Why Vote No - Video

[betts]

I am sorry people thought I was out of line. But, we've been subjected to the microscope as well, and in many places, much less kindly. I don't mind people opjecting, but I do mind them using minsinformation to do so. We've all read all sorts of posts about the NBA not having any economic impact, and I do think that's correct for the regular season. I have agreed with the naysayers, or at most tried to point out areas I thought they might be wrong. But I had corrected Mr. Glover in another place at an earlier time and he actually changed his story somewhat. When he then used the same misinformation again, it looks like an attempt to influence people without good data. That is precisely what they are accusing the "pro" side of doing, so they should be prepared for their data to withstand scrutiny. Also, I'm really tired of the "no" peopel assuring everyone we're getting a team anyway, when there's no data to support that statement either. At least we have a few people who have told us that is the case, and in the past they've been people we could trust. I object to personal attacks on the owners, when to my mind, the owners have been great philanthropists to the community for years, and I see this as being another philanthropic gesture.

Why can't the people who want to vote "no" just say they don't want to pay any more taxes? Why distort the facts? I don't even mind them saying they want a team and don't want to pay for it, but at least please admit there's no data saying we'll get a team if we we don't pass the tax proposal.

If this doesn't pass, all the "no' people will be celebrating, and then what? At least the "no" people in Seattle have two other teams. We'll have none, and we'll be competing with Omaha for conventions and concerts. And competing with Laredo, Bossier City and cities like that with our CHL hockey team. I believe we deserve more. I think we're ready for more.

[DavidGlover]

How much per person/voter would be unacceptable to you? $10 20 50 100 200? Dollars each? It comes down to what you think it is worth. I think a much smarter option is get a bond and charge extra for the tickets.

[betts]

Let's look at even the highest amount here: $200 per person, which is probably too high as well. That's $20,000 spent on food, restaurants and miscellaneous items per person for 15 months. That money is spent over 487 days, which comes to about 43 cents a day. I voted for MAPS, and MAPS for kids, despite the fact that I don't watch baseball, I rarely go to the Civic Center, I never go to the public library and I have not, nor have I ever had any, children in Oklahoma City schools. I am in favor of supporting all of these things because they are good for my community. I'm excited about a renovated Ford Center, even if we don't get a team, because I think it has a much better chance of being a showpiece, it will be the gateway to Core to Shore, and I think having an NBA team will promote more people living and recreating downtown, which I believe will make public transit more workable. I hate urban sprawl, and the more we have downtown to do, the more we can combat it. As I said, I'm fine with a ticket tax, but even with a $10 ticket tax, which would make most events downtown prohibitively expensive for low income people, it would take six to ten years to pay off the remodel, without even counting the interest on the bonds. I like the idea of people of all income levels and families being able to go to a basketball game, and you need a $10 ticket to make it affordable.

[DavidGlover]

If you are truly concerned about something that is "prohibitively expensive" you wouldn't want to tax the 90% of poor and middle income citizens that will never use the center. Hilarious. Great regressive tax. I know you can afford it. But should we force everyone else? I feel there are more important things. But the media blitz paid by god knows who - thinks differently.

[dcsooner]

David/Betts you both make some compelling arguments, but, I want to keep it simple, OKC, in my opinion, is at a crossroads. After the boom and bust nature of our economy, the city has for the past 10 years managed to reinvent itself via primarily public then private investment, that is an indisputable fact. This referendum is about much more that JUST basketball, it is a referendum on continuing the city's progress through investment in itself. Will the owners reap some economic benefit yes, but they deserve it. They have all proven to be exceptional corporate citizens and have spent millions of dollars on this team and around the city. These are rich guys, but they have proven their commitment to our city and State. They have created jobs, participated in philantrophy, and bought up space in our downtown so that it wouldn't become a ghost town, Started new corporations that brought jobs to the city. I am a native Oklahoman, but I don't currently live in the State, but I can tell you that other natives in this area are dying for the NBA, at home. Many would likely return to the city with of course more job opportunities, but belive me when I say entertainment options to include professional sports are something that is widely desired. People have a right to disagree, but, I hope the citizens of OKC understand that this is really their moment to take a quantum leap forward towards a revised perception and in my opinion that more than warrants a yes vote on Mar 4.

