MAPS III Redux

[oudirtypop]

I like the idea of the football stadium being near the river but I think it makes more sense near downtown. With the existing parking garages near downtown it would reduce the need to build additional structures and would add another day of rvenue to the existing infrastructure. Since some of the lots are owned by the city the city would receives additional revenue.

Kerry, you are not alone on this football stadium issue. Can you or anyone else tell me why or how you think OKC would support a football stadium. Our state high school football isnt big enough to have a venue like this host the game, with OU's stadium so large and impressive and OSU's attempt to become more than a second tier football program, i dont think you are going to draw many games away from these several hundred million dollar venues, and if you think we need OKC bowl...i think patrick called it the homeland bowl...there is by far too many games in college football and if fort worth barely can support a bowl (which by the way, the seats were over 75% empty at) then OKC surely cant. There is too many traditional bowl games with serious sponsors that can afford to pay out 20 million to sponsor the bowl (i.e. Chick-fil-a, Outback steak house, capitol one) besides the even higher up BCS bowls. Now, on to NFL. Until OU football closes its doors, NFL will never work. Now add tulsa is on the rise and becoming a annual contender in college football mid-majors, and OSU will never win more than about 9-10 games, but they do carry a large fan support. The state of oklahoma cant support three Division 1 football programs, plus an NFL team.

So, besides all of that, what is the point of 3/4 billion football stadium? Unless Devon or Chesapeake want to foot the bill, i dont ever think it would be worth it. Even if the wrote the check for it, i still think it would be an embarrasment.

[okclee]

Here's an idea for the football stadium / convention center.

We could build a dome stadium, that would serve multi-purpose. Football Stadium, Convention Center, NCAA Basketball Final Four, and many more.

Also one other thing, we need to have a NBA practice facility.

[BDP]

I honestly don't see the practicality of a 60k football stadium either at this point, but I don't mind it being including in the planning. Basically, i think the opportunity cost is too high right now and I think we can use MAPS III to elevate and diversify Oklahoma City's living appeal in much more universal and effecient ways.

No matter what, it would have to be a multipurpose facility, but even then it is a very cometitive market for these events. It seems the availability of stadium facilities is growing much faster than the supply of events to fill them. Now, that's a completely anecdotal and, honestly, uninformed observation on my part. If someone could provide numbers to the contrary, I'd certainly reconsider my position.

But even if the viability of such a venue could be proven such that the return on investment without a permanent tennant could be positive, we still need to ask if that's the best place to put those dollars. I think the average cost of stadium construction in the 90s was around $200 million. Once that stadium is built, you're probabaly looking at about an average of $50/ticket to an eventb there. I am not against stadiums or stadium subsidies on principle, but I do think Oklahoma City has many other areas it could address with that $200 million, the benefits of which every Citian and our vistitors could enjoy for much less or for free.

[okcpulse]

I would prefer people not mention ticket prices for major concert and sporting events in reference to Oklahoma City, at the concern that we may or may not be able to support $50 or $40 ticket prices. OKC supports the hell out NCAA sporting events, and those aren't cheap. Even at OSU, the premium seats are in the hundred of dollars range, perhaps more. So we can obviously support it.

But BDP has a good point. A 60K football stadium is awesome, but VERY expensive to build. We can't do what we did with the Ford Center, built at less than $100 million with not much architectural appeal. Instead, why don't we use the money to enhance Ford Center? It would be much less costly, and we would have a very classy facility for the NBA or NHL. And, the sound system can be revamped.

[writerranger]

First, is it right for the city to spend so much public money enhancing areas that will ultimately be developed by private interests? Is that the intended role of government? Personally, I think the government should enhance the city in terms of beautification and infrastructure as these are things we can all enjoy directly. I have no problem with the government using land to create public parks for everyone in the city to access. I think it becomes an issue when the government begins investing in these private ventures directly, especially when their end use is narrow in scope and/or restricted to private use. There is a degree of involvement that I think crosses the line. It would be a shame for the city to spend so much money on this area and then the public only has limited access to the developments.


