Omni Hotel

[Laramie]

Does anyone know if the 133 room Fairfield Inn & Suites-Marriott will still be built on or near the convention center site, or does Omni's recent move block that hotel development?

Patel, who is also working on plans for a hotel in Bricktown, bought a one-story warehouse at 5 SW 5 for $1.25 million in April 2014 when the city was attempting to acquire land south of the Myriad Gardens for the $283 million convention center. He cleared the site and completed designs that won accolades from the Downtown Design Review Committee. Then plans for the convention center changed.

...The deal approved in October by Urban Renewal Commissioners will sell Patel city-owned land at the southwest corner of SW 5 and E.K. Gaylord — immediately east of the new convention center site.

Reference link: http://newsok.com/article/5530956

[Laramie]

A lot of opinions will start to change when the crane goes up. Imagine leaving a thunder game and heading west is continuous urban city through film row to classen. It will be awesome.

Think of the impression this will make on convention visitors. A park, thunder game, and a street car are all right there waiting to take you to the coolest parts of the city. If the Omni is angled right 1/2 the rooms will have an outstanding view of downtown as well. Also, by the time this is completed a high rise condo with retail on the bottom maybe viable for the cox convention center site. (personally I hope that's where they put the soccer specific stadium for the energy or a new peake)
The money is large, the potential is incredible.

^^^Agree that opinions will change once this magnificent structure is topped off.^^^

Omni obtained first rights to develop the Cox 4 square block site when it becomes available. Would think that the success of the Omni HQ hotel will have a lot to do with Omni's option to develop the cox site.



City will probably do another remodel and/or slightly modify-expand the Peake in the mid 2020s. Thunder could opt to use Tulsa's BOK Center for one season.

Funk-McLaughlin group have their eyes on the riverfront area preferably on or near the 125 acre Wheeler District for a soccer specific stadium--less expensive to develop than the toxic Producer's COOP mill site.

[Paseofreak]

The new convention center and the hotel are both scheduled to be completed in 2020. No one will touch a whisker on the Cox center until these two are complete and operational.

[OKC_on_mines]

A lot of opinions will start to change when the crane goes up. Imagine leaving a thunder game and heading west is continuous urban city through film row to classen. It will be awesome.

Think of the impression this will make on convention visitors. A park, thunder game, and a street car are all right there waiting to take you to the coolest parts of the city. If the Omni is angled right 1/2 the rooms will have an outstanding view of downtown as well. Also, by the time this is completed a high rise condo with retail on the bottom maybe viable for the cox convention center site. (personally I hope that's where they put the soccer specific stadium for the energy or a new peake)
The money is large, the potential is incredible.

Actually, after reading stories about Bob Funk Jr looking at Wheeler park for the new stadium and possibly recruiting an MLS team, I like that location better.

[UnFrSaKn]

http://newsok.com/proposed-conventio...rticle/5556638

[jn1780]

This deal is annoying and frustrating, but the city put itself in a bad negotiating position to begin with since Omni knew the city has a history of being a pushover. It would be a bad time to all of a sudden draw the line and say no.

[OKCRT]

I think the city is getting a very fair deal with Omni when you look at what other cities had to invest. This is great for OKC. Get on board!

[Pete]

I think the city is getting a very fair deal with Omni when you look at what other cities had to invest. This is great for OKC. Get on board!

I would caution people to understand that all the information and opinion on this matter is being provided by Cathy O'Connor and her group and it is completely one-sided.

I haven't had time to do in-depth analysis but did with TIF and can say a huge amount of what they present and promote is highly biased and based on assumptions that are impossible to prove.

And the Oklahoman just regurgitates it, as they did in the last several articles. In fact, much of what was written today about TIF is completely false and comes directly from Cathy's group. Any wonder why they are fed this stuff exclusively and in advance?

Cathy O'Connor is a very sharp, motivated person. But in her role with the Alliance, she is not an employee of the city, she is working for a private company and she and her staff are employed specifically to get things done in the name of economic development. If you had that job and could get your hands on billions in TIF funds to dispense as you will and $200 million to give to the Omni to help you broker a deal, why wouldn't you?

