Ford Center improvements up for March 4 vote

[betts]

Although I'm pretty sure Mick Cornett said the tax would not be implemented if the NBA didn't come, many of those improvements would be really nice to have even if we don't get an NBA team. I was told a lot of people at the Big Twelve Tournament commented on how much they liked having side by side men's and women's games, but how subpar our arena was compared to American Airlines. After this year, they'll have the Sprint Center with which to compare it. I think, if we want to compete for events like the Big Twelve Championship games, it would be helpful to have an upgraded arena. And events like that pay off that kind of investment really quickly.

[glennp]

The I-40 off ramp at Robinson would be moved to make way for the Add-Ons. The entire elevation is not going to have to be moved. If that was the case the improvements would not be done for at least two to three more years (maybe more).

Not that my opinion matters, cause I am sure the city will unanimously pass this bill as well. However, these are my feelings:

1) I don't believe in playing by anyone’s "RULES". The additional office space on the plans is ridiculous to me. We have how much empty office space downtown?

2) Loosing seating does not make any since to me. I feel the city rushed this plan instead of making sure to maximize on the number of ticket sales.

3) Does anyone have proof that this will help our city grow? I have read a few times through this forum of people saying it will boost downtown development. We already have a lot going on downtown, however, many projects are still unfinished and the pricing of housing is not helping in a sluggish economy.

4) Building their practice facility. That site to me does not make us money. And I really have not ever understood why a college or pro team needs a separate practice facility, unless that facility is going to be used constantly for other things.

5) Question: Does this mean the Blazers will have to move back to the COX Convention Center. If so why not use the money that was to go for a practice facility ($20M) to renovate the COX Center for the Blazers. The Blazers have supported us and been there a lot longer than McClendon or Bennet.

NO, I have not heard they would be back at the COX Center but I do know that having a permanent home team, means they would be tying up the FORD Center. Plus, while the Hornets were here they constantly complained about the ICE under the basketball court. Yes, they never removed the ice during the Hornets games because it would take to long to set up.

These are a few concerns.

[John]

Loosing seating does not make any since to me. I feel the city rushed this plan instead of making sure to maximize on the number of ticket sales.

The loss of 300 seats will be made up for with more suites and club options, which bring in a lot more money (for the city and team) for any event at the Ford Center.

[glennp]

Yes, I can somewhat agree with that.

However, after watching the City Meeting over the issue there is still concern due to what the City Manager stated. It was asked by Council Member of Ward 5, the money to be made of the upgrades to the facility is only profitable to the city when the arena is in use for concerts, Big 12, Highschool, etc. Not the NBA.

Another concern I have is the City Manager believes that in order to persuade getting the Sonics or any NBA team that we have to offer the Practice Facility and Office Space at NO COST to the team. He says that is the way Cleveland does it and New Orleans has put together a similar package but is not sure if it has been successful yet.

BENNET and MCCLENDON want the NBA here. They put in the transfer request. So NO they should be charged for the space they use.

I realize the Mayor stated the Ballpark is owned by the city but has a tenant which maintains it. However, the Redhawks do not have a separate practice facility and office space free of charge.

Here is what I think the bottom line to my dislike about the situation. We as a city just passed a bond issue of almost $900M (yet, the two previous bonds were never used entirely for their stated purpose and this bond is going to be used for street/sidewalk maintenace that our own tax dollars can't seem to take care of), which a former County Commissioner was even shocked, yet we want to offer city owned property to a Corporation (don't forget that, its not just a team its a BUSINESS) at no cost.

Hello, we offered Bass Pro a building to get them here but they pay a good chunk in rent for that building. So my tax money is not supporting the business or building.

I want the NBA, but I dont believe our tax dollars should continue to pay for their support. That must mean I am not greedy because the arena holds 25,000 I believe. There are approximately 1M+ in the entire metro. Of the 1M+ there will probably be only 25% to 40% who will attend the games. Does this mean the rest of the population should have to cover the cost for a Practice Facility and Office Space?

[HOT ROD]

Glenn, Ill happily answer your questions.

1) Play by the rules. Well, the NBA is an exclusive club where only a select 30 cities are invited to play. Oklahoma City wants to join this club badly, and to do so it will have to play by the NBA's rules. In reality, the rules really aren't that bad either - as they call for a SOA facility, office space, and a practice facility, and usually some or all of the proceeds during games (this depends upon market size and amenity space. Im sure Chicago does keeps much more than SLC does). Also, the NBA rules make the NBA city more valuable as a host for concerts, conventions, collegiate events, and minor league sporting events - since those same NBA amenities would be available to those (only they would be able to use the NBA only locker rooms and offices, but all else would be avail). Why would OKC build such an extravagant arena unless the NBA was coming? Ask yourself that question then reconsider playing by the NBA rules (since it's really all about marketing anyways, how could NBA style marketing NOT HELP OKC??).

2) The seats that are being lost are not high dollar seats, and as was explained in the council meeting - the two rows of seats would become one ENHANCED row - which we could charge more for. LIke was explained, this would cator to a family or small business who can't afford a suite but who wants to fit a small group together. Of course, this could be enjoyed in non-NBA events with the city getting those proceeds. And like was said, the revenue generated from this would be significantly MORE than the row of seats that gets removed - and it moves Ford Center into the upper crust of arenas (since ONLY the new or newly remodeled arenas have this feature)...

