Why I am voting No.

[Karried]

I can understand both sides of the issue...

The other thing to consider, in my opinion, is that it is a great compliment to have someone who no longer lives here want to see the city prosper and do well ... someone advocating the positives of OK... someone 'cheerleading' to the rest of the nation .. .. we have a lot of posters on this board who had to move away because of job opportunities and such, and they are usually the most 'vocal' when it comes to supporting the city of OKC. ( I'm thinking HotRod, Kerry, Curt, SweetSourPoke, the owner of the site and many others).

I feel that having lived here and now in another state might offer a different perspective on how other major cities have become major cities.

I welcome opinions and input from those who have lived here and no longer do...they bring a lot to the table just as those still living here and love this city do.

I think we can all agree that regardless of where we currently reside, we all want the best for this city and state.

[bornhere]

First post.

I'm voting no because:

1. I've been given no compelling reason to vote 'yes.' Glittering generalities about being a 'major league city' or being in an essentially imaginary 'elite tier of cities' or being put 'on the map' don't mean anything to me.

Which NBA cities were elevated to the 'elite tier' by dint of getting an NBA team?

Similarly, we are told that getting an NBA team will 'get people talking about us.' Where, other than the sports pages and ESPN, will this talk be going on? Fortune? Forbes? The Economist?

2. Maybe I just missed it, but I've seen nothing about the lease/rent terms the city will have with an NBA team. Will those terms be the same that we had with the Hornets, or more generous or less generous?

3. How long will it be before the prospective NBA franchise comes back requesting or demanding further financial concessions? Three years? Five years?

4. If we approve this, how long will it be before the Chamber and other 'downtown leaders' discover that Oklahoma City has mysteriously fallen off the map again, and that we need to pony up for the NHL or the NFL or both to be 'on the map' or in 'the elite tier of cities'?

5. If we tie up our more-or-less permanent temporary sales tax for fifteen months, how will this affect other projects for which we might want to use that money? The city had a MAPS 3 plan in rough draft form which will be on hold for more than a year while we raise money for a single project focused on a single organization: the NBA.

6. On a purely personal note, a couple of the presumptive team owners in this scenario represent a number of social and political qualities I find reprehensible, and I have no desire to spend a dime of my money on them.

[betts]

Nothing makes me happier than out of towners spending tons of money to boost our economy. I would also venture to say that no one here is anymore pro sales tax than I am. But, due to my opposition regarding the collecting and expending any of my tax dollars to pay for a practice facility, for the first time since 1984 I will vote NO on a sales tax increase or extension. And I've not missed a vote.

Granted everyone has a right to weigh in and express their opinions on this issue. Even those who don't live here. But do it factually. For those who would infer that anyone who elects to vote no, regardless of their reason for doing so, hates Oklahoma City, I would simply respond with, bite me.

I understand being anti practice facility, and it's my least favorite part of the tax proposal. I just hope people realize that regardless of why you vote no, we will not get an NBA team if this proposal doesn't pass. I don't want to hear people saying "We did such a good job of supporting the Hornets, that I thought the NBA would put a team here even if we didn't pass the tax proposal." That is not going to happen. So, people who vote "no" have to accept the fact that they are voting "No NBA", and be comfortable with that fact.

[Kerry]

Thanks Kerried. I grew up in Northern California and attended OU for 5 years before moving to Florida. Although I only lived in the OKC area for 5 of my 38 years, I will always consider OKC my adopted hometown. I loved living in the OKC metro and was very sad to leave. I still remember passing the Lindsey St exit on I-35 as I drove the Ryder truck out of town thinking how much it sucked that I was leaving.

I loved going to Cavalary and Blazer games at the Myriad and then going to Bricktown for a drink after the game. That was before Bricktown was popular. I even took my father-in-law to see the Tampa Bay Storm play Ft Worth in an AFL game at the Myriad the day before we moved. I also went to see the Blazers play at State Fair Arena and caught a foul ball at All Sports Stadium when the 89ers were playing the Iowa Cubs. Name me another city in America where a broke college student had so many sports options.