I think these questions must be considered in order to ensure that a balance is struck where every facet of our community can enjoy the benefits of their investment and that it results in the type of private investment that can, at this point, only be generated by such projects...

Very well said, BDP. This is a big concern of mine as well. What I have always thought is funny is that in local matters, so-called "conservatives," run to city hall every time they want to build something of any consequence. They want hand-outs for this and for that and to expand over here and landscape over there. Of course, this is all done with a straight face as if taxpayers are expected to capitalize their private enterprise.

{EXAMPLE: Stadium financing around the country is out-of-control as the municipal government has been expected to ask taxpayers to pony up while the millionaire owners rake in all the profits. If the city builds it - they should own it. That's why I am Green Bay Packers fan, the only city-owned big league sports team around.]

The city needs to spend its money on updating infrastructure, and all the other things every city struggles to finance, before handing over taxpayer dollars to millionaire profiteers who seek to capitalize their business on the backs of taxpayers.

---------------------

[BDP]

They want hand-outs for this and for that

aka The "pro-business" platform.

I would prefer people not mention ticket prices for major concert and sporting events in reference to Oklahoma City, at the concern that we may or may not be able to support $50 or $40 ticket prices.

Just to clarify, I wasn't trying to speculate on whether or not Oklahoma City could consitently sell 60,000 $50 tickets. I just meant that in the evaluating the opportunity cost of spending the $200 million dollars on a stadium, you have to consider that even after paying taxes for x amount of years to build the stadium, you have to pay again everytime you want to enjoy that investment.

I'm not saying that is a reason to flat out not do it, I'm just saying that you have to weigh that opportunity against using the same money to build parks and green belts or improved infrastructure that anyone can enjoy anytime for free (free, that is, after the initial tax investment) or for a nominal fee.

[brianinok]

I vote for Alternative A, but we need to find a place for an NBA practice center near the Ford Center.

[Kerry]

Price - Let see, Chicago just announced they want to build a new 80,000 seat stadium for their 2016 Olympic bid. Price $366 million. A far cry from $750 million comment. I have no illusion of OKc landing an NFL team so there would not be any reason to build to NFL standards. With that out of the way, the cost will come way down.
Football Stadium Digest -- Chronicling the Future of Football Stadiums

As for the bowl game part. The Liberty Bowl in Memphis and the Citrus Bowl in Orlando are complaining loudly about needing a new facility to play in. Orlando had vote and the residents turned down a Citrus Bowl plan. The mayor of Memphis proposed a new stadium to replace the Liberty Bowl but it is not being well received. With a decent facility there would be a good oppertunity to land an existing bowl game.

[Patrick]

Until OU football closes its doors, NFL will never work.

I completely disagree with this statement. If Lousiana can support both the Saints and LSU, I know we can support both NFL and college football.

Football in Oklahoma is HUGE! Let me say that again......football in Oklahoma is HUGE. There are tons on NFL fans in Oklahoma....it has by far more interest than any other major league, even the NBA.

I don't think the issue is whether we could support an NFL team. I think the issue is more whether we could attract an NFL team.

[Flatlander]

Are there any cities our size that are planing or building a stadium for no apparent reason?Let me say this,if there ever was a chance OKC would land a pro franchise I would be all for a tax to build a stadium.I like the convention center , transit center, and the beacon.

[mranderson]

Are there any cities our size that are planing or building a stadium for no apparent reason?Let me say this,if there ever was a chance OKC would land a pro franchise I would be all for a tax to build a stadium.I like the convention center , transit center, and the beacon.

St. Petersburg, Florida built what is now Tropicana Stadium, orignally the Suncoast Dome with no tenant. It took ten years for the Devil Rays to enter the league. So, if you build it, they WILL come. It was an investment that paid off. Yes. It took time. Many wise investments do.

I say build it. It also shows good faith and Oklahoma City being serious about major league sports and mega events. If we do not build it, we will be passed by like we are 99% of the time.

Oh. St. Petersburg is about the same size as Oklahoma City. I know. You will claim the entire Tampa Bay area. No. St. Petersburg built it, not the entire bay area.