3) I have proof. When Seattle first got the NBA 40 years ago, the population was roughly 500K and the metro area was around 1M or so. Today, Seattle is still roughly 560K but the metro (Puget Sound wise) is over 3.6M. Now while the NBA is not the ONLY factor in the Puget Sound region's growth - it is a BIG part of it, since it was the ONLY team Seattle had until the early 1980's IIRC. The Sonics put Seattle on the map - hence the name, Seattle = Aerospace (SST in particular) = Supersonics. ... Also, think SLC has not grown since getting the Jazz? Isn't Memphis a more attractive place since they stole the Grizz from Vancouver (literally). Didn't Charlotte get a marketing (and thus) population boost from the Hornets? You're right, you can't necessarily quantify or attribute growth DIRECTLY to a major-league team, but the marketing/notoriety of a major-league team directly impacts growth since those cities who have teams are instantly recognized (if nothing else, for having a major-league team) and usually cities with major-league sports have something going for them. A little marketing/PR from a team means your city has made it into the EXCLUSIVE club of being able to support major league sports - and that equates to being a BIG CITY. I think the two go hand-in-hand, and therefore I'd expect OKC to see some of its biggest growth (business and residents) after landing a permanent team (especially since the growth picked up even after the Hornets).

4) It does sort of suck to have to build a practice facility - but OKC needs to set itself apart from the KC's, Vegas's, and STL's of the world. OKC is NOT Chicago, so OKC needs to put a bit more forward in order to join the club. I think - like was mentioned in the city council meeting - if asked, CB or some OKC corporation(s) would probably pitch in or straight out build the practice facility. I think especially if it is tied into say - Oklahoma City University, ... that the city probably wouldn't have to spend anything, since it would be a nice write-off to an OKC based corporation or millionaire/billionare and usually they like supporting/building near/enhancing schools.

Oh, somebody asked why do they need a practice facility? Well, in your job dont you have an office? Don't you have some space where you keep your tools, do your work, and train? Well, the practice facility incorporates all of this for a NBA team. The arena is just where the team showcases its talent but the REAL work (practices, coaches offices, film rooms, conditioning and weight rooms, non-administrative tools to run a team), all of this is at the practice facility. Oh, the practice facility doesn't have to be separate - AArena in Dallas has it onsite; but if you viewed the city council meeting, it was mentioned that the site of the Ford Center is way too small to incorporate a practice facility without running into financial obstacles.

I hope (in case you haven't figured out yet) that the practice facility gets built somewhere near the OCU campus - to tie into the community and also to upgrade that area of town and enhance OCU as an institution. I hope that the facility could be a comination NBA and collegiate facility, where the two can have common areas to get some synergy - and certainly this will help OCU big-time as they look to move back into the NCAA (who wouldn't want to come to OCU if they had a chance to work out at the onsite NBA practice facility). I think it would be a HUGE boost to OCU and a boon for the city having it there. Also, there should be a store and some other sort of public venue, where people could come in and view practices (while not disturbing the team/players), learn about the NBA and basketball, ect. I think we should go all out on this facility, make it an institution - yet another attraction for Oklahoma City. We have that opportunity with the practice facility, and it gets around the argument of NBA exclusive use of the building (by having it tied to OCU and/or having public amenities there).

5) Blazers/Yard Dawgs have to move? I dont think so. It is really up to Funk where he want's his teams to play. It might be cheaper for him to just go exclusively with the Cox Center, he'd avoid the NBA game nights (could do some concurrently even) and he'd have exclusive rights to the profits of the building on his nights. However, I'd think Funk would want to get some of the money Ford Center would generate - and therefore, I 'd think he'd want to have his teams play there (if possible). This is NOT unusual, since every arena nowdays are multipurpose (well, except Key Arena in most cases). If United Center in Chicago or AArena in Dallas can do both NBA and NHL, and Ford Center will become a similar facility (actually already is), then I think the CHL and AFL has nothing to worry about - except they'd have to yield to the top tenant (NBA/WNBA) on their game nights.

OK, I hope I answered all of your concerns with something to think about. I agree that there is some risk here - but I can almost guarantee you all that 1) Cornett knows what he's doing. He must have gotten with the NBA and they must have told him - you commit to upgrading Ford Center and you WILL get a team (be it Sonics [99% likely] or Hornets [if you dont get the Sonics]). IM ALMOST 100% positive that Cornet got a commit from Stern and probably most of the NBA board that if we do this we will get the thumbs up. Cornett would not put OKC out like that if he did not have some insight. Remember when Seattle people were asking/accusing Cornett of already working with the NBA back in September and saying that violates Bennett's Oct 31 agreement. Cornett denied talking to the NBA but I BET they talked very shortly after that deadline and IM SURE we were promised a team. I even bet we'd get a team if we dont make the improvements, but voting yes shows the NBA that we are READY, NOW!!! It removes THEIR risk in coming here. You guys dont like to hear this, but OKC is a risky market (especially long term) since the immediate metro is one of the smallest of the NBA cities. So by upgrading the arena with stuff that LARGE markets have, we assure the NBA board and all critics, that OKC will be able to financially sustain a team even in its current size (which no doubt will continue to grow).

And, like was said - most of the improvements to the arena are nice even without a NBA team. Most of the improvements are inspired by the NBA and larger market or new arenas but very few improvement are NBA requirements (only the NBA lockers, press room, studio, practice facility, warm-up court, lighting changes, and store/sales office are requirements). The offices (onsite) are a carrot to set OKC apart from the other small markets, besides its only 30K sq ft; that's not too huge (would only barely be a two story bldg).

Im not saying that we shouldn't ask questions or that the concerns are not warranted. But I think there are answers to questions and I believe that what Cornett is doing is sound and should elevate OKC into the league of cities that Denver, SLC, KC, Indy, even Seattle - currently sit. Seattle started with the NBA 40 years ago, look at 'us' now. .. Trust me - the Sonics had a BIG BIG part of that (and even had a BIG part of our getting our other major-league teams even...)