[Doug Loudenback]

If you are truly concerned about something that is "prohibitively expensive" you wouldn't want to tax the 90% of poor and middle income citizens that will never use the center. Hilarious. Great regressive tax. I know you can afford it. But should we force everyone else? I feel there are more important things. But the media blitz paid by god knows who - thinks differently.

I wish that the "media blitz" were even stronger than it is, even if paid for by "god knows who."

[bornhere]

Since everyone else is repeating their points, I'll repeat mine:

An NBA team is going to be a money pit that sucks cash out of the city treasury for years to come. Once the arena improvements pass, the terms of the lease will be revealed, and they'll be a huge giveaway to the Sonics.

"We've come this far," the chamber and the mayor will say, "now it's time to go all the way and make Oklahoma City a major league city!"

Citizens won't get to vote on that - just a bunch of council members who know that if they vote 'no,' the Bennett/Gaylord/Oklahoman axis will be screaming for their indictments.

[Karried]

Keeping it simple .... when the Hornets came to OKC and we were recognized nationally and in a positive light (cleanliness, safety, incredible fan support) we were now thought of as more than just a dustbowl, a city associated with a bombing, meth capital, most obese state in the nation, highest rate of child abuse, highest poverty level, boring, nothing to do here, etc etc ....

the feeling of pride in our city and state was worth a million bucks.

Those voting NO keep saying the poor will pay for it... well, the poor will also reap the benefits of an enhanced city image as well when tourism increases, corporations relocate here and people elsewhere stop thinking so negatively of OKC.

The momentum we have going will come to a screeching halt if this vote doesn't happen.

It will be such a travesty to let this opportunity pass us by.

[windowphobe]

If you are truly concerned about something that is "prohibitively expensive" you wouldn't want to tax the 90% of poor and middle income citizens that will never use the center. Hilarious.

Indeed. My children are grown and live out of state, which means that my usage of the Oklahoma City Public Schools is going to be nil for the foreseeable future. Am I entitled to get $450 in property taxes back?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

[Karried]

Can someone break it down .... where exactly is this penny sales tax going to come from?

Tax on goods purchased?

Tax on services rendered...

Gas tax?

Restaurant/Cooked food?

Groceries?

Please give examples of where this tax is going to come from.

[bornhere]

"most obese state in the nation, highest rate of child abuse, highest poverty level"

But all these things went away when the Hornets arrived.

the feeling of pride in our city and state was worth a million bucks.

One thing I don't get is why people would feel pride in having a bunch of professional athletes come to town and play a game while they watched. I wasn't embarrassed by the Hornets in any way, but I didn't have any sense of them making this a better city.

This is like peope leasing some huge SUV they can't actually afford because it makes them feel like they're somehow better than the other drivers on the road in smaller vehicles. It's just marketing hype and they've fallen for it.

I'm much more proud of the progress we've made in improving parks and other elements of our city's infrastructure.

[Karried]

[QUOTE]
"most obese state in the nation, highest rate of child abuse, highest poverty level"

But all these things went away when the Hornets arrived.

How ridiculous.

Completely missed the point.... which was, we were actually recognized for something positive for a change... most people have never been to OK (no reason) and all they know is what they read or hear.

It was the positives of the experience being emphasized, not the fact that an NBA team was here.

Like I said before>

when the Hornets came to OKC and we were recognized nationally and in a positive light (cleanliness, safety, incredible fan support)

[DavidGlover]

"1% on the gross proceeds or gross receipts derived from all sales taxable under the sales tax laws of the State of Oklahoma (Oklahoma City)." for 12 or 15 months.

