View Full Version : The Ballot, Ordinance, & Your Vote



Doug Loudenback
01-07-2008, 03:19 PM
Okc's website is working again and here are my OCR'ed versions of the Ordinance which was passed by the City Council & Signed by the Mayor on 1/2/2008 and the Ballot Form approved at the same time. I've not checked my OCR exactly but it looks correct at first and second look. The PDF files are among those at City of Oklahoma City's Meeting Management System (http://www.okc.gov/AgendaPub/meeting.aspx?cabinet=PUBLISHED_MEETINGS&ftr=0&docid=3347)

Note, in the ordinance, that a simple majority is required for voter approval.


The Ballot:

BALLOT TITLE FOR ALTERNATIVE #2

EXHIBIT A

BALLOT TITLE FOR SPECIAL ELECTION

SHALL ORDINANCE NO. 23,520 ("ORDINANCE") OF THE CITY OF OKLAHOMA CITY ("CITY") BE APPROVED?

The Ordinance levies a limited-term excise tax of 1% on the gross proceeds or gross receipts derived from all sales taxable under the sales tax laws of the State of Oklahoma. The Ordinance states that the tax may be expended only for providing or improving City sports facilities and lists certain sports-facility-related improvements, costs, items, articles, expenses, reimbursements, paybacks, and payments that may be funded. The Ordinance permits funding of a basketball training facility, but provides the training facility shall not be funded unless, prior to June 1, 2009, a National Basketball Association team has executed a lease or other contract to locate in or relocate to the City. The Ordinance states that expenditures may be commenced, continued, completed, or concluded, in whole or in part, as and in the order deemed appropriate by the City Council. The Ordinance creates the "Oklahoma City Sports Facilities Sales Tax Fund." The Ordinance sets forth the term for the tax, which is a period of 15 months or 12 months, commencing at 12:00 a.m. on January 1, 2009, and ending either at 12:00 a.m. on April 1, 2010 (15 months) if the basketball training facility will be funded, or in the alternative, at 12:00 a.m. on January 1, 2010 (12 months) if the basketball training facility will not be funded. The Ordinance requires that, by not later than June 1, 2009, the City Council shall declare whether or not the basketball training facility will be funded, with notice of the corresponding ending date for the tax to thereafter be given in writing to the Oklahoma Tax Commission by the City Clerk. The Ordinance provides for codification and an effective date for certain sections thereof if City voters approve the Ordinance prior to January 1, 2009. The Ordinance declares an emergency.

FOR THE ORDINANCE—YES [ ]

AGAINST THE ORDINANCE—NO [ ]

--------------------


The Ordinance:

SPORTS FACILITIES SALES TAX ORDINANCE
ALTERNATIVE #2

(Published in The Journal Record January 3, 2008)

