Shunt, you apparently liked your compatriot's (orthodox Jew, right) anti-Jewish remark well enough for you to remember it so to be able to repeat it here and to think that it was clever. It was beyond reproach, in my opinion, for you to even say it or think it.

look dude, forgive me for offending YOU....and for spending so much time with Jewish folks, and almost marrying one.....rather than reading about them in goddam left behind series books...that I felt I could share what the man said. Now go bow down to your joan peters book collection or whatever.....

shalom GOYbot

http://a678.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/18/l_a7a969d6138728e99ac75b4573214b8d.jpg

Thanks for your take on the value of history, shunt. Understood and noted. That such things are not of value to you is fair enough, that's a matter of personal taste and/or interest. Present-day racism, however, I have less of a willingness to understand.

look dude, forgive me for offending YOU....and for spending so much time with Jewish folks, and almost marrying one.....rather than reading about them in goddam left behind series books...that I felt I could share what the man said. Now go bow down to your joan peters book collection or whatever.....

shalom GOYbot

Anybody that starts off with, "Look dude...." loses me. I found the remark in poor taste and worse is your attitude toward Doug. Joan Peters? GOY? It looks like you're playing it to the hilt. Doug is a valued and well-liked member here. With your grand total of 32 posts - I would be careful. Dude :rolleyes:

Who is Joan Peters? Now that this thread is totally trashed beyond redemption (unless a willing moderator will fix it and clean out the irrelevant-to-topic trash, mine included ... and so far that's not happened), I guess that I'd like to know ... although my interest is not sufficiently provoked to check it out on my own. ;)

I certainly have no problem with or objection to shunt's or anyone's substantive differences about the Ford Center vote ... reasonable minds can and will differ about that ... and, I think, that was the original context of this thread.

I do confess, however, to having an almost uncontrollable intolerance (perhaps even beyond "almost") to being in the same room with those whose speech is racist. That's not something I can or will do. And, in a very true sense, this place is a "room."

Whether I have friends that are Jews (as I do), and whether I have friends of Blacks (as I do), and whether I have friends of Native Americans (as I do ... a wife, actually), or friends of any other racial and/or religious and/or ethnic group, even if I did not, I would not be willing to rub elbows with the racists. That pretty well sums up what I think about that, understanding that, in context, that marks me as a narrow minded person.

It's clear one can have OKC trolls on an OKC forum, which is sad.

I don't think I have ever seen Doug's feathers so ruffled. Says a lot about the guy.

I don't think I have ever seen Doug's feathers so ruffled. Says a lot about the guy.

Well, it's understandable.

Racist and inappropriate racial comments/jokes are not recieved well on this board. That says a lot about our members.

I would like to take a moment to remind new users to read the terms and conditions of this board before posting further.

http://www.okctalk.com/rules.php

Should you have any questions, feel free to contact the Moderators and Administrators.

I don't think I have ever seen Doug's feathers so ruffled. Says a lot about the guy.
Probably so, be that the good, the bad, or the ugly. ;)

I find it difficult to believe that any reasonable person in this day and age would attempt to win others to a specific position on any issue using tasteless racist humor.

I respect anyone's right to vote yes or no on the Ford Center temporary sales tax based the facts, but shunt is clearly out of line.

His attitude as displayed in his posts is disrespectful to this public forum, its participants and public morals. He is on a fast track that will serve only to alienate those he wishes to convince.

Looks like someone stayed in and drank instead of going out

All of the talk about an advantageous lease is straight out of the Save Our Sonics textbooks...Pure speculation...Whole argument really hinges on this since we aren't building a new arena and only extending a current one cent tax for a year

The folks in Seattle and the welfare for billionaires folks wish there was more to it...Think it is disappointing to them that OKC isn't doing more than we are

Takes all of the excitement out of the situation for them

I agree with CuatrodeMayo. Doug's anger says a lot about who he is as a person. Righteous anger is a good thing and his expression of that anger was appropriate and healthy. I have a feeling Shunt is going to have some problems here at OKCTalk.

Just wanted to say that I agree with shunt 100% on this issue. I have written extensively about my opposition to this taxpayer giveaway in this thread (http://www.okctalk.com/okc-metro-area-talk/11843-ballot-ordinance-your-vote.html).And I agree with you 100%. It is a principal thing with me also , and I will also vote NO, and it will still pass.

Up until this point, I've pretty much considered myself one of those "undecided" folk, and quite frankly go back and forth on the issue each and every day.

I don't have problems with improvements to the Ford Center itself, understanding that this will help attract more than just an NBA team. I am convinced it will help us continue on our track of getting bigger and more impressive concerts, as well as vie for other large sporting events such as the Big XII Bball tournament and NCAA Tourney rounds. In this capacity, it will keep us in the competitive mix, so to speak.

For the record, I asked the opinion of a good friend who worked as an Events Coordinator at the Ford Center for several years and knows the facility intimately. She believes the improvements will help tremendously in the areas I cited above.

Further, I am a "big picture" person, and honestly believe this is the FIRST step in realizing the much larger "Core to Shore" dream (especially IF an NBA team were to come here - and for the record I'd prefer the Hornets).

My biggest sticking point is the practice facility. I just don't see why IT, in particular, should be tax-payer funded, and would rather see that $20 million go towards making improvements to the Cox Center, realizing that eventually, it too will need to be replaced completely with a much larger facility (again, part of the Core to Shore initiative). It's those twenty million little sticking points that really keep me in the yellow zone.

That being said, thanks to SHUNT and his tactics regarding the issue, I'm starting to lean closer and closer to a "YES" vote!!

So good job, SHUNT! Your efforts have just pretty much landed a vote against you!