[betts]

One thing I don't get is why people would feel pride in having a bunch of professional athletes come to town and play a game while they watched. I wasn't embarrassed by the Hornets in any way, but I didn't have any sense of them making this a better city.

I'm much more proud of the progress we've made in improving parks and other elements of our city's infrastructure.

There are many different kinds of leisure time activity enjoyed by different people. As I've said, I've not used the public libraries. I like owning books and it's never been something I've wanted to use. I have gone to one Redhawks game, but I think the stadium is very attractive, and it's a great replacement for what existed in it's location previously. I went to the river park for the first time a couple of weeks ago. Because I'd never been there before, does that mean I shouldn't have paid for it? I've never been on a canal boat in Bricktown, and I rarely go there, although I did when the Hornets were here. So, should I object to my money paying for it? And again, should everyone who has kids in school pay tuition, so that those of us who have never used the Oklahoma City public schools don't have to pay for other people's children to go to school? Personally, I like basketball, and I believe that since I have paid for people to use parks, schools, art museums, libraries, etc, that it's not unreasonable of me to think people who don't like basketball might contribute. Especially since, there are many other uses for the arena and people who don't like basketball may enjoy some of them.

It's not as if other cities haven't built far nicer arenas than ours, even without basketball teams. Tulsa's new arena is going to be far nicer than ours is, Wichita is building a new arena, Omaha has a relatively new arena and that building cost over $300 million dollars, Kansas City, Louisville all have $300 million plus arenas and no basketball team. I think it's time that we upgraded our arean, to compete with theirs. Kansas City is lobbying to host the Big Twelve basketball tournament full time. Tulsa sent in a proposal last year. I'm sure Omaha either has or is considering it. I'd like to see Oklahoma City at least keep even with these other midwestern cities that are smaller than us, Kansas City excepted.

By building an arena, it doesn't mean you cannot have a park. This is a 15 month tax. It will be over before we know it. And we will have an arena we can be proud of, and a very good chance to host an NBA team. Even if you don't like basketball (see Richard Hefton's op ed piece in the NBA in OKC thread), there are many things a team brings to a city.

[metro]

If you are truly concerned about something that is "prohibitively expensive" you wouldn't want to tax the 90% of poor and middle income citizens that will never use the center. Hilarious. Great regressive tax. I know you can afford it. But should we force everyone else? I feel there are more important things. But the media blitz paid by god knows who - thinks differently.

Again David, you're being subjective and fail to look at the bigger picture. As betts and others pointed out numerous times, we all pay taxes that go to things that we don't use. I pay plenty of taxes (including property tax) that go to OKC Public Schools, and I don't have any kids, I'm sure some of my state and federal taxes help pay for welfare, WIC, and other things that I don't use, but I don't mind paying these things because they are for the greater good of the community. Again, you're assuming only residents who live in OKC proper (not suburbs or visitors/tourists) are not paying ONE CENT of taxes which we know is not true. Again, in THEORY a user tax might be a better option, but again, that's not the option on the table, and as betts and others said, that would take years to pay off and we would have to issue bonds, and then pay the interest on that. To me that doesn't make good financial sense. Why not pay for it in cash as we raise the money? Kind of like the principal of don't spend more than you make! Again, if the poor or elderly or concerned about this tax extension (not raise) they can request a tax refund as betts pointed out above.

[Oh GAWD the Smell!]

Keeping it simple .... when the Hornets came to OKC and we were recognized nationally and in a positive light (cleanliness, safety, incredible fan support) we were now thought of as more than just a dustbowl, a city associated with a bombing, meth capital, most obese state in the nation, highest rate of child abuse, highest poverty level, boring, nothing to do here, etc etc ....

the feeling of pride in our city and state was worth a million bucks.

Those voting NO keep saying the poor will pay for it... well, the poor will also reap the benefits of an enhanced city image as well when tourism increases, corporations relocate here and people elsewhere stop thinking so negatively of OKC.

The momentum we have going will come to a screeching halt if this vote doesn't happen.

It will be such a travesty to let this opportunity pass us by.