ORDINANCE NO. 23,520

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OKLAHOMA CITY SALES TAX CODE, CODIFIED AS ARTICLE II OF CHAPTER 52 OF THE OKLAHOMA CITY MUNICIPAL CODE, 2007; SETTING FORTH FINDINGS; ENACTING SECTION 52-23.3 OF ARTICLE II OF CHAPTER 52, LEVYING AN ADDITIONAL EXCISE TAX OF ONE PERCENT (1%) ON THE GROSS PROCEEDS OR GROSS RECEIPTS DERIVED FROM ALL SALES TAXABLE UNDER THE SALES TAX LAWS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA; SPECIFYING THAT THE TAX MAY BE EXPENDED ONLY FOR THE LIMITED-PURPOSE OF PROVIDING OR IMPROVING CITY SPORTS FACILITIES, WHICH MAY INCLUDE WITHOUT LIMITATION THE FUNDING OF CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS, ITEM(S), ARTICLE(S), COST(S), EXPENSE(S), REIMBURSEMENTS, PAYBACKS, OR PAYMENTS, AS LISTED IN THE ORDINANCE; AUTHORIZING THE FUNDING OF A BASKETBALL TRAINING FACILITY, SUBJECT TO THE PROVISO THAT THE BASKETBALL TRAINING FACILITY SHALL NOT BE FUNDED WITH THIS EXCISE TAX UNLESS, PRIOR TO JUNE 1, 2009, A NATIONAL BASKETBALL ASSOCIATION (NBA) TEAM HAS EXECUTED A LEASE OR OTHER CONTRACT TO LOCATE IN OR RELOCATE TO THE CITY; SPECIFYING THAT THE EXPENDITURES FOR PROVIDING OR IMPROVING CITY SPORTS FACILITIES MAY BE COMMENCED, CONTINUED, COMPLETED, OR CONCLUDED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, AS AND IN THE ORDER DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY THE CITY COUNCIL; CREATING THE "OKLAHOMA CITY SPORTS FACILITIES SALES TAX FUND;" PROVIDING A LIMITED TERM FOR THE ADDITIONAL EXCISE TAX LEVIED BY SECTION 52-23.3, WITH THE LIMITED TERM COMMENCING AT 12:00 A.M. ON JANUARY 1, 2009, AND ENDING EITHER FIFTEEN (15) MONTHS OR TWELVE (12) MONTHS LATER, DEPENDING UPON WHETHER OR NOT THE BASKETBALL TRAINING FACILITY IS FUNDED; STATING SPECIFIC ENDING DATES FOR THE EXCISE TAX, DEPENDING UPON WHETHER IT IS A FIFTEEN (15) MONTHS OR TWELVE (12) MONTHS TAX; , STATING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL MUST DECLARE BY RESOLUTION PASSED BY NOT LATER THAN JUNE 1, 2009, WHETHER OR NOT THE BASKETBALL TRAINING FACILITY WILL BE FUNDED WITH THIS EXCISE TAX, AND WITH THE CITY CLERK TO THEREAFTER NOTIFY THE OKLAHOMA TAX COMMISSION OF THE CORRESPONDING ENDING DATE FOR THE EXCISE TAX; PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE FOR SECTIONS 1 AND 2 OF THIS ORDINANCE; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.

EMERGENCY ORDINANCE

BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OKLAHOMA CITY:

SECTION 1. That Article 11 of Chapter 52 of the Oklahoma City Municipal Code, 2007, is hereby amended by the enactment of a new Section 52-23.3 to read as follows:

Chapter 52. TAXATION
* * *
ARTICLE II. SALES TAX CODE

§52-23.3. Additional excise tax on gross receipts for funding City sports facilities.

(a) In addition to and cumulative of the excise tax of two percent levied by Section 52-20 of this chapter upon the gross proceeds or gross receipts derived from all sales taxable under the sales tax laws of this state, the excise tax of three-fourths percent levied by Section 52-21 of this chapter upon the gross proceeds or gross receipts derived from all sales taxable under the sales tax laws of this state, and the excise tax of one-eighth percent levied by Section 52-22 of this chapter upon the gross proceeds or gross receipts derived from all sales taxable under the sales tax laws of this state, a limited-term excise tax in the additional amount of one percent (1%) is hereby levied upon the gross proceeds or gross receipts derived from all sales taxable under the sales tax laws of this state, including but not limited to the specific taxable sales and service transactions enumerated in Paragraphs (1) through (11), inclusive, of Subsection (a) of Section 52-20 of this chapter.

(b) The additional limited-term excise tax levied pursuant to Subsection 52-23.3(a) above may be expended only for the limited purpose of providing or improving City sports facilities, which may include without limitation the funding of improvements to the Ford Center; the funding of a basketball training facility, provided, the basketball training facility shall not be funded with this excise tax unless, prior to June 1, 2009, a National Basketball Association (NBA) team has executed a lease or other contract to locate in or relocate to the City; the funding of incidental or related real or personal property acquisition costs, real property interest acquisition costs, administrative costs, architectural costs, engineering costs, consulting costs, demolition costs, and legal costs; the funding of any or all other item(s), article(s), cost(s) or expense(s) incidental or related in any way to providing or improving City sports facilities; the funding of reimbursements or paybacks for expenditures made by a public trust with the City as a beneficiary for the purpose of providing or improving City sports facilities; and if deemed necessary or appropriate by City Council for cash-flow purposes, the payment of principal and interest on and the costs of issuance of bonds, notes, lines-of-credit, or other evidences of indebtedness issued by a public trust with the City as its beneficiary for the purpose of providing or improving City sports facilities.

(c) The expenditures for providing or improving City sports facilities authorized under Subsection (b) of this section may be commenced, continued, completed, or concluded, in whole or in part, as and in the order deemed appropriate by the City Council.

