Convention Center

[mkjeeves]

Only if the convention center is not planning to spend all of it's budget, and I am very sure that isn't the case.

They are going to spend their budget, plus the $30 million extra that was just allocated, plus contingency, PLUS more City assets in the form of land. And this is before we even have a design, let alone construction bids.

That was not the deal struck with voters and the reason there is a budget -- and subcommittees and all types of oversight -- in the first place.

Plus piggyback on public funding by hook or crook of a CC Hotel to attempt to make the CC viable.

[Urbanized]

If we put it on land the city already owns, would anybody care?

So far, it appears only mkjeeves would. The fact that Pete would apparently support THIS scenario but not a land swap is what confuses me about his argument.

By the way, my position on this is very consistent and has nothing to do with the CC itself, or even MAPS. If the City needs to build a public facility - a building, a park, or other infrastructure - and can locate it on land they already own or can do a fair land swap for the needed property I'm all for it. And if doing so allows them to more easily bring in a quality project within the identified construction funding, I would see that as a cause for celebration rather than a cause for consternation.

[mkjeeves]

So far, it appears only mkjeeves would. The fact that Pete would apparently support THIS scenario but not a land swap is what confuses me about his argument.

By the way, my position on this is very consistent and has nothing to do with the CC itself, or even MAPS. If the City needs to build a public facility - a building, a park, or other infrastructure - and can locate it on land they already own or can do a fair land swap for the needed property I'm all for it. And if doing so allows them to more easily bring in a quality project within the identified construction funding, I would see that as a cause for celebration rather than a cause for consternation.

I wouldn't if that had been the plan from the start or they were going to be honest about the total cost and spend. They are making a sham of the MAPs voter approval process.

[Pete]

So far, it appears only mkjeeves would. The fact that Pete would apparently support THIS scenario but not a land swap is what confuses me about his argument.

My issue - and it should be everyone's -- is that they are changing the rules after they were already decided. Please name another MAPS project that has been handled in this way.

And they are effectively increasing the investment in this particular project (potentially by a very wide margin), which already has a very dubious track record of favoritism before it is even out of the gate. AND they are already planning to spend a ton more tax dollars on other cc "necessities".

Where does this end?

[Just the facts]

Only if the convention center is not planning to spend all of it's budget, and I am very sure that isn't the case.

They are going to spend their budget, plus the $30 million extra that was just allocated, plus contingency, PLUS more City assets in the form of land.

That was not the deal struck with voters and the reason there is a budget -- and subcommittees and all types of oversight -- in the first place.

I think you missed what I was saying. The 'budget' is based 100% on the CC's share of MAPS III money. If there is a land swap and no real money changes hands above the $17 million allocated, yet you charge the total value of the land to the CC budget, then that will produce a surplus in the MAPS III funds. The only way that doesn't happen is if there is a transfer of real money from the MAPS III bucket to the City's general fund and that would be totally ridiculous and a much bigger violation of the public trust than anything that is going on in this discussion. The City doesn't sell land to itself and it sure doesn't transfer money from MAPS to the general fund.

When the cc study was produced it identified 3 components that were required to be successful: 1) The MAPS III funded phase I, 2) A non-MAPS funded phase II, 3) A hotel. If the hotel can be funded off the MAPS III budget even though it is part of the same overall project and on the same land, then why is there an issue for item #2 - because ostensibly, the land acquisition includes space for phase II and the hotel. If you want to watch for funny business, during the hotel development see if they try and 'sell' the land the hotel is going to be on and then transfer those proceeds to the CC budget. If we stick with what you are proposing then that not only would be acceptable, it would be required - and I am sure all of us would cry foul if that happens.

Now I assuming the City Council will have to approve the land swap idea. I know here on OKCTalk this idea has been discussed and bandied about for at least 6 years.

[kevinpate]

...

So, why is the convention center being treated this way when no other MAPS project has been?

...

perhaps because its the project that matters most to certain folk who party on the corner of movers blvd. and shakers ave.?

[Pete]

perhaps because its the project that matters most to certain folk who party on the corner of movers blvd. and shakers ave.?

Look no further than who are the primary backers of this project.

No one can deny it has been treated very, very differently than any other MAPS project, past or current.


I have no issue with the convention center. It was part of MAPS 3 and that has all been agreed upon.

But the ends does not justify the means and we have an ever-growing list of unique and questionable decisions and tactics around this project and we are still in the early stages.

it seems like every week there is some new initiative working behind the scenes to increase the public investment.

[Urbanized]

I will reiterate that I would support use of City-owned property in the building of not only this project but ALL MAPS projects and in fact all publicly-funded projects. I find nothing objectionable or questionable about this...at all.

[David]

Has any other MAPS project been built on city owned land? And if so, has the effective value of the land ever been charged to that project's budget?

[Mr. Cotter]

This is the most interesting "argument" I've read on here in a long time.

I have no issue with the land swap as long as a fair appraisal is used for both parcels. As far as the budget goes, could they not split this into two actions? Step 1: trade land. Step 2: hey look! We decided to build the CC on the land we just swapped. (That's an honest question.) I know because a municipality is involved, the same rules don't apply, but this isn't that different than transactions I've structured using 1031 exchanges.