I don't even care for basketball, but for these reasons alone, I'll be voting yes.

Indeed. My children are grown and live out of state, which means that my usage of the Oklahoma City Public Schools is going to be nil for the foreseeable future. Am I entitled to get $450 in property taxes back?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

Hell, I don't even HAVE kids, and I probably put a dozen of them through school every year with my taxes.

[Doug Loudenback]

David, I've taken it upon myself to make close notes of what you said to the Council on Monday. I've done my best to be accurate where I've quoted or paraphrased your verbal comments. You are invited to correct me if I got what you said wrong. Nothing said below is intended to disrespect you personally ... just some of your conclusions, comments, and observations.

One. David holds up a book, Free Lunch, a book that he described as being about how the wealthiest Americans enrich themselves at government expense and stick us the taxpayers with the bill. Is it possible that this new proposal for the Ford Center is a little like "Maps for Millionaires?"

Anything is possible. The question here is whether the March 4 proposal fits that description. The Professional Basketball Club (PBC) paid $350M to acquire the Sonics and Storm. They will get some of that back of the Storm's sale to Seattle people is improved, but not much. They probably spent, or will spend, another $50M in Washington arena proposals, litigation expenses, and relocation costs before this is all done. Sure, the owners are millionaires or better – who else wold have the potential of acquiring an NBA team which might, hopefully will, wind up in Oklahoma City? It certainly would not be a consortium composed of Doug Dawg, Betts, Solitude, Midtowner, CuatrodeMayo and David Glover! Well, maybe I should only speak for myself – I certainly would not fall within the group of people that such expenditures would be a possibility.

My point is, if Oklahoma City is ever going to become a host of an NBA team, it is because of the rich guys who are in a position to make that happen. It won't be because of the unwealthy like me.

Rather than knocking these Oklahoma City guys because they have a life style that I can only dream of – and at age 64, I don't do that kind of dreaming anymore – why not just say, "Yea! Thank you Gawd! Oklahoma City has some millionaires who are willing to spend a heck of a lot of dough in an endeavor which, it turns out, will benefit their hometown?" It was CuatrodeMayo who earlier commented PBC's expenditure as being "philanthropy," and that's what I think Oklahoma City's opportunity has turned out to be. The unwise even if candid comment by partner Aubrey McClendon in the Journal Record (which cost him $250K for saying what was in his mind to say) probably says it best:

"But we didn't buy the team to keep it in Seattle; we hoped to come here," McClendon, chief executive of Chesapeake Energy, told The Journal Record in Oklahoma. "We know it's a little more difficult financially here in Oklahoma City, but we think it's great for the community and if we could break even, we'd be thrilled."

You get no points from me, David, in using catch manipulative phrases like, "Maps for Millionaires," which are presumably intended to turn the non-millionaires masses to oppose this proposal.

Doug Dawgz rating on this argument (0-10 scale): The big zero.

Two. Paraphrased, you said that the $121 M improvement that works out to 235,000 eligible voters in Oklahoma City, for over $500 per voter.

This is clearly not accurate, David. We don't differentiate in sales taxes who "buy stuff" in Oklahoma City for people who live in Edmond, Midwest City, Norman, Moore, Muskogee, etc., such as: Class 1 sales tax: Live in corporate city limits? Your sales tax is X. Class 2 sales tax: Live in metro Okc but not corporate city? Your sales tax is Y. Class 3 sales tax: Live outside the Okc Metro? Your sales tax is Z. Your argument is fundamentally flawed.

Doug Dawgz rating on this argument (0-10 scale): Another zero.

Three. Paraphrased, you said: Studies by independent economists and scholars on the topic ... a rare agreement exists on this topic ... conclusion is basically this: arena necessities are one of the worst ways to stimulate the economy.

I suppose you read the comments by OCU economics professor what's his name in the newspaper article quoted elsewhere in one of the theads here. No such unanimity exists.