The Alliance was formed specifically to avoid public meeting and open records laws. These terms with Omni were set months ago yet were only made public on Friday when there was required 2-day notice for the city council meeting. Even then, the full funding model was not provided.

There are no checks and balances in this system because the council will and always has approved anything brought before them in the name of economic development. And these issues are so complex, the local press just repeats what it's told by the Alliance.

I can tell you when I spent months researching TIF I found many, many inconsistencies in how this has be presented and reported, and that is still happening today, although the arguments for have slightly shifted.

I love the central argument: No additional taxes! But we are giving away over $100 million in tax dollars! Obviously, that comes from somewhere yet that is never talked about in any honest way.

The simple fact is that state and city budgets are being slashed to the point of not even being able to offer basic services yet we are giving up over $100 million to pay a hotel company to build in an area where over a billion of taxpayer money has already been spent. But it's 'magic money'! Taxes don't increase and we won't miss it!

[Urbanized]

http://newsok.com/proposed-conventio...rticle/5556638

That's a very good (and pretty even-handed) column by Steve, which addresses issues like education funding, TIF and the potential impact of the ban on public assistance for subsequent hotels including the possible boutique hotel in Spaghetti Warehouse building. Hopefully everyone reads it.

[Pete]

That's a very good (and pretty even-handed) column by Steve, which addresses issues like education funding, TIF and the potential impact of the ban on public assistance for subsequent hotels including the possible boutique hotel in Spaghetti Warehouse building. Hopefully everyone reads it.

It's complete BS.

Came directly from the Alliance propaganda.

By promoting this, you are going to force me to quote all the other times this reporter completely misrepresented TIF to demonstrate his lack of understanding and own research and how he merely lifts things from Alliance presentations that I have since disproven.

[Urbanized]

I would caution people to understand that all the information and opinion on this matter is being provided by Cathy O'Connor and her group and it is completely one-sided.

I haven't had time to do in-depth analysis but did with TIF and can say a huge amount of what they present and promote is highly biased and based on assumptions that are impossible to prove.

And the Oklahoman just regurgitates it, as they did in the last several articles. In fact, much of what was written today about TIF is completely false and comes directly from Cathy's group. Any wonder why they are fed this stuff exclusively and in advance?

Cathy O'Connor is a very sharp, motivated person. But in her role with the Alliance, she is not an employee of the city, she is working for a private company and she and her staff are employed specifically to get things done in the name of economic development. If you had that job and could get your hands on billions in TIF funds to dispense as you will and $200 million to give to the Omni to help you broker a deal, why wouldn't you?

The Alliance was formed specifically to avoid public meeting and open records laws. These terms with Omni were set months ago yet were only made public on Friday when there was required 2-day notice for the city council meeting. Even then, the full funding model was not provided.

There are no checks and balances in this system because the council will and always has approved anything brought before them in the name of economic development. And these issues are so complex, the local press just repeats what it's told by the Alliance.

I can tell you when I spent months researching TIF I found many, many inconsistencies in how this has be presented and reported, and that is still happening today, although the arguments for have slightly shifted.

I love the central argument: No additional taxes! But we are giving away over $100 million in tax dollars! Obviously, that comes from somewhere yet that is never talked about in any honest way.

The simple fact is that state and city budgets are being slashed to the point of not even being able to offer basic services yet we are giving up over $100 million to pay a hotel company to build in an area where over a billion of taxpayer money has already been spent. But it's must 'magic money'! Taxes don't increase and we won't miss it!

Pete, while it's fair to point out and criticize the way information is disseminated by others, it's also fair to point out that in your own characterization so of the issue you craft your message to achieve maximum effect in favor of your viewpoint. And of course, we surely all do that.