(d) Pursuant to authority of 68 O.S. § 2701(B), there is hereby created a limited-purpose-fund to be known as the "Oklahoma City Sports Facilities Sales Tax Fund" (hereinafter the "Fund") into which all revenues collected pursuant to Subsection 52-23.3(a) above shall be deposited. Money in the Fund shall be accumulated from year-to-year. The Fund shall be placed in an insured interest-bearing account and the interest which accumulates on the Fund shall be retained in the Fund. The Fund shall be non-fiscal and shall not be considered in computing any levy when the City makes its estimate to the excise board for needed appropriations. Money in the Fund shall be expended only as accumulated and only for the limited-purpose specified in Subsection 52-23.3(b) above.

(e) The additional excise tax levied pursuant to Subsection 52-23.3(a) above shall be for a limited term commencing at 12:00 a.m. on January 1, 2009, and ending as follows:

(1) If the basketball training facility referenced in Subsection 52-23.3 (b) of this section will be funded with this excise tax, then the excise tax shall end fifteen (15) months after commencement of the tax and, specifically, said tax shall end at 12:00 a.m. on April 1, 2010; or in the alternative,

(2) If the basketball training facility referenced in Subsection 52-23.3 (b) of this section will not be funded with this excise tax, then the excise tax shall end twelve (12) months after commencement of the tax and, specifically, at 12:00 a.m. on January 1, 2010.

By not later than June 1, 2009, the City Council shall by Resolution expressly declare whether or not the basketball training facility referenced in Subsection 52-23.3(b) of this section will be funded with this excise tax, with notice of the corresponding ending date for this excise tax to thereafter be given in writing to the Oklahoma Tax Commission by the City Clerk.

SECTION 2. CODIFICATION. The provisions of Section 1 of this Ordinance shall be codified as Sections 52-23.3 of Article II of Chapter 52 of the Oklahoma City Municipal Code, 2007.

SECTION 3. EFFECTIVE DATE OF SECTIONS 1 AND 2, APPROVAL BY CITY VOTERS REQUIRED. The provisions of Sections 1 and 2 of this Ordinance shall become effective from and after 12:00 a.m. on 1st day of January, 2009, but only if this Ordinance is approved prior to said date by a majority vote of the qualified, registered voters of The City of Oklahoma City voting on such question at a special election to be called for that purpose by the City Council of the City and to be held within the City as provided by law; provided, if this Ordinance is not so approved by City voters prior to 12:00 a.m. on January 1, 2009, then the provisions of Sections 1 and 2 hereof shall become null and void and of no force and effect whatever.

SECTION 4. EMERGENCY. WHEREAS, it being immediately necessary for the preservation of the peace, health, safety and public good of The City of Oklahoma City and the inhabitants thereof that the provisions of this ordinance be put into full force and effect, an emergency is hereby declared to exist by reason whereof this ordinance shall take effect and be in full force from and after the date provided herein as provided by law.

INTRODUCED and CONSIDERED in open meeting of the Council of the City of Oklahoma City this 2nd day of January, 2008.

PASSED by the Council of The City of Oklahoma City on this 2nd day of January, 2008.

SIGNED by the Mayor of The City of Oklahoma City on this 2nd day of January, 2008.

/s/ Mick Cornett
MAYOR
ATTEST:
/s/ Frances Kersey [Seal of the
City Clerk City of Oklahoma City]

REVIEWED for form and legality.

/s/ Kenneth D. Jordan
Municipal Counselor
---------------------

Doug Loudenback
01-07-2008, 03:20 PM
I voted YES!

jbrown84
01-07-2008, 03:40 PM
yes yes yes

dcsooner
01-07-2008, 04:14 PM
Hell yes!!!!

Doug Loudenback
01-07-2008, 04:23 PM
Hell yes!!!!
Sorry, DCS, you just mutilated your ballot! Ahw, shucks ... IT COUNTS ANYWAY! TWICE! :welcome5: And JBrown's vote counts 3x! :dizzy:

betts
01-07-2008, 04:47 PM
I cannot think of one reason not to vote yes. (Sorry about the double negative)

Decious
01-07-2008, 04:47 PM
It'll be approved via a grass roots effort. That means I'm voting yes and everyone that I know is gonna hear my case for why they should vote yes too. If we're passive about this election, we could be in for a rude surprise when the tally comes in. I love OKC and I'm trying hard not to move my wife and our soon to be bundle of joy to LA where I work, but if this fails I'll be VERY disappointed. That said, I don't think that it'll fail. I just think that a lot of us really understand just how important this is for our future and consequently, we're nervous. I get the feeling that if this fails, C2S and everything that we've been looking forward to will have taken a major blow. In other words....GET OUT AND VOTE YES.

