Convention Center

[Urban Pioneer]

City Staff is typically risk-adverse. Obviously, the CC Subcommittee had a great deal of influence on even having a site selection process. Russell Claus didn't put up a fight and it simply happened. I doubt they have the same level of influence after this situation.

However, has anyone ever seen it in writing from OG+E as to what the costs actually would have been to move the substation for the original site? For all we know, that number was totally arbitrary and did have an affect on the process.

If these conversations are happening that Urbanized asserts, the only people who really have capability of actually meaningfully having them would be Cathy O' Connor and/or Jim Couch. I guess Mike Carrier might be a conduit. Everybody else is a volunteer or a City Staffer.

[Urbanized]

Crickets.... No offense Urbanized...

Oh, please. I didn't see Pete's post because apparently he was composing and posted it at about the same time that I was composing and posted my most recent one. I missed it. I certainly am not afraid of responding to different views, which anyone here should know about me at this point.

I haven't had much time to catch up in this thread because I was WORKING TODAY. And frankly, I mostly try to avoid this trainwreck of a thread when I'm on the board - and have for years - because it's a stacked deck, mostly just a bunch of circular reasoning, usually by people who have an axe to grind in some way with the CC. Pete was right in being concerned about it being an echo chamber. It is one indeed. It bums me out; I'm not going to change minds here, and there are many other places on the board where I would rather spend my time.

It's not my job to sell people on whether or not we should have a CC; there was a vote and the majority of voters chose to have one. As long as that is the case, I personally think we should have one that functions to the best benefit of the City and its taxpayers. I feel EXACTLY the same way about the streetcar and any other MAPS project that you or anyone else might bring up.

Regarding these assertions that just because City staff and officials might be privy to ideas/information that have/has not yet been made public its the same thing as a lack of transparency; they're wrong. I hate to break it to folks, but City staff, elected officials and consultants have meetings, the call each other, they do research, ALL OF THE DAMN DAY, EVERY DAY. It's WHAT WE PAY THEM TO DO. Where do people think staff reports and recommendations come from? Do they think committees and the Council just show up at public meetings and start from scratch in their decision-making?

City staff's jobs REQUIRE THEM to gather facts, make sure they are properly vetted, make recommendations, and execute as directed by appropriate governing bodies.

I'm not saying negotiations are happening; I'm saying they are looking at all of the different methods they can bring to bear to solve the issues at hand. That's it. In concert with the consultant and ultimately with the committee, MAPS board and City Council they will THEN make decisions. Every bit of this is entirely correct and appropriate, and it's disingenuous and reckless to suggest otherwise.

[CaptDave]

If the East Park sites are too far away for the CVB lobby, then West Park might as well be at the Fairgrounds.

Since it was asserted previously I did not know how to measure distance or estimate travel time, I went on a little walkabout this afternoon to see how long it takes to get from proposed C2S East / East Park North location to various locations in Bricktown.

I used the intersection of SW 3rd & Broadway as an imaginary CC entrance - south of Chesapeake Arena and the approximate point the CC and CC hotel will join in the drawings Pete and Spartan posted.

I stayed on sidewalks or along the street and did not cut across empty lots or parking lots. I stopped at all crosswalk lights and waited for to get the walk signal before crossing even if there was no traffic approaching. It was between 4:30 and 5:30 this afternoon with moderate traffic in the area. I walked at a normal pace (for a lame guy with a bum Achilles).

It took 9:30 to get from the fountain in front of Harkins Theater to the CC "entrance".
It took 10:25 to get from the "entrance" to the center of the bridge on Oklahoma Ave that crosses the Bricktown canal.
It took 11:49 to get to the intersection of Oklahoma Ave and Sheridan.

Pretty much exactly as I thought. Within the "standard" distance to restaurants desired by convention planners or at the very least, close enough for reasonable people. Even if the main entrance to the CC is on the west side, there is almost sure to be an entrance on the north side.

It will be interesting to see how and if this argument is used to influence the decision one way or the other. But the facts on this point are clear and easy to determine for oneself.

[Urban Pioneer]

Oh, please. I didn't see Pete's post because apparently he was composing and posted it at about the same time that I was composing and posted my most recent one. I missed it. I certainly am not afraid of responding to different views, which anyone here should know about me at this point.

