Ed Shadid Launches Formal Attack on MAPS 3 Conv Center in tandem with Mayoral Bid

[mkjeeves]

The petition process is a valid way to get a redo. This has nothing to do with killing the convention center though. Let's be honest. Shadid just wants to make sure there's an anti-MAPS part of the ballot to draw his kind of voter out. Very smart stuff politically, but let's not get caught up and think this has anything to do with sound public policy.

There's a vetting process to bring it to the vote which includes more than one person's effort. Maybe this will meet that vetting and maybe we won't. If we vote on it, it won't be because Shadid acted alone.

[soonerguru]

I don't always expect people to answer them but when asking them is a valid response to regurgitated and repeated mindless statements it's appropriate to respond again in kind.

"Mindless statements?" That's rich, even for you. You're condescending to a group of people more educated on the MAPS 3 process than any group in the city. People were here well before it, arguing endlessly over all projects -- including the convention center.

You might check out the election poll on this site and see where Shadid stands with this audience. I think he has 6 votes compared to Cornett's 82. Nobody here is buying Shadid's bulls-it, and so we're not interested in hearing you regurgitate his mindless talking points, to use your terminology.

[OKVision4U]

I'm going to say what I think about the CC, and its the same thing I've always said. I suspect the consultants are exaggerating any financial windfall that the city will get from a new convention center. I think the C of C is motivated to believe their data, just like Ed is motivated to believe Mr. Sander's data: it fits with what they want to believe. However, I go to a lot of Thunder games and because it's warmer to walk inside than outside, I always walk through the Cox. I go to an occasional dog show there and a few other events. The Cox looks dated and it looks shabby. It is not a great way to present our city to visitors. Although I don't know if we have any chance to get bigger conventions, if I were a convention consumer, I wouldn't be very interested in coming here. So, I'm actually fine with a new convention center, because I think the city needs a fancier, more uptown face for the conventions we do get. That being said, I've always argued that the convention center needs to be close to the back of the timeline. Our biggest problem with attracting bigger conventions is the fact that there's not much for the conventioneer and or their family to do once they get here. If the other MAPS 3 projects were complete, we'd have a streetcar for transport, we'd have a park to visit, we'd have the river complete. Maybe we'd even have the Native American Cultural Center complete (a girl can hope). Maybe we'd have an Adventure line to transport visitors to the Adventure district. We're getting much better retail downtown and Steve says we're getting more. I like to shop when I go to a convention. I'd like the downtown to be all spiffed up when we welcome visitors to our new convention center, because I suspect that once it opens, it will be stuck for a while with the impressions of the first visitors. I suspect the convention business is a small world. Do it right, and people will come here, be impressed with the new convention center, but more importantly, be impressed with what OKC has to offer. That's more likely to happen if the CC is the last thing we complete.

This is all just my opinion, and I have absolutely no data to support it other than my personal reasons to select cities in which to go to conventions and my years of exposure to academic research and its inherent biases. I didn't vote for MAPS 3 because I was dying to have a new convention center. I wanted the park, streetcar and sidewalks. But, I respect the fact that other voters probably had the convention center as their primary reason for voting yes, and I believe that we need to keep the MAPS brand shiny .
As far as a hotel and phase II CC are concerned: There is no phase II in the MAPS 3 budget. Therefore, any phase II would have to be approved by the voters in a MAPS 4. If the city wants to try and do that, they're welcome. If the city wants to give a hotel company a stimulus to build a hotel here, it should not come out of any part of the MAPS 3 budget but the CC portion. If they find money elsewhere, fine. Big fancy hotels aren't a bad thing for a city. I'm extremely happy that the Skirvin was renovated. But, how to find that money is up to them. My attention, once we get the streetcars and line ordered, is to help improve our transit system - commuter rail and bus.

This is the Critical point we MUST keep in mind when any of us decided to do anything in a "formal setting" regarding our MAPS initiatives. For OKC, this IS the Goose/ Chicken that lays the golden egg for us. It is what makes us/OKC successful, is the part when we ALL get behind and push.