CONTINUE THE RENAISSANCE - OKLAHOMA CITY

The I-40 off ramp at Robinson would be moved to make way for the Add-Ons. The entire elevation is not going to have to be moved. If that was the case the improvements would not be done for at least two to three more years (maybe more).

Not that my opinion matters, cause I am sure the city will unanimously pass this bill as well. However, these are my feelings:

1) I don't believe in playing by anyone’s "RULES". The additional office space on the plans is ridiculous to me. We have how much empty office space downtown?

2) Loosing seating does not make any since to me. I feel the city rushed this plan instead of making sure to maximize on the number of ticket sales.

3) Does anyone have proof that this will help our city grow? I have read a few times through this forum of people saying it will boost downtown development. We already have a lot going on downtown, however, many projects are still unfinished and the pricing of housing is not helping in a sluggish economy.

4) Building their practice facility. That site to me does not make us money. And I really have not ever understood why a college or pro team needs a separate practice facility, unless that facility is going to be used constantly for other things.

5) Question: Does this mean the Blazers will have to move back to the COX Convention Center. If so why not use the money that was to go for a practice facility ($20M) to renovate the COX Center for the Blazers. The Blazers have supported us and been there a lot longer than McClendon or Bennet.

NO, I have not heard they would be back at the COX Center but I do know that having a permanent home team, means they would be tying up the FORD Center. Plus, while the Hornets were here they constantly complained about the ICE under the basketball court. Yes, they never removed the ice during the Hornets games because it would take to long to set up.

These are a few concerns.

[HOT ROD]

Oh Glenn, Im sure the Sonics will pay rent for use of the Ford Center. Think about it this way - we can charge them more if our facility is considered on of the top in the nation moreso than what we could charge with the facility we have today.

FYI - Ford Center currently seats 19,133 comfortably today for the NBA. If Stern/Bennett agrees that they can make money if we remove 300 seats; by all means, DO IT! Sometimes, having a lot of seats does not turn a profit.

[Doug Loudenback]

I've put together a flash video file of most of the images and information in the city's PDF file containing the Power Point images ... even has a music background ... Doug Dawgz Blog: Ford Center Initiative . I'll add more text and images later, but the flash file is done.

[metro]

Although I'm pretty sure Mick Cornett said the tax would not be implemented if the NBA didn't come, many of those improvements would be really nice to have even if we don't get an NBA team. I was told a lot of people at the Big Twelve Tournament commented on how much they liked having side by side men's and women's games, but how subpar our arena was compared to American Airlines. After this year, they'll have the Sprint Center with which to compare it. I think, if we want to compete for events like the Big Twelve Championship games, it would be helpful to have an upgraded arena. And events like that pay off that kind of investment really quickly.

betts, please reread the article or watch the video on the city's website. The tax will still be implemented if passed (that's why the vote). Basically he stated that it would not be extended to 15 months if we don't get an NBA team, it would only be a 12 month tax, if we get the NBA, we'd need to run the tax 15 months to generate enough revenue to pay for the upgrades to NBA standards. Otherwise the money raised in 12 months will do a remodel for whatever we can get done, which will still be a much more higher profile arena for other events, Blazers, NCAA, Yard Dawgz, Concerts and much more.

Glennp, you're forgetting that its not just NBA fans that use the arena, college, highschool, concerts, WWF, volleyball, rodeo's, conventions, and many other events use the arena. Not to mention, our city is more viable at attracting new businesses and conventions and keeping our businesses that are considering relocating due to lack of entertainment and quality of life issues. By upgrading, we take our city to the next level instead of getting left behind. Don't believe me? Just look at how far our city has come because of the existing Ford Center and other MAPS projects, we'd be like Amarillo or Midland,TX, if we didn't pass MAPS, now we're competing with Austin, Charlotte, Seattle, Portland and the bigger boys.

[BDP]

Think about it this way - we can charge them more if our facility is considered on of the top in the nation moreso than what we could charge with the facility we have today.

And we can't charge them anything if they're not here. Even with the Sonics still up in the air, these improvements all but guarantee a team within ten years, imo. Really this is actually the best way to get some direct revenue for our arena with a major tennant. We won't have to depend on the fickle concert industry or with bidding on special events. We will be guaranteed 30+ major events in the arena every year. That on top of concerts, minor league hockey, and college tournaments make it a very well used arena, especially for the market size.

People need to realize that we are already invested in the convention and arena business. The NBA is really the best arena tenant available. By doubling our investment with these improvements, we actually increase the viability of our original investment and increase our chances of gaining a tenant that not only will keep it from being dark 10% of the year and will draw more customers, more often, and more consitently than any other potential tenant out there.

We should actually count ourselves lucky that we are in good position to get a team with spending less than 100 million dollars upfront. Many places like Kansas City have spent over $250 million on an arena without being anywhere near as close as we are to getting a tenant. Even with these improvements, we will most likely spend less than most markets, gain a top tier facility, and actually have a marquee tenant in addition to all of the other events that will be added to an already decent roster.

I 100% understand the animosity resulting from a libertarian view point. But when you look at it pragmatically, and not ideally, if this thing passes and Oklahoma City gets an NBA team, we will have pulled off a coup which would be the envy of just about every other city that used public financing for their major facilities.

[Kerry]

OKC is so far out in front of Seattle on this whole thing it is not even funny. Actually, it is funny. Seattle officials can't even decided what they should be doing. They don't know if they should build a new arena, remodel the Key, or just say good bye. They sue the team, chant obscene things about the owners, pass legislation that makes it impossible for the city to help the team, and generally do everything they can to make the owners want to move.