I haven't had much time to catch up in this thread because I was WORKING TODAY. And frankly, I mostly try to avoid this trainwreck of a thread when I'm on the board - and have for years - because it's a stacked deck, mostly just a bunch of circular reasoning, usually by people who have an axe to grind in some way with the CC. Pete was right in being concerned about it being an echo chamber. It is one indeed. It bums me out; I'm not going to change minds here, and there are many other places on the board where I would rather spend my time.

It's not my job to sell people on whether or not we should have a CC; there was a vote and the majority of voters chose to have one. As long as that is the case, I personally think we should have one that functions to the best benefit of the City and its taxpayers. I feel EXACTLY the same way about the streetcar and any other MAPS project that you or anyone else might bring up.

Regarding these assertions that just because City staff and officials might be privy to ideas/information that have/has not yet been made public its the same thing as a lack of transparency; they're wrong. I hate to break it to folks, but City staff, elected officials and consultants have meetings, the call each other, they do research, ALL OF THE DAMN DAY, EVERY DAY. It's WHAT WE PAY THEM TO DO. Where do people think staff reports and recommendations come from? Do they think committees and the Council just show up at public meetings and start from scratch in their decision-making?

City staff's jobs REQUIRE THEM to gather facts, make sure they are properly vetted, make recommendations, and execute as directed by appropriate governing bodies.

I'm not saying negotiations are happening; I'm saying they are looking at all of the different methods they can bring to bear to solve the issues at hand. That's it. In concert with the consultant and ultimately with the committee, MAPS board and City Council they will THEN make decisions. Every bit of this is entirely correct and appropriate, and it's disingenuous and reckless to suggest otherwise.

At at all sensitive are we? Lol I'll buy you a beer next time I see you. Well let's be clear though, you laid a little bit of innuendo out there and some folks are paranoid about the Convention Center. On a personal level, I could care less where it goes as long as we stay within budget and it doesn't affect the streetcar further. It needs to be something that we can be proud of though.

[Urban Pioneer]

It's City staff's jobs REQUIRE THEM to gather facts, make sure they are properly vetted, make recommendations, and execute as directed by appropriate governing bodies.

Trouble is, there are many folks who are asking if this really happened on "Round 1". I suspect that IT WILL happen on "Round 2". But they have definitely reinforced some of the conspiratorial "echo chamber" walls by how this was handled. It's awkward to say the least.

[pw405]

I'm all for extending MAPS III tax for another 3+ years to make sure we do this right. Only way for this to happen would be a public vote right? With the economy back on track, I wonder if we would see as much resistance as we did last time. Make a billion of public enhancements, I don't see it hurting it anything. Let's go ahead and build the streetcar from 63rd to I240. Lets pay for the convention hotel. Let's raise money to make the Skydance smooth surfaced. Am I the only one who feels this way?

[Spartan]

Oh, please. I didn't see Pete's post because apparently he was composing and posted it at about the same time that I was composing and posted my most recent one. I missed it. I certainly am not afraid of responding to different views, which anyone here should know about me at this point.

I haven't had much time to catch up in this thread because I was WORKING TODAY. And frankly, I mostly try to avoid this trainwreck of a thread when I'm on the board - and have for years - because it's a stacked deck, mostly just a bunch of circular reasoning, usually by people who have an axe to grind in some way with the CC. Pete was right in being concerned about it being an echo chamber. It is one indeed. It bums me out; I'm not going to change minds here, and there are many other places on the board where I would rather spend my time.

It's not my job to sell people on whether or not we should have a CC; there was a vote and the majority of voters chose to have one. As long as that is the case, I personally think we should have one that functions to the best benefit of the City and its taxpayers. I feel EXACTLY the same way about the streetcar and any other MAPS project that you or anyone else might bring up.

Regarding these assertions that just because City staff and officials might be privy to ideas/information that have/has not yet been made public its the same thing as a lack of transparency; they're wrong. I hate to break it to folks, but City staff, elected officials and consultants have meetings, the call each other, they do research, ALL OF THE DAMN DAY, EVERY DAY. It's WHAT WE PAY THEM TO DO. Where do people think staff reports and recommendations come from? Do they think committees and the Council just show up at public meetings and start from scratch in their decision-making?

City staff's jobs REQUIRE THEM to gather facts, make sure they are properly vetted, make recommendations, and execute as directed by appropriate governing bodies.

I'm not saying negotiations are happening; I'm saying they are looking at all of the different methods they can bring to bear to solve the issues at hand. That's it. In concert with the consultant and ultimately with the committee, MAPS board and City Council they will THEN make decisions. Every bit of this is entirely correct and appropriate, and it's disingenuous and reckless to suggest otherwise.

