State Fairgrounds

[Pete]

BTW, Oklahoma State Fair, Inc. manages the City-owned State Fair Park and all its dealings but is NOT a City-run entity, it's a private 501(c)3 corporation.

That means they do not have to abide by open meetings laws, make its agendas and minutes public, etc.

[stile99]

I have to say, I do not understand this whole parasite attitude. As Pete has attempted to explain but people seem not to be listening, WE HAVE ALREADY PAID. Then when an event rents the venue, they PAY AGAIN. This whole 'parasite' mindset is exactly what led to ISPs charging for internet access, then charging again if you were so rude as to actually use what you already paid for. Serious question time, are you 'parasite people' fine with that, too? Are you fine if you buy an airline ticket, and then are asked to cough up more money if you actually sit in the seat? You're fine with converting all public roads into toll roads, right? If you rent an apartment, you're fine with a fee every time you go in/out the door, too? Or maybe you own your house, totally paid off, but you have to rent the walls, that's cool with you? Where does the 'parasite' accusation end and reality start?

Bought a pizza for lunch. May I have your permission to eat it now or do I need to open my wallet again first?

[bombermwc]

The one thing i would say about the large surface area lots Pete is that the area serves as the fairway and having trees dotted around in it would break up the contiguous lot, making placement of items for the fair, more difficult.

But i'm otherwise 1000000% with you. We already paid for this? Why are we being asked to be double taxed? Anyone know of a way to voice public outcry on this? Who should it go to?

[Pete]

The one thing i would say about the large surface area lots Pete is that the area serves as the fairway and having trees dotted around in it would break up the contiguous lot, making placement of items for the fair, more difficult.

But i'm otherwise 1000000% with you. We already paid for this? Why are we being asked to be double taxed? Anyone know of a way to voice public outcry on this? Who should it go to?

I understand this but they could easily plant around the perimeter and that was what was shown in all the renderings and now there is nothing at all. It's hideous.

[bombermwc]

I guess that goes with the other statement about how OKC folks tend to be utilitarian. I think i would agree that the opinion of the masses sway that way, but i think the younger folks appreciate the need to not have everything so cold. When the skydance bridge opened, i remember thinking how awesome it was and how it would be a great piece of public art that everyone passing through would see and think about OKC. Then i went to work to talk to people and the older folks all had the same curmudgeon thoughts..."what a waste of money", "they could have built something with that money", "what a horrible mis-use of money". I just couldn't understand their thought process. But it's been that way in OKC for most of their adult life. Think about from the Pei days on.....when did we finally start thinking outside the brutalist post-modern concrete bubble? The Myriad was a great example of how you can build something with absolutely zero thought to architecture being a work of art.

All of that to say, i understand why they did it, but like you, i agree that we could have done something to help break it up better. Like i've said before, from a simple rainwater standpoint, it's not good to have that much unbroken concrete. BUUUUT, i guess if you do plant something, that means you need someone to maintain it so it doesn't get overgrown and look like crap. Hell, they have enough horse poop there to fertilize the whole city so they should be able to grow mega plants on top of concrete there, right?

[Urbanized]

I don’t care to wade too deep into this topic, but will remind anyone who would choose to listen that - despite having paid to build the facilities - we don’t see concerts and basketball games for free at Chesapeake Arena, we don’t see baseball games for free at the ballpark, we pay for metered parking on public streets downtown, we pay to raft (and park) at the whitewater facility, we pay to see shows at the Civic Center, there is an admission price for boat rides on the canal, there is a fare box on buses (and apparently there will be one on streetcars), there is a gate admission at the zoo, there’s one at the Crystal Bridge, and on, and on, and on.

My point is that building something isn’t the end of it. Public facilities require upkeep and they require operational expense. How the City manages this is the responsibility of elected and appointed officials, plus hired staff who are (hopefully) experts in their respective fields. In this case those people apparently believed paid parking made the most sense in an effort to cover their costs. I suppose time will tell.

It’s also important to recall that a huge number of fairgrounds visitors - perhaps the majority..? - are from outside of OKC. Getting visitors to help pay for our own facilities is pretty good strategy, if you ask me.

As far as exemption from landscaping standards, not a huge fan of that. The City generally holds itself to its own design standards when building in design districts and overlays downtown; not sure why that shouldn’t extend to elsewhere in the community.

[Rover]

I don’t care to wade too deep into this topic, but will remind anyone who would choose to listen that - despite having paid to build the facilities - we don’t see concerts and basketball games for free at Chesapeake Arena, we don’t see baseball games for free at the ballpark, we pay for metered parking on public streets downtown, we pay to raft (and park) at the whitewater facility, we pay to see shows at the Civic Center, there is an admission price for boat rides on the canal, there is a fare box on buses (and apparently there will be one on streetcars), there is a gate admission at the zoo, there’s one at the Crystal Bridge, and on, and on, and on.