OKC on the other hand has met with team and NBA officials, developed an arena upgrade plan, identified a proven funding source, made the information available to the public, and scheduled a vote. Heck, we have private citizens (Doug) making thier own videos of the proposal (now that is what I call fan support). And OKC did all of this in less than 3 months. Seattle has had 5 years and they can't even decide what to do. The only video they have is of the Governor stading in front of a used car lot (literally) telling the people of Seattle they are working on a plan.

If you were the NBA which city would you rather do business with? "Fresh and fast" or "old and slow".

[glennp]

WOW! HOT ROD great insight. Sorry I don't agree with everything you say.

I can understand they are a private club, however, its BENNET and MCCLENDON that want to be in OKC not NBA. They know there is money to be made here.

Seating I can agree with, because the plan really is not putting in that many more club boxes. They are adding the number that matches our market.

You might say that the SONICS made STL grow but I DISAGREE. Here are just two links of many that I found on how the professional teams impacts growth of a city.
Blackwell Synergy - J Urban Affairs, Volume 21 Issue 4 Page 397-408, Winter 1999 (Article Abstract)
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0276-8739(199923)18%3A4%3C601%3ATGEOSF%3E2.0.CO%3B2-N

Those two articles basically tell me that it will not contribute to a major growth of our city. You also said in 40 years that Seattle only grew 60K people.

Do I personally want the Arena to be bigger and better? YES! At the expense of the people, avoiding more important issues for the next 12 to 15 months? NO. Why? First we have a mass transit problem and that was the biggest concern of OKC citizens. Second we have a growing retired community and elderly community, that will not have the money to support the Arena. We are lacking in education to bring higher paying jobs. We have more critical issues than getting a professional team.

The CHL was looking at us, and the fans did not want to loose the Blazers, so that tells me they are content with what we have.

BENNETT and MCCLENDON want to be in OKC, let them shell the majority of cost... Yes, I realize the City Manager said they have fees to pay big deal. The owners want to move let them move. Its their decision.

And according to what the Manager and Mayor stated more than likely they WILL NOT BE CHARGED, because that is what the majority of other cities do. Well, I don't live in the other cities i live in OKC.

My understanding is that they want us to vote yes on March 4, so they can say its all done, no negotiations needed.

Glenn, Ill happily answer your questions.

1) Play by the rules. Well, the NBA is an exclusive club where only a select 30 cities are invited to play. Oklahoma City wants to join this club badly, and to do so it will have to play by the NBA's rules. In reality, the rules really aren't that bad either - as they call for a SOA facility, office space, and a practice facility, and usually some or all of the proceeds during games (this depends upon market size and amenity space. Im sure Chicago does keeps much more than SLC does). Also, the NBA rules make the NBA city more valuable as a host for concerts, conventions, collegiate events, and minor league sporting events - since those same NBA amenities would be available to those (only they would be able to use the NBA only locker rooms and offices, but all else would be avail). Why would OKC build such an extravagant arena unless the NBA was coming? Ask yourself that question then reconsider playing by the NBA rules (since it's really all about marketing anyways, how could NBA style marketing NOT HELP OKC??).

2) The seats that are being lost are not high dollar seats, and as was explained in the council meeting - the two rows of seats would become one ENHANCED row - which we could charge more for. LIke was explained, this would cator to a family or small business who can't afford a suite but who wants to fit a small group together. Of course, this could be enjoyed in non-NBA events with the city getting those proceeds. And like was said, the revenue generated from this would be significantly MORE than the row of seats that gets removed - and it moves Ford Center into the upper crust of arenas (since ONLY the new or newly remodeled arenas have this feature)...

3) I have proof. When Seattle first got the NBA 40 years ago, the population was roughly 500K and the metro area was around 1M or so. Today, Seattle is still roughly 560K but the metro (Puget Sound wise) is over 3.6M. Now while the NBA is not the ONLY factor in the Puget Sound region's growth - it is a BIG part of it, since it was the ONLY team Seattle had until the early 1980's IIRC. The Sonics put Seattle on the map - hence the name, Seattle = Aerospace (SST in particular) = Supersonics. ... Also, think SLC has not grown since getting the Jazz? Isn't Memphis a more attractive place since they stole the Grizz from Vancouver (literally). Didn't Charlotte get a marketing (and thus) population boost from the Hornets? You're right, you can't necessarily quantify or attribute growth DIRECTLY to a major-league team, but the marketing/notoriety of a major-league team directly impacts growth since those cities who have teams are instantly recognized (if nothing else, for having a major-league team) and usually cities with major-league sports have something going for them. A little marketing/PR from a team means your city has made it into the EXCLUSIVE club of being able to support major league sports - and that equates to being a BIG CITY. I think the two go hand-in-hand, and therefore I'd expect OKC to see some of its biggest growth (business and residents) after landing a permanent team (especially since the growth picked up even after the Hornets).

4) It does sort of suck to have to build a practice facility - but OKC needs to set itself apart from the KC's, Vegas's, and STL's of the world. OKC is NOT Chicago, so OKC needs to put a bit more forward in order to join the club. I think - like was mentioned in the city council meeting - if asked, CB or some OKC corporation(s) would probably pitch in or straight out build the practice facility. I think especially if it is tied into say - Oklahoma City University, ... that the city probably wouldn't have to spend anything, since it would be a nice write-off to an OKC based corporation or millionaire/billionare and usually they like supporting/building near/enhancing schools.