[writerranger]

St. Petersburg, Florida built what is now Tropicana Stadium, orignally the Suncoast Dome with no tenant. It took ten years for the Devil Rays to enter the league. So, if you build it, they WILL come. It was an investment that paid off. Yes. It took time. Many wise investments do.

I say build it. It also shows good faith and Oklahoma City being serious about major league sports and mega events. If we do not build it, we will be passed by like we are 99% of the time.

Oh. St. Petersburg is about the same size as Oklahoma City. I know. You will claim the entire Tampa Bay area. No. St. Petersburg built it, not the entire bay area.

Now we're back to baseball with Tropicana Field (regarded as the worst stadium in Major League Baseball).

Apples and Oranges. From Wikipedia regarding St. Petersburg:

"As of 2004, the population recorded by the U.S. Census Bureau is 249,090, making it the fourth largest city in the state of Florida. St. Petersburg is the second largest city in the Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater metropolitan area, which is composed of roughly 2.6 million residents,"

You have to compare the size of the metro areas. As you see above, St. Pete, far from being "about the size of Oklahoma City" has a population of only 249,000. But a metro of 2.6 million? The viability of MLB could hardly be disputed. Who built it has little to nothing to do with it. If Tampa wasn't next door, do you think MLB would have gone to a city of 249,000 just because they built a stadium?

---------------

[jbrown84]

I'm torn on the stadium issue. I agree with Patrick that if we got NFL, we'd support it. It just seems highly unlikely that we'd get an NFL team in the next 30 years.

And I just don't know that there's enough of the other big events to support it.

[mranderson]

Now we're back to baseball with Tropicana Field (regarded as the worst stadium in Major League Baseball).

Apples and Oranges. From Wikipedia regarding St. Petersburg:

"As of 2004, the population recorded by the U.S. Census Bureau is 249,090, making it the fourth largest city in the state of Florida. St. Petersburg is the second largest city in the Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater metropolitan area, which is composed of roughly 2.6 million residents,"

You have to compare the size of the metro areas. As you see above, St. Pete, far from being "about the size of Oklahoma City" has a population of only 249,000. But a metro of 2.6 million? The viability of MLB could hardly be disputed. Who built it has little to nothing to do with it. If Tampa wasn't next door, do you think MLB would have gone to a city of 249,000 just because they built a stadium?

---------------

The question I answered was about a stadium. It was not about any specific sport. Both baseball and football are played in stadiums.

Plus. I said St. Petersburg built the stadium. Not the entire bay area. In addition, if you look at the entire area Oklahoma City draws fans from, it it far more than the 2.6 million you mentioned. We have the entire state plus parts of surrounding states.

Lastly. Sports leagues have gone to areas of 250,000 or so in the past. Case in point. Green Bay. One of the most successful NFL cities.

[oudirtypop]

Whoa people...lets clarify a couple of issues.

I'm a huge fan of football, baseball,basketball, heck, even tennis.

The new dallas cowboy stadium pricetag is at 1.2 billion and they are still working on dirt work. I am glad chicago through out the 366 million number, but lets be real, it will never get finished for at least 500, probably more. and how much was arizona's new field?

Why build a field for MLB/NFL team when a.) we cant even sell out redhawks tickets, b.) there has been no talk of a new nfl expansion team c.) we dont have the corporate base to support NBA/MLB/NFL. d.) what about the ball park in downtown now? leave it to be torn down in 20 years?

Why not use maps 3 for real improvements that are needed. What about our roads? There terrible. No fix for those in the future. What about our teacher pay? still in middle of the teacher pay bracket. (did you know in texas, most teachers are starting at 40k now. I would guess oklahoma is around 28-30 now. Thats a big problem.

Heres an idea, use 1/4 for education pay, 1/4 strictly for road improvements, 1/4 for future use (light rail studies, trolly, etc.) and 1/4 for bricktown improvements (i.e. infastructure for new area, utilities for new area, land acqusition for parks).

