Re: Convention Center
my issue is not maps and it is not Ed or the mayor or anything/body else other than the cc subcommittee and (to an extent) the chamber. I'm not drinking the Kool-Aide that Ed slings even if some of it is valid, because I know he is ultimately anti-MAPS (which to me gives me an issue about his potential bias). I'm also not drinking the Kool-Aide from people who keep saying we need big-league this and that either. OKC is developing nicely but this is not the issue here.
The issue we have with MAPS 3 and specifically the CC subcommittee et al is ETHICS!!! Why didn't they at the very beginning state the full cost of a full-blown convention center to compete in the Tier II world and that it would be located on the Ford site and underground? During the MAPS campaign I recall it being more of the Mayor's vision as the anchor of Central Park, which likely would have met the budget submitted. But it appears there has been all of the behind the scenes pushes from the CC members and they're being allowed to trump others and even the 'thought' of the CC appears to have other projects 'over-budget' suddenly with or without bid (or even hard proposal in some cases).
It is unethical for the CC folks to demand a full-blown center with all bells and whistles when
1) other projects have had to take hits for the sake of budget constraints or funding gaps
2) the cost of land is unknown and may end-up being a deal-breaker at that site
3) the true cost of the cc isn't even known or bid at this point, is it even modeled/pre-bid to get more accurate estimates based on expected size/design expectations?
It appears as if everyone else is REQUIRED to take a back seat or downsize for the sake of funding while the CC is expected to get carte blanche. To my recollection, CC was not the most popular project among the voters but it was slipped in at an apparently low-ball estimate anchoring another project (to create a master vision for C2S) when in reality it is the project that the leadership seems to have wanted all along (and thereby used the other projects to blanket submit). This is unethical.
What should have happened? The leadership should have been up-front about the need to replace the convention center. I believe, if they had been honest with their desires to become a Tier II market AND all the while stated their intention of "having a 500K sq ft modern underground center at the Ford Dealership lots to get rid of that dead space and anchor the boulevard", "along with a high-rise hotel", and had been realistic with the cost estimate, say $350m, that the OKC voters likely would have still approved MAPS 3 and we would not be in this situation. Again, to me it is about ethics, NOT if we need a new cc or even where (at this point).
Not only did they slip this gotta have overbudget cc in while everything else is getting downsized BUT they pulled the bait and switch on voters who approved the CC being the anchor of C2S. And on top of that, they allowed the CC to control other projects and allegedly manipulate MAPS itself at discretion of the CC boosters/leadership (such as phasing, implementation, budget assessment, and lest we not forget - contingency). This and only this is why MAPS 3 might 'fail' in the eye of citizens, the ethics might cause a lack of trust in future attempts. Had they been upfront all along and not done these unethical acts, I'm sure residents would have much of an issue with the new state of the art CC and likely none of the other projects would have had to move or be cut (or as much).
To me, THIS is the issue.
Oklahoma City, the RENAISSANCE CITY!
Bookmarks