The PEOPLE have already voted on this CC in MAPS 3. That is done. Let's move forward people. ( Dont go there, the PEOPLE already voted on this). I dont care about a mayor / city council election(s), our MAPS initiaitves in the future are at stake here. Let's not monkey w/ the one thing we have going for us, MAPS.

[warreng88]

This is the Critical point we MUST keep in mind when any of us decided to do anything in a "formal setting" regarding our MAPS initiatives. For OKC, this IS the Goose/ Chicken that lays the golden egg for us. It is what makes us/OKC successful, is the part when we ALL get behind and push.

The PEOPLE have already voted on this CC in MAPS 3. That is done. Let's move forward people. ( Dont go there, the PEOPLE already voted on this). I dont care about a mayor / city council election(s), our MAPS initiaitves in the future are at stake here. Let's not monkey w/ the one thing we have going for us, MAPS.

I never thought I'd say this but... I agree with OKVision4U... That was weird.

[Edgar]

You're going with the presumption that the convention center is going off the rails though. To me the information available is exactly the same as it was when people voted for it.

yeah, because they still won't let anyone have a peek at the CS&L study.

[bradh]

yeah, because they still won't let anyone have a peek at the CS&L study.

This is BS, already addressed (and ignored). You haven't seen it, but others have.

[Bellaboo]

This is BS, already addressed (and ignored). You haven't seen it, but others have.

Everything from Edgar, (Ed), (Steve Hunt), (?) is BS....It's all a diversion to skirt the facts that have been repeated over and over and over again.

[soonerguru]

It's too bad this board doesn't have a troll rate option. When it's obvious we're being trolled, we should be able to troll rate posters. Other boards do this and it's highly effective. The point is not to mute honest discussion, the point is to encourage informed, enlightening discussion. Trolls ignore facts, don't actually have a conversation, and shift meaningful discussions off topic.

It's amazing how much time has been wasted responding to a couple of obvious trolls on this board.

[betts]

In some of my trial work, we use expert witnesses. I'll have an expert who is well-credentialed who will say in no uncertain terms that my theory of the case is correct. The other side will also have a well-credentialed expert who will try poke holes in my theory. What these guys do is they take big fees and argue for the plausibility of the position they're paid to advocate.

It's even better if you can get paid to argue both sides, ala the arena consultant in the Seattle Sonics lawsuit.

Sanders was one of the consultants who said that this convention center would not be revenue neutral. I'm not sure the CC was ever sold to us as being revenue neutral. This CC will be a gathering place for all of the citizens of OKC. High school graduations will be held there, my law school graduation was at the Cox, etc. Cities of our size need large convention centers and the Cox just isn't cutting it. It's like roads and bridges and other bits of public infrastructure. We need space to accommodate large gatherings. I'm interested to hear more on what a large hotel would bring, but I'm not sure we need to subsidize a large hotel. If the demand for rooms is there, let's talk TIF and other ordinary incentives. Building a large hotel for the benefit of a multibillion dollar company isn't something I can get behind without some more solid evidence.

Agree. This is much more than a convention center. Everytime I go into the Cox it is in use for something. It's far busier than the Civic Center, which does not support itself, I believe.

[mkjeeves]

Quote Originally Posted by Midtowner View Post
Sanders was one of the consultants who said that this convention center would not be revenue neutral. I'm not sure the CC was ever sold to us as being revenue neutral.

It's even better if you can get paid to argue both sides, ala the arena consultant in the Seattle Sonics lawsuit.

Agree. This is much more than a convention center. Everytime I go into the Cox it is in use for something. It's far busier than the Civic Center, which does not support itself, I believe.

The majority of the voters might be just fine with that now. They might have been just fine with that then. However...WRT what the voters were sold and what they voted for:

The proposed $280 million convention center is the largest part of the $777 million MAPS 3 plan. Williams, president of the Greater Oklahoma City Chamber, said most people consider the convention center a project for business owners and out-of-towners.

Everyone needs dress socks, though.

"It is the biggest economic engine of MAPS,” Williams said of the convention center. "These people come in from out of town, they spend the money and they leave.”

The Greater Oklahoma City Chamber commissioned a study earlier this year to determine how much convention space the city needs.

