Vote "YES" December 14

[Keith]

Vote Yes on December 14

Help Oklahoma City keep its title of "Horse Show Capital of the World" and protect $181.9 million in revenue and 3,600 jobs.

On December 14, Oklahoma City residents will have the opportunity to approve a measure that will provide a dedicated funding source to renovate the city-owned horse show facilities located at State Fair Park. Better, modern facilities will help keep horse shows and events in Oklahoma City.

A "YES" vote on December 14 gives Oklahoma City the ability to raise the current hotel/motel occupancy tax from 2% to 5.5%, the first increase in the hotel/motel occupancy tax in 30 years. The revenue generated by the increase will be dedicated to fund approximately $55 million in much-needed improvements to horse show venues at State Fair Park.

Renovating our city-owned horse show venues will help us keep the national horse shows that generate $181.9 million for our city economy and provide 3,600 jobs with a total payroll of $66.5 million.

Since the hotel/motel occupancy tax is paid by visitors staying in the city's hotels and motels, Oklahoma City residents won't feel the burden from this increase - only the benefit of keeping and growing our city's horse show industry.



This is something we really need if we want to keep the horse industry to keep growing in OKC. Remember, the tax will not affect us, unless you stay in an Oklahoma City hotel/motel.

[floater]

Yes, we should all support this!! The state fairgrounds need it. I even wish we would campaign for more extensive beautification and renovation of the grounds to make them a place we can spend time in -- whether there's an event there or not.

[Midtowner]

I'm voting against it. The tax is being raised for a specific purpose. However, there is no provision for it to sunset when the project is paid for. I don't like that kind of tax raise. I'd be supportive of a temporary tax though.

That being said, I think it'll pass.

[mranderson]

I will support it, however, we could easily afford to go to 10-12%. 12 is the national average. I use that to estimate hotel costs.

[Midtowner]

I don't feel that's a good reason to justify a tax. We can only justify it if there's a need. When the need for the money goes away so should the tax. Am I against a hotel tax to improve our fairgrounds? No.

Am I against a permanent tax for a project that will only take x amount of time? Yes.

[metro]

Midtowner,

Several things. One, the tax does not have a sunset as you have noticed, however the additional revenue will continue the necessary maintenance to keep our (newly updated) facilities once they are built. Also the tax mainly affects travelers, not residents therefore you will probably not be paying for it. Two, as Mr. Anderson has noted our rate is about 75% lower than the national average, one reason why alot of other cities have nicer things. Come and show your support for the city, if you don't like the sunset law, push for a amendment in a few years.

[mranderson]

In fact, to go a bit farther than metro went. Oklahoma City's hotel/motel tax is the lowest in the nation of all major cities.

Our vehicle rental tax, however, is close to the highest at over 14%.

[1adam12]

The thing is, we CAN justify the tax. Sure, it is a permanent tax, but it won't affect you unless you stay in one of the hotels in OKC. If we want to spruce up our city so that visitors will want to stay, then this is the tax we need. Most of the tourists won't even notice, because many people pay for their rooms with credit cards. Not that we are trying to hide something, but if they need a place to stay, they will pay.

[Midtowner]

Midtowner,

Several things. One, the tax does not have a sunset as you have noticed, however the additional revenue will continue the necessary maintenance to keep our (newly updated) facilities once they are built. Also the tax mainly affects travelers, not residents therefore you will probably not be paying for it. Two, as Mr. Anderson has noted our rate is about 75% lower than the national average, one reason why alot of other cities have nicer things. Come and show your support for the city, if you don't like the sunset law, push for a amendment in a few years.

metro, if you have paid attention to OKC politics over the last few years, you might have noticed that short of sunset clauses that were already built into legislation, there has never been something on the ballot to eliminate a tax. It'd never happen.

As for needing the same money to finance the bonds as to maintain rennovations, that sounds very neat in proposal, but in practice I just don't see how you can continue to need expanded funding over time to maintain something even after the bond had been retired. It sounds like they'd just find more to spend the money on, thus eventually necessitating further tax hikes.

The national average on a tax in my mind does not necessitate us raising ours to match it. Low taxes are something that if marketed correctly can add to the image of a town. In a few years, who knows, I may be done with law school, I may run for City Council, etc. However, politicians (and I guess that'd make me one), do not make cutting spending their major issues (unless they want to lose) -- especially in municipal elections. They focus on what cool new stuff you can bring to the city.

I do rent hotel rooms in the OKC area at least once for my college fraternity's annual formal (I'm an alum advisor), so yes, this tax effects me. In principal, I think hotel taxes are pure BS -- it's 100% taxation without representation.

I know this will in all likelihood pass. And just to turn the tables on you a bit, I'm going to support my city and what I think is best for my city by voting against it. If the stars align and I win, if you'd like, you can come back to the table and bring a tax with a sunset clause in it.

[mranderson]

In short, these hotel/motel people are willing to pay that 12%. Myself included. So, why not let them? We can reap the reward.

