Convention Center

[Pete]

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.

What land did the City trade to ODOT?

[Stickman]

Apples for Apples, no problem with that. In this case it private and public (taxpayers) swap, Apples to Oranges.

[Urbanized]

Quite the technicality. The only measure should be independent appraisal.

[Pete]

It sure sounds like this swap was planned around the I-40 relocation and was not done specifically for MAPS; COPTA already owned land on that block:

the land is part of a previous deal between the city and state dating to the relocation of I-40.

Site near I-40 picked for Oklahoma City streetcar garage | News OK

[Urbanized]

Even if so, the point remains that the site wasn't identified in the MAPS ballot or promotion (the litmus test you've cited previously) but only decided years later, yet it didn't reduce the streetcar budget. Your argument is inconsistent and you're clutching at straws on this one Pete, I'm sorry.

[Urbanized]

To be fair and honest in this discussion I need to admit that I could be wrong that this has been discussed in the media by public officials. After a cursory online search and asking around I think that might not be the case (though still might be). My understanding now is that it has mostly just been discussed at staff level and possibly in committee meetings as an OPTION, and is by no means a sure thing. I don't believe that there has been any attempt to obscure. It is of course the JOB of City staff and MAPS committee members to explore all options.

[Pete]

Even if so, the point remains that the site wasn't identified in the MAPS ballot or promotion (the litmus test you've cited previously) but only decided years later, yet it didn't reduce the streetcar budget. Your argument is inconsistent and you're clutching at straws on this one Pete, I'm sorry.

There is a related issue here but 1) I was unaware of it until now (I had previously asked for other examples) and 2) the value of this land is a very small fraction of what we are talking about in relation to the convention center.

The last assessment for the subject property was less than a million dollars.

If the value of the land traded for the cc site is similar, then of course it's not a big issue. But I suspect we are talking about tens of millions, not hundreds of thousands.

[CuatrodeMayo]

#whatcolorsarethisdress

[Urbanized]

There is a related issue here but 1) I was unaware of it until now (I had previously asked for other examples) and 2) the value of this land is a very small fraction of what we are talking about in relation to the convention center.

The last assessment for the subject property was less than a million dollars.

If the value of the land traded for the cc site is similar, then of course it's not a big issue. But I suspect we are talking about tens of millions, not hundreds of thousands.

Shouldn't make a difference. Right is right, and wrong is wrong.

[soondoc]

I have learned a few things while reading the last 100 posts on this topic. 1. Some people love to argue 2. Some people love to hear themselves talk 3. I have been on occasions been a tad bit guilty of both to some degree, but not on this topic. As I have been reading these posts, it has been a magical cure for my insomnia. Anyways, however it gets done, I hope it is something that OKC will be proud of and will bring in much more conventions and people than what we have been getting for many years now.

[Urbanized]

As always, thanks for your insight.

[mkjeeves]

#whatcolorsarethisdress

Fifty shades of grey, AKA ask the city attorney if we can get away with it.

[Pete]

It scares me more than a little that so many otherwise engaged people don't seem to care about budgets and tens of millions of public funds.

I suppose it's why the City Council doesn't feel any pressure to hold anyone accountable.

[Urbanized]

"Don't care" and "thinks this is a wise use of public assets" are two very different things. Despite attempts by some (not you Pete) to characterize this as somehow unjustly enriching "fat cats," I just think it's a good way for a business (in this case the City) to maximize its assets. That is, if that is even what happens here.

[Just the facts]

I like to think if I thought there was any deception or trickery taking place that I would be all over it. I just don't see it in what has been discussed so far.

[Pete]

Shouldn't make a difference. Right is right, and wrong is wrong.

That is a fair point but not strictly true when it comes to something like this.

Scale is very much a factor, even from a budgeting and accounting standpoint; it's specifically called relevancy.


If the amount of for the cc is not relevant/impactful then there really isn't an issue.

[Laramie]

Let's step back, recall MAPS I; it would have never survived this much public and media scrutiny.

We need to take the same approach we took with MAPS III. We elected these officials now let them do their jobs. They have competent attorneys on board to advise them of potential pitfalls as the projects move forward.

[Pete]

"Don't care" and "thinks this is a wise use of public assets" are two very different things. Despite attempts by some (not you Pete) to characterize this as somehow unjustly enriching "fat cats," I just think it's a good way for a business (in this case the City) to maximize its assets. That is, if that is even what happens here.