Who has an ax to grind in some way with the CC, and why might that be?

[jn1780]

I'm all for extending MAPS III tax for another 3+ years to make sure we do this right. Only way for this to happen would be a public vote right? With the economy back on track, I wonder if we would see as much resistance as we did last time. Make a billion of public enhancements, I don't see it hurting it anything. Let's go ahead and build the streetcar from 63rd to I240. Lets pay for the convention hotel. Let's raise money to make the Skydance smooth surfaced. Am I the only one who feels this way?

If the price of oil is low at the time of the vote. It would fail by large margins.

[Urbanized]

Who has an ax to grind in some way with the CC, and why might that be?

OMG Spartan, read the thread with an open mind and ask yourself the same question.

[Teo9969]

Urbanized,

I'm not convinced that we've seen as much of an axe to grind in the most recent round of posts about the CC. People early on were worried it would take money from other projects, and that's proven to be unfounded thus far, but nearly nobody is talking about that at this point.

What most of us are worried about is:

1. That the CC conversation is happening in a vacuum of itself. It's not an axe to grind against the CC to have the opinion that the Cox block is too important in the long run to put a CC there. Therefore, if the only viable place to put a CC is on the Cox site, we'd be better off ditching the project altogether. That's not an axe to grind, that's just having an opinion that certain things should come before the CC.

2. There has been no public discussion about the elephant in the room: We don't have enough money and outside of the TIF that was being talked about but no longer possible, there has been no public discussion about how we will raise funds to do this right. We're getting too damn close to the end of the MAPS 3 tax to not be talking about this PUBLICLY. We need to start getting an idea of how the public is going to react to us asking for more money for the project.

These are the 2 issues that we're all looking for answers to, and the issues that are framing the discussion going on in this thread.

[Just the facts]

we don't have enough money

I was convinced from day one that the CC was moved up in the timeline specifically so the convention center wouldn't be the only project in a 'finish MAPS right' campaign. I think they have known all along they didn't have enough money.

[Rover]

If the price of oil is low at the time of the vote. It would fail by large margins.

I doubt there is any objective data to support this conclusion.

[jccouger]

Every time I got in the cox I don't understand why we need a new convention center. Its not like the place is falling apart.

I'm sure this has been discussed plenty, but what exactly will the new convention center have that already isn't available in the cox or couldn't be available with a massive upgrade?

[Rover]

Who has an ax to grind in some way with the CC, and why might that be?

I spent part of the day with a number of people central to this issue and other issues downtown. They are amused at how wrong so many posters on this site have it. They even commented that when actual information IS revealed that it is often attacked..or better yet, the person saying it is attacked. I know that to be a fact. I have quit trying to provide actual insight base on knowledge as I am nearly always attacked for it. I am not sure who on this site is TRULY objective. There are some on here who are trying to give actual perspective and it doesn't fit certain paranoia and preconceived notions. People need to learn who gets it right and who just fantasizes and opines dogma.

[jerrywall]

Who has an ax to grind in some way with the CC, and why might that be?

The folks who are implying something sinister about staff and officials having more information at this moment than the public?

[Pete]

I spent part of the day with a number of people central to this issue and other issues downtown. They are amused at how wrong so many posters on this site have it. They even commented that when actual information IS revealed that it is often attacked..or better yet, the person saying it is attacked. I know that to be a fact. I have quit trying to provide actual insight base on knowledge as I am nearly always attacked for it. I am not sure who on this site is TRULY objective. There are some on here who are trying to give actual perspective and it doesn't fit certain paranoia and preconceived notions. People need to learn who gets it right and who just fantasizes and opines dogma.

So everyone who cares about OKC and follows this as closely as possible should just sit quietly and trust our ruling-class overlords on a project that has just completely come off the rails after four years of work? What country are we living in?

What 'actual information' has been revealed and attacked? All I see is a bunch of condescending and vague references to "things in the works" that the great unwashed are clearly not entitled to know about.

[Teo9969]

I spent part of the day with a number of people central to this issue and other issues downtown. They are amused at how wrong so many posters on this site have it. They even commented that when actual information IS revealed that it is often attacked..or better yet, the person saying it is attacked. I know that to be a fact.

Did they admit that, heretofore, most of the work done on the convention center has been a mistake of a noteworthy scale? Did they admit that they vastly underestimated property values? Have they admitted that they have been anything but upfront and transparent with even the city freaking council?