You, of course, have the right to deny the fairgrounds the opportunity to renovate and replace obsolete buildings, thus causing our events to move, however, I wish you would think about WHO is paying the bill this time.

[Midtowner]

Are they willing? Sure, they're forced to. Not really a fair assumption.

I have the right to make a principled vote against a tax to finance a single project when that tax has not sunset clause.

It does not matter if I end up being "WHO is paying the bill this time". I just want taxes in my city to be done the right way -- and in such a way that opportunities for future hikes are lessened. A permenant tax definitely sets the stage for us to eventually need even more money to dump into that place.

Also, I especially don't trust anyone in the fairgrounds management group to responsibly and efficiently disburse the monies they'd receive because of such a tax.

The next thing you know, they'll want to build an NFL stadium there with the money, then what? Of course, eventually we'll end up with a lot of overhead from the projects already completed and 20 years down the line be pushing for an additional tax.

[mranderson]

"The next thing you know, they'll want to build an NFL stadium there with the money, then what? Of course, eventually we'll end up with a lot of overhead from the projects already completed and 20 years down the line be pushing for an additional tax."

I can live with that. And I HATE football. Plus. A government body is a business. Non profit, but a business. On occasion, your facilities become obsolete and need replacing. The citizens are the stockholders, the city council (in this case) are the board of directors. If we use it, we should pay for it. In this case, it just happens to be the visitors can pay. If we need another tax in 20 years, so be it. At least we will not have facilities that make the slums look like Bel Aire.

Oh by the way. This is directed to EVERYONE who opposes tax increases. How would YOU pay for the needed improvements?

[Midtowner]

Like I said, hotel taxes are fine. They just need to sunset once their intended goals are reached. In this state, the way politics and backroom deals go, I don't want any 'unclaimed' money floating around. I guarantee you, they'll find a home for it in someone's pocket whether the people need it or not.

Let the people decide on the merit of each project. As stakeholders in this city, I think we're qualified to say where our taxes go in the future. By not demanding a sunset clause in this tax, you are saying that we have no right to vote on the next project the city decides to do.

[mranderson]

Like I said, hotel taxes are fine. They just need to sunset once their intended goals are reached. In this state, the way politics and backroom deals go, I don't want any 'unclaimed' money floating around. I guarantee you, they'll find a home for it in someone's pocket whether the people need it or not.

Let the people decide on the merit of each project. As stakeholders in this city, I think we're qualified to say where our taxes go in the future. By not demanding a sunset clause in this tax, you are saying that we have no right to vote on the next project the city decides to do.

The tables are turned, Mid. How would YOU get the funding for the state fair improvements? Obviosuly you do not want tax dollars of ANY kind to pay for it.

You ask me all the time to "justify" my remarks. It is your turn.

[Midtowner]

I've said it 3 or 4 times. If they proposed a hotel tax with a sunset, I'd vote for it.

I didn't say I was against the project or against raising taxes to help pay for it. What I did say was I was against a tax for a one-time project that didn't sunset -- that means that after the fairground's bond is retired, there will be excess money.

Excess money = new project from our tax money without consulting the voters. That translates into backroom deals and corruption. The simple way to do that is to sunset the hotel tax when the bond is retired. Maybe provisions could also be made to set up a fund to pay for the maintenance of the upgrades, but seeing as we're already paying for that with current revenues, I don't see how that much extra would be needed.

So in short, I'm okay with a hotel tax that sunsets when the bonds get paid off.

[mranderson]

OK. You said you would not vote for this tax. Then tell me how you would get funding for the improvements this tax is to bring.

[Midtowner]

Well, your question ignores the fact that I've said several times that I would vote for the tax if it had a sunset clause.

Also, your question assumes that I think the city can't live without these investments. I don't think the horse shows are vital to our success as a city. They'd be nice, but I'm not willing to finance public corruption to achieve our ends.

It's not for me to decide where the money comes from. All I'm concerned with is that the project, if the voters approved it would be paid for however the voters saw fit. Once the project is complete, we will no longer need the tax. I won't support any new tax ever if I don't know where the money is going to go. To do so, in my eyes is irresponsible.

[mranderson]

No I am not ignoring what you said. You simpally said you would not vote for this particular referindum and I asked a very simple and logical question.

You obvioulsly do not have an answer, which does not surprise me since I have posed a similar question and no one bothers to answer it.

[Midtowner]

I think I did answer your question unless you're asking how I specifically thought I could fund this project. Maybe buy lottery tickets?

And as I said, if this thing had a sunset clause in it, I'd be more inclined to vote for it.

What is specifically insufficient in my answer for you? I really haven't seen the data that shows that this is as serious a problem that needs to be fixed immediately. I really don't know that these new facilities will 'save' the horse show business here in OKC. I'm not sure what the return on investment is for our city.

The fact that proponents of this measure aren't out there speaking about things like that, just that we could lose some shows really has me more concerned than convinced (and the concern is primarily over the credibility of these claims that our position in the horse show business is in any danger).