The results showed the Cox Convention Center to be inadequate. Worse still, the building is landlocked by major streets and can’t be expanded. The Cox Convention Center brings in an estimated $30 million a year to the local economy, including $10 million in salaries and 400 jobs, Williams said.

"Essentially the new convention center would triple that,” Williams said. "The impact would go up to nearly $80 million. Salaries and wages would go to about $30 million and employment would go to 1,100.”

From the newsok website link upthread. Yep, memories do tend to fade.

Now it seems to have changed to the economics were overstated and:

This CC will be a gathering place for all of the citizens of OKC. High school graduations will be held there,

[Edgar]

This is BS, already addressed (and ignored). You haven't seen it, but others have.

I remember reading a piece in the Gazette. They allowed the reporter to have like half an hour with the sacred document, no photocopying or pics of course. Believe they may have let him take notes, not positive. Most everyone who cast a MAPSIII ballot was an uninformed voter because that was the plan.

[OKVision4U]

I remember reading a piece in the Gazette. They allowed the reporter to have like half an hour with the sacred document, no photocopying or pics of course. Believe they may have let him take notes, not positive. Most everyone who cast a MAPSIII ballot was an uninformed voter because that was the plan.

Edgar, like I said before...

This is the Critical point we MUST keep in mind when any of us decided to do anything in a "formal setting" regarding our MAPS initiatives. For OKC, this IS the Goose/ Chicken that lays the golden egg for us. It is what makes us/OKC successful, is the part when we ALL get behind and push.
The PEOPLE have already voted on this CC in MAPS 3. That is done. Let's move forward people. ( Dont go there, the PEOPLE already voted on this). I dont care about a mayor / city council election(s), our MAPS initiaitves in the future are at stake here. Let's not monkey w/ the one thing we have going for us, MAPS.

[betts]

I remember reading a piece in the Gazette. They allowed the reporter to have like half an hour with the sacred document, no photocopying or pics of course. Believe they may have let him take notes, not positive. Most everyone who cast a MAPSIII ballot was an uninformed voter because that was the plan.

Kind of like every voter who voted for Ed Shadid was deliberately kept an uninformed voter regarding prostitutes, pornography, his drug use and wife abuse? Can we get do-overs on his Council seat election as well?

Most people who vote for MAPS don't do so because of economic development promises. They vote for quality of life reasons and civic pride.

[Urban Pioneer]

Maybe Ed should join the chamber as a member! LOL

[catch22]

Maybe Ed should join the chamber as a member! LOL

Quite honestly UP, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if he did.

He panders to every group, in a few weeks he will be Pro-business group and pro convention center.

LETS GO GET THESE JOBS AND EXPAND OUR TAX BASE. LETS GO CHAMBER WOOT WOOT

[SoonerDave]

Edgar, like I said before...

This is the Critical point we MUST keep in mind when any of us decided to do anything in a "formal setting" regarding our MAPS initiatives. For OKC, this IS the Goose/ Chicken that lays the golden egg for us. It is what makes us/OKC successful, is the part when we ALL get behind and push.
The PEOPLE have already voted on this CC in MAPS 3. That is done. Let's move forward people. ( Dont go there, the PEOPLE already voted on this). I dont care about a mayor / city council election(s), our MAPS initiaitves in the future are at stake here. Let's not monkey w/ the one thing we have going for us, MAPS.

Vision, I don't think there's any doubt or question that the people voted for a CC as one of the projects on the MAPS3 ROI. The question, now, is whether a convention hotel is truly as essential to the success of the CC as the consultants are now suggesting, and if it is, how does it get funded? And there's all manner of discussion here about whether a vote for MAPS3 back then was an implicit vote for a "Phase II" for the "rest" of the CC complex, and to me that's definitely subject to question.

If one is jaundiced about some motivations on the political side, and certainly I tend to be, I think there are some legitimate questions to be asked and answered about the CC process going forward, and as a matter of practicality, can we limit the project to just the convention center, or does doing so really limit its upside?