Oh, somebody asked why do they need a practice facility? Well, in your job dont you have an office? Don't you have some space where you keep your tools, do your work, and train? Well, the practice facility incorporates all of this for a NBA team. The arena is just where the team showcases its talent but the REAL work (practices, coaches offices, film rooms, conditioning and weight rooms, non-administrative tools to run a team), all of this is at the practice facility. Oh, the practice facility doesn't have to be separate - AArena in Dallas has it onsite; but if you viewed the city council meeting, it was mentioned that the site of the Ford Center is way too small to incorporate a practice facility without running into financial obstacles.

I hope (in case you haven't figured out yet) that the practice facility gets built somewhere near the OCU campus - to tie into the community and also to upgrade that area of town and enhance OCU as an institution. I hope that the facility could be a comination NBA and collegiate facility, where the two can have common areas to get some synergy - and certainly this will help OCU big-time as they look to move back into the NCAA (who wouldn't want to come to OCU if they had a chance to work out at the onsite NBA practice facility). I think it would be a HUGE boost to OCU and a boon for the city having it there. Also, there should be a store and some other sort of public venue, where people could come in and view practices (while not disturbing the team/players), learn about the NBA and basketball, ect. I think we should go all out on this facility, make it an institution - yet another attraction for Oklahoma City. We have that opportunity with the practice facility, and it gets around the argument of NBA exclusive use of the building (by having it tied to OCU and/or having public amenities there).

5) Blazers/Yard Dawgs have to move? I dont think so. It is really up to Funk where he want's his teams to play. It might be cheaper for him to just go exclusively with the Cox Center, he'd avoid the NBA game nights (could do some concurrently even) and he'd have exclusive rights to the profits of the building on his nights. However, I'd think Funk would want to get some of the money Ford Center would generate - and therefore, I 'd think he'd want to have his teams play there (if possible). This is NOT unusual, since every arena nowdays are multipurpose (well, except Key Arena in most cases). If United Center in Chicago or AArena in Dallas can do both NBA and NHL, and Ford Center will become a similar facility (actually already is), then I think the CHL and AFL has nothing to worry about - except they'd have to yield to the top tenant (NBA/WNBA) on their game nights.

OK, I hope I answered all of your concerns with something to think about. I agree that there is some risk here - but I can almost guarantee you all that 1) Cornett knows what he's doing. He must have gotten with the NBA and they must have told him - you commit to upgrading Ford Center and you WILL get a team (be it Sonics [99% likely] or Hornets [if you dont get the Sonics]). IM ALMOST 100% positive that Cornet got a commit from Stern and probably most of the NBA board that if we do this we will get the thumbs up. Cornett would not put OKC out like that if he did not have some insight. Remember when Seattle people were asking/accusing Cornett of already working with the NBA back in September and saying that violates Bennett's Oct 31 agreement. Cornett denied talking to the NBA but I BET they talked very shortly after that deadline and IM SURE we were promised a team. I even bet we'd get a team if we dont make the improvements, but voting yes shows the NBA that we are READY, NOW!!! It removes THEIR risk in coming here. You guys dont like to hear this, but OKC is a risky market (especially long term) since the immediate metro is one of the smallest of the NBA cities. So by upgrading the arena with stuff that LARGE markets have, we assure the NBA board and all critics, that OKC will be able to financially sustain a team even in its current size (which no doubt will continue to grow).

And, like was said - most of the improvements to the arena are nice even without a NBA team. Most of the improvements are inspired by the NBA and larger market or new arenas but very few improvement are NBA requirements (only the NBA lockers, press room, studio, practice facility, warm-up court, lighting changes, and store/sales office are requirements). The offices (onsite) are a carrot to set OKC apart from the other small markets, besides its only 30K sq ft; that's not too huge (would only barely be a two story bldg).

Im not saying that we shouldn't ask questions or that the concerns are not warranted. But I think there are answers to questions and I believe that what Cornett is doing is sound and should elevate OKC into the league of cities that Denver, SLC, KC, Indy, even Seattle - currently sit. Seattle started with the NBA 40 years ago, look at 'us' now. .. Trust me - the Sonics had a BIG BIG part of that (and even had a BIG part of our getting our other major-league teams even...)

CONTINUE THE RENAISSANCE - OKLAHOMA CITY

[Easy180]

WOW! HOT ROD great insight. Sorry I don't agree with everything you say.

Do I personally want the Arena to be bigger and better? YES! At the expense of the people, avoiding more important issues for the next 12 to 15 months? NO. Why? First we have a mass transit problem and that was the biggest concern of OKC citizens. Second we have a growing retired community and elderly community, that will not have the money to support the Arena. We are lacking in education to bring higher paying jobs. We have more critical issues than getting a professional team.

BENNETT and MCCLENDON want to be in OKC, let them shell the majority of cost... Yes, I realize the City Manager said they have fees to pay big deal. The owners want to move let them move. Its their decision.

And according to what the Manager and Mayor stated more than likely they WILL NOT BE CHARGED, because that is what the majority of other cities do. Well, I don't live in the other cities i live in OKC.

My understanding is that they want us to vote yes on March 4, so they can say its all done, no negotiations needed.

I guess I missed the part where it says if this is one cent tax is extended for a whopping year we will not be able to address any of our more critical issues...It's not an either or proposition...MAPS 3 gets pushed back a year so we can land our FIRST EVER major league team...People can't wait one more year to take advantage of this very fortunate situation?