[andy157]

You will spend more money on the gas used to go vote no than you will on contributing to the practice facility

Why not prove a point to the oil companies as well and just stay home that day instead

I will? The Church where I vote is less than 1,000' from my front door. No need for you to fret over the cost of my gas. I'll walk. How about this, I'll stay home, if you stay home, or I'll go vote, if you go vote. Either way we'll cancell each other out.

[betts]

First post.

I'm voting no because:

1. I've been given no compelling reason to vote 'yes.' Glittering generalities about being a 'major league city' or being in an essentially imaginary 'elite tier of cities' or being put 'on the map' don't mean anything to me.
Which NBA cities were elevated to the 'elite tier' by dint of getting an NBA team?

Charlotte, Denver, Salt Lake City, Indianapolis
Omaha, Des Moines, Little Rock, Wichita

Which group would you rather be in?

Similarly, we are told that getting an NBA team will 'get people talking about us.' Where, other than the sports pages and ESPN, will this talk be going on? Fortune? Forbes? The Economist??

Actually, Forbes has a very interesting article entitled "The Business of Basketball" every year, and they do have multiple sports related articles. How many people watch ESPN in the United States and around the world? How many people read "The Economist""? Again, there are worse things than being on the sports pages of the New York Times, Chicago Tribune, Washington Post, LA Times and USA Today 82+ times a year.

2. Maybe I just missed it, but I've seen nothing about the lease/rent terms the city will have with an NBA team. Will those terms be the same that we had with the Hornets, or more generous or less generous??

Difficult to say, although I doubt the Sonics (or Hornets) would get a $40 million guarantee like the Hornets did in 2005-7.

3. How long will it be before the prospective NBA franchise comes back requesting or demanding further financial concessions? Three years? Five years??

Again, impossible to say, although it's harder to get financial concessions when a team is already in place than when a city is trying to lure a team.

4. If we approve this, how long will it be before the Chamber and other 'downtown leaders' discover that Oklahoma City has mysteriously fallen off the map again, and that we need to pony up for the NHL or the NFL or both to be 'on the map' or in 'the elite tier of cities'?

All the data I've seen says that adding a second or third team does not cause an incremental increase in revenue or quality of life for a city, so one would have to be particularly interested in that sport to be interested in bringing one in.

5. If we tie up our more-or-less permanent temporary sales tax for fifteen months, how will this affect other projects for which we might want to use that money? The city had a MAPS 3 plan in rough draft form which will be on hold for more than a year while we raise money for a single project focused on a single organization: the NBA.

It depends on whether you think a upgrade of the Ford Center is a MAPS-like project, and a first step into a second downtown renaissance. Personally, especially since the Crosstown has four more years until completion, I'm fine with an 18 month hiatus. We already have the money to acquire downtown parkland, and there's not that much else that can be done in Core to Shore until the Crosstown is completed. One of the nice things about renovating the Ford Center is that we can see progress occurring in downtown while we wait to be able to see any from Core to Shore. It makes it feel less like things are stagnating.

6. On a purely personal note, a couple of the presumptive team owners in this scenario represent a number of social and political qualities I find reprehensible, and I have no desire to spend a dime of my money on them.

My politics are completely different from those of the owners whose politics I know. But, the Sonics owners are not bringing the team here to make bundles of money, because they won't. In fact, they've got an excellent chance of losing money or breaking even at best. So, to my way of thinking, this is a philanthropic move on their part. I believe the aphorism "Don't look a gift horse in the mouth." If these people want to do something this great for Oklahoma City, with no guarantee of financial solvency for the team, then I'm not going to let their personal politics get in the way of something that will improve my city. This is the whole flaw in the thinking of many people who oppose the arena. These owners have already spent $400 million of their money to purchase a team, and they'd like to bring it to Oklahoma City. They're not asking the city to contribute to the purchase price. Actually, they're not even asking the city to upgrade the arena. It's the NBA doing that, and even if the Sonics' owners were willing to fund the arena improvements themselves, I do not believe they would be allowed to do so by the NBA. Voting "no" is not taking a stand against Clay Bennett or Aubrey McClendon. It's simply saying "I do not want an NBA basketball team in Oklahoma City." and David Stern and the Board of Governors will take us at our word.