There is a very wide spectrum of posters on this board, and an even wider array of opinion espoused by said posters. Posters are sometimes even going to go "too far" with a thought or opinion so as to make a claim of something they aren't that serious about. It's the nature of the internet. But to use the radical end of the opposite side of the spectrum to dismiss the valid points of that whole same side is ridiculous. There are too many people on this forum who are well informed and reasonably objective and rational, Pete being chief among them, who are trying to raise concerns in the most public and far-reaching forum (internet or otherwise) this City has and the response from those involved is "Go home, you're drunk"?

[Pete]

Honest questions:

If there was corruption or complete mismanagement in City dealings -- and I'm not saying that is at all the case with this project -- how would anyone know about it?

And why is the public and press so wiling and ready to investigate and judge the state government (those idiots on Lincoln!) and at the same time just assuming that people with similar responsibilities at the City level are somehow above reproach?


There were big front page headlines yesterday about a state senator spending $64,000 on an unknown project.

Today another $265,000 will be awarded Populous because of mistakes made in the convention center process, and few will question it. As I've documented, Project 180 has been dramatically over budget, under scope and way, way past the promised timelines. And millions of TIF dollars are dispensed without any formal guidelines or parameters whatsoever.


It's a crazy double-standard.

[Rover]

So everyone who cares about OKC and follows this as closely as possible should just sit quietly and trust our ruling-class overlords on a project that has just completely come off the rails after four years of work? What country are we living in?

What 'actual information' has been revealed and attacked? All I see is a bunch of condescending and vague references to "things in the works" that the great unwashed are clearly not entitled to know about.

Pete, you are above this response. No one is advocating underhanded behind the scenes dealings. At the same time, everything isn't underhanded and corrupt.

There are LOTS of frustrated people on this deal. There have clearly been big mistakes made and lots of good people just trying to figure out what to propose as a fix.

[Stickman]

Honest questions:

If there was corruption or complete mismanagement in City dealings -- and I'm not saying that is at all the case with this project -- how would anyone know about it?

And why is the public and press so wiling and ready to investigate and judge the state government (those idiots on Lincoln!) and at the same time just assuming that people with similar responsibilities at the City level are somehow above reproach?


There were big front page headlines yesterday about a state senator spending $64,000 on an unknown project.

Today another $265,000 will be awarded Populous because of mistakes made in the convention center process, and few will question it. As I've documented, Project 180 has been dramatically over budget, under scope and way, way past the promised timelines. And millions of TIF dollars are dispensed without any formal guidelines or parameters whatsoever.


It's a crazy double-standard.

I doubt Malicious or nefarious thoughts are going on with the City, maybe ineptness, and/or short-sighted planning is my guess. Mistakes happen; but you need to OWN them when they do.
John Q. is forgiving until you lie to him late in the game. OWN it now with public relations because they are going to have to go back to the table for the monies.

[Pete]

Pete, you are above this response. No one is advocating underhanded behind the scenes dealings. At the same time, everything isn't underhanded and corrupt.

Strawman. I don't see anyone saying "everything is underhanded and corrupt".

Mismanaged, yes. That's been well established and that's generally what we've been talking about... And what exactly is wrong with that?


I also deeply resent the attempts to negatively characterize what has been informed (as informed as the process will allow), educated and constructive attempts to think through the options.

We have people going to the meetings and reading all the documents and talking to decisions makers. Again, if this discussion is as misguided as a few would like to suggest, that is a complete indictment of the process, not the people discussing it.

[catch22]

Strawman. I don't see anyone saying "everything is underhanded and corrupt".

Mismanaged, yes. That's been well established and that's generally what we've been talking about... And what exactly is wrong with that?


I also deeply resent the attempts to negatively characterize what has been informed (as informed as the process will allow), educated and constructive attempts to think through the options.

We have people going to the meetings and reading all the documents and talking to decisions makers. Again, if this discussion is as misguided as a few would like to suggest, that is a complete indictment of the process, not the people discussing it.

What public meetings? The convention center "public meetings" are a dog and pony show to reveal information that has already been decided upon.

[jn1780]

I guess these meetings are a waste of time if the information presented is already irrelevant only one week after? And people wonder why voter turn out is so low.

[Teo9969]

Pete, you are above this response. No one is advocating underhanded behind the scenes dealings. At the same time, everything isn't underhanded and corrupt.

There are LOTS of frustrated people on this deal. There have clearly been big mistakes made and lots of good people just trying to figure out what to propose as a fix.