But when you repeatedly characterize it essentially as a cash gift to a billionaire it's every bit as disingenuous, sorry. In the post above you say we are "giving up more than $100 million..." but that's simply not true and completely ignores things like the fact that the City is almost guaranteed to get back $50 million of the $85.4 million incentive (and conceivably even more). It also stubbornly continues to lay all of the cost of the garage, OGE substation relocation etc at the feet of the CC and hotel when it is quite clear that there are other drivers in the park, arena, etc.. Also, you don't acknowledge the potential for Cox redevelopment to more than offset public investment in the hotel. Sorry, that's ALSO an incomplete telling of the story.

Even bringing up that the Omni guy is a billionaire is of course designed to rile up and give the impression that this deal is being done to line a rich guy's pockets, when the fact is that clearly consultants and City officials have identified as a need a hotel product that he (or any other developer) would NEVER build here (and then rent rooms for a less than profitable amount) BUT FOR the incentive.

It's completely fair to be dubious and critical of TIF and other incentives - in fact as a taxpayer I appreciate you keeping a light shined on it - but to continue to characterize this as some type of gift without acknowledging the things I listed above betrays its own bias. In fairness we all have it, of course. But I do wish you weren't so stubborn in acknowledging the significant nuance involved in this one.

[Pete]

Pete, while it's fair to point out and criticize the way information is disseminated by others, it's also fair to point out that in your own characterization so of the issue you craft your message to achieve maximum effect in favor of your viewpoint. And of course, we surely all do that.

But when you repeatedly characterize it essentially as a cash gift to a billionaire it's every bit as disingenuous, sorry. In the post above you say we are "giving up more than $100 million..." but that's simply not true and completely ignores things like the fact that the City is almost guaranteed to get back $50 million of the $85.4 million incentive (and conceivably even more). It also stubbornly continues to lay all of the cost of the garage, OGE substation relocation etc at the feet of the CC and hotel when it is quite clear that there are other drivers in the park, arena, etc.. Also, you don't acknowledge the potential for Cox redevelopment to more than offset public investment in the hotel. Sorry, that's ALSO an incomplete telling of the story.

Even bringing up that the Omni guy is a billionaire is of course designed to rile up and give the impression that this deal is being done to line a rich guy's pockets, when the fact is that clearly consultants and City officials have identified as a need a hotel product that he (or any other developer) would NEVER build here (and then rent rooms for a less than profitable amount) BUT FOR the incentive.

It's completely fair to be dubious and critical of TIF and other incentives - in fact as a taxpayer I appreciate you keeping a light shined on it - but to continue to characterize this as some type of gift without acknowledging the things I listed above betrays its own bias. In fairness we all have it, of course. But I do wish you weren't so stubborn in acknowledging the significant nuance involved in this one.

I am merely presenting another side which is not at all represented.

As I have told Cathy many times, my perspective on this is only perceived as negative because there is zero attempt to present the other side by her group.

I've also said if there was a group constantly pumping out info only about how TIF is bad and should never be used, I'd present the other side there, such as what seems to be fair and apt applications like the Wheeler District and FNC.


And since you are questioning my impartiality, it has to be said you have a close personal relationship that comes into play here, several working relationships and a financial interest in all this.

I have none of those things and have invested months of my own time and energy and my only reward is being bad-mouthed by city officials and possibly compromising my personal business (separate from OKCTalk).


I am done dancing around all these issues.

[Urbanized]

And while I also get and appreciate calls for transparency, the fact remains the we elected our City Council to make financial decisions such as these on our behalf. There continues to be a (largely unspoken) suggestion of unseemliness, while I believe 100% that these officials are making these decisions because THEY 100% believe they are the right decisions for the city's growth and economic development.

I don't think that the City is always right - mostly due to some cultural old-think in areas like planning policy, land use and traffic engineering - but it's pretty hard to take issue with the effectiveness of MAPS-related investments to date.

[Urbanized]

I am merely presenting another side which is not at all represented.

As I have told Cathy many times, my perspective on this is only perceived as negative because there is zero attempt to present the other side by her group.

I've also said if there was a group constantly pumping out info only about how TIF is bad and should never be used, I'd present the other side there, such as what seems to be fair and apt applications like the Wheeler District and FNC.