I'd be a lot more inclinded to oppose the practice facility if we were handing it over to the Sonics' owners, even though I sincerely believe them moving the team here is a philanthropic gesture, being done more for the good of the city than the good of their pocketbook, NBA teams in smaller markets usually being poor moneymakers at best. But, the city will own the practice facility, and we will be able to use it for other things. Teams could use it to practice when they're here for the Big Twelve or NCAA tournaments, high school tournaments could be held there, basketball camps for children could be held there, community events could be held there. Whether we agree even with that or not, it's the price of doing business with the NBA, and we're getting off for far less than Seattle would have been if they wanted to keep their team, Orlando is, Cleveland was, etc (I could go on and on). Even New Orleans had agree to build a $20 million dollar practice facility for the Hornets, and the only reason they haven't broken ground is because they're worried the team's not staying. I believe voting yes is about telling the NBA we will support a team, about saying thank you to the Sonics owners for bringing a team here when they will be "happy to break even", about showing the rest of the sporting world that we are ready to join the other cities with professional teams club.

Up until this point, I've pretty much considered myself one of those "undecided" folk, and quite frankly go back and forth on the issue each and every day.

I don't have problems with improvements to the Ford Center itself, understanding that this will help attract more than just an NBA team. I am convinced it will help us continue on our track of getting bigger and more impressive concerts, as well as vie for other large sporting events such as the Big XII Bball tournament and NCAA Tourney rounds. In this capacity, it will keep us in the competitive mix, so to speak.

For the record, I asked the opinion of a good friend who worked as an Events Coordinator at the Ford Center for several years and knows the facility intimately. She believes the improvements will help tremendously in the areas I cited above.

Further, I am a "big picture" person, and honestly believe this is the FIRST step in realizing the much larger "Core to Shore" dream (especially IF an NBA team were to come here - and for the record I'd prefer the Hornets).

My biggest sticking point is the practice facility. I just don't see why IT, in particular, should be tax-payer funded, and would rather see that $20 million go towards making improvements to the Cox Center, realizing that eventually, it too will need to be replaced completely with a much larger facility (again, part of the Core to Shore initiative). It's those twenty million little sticking points that really keep me in the yellow zone.

That being said, thanks to SHUNT and his tactics regarding the issue, I'm starting to lean closer and closer to a "YES" vote!!

So good job, SHUNT! Your efforts have just pretty much landed a vote against you!

Don't let the $20 million sway your vote too much. Think of the grand total approx $120 million + the $89 million we originally spent on it for a total of $209 million being a MUCH MUCH smaller amount than any other NBA market paid or is fixing to pay for a state of the art arena. OKC is in a great position to land the NBA and I'd hate to lose our only chance over a measely $20 million. Even if the Hornets were to move in a few years, they would definitely demand a $20 million practice facility and probably a lot nicer arena as well and want rights to profits off other events (see N.O, Seattle, and other markets). Having the Sonics is more philantrophic as someone said, the owners are going to make very minimal profit, if anything at all, and they aren't demanding much especially to make money off other events like most NBA teams do. At least in the Sonics situation, the city of OKC would own the arena and practice facility and make money off other events.

Don't let the $20 million sway your vote too much.... I'd hate to lose our only chance over a measely $20 million.

This is a problem with these huge figures. Since when is $20,000,000.00 "measly"? To put in perspective of our penny tax, that "measly" twenty million dollars is TWO BILLION PENNIES.

I'd be a lot more inclinded to oppose the practice facility if we were handing it over to the Sonics' owners, even though I sincerely believe them moving the team here is a philanthropic gesture, being done more for the good of the city than the good of their pocketbook, NBA teams in smaller markets usually being poor moneymakers at best. But, the city will own the practice facility, and we will be able to use it for other things. Teams could use it to practice when they're here for the Big Twelve or NCAA tournaments, high school tournaments could be held there, basketball camps for children could be held there, community events could be held there. Whether we agree even with that or not, it's the price of doing business with the NBA, and we're getting off for far less than Seattle would have been if they wanted to keep their team, Orlando is, Cleveland was, etc (I could go on and on). Even New Orleans had agree to build a $20 million dollar practice facility for the Hornets, and the only reason they haven't broken ground is because they're worried the team's not staying. I believe voting yes is about telling the NBA we will support a team, about saying thank you to the Sonics owners for bringing a team here when they will be "happy to break even", about showing the rest of the sporting world that we are ready to join the other cities with professional teams club.Betts I don't believe you are correct when you say ,"and we will be able to use it for other things" referring to the practice facility. As I understand some of the details of this arrangment they could be separated into two parts. The first part deals with the general overall upgrades to the Ford Center, those indeed will be an overall benefit in one way or another to the City, and the citizens ,and/or out of town visitors attending whatever event may be going on. The second part deals entirely with the NBA mandated upgrades. Two upgrades that are mandated include the team locker room be enhanced on site at the FC, and a practice facility, both of which cannot be used by anyone except the NBA team, at any time, for any reason. Your are correct in that the City will own the buildings

This is a problem with these huge figures. Since when is $20,000,000.00 "measly"? To put in perspective of our penny tax, that "measly" twenty million dollars is TWO BILLION PENNIES.
Yeah, and the number is even higher if measured in terms of mills ... anyone here old enough to know that term? Just kidding, but a "mill" back in WWII days may well be worth more than a penny is today ... I've not done the math.

As important as 20M dollars is ... and it is ... I'd note the following things that cross my mind about that:

(1) Funding of the practice facility will not occur without a contract by an NBA team to locate here by a certain date ... I don't remember it just now but it's fairly soon.