[metro]

Again, still no one has provided a solid reason for voting "no". Any claims that have been used have not been backed by sufficient evidence. Bornhere, care to back up your claims with sufficient data and sources? Others provided sources against your claims. We're open to being fair, but no solid evidence warrants criticism.

[jbrown84]

1. I've been given no compelling reason to vote 'yes.' Glittering generalities about being a 'major league city' or being in an essentially imaginary 'elite tier of cities' or being put 'on the map' don't mean anything to me.

sounds to me like you could care less about OKC progressing as a city.

Similarly, we are told that getting an NBA team will 'get people talking about us.' Where, other than the sports pages and ESPN, will this talk be going on? Fortune? Forbes? The Economist?

The Bees Buzz On - TIME

http://www.okctalk.com/hornets-sonic...ornets+article

http://www.okctalk.com/hornets-sonic...ornets+article

http://www.okctalk.com/hornets-sonic...ornets+article

http://www.okctalk.com/hornets-sonic...ornets+article

http://www.okctalk.com/okc-metro-are...ornets+article

http://www.okctalk.com/hornets-sonic...ornets+article

There was also a lengthy New York Times article that appeared in the main section, not sports.

2. Maybe I just missed it, but I've seen nothing about the lease/rent terms the city will have with an NBA team. Will those terms be the same that we had with the Hornets, or more generous or less generous?

That is not being decided by this vote, so it should have no effect on your decision.

3. How long will it be before the prospective NBA franchise comes back requesting or demanding further financial concessions? Three years? Five years?

You can worry about that later. Again, that has nothing to do with NOW.

4. If we approve this, how long will it be before the Chamber and other 'downtown leaders' discover that Oklahoma City has mysteriously fallen off the map again, and that we need to pony up for the NHL or the NFL or both to be 'on the map' or in 'the elite tier of cities'?

You clearly have a negative attitude about the city's progress. No one one has every (seriously) proposed anything that wasn't feasible in OKC. One major league team is, but 2 or 3 will not be economical in OKC for a while. City leaders aren't going to be promoting any of those other leagues any time soon.

5. If we tie up our more-or-less permanent temporary sales tax for fifteen months, how will this affect other projects for which we might want to use that money? The city had a MAPS 3 plan in rough draft form which will be on hold for more than a year while we raise money for a single project focused on a single organization: the NBA.

There's nothing potentially part of MAPS III that is so pressing it can't wait 18 months.

6. On a purely personal note, a couple of the presumptive team owners in this scenario represent a number of social and political qualities I find reprehensible, and I have no desire to spend a dime of my money on them.

So are you saying that you research the ownership of every business you patronize to make sure that you agree with every bit of their politics?

[Doug Loudenback]

Again, still no one has provided a solid reason for voting "no".

Now wait just a minute, Metro ... are you saying with a straight face that the nepotism argument "didn't hold water" (to quote from My Cousin Vinny). Get real. That argument was a killer!

[metro]

Didn't read all the nepotism posts to be honest Doug. In all fairness, even if nepotism is a good excuse, regardless of a few in city hall who might have nepotism issues, the FORD CENTER is a community issue and affects the community as a whole, not just the NBA and city officials. This vote as you know has much farther reaching implications.

[bornhere]

Charlotte, Denver, Salt Lake City, Indianapolis
Omaha, Des Moines, Little Rock, Wichita

Which group would you rather be in?

Fundamentally, I'm not interested in being in either group. These groups exist only in the talking points of people who want an NBA franchise - no one else uses them. If you look in an encyclopedia or almanac, you won't find a list of 'elite cities' based on who has NBA franchises.

You're also implying that your first four cities became part of this 'elite tier' when they got NBA teams. That could arguably be true for Charlotte, if Charlotte is in fact an 'elite city,' but do you actually believe that those other cities got where they are today because of NBA franchises?