Bennett does want to be here, but come on...It is OKC after all...We act like our **** don't stink and even the local owners would be glad to head elsewhere....I'm sure they would just be heartbroken to be stuck with KC or Vegas where they could potentially make much more money

[betts]

I couldn't agree more, Easy. Kansas City is dying to fill their arena, and what do you think will happen if this bond issue doesn't pass? They'll be calling asking what they can do to get the Sonics there. I'd read last year that they're thinking about building a practice facility without assurance of a team coming, so imagine what they would do for the real thing? Bennett and the other owners are doing US a favor by considering moving their team here, not the other way around. This is not a guaranteed money maker for them, they've already spent $350 million just to buy the team, and will have to pay$30 million to move it, not to mention legal fees. And we cannot add a practice facility and some offices to an arena that needs upgrading regardless?

This is a very small market, and one that has concerned Clay Bennett in the past. And yet, like Hot Rod says, an NBA team may be the catalyst for further growth and development in OKC. It certainly appeared to do so in Charlotte and Phoenix. Also, having gone to the Fiesta Bowl two years in a row (sigh), I was amazed at how much development is going on around the stadium and arena in Glendale. Last year when we were there there were two hotels, a couple of restaurants and a vast, empty field. This year, there are five times as many restaurants, there are townhouses and hotels, etc. and a huge amount of ongoing construction. It's amazing what development those two sporting venues have generated.

[glennp]

Quick suggestion, why not do a increase on the hotel and car rental tax to carry the improvements for the Ford Center?

This would free up 15 months. That could mean while the Arena is under renovation, the city could be working on implementing a mass transit system, a trolley system, and what ever else would benefit the parking flow for downtown events.

From the research I just pulled from google, this is how KC built their world-class Sprint Center, which cost $276M. All we are looking for is $121M.

However, even though they just spent millions there was not a traffic/parking plan. To me the second most important feature to building a great facility that entertains thousands, is having easy traffic flow for everyone attending.

Its a thought! What do you all think? If so lets encourage the city to amend the ballet quick before it comes to us.

[OU Adonis]

People really love the idea of mass transit but I just don't see how its needed. Yes I know you have to plan these things for 10 or 20 years out. But I have been to Atlanta and rode their system (MARTA) and its pretty empty in the evenings. I can't imagine how dead our system would be considering Atlanta has 5 times the population in its metro area.

[SouthsideSooner]

The beginning stages of a modern mass transit system will be addressed as part of MAPS 3. This will be a very long term project that will need to be done in stages and will cost a whole hell of a lot more than 100 million.

Portland is often cited as a model for mass transit. They currently have over 1.6 billion dollars invested in light rail and new lines cost about 40 million dollars a mile to build.

[dcsooner]

Betts/Easy,
You both are absoulutely correct in my opinion. OKC is a small market and to land an NBA team it will need to produce the amenities up front. But, if the citizens really look at the potential long term return on the $130M investment, this vote should be overwhelmingly YES. As a Oklahoma native, I have waited 53 years for my State to move to the national stage and leave behind its undeserved hick image. OKC this is your time to be recognized, almost daily, on the national stage and anyone who thinks this will not spur development is plain foolish. Forty one games downtown with world-class talent, people wanting to come to OKC because DT does not close a dusk, I could go on and on. The owners are OKC millionares who paid alot of money for an opportunity to yes make money, but if they were not able to get the arena, possibly move the team to OKC to improve the quality of life in their hometown. I want them to make money because in order for OKC to be a winning NBA franchise they will have to pay top athletes top salaries. Players will play in OKC, I have no doubt, but not on the cheap. The owners are our neighbors (well I don't mean next door) who I truly believe will spend to give us a great NBA product. I will be crushed if my fellow Oklahomans fail on this measure and allow this opportunity for continued exposure and growth to pass.

[BDP]

the second most important feature to building a great facility that entertains thousands, is having easy traffic flow for everyone attending.

I went to several sold out Hornets games and didn't have any traffic or parking problems. This seems true for concerts, too. It's way better than just about every other market I've been to.

[HOT ROD]

Quick suggestion, why not do a increase on the hotel and car rental tax to carry the improvements for the Ford Center?

This would free up 15 months. That could mean while the Arena is under renovation, the city could be working on implementing a mass transit system, a trolley system, and what ever else would benefit the parking flow for downtown events.

From the research I just pulled from google, this is how KC built their world-class Sprint Center, which cost $276M. All we are looking for is $121M.

However, even though they just spent millions there was not a traffic/parking plan. To me the second most important feature to building a great facility that entertains thousands, is having easy traffic flow for everyone attending.

Its a thought! What do you all think? If so lets encourage the city to amend the ballet quick before it comes to us.

Glenn, sorry to sort of pick on you a little, but I do want to respond to your post. I know you are entitled to your opinion and it IS valuable - dont get me wrong. But, I am concerned about your thoughts that you are not considering the big picture. That's all. Anyways...

You mentioned that Bennett and McClendon want the team here. Be glad that that is the case, otherwise the Sonics surely would be going to KC.

You mentioned that Bennett and McClendon want the team here so they should absorb the majority of the cost. Well, wont they? I mean, they've already paid some $350M to purchase the team, and millions of dollars to litigate moving the team to OKC already - with much more millions to litigate going 4-ward. NAME ME ANYONE FROM OKC WHO HAS EVER FOUGHT THIS HARD FOR THE SAKE OF OKC'S IMAGE!!!!!! And, lest us not forget - Bennett and co will have to pay the NBA relocation fee and any settlement that the city of Seattle might be entitled to if they move prior to 2010. I'd say Bennett and Co will surely be out some $500M by the end of this - and even then, they will have to spend more to establish marketing and contracts with the media in the OKC/TUL/Wichita/Others in the region.