(2) To enter the NBA group of cities, at least as I understand it (which is based wholly on the Mayor's statements), a practice facility must be provided by a city and is a basic and fundamental requirement.

If that's true, and like it or not, it's part of the price to get through the NBA city door. Soooo ... it's a like it or lump it kind of thing. No city is forced to "like it or lump it", they are only required to say, "yes." If a city doesn't, it's no deal and there's nothing further to discuss.

(3) This is apparently a Stern/NBA driven requirement and not a Bennett driven one. Bennett would have the liberty of negotiating one or more contracts as he (and I'm using "he" as Bennett being the leader of his ownership group) sees fit.

(4) The March 4 vote does not determine the terms of lease, either to the Ford Center or practice facility. In the lease negotiations which would ensue, no requirement exists that the practice facility be provided to the NBA team without cost. The terms of lease both the Ford Center and to the Practice Facility would be open to negotiation.

Aside from the above, which I think are reasonably supported by either the ballot details or the Mayor's conversations we've been provided with "the NBA" (and guess who that would be), I'll throw in the following, merely guesses on my part ....

(5) The Mayor's conversations with the NBA (guess who) which led to the need for speed of Okc getting a decision made by March lead me to conclude that, most probably ...

.....(a) Given the timing of the NBA relocation committee's April vote, it was important that Okc "show its hand," its willingness to pay the price to join the NBA club of cities before that April vote occurred. In plain speech, was/is Okc willing to put its actions where its mouth was.

.....(b) I seriously doubt that Stern would have been willing to so assert himself with our Mayor unless ...

..........(1) Speed/timing really was/is important. The speed/timing matter is only important if the April vote for the Sonics to relocate to Okc is, also. Otherwise, it makes no sense. The proposition presented to the city council in late December and the Mayor's stated need for speed and without a good bit of detailed info in the hands of council members at that December meeting (causing a very reasonable council member, Pete White, to express his displeasure ... even though he voted aye to put the matter before a vote of the people). Soooo .... the April vote will not likely be a tentative vote to allow the relocation. While relocation will obviously depend in part on the pending litigation getting resolved, that's a question of "when" and not "if."

..........(2) David Stern would reasonably know that the Mayor's somewhat shallow (i.e., without good backup ala Councilman White's criticisms) would be seen (and fairly, I think) as not how "good business" should be normally conducted by a city or any business. More detail is normally needed and reasonably expected to be laid "on the table" than occurred at the December Council meeting, particularly given the magnitude of the matter presented.

..........(3) What this means is that David Stern was, effectively, asking our Mayor to stick out his neck and have his head chopped off either by (a) the Council or (b) the voters. Stern could not have been unaware of the political risk that he had engaged our Mayor to take.


.....(c) I seriously doubt that our Mayor would have been/be willing to place his neck in the noose unless ..

..........(1) He had a solid expectation of getting something really magnificent in return, perhaps not a promise but something pretty close to one, for an almost certain "payoff" for the city if he did take the risk.

..........(2) That "payoff" would almost certainly be an affirmative vote in April 2008 by the NBA relocation committee for the Sonics to relocate to Oklahoma City.

All of this is intellectual conjecture on my part with no "inside" information of any sort. But, doesn't it make sense?

The Mayor has clearly placed himself very much on the line, much like Mayor Ron Norick did several but not that many years earlier. But, in his day, Mayor Norick had no promises or quasi-promises from anyone ... he just acted as he did because his vision for the city "made him do it." While I think that our Mayor has a vision as well, and a good one, I very strongly suspect that Mayor Cornett has in his pocket more than merely his vision. I think that his pocket contains a commitment by Commissioner Stern.

At least, that's Doug Dawgz take on the above, and, as I said, just as a guess.

For those who want to help with the campaign - I work at the Chamber and we are gearing up for a big effort and we are going to need the help of everyone on this board who is committed to keeping OKC's momentum going. We will begin contacting/coordinating volunteer activities around mid month, so keep the faith - you don't see us yet but there is prep work in motion. Feel free to email me your name and contact info and we will be back with you in just a few days!ChamberCyn, I'm curious as to how much of the 75 million dollars the Citizens of OKC recently assessed themselves, and gave to the Chamber to promote economic development, will fund this campaign.

Interesting Cuban comments for those that think the Ford Center remodel isn't crucial to us getting a team.

Seattle Sonics Blog


Mark Cuban on the Sonics situation
We caught Mavericks owner Mark Cuban on his stepmaster before the Mavericks-Sonics game and he gave his thoughts on the Sonics potential move and the city's reaction to potentially losing the team.

"The question is whether Seattle even wants the team," he said while working up a sweat exercising. "If they want them, they have to figure out a way for them to stay. And if they don't it's just a question of where. I'd love to see them stay in Seattle. It's a great city, great fans, just a shame, you know? But I guess sometimes the rain gets to people."

Cuban said the people of city should make a bigger ruckus if they don't want the Sonics to relocate to Oklahoma City or another locale.
"It's not one of those things where you can force people to want them to stay," he said. "If they want them to stay, they want them to stay. And if they don't, they don't. It wasn't like it was a big uproar and that's the thing. You can play politics all you want but it wasn't like people we're screaming and that's a shame because it's a great basketball city."

Cuban is not sold that the Sonics are headed for Oklahoma and he said he is open to any new ideas.
"I don't know that they're going to Oklahoma City, we have to see," he said. "At least as far as my personal vote, I am going to keep all options open. It's a question of what's the biggest available market and what's going to help the NBA the most. So we'll see.
And if it's not better than Seattle, I'll vote against it. It's all right but they have a (expletive) lease. That's what it is. People can make the argument that's the lease you sign but business changes and that's what's happened."