[Urbanized]

The ballpark was built on land that was partly comprised of a COTPA maintenance facility. The arena was built on land that was partly comprised of a COTPA transfer terminal. The library was built on OCURA property. fairgrounds improvements were/are of course built on state fair property. And Riversport improvements are of course being constructed on land owned by the City.

[Urbanized]

Here's a question: at one point the City owned the Santa Fe station, before selling it in the 90s and then recently re-acquiring via eminent domain. This is completely theoretical, but if the City had never sold in the 90s and it had remained mothballed, then MAPS3 passed with the same lack of a certain location for the transit hub, would those of you against this CC land use be troubled if the City said "hey! Let's just use the train station we already own and save the site acquisition costs!"? Or would you just look at it as a no-brainer, and feel like the City was making good decisions with your taxpayer funds and assets?

I haven't heard anyone here begrudging the use of City-owned property at no charge to build the Whitewater facility, BTW. I think most of this criticism revolves around distaste for the CC project and its perceived champions.

[Pete]

I will reiterate that I would support use of City-owned property in the building of not only this project but ALL MAPS projects and in fact all publicly-funded projects. I find nothing objectionable or questionable about this...at all.

Yet, it's never been done.

The only reason it's being done here is to circumvent the existing budget.


Now, if the City wanted to come forward with a specific plan on how they could use existing assets to supplement ALL of MAPS, great. Let's talk about that and decide if we want to invest more in projects and how that would work.

But that's not what is happening here. This is only being done for this project and the reasons for that are pretty clear.

Why not do it for Central Park? They had to acquire a ton of parcels, several at great cost. Why not just trade out those parcels for land OCURA has been acquiring along the park's perimeter? And why not use those proceeds to save the MAPS funds to make the park bigger and better, or to start an operating endowment?

But of course none of that is being contemplated as far as I know.


This is nothing more than a ploy to increase public investment in the convention center ONLY. This is not an overall MAPS strategy.

[Urbanized]

Again Pete, you're being inconsistent. Earlier in the thread you said you would be supportive of the use of City land at no charge to the CC budget IF the building were being placed on the land in question but NOT if a swap was involved. I'm sorry, I think few if any posting here or voting at the polls would make that distinction. I don't agree with mkjeeves either, but at least he's being consistent.

[Pete]

Again Pete, you're being inconsistent. Earlier in the thread you said you would be supportive of the use of City land at no charge to the CC budget IF the building were being placed on the land in question but NOT if a swap was involved. I'm sorry, I think few if any posting here or voting at the polls would make that distinction. I don't agree with mkjeeves either, but at least he's being consistent.

I would be supportive only if that was decided before the budgets were set OR the land swap was part of an overall strategy for all of MAPS, rather than an exception being made for this one project.

[Urbanized]

That's fair, though I don't think it fully aligns with your previous statement. Like I've said, I would be supportive if this were a part of an overall strategy for MAPS - and believe that after-the-fact land USE (though not yet swap) already is - and really, for ALL public facilities projects.

[Stickman]

Pete has a good point. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like one..............its probably a duck.
If this what they are trying to do behind the door, then make it transparent to the public.

[Urbanized]

It is being openly discussed in the media by public officials. I'm not sure how much more transparency you can ask for.

[Pete]

It's very obvious what is happening here and like too many things with the City, the details will only come out at the very end once everything has been decided and any necessary City Council approvals already banked.

I was told by a council member not named Ed Shadid that it's very well understood that 5 of the council votes -- the majority -- are lead-pipe cinches on anything that comes from the Chamber or big business.

And that's why this project continues to be handled very differently than all the others.

[Stickman]

Good, I'm not against anything that will help facilitate the building of the CC. I also don't have a problem with land owners making a buck, but I don't want to see the tax payer get bent over either. Lots of bitter taste still in the mouths of people out there; remember the County Jail, or the bond issue for school air conditioners? You want another MAPS vote to pass don't you?

[Pete]

It is being openly discussed in the media by public officials. I'm not sure how much more transparency you can ask for.

Where?

[David]

The ballpark was built on land that was partly comprised of a COTPA maintenance facility. The arena was built on land that was partly comprised of a COTPA transfer terminal. The library was built on OCURA property. fairgrounds improvements were/are of course built on state fair property. And Riversport improvements are of course being constructed on land owned by the City.

I had a feeling that was probably the case.

Wasn't there a development proposal for the Ford site before it gained momentum as the CC location? This new land swap possibility makes me wonder if it might still be in the cards, just up a block and over.

[Pete]

Yes, there were rough plans announced to develop the Ford site before it was chosen as the cc location.

[BoulderSooner]

Just a FYI. The streetcar maint hub. Is being built in land that was not owned by the city. A land swap got Okc the land at no cost to the streetcar budget.

The site (across the street from the old Union station next to the new I40 was ODOT land and the city did a land swap with them.

I have no problem with either land swap.

[Urbanized]

Oh, snap.

Where has the outrage been on that one?