My point is that building something isn’t the end of it. Public facilities require upkeep and they require operational expense. How the City manages this is the responsibility of elected and appointed officials, plus hired staff who are (hopefully) experts in their respective fields. In this case those people apparently believed paid parking made the most sense in an effort to cover their costs. I suppose time will tell.

It’s also important to recall that a huge number of fairgrounds visitors - perhaps the majority..? - are from outside of OKC. Getting visitors to help pay for our own facilities is pretty good strategy, if you ask me.

As far as exemption from landscaping standards, not a huge fan of that. The City generally holds itself to its own design standards when building in design districts and overlays downtown; not sure why that shouldn’t extend to elsewhere in the community.

Don’t bring logic and common sense to an internet argument.

[Pete]

I don’t care to wade too deep into this topic, but will remind anyone who would choose to listen that - despite having paid to build the facilities - we don’t see concerts and basketball games for free at Chesapeake Arena, we don’t see baseball games for free at the ballpark, we pay for metered parking on public streets downtown, we pay to raft (and park) at the whitewater facility, we pay to see shows at the Civic Center, there is an admission price for boat rides on the canal, there is a fare box on buses (and apparently there will be one on streetcars), there is a gate admission at the zoo, there’s one at the Crystal Bridge, and on, and on, and on.

My point is that building something isn’t the end of it. Public facilities require upkeep and they require operational expense. How the City manages this is the responsibility of elected and appointed officials, plus hired staff who are (hopefully) experts in their respective fields. In this case those people apparently believed paid parking made the most sense in an effort to cover their costs. I suppose time will tell.

It’s also important to recall that a huge number of fairgrounds visitors - perhaps the majority..? - are from outside of OKC. Getting visitors to help pay for our own facilities is pretty good strategy, if you ask me.

As far as exemption from landscaping standards, not a huge fan of that. The City generally holds itself to its own design standards when building in design districts and overlays downtown; not sure why that shouldn’t extend to elsewhere in the community.

We are talking about the parking in particular, how it was paid for by MAPS tax dollars years ago and how the fairgrounds suddenly wants to charge for its use when that is virtually unheard of outside of downtown.

Not at all talking about getting into events free, where the revenues in large part go to those teams/promoters/groups making the events possible.


And I will also restate: the fairgrounds are owned by the city but managed by a group who operates independently and who does not have to make its meetings, minutes and finances public. It's a very unique situation and when things like this come up, it seems the public deserves representation and answers, and that does not happen here.

It's a very strange situation given not only city ownership but the fact that a huge amount of (hotel) taxes flow into this organization and the public doesn't have much understanding and zero say on how those dollars are spent.

6/11 of all room taxes goes directly to the fairgrounds.

[stile99]

We are talking about the parking in particular, how it was paid for by MAPS tax dollars years ago and how the fairgrounds suddenly wants to charge for its use when that is virtually unheard of outside of downtown.

Not at all talking about getting into events free, where the revenues in large part go to those teams/promoters/groups making the events possible.


And I will also restate: the fairgrounds are owned by the city but managed by a group who operates independently and who does not have to make its meetings, minutes and finances public. It's a very unique situation and when things like this come up, it seems the public deserves representation and answers, and that does not happen here.

It's a very strange situation given not only city ownership but the fact that a huge amount of (hotel) taxes flow into this organization and the public doesn't have much understanding and zero say on how those dollars are spent.

6/11 of all room taxes goes directly to the fairgrounds.

"Don’t bring logic and common sense to an internet argument." Not to mention objectively verifiable facts.

[Laramie]

Concerned with the operations of the OKC State Fairgrounds. We built and renovated many structures prior to MAPS; we get a lot of out-of-state dollars pumped into the local economy as a result of the barns & horse related venues--glad they continued with the upgrades.

Has the State Fair Trust budget built any new structures with money from their budget?

We've lost many iconic structures (Grand Stands, Monorail, Space Tower, Arch) with no replacements.

The replacement for the State Fair Arena has been mentioned with temporary placebo designs, where is the money; are they waiting on taxpayers to fund the new arena?

Glad it wasn't on the September '17 Go Bonds & MAPS III 1/4 cent permanent (Public safety) extension. Will future MAPS initiatives be 3/4 cents?

[whorton]

If the State Fair Park is a "private 501(c) corp, yet owned by the city, what we have is no different than say football stadiums. The taxpayers fund lavish accommodations and private entities garner all the profits. That is problematic, especially given that the aims of those in charge seem to have been at odds with the primary users of the facilities since the early 1970's.

This needs to end. There needs to be accountability, especially as public tax dollars have and continue to support the debacle.

[d-usa]

I don't have a problem with taxpayers funding stuff. The Thunder make money, but they also pay rent to the city for the use of the stadium we paid for. And there is tangible benefits to drawing people to watch events there.

The main issue doesn't seem to be there these things exist, it's their existence without accountability and transparency that's the issue.