Cuban said the economics of the league has changed since refurbishing of KeyArena in 1994, making the team's lease even more of an issue.

"The reality of the NBA has changed," he said. "There was a day where you can always depend on the TV contract going way up and that meant all teams got the same boost in revenue. If the TV revenue went up x Seattle got the same as Dallas as New York, but now, national revenue is a declining percentage of team revenues, which means you are more dependant on local revenues."

He continued.

"And the more dependent you are on local revenue, the more important your lease and arena deal is. And the more important you're lease and arena deal is, the worst position that Seattle's in competitively. So I think that the piece the people don't quite understand in Seattle. I think they think it's 1996 and if they can do it think they can do it now.

"But the difference between 10 years ago and today, with the economics of the NBA and the way the collective bargaining agreement is structured is night and day. Night and day. That just puts Seattle is a significant competitive disadvantage.

Cuban isn't sold on Oklahoma City and said he will not vote along with other owners just for the sake of agreement.
"Isn't Oklahoma City bigger than Seattle?" he asked. "In a metropolitan city, I don't know. I haven't seen the numbers. But I don't think it's strong enough. If it isn't I'll vote against it. I am not going in with any preset notions, so we'll see what happens, I am open minded like that."
Posted by gary washburn at January 19, 2008 5:55 p.m.

ChamberCyn, I'm curious as to how much of the 75 million dollars the Citizens of OKC recently assessed themselves, and gave to the Chamber to promote economic development, will fund this campaign.

haha.. that's precisely why I was so outspoken against that terrible piece of legislation.

Technically, I can see the money being available for that purpose since it's going to attract jobs which earn more than the city's average.

ChamberCyn, I'm curious as to how much of the 75 million dollars the Citizens of OKC recently assessed themselves, and gave to the Chamber to promote economic development, will fund this campaign.

The bond funds recently approved by the voters were for economic development incentives that will have oversight of a new City Trust. The City has few resources as compared with peer cities for job creation, other than scarce State incentives. The bond issue is completely unrelated to potential relocation of the Sonics, as I have no doubt ChamberCyn will attest.

The City is in a position to inform only. It is up to others to persuade, one way or the other.

Hmm..the Dallas Mav's owner not being very positive on OKC. I wonder why? Is he affraid of a revenue impact he might suffer by losing a fan base north of the Red River? Then again...I don't think I've ever met a Mavs fan ever. LOL

The bond funds recently approved by the voters were for economic development incentives that will have oversight of a new City Trust. The City has few resources as compared with peer cities for job creation, other than scarce State incentives. The bond issue is completely unrelated to potential relocation of the Sonics, as I have no doubt ChamberCyn will attest.

The City is in a position to inform only. It is up to others to persuade, one way or the other.Explain to me if you will please how proposition 11 is completely unrelated to the potential relocation of the Sonics.

haha.. that's precisely why I was so outspoken against that terrible piece of legislation.

Technically, I can see the money being available for that purpose since it's going to attract jobs which earn more than the city's average.Midtowner, Technically I think you are absolutly right. I was so hoping we could utilize lets say 25 Mill of our 75 Mil in bond money for economic development, and high paying jobs. 5 Mil to the Chamber for the Get Out the YES Vote to pass the sales tax extension to upgrade the FC. The other 20 Mil could build the practice facility. The Sonics come to town, all is well, everyone is happy, everyone gets what they want, the City moves forward. I thought I had a solution to our problem. But I guess not.

Cuban knows an NBA team in OKC will impact the maverics. If OKC is a successful franchise like SA, then some of the large native Oklahomans in DFW will shift to supporting an OKC franchise. Even more reason to vote YES on the Ford Center improvements. Dallas has always wanted OKC to remain small to keep Oklahomans coming and spending in texas.

I think what Cuban is saying is that Oklahoma City has to do more than Seattle to convince him that moving the Sonics here is a good idea. The team has 40 years history with the city of Seattle, and they have been good fans for those 40 years. Seattle is a far bigger city with more national prominence. To move the Sonics from Seattle, Oklahoma City has to step up and do more. That's why anyone who thinks we can get the Sonics here without improving the Ford Center and building a practice facility is not being realistic. We ARE a small market, and we do have only 2 years of decent support of the Hornets under our belts. We have to do it better than bigger cities to get a look from the NBA, and I think we're really, really lucky to be able to get away with only a Ford Center remodel, at a price tag one fourth of what Seattle was being asked for and Orlando has just agreed to give.

ChamberCyn, I'm curious as to how much of the 75 million dollars the Citizens of OKC recently assessed themselves, and gave to the Chamber to promote economic development, will fund this campaign.
Reply With Quote

Andy, I am reasonably sure none of the $75 from the recent bond issue is going into this campaign. Passage of the bond issue just occurred in December. No money from that bond issue will be available for City projects (including Economic Development), until the 2008-09 Fiscal Year, after council passes the budget sometime in March/April. Further, monies for 2008-09 will be dedicated to those initiatives designated as priority projects for that year.

Contrary to popular belief, bond issues to not give "blank checks" to the City. All projects must be pre-approved before funds are allocated.

"No one is forcing us to do this,” Cornett said. "This is a choice. We can choose to be an NBA city, or we can choose not to be. We're not going to get a franchise if we don't pass it.”

I rather feel that Mr. (How does one refer properly to the mayor? Does he have a title? ie, "The Honorable"?) Cornett is forcing to do this. Like you are a bad person if you don't jump right on this NBA bandwagon.

I don't think I like that.

