest Expressway corridor ... but that didn't help the downtown problems get solved in any way and probably contributed to them. Downtown must not be left to chance solely by the decisions of private investors who may or may not give a flip about a vital downtown. We now know that it is the citizens who can "take care of business" in downtown civic projects. To use his terms, and call it "capitalist socialism" or whatever you want, but it has worked. Pure "free market capitalism" failed Oklahoma City. We need no more such failures. And, frankly, it pleases me to know that, as a citizen, I'm an owner of the Ford Center, as are you and you and you. As an owner, I want to take care of it on March 4.

Charlie Meadows is a huge supporter of corporate welfare. Did you read the tort reform bill he was trumpeting last year? Aside from a few minor civil procedure adjustments, the whole damned thing was corporate welfare!

He's not a very intelligent person if he can't see that ideological disconnect.

[betts]

I agree Kerry. These people are being completely ignorant. They want an NBA team, but this is not how they want to pay for it. They completely ignore the fact that this is the only way we're being allowed to pay for it. If this measure passes, the BOG is going to turn down Clay Bennett's request to move the team. People are so sure we're the hot new city, and David Stern is salivating to put a team here. They are blind. David Stern will do nothing that hurts the NBA, and he's lost every bit of leverage he has if he moves a team to Oklahoma City if we've just turned down a remodel of our $89 million arena. The BOG has lost their personal leverage with their cities. Don't these people see they're doing just what Seattle did, and where it's gotten Seattle?

[fsusurfer]

Some people just don't get it and it is very frustrating. Selling the Ford Center is not on the ballot! The decision on how to raise the funds has already been made. It is a one shot deal. Another thing I can't figure out is why conservatives (me included) are pushing for a national sales tax (The Fair Tax) as the best way to raise revenue but when we have a chance to actually put that idea to work we come up with some other half-baked ideas instead.

Question: The fair tax (which I personally think is a great idea) taxes all goods at the consumer level. If your not consuming the product, you pay no taxes on it. In this case, wouldnt the tax be levied on the price of tickets?

[betts]

Question: The fair tax (which I personally think is a great idea) taxes all goods at the consumer level. If your not consuming the product, you pay no taxes on it. In this case, wouldnt the tax be levied on the price of tickets?

Again, even were it the fair way to pay for arena upgrades, there isn't an A and B option on the tax proposal. There are several problems with the "fair" way to improve the arena, as I see it. For one, regardless of how much "ticket tax" you add to each ticket sold, you have to finance the improvments as they're occurring. That means you borrow money. That means you pay more money for the upgrades than you would if you paid for them with cash on hand. Now, let's look at a ticket tax. What would be a fair amount to charge per ticket? $1.00? I'm not going to count every event at the Ford Center this year, but let's be generous and say that there are 100 events, and every seat is full, both of which we know is probably an exaggeration. And let's round it up to 20,000 seats to make the math simple. You have now collected, in one year's time, $2 million. That means it will take you sixty years to collect enough money to pay off the improvements. If you added a ten dollar seat tax, and my attendance and event numbers weren't a huge exaggeration, which we know they are, it would still take 6 years to pay off the debt without counting the interest. So, it's not a great way to pay for improvements.

Now, we're talking about improving a local amenity that not everyone uses, and that's what people are complaining about. Let's look at other amenities that are paid for with city taxes that not everyone uses. How many people here have been to a Redhawks game? How many people have ridden on the canal boats at Bricktown or even been to Bricktown? How many people have been in a city park? How many people have been to the Ford Center for prior events? How many people have been to an event at the Civic Center, gone to the Botanical tube in the Myriad Gardens, attended an event at the Cox Center or gone to a public library? Let's go further. Has every person who lives in Oklahoma City sent at least one child to the Oklahoma City public schools?

If you look at all the other things that have been paid for by city taxes, I think you'll find that many of the people in Oklahoma City have never been in one or used one, or use them infrequently. Does anyone think we shouldn't have the Redhawks stadium, the museum, the libraries, the Civic Center, Botanical tube, etc because not everyone uses them? Does anyone think people should pay tuition for their children to go to public schools so that the people who don't have children or never sent their children to public schools shouldn't have to pay?

If we only want to pay for the things we use personally, then we are not members of a community and we shouldn't be members of a community, where people do things that help the community even if they don't help them personally, where people pay for things for the entire community to enjoy, where people support things that help Oklahoma City become a better place in which to live. It's a selfish and shortsighted attitude, in my opinion.

[Kerry]

Question: The fair tax (which I personally think is a great idea) taxes all goods at the consumer level. If your not consuming the product, you pay no taxes on it. In this case, wouldnt the tax be levied on the price of tickets?

Yes there is a sales tax on the tickets. But the item being taxed has nothing to do with what the tax money is spent on - although I like that idea. I want a Ford Center Happy Meal, 2 national defense apple pies and a large transportation infrastructure Coke. Oh - and Supersize it.

[fsusurfer]

Yes there is a sales tax on the tickets. But the item being taxed has nothing to do with what the tax money is spent on - although I like that idea. I want a Ford Center Happy Meal, 2 national defense apple pies and a large transportation infrastructure Coke. Oh - and Supersize it.

Not quite sure what you mean... Under a true fair-tax system, if you are buying a ticket to the game, a extra few dollars (or whatever they come up with) would be imbeded in the price of the ticket as an extra sales tax add-on. Of course, this money would be only used on paying off the loan for upgrading the ford center.. the other 23% tax would go to the government... This is just a hypothetical question that I've been currious about should the fair tax ever be implemented.

[betts]

Not quite sure what you mean... Under a true fair-tax system, if you are buying a ticket to the game, a extra few dollars (or whatever they come up with) would be imbeded in the price of the ticket as an extra sales tax add-on. Of course, this money would be only used on paying off the loan for upgrading the ford center.. the other 23% tax would go to the government... This is just a hypothetical question that I've been currious about should the fair tax ever be implemented.

I actually don't have a problem with a ticket tax, as long as it's implemented everywhere the city sells tickets. I think it would be a great way to put money aside for future improvements. I just think it's a bad way to pay for upfront renovation costs in toto.

[Kerry]

I think what fsusurfer is saying is that there should be a tax on the tickets that cover the price of the upgrade. Like Betts said though, it would take years to collect that money and if the improvments are made now then interest has to be paid on the loan which either means the ticket tax will have to be higher or last longer or both.

There is no way around a sales tax being the best way to raise the most money the fastest way without having to pay interest while causing the least impact on the most people. Besides, it is the only option on the ballot. There is no secret door #3 and no alternative election in April. This is it. It is a one shot deal.