And why doesn't your second list include non-NBA cities like San Diego? St. Louis? Las Vegas? Austin? Nashville? Do you consider those non-'elite' cities because they don't have NBA franchises?

How many people watch ESPN in the United States and around the world? How many people read "The Economist""? Again, there are worse things than being on the sports pages of the New York Times, Chicago Tribune, Washington Post, LA Times and USA Today 82+ times a year.

Sure there are worse things. But are these mentions - and after the first season, they'll be passing mentions - worth what we're going to spend? I'm not talking about just the sales tax revenue, but whatever additional operating expenses for the Ford Center and the practice center the city incurs? A person who watches ESPN a lot may get some gratification from the hearing the words 'Oklahoma City' spoken a lot, but is that actually going to bring new business or jobs here? If we're going to realize tangible benefits from all this name-dropping, it needs to happen in front of an audience that makes those kinds of decisions.

The linked articles appear to be mostly sports page items from various cities, and all of them are focused on the Hornets/Hurricane Katrina angle. We won't have day-to-day coverage like that from now on.

That (the rental/lease agreement) is not being decided by this vote, so it should have no effect on your decision.

It absolutely has an effect on my decision, because that agreement is going to affect the day-to-day operating costs of the Ford Center. If those costs go up, other city services will have to be adjusted to stay within budget. When Clay Bennett talks about 'a lease that makes us competitive,' what do you think that means? I think it means 'as close to free as we can intimidate the city council into giving us.'

You can worry about that (future concession demands) later. Again, that has nothing to do with NOW.

It has everything to do with now. Again, we can't look at this as the capital costs of the Ford Center alone. We need to consider all the costs. I'm pretty sure they're doing that at city hall and the chamber, and we ought to base our votes on all the data, which we don't have.

...although it's harder to get financial concessions when a team is already in place than when a city is trying to lure a team.

And yet the Sonics partners are trying to leave Seattle because the city won't upgrade the Key Arena to their liking. Or the NBA's liking. Whatever.

It's simply saying "I do not want an NBA basketball team in Oklahoma City." and David Stern and the Board of Governors will take us at our word.

No, it's saying that viewed strictly as a civic investment, I don't think an NBA team is worth what we are being told it will cost - not to mention the other costs that come in years head.

One major league team is, but 2 or 3 will not be economical in OKC for a while. City leaders aren't going to be promoting any of those other leagues any time soon.

This is an assumption, and one which I don't share.

So are you saying that you research the ownership of every business you patronize to make sure that you agree with every bit of their politics?

I don't patronize some businesses because of their politics. In the case of the NBA, it's not a business I would patronize in any event. Obviously I'm not an NBA fan. So this is a business I'll pay 15 months of sales tax for, and my payoff will be knowing that somewhere, someone is hearing the words 'Oklahoma City' spoken over and over on ESPN.

You clearly have a negative attitude about the city's progress.

You have no idea what my attitude about the city's progress is. I voted for MAPS, MAPS for Kids, the public safety sales tax and even 'Six to Fix the City.' I voted for parimutuel racing so Remington Park could 'put us on the map' and 'elevate us into the elite tier of cities.'

But I won't vote for this. I don't consider an NBA franchise 'progress.' It's just entertainment, not a social or moral imperative.

[Doug Loudenback]

Didn't read all the nepotism posts to be honest Doug. In all fairness, even if nepotism is a good excuse, regardless of a few in city hall who might have nepotism issues, the FORD CENTER is a community issue and affects the community as a whole, not just the NBA and city officials. This vote as you know has much farther reaching implications.

I was just kidding, Metro.

[betts]

\
You're also implying that your first four cities became part of this 'elite tier' when they got NBA teams. That could arguably be true for Charlotte, if Charlotte is in fact an 'elite city,' but do you actually believe that those other cities got where they are today because of NBA franchises?

And why doesn't your second list include non-NBA cities like San Diego? St. Louis? Las Vegas? Austin? Nashville? Do you consider those non-'elite' cities because they don't have NBA franchises?