Lets just pretend the stadium was a good idea for a minute, dont you think that the 750 million, (or less as some people think) could be spent instead to give our teachers a raise. What 30,000 teachers maybe, 5 thousand a year raise, thats 1.5 million a year. wow, to fund that for 50 years, for 75 million dollars, thats sounds awesome, not to mention, did you know that the interest on that money would probably create a self sustaining fund. Actually, i just created a spreadsheet to show this. If we put in 10 million a year for just 5 years, we would create an endowment fund that with interest, in 30 years, with taking out 2.5 million a year for teacher pay, in 30 years would have 841 million left over! were talking about a 50 million a year for 5 year investment to help our teachers forever!

Now, please someone argue with that!

[jbrown84]

MAPS is for capital projects. Salaries must come from other places.

[Flatlander]

I think the mayor said Maps has always been about bricks and morter,its about building things. Teacher pay should be taken care of at the capitol.Thats a state issue IMO.

[jbrown84]

I agree. It is something we need to do, but not the city. It's too complicated because of multiple districts and overlapping. If that wasn't part of MAPS for Kids, it's not going to be part of MAPS 3.

[writerranger]

Lastly. Sports leagues have gone to areas of 250,000 or so in the past. Case in point. Green Bay. One of the most successful NFL cities.

Yes, in what - 1922? Green Bay could not support the team without Milwaukee. Don't get me wrong - Green Bay is my favorite team, and for one reason: they are the ONLY city-owned, non-profit professional sports team.

----------------------------

[metro]

I think the mayor said Maps has always been about bricks and morter,its about building things. Teacher pay should be taken care of at the capitol.Thats a state issue IMO.

Not entirely true, the mayor said MAPS in the past was primarily Bricks and Mortar projects, however a MAPS 3 initiative wouldn't have to be (i.e. better city services or creating needed positions to be a competitive city).

I do agree that teacher pay raises is a state issue, not city.

[Flatlander]

So metro what your telling me is it wont be just bricks and morter,do you have an inside connection,I think we are a competitive city but if you dont thats ok by me,and what services need to be better?

[jbrown84]

He did say that, but I think the insenuation was that MAPS works best for capital projects. I think a way we could expand on that would be to create endowments for public art and upkeep of parks. Someone had mentioned that and I think it's a good idea.

[Flatlander]

That makes perfectly good sense to me jbrown84 Im all for it.

[brianinok]

What 30,000 teachers maybe, 5 thousand a year raise, thats 1.5 million a year.

First off, that is $150 million. You missed the decimal point by 2 spots.

Secondly, I think it is a dangerous precident to fund teacher raises with a temporary sales tax. What happens when the temporary runs out? Do you cut teacher pay? I think teach pay raises should come from the state capital, and a permanent source.

Thirdy, I do not think I could support a MAPS program that was not linked to "bricks-and-morter" so to speak. In my opinion it needs to be things like public transportation infrastructure, another downtown convention center (which needs to be west of the tracks, since that is where most hotels are), redevelopment/reuse of the I-40 to river zone, etc.

[metro]

So metro what your telling me is it wont be just bricks and morter,do you have an inside connection,I think we are a competitive city but if you dont thats ok by me,and what services need to be better?

Actually Flatlander and jbrown, I did NOT say that if you will take the time and carefully RE-READ my post. I clarified what others mistated Mayor Cornett saying. I said that he (Mick) was on record saying that MAPS in the past has been bricks and mortar but that he mentioned a MAPS3 wouldn't be limited to that (nor do I think it automatically has to be). He was basically encouraging people to think outside the box. Over the last decade or two there has been a lot of city positions eliminated due to lack of funding. Now with the economy strong, we could possibly recreate some of those positions or some other type of service we need?

Anyhow to CLARIFY anyone's confusion, I went to MAPS 3 | Oklahoma City Mayor Mick Cornett and took verbatim what Mick said exactly. Here you go:

The City of Oklahoma City provides certain services. Other services have never been a part of Oklahoma City’s mission, and probably shouldn’t be. Along the same lines, the strength of MAPS thus far has been its emphasis on capital projects. That means MAPS has built things – schools, arenas, dams, etc. That doesn’t mean that can’t change, but that’s been the model to date...........Sincerely,



Mick Cornett
Mayor