Doug Loudenback
01-07-2008, 04:57 PM
It'll be approved via a grass roots effort. That means I'm voting yes and everyone that I know is gonna hear my case for why they should vote yes too. If we're passive about this election, we could be in for a rude surprise when the tally comes in. I love OKC and I'm trying hard not to move my wife and our soon to be bundle of joy to LA where I work, but if this fails I'll be VERY disappointed. That said, I don't think that it'll fail. I just think that a lot of us really understand just how important this is for our future and consequently, we're nervous. I get the feeling that if this fails, C2S and everything that we've been looking forward to will have taken a major blow. In other words....GET OUT AND VOTE YES.
Totally agree ... an affirmative vote should NOT be taken for granted. I'm gonna make me a big yard sign very shortly! Maybe with a graphic of the "new" arena!

jacodenn
01-07-2008, 05:00 PM
I just wish Ray Allen hadn't been traded. Vote YES!

Nixon7
01-07-2008, 05:04 PM
YES YES YES. PLEASE let me stop being a casual, somewhat but not quite, mavs fan!

dcsooner
01-07-2008, 05:24 PM
Although I do not currently live in Oklahoma, this vote is momumental to me. I want to move back home in a couple years to a progressive forward thinking city. Those of you in Oklahoma City do not take this vote for granted, get people who want growth and progress to the polls on voting day, it would be a travesty to let this moment in the Cities progress fail. The owners spent $350M for an opportunity to bring improved recognition and quality of life to OKC, please don't let 1 cent on a dollar for 15 months kill all the momemtum of the past 10 years

CCOKC
01-07-2008, 07:03 PM
YES YES YES. PLEASE let me stop being a casual, somewhat but not quite, mavs fan!

I am not a "casual" Mavs fan. I'm downright crazy fanatical about Dirk and my boys but I vote yes and goodbye mavs (at least when they play the OKC Sonics)

solitude
01-07-2008, 07:22 PM
Yes for arena improvements ONLY!!!

An emphatic NO on paying for the millionaire players and billionaire owners to have a practice facility. They should pay for that. These so-called "conservatives" like Clay Bennett who run to the government for handouts while screaming "liberal giveaway programs" when it's about health, education, etc. is hypocrisy of the first order. Corporate welfare is what the giveaway to Bennett & Company would be. You can either vote against it on principle - or vote for it because you want an NBA basketball team so bad that you're willing to allow the hypocrite to blackmail you for your tax dollars. I stand with the people of Seattle - who voted on principle - and vote NO against corporate welfare - whenever, however and wherever it exists. I won't be held hostage and blackmailed for a basketball team. I know, I know, "Look what good it will do for the city!" That's the point, when they know you want something so badly, that's what makes it blackmail. It has to stop. We can be part of the problem or part of those saying no to billionaire owners who steal from the wallets of the working people of the city. No tax increase? Yes it is. When a tax is scheduled to expire - and does not - it is taking away the tax decrease promised you.

Doesn't principle mean anything anymore?

Doug Loudenback
01-07-2008, 07:28 PM
I am not a "casual" Mavs fan. I'm downright crazy fanatical about Dirk and my boys but I vote yes and goodbye mavs (at least when they play the OKC Sonics)
After a little bit of serious meditation, all I can say is, "Welcome, Sonics Fan," and Dunk the Dirk! :dizzy: I think I'm having too much fun with this! :sofa:

solitude
01-07-2008, 07:31 PM
I just edited the above a lot. Sorry, I meant to "preview."

Doug Loudenback
01-07-2008, 07:56 PM
Yes for arena improvements ONLY!!!

An emphatic NO on paying for the millionaire players and billionaire owners to have a practice facility. They should pay for that. These so-called "conservatives" like Clay Bennett who run to the government for handouts while screaming "liberal giveaway programs" when it's about health, education, etc. is hypocrisy of the first order. Corporate welfare is what the giveaway to Bennett & Company would be. You can either vote against it on principle - or vote for it because you want an NBA basketball team so bad that you're willing to allow the hypocrite to blackmail you for your tax dollars.
Solitude, the exact same point was made by one of the councilmen during the city council discussion (I listened to the whole 2-3 hour marathon), even if the councilman did not put the matter as bluntly as you did.