Actually, that was not my implication. I just meant that, to me, those cities have more cachet, are more well known and well thought of. And, I never meant to imply it was only NBA teams that give you "elite" status. Actually, I think the top three professional leagues, be it MLB, NFL or NBA give a city more stature. As I've said to others, I'd like us to be known for more than the dustbowl and the Murrah bombing, and I don't consider having a professional team the only thing that will elevate this city, but I do consider it a piece of the puzzle.

\No, it's saying that viewed strictly as a civic investment, I don't think an NBA team is worth what we are being told it will cost - not to mention the other costs that come in years head.

To me, improving the Ford Center is worth the cost, regardless of whether we get an NBA team or not. It could be one of the downtown showpieces, and I want our downtown to be something I can be proud of. I'm very pleased with the way the Bricktown Ballpark looks, as it is aesthetically pleasing. I think there is value in aesthetics, realizing that is an opinion I hold which may not be shared by others.

\I don't patronize some businesses because of their politics. In the case of the NBA, it's not a business I would patronize in any event. Obviously I'm not an NBA fan. So this is a business I'll pay 15 months of sales tax for, and my payoff will be knowing that somewhere, someone is hearing the words 'Oklahoma City' spoken over and over on ESPN.

I think the last sentence is a bit of oversimplification, but if you neither think the Ford Center needs improving, nor Oklahoma City would be enhanced by having an NBA team, there's really nothing to discuss.

Personally, I think one can argue that increasing entertainment options, especially options such as professional sports, increases a city's attractiveness to college graduates. Good jobs do as well, and were I owner of a business looking to relocate, I would consider entertainment options in a city as one of the things to consider when choosing a site. Unlike other cities like Seattle, Miami, Denver, we have very little in the way of outdoor entertainment and geographical beauty to attract businesses and keep college graduates at home, so we have to create artificial sources of leisure time activity. Again, I'm not arguing that having an NBA team in and of itself will solve all problems, but it's a big piece of the puzzle. I have three children who have left or are leaving Oklahoma City after graduation. Not one of them left for a specific job, but rather, because "there is more to do in ______, and I can get an equally good job there as here." I think more to do creates even more to do, and a team would stimulate downtown growth of housing, retail, restaurants, etc. I'm a huge fan of an urban center to a city, and I see an NBA team as a way of enhancing development of a true urban area in Oklahoma City.

\But I won't vote for this. I don't consider an NBA franchise 'progress.' It's just entertainment, not a social or moral imperative.

I don't think anyone here thinks having an NBA franchise is a "social or moral imperative." It is entertainment, but it's great entertainment, and this tax will cost me less per day than I spend on the diet Dr. Pepper I probably shouldn't be drinking anyway. If it were a huge sum for an extended period of time, I might feel differently. I see having an NBA team similarly to how I look at having an art museum, a nice park or the Civic Center. They too are "just entertainment", but they are part of the fabric of the city, and they greatly enhance quality of life for the people who use them. I vote for things that enhance other people's quality of life, even if I don't use them, and will continue to do so.

[jsenter]

I think bornhere is from Seattle.

[andy157]

A "no" vote here would be tough for the city to recover from. I don't mind the practice facility at all. If it gets used anything like the Blazer's practice facility does (which I was at on Friday night watching a UCO vs. OU ice hockey match), it'll be valuable to the community. The price tag isn't outlandish at all.

If it (the practice facility) is able to be used by the community in general then yes, it may be of some value. But thats not the case here. In your opinion the 20 MIL. price tag is not outlandlish. Though I disagree with your opinion, I respect it.

You mentioned the Blazer's practice facility. I assume you are referring to the I-35 and I-240 location, if so, let me ask a couple of questions.

If B.Ball is played (and practiced) on a wood floor, Hockey on a ice floor (rink), here are my questions.

1: Which type of playing and/or practice surfice would cost more to build, upkeep, and maintain. Wood or Ice?