I for one, cannot afford most of the things that happen Downtown. I am also disabled, and there are still places that are not wheelchair accessible! Do you all know that? I'd love a ride on the canal. I'd love to go and look at lights at Christmas... maybe we should be sure that everyone has a fair chance to use what is already there, before we are forced to pay more taxes for yet another new thing?

And....when will the City be "good enough"? Are we going to be on MAPS 598 and still going? Is there any sort of end game here?

I just do not understand why all Oklahoma City residents have to pay for a stadium that will make money for restaurant and hotel owners, and then not ever be allowed to attend a game because the tickets are astronomically priced. And when will it end? And put in some darn wheelchair access, please!

Thanks.

Explain to me if you will please how proposition 11 is completely unrelated to the potential relocation of the Sonics.

A legitimate question.

The incentives contemplated under Prop 11 are to be considered and perhaps approved by a new City Economic Development Trust, a public process, for the pupose of job creation incentives.

No doubt moving a basketball team here will have the direct effect of creating 100 - 125 (we'll say) average paying salaries and a number of moon-level-orbiting salaries. There will also be a secondary job impact as demonstrated in the Chamber/City economic impact report from the Hornets' 2005-2006 season in Oklahoma City. No doubt the report's $66 million+ annual impact on the city and state's economy is significant, but the focus of Prop 11 is on primary job creation.

Prop 11 is about competing with other markets in other states that have lots more tools in their suitcase than Oklahoma City does. Oklahoma city's have the State Quality Jobs Act and little else. Oklahoma City has been fortunate in recent years creatively using federal grant programs and other limited resources for special projects like the Hilton Skirvin and the Dell project, but those resources are tapped out.

If Oklahoma City wants to compete competitively for new major employers, a new, major, incentive resource was needed. That's what Prop 11 was all about. $75 million for performance-based, job creating, corporate incentives.

For that matter, that's part of what having the NBA, a resident philharmonic, touring Broadway shows, a viable convention center, vibrant museums, trails and recreational opportunities, etc. in Oklahoma City is about. Adding to resident quality of life and making Oklahoma City more appealing to new corporations.

That’s my point of view and I’m sticking to it. Hope you find it helpful. Again, great question from someone that has obviously taken the time to be informed of local issues.

Here's a larger pic:
http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s225/CuatrodeMayo/FordCenterRenov.jpg

My first thought when i saw that was "Oh look! Tom Cruise is building a center here for Scientology!"

;-)


amy

:sofa:

Up until this point, I've pretty much considered myself one of those "undecided" folk, and quite frankly go back and forth on the issue each and every day.

I don't have problems with improvements to the Ford Center itself, understanding that this will help attract more than just an NBA team. I am convinced it will help us continue on our track of getting bigger and more impressive concerts, as well as vie for other large sporting events such as the Big XII Bball tournament and NCAA Tourney rounds. In this capacity, it will keep us in the competitive mix, so to speak.

For the record, I asked the opinion of a good friend who worked as an Events Coordinator at the Ford Center for several years and knows the facility intimately. She believes the improvements will help tremendously in the areas I cited above.

Further, I am a "big picture" person, and honestly believe this is the FIRST step in realizing the much larger "Core to Shore" dream (especially IF an NBA team were to come here - and for the record I'd prefer the Hornets).

My biggest sticking point is the practice facility. I just don't see why IT, in particular, should be tax-payer funded, and would rather see that $20 million go towards making improvements to the Cox Center, realizing that eventually, it too will need to be replaced completely with a much larger facility (again, part of the Core to Shore initiative). It's those twenty million little sticking points that really keep me in the yellow zone.

That being said, thanks to SHUNT and his tactics regarding the issue, I'm starting to lean closer and closer to a "YES" vote!!

So good job, SHUNT! Your efforts have just pretty much landed a vote against you!

Oh, don't do that!! Look into the issue, please - you could be, as my Mom says, "Cutting off your nose to spite your face" if you throw a vote one way because you don't like a message board poster (who might be a real person, or could be here just to get to do what you just did!). I really am interested in this next MAPS business, I come here, and it's like Dysfunctional Message Board Feud. :-(

Look, I know I'm a "newbie" on this board, but I have been on the planet since just before man was on the Moon! (There, I have now broken my own - and others - rule about a lady not announcing her age to one and all). I just got to this board today, and I've seen nothing but arguing, people being accused of being in league with that MONSTER who killed people i know in the Murrah Building (please people, be careful being flip about that. It is a terrible thing to accuse a person of and one should not do it unless one has EXACT proof!)..... I guess I'll just leave you to it.

:-(

I just got to this board today, and I've seen nothing but arguing,

Welcome to the board Amy... yes, we do have some posters that like to debate more than others... and as you can see, there are some who push the limit, don't follow our very loose Terms of Service and now are no longer welcome on the board.

You will find thousands of very positive and helpful comments here and yes, you will also find some negativity. It's easy to say and write any thing from behind a computer screen. Any message board you visit will have very similar discussions taking place.

Enjoy the board, take the good with the bad and the moderators will attempt to control issues before they get too out of hand.

And....when will the City be "good enough"? Are we going to be on MAPS 598 and still going? Is there any sort of end game here?

I just do not understand why all Oklahoma City residents have to pay for a stadium that will make money for restaurant and hotel owners, and then not ever be allowed to attend a game because the tickets are astronomically priced.

The city will never be "good enough". If we do not continually make progress then we will be in trouble. Take a look up the turnpike to see a city who still thinks it's "good enough".

There are tons of economically-priced tickets available. Did you never buy tickets for the Hornets?