But, more importantly, I'll ask you: Did any of the economics experts you mention focus in on a city like our own? Which is to say, a city with ... (1) no professional sports team at all; (2) an under-the-radar "image" for the nation at large, certainly on the world stage; (3) an image typically identified with (a) the Dust Bowl era; and/or (b) the Murrah bombing; and/or (c) double-wide trailers; and/or (d) ala Charles Barkley's initial comments sometime back, not a good place for "Blacks" to be? You find such a survey/analysis, and then I'll listen. However, I'll give you a few points for having the potential of an argument.

Doug Dawgz rating on this argument (0-10 scale): Three points.

Four. Paraphrased, you said that court documents in Seattle by the Sonics say that the financial issue is simple – there is no net economic loss if the Sonics leave Seattle. The economic explanation is simple and easy to understand: the substitution effect. Entertainment money will be spent at one place or another, so is economically neutral.

The problem with this observation is that Seattle is not Oklahoma City. Seattle is a hugely larger market than Oklahoma City is and it is identified as being a major "Pacific Rim" city, has three major league teams, as well as mega zillionaries Bill Gates and other fabulously wealthy people living there with very major corporations. Not to disrespect the corporations in Oklahoma City who are here and who are corporately beneficent here, but I don't think that you'll find a Microsoft and/or a Bill Gates among them (thank gawd ... sorry for injecting my irrelevant personal opinion). The effect on Seattle losing the Sonics pales in comparison to the potential effect of an NBA team landing in Oklahoma City. What is possibly true for Seattle has little or no bearing on what is possibly true for Oklahoma City.

Doug Dawgz rating on this argument (0-10 scale): Another zero. Apples and oranges type of thing. It doesn't compute.

Five. Where is it said, "Make these improvements to the Ford Center or we won't come."

Nowhere. The PBC certainly never said such a thing before it filed its application to relocate to Oklahoma City. If not the PBC, then who?

It doesn't take a good tea leaves reader to figure that one out. From whom do you suppose that the Mayor became persuaded that unless the improvements and practice facility be paid for by the city (you, me) that Oklahoma City's acceptance by the NBA would be a done deal? The NBA BOG "mayor"is David Stern. One "mayor" communicated with another. Our mayor knew that the BOG would meet in April to decide on PBC's application to move to Okc. The NBA "mayor" informed Okc's "mayor" of the price tag. At least, that's what I think. But, since all of my opinions and yours on the matter are based on speculation, I'll give you a few points but not a lot since I'm doing the ratings that I make!

Doug Dawgz rating on this argument (0-10 scale): 4, since neither of us "knows" for sure.

Six. Where do we think the 5 owners of Oklahoma City's Sonics team want to have the team?

Here, for sure ... after the attempt to persuade in Washington failed. Before that happened, maybe the "secret" (but for McClendon's comments, above) hope was to get the team here, but that hope didn't "mature" until Washington cratered ... just like and for the same reasons that you're wanting Okc to crater today. It worked there ... maybe it will work here, too. Sonics leave Seattle and go to ... Kansas City, Anaheim, Las Vegas, wherever. Your arguments are virtually the same as Van Dyk's (as is your phrase, "more important things") ... and look where that got Seattle. It probably cost them the Sonics. I don't want to go to that place, too.

Doug Dawgz rating on this argument (0-10 scale): Another zero because your point is irrelevant. What the BOG does is.

Seven. Who are the largest contributors to the well orchestrated media blitz to convince taxpayers that these improvements are necessary?

I have no idea and I don't care. I'd certainly be one of them if I had the bucks. As it is, I'm left to my measly attempts at blog persuasion, as well as here and sometimes at OkcMet.org. While I've contributed no bucks, I've spent a good bit of time, and, as they say, "time is money." But, what does "who contributed what" have to do with whether the "idea"is a good one or not? Nothing at all, in my opinion. What I do care about is getting a team if we can ... and getting a much much better arena if we can't. It's a no-lose proposition.

Doug Dawgz rating on this argument (0-10 scale): Another zero.