2: Do you think the Blazer's practice facility cost 20 Mil.?

3: Who payed for the Blazer's practice facility?

[Blairman]

Andy 157

The Blazers Ice Centre is a privately (non-Blazer) owned, they have a marketing agreement with the Blazers. No public dollars where used to build or maintain the facility.

[solitude]

Originally Posted by Midtowner
A "no" vote here would be tough for the city to recover from. I don't mind the practice facility at all. If it gets used anything like the Blazer's practice facility does (which I was at on Friday night watching a UCO vs. OU ice hockey match), it'll be valuable to the community. The price tag isn't outlandish at all.

Actually, this is what hung me up before finally deciding to vote "YES"....it will not be used for anything but the NBA team. Keep in mind the so-called "practice facility" is more than a glorified gym - it's the home offices for the team as well. A twenty million dollar facility will be, without question, lavish. But - I've moved on from that and decided the best interests of the city lie with a "YES" vote.

[Karried]

But - I've moved on from that and decided the best interests of the city lie with a "YES" vote.

Yes! Yes! Yes!

[andy157]

Thanks Kerried. I grew up in Northern California and attended OU for 5 years before moving to Florida. Although I only lived in the OKC area for 5 of my 38 years, I will always consider OKC my adopted hometown. I loved living in the OKC metro and was very sad to leave. I still remember passing the Lindsey St exit on I-35 as I drove the Ryder truck out of town thinking how much it sucked that I was leaving.

I loved going to Cavalary and Blazer games at the Myriad and then going to Bricktown for a drink after the game. That was before Bricktown was popular. I even took my father-in-law to see the Tampa Bay Storm play Ft Worth in an AFL game at the Myriad the day before we moved. I also went to see the Blazers play at State Fair Arena and caught a foul ball at All Sports Stadium when the 89ers were playing the Iowa Cubs. Name me another city in America where a broke college student had so many sports options.

Kerry, sorry, but as someone who 54 years ago was born, and raised, and educated, then married, had kids, and has worked, and is now living in retirement in the City of Oklahoma City, I'm a bit skepticle of your deep seeded love for our great City.

You stated that after getting your education here in Oklahoma (thats good) how sad you were when you (had?) to leave OKC. But, as sad as it was, in order to get a good job, you (had?) no other choice. Furthermore as you've stated in a previous post, you will joyfully come back to your adopted home if ,or when, Oklahoma can provide you a decent job. Yet I don't hear from you much optimisim thats going to happen. Some think of you as an advocate for our state, out there leading the cheers for a wonderful City. I'm still not getting from you that message

Were you equally as sad when you (had?) to leave your home in Northern California and come to Oklahoma (City) to get a good quality education? You sign off your post with "OKC- The Surprise Your Family Has Been Looking For" Evidentually just not yours.

[andy157]

Actually, this is what hung me up before finally deciding to vote "YES"....it will not be used for anything but the NBA team. Keep in mind the so-called "practice facility" is more than a glorified gym - it's the home offices for the team as well. A twenty million dollar facility will be, without question, lavish. But - I've moved on from that and decided the best interests of the city lie with a "YES" vote.

So you have rethought your position on this issue, and you will now vote yes. I can, and in fact do, respect that. Hell, from time to time regarding other issues I've been known to do that myself. Haven't quite got there yet on this one. I could, but most likely won't. I only wish they had made this a two part issue. Whereby then, I would have been able to vote YES for the arena, and NO for the practice facility. But, they didn't. So for now I must still vote NO, and I'm in the minority, and the majority will vote Yes. Hurry up March 4

[solitude]

Kerry, sorry, but as someone who 54 years ago was born, and raised, and educated, then married, had kids, and has worked, and is now living in retirement in the City of Oklahoma City, I'm a bit skepticle of your deep seeded love for our great City.