This is a rather seriously knarled situation right now. The answers, as best I can tell, aren't easy. I'm not about to join the Ed/Edgar crowd and throw the whole thing out in the scorched earth approach, nor am I likely to blindly support several hundred million more dollars merely on the strength of a given consultant's report. I'm not sure what the right answer is. I felt (and still do) we needed a new convention center, regardless of the presence of a hotel.

I wish I were smart enough to know if the hotel really were as essential to the success of the CC as is it now is asserted to be. At some point, I'm going to have to trust one side or the other, but right now, those on either side seem to have their own agendas, and that makes me suspicious of both. So I don't know what to believe. I just want what's best for OKC, and I also think a new CC is part of that equation. As for the rest, I think I just don't know whom or what to believe, or which side to support. Its very frustrating.

And I think a lot of other people are in the same boat.

[zookeeper]

Vision, I don't think there's any doubt or question that the people voted for a CC as one of the projects on the MAPS3 ROI. The question, now, is whether a convention hotel is truly as essential to the success of the CC as the consultants are now suggesting, and if it is, how does it get funded? And there's all manner of discussion here about whether a vote for MAPS3 back then was an implicit vote for a "Phase II" for the "rest" of the CC complex, and to me that's definitely subject to question.

If one is jaundiced about some motivations on the political side, and certainly I tend to be, I think there are some legitimate questions to be asked and answered about the CC process going forward, and as a matter of practicality, can we limit the project to just the convention center, or does doing so really limit its upside?

This is a rather seriously knarled situation right now. The answers, as best I can tell, aren't easy. I'm not about to join the Ed/Edgar crowd and throw the whole thing out in the scorched earth approach, nor am I likely to blindly support several hundred million more dollars merely on the strength of a given consultant's report. I'm not sure what the right answer is. I felt (and still do) we needed a new convention center, regardless of the presence of a hotel.

I wish I were smart enough to know if the hotel really were as essential to the success of the CC as is it now is asserted to be. At some point, I'm going to have to trust one side or the other, but right now, those on either side seem to have their own agendas, and that makes me suspicious of both. So I don't know what to believe. I just want what's best for OKC, and I also think a new CC is part of that equation. As for the rest, I think I just don't know whom or what to believe, or which side to support. Its very frustrating.

And I think a lot of other people are in the same boat.

I agree with what I bolded above, SoonerDave. Count me as one in that boat.

[betts]

Amen, SoonerDave

[soonerguru]

Vision, I don't think there's any doubt or question that the people voted for a CC as one of the projects on the MAPS3 ROI. The question, now, is whether a convention hotel is truly as essential to the success of the CC as the consultants are now suggesting, and if it is, how does it get funded? And there's all manner of discussion here about whether a vote for MAPS3 back then was an implicit vote for a "Phase II" for the "rest" of the CC complex, and to me that's definitely subject to question.

If one is jaundiced about some motivations on the political side, and certainly I tend to be, I think there are some legitimate questions to be asked and answered about the CC process going forward, and as a matter of practicality, can we limit the project to just the convention center, or does doing so really limit its upside?

This is a rather seriously knarled situation right now. The answers, as best I can tell, aren't easy. I'm not about to join the Ed/Edgar crowd and throw the whole thing out in the scorched earth approach, nor am I likely to blindly support several hundred million more dollars merely on the strength of a given consultant's report. I'm not sure what the right answer is. I felt (and still do) we needed a new convention center, regardless of the presence of a hotel.

I wish I were smart enough to know if the hotel really were as essential to the success of the CC as is it now is asserted to be. At some point, I'm going to have to trust one side or the other, but right now, those on either side seem to have their own agendas, and that makes me suspicious of both. So I don't know what to believe. I just want what's best for OKC, and I also think a new CC is part of that equation. As for the rest, I think I just don't know whom or what to believe, or which side to support. Its very frustrating.

And I think a lot of other people are in the same boat.

Good post, but you're repeating one of Ed's lies: that the hotel will lead to "hundreds of millions" more in spending. Just think about how absurd that number is.

[SoonerDave]

Good post, but you're repeating one of Ed's lies: that the hotel will lead to "hundreds of millions" more in spending. Just think about how absurd that number is.