Compare this to what OKC has/will spend: $89M for Ford Center, $100M for Ford Center updates (most of which are needed anyways to stay a top arena), $20M for a NBA specific practice facility (which I say we make it a OCU combo facility so more than JUST the NBA will use the facility and try to get corporate sponsorship to take on most/all of this cost anyways and Im sure they will step up; so the $20M figure is worst case). That only equals $209M in city money (most likely will be $200M tho given SOME corporate support for the facility should be expected).

$200M from the city VS $500M+++ from Clay Bennett/Aubrey McClendon's PBC. I'd say OKC is getting a STEAL of a deal from this, especially when you consider that CB was asking Seattle to spend $450M in tax money to keep the Sonics up here (people up here are mad about that, by the way).

As for the increase in the hotel/motel/rental car tax. I had posted to this earlier (perhaps in another thread). Even if we did this, we would NOT be able to collect the dollars needed quick enough. OKC is a very small city (when compared to other major cities) with a small amount of hotel rooms (I think around 14,000 now) and of that only 1,200 would be considered premium/luxury.

Also, OKC's low taxes are a competitive advantage. I do agree that OKC should raise it's taxes a little but I think that differential revenue should be used for more tourism/marketing/convention purposes and NOT for the arena. It will be WAY too little of dollars.


Like I said, I understand and appreciate your concerns but I think they are not well grounded. Your concerns sound mostly like someone complaining from the prospective of not doing research or otherwise 'in-the-know', with perhaps a little hate going on for Bennett/McClendon.

Irregardless if the above is true, you have to agree with me that getting an NBA team is essential for OKC, and that it is a STEAL for OKC to get one (and a top tier arena) for $200M - which is significantly less than other cities and WAY less than the owners will have shelled out to bring you guys top basketball - NBA talent 41 days (58+ days including the WNBA, more if either make playoffs) of the year!!

I think an additional $121M over only 15 months starting next year is a small yet necessary price to significantly move OKC up a knotch. You have to agree with me/us there (from at least a pragmatic prospective considering my arguments above.)

Glenn, I dont disagree with you that we need to address mass transit in the city BUT as was mentioned earlier - we will begin to address that in MAPS III (or we need to MAKE SURE at least the downtown trolley is in there, for starts).

[HOT ROD]

I wholeheartedly echo DCSOONER, both in opinion and position.

Betts/Easy,
You both are absoulutely correct in my opinion. OKC is a small market and to land an NBA team it will need to produce the amenities up front. But, if the citizens really look at the potential long term return on the $130M investment, this vote should be overwhelmingly YES. As a Oklahoma native, I have waited 53 years for my State to move to the national stage and leave behind its undeserved hick image. OKC this is your time to be recognized, almost daily, on the national stage and anyone who thinks this will not spur development is plain foolish. Forty one games downtown with world-class talent, people wanting to come to OKC because DT does not close a dusk, I could go on and on. The owners are OKC millionares who paid alot of money for an opportunity to yes make money, but if they were not able to get the arena, possibly move the team to OKC to improve the quality of life in their hometown. I want them to make money because in order for OKC to be a winning NBA franchise they will have to pay top athletes top salaries. Players will play in OKC, I have no doubt, but not on the cheap. The owners are our neighbors (well I don't mean next door) who I truly believe will spend to give us a great NBA product. I will be crushed if my fellow Oklahomans fail on this measure and allow this opportunity for continued exposure and growth to pass.

[betts]

I'm seeing a much more negative reaction to this than I expected. This "no money for billionaires" argument seems to be a knee jerk reaction. If you look at the owners' $350 billion dollar investment, $30 million dollar relocation fee and the legal fees they're racking up, and then remember that the average NBA team makes $10 million dollars a year in profit (if they're lucky), the owners could make that much by putting their money in a savings account. We'd scoff at that kind of return, and they are talking about putting the team in a small market, without a guarantee of any return. They're giving the city a gift, in that this is a item that could easily spark development and growth, it increases civic pride, puts us on a national stage throughout the basketball season, both in newspapers across the country, on sports television and talk radio. Imagine what the city would have to pay for that kind of advertising? Then it gives us an alternative entertainment source in the winter, when there aren't many. I think most people haven't thought this one through very clearly. I spend more on my Starbuck's coffe in a couple of months than I'd probably spend annually on this tax.

[BailJumper]

My wife and extended family in OKla. are all voting "No".

I agree with Ron Black's article in last weeks Gazette.

[betts]

I think if we do not pass this bond issue, we're going to stagnate. Bricktown will turn into Ghostown, and all the excitement about downtown will die down. A friend today told me that he has a friend who works for a national commercial real estate company. This friend told him that having the Hornets in OKC generated a tremendous amount of interest from companies that had otherwise not even given Oklahoma City a thought. If we do not get an NBA team, we're back there with Wichita, Omaha and all the other blah midwestern towns without anything to distinguish them from each other. And I agree with Mick Cornett: we will not get an NBA team if we do not pass this bond issue.

Why? Because the NBA wants cities that will support their team. They recognize that it is a privilege given only to a few to host a professional team, and they want to know their owners will be appreciated by the community. Why do you think Seattle has spent over a billion dollars on new stadiums and arena upgrades? Why do you think Minneapolis is building a new stadium for the Twins, why Orlando just agreed to spend $450 million to build a new arena for the Magic? These cities have had teams in their towns, and they recognize the advantages they offer, in terms of quality of life for their citizens, national recognition, advertising for their city, etc. Kansas City is already talking about building a practice facility, without any offers from teams. Las Vegas is planning on building an NBA arena, without any firm promise of a team. They both want a professional team for their city, and understand the inducements it takes.

