From all I have read on this site and on the Oklahoma, I have yet to read a reality-based reason for voting "no" for the arena improvements. Could some of you non-supporters state why you are opposed. I don't need a long reply, just some bullett points.

__________________
Oklahoma City - The surprise your family has been looking for.

Although I'm voting yes, some people are voting no for these reasons:

1. They're upset with local politics in the wake of John Porter being fired. They're retaliating against local politics by voting against the measure. Most in this group believe in the conspiracy theory, that everyone in our local government is out to screw the city, and reap personal benefits as a result.

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

3. Some people are saying they never go to the Ford Center for events, and thus they shouldn't be asked to pay for improvements. These are the same people that say they don't have children, so they shouldn't pay for improvements to our schools. They're for a use-tax on tickets sold at the Ford Center, passing the expense off to those that actually use the venue.


4. Some don't want to be a major league city. Some like being a small city without all of the big city problems.

* I support the arena improvements. I do not support the practice facility if it's for the exclusive use of an NBA team. They should build their own practice facility. That is, in fact, a giveaway to millionaires - however you choose to spin it.

* Anybody not supporting this because of the Porter scandal is ridiculous.

* There's a big difference between a tax for a practice facility for the NBA and funding schools.

* I will add the HYPOCRISY of "conservatives" that always run to the local government for subsidies yet oppose tax dollars for just about anything at the national level that doesn't benefit those of their own class. That's a legitimate beef.

I have said that good people can disagree on some of the fine points of this. We can even choose to vote differently. I think our mayor and the bullying tactics of the NBA (which is made up of owners who choose to pay players 24,000,000.00 a year) are not being straight about how this is a Quid Pro Quo and basically, amounts to blackmail and holding the city hostage. This bull about, "They want to see, with our votes, if we can support an NBA team," is completely ridiculous. Voting on a tax - that is a political issue - is going to show them more than our two years with the Hornets?

Let's at least be honest about all this.

Although I understand your points, solitude, this is where we disagree completely. Yes, the NBA understands that we supported the Hornets and did it well. Yes, they know we're about ready for a team, although our population and income averages are a bit marginal. But, there's one basic problem with putting a team here in our $89 million dollar arena. Clay Bennett went to the city of Seattle and told them he needed a $450 million dollar arena. Whether you agree with him doing so or not, the city of Seattle's refusal to build it is the only reason David Stern is considering allowing Bennett et al to move the team. Were Seattle building an arena, we would not be having this discussion, as there would be no team moving to Oklahoma City. If you were living in Seattle, and David Stern told you he was moving the Sonics to Oklahoma City, despite the fact that Seattle is three times the size of Oklahoma City, despite the fact that their median income is twice as high and their tv market is three times as big, and despite the fact that the Sonics were placed in Seattle as an expansion team and have been there for forty years, wouldn't you be pretty angry if he was allowing Oklahoma City to tell the world they refused to renovate an $89 million dollar arena? By moving a team here without a yes vote, you have given every city with an NBA team permission to tell the owners they can build their own arena the next time they need one. I'm one of the people that thinks owners having a 30% chance of operating in the red every year, and probably higher in a small market, makes me more inclined to want to at least see that they can break even.

I understand that it is the practice facility you are having the most trouble accepting, and I understand that too. As I've said, I'd be more than happy to pay for it with a seat tax, but this is the tax proposal we've got. I don't think I get a write in for my seat tax suggestion. And, even if I disagreed with the concept of paying for the practice facility, which I don't, as we built the Redhawks stadium for a private owner and it gets far less use for other things than the Ford Center does, there is no mechanism to separate it from the other funding for the arena. Because I think it's more important to get a team here than it is to make a statement about how I think sports facilities are to be funded, I vote yes.

Really, the practice facility won't be used exclusively for the NBA team. It will be owned by the city (us) and used for high school basektball teams, sporting camps, birthday parties, and other uses. And, the NBA team will be paying rent to use the facility, so it won't be a giveaway.

Actually, Bennett and Co. haven't been quoted as going to the city and asking for this. I believe it's been Stern that has suggested the improvement, ahead of the relocation vote.

Actually, it makes complete sense. They want to make sure we're going to keep our facilities updated, and not be another Seattle that refuses to provide updated facilities for its NBA team.