But, apparently, the practice facility "requirement" is not "Bennett" driven but is "NBA" driven. Whether Bennett's group may want to temper his parent organization's position when negotiating a lease or actually constructing the practice facility in whole or in part is a different matter. If it was presented accurately, the NBA currently holds that a host city must be willing to provide the practice facility as one of the perks of inducement (such as the Nola Practice Facility that has yet to come to pass in New Orleans). Maybe that ain't pretty, but there it is, just the same.

We don't hold the cards, the NBA does, and, if we want an NBA team, their cards are apparently on the table. We don't have to play. I understand that this isn't likely a satisfying answer, but, the point is, we may not have the ability to set the rules of engagement, even though Bennett et al are citizens here.

solitude
01-07-2008, 08:04 PM
Solitude, the exact same point was made by one of the councilmen during the city council discussion (I listened to the whole 2-3 hour marathon), even if the councilman did not put the matter as bluntly as you did.

But, apparently, the practice facility "requirement" is not "Bennett" driven but is "NBA" driven. Whether Bennett's group may want to temper his parent organization's position when negotiating a lease or actually constructing the practice facility in whole or in part is a different matter. If it was presented accurately, the NBA currently holds that a host city must be willing to provide the practice facility as one of the perks of inducement (such as the Nola Practice Facility that has yet to come to pass in New Orleans). Maybe that ain't pretty, but there it is, just the same.

We don't hold the cards, the NBA does, and, if we want an NBA team, their cards are apparently on the table. We don't have to play. I understand that this isn't likely a satisfying answer, but, the point is, we may not have the ability to set the rules of engagement, even though Bennett et al are citizens here.

I hear 'ya Doug. I understand the way the game is played. It will pass at any rate. But, I will still vote on principle about taxpayers funding anything that is for the sole, exclusive use of the basketball team. If the league requires this - maybe the league should consider paying for these things. Which, by the way, they would have to if the people in all the NBA cities said "enough." As long as they can get away with the blackmail and holding teams hostage for public funding of their private enterprise --- it will continue. The galling thing is we're talking millionaire players and millionaire (billionaire in some cases) owners who can pony up for things that are for their exclusive use.

You are right, we can't make the rules of engagement - we're just expected to pay for the rule book.

Karried
01-07-2008, 08:18 PM
I sort of agree with you Solitude. I cringe at the thought of some of the outrageous salaries of sports professionals, actors, celebrities etc.

But, the way I look at a practice facility is somewhat similar to a 'school' ... the team practices.. the team gets better and improves.. the team excels and wins, we all win.

The intangible benefits of a pro sports team to a city are immeasurable. I'm more than willing to pony up the tax if it brings them here and gives them a place to practice.

Simple, I know.

Easy180
01-07-2008, 08:27 PM
Telling my mom and anyone else I know that lives in OKC to get out and vote yes

Way excited this great college sports area may finally get a piece of the pros

betts
01-07-2008, 09:52 PM
Sorry, but I see so many intangible benefits to having a team here, that I don't see a principle we're failing to uphold. When a team owner has already put up $400 million of their own money to bring a team to a city without a guarantee of making a penny, and the possibility of losing millions, I don't think asking for a practice facility is asking for much. When the owners have to pay $30 million to relocate the Sonics, then I don't think giving them $20 million back for a practice facility is too much. Since $400 million is an almost unimaginable sum for most of us, let's drop it to $40,000. Let's say you have a business in another city for which you've paid $40,000. You'd like your home city to have the benefit of this business....perhaps it's a really nice restaurant that you think your city would enjoy having. But, when you do the market research, it's not very likely that your business will make any or much money if you relocate it to your hometown. Would you do it if you would make $1,000.00 profit a year, just so your city could enjoy that restaurant? Would any businessman? The average NBA team makes $10 million dollars a year, and many make less. Some don't break even. That's the equivalent of making $1,000 on a $40,000 investment, or 2.5%. You can do better putting your money in a savings account, as could the Sonics' owners. Therefore, bringing a team to OKC is an altruistic action. We cannot respond with a $20 million dollar practice facility that will cost each of us a penny sales tax? The smart thing for the Sonics' owners to do would be to negotiate a better contract and keep the team in Seattle, where they would actually have a far better chance of making money. They are doing this for the city, not themselves. If they were doing it for themselves, they would NEVER move the team to a market this size with a substantial chance of making marginal money. So, can we not be generous and give back? That's my take, solitude.