There were lots of $10 tickets to the Hornets available, and I have a friend with a family of 6 who bought them when he wanted to have a great family night out. There were also nights when you could get 4 tickets for $44 dollars that included four meals. I don't think you can take a family of four to the movies and buy popcorn and a drink for close to that. I went to the movies last night, bought a medium popcorn and medium drink and it was $9.50. Then there was the price of my movie ticket on top of that.

I agree with Cuatro. A city is never "finished", because that's when it stagnates. Entropy and all.... There are so many great things planned in the Core to Shore proposals, things that will make this a much nicer city in which to live and work.

The city will never be "good enough". If we do not continually make progress then we will be in trouble. Take a look up the turnpike to see a city who still thinks it's "good enough".
Agreed with CuatrodeMayo & Betts in her reply. In the early '50s, all was thought to be cool. Illusion. Big mistake. Almost ALL downtown commercial moved to the burbs. Downtown decay followed. Pre-maps efforts witnessed about two-fifths to half of downtown's destruction in a major attempt to turn things around, only to be dashed by the oil bust/Penn Square bank crash.

Years were spent trying to fix broken things before pre-MAPS things both succeeded and failed in mixed doses. But, only after downtown rigor mortis had set in did Mayor Norick's maps plan have a chance of reviving downtown ... puhleese, let's not go down that road again. We don't want to take Tulsa as our model, we want to take post-Maps OKC as our model ... we know that it works.

Consider the human body and how it progresses/regresses ... but, please, not mine! :dizzy: This Dawg missed the curve on that principle, personally! Big time wishes that I could change that now, but, alas, the human model just doesn't work that way!

Physical cities, though, are not as limited as the citizens that populate them ... remember the early day benefactors who are dead but who benefited us today ... Colcord, Classen, Shartel, Overholser are benefactors gone by ... I'm certain that Ron Norick will be included in that class years from now after he has passed, though I add him today ... his legacy turned things around in the 1990s ... and there will be others yet to come. "Static" just isn't the way things work well. Mick Cornett may yet join that auspicious historic group ... but his stage is not yet done and at least one closing curtain remains. His inclusion still remains to be seen.

But, "static" doesn't work for flourishing cities. It never will.

Reply With Quote

Andy, I am reasonably sure none of the $75 from the recent bond issue is going into this campaign. Passage of the bond issue just occurred in December. No money from that bond issue will be available for City projects (including Economic Development), until the 2008-09 Fiscal Year, after council passes the budget sometime in March/April. Further, monies for 2008-09 will be dedicated to those initiatives designated as priority projects for that year.

Contrary to popular belief, bond issues to not give "blank checks" to the City. All projects must be pre-approved before funds are allocated.

First - the bond issue we passed was for $750 million, not $75 and it was dedicated to public infrastructure improvements (streets, roads, parks), with the exception of Prop 11, which is very accurately described in another post by SilverMoon. One thing I would add regarding economic development incentives at the local level is that Texas has a state law that allows municipalities to collect up to a full penny sales tax that goes into a permanent economic development fund. Most cities take advantage and have funds far larger than what we approved with Prop 11. The last thing we want is to consistently lose to Texas. :)
It is important when you get to the end of negotiations with a company to have a tool like this to compete. Without it, we would have nothing.

The campaign to pass this election is entirely privately funded. It would be a violation of state law for the city to spend a penny on this campaign. The campaign has/will file all documents required by local ordinance and state law, as we did in both the Citizens for Kids (school bond) and OKC YES (bond issue) campaigns. Both of those campaigns were funded privately as well.

Oh, don't do that!! Look into the issue, please - you could be, as my Mom says, "Cutting off your nose to spite your face" if you throw a vote one way because you don't like a message board poster (who might be a real person, or could be here just to get to do what you just did!). I really am interested in this next MAPS business, I come here, and it's like Dysfunctional Message Board Feud. I am very well aware of the issues, thank you, Amy. I have educated myself. I have been in on the Core to Shore meetings for the past year, and understand very clearly many of the projects that are needed to move OKC from a "Tier III" to a "Tier II" convention city. The Ford Center improvements are just one of many, many things, and I believe its immediacy is what has caught so many people off guard.

I'm not a huge NBA fan myself, and have never been to an NBA game. I have been to other Ford Center events.

Even if the NBA were not involved, I would still be very much in support of these improvements. Why? Because the project was under-funded in the first place. We built a "bargain basement" arena, not having enough money to do it "right" in the first place (don't get me started on that larger issue, which is the "Oklahoma is OK (and just ok)" attitude.

Again, my sticking point has been and continues to be a $20 million practice facility. I still don't like that, as I stated earlier, the benefits outweigh this one sticking point with me.

In all likelihood, I will vote "yes" anyway. I was really just trying to stick it to Shunt a bit.


First - the bond issue we passed was for $750 million, not $75 and it was dedicated to public infrastructure improvements (streets, roads, parks), with the exception of Prop 11, which is very accurately described in another post by SilverMoon.

I was referring to the total of Prop 11, which is $75 million. Obviously, I didn't make myself clear enough. The total amount of the bond issue was $835 million, not $750 million.

Reply With Quote

Andy, I am reasonably sure none of the $75 from the recent bond issue is going into this campaign. Passage of the bond issue just occurred in December. No money from that bond issue will be available for City projects (including Economic Development), until the 2008-09 Fiscal Year, after council passes the budget sometime in March/April. Further, monies for 2008-09 will be dedicated to those initiatives designated as priority projects for that year.

Contrary to popular belief, bond issues to not give "blank checks" to the City. All projects must be pre-approved before funds are allocated.FritterGirl, I know that none of the bond proposition (11) 75 Mil is going to be used to help bring in the Sonics. But it could be. Although proposition (11) may not be in its purist sense a "Blank Check" it gives this "Economic Development Trust" plenty of wiggle room.