I respect that viewpoint.

My goal, as always, is just to get the facts out.

It may appear I am arguing one side of things but I tend to only do that when I feel like it hasn't been properly represented.

I have the same exact issue with TIF districts, although I think they are often a good thing. They still deserve scrutiny.

[jccouger]

Assets & expenses get accounted the same way, but I see what JTF & Urbanized are stating. Its an interesting debate in the least, and I'm not sure what side I fall on.

Using city owned land should be valued the same way as using money, but all the money that is being used for MAPS is from the citizens so there is a big difference. It's almost even a donation by the city to use its own land. Because of this I'd rather the city trade its own assets, than use the citizens money to acquire this land. Wasn't the budget set aside for this project with the idea of using a portion of the money to acquire land? This is kind of sketchy now because the entire budget will go towards actual construction, which means the convention center is basically getting a larger investment than we previously thought.

Since no 2 pieces of land are the same it will be interesting to see how they value the land they trade for, and what the city has to give up to get it.

[Pete]

BTW, if I was arguing in favor of the land swap, I would make these points:

1. The City property being traded might not be on the books at full value and thus not already counted on as an asset
2. A trade could be more expedient than trying to come to just a cash settlement
3. The seller may be willing to take less in land value to offset the capital gains tax they would otherwise incur for a huge cash only sale
4. The CC will still be a City owned asset and the City will own the underlying land
5. There is technically no cash out of pocket

[Urbanized]

I like to think if I thought there was any deception or trickery taking place that I would be all over it. I just don't see it in what has been discussed so far.

This is how I feel.

Honestly, I think the contract with citizens who voted for various MAPS projects was to collect a penny sales tax and to devote said tax wholly to the completion of the stated projects. I personally don't believe that implies no other City resources will be used to facilitate this. In fact, quite the opposite has historically been true; streets have been rebuilt around MAPS projects using non-MAPS funds, for instance.

I understand the views of people who believe differently (mkjeeves, for instance, though I think he mostly just has a general anti-City Hall establishment, anti-MAPS stance); I just don't agree. But Pete, my debate with you is just what I think is an inconsistent application of that stance.

[Pete]

Just FYI, I believe the scenario will work something like this:

• The eminent domain process will identify a total fair market value of the land to be roughly $25 million
• $10 to $17 million of land acquisition and site prep budget ($17 million is the total) will go towards the purchase
• $8 to $15 million in City-owned land will be transferred to the sellers

[Pete]

Pete, my debate with you is just what I think is an inconsistent application of that stance.

I believe you are mischaracterizing my position.

I don't think these transfers or use of City-owned land are appropriate unless that was part of the deal up front, but to the extent the practice is utilized, there are degrees of severity, impact and relevance.

And that's always the case with anything of value.

[mkjeeves]

This is how I feel.

Honestly, I think the contract with citizens who voted for various MAPS projects was to collect a penny sales tax and to devote said tax wholly to the completion of the stated projects. I personally don't believe that implies no other City resources will be used to facilitate this. In fact, quite the opposite has historically been true; streets have been rebuilt around MAPS projects using non-MAPS funds, for instance.

I understand the views of people who believe differently (mkjeeves, for instance, though I think he mostly just has a general anti-City Hall establishment, anti-MAPS stance); I just don't agree. But Pete, my debate with you is just what I think is an inconsistent application of that stance.

You would be wrong. I've stated at least a dozen times on this site that I've voted for every Maps project.* I probably would have voted for the package if they had included the fancy land swap footwork and the need to subsidize a hotel, which they didn't. Do not appreciate their practices on this project and do think it needs to be discussed, like we are.

*Full disclosure. Some have put money directly in my pocket, which I knew would happen directly or indirectly when I voted for them. Including the CC.

[Urbanized]

What I believe is inconsistent is that you previously indicated (without qualification) that you wouldn't have a problem if a project landed on City-owned land, but WOULD have a problem with a land swap. You since refined you position to say that you would only support it if the location were identified in a the ballot/public lobby process, which I read as a backpedal. Then, when it was pointed out that similar transactions have happened previously, you made scale the issue.

Honestly I think your complaint has more to do with thus particular project and the personalities and organizations associated with it.