Eight. Where will the $120 M put us? The NBA Commissioner, the NBA president, the Mayor, and the owners have all said something interesting: Oklahoma City is at the top of the list for relocation. And I believe that. Oklahoma City has proved itself better than any city in the nation that we can handle and support a team. So where does the $121 M buy us? Do we become, "topper" of the list?

"Top of the List?" Yes, Stern did say that, and we all remember it fondly from the last home game of the Hornets in Okc. That was then, and this is now. Stern's got his "business" hat on today. Your hinging your position on what Stern said at the last home game in Oklahoma City before a die-hard Oklahoma City crowd seems pretty shaky to me. While I'm not doubting that he expressed his genuine sentiment at that last game, we are now in the "real world" of NBA stuff, where sentiment is less significant than is economic viability of an NBA franchise. As for the others you mention other than the NBA Commissioner, while I presently do not recall the "others" group having said the same thing as the Commissioner did, if they did they were likely quoting the same source, the Commissioner.

Doug Dawgz rating on this argument (0-10 scale): Another zero.

Nine. Oklahoma City has proved itself better than any city in the nation that we can handle and support a team.

Not at all the case. While we (me) were certainly thrilled with our support of the Hornets, Oklahoma City's experience/experiment lasted only 2 seasons and could well be a flash in the pan. The 1st was the best. The 2nd waned somewhat since we knew the Hornets were gone from our corral but it was still good. But, Okc cannot be said to have a record like several other NBA cities in supporting their team. The most obvious example is San Antonio which sells out most every game ... I've no researched to see whether that was true before the Spurs became the perennial powerhouse that they've become. Check out Detroit, Chicago, Phoenix, Cleveland, and others, before jumping to the conclusion that you have.

Perhaps the closest possible analogy relates to Salt Lake City since it has a similar market size and arena size, too. Unless is now configured differently than it was in 2005-06, the Salt Lake arena has a capacity of 19,911, Okc 19,163 or 19,164. The Salt Lake metropolitan area population is said by Wikipedia to be 1,018,826 in 2006, and Okc's 1,172,339, presumably using the same measurement standards. In other words, were both "small" markets in the NBA scheme of things.

Checking ESPN's ESPN - NBA Attendance - National Basketball Association pages, the following history is presented for paid attendance and NBA city attendance rank:

Year ........ Utah.................... Okc
2002-03 ....19,171 (7th)........ n/a
2003-04.....19,135 (5th)..........n/a
2004-05.....18,8756 (8th)........n/a
2005-06.....18,332 (10th *).....18,718 (9th for partial season) (*Utah was officially 9th)
2006-07.....19,568 (6th)..........17,954 (15th for partial season)
2007-08.....19,905 (5th)..........n/a

While I'm quite proud of what Oklahoma City did, we have a long way to go before we can be said to be, "better than any city in the nation that we can handle and support a team." The book is still out on that. Whether the March 4 vote passes or fails will give information about that, too. In addition to the tangible items on the ballot, the vote is just as much about answering the intangible question, "Is Oklahoma City willing to pay the price and make the commitment to become an NBA city?" Still, I'll give you some points because we actually did a very nice job.

Doug Dawgz rating on this argument (0-10 scale): 6 points.

Ten. David Stern just said recently about Seattle, that the move and relocation to Oklahoma City is inevitable. Shouldn't we ... let's just go with the inevitable and save taxpayers money?

That's not what he said, David. Stern said that it was inevitable that the Sonics were/would be leaving Seattle, but nowhere in Stern's remarks will you find that he said that the team would be relocating to Oklahoma City. So, you get "bad" points from me on this since the hyperbole doesn't match the literal words that were spoken and you should have known better.

Doug Dawgz rating on this argument (0-10 scale): I don't have any "minus" scores or you'd get one. As it is, another zero.

Eleven. Isn't the best way to attract corporations to a city good schools, roads, parks, mass transit? Isn't this better than subsidizing a pro sports franchise?