solitude
01-07-2008, 10:23 PM
Sorry, but I see so many intangible benefits to having a team here, that I don't see a principle we're failing to uphold. When a team owner has already put up $400 million of their own money to bring a team to a city without a guarantee of making a penny, and the possibility of losing millions, I don't think asking for a practice facility is asking for much. When the owners have to pay $30 million to relocate the Sonics, then I don't think giving them $20 million back for a practice facility is too much. Since $400 million is an almost unimaginable sum for most of us, let's drop it to $40,000. Let's say you have a business in another city for which you've paid $40,000. You'd like your home city to have the benefit of this business....perhaps it's a really nice restaurant that you think your city would enjoy having. But, when you do the market research, it's not very likely that your business will make any or much money if you relocate it to your hometown. Would you do it if you would make $1,000.00 profit a year, just so your city could enjoy that restaurant? Would any businessman? The average NBA team makes $10 million dollars a year, and many make less. Some don't break even. That's the equivalent of making $1,000 on a $40,000 investment, or 2.5%. You can do better putting your money in a savings account, as could the Sonics' owners. Therefore, bringing a team to OKC is an altruistic action. We cannot respond with a $20 million dollar practice facility that will cost each of us a penny sales tax? The smart thing for the Sonics' owners to do would be to negotiate a better contract and keep the team in Seattle, where they would actually have a far better chance of making money. They are doing this for the city, not themselves. If they were doing it for themselves, they would NEVER move the team to a market this size with a substantial chance of making marginal money. So, can we not be generous and give back? That's my take, solitude.

I understand that point of view. I just don't buy it.

Be generous and give back? Why should my 98 year old grandmother have to pay for a practice facility for a privately-owned professional basketball team?

Altruistic? They will make money - and they know it. They will profit from this team in due time, maybe right away. Many businesses operate at a loss for several years before becoming profitable. That's business. The savings account analogy doesn't work for several reasons, but one big reason is the fact that the owners of the team reap huge tax advantages for any "losses."

As far as wanting to "give back" --- you could have every opportunity. It's called buying tickets. And if the basketball fans really want to "give back" why not a dollar or two surcharge on each ticket to pay for the practice facility and whatever else? Seriously. The owners say that's not acceptable. They can't put a dollar on a ticket of someone who is going to the games, but they can ask the public-at-large (including my grandmother) to pony up? That's the principle. It's corporate welfare or it's not. It's a self-sustaining private business or it's not. On principle, I can't support government handouts to millionaire/billionaire owners of a privately owned anything. And that includes a basketball league that pays their players figures that should make this entire conversation moot. On what planet do you ask the public to finance a practice facility so millionaires can go practice in it?!?! The city is being asked to pay out millions for a league that pays players like Kevin Garnett $24,000,000.00 PER YEAR! (And yes, no typo, that's 24 million dollars a year.) The Sonics have an annual payroll of over $63,000,000.00 - for a basketball team! It's out of control. For me, handing public money to these people is a travesty.

I can appreciate the other viewpoint. I just think a lot of people around this country have been played like tools for professional sports franchises that use cities and people as hostages for the purpose of making rich players and owners even richer. If anybody else should be asked to pay - it should be the people who go to the games. A buck or two a ticket and my grandmother doesn't have to bail out a bunch of overly-paid basketball players and the owners who pay them. Simple and fair if anybody feels the need to "give back." But as I said, it's going to pass and I accept it. In my opinion, it's just wrong.

Architect2010
01-07-2008, 11:49 PM
But its no different from the sales tax now... your grandmother will be paying what she has been paying for over ten years! Its not going up! Its staying the same...

BUT.... I DO understand what ur saying and I completely agree with you... we should not have to pay for a practice facility so millionaires who are much more than capable of just reaching in their own pockets and paying for it.