We're being asked to upgrade an arena that desperately needs improving anyway. Today, I talked to a friend who said he'd never gone to a Hornets' game, and didn't particularly like basketball, but was going to vote in favor of the bond issue. When I asked why, he said, "I'm from a bigger city originally, and I've seen Oklahoma City start to take steps towards being a cool place to live with the MAPS 1 improvements. To be frank, our arena is tacky, and I think improving it continues the progress Oklahoma City has already made."

If you look at the money to be spent that directly helps the Sonics' owners, it's about $20 million. The rest will improve the Ford Center for all of us, will make it a better place to go to concerts and sporting events. If we can get a professional team in OKC for a $20 million dollar investment, we'd be crazy not to do so. As I've said before, we couldn't buy the advertising we'd get on ESPN and in the newspapers and radio stations of major cities for that. What if the team made the playoffs, or even better, the NBA finals? You city is featured internationally, and you get visitors from all over the world.

I am going to be very disappointed if this bill doesn't pass, and at some point will probably consider moving elsewhere. Having moved here from Denver, I've been able to get excited about the progress we're making towards becoming a city with more to do, and impressive things to show visitors. But, if we start moving backwards, I am not sure I want to be here. How many people are there who think like me?

[Doug Loudenback]

I'm seeing a much more negative reaction to this than I expected. This "no money for billionaires" argument seems to be a knee jerk reaction. * * *

My wife and extended family in OKla. are all voting "No". I agree with Ron Black's article in last weeks Gazette.

It's really hard to know or to measure public opinion at this point. Certainly there are those like you and your extended family, BailJumper. In the exact vein Betts mentioned, see this blog article at the Journal Record which takes that exact tack: The Journal Record - Article . Discounting that in Ron Black's Gazette column he acknowledges that he was reared in Seattle and is a Seattle Sonics fan, his opinion is out there to read, to be sure: Ron Black | OKG News.com.

My "position" in this matter is the same as what Betts said in the immediately preceding post and has already been stated in this thread and in my blog ... Doug Dawgz Blog: Ford Center Initiative ... I am unreservedly in favor of the Mayor's initiative but I certainly do understand that it would be foolhardy for it to be assumed that this sales tax extension proposal will pass the voters' muster ... we don't have to look at far-away Seattle and how its city opted to cease public funding for sports arena fundings by passing Mr. Van Dyk's referendum, we can look much closer to home, up the Turnpike, to see the other side of the coin ... see the October 10, 2007 article at NewsOK: In Tulsa, river tax sinks

TULSA — Voters in Tulsa County turned down a proposed county-wide sales tax that would have funded development along the Arkansas River. Tulsa County voters rejected a four-tenths cent sales tax with 52.5 percent of voters saying no and 47.5 percent in favor of the tax. The tax would have generated $280 million over seven years. According to figures from the county election board, 127,766 turned out to vote on the measure that had drawn wide support and opposition across the county.

Now, and once again, Oklahoma City will have the opportunity of defining itself by saying "Yes," or "No."

The "least" that can be said about our city's leadership is that it decided to put the matter to a vote of the people ... let them decide ... something that the Washington Legislature was not even willing to do. But, as for here, this city will shortly have the opportunity of identifying "who" it is that we collectively are, once again. The outcome of that identification is by no means certain, no more so than were the 1st and 2nd MAPS votes. But, we said, "Yes," both times.

We could have once said, "No," to the original MAPS plan which included what became the Ford Center in the 1st place but which, as it turned out, didn't include sufficient funding to build the arena ... and, then, we could have said, "No," when it came to extending the sales tax by 6 months so that it would get done. Had either of those 2 votes failed, we'd not even be thinking about what we're thinking about today since we'd have no arena to think about improving in the first place. We can yet say, "No," yet again, at a time that the meaning of the vote is far less speculative than the 1st 2 votes were. Without those 1st 2 "Yes" votes when only a visionary's (Mayor Ron Norick's) glimpse as to what might be was there to be offered, this 3rd vote, which involves and potentially offers a much less abstract and much more concrete possibility, would never have become possible.

You closed your post, Betts, by saying,

But, if we start moving backwards, I am not sure I want to be here. How many people are there who think like me?

I was born here and I wouldn't go as far as what you said ... this is my home. That said, I surely do recall how I regarded my home before Mayor Norick's MAPS and before another visionary, Neal Horton, envisioned what came to be Bricktown even though he didn't live to see it. Those were days of low self-esteem for this city, days of making apologies to out-of-towners, days when no after-5 pm downtown existed and Bricktown was just a collection of run down buildings on the other side of the tracks. In those days, the sentiment of the Gaylord family was that it made better sense to destroy them all rather than sinking money into a canal or a ballpark in that area, etc. I surely would not have any interest in returning to those dismal days.

[betts]

You closed your post, Betts, by saying,

I was born here and I wouldn't go as far as what you said ... this is my home. That said, I surely do recall how I regarded my home before Mayor Norick's MAPS and before another visionary, Neal Horton, envisioned what came to be Bricktown even though he didn't live to see it. Those were days of low self-esteem for this city, days of apology to out-of-towners. I surely would not have any interest in returning to those dismal days.

I actually love Oklahoma City, but the prospect of this city standing still or going backwards is depressing. My kids have gone to other cities after graduation from college because there's more to do, so by staying here, I am away from them. If I have no hope of luring any of them back here, I'm not sure I want to stay. I see this as a really big step forward for Oklahoma City, and if it doesn't pass, it seems as if the majority of people here would rather be like Wichita and Omaha than Charlotte or Denver. All over a penny sales tax for 18 months. What does that say about our hopes and dreams for our city. To me it says we have none. We'd rather save a penny.