We're winding down on a 3 year Maps for Schools tax, ending in December when the Arena tax would commence. We've just passed another huge bond program for streets, parks, maybe bridges (I don't recall what was included). Mass transit is a whole other topic which would overwhelmingly dwarf the costs of upgrading the arena – a pittance and ludicrous by comparison, from a practical point of view. So, in context, my answer is, "No." In context, it would be better to get an NBA team, right now or as soon as that can happen. Calling the arena upgrade a "subsidy" is your term, not mine. This is OKLAHOMA CITY'S ARENA, and it can and should be our "showcase" even if an NBA team did not locate here. The arena needs the upgrades for a good number of other reasons. But, any NBA team that would locate here is not the only beneficiary – the main beneficiaries are you and me.

Doug Dawgz rating on this argument (0-10 scale): Another zero.

Twelve. Do you really think the taxpayers want you to take their money, and put in marble [?] walkways, competing restaurants and bars and luxury sky boxes for the super rich? Do you really think the taxpayers want their money?

This is yet another manipulative way of crafting your syntax. While it's certainly true that a goodly portion of the improvements are intended to increase revenues by those who can afford to pay for them (suite additions, etc.), that is expected of a modern NBA arena. Such things generate revenue and can make the difference between profits and/or losses. You do want an NBA team to succeed financially if it moves here, right?

But, what you don't mention is that many of the improvements will make it better for average guys/gals like you and me and Betts, etc. To be fair and if that's what you were attempting, you should have not made it seem that only the wealthy would derive the benefits from the proposed changes to the Ford Center.

Here's the drawing of the main concourse and planned changes ...



Here's the drawing for the upper concourse changes ...



So, sure there are luxury improvements ... just as there are for guys and gals and kids who sit in the cheap seats. Your omission about such thinks could be said to evidence a personal agenda rather than one that is intended to focus on accuracy.

Doug Dawgz rating on this argument (0-10 scale): Sorry, but it's another zero.

Thirteen. Is giving up naming rights to the owners worth 10s of millions of dollars a good deal to the taxpayers?

Unless my eyes are totally out of whack, the proposed ordinance says nothing at all about "naming rights." The complete ordinance and ballot is here: Doug Dawgz Blog: Ford Center Initiative . Naming rights are not mentioned in any context. Lease terms aren't even on the table and they won't be unless the NBA says that the Sonics can relocate to Oklahoma City. Naming rights and other things will then be on the table. But, to say that such things are involved with the March 4 vote is totally false and misleading.

Doug Dawgz rating on this argument (0-10 scale): Zero. It would be a minus zero were the ratings set up that way.

Fourteen. Is a master tenant clause that usually is done in these cases which basically gives over the arena to billionaire owners a good deal for us on a facility that they've invested nothing.

I wouldn't know what is typical and, as said above, lease terms are not on the table as yet in any event. But, I don't suppose that the NCAA, the Big 12, Jon Bon Jovi, Billy Graham, the Blazers, the arena football team (stupid me, I don't even remember its name), or any others that put on shows for Oklahoma Citians and those beyond the city who want to come have a duty to help finance OUR arena, do they? This arena exists for the sole purpose of benefitting this city and its inhabitants by providing a great entertainment venue. And you object that we actually might be getting our biggest, ongoing, amazing tenant that we could possibly have?

Doug Dawgz rating on this argument (0-10 scale): Zero.

Summing it up: The choice is between doing the best for the most people or doing the most for the millionaires. [?]ing these kinds of taxes can raise big questions for people about the priorities of a system that will gold dip the arena while schools, mass transit, parks, roads and bridges are literally crumbling.

Summing it up, Doug Dawgz score of your arguments/comments, above, is as follows:

Item # ... Possible .... David
One.............10...............0
Two.............10...............0
Three............10...............3
Four.............10...............0
Five..............10...............4
Six.................10...............0
Seven...........10...............0
Eight.............10...............0
Nine..............10...............6
Ten..............10...............0
Eleven.........10...............0
Twelve.........10...............0
Thirteen.......10...............0
Fourteen......10...............0
Totals........140..............13

And there you are, my man! If you playz the game, you gets da pain!