The other bond projects contained in propositions (1-10) were "Pre-Approved" as specified at the time of passage and have nothing to do with the Citys F/Y general budget. On the subject "Economic Development" deals. When the City gave Quad-Graphics millions of dollars to re-locate here they (Quad-Graphics) promised to bring in 1,000 new jobs. Have they? I would bet not.

I support using the sales tax to upgrade the FC 100%. Furthermore I'm for helping business come to our great City through economic incentives. If we give them these incentives they should be held accountable to fullfill their end of the bargain. I don't support using the sales tax to pay for a separate "Practice Facility" right or wrong thats why I'm going to have to vote NO

You are voting no because you disagree with a 1/6th of the entire 120 mil proposal?

Doubt any large city project would get passed if everyone subscribed to that line of thinking

If you grade the proposal it comes back with an 83...Solid B...Legally you must vote yes on a proposal that scores that high :Smiley077

I wish they'd stop spinning this stupid "penny" tax. It's a penny for every dollar. So basically a 1% tax increase.

Even though I'll probably vote yes, they should stop distorting the full facts. And what the heck goes into a 20 mil PRACTICE facility? What does this place seat 5K?

I wish they'd stop spinning this stupid "penny" tax. It's a penny for every dollar. So basically a 1% tax increase.

Even though I'll probably vote yes, they should stop distorting the full facts. And what the heck goes into a 20 mil PRACTICE facility? What does this place seat 5K?

I agree with you. The spin has not been completely honest. I also hate hearing about how the practice facility is "only" 20 million dollars. As I said in a post earlier in this thread (to put a little perspective to it), the funding for the "practice facility" alone at $20,000,000.00 is TWO BILLION PENNIES.

You are voting no because you disagree with a 1/6th of the entire 120 mil proposal?

Doubt any large city project would get passed if everyone subscribed to that line of thinking

If you grade the proposal it comes back with an 83...Solid B...Legally you must vote yes on a proposal that scores that high :Smiley077Easy180, I don't know if your questions and comments are directed to me, but if they are then 1: I'm voting no because I don't like being extorted by the NBA on how my tax dollars have to be used. If you feel differently about the issue great, I respect that. 2: If voted on all proposed projects pass or fail, regardless of which line of thinking you or I subscribe to. 3: Do what?

I agree with you. The spin has not been completely honest. I also hate hearing about how the practice facility is "only" 20 million dollars. As I said in a post earlier in this thread (to put a little perspective to it), the funding for the "practice facility" alone at $20,000,000.00 is TWO BILLION PENNIES.

Can also put a little perspective in it and say the the practice facility will cost you about the same as a Snickers

Can also put a little perspective in it and say the the practice facility will cost you about the same as a Snickers

That's not true at all. You've been snookered with the analogy of Snickers. A penny tax per dollar equals the cost of a candy bar? I just bought a terabyte hard drive for $500.00. That transaction alone would be 500 pennies. That's $5.00 on one transaction. You multiply the sales at the register through the days, weeks, months, the year and how do you get the cost of a Snickers bar? Even broken down into the practice facility vs all other projects, it's way more than a candy bar. That doesn't add up. In my analogy above with my hard drive purchase, almost a dollar of that would be for the practice facility alone!

A thousand dollar laptop? I would pay around $2.00 extra for the practice facility alone. I shouldn't have to pay a nickle for that. Not a cent.

I can see where folks can be against it in principle, but the personal contribution aspect is a joke....Penny tax lapses not one person will notice it in their pocketbook

First - the bond issue we passed was for $750 million, not $75 and it was dedicated to public infrastructure improvements (streets, roads, parks), with the exception of Prop 11, which is very accurately described in another post by SilverMoon. One thing I would add regarding economic development incentives at the local level is that Texas has a state law that allows municipalities to collect up to a full penny sales tax that goes into a permanent economic development fund. Most cities take advantage and have funds far larger than what we approved with Prop 11. The last thing we want is to consistently lose to Texas. :)
It is important when you get to the end of negotiations with a company to have a tool like this to compete. Without it, we would have nothing.

The campaign to pass this election is entirely privately funded. It would be a violation of state law for the city to spend a penny on this campaign. The campaign has/will file all documents required by local ordinance and state law, as we did in both the Citizens for Kids (school bond) and OKC YES (bond issue) campaigns. Both of those campaigns were funded privately as well.ChamberCyn, Can you please explain the reason for, or the logic behind, only asking the citizens (I am one) for 75 mil to compete with Texas, since the last thing we want to do is lose to them. If we want to beat them so bad (I do) and they have funds bigger than ours, Why not 100 mil, 200 mil or whatever amount. Just curious.

It is NOT an one penny "INCREASE"!!!!

ITS AN EXTENSION! The same sales tax that we have been paying for over ten years!!! That needs to cleared up too! I think people believe that it is an increase when it isnt...

It is NOT an one penny "INCREASE"!!!!

ITS AN EXTENSION! The same sales tax that we have been paying for over ten years!!! That needs to cleared up too! I think people believe that it is an increase when it isnt...If it is not an "INCREASE", only an "EXTENSION", does that also mean it is not a "DECREASE"!!!!

It looks like we could get the NBA and all the prestige it brings for a comparative song. Why so many people on this board are begrudging a 20 million-dollar facility is beyond me.

If you divide the 20 mil between the 500k or so residents of OKC, and divide that by 15 months, you get $2.66 per person, per month...or 3 Snickers.