By the way, I'd like to see us start finishing what we started.....I'd like to see us finish the Ford Center....complete it how it should've been completed in the first place.

Also, here's a good point. Some people are saying that Bennett should pay for the upgrades. Why should he have to pay for upgrades for an arena he doesn't own???? That's like saying that I should pay to renovate my apartment....heck no.....I rent this apartment I live in...I don't own it, so I'm not making any repairs to it. That's the landlord's responsiblity. And, if my landlord doesn't keep the apartment up, I'll go looking elsewhere. Same thing here.

Patrick, Where have you seen this? I have heard a lot of talk, but in the actual proposal there doesn't seem to be anything in it that would permit the above.

Well, of course not! Can you imagine the outcry if it was a member of the Gaylord Empire that was directly asking taxpayer assistance for a practice gym for their players who are paid millions of dollars?

By the way, Patrick, who paid for NBA arenas, NFL stadiums, MLB facilities, etc. before the mid-seventies?

Betts, Your points are all well taken and, as always, stated eloquently. As I stated in another thread, I am not excited about all the fine points of the package, but I might yet vote "yes" on the deal. A healthy debate regarding public responsibility and city priorities is not a bad thing.

It will be a city-managed facility just like the rest. If you've got the money, you can rent it!


It was a mixture of private and public dollars, depending on which arena you look at.

Agreed!

I cannot find a single quote from anyone that the practice facility will be for exclusive use of an NBA team. I can tell you that the practice facility for the Tampa Bay Lightning is open to the public when the team is not using the facility. However, I don't see this as being any different than Bass Pro. The city owns the building and Bass Pro pays rent. To my knowledge you cannot rent the Bass Pro building for a birthday party, so I assume they have an exclusive use clause in their contract.

As a conservative I can tell you that I support this measure when I oppose most federal taxes. Maybe it is because I see a difference between the roles of the federal, state, and local governments. I see the funding of an arena and practice facility as an appropriate function of local governement. In fact, I think the state and county should kick in some funds also. Do I think the federal government should be funding things like the Ford Center? No.

__________________
Oklahoma City - The surprise your family has been looking for.

I think people get tunnel vision about this practice facility.

It is not only a practice facility for an NBA team, but also for other activities that an arena would be to big for:

1. Summer basketball camp, for boys and girls, Chris Paul has a camp here, and other NBA players might want to start one as well.

2. High school state championship games for smaller schools.

3. City sponsored 3 on 3 tournaments.

4. Youth programs during the summer.

5. As a practice or facility for NCAA or Big 12 tournaments, while the tournaments are going on.

There are a lot of programs that could be held year round.

Some cities do and some don't. Meaning, some of the cities paid for it and it's used exclusively for the team. Others, like you're describing in Jax, allow it to be available for other uses. I've heard different things regarding this. It has been discussed in council meetings without adequate answers one way or the other.

Well of course not. You missed the point entirely.

The NBA facility would be primarily for the use of the NBA team. The warm-up court(s?) that are proposed would be more for what is described above. The practice facility might not even be located downtown. It could host a players own summer camp or a team sponsored camp, though.

I think you are right, John. The warm-up courts and the "practice facililities," are always confused.

Let's be clear about what this so-called "Practice Facility" is really all about. It's fancy digs for the front office and a luxury hang-out for the players. Some NBA "Practice Facilities" have theaters, sleep-pods, luxury, luxury and more luxury. They are basically used as luxury office space and special amenities to recruit free-agents and pamper the millionaire players. That's the bottom line on why some of us feel it should not be a part of the taxpayer-funded package.

An example of a "practice facility"....
The Sacramento Kings Practice Facility

EDIT: I just found a good story that goes into what these things really are. MSNBC has the scoop on lavishing the players with luxury in the practice facilities. The article looks at Cleveland and Dallas, who both have these new "practice facilities."

By fancy, do you mean real wood furniture, phones, plasma tv's and playstations? These might be fancy or lavish for you, but this is what I have in my home. Would it make you feel better if they had sauder furniture, an Atari 2600, and a Curtis Mathis console TV (vintage 1979). Last I checked, if you buy a new TV above 27 inches it has to be some kind of plasma/DLP/LCD. Even the hottubs and sauna rooms are available to most homeowners at a reasonable cost if they have the space. Unlike the Kings, office space for the NBA team will be inside the new Ford Center so we won't have to pay for a phone in each office at the practice facility. In fact, maybe they could just put in a pay phone.