Unintentional, I assure you. The effort was merely to highlight the extremes at issue in the CC problems, that's all. Last thing I want to do is ally myself with "The Ed Side." Kinda makes me feel dirty now.

[mkjeeves]

Well said Soonerdave. In a more perfect world, the powers that be would unite around the possibility that we might have a bad apple in the barrel pending more review, put the brakes on, look deeper into it and address it with the voters. The Maps brand would be healthier for it. If not the possibility of a bad apple, one that is far different than what the voters approved.

[betts]

Good post, but you're repeating one of Ed's lies: that the hotel will lead to "hundreds of millions" more in spending. Just think about how absurd that number is.

I missed it too. But I agree with SoonerDave that I support the convention center as we voted on it. I'm conflicted about the hotel concept..... maybe. Of course, we don't have any information on what a hotel would entail or where the funding would come from. We don't know what the Council will even debate so this is a bit premature and speculative.

[OKVision4U]

Vision, I don't think there's any doubt or question that the people voted for a CC as one of the projects on the MAPS3 ROI. The question, now, is whether a convention hotel is truly as essential to the success of the CC as the consultants are now suggesting, and if it is, how does it get funded? And there's all manner of discussion here about whether a vote for MAPS3 back then was an implicit vote for a "Phase II" for the "rest" of the CC complex, and to me that's definitely subject to question.

If one is jaundiced about some motivations on the political side, and certainly I tend to be, I think there are some legitimate questions to be asked and answered about the CC process going forward, and as a matter of practicality, can we limit the project to just the convention center, or does doing so really limit its upside?

This is a rather seriously knarled situation right now. The answers, as best I can tell, aren't easy. I'm not about to join the Ed/Edgar crowd and throw the whole thing out in the scorched earth approach, nor am I likely to blindly support several hundred million more dollars merely on the strength of a given consultant's report. I'm not sure what the right answer is. I felt (and still do) we needed a new convention center, regardless of the presence of a hotel.

I wish I were smart enough to know if the hotel really were as essential to the success of the CC as is it now is asserted to be. At some point, I'm going to have to trust one side or the other, but right now, those on either side seem to have their own agendas, and that makes me suspicious of both. So I don't know what to believe. I just want what's best for OKC, and I also think a new CC is part of that equation. As for the rest, I think I just don't know whom or what to believe, or which side to support. Its very frustrating.

And I think a lot of other people are in the same boat.

I'm with ya Dave. We need to be very careful on this "slippery" slope of "Formal Actions". The Scorched Earth approach could undo decades of success for our beautiful city.

The debate of the Hotel is seperate. Let's keep it seperate. Let's make it a better process for the MAPS 4 initiatives.

Regarding the Proposed CC Hotel, the consultants are guessing. Both sides. The one thing that insures the success of a convention center & hotel, is a thriving economy. This is a certainty that the consultants will not state. The Convention Center ( our Living Room , Urban Pioneer) needs to be a " statement & welcome "at the same time.

The CC Hotel is not a requirement for the success of the Convention Center, but it does go well together ( ie, Denver ). And, OKC could certainly benefit from another Tower Hotel that makes a statement.

[OKVision4U]

Well said Soonerdave. In a more perfect world, the powers that be would unite around the possibility that we might have a bad apple in the barrel pending more review, put the brakes on, look deeper into it and address it with the voters. The Maps brand would be healthier for it. If not the possibility of a bad apple, one that is far different than what the voters approved.

jeeves, Putting the brakes on what? MAPS 3 Convention Center... No.

We can learn from things for the MAPS 4 process, but we are certainly NOT going to go backwards, or hit the brakes. Lets have a dialogue of ideas for MAPS4... sure. Keeping the MAPS brand healthy, is making sure our future continues to look brighter than our past. MAPS 3 is done.

The People already addressed it with our city, the answer was YES, let's keep going. Let's keep building. Let's make something that the future generations will be proud of. ...that's what the voters said.

...just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should.

[Edgar]

Good post, but you're repeating one of Ed's lies: that the hotel will lead to "hundreds of millions" more in spending. Just think about how absurd that number is.

Learning from the experience of other towns, it'll take less than a decade to reach the $100million level.