And since you are questioning my impartiality, it has to be said you have a close personal relationship that comes into play here, several working relationships and a financial interest in all this.

I have none of those things and have invested months of my own time and energy and my only reward is being bad-mouthed by city officials and possibly compromising my personal business (separate from OKCTalk).

Yes, I'm pretty transparent here about my relationships and personal interest.

And don't get me wrong; I appreciate your work and passion and that you hold a mirror up to the process - you know this - I'm just saying that while you MAY be representing the other side, you are a bit stubborn about not including info not favorable to your side of the into your calculations. Doing so is really no different than the Chamber's blue sky predictions of which you are so critical.

[Pete]

I am responding directly to information being presented and quoted/linked and thus already included.

[BoulderSooner]

I am merely presenting another side which is not at all represented.

As I have told Cathy many times, my perspective on this is only perceived as negative because there is zero attempt to present the other side by her group.

Saying. This is a gift is not neutral or presenting the other side. Saying the owner of Omni is a billionaire isn't presenting one side it is a class warefare statement that is not even remotely relevant


Of course the alliance is behind what they present to council. That is their job economic development

The things they are not behind they don't advise the city to consider for a policy vote. That is not controversial in any way.

[mkjeeves]

I think it's worth mentioning again after all the prognostications of those on this board and others about how this will play out financially... the only study made my supposed experts in the field about the viability, requirements for success of a convention center and associated required facilities and conditions, (including some we don't have, like being an airport hub city) was the study commissioned by the Chamber that has never been released to the public.

That's water under the bridge until we have some results, (and or until we consider other similar open ended MAPS projects and vote again for leaders.) My guess is there will never be another real study of if the CC is paying off or not. There will be the same bits of pieces of information, broad statements with scant hard facts about what it all means, and requests for more money to improve and move forward.

[Pete]

Saying. This is a gift is not neutral or presenting the other side. Saying the owner of Omni is a billionaire isn't presenting one side it is a class warefare statement that is not even remotely relevant


Of course the alliance is behind what they present to council. That is their job economic development

The things they are not behind they don't advise the city to consider for a policy vote. That is not controversial in any way.

When someone asks for money based on need, their financial situation is completely relevant.

Even based on this particular project, the company has obviously achieved great profits on their hotels which is also relevant when asking for tax dollars.

It's important to note that the Alliance or anyone else involved in economic development does zero follow-up and reporting once money has been given to a business or developer. These applications are always made on the assumption that proposed projects are not otherwise economically feasible, but there is no analysis after the fact -- when there is now an actual track record in hard numbers -- to determine if that was true in the first place or how much profit was made.

We now have a lot of projects that have been completed with public assistance and determining if they really needed the money in the first place is not even a consideration because frankly, I'm sure the exercise would not in any way forward the idea that such funds are required.

In fact, just last week I spoke to a developer who has received TIF funds and he admitted you can write your pro formas specifically to show 'need' and in aid of receiving this tax money.

[UnFrSaKn]

http://kfor.com/2017/07/18/hotels-su...incoming-omni/

This guy says all the hoteliers are for the Omni.

[Pete]

http://kfor.com/2017/07/18/hotels-su...incoming-omni/

This guy says all the hoteliers are for the Omni.

That guy is Mike Carrier who is the head of the OKC Conventions and Vistors Bureau.

He has been the primary proponent of the convention center and hotel from the very beginning.

It's like asking Cathy O'Connor if she wants another $500 million of TIF to help her do her job.

[Urbanized]

When someone asks for money based on need, their financial situation is completely relevant...

The difference here is that the CITY has the need, not the developer. This is what I think is being missed in this discussion. Omni did not come to the City and say "hey, we want to build this great hotel...but we need you to pitch in." In fact, it's highly unlikely Omni would be in this market but for this deal, and if they came here of their own accord the hotel would in no way resemble this one.

Instead, the City and its consultants identified a need for a hotel that doesn't make business sense for a hotelier but which makes a ton of business sense for a city already committed to investing hundreds of millions of dollars in a convention center. It is the CITY'S need being addressed here, NOT the developer's. To suggest otherwise is not a fair retelling.