__________________
Oklahoma City - The surprise your family has been looking for.

Well said Patrick, that about sums up the purpose of the vote. And to the kat who said something about who paid for arena's before 1970's, that is irrelevant, we're 30+ years past 1970 so we have to play by today's rules if we want to play at all. Uncle Rico (from Napoleon Dynamite) is still living in 1982 but we can't play by the 1970's rules just like we aren't building any more Roman Coliseum's these days either.

Even if they get exclusive rights to the facility, it's not like we're just giving it to the team. The city is going to own it, and the tenant is going to be paying rent.

It's going to be similar to the lease the Blazers have on the arena, offices, and team store. Also, the lease the Redhawks have for their offices, store, etc. in the ballpark. I don't see the difference.

I've avoided posting in this thread since I'm definitely affirmative on the Ford Center vote. But, just to be sure that new posters/lurkers don't get the idea that this is the only substantive discussion on this topic, here's the link the the main thread:

http://www.okctalk.com/okc-metro-are...ch-4-vote.html

I see no particular need to be redundant, so this is all I have to say in this thread!

Unless I change my mind!

__________________
Doug
http://www.dougloudenback.com/downtownOKC.htm
http://www.dougloudenback.com/oklahomacity.htm
http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/

Patrick & Kerry please go to the City website and watch the entire discussion on the NBA Facilities. The City Manager and Mayor made it clear that the practice facility was exclusive to the NBA. Then they also went on to say that when they were visiting an NBA arena that they could not see the practice facility because it is closed to the entire public.

Glennp - when I get some time I will go watch. While it is not my favorite idea to build it if it is "exclusive", I support the effort anyhow. I think having an NBA team is worth a 3 month 1-cent tax.

__________________
Oklahoma City - The surprise your family has been looking for.

I'll be voting yes...

Basically, if you ask anyone in the world where are the yankees from? New york
Where are the "lakers" from? Los Angles Ask ppl in china where Yao Ming plays? Houston...

To me it brings name recognition to the city and state. My personal thought is we say no to this, we are saying no to anything else big. I would give the city a 10% of getting anything other than double A, CHL, etc league play. No one cares about a CHL title, or a triple A league championship. Yeah I would be very happy but does it get talked about on ESPN? Just think if the Hornets were still here. They have the best record in the league this year. The Ford center would be a sell out every game. I know there are alot of behind the door dealings with this vote. And yes the rich get richer while the poor get poorer, but such is life.

Actually, the poor don't have to pay the tax so it has nothing to do with them. Correct me if I am wrong but since this is an extension of the MAPS tax, just a new project, don't the poor still get a chance to go to the city and apply for a refund. If not, then this is why a sales tax is the best way to go. The more you earn, the more you purchase, the more tax you pay. The less you earn, the less you buy, the less tax you pay. If you don't want to pay, then shop outside the city limits. If you live outside OKc but want to contribute then shop in OKC.

__________________
Oklahoma City - The surprise your family has been looking for.

I shop, eat, work, and most of all enjoy OKC.

The only refund offered was to senior citizens during MAPS 1. Although I support the NBA tax, it does hurt poor people more than rich people. A family of 4 pays the same for groceries no matter their income. But, it hurts the poor more because it's a greater percentage of their income. Most rich people invest their extra income in stocks and mutual funds.

I have a family of 4 I will bet you I spend way more feeding them than an average "poor" family of 4 does. Maybe if we were all eating hamburger helper, which I like BTW, then you would have a point. But generally speaking, the more money you have the more expensive your food bill. However, food is a poor example becasue we are the only society in history where poor people have a simultaneous poverty and obesity problem.

__________________
Oklahoma City - The surprise your family has been looking for.

What's your point? Do we ALL need to pay for their freakin TV's and whatever else they get there? Usually a practice facility means they go there to PRACTICE. Not play video games. They can do that in their million dollar homes...

Whats the price tag on this again? 20 mil? Even though this practice facility stupidity drives me nuts, I'll prob vote YES.