And yes, Architect, it is NOT an increase.

so what does this mean for the people who don't like Snickers?

You can buy a bag of baby carrots.

I’ve heard many arguments (e.g. "I never go to Bricktown.” “Why should my tax dollars go to just benefit Bricktown.” “I hate basketball” “I never went to a Hornets Game,” The NBA is holding the City hostage,” etc.).

My personal perspective is this. My wife and I have no children, not for lack of trying. Maybe some day we will adopt and maybe not. Nonetheless, we have both consistently voted in favor of every school bond initiative put forth to us because it has been our considered opportunity and opinion to improve our community at large and our neighborhood, our quality of life and, yes, our personal property value.

Just because you have a personal issue with one aspect of the proposition or a personal bias with the issue it should not necessarily deal a death blow to the whole package. Please consider a global view for Oklahoma City. If, after that, you decide against, then of course please exercise your right against moving forward.

I have to go back to the hypocrisy of so-called "conservatives" pushing this "it's just an extension" so hard. They are the same people saying if we don't make Bush's tax cuts permanent, it's a "tax increase." The fact is, both of these things were meant to be temporary. Both of these also were sold with the "temporary" promise and both had detractors who said as long as politicians were involved it would be permanent. So far - so true.

As to the argument above by Silvermoon - paying for schools and giving money to the NBA are two very different things.
The idea the city should be subsidizing the NBA at all is ludicrous.

It's to bad there is no way to turn back time. But just think if we could. All of the NBA caliber City's across this U.S. of A. could have gotten together and made some rules of their own. First. Before the NBAs Board of Governors beat them to the punch.

Lets say for example before the Lakers set up shop in L.A. they had to provide the citizens with x numbers of playgrounds, or build a new(or upgrade a old) zoo, or up grade the elementary schools.

Who knows M.J. could have been playing for the L.A. Bulls. Well, that is if the Bulls owners had been willing to beat the Lakers offer and throw in 5 more playgrounds and 50 miles of bike trails. Throw ole Mark Cuban into the mix. If I'm a citizen in L.A. I'll be watching the L.A. Mavericks on my 50 inch plasma. Paid for by Quess who.

I've put together an unabashed pro-vote flash file video using images from the Hornet's 2 seasons here. It uses the NBA rap tune as its background.

Doug Dawgz Blog: Unabashed Ford Center Vote Video (http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2008/01/unabashed-ford-center-vote-video.html)

I've put together an unabashed pro-vote flash file video using images from the Hornet's 2 seasons here. It uses the NBA rap tune as its background.

Doug Dawgz Blog: Unabashed Ford Center Vote Video (http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2008/01/unabashed-ford-center-vote-video.html)

Doug, in all seriousness, how do you deal with the "thug quotient" in the NBA? We had the Hornets with Chris Paul - a major exception to the rule. Most of these multi-millionaire players are out and out millionaire street thugs. Read books! There's book after book about their sense of entitlement to women, etc. These guys are the lowest of the low that happen to be able to play a GAME and are able, for the most part, to buy their way out of trouble before it explodes with their weighted down wallets with wads of cash. I don't mean this as a dig at the league you love so much, but truly, how do you reconcile the "thug quotient" of these grossly overpaid street punks? (And I know there are exceptions, but reading several books - the thuggery and crimes against women, funding gangs under the table, etc. is all part and parcel of the NBA.) How do you accept this? Truly?

You can look at the tax in the reverse. I spend $4.65 a day for a Starbucks latte. It's my vice. I would have to spend $169,725 dollars a year for food and stuff to pay the equivalent of $4.65 a day in tax. Were I to buy myself a diet Dr. Pepper a day instead (actually, I have two vices), I'd have to spend $47,085 a year on food and stuff to spend the equivalent of what I spend a day on a single diet Dr. Pepper.

I would actually be willing to give up my latte and Diet Dr. Pepper for 18 months if it meant we could upgrade the Ford Center and get an NBA team. I'd give it up for 15 months just to upgrade the Ford Center. Since no one is asking me to do that, I'm just going to say that if we pass this tax proposition, I will only shop in Oklahoma City during the 15 or 18 months the tax is in force. No catalog shopping, no Edmond or Norman. I want to support the arena and our city. People who oppose the tax can simply do the opposite, even if it passes. Edmond, Moore, Norman, the Village, etc.....it's an easy tax to avoid paying.

how do you reconcile the "thug quotient" of these grossly overpaid street punks? (And I know there are exceptions, but reading several books - the thuggery and crimes against women, funding gangs under the table, etc. is all part and parcel of the NBA.) How do you accept this? Truly?

Is that the true reason for not wanting to pay for a practice facility, because of a dislike of the NBA?

While this is another argument/topic, if you look at all forms of entertainment that you probably pay for ,ie celebrities, pro sports, college sports, musicians, actors etc, etc.. you'll find plenty of 'thugs' and thuglike activities - mass amounts of money= feelings of entitlement and feeling above the law.

Does the fact that Keifer Sutherland just got out of jail yesterday for repeated DUI's prevent you from buying a HDTV or paying more for your cable bill? Maybe not the best analogy but I can't help but think that there are some deeper underlying issues here other than the penny sales tax.

And yet, you'll find plenty of upstanding people who will do the right thing, make the right choices, donate to charities, do community service etc. Of course, the negative publicity is more newsworthy.

Maybe it's a selfish thing on my part but I'm willing to not let a few bad apples spoil the love of the game, maybe we did get lucky with Chris Paul, PJ Brown, David West etc etc.. and I guess I can overlook some of the shadier aspects of pro sports because of the excitement, the boost to our local economy and all of the intangible benefits that the NBA will bring.