[Easy180]

I wish that the "media blitz" were even stronger than it is, even if paid for by "god knows who."

Doug I am seeing the Cornett ad's often now...I know he believes that most people make up their minds in the last two weeks so I think we will see them more and more until the vote

Even though I am 100% for this vote I do believe the ad's are convincing enough to sway the undecideds...I would hope they would be hesitant to slow down the city's momentum since it is just an extension

[bretthexum]

Doug - I agree with most of your posts. However, I don't agree with this one.

But, what you don't mention is that many of the improvements will make it better for average guys/gals like you and me and Betts, etc. To be fair and if that's what you were attempting, you should have not made it seem that only the wealthy would derive the benefits from the proposed changes to the Ford Center.

I'd like to see a breakdown on where the money is going towards the Ford Center. II understood that the biggest driver towards this is to upgrade the "luxury" suites, etc. I don't really care if I walk on concrete or marble when I am in the arena.

What else besides aesthetics is the average Joe going to get in the new Ford Center?

[Karried]

What else besides aesthetics is the average Joe going to get in the new Ford Center?

Hopefully, the Sonics.

But, I don't think you can't discount aesthetics too much. It's a great thing to visit and to bring out of town visitors to a beautiful venue.

[Easy180]

Enhancing the suites are only a small part of the upgrade...They are already nice so I doubt there will be much done other than some fancier furniture and tv's

Average joes will definitely benefit (aesthetically) from this upgrade....Better food, concessions, team store, bathrooms, main entrance, outside sky garden areas, restaurant among other things

[TStheThird]

After spending a year in Seattle trying to get a new arena paid for by the tax payers, I doubt the BOG would approve a move to OKC if the PBC were planning to spend $120 Million of their own money to improve the Ford Center. For them to move, OKC has to show the same commitment they were asking Seattle to make. If we pull a Seattle, the egg will be on our face. Simple as that.

[betts]

After spending a year in Seattle trying to get a new arena paid for by the tax payers, I doubt the BOG would approve a move to OKC if the PBC were planning to spend $120 Million of their own money to improve the Ford Center. For them to move, OKC has to show the same commitment they were asking Seattle to make. If we pull a Seattle, the egg will be on our face. Simple as that.

I couldn't agree more. This is why I believe Mayor Cornett when he says we've got to pass this tax proposal to get a team.

[Doug Loudenback]

Doug - I agree with most of your posts. However, I don't agree with this one.

But, what you don't mention is that many of the improvements will make it better for average guys/gals like you and me and Betts, etc. To be fair and if that's what you were attempting, you should have not made it seem that only the wealthy would derive the benefits from the proposed changes to the Ford Center.

I'd like to see a breakdown on where the money is going towards the Ford Center. II understood that the biggest driver towards this is to upgrade the "luxury" suites, etc. I don't really care if I walk on concrete or marble when I am in the arena.

What else besides aesthetics is the average Joe going to get in the new Ford Center?

As for expenditure detail and not that its 100% complete, see Doug Dawgz Blog: Ford Center Initiative and related sources there which may give the detail you are looking for.

As for "agreeing" with what I've said, no need exists that you do so. My singular focus was upon replying to what David "spoke" in his Monday City Council appearance, nothing more or less, and I was merely stating my opinions on what David said then and in the same order that he spoke the oral remarks which he did. If I misquoted or mis-paraphrased him, as I said, I stand to be corrected. Let me know.

As long as my post was, it was not intended to be a "treatise" on everything that is my opinion to say ... it was merely intended to be a rejoinder to what David actually did say. If there is something you want more elaboration upon, merely identify what you have in mind and I'll do my best to reply in an intelligent way.

[DavidGlover]

Triple tax time. Tax on everyone for luxury improvements . Ticket prices will go up on everybody. Then we will need another tax for something important.