You stated that after getting your education here in Oklahoma (thats good) how sad you were when you (had?) to leave OKC. But, as sad as it was, in order to get a good job, you (had?) no other choice. Furthermore as you've stated in a previous post, you will joyfully come back to your adopted home if ,or when, Oklahoma can provide you a decent job. Yet I don't hear from you much optimisim thats going to happen. Some think of you as an advocate for our state, out there leading the cheers for a wonderful City. I'm still not getting from you that message

Were you equally as sad when you (had?) to leave your home in Northern California and come to Oklahoma (City) to get a good quality education? You sign off your post with "OKC- The Surprise Your Family Has Been Looking For" Evidentually just not yours.

I must admit, reading Kerry's energetic posts, the fact Kerry lived here only five years (while in college) and moved 14 years ago is surprising. But, according to this post in 2006, if we get an NBA team he's going to "make every effort" to come back.

[CuatrodeMayo]

That was an un-necessary personal attack if I have ever seen one.

[Kerry]

For the record, I could not wait to move out of California. I will never move back to California. I do have a mother, 3 sisters, and 2 brothers that live in the OKC area so "yes" I would be interested in moving back to OKC. However, for what I do my employment oppertunites would be very limited.

As for "had to move". Yes I had to move. When I graduated from OU the only company to offer me a job was Rand McNally in Daytona Beach, FL. What was I supposed to do, take my degree that took me 7 years to get and throw it away and keep working the same job I already had or work in a call center. Where is the logic in that? Call me crazy but I kind of wanted to work in my field of study. Unfortunately, I had to sacrafice what I wanted to do for what I had to do. 14 years later that kind of decision making process has really paid off for me.

[betts]

"I only wish they had made this a two part issue. Whereby then, I would have been able to vote YES for the arena, and NO for the practice facility. But, they didn't. So for now I must still vote NO, and I'm in the minority, and the majority will vote Yes. Hurry up March 4."

And I wish Barack Obama might be a little more fiscally conservative, or John McCain were a little more anti-war. I don't think I've ever voted for something or someone I supported every single piece of. I wish we'd hear, "Yes, we're going to use the practice facility for some state basketball championship games, or use it for practice for teams here for regional NCAA's or the Big Twelve Tournament." I don't think it's impossible for that to happen, but until a contract is negotiated or the facility actually exists and the city and owners see how it's utilized and how much, will we know that. It is the closest thing to a sticking point for me. But, I see it as a trade-off. I didn't have to spend $350 million of my own money (of course, that's a laugh) or the city's money to buy the team, and yet I get to enjoy it 41+ nights a year. And I honestly and earnestly believe that having a team in Oklahoma City will be great for the city. So, to me, the practice facility is my way of saying "thank you" to the Sonics' owners for buying a team, and wanting to bring it to Oklahoma City, where there is absolutely no guarantee they will make money, and a very reasonable chance they will lose money. When McClendon said "We'll be happy if we break even", it confirmed what I suspected. With the exception of Clay Bennett, none of the Sonics owners had a lifelong dream of owning a team. It's clear that none of them are interested in running the team. I believe, and I have no reason to believe I'm wrong, that when this group bought the team, it was because they saw all the excitement and energy having the Hornets here brought to the city. They wanted that energy and excitement to continue and increase. These are men who are interested in Oklahoma City. Some of them were educated elsewhere. All of them could live anywhere in the world they wanted. And yet they choose to live in Oklahoma City, and most of them have given back to the community and are clearly attempting to improve it. Tom Ward made a conscious decision to move Sandridge downtown, because he wants to see downtown thrive. Bob Howard is behind the Midtown Renaissance group. Clay Bennett was one of the movers behind the Fair Park improvements that have kept the fairgrounds full of horse shows and brought visitors to OKC. Bill Cameron is considering moving his company downtown. I see their purchase of the Sonics as an extension of their other hopes and dreams for our city, and I feel a few pennies a day for 18 months is one of the the ways I can afford to join in their dream.

[Luke]

2. The owners of the Sonics are millionaires. Some people have the mindset that they have so much money and are so rich, that they can fund the improvements needed at the Ford Center. Some are also saying that Bennett agreed to pay $100 million towards the arena in Renton....so why not here?

Sounds good to me.