What I do know is that this tax will eventually raise more money than is required to fund the current projects -- a LOT more. I'm very curious as to why they didn't put a sunset clause in there. Nothing like that is done by accident.

[mranderson]

"What is specifically insufficient in my answer for you?"

It is simple. What means of funding would you use? It was phrased in a clear manner. Lottery tickets? That would create a city lottery which I doubt any city has. Try again.

[Midtowner]

The lottery ticket idea was in jest -- you misunderstood anyway, I suggested that the city played the state lottery

I'm not going to repeat myself. Simply read any one of my several replies in this thread to see what means of funding I would use.

Or perhaps I should spell it out since you seem to have difficulty understanding:

I would approve a tax only if several criteria could be met:

#1: The tax goes away once the bond is retired.
#2: The benefits/costs are *CLEARLY* explained and I can see that the tax would bring in enough money/prestige to the city to make the tax worth it.
#3: The fact that the facilities are currently enduring some sort of crisis is clearly established.

I have seen none of those things. All I've heard is the typical "If we don't pass this, armegaddon is not far off". Sorry, but that isn't good enough for me. I'm all for improving this city, but one man's improvement is another man's waste. I want to know which this is -- improvement or waste? I don't think that's been spelled out well enough.

So what specific means? I suppose I'd want to know if it's needed before I voted in favor of it being funded. Assuming that test was satisfied, I'd vote for just about any tax including a hotel tax that sunsets after the project is complete and the bond is retired (sunsets means it goes away).

[mranderson]

It is obvious. You do not know HOW to fund these improvements. Otherwise you would have an answer. Just like everyone else. You scream "NO MORE TAXES" but will not support your agenda.

Yes. I know what you said. Same theory.

[Midtowner]

How did you get that out of what I said? How to fund these improvements? Specifically? Something I would approve? Simple.

Step #1: You get a bond approved to pay for the project.
Step #2: You hold a vote for some sort of tax (possibly a hotel tax) that sunsets after the bond is paid for.
Step #3: Build the project.

I didn't ever say "no more taxes". Don't put words in my mouth. I said that when I pay for something, I want to know what I'm paying for. In this case, we clearly do not know what we're paying for since the tax will continue to be assessed even after the project it was intended for is long paid for. That is my objection here.

I also have concerns that there are some ulterior motives for passing this tax. As is done in Oklahoma City, often a tax is approved for one purpose and then diverted to another -- see Bass Pro Shops and MAPS for a recent example. It shouldn't suprise anyone that Gaylord had a 1/3 stake in MAPS. Nothing has changed in the way the good 'ol boy network works here in OKC. If you can't see what's up here, you're blind.

From the numbers I've seen, the cost is probably justified (although the sources of those numbers were VERY questionable).

I'm not anti-tax. I just demand/require integrity and responsibility with the people in charge of spending my tax money. It hasn't happened in the past, therefore unless we put this money in a "lockbox" and make sure it doesn't exist after the project is completed and paid for, we, the taxpayers are going to get screwed.

[metro]

Midtowner, there is sufficient information out about this issue. You can go to the city website www.okc.gov for one example. There are several other websites out there. This is the city's #1 focus right now, even Mayor Cornett has been speaking out about this. This is one of our most viable sources of revenue to the city. Alone, the shows bring $180 million in revenue. You can find the figures in the paper, online, and on the city public access channels as well as commercials running now. All you have to do is drive by the fairgrounds and see the dilapidated shape they are in. I never use them and probably never will but realize what a huge loss this would be for our city, it would have an almost big impact as the oil bust if we lost this industry. Look at Ft. Worth, Houston, Denver, and Albuquerque, they are our serious competitors with new facilities stealing away our business. We are currently the worlds largest equine industry and as you can easily see our facilities are not even close to par, much yet this century.

[metro]

Here is one excerpt I found:

Mayor Mick Cornett wrote the following article for a local newspaper to provide citizens his observations and views related to “State of the City” in the summer of 2004.

One of our biggest opportunities for economic development is State Fair Park.

Location, location, location. State Fair Park is located in the middle of Oklahoma City, the middle of the state… and the middle of the country. With immediate access to I-44 and I-40, it has outstanding interstate access. The site is already home to one of the largest annual state fairs in the country. And if you’ve driven down I-44 during one of our horse shows and glanced at the fairgrounds, you have seen for yourself the tremendous number of horse trailers filling the parking lots.

The State Fair Park is indirectly responsible for an influx of more than $100 million a year into our city’s economy. Unfortunately, after 40 years of use, our State Fair Park facilities are no longer up to the standards that we (or the horse-show industry) demand. We have reached a level of urgency regarding the horse show business and will need to invest in capital improvements if we hope to maintain, let alone build on , our horse show tourism business. We should really envision State Fair Park not for what it is, but what it could be. With that location, it could become a leading exposition center, not only for horse shows, but much, much more.