But those involved have yet to come out with even a public admission of mistakes made, let alone an apology for the irresponsibility which is definitely warranted. They're trying to save face. It's not that they were corrupt, and I don't think most here are genuinely concerned that that is the issue, even if they hint at it…talk of corruption is a rhetorical game being run to garner more transparency and public accountability.

It's a very easy situation to address, even if the solutions to the problems are not easy to figure out, and that's what's frustrating:

"Dear public,

We included a convention center in the docket for MAPS 3 because our current facilities are quickly becoming obsolete and much interest has been expressed for our city as a destination by convention planners. Our hope with the new convention center is that we will be able to construct a new facility that serves both the OKC public and out of town conventions with a facility, and that we are able to incorporate the facility into downtown in such a way that it complements its surroundings and breeds success for both itself, and for the immediate area in which it is placed.

This vision has been met with some significant setbacks due to a variety of circumstances, some foreseeable and preventable, some not. We regret that the process we have taken has included the following setbacks [list of foreseeable setbacks]. We apologize to the public for making these mistakes.

Since MAPS 3 was passed, downtown has experienced an unprecedented and unforeseeable boom that requires that we take a different approach to the convention center project. We budgeted an amount for land acquisition that, at the time, was an amount that was expected to be competitive in the market. In the past 5 years since the vote, downtown real estate values have increased at an unpredictable rate and we no longer have adequate funding to build not only what we originally envisioned which was for a downtown and city that was expected to grow at a more modest rate, but for a facility that we must re-imagine as more competitive and complimentary to the downtown we are on pace to build over the next 30 years.

We are looking into a variety of funding mechanisms including [list of funding mechanisms] to build the competitive and complimentary facility this city needs. We will be selecting a final site for this project in July of this year and later in the year present a more comprehensive plan to the public that addresses all of the projects needs.

We ask that the public be understanding of the setbacks and we ask that the public understand our regret and accept our apology for the mistakes made so far. We will, as we always have, come together as a community to use this opportunity to make an even better city than we envisioned when we passed MAPS 3 in 2009.

Thank you for your understanding.

-The CC committee and City officials"

[Stickman]

But those involved have yet to come out with even a public admission of mistakes made, let alone an apology for the irresponsibility which is definitely warranted. They're trying to save face. It's not that they were corrupt, and I don't think most here are genuinely concerned that that is the issue, even if they hint at it…talk of corruption is a rhetorical game being run to garner more transparency and public accountability.

It's a very easy situation to address, even if the solutions to the problems are not easy to figure out, and that's what's frustrating:

"Dear public,

We included a convention center in the docket for MAPS 3 because our current facilities are quickly becoming obsolete and much interest has been expressed for our city as a destination by convention planners. Our hope with the new convention center is that we will be able to construct a new facility that serves both the OKC public and out of town conventions with a facility, and that we are able to incorporate the facility into downtown in such a way that it complements its surroundings and breeds success for both itself, and for the immediate area in which it is placed.

This vision has been met with some significant setbacks due to a variety of circumstances, some foreseeable and preventable, some not. We regret that the process we have taken has included the following setbacks [list of foreseeable setbacks]. We apologize to the public for making these mistakes.

Since MAPS 3 was passed, downtown has experienced an unprecedented and unforeseeable boom that requires that we take a different approach to the convention center project. We budgeted an amount for land acquisition that, at the time, was an amount that was expected to be competitive in the market. In the past 5 years since the vote, downtown real estate values have increased at an unpredictable rate and we no longer have adequate funding to build not only what we originally envisioned which was for a downtown and city that was expected to grow at a more modest rate, but for a facility that we must re-imagine as more competitive and complimentary to the downtown we are on pace to build over the next 30 years.

We are looking into a variety of funding mechanisms including [list of funding mechanisms] to build the competitive and complimentary facility this city needs. We will be selecting a final site for this project in July of this year and later in the year present a more comprehensive plan to the public that addresses all of the projects needs.

We ask that the public be understanding of the setbacks and we ask that the public understand our regret and accept our apology for the mistakes made so far. We will, as we always have, come together as a community to use this opportunity to make an even better city than we envisioned when we passed MAPS 3 in 2009.

Thank you for your understanding.

-The CC committee and City officials"

Sounds reasonable to me.
Would sound better if the Mayor would say it.

Then get on with buying the land and worry about the designs and costs later.
Land owners are sticking up for sale signs the last two weeks, I guess they figure their property will be worth more if they put a price on it.