[Pete]

They are also gearing up for a push for more taxpayer dollars for a new arena.

[Laramie]

They are also gearing up for a push for more taxpayer dollars for a new arena.

State Fair Arena or a replacement for the Peake?

[mugofbeer]

An arena, pictured above

[Urbanized]

We are talking about the parking in particular, how it was paid for by MAPS tax dollars years ago and how the fairgrounds suddenly wants to charge for its use when that is virtually unheard of outside of downtown...Oklahoma City.

Fixed. Paid parking exists at facilities of this type all over the United States.

[Pete]

Fixed. Paid parking exists at facilities of this type all over the United States.

If you want to do a real analysis of places where tax payers already paid for the parking, then you'll have a valid point.

[Urbanized]

^^^^^^^^
Well, I suppose you could start with the grounds of the State Fair of Texas - which is by the way also operated by a 591(c)(3) - and which charges a flat rate of $15 per space for all fairgrounds-owned lots. Or maybe the American Airlines Center at Victory Park, which was paid for by taxes and which charges for every lot/garage they own, including as much as $50 per space for lots close to the facility.

[Pete]

Both of which are in highly dense urban areas in a metroplex 5X the size of OKC and the 4th largest in the U.S.

[Pete]

BTW, don't really think you want to hold up fair park in Dallas as good comparison to what we have.

Theirs is full of fountains and landscaping and pretty buildings and a glorious music hall and amphitheater.

The whole source of my frustration is that tons of tax dollars and other revenues keep pouring in at 10th & May and all we have to show for it are a handful of completely bare-bones buildings, a bunch of ugly old ones, horse barns, RV parking, badly maintained grounds, dirt parking and acres of new concrete without a single tree and shrub.

I ride by bike through there frequently and it's shockingly bad.


I want to know where all these tax dollars are going and why a group which receives hundreds of millions from citizens has no accountability to the public.

[Swake]

Now I will never say that Tulsa Expo Square (the fairgrounds) is well run but they do charge for parking for some events including the Tulsa State fair. Here Expo Square is owned and run by Tulsa County, not the city. Expo Square overall is pretty nice, much better than it was years ago.

I think they charge $10-$20 for parking during the fair based on where you park. They do have free shuttle busses from various locations if you don’t want to pay. There is no parking on grass allowed and no parking in surrounding neighborhoods.

Tulsa has spent a ton of money on the facilities at Expo Square over the last 10-15 years and there’s currently a $18 million barn under construction. Tulsa has not torn down what here would be called the classic parts of the fairgrounds unless you mean Bell’s, which was a dirty and mean spirited deal. The Golden Driller is still there. If that was torn down this city might riot.

Instead of tearing the major buildings down and replacing them the IPE building was completely redone several years ago, as was the arena, the art deco Expo Square Pavilion. They’ve also kept the old Armory. All the barns and other buildings are all pretty much new, built in the last 10 years or so.

[Urbanized]

BTW, don't really think you want to hold up fair park in Dallas as good comparison to what we have...

It was just the first example off the top of my head, as it is right down the road. As Swake points out, Tulsa apparently has some similarities. I'm not going to devote a bunch of research to the topic but will grab some other examples when I have time/interest. Paid parking at publicly-owned, taxpayer-funded facilities - even those not in dense urban areas - is hardly unique. As I pointed out in another post, it's undoubtedly a business decision designed to offset operating costs and upkeep. The alternative would be rent increases for facilities, which would increase ticket prices for admission-required events and probably eliminate many free-to-the-public events.

[Pete]

It was just the first example off the top of my head, as it is right down the road. As Swake points out, Tulsa apparently has some similarities. I'm not going to devote a bunch of research to the topic but will grab some other examples when I have time/interest. Paid parking at publicly-owned, taxpayer-funded facilities - even those not in dense urban areas - is hardly unique. As I pointed out in another post, it's undoubtedly a business decision designed to offset operating costs and upkeep. The alternative would be rent increases for facilities, which would increase ticket prices for admission-required events and probably eliminate many free-to-the-public events.

Actually, we have no idea where this money would go and that's really the issue.

[Urbanized]

OK, so the issue is NOT that there is parking being charged? Thanks, I'll not go seek out other examples then.

[stile99]

OK, so the issue is NOT that there is parking being charged? Thanks, I'll not go seek out other examples then.

That's 'part' of it. But as Pete says, it's not so much the fact that parking is being CHARGED, it's that the lot was paid for, so it isn't going toward that. There's no landscaping, so it isn't going towards that. When they decide to expand the parking, history shows us they will be holding their hands out again, so it isn't going towards that. So if it isn't going to build the lot, and it isn't going to maintain the lot, and it isn't going to expand the lot, then where? You say it might be a business decision to offset the operating costs and upkeep, but there's no evidence of that, there's no way to track it, and there's evidence that it certainly ISN'T going towards that.