This is very, very different from almost any other incentive deal we have seen recently other than FNC, specifically because it is clearly being done this way pretty much exclusively to provide benefit the CITY (and by extension its taxpayers) rather than the developer.

[Urbanized]

That guy is Mike Carrier who is the head of the OKC Conventions and Vistors Bureau.

He has been the primary proponent of the convention center and hotel from the very beginning.

It's like asking Cathy O'Connor if she wants another $500 million of TIF to help her do her job.

Another way to look at that is that Mike is a nationally-recognized CVB executive who was brought to OKC in part to deliver more convention and tourism business, which City officials (and taxpayers through their record of voting for MAPS) believe is important for the growth and development of OKC and its economy. Just because someone says positive things about something that will help them do their job better - after many years of effort on their part - doesn't mean their viewpoint is by extension invalidated.

[Pete]

^

The city put out an RFP and Omni applied.

Then, said they couldn't make the deal work without all these incentives and conditions.

And the whole assumption behind incentives is the city 'needs' the development in one way or another. Otherwise, why give them money at all?

The only thing different here is the scale. It's all the same economic development arguments about how the city will benefit down the line.

[Anonymous.]

The difference here is that the CITY has the need, not the developer. This is what I think is being missed in this discussion. Omni did not come to the City and say "hey, we want to build this great hotel...but we need you to pitch in." In fact, it's highly unlikely Omni would be in this market but for this deal, and if they came here of their own accord the hotel would in no way resemble this one.

Instead, the City and its consultants identified a need for a hotel that doesn't make business sense for a hotelier but which makes a ton of business sense for a city already committed to investing hundreds of millions of dollars in a convention center. It is the CITY'S need being addressed here, NOT the developer's. To suggest otherwise is not a fair retelling.

This is very, very different from almost any other incentive deal we have seen recently other than FNC, specifically because it is clearly being done this way pretty much exclusively to provide benefit the CITY (and by extension its taxpayers) rather than the developer.

I am pretty sure Omni is the one who sent in their proposal. Or are you suggesting the city behind-the-scenes reached out to Omni and said "hey, put a bid in, we'll hook you up"?

[Urbanized]

Also, Will might have been referring to Blaine Thompson in that story, not Mike. Blaine is the GM of the Colcord, and this goes directly to this discussion. Here is someone who typically would be AGAINST a bunch of new hotel rooms being added downtown, and certainly against a competitor getting incentive dollars that he did not get. If anybody might have a personal bias against this project it might be a competitor. And yet at council yesterday he said this:

"As a hotelier in general, it's not often that I would stand here on behalf of more hotel rooms in the market," Colcord Hotel General Manager Blaine Thompson told the city council. "But, a project like this is a little bit different. Most hotels don't generate demand."

and this:

"When those are here, they can make your month," Thompson said. "We benefit greatly from the activity around the convention center: the room nights, the food and beverage opportunities, and revenues that come with that."

These are points that I have been trying to get across in my posts; so many people here and elsewhere are trying to judge the CC and the Omni strictly based on their own financial performance. The goal of these projects is not specifically to make rent money or room tax money in the hotel. The goal is to book events that will put people in rooms all over downtown, and in the case of a "city-wide" would pack hotels, restaurants and stores all over OKC. This is hugely important for the City's bottom line, general fund and tax base, not to mention the payrolls of all of these places (whose employees in turn pay taxes and spend money here).

The next goal for City officials would of course be to structure the deal in such a way that it doesn't present an open-ended, ongoing financial burden/liability. They accomplished this with this particular negotiation.

This whole thing is not too terribly different from our arena, where we paid $85 million to build it, $100 million to bring it to NBA standards, $20 million for an NBA practice facility, and then turned it over for next to nothing to a bunch of rich guys. Yet I think you'll probably have to talk to 100 people in this town before you find one who believes it was not money well spent, with great economic, cultural and brand impact for our city.