The Ford Center improvements should definitely be a yes, but maybe the practice facility should be built by other means??? The Ford Center itself will benifit from these upgrades not only from NBA but with more events going to it... the purpose of this tax is to make the Ford Center an even better, more attractive venue for concerts and such, But it is also to lure an NBA Team. I'm kinda torn on whether the practice facility should be a part of the tax or if it should be paid by other means... But either way, we need a practice facility.

betts
01-08-2008, 03:58 AM
Actually, solitude, there is no guarantee that the team will ever make money. The $10 million I quoted was the average. The Grizzlies have never made money. Many of the small markets never make a significant amount of money. Why should the Sonics owners give us a bigger gift than $400 million? Isn't that a big enough donation to this community? Especially considering the community will reap the benefits of having a team, not just those who go to the games?

I have no problem with a seat tax. But at a dollar a head, it's going to take 10,000 events to pay for a practice facility.

A practice facility is the price of doing business with the NBA, regardless of what you believe about who should pay for it. You can vote no in protest, but if you've got enough people doing the same, we will not get an NBA team. There's no guarantee this measure will pass, as there are a lot of people opposed to taxes for anything. I sincerely believe that if we do not get an NBA team, it will seriously decrease the forward momentum in this city. We need things happening downtown to make it attractive for people to go there. When the Hornets were here, downtown and Bricktown were buzzing. It was fun to be there. I think we need things like that to encourage people to live downtown, and I think a lot of the downtown housing construction was helped by having a professional team here. Again, without one, it says we're content being a midwestern third tier city with Triple A baseball and a hockey team contesting with the Shreveport Mudbugs and the Laredo Bucks. Personally, I'll pay a lot to have a chance for Oklahoma City to host playoffs or the NBA finals with international coverage instead, for a chance to see the Boston Celtics, the San Antonio Spurs and the Cleveland Cavaliers six nights a year instead. And although I no longer have a grandmother, my mother sees the benefit too. She's one of the biggest proponents of progress and moving forward around, even though she doesn't particularly like basketball.

Doug Loudenback
01-08-2008, 01:06 PM
Other polls are going on ... here's what I've found so far:

Journal Record (despite the opinion piece): The Journal Record - Poll (http://www.journalrecord.com/poll/index.cfm)
(if that link does not show the poll results, then start here ... The Journal Record - Home (http://www.journalrecord.com/index.cfm) ... and then scroll to page bottom and click "View Poll Results" ... and vote if you've not done so, if you wish)

AboutOkc.com: Oklahoma City Poll Results (http://okc.about.com/gi/pages/poll.htm?linkback=http://okc.about.com/od/politicalparties/a/fordcentervote.htm&poll_id=8959453175&poll=1&submit1=Submit+Vote)

OkcBusiness.com: OKCBusiness - Oklahoma City Business News (http://www.okcbusiness.com/poll.asp?showresults=yes&current=yes&id=23)

OU Espn Insider: Will you vote yes on the Ford Center upgrade? - OU Insider Forums (http://www.ouinsider.com/forums/showthread.php?t=39949)

Hornets/Sonics Central: http://www.hornetscentral.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6390

Doubtless there are others.

OU Adonis
01-08-2008, 01:22 PM
Why should I pay for taxes for a school if I do not have any kids or plan to have kids?

Why should I pay taxes for road repair in southern OKC if I never go past reno?

Because it makes the community better.

solitude
01-08-2008, 01:50 PM
Why should I pay for taxes for a school if I do not have any kids or plan to have kids?

Why should I pay taxes for road repair in southern OKC if I never go past reno?

Because it makes the community better.

The difference is that roads are for public use and building and maintaining roads is a legitimate responsibility of the public through their local government. Building a practice facility for a privately-owned basketball team for their exclusive use falls way short of a public responsibility.

solitude
01-08-2008, 02:13 PM
Actually, solitude, there is no guarantee that the team will ever make money. The $10 million I quoted was the average. The Grizzlies have never made money. Many of the small markets never make a significant amount of money. Why should the Sonics owners give us a bigger gift than $400 million? Isn't that a big enough donation to this community? Especially considering the community will reap the benefits of having a team, not just those who go to the games?

I have no problem with a seat tax. But at a dollar a head, it's going to take 10,000 events to pay for a practice facility.

A practice facility is the price of doing business with the NBA, regardless of what you believe about who should pay for it. You can vote no in protest, but if you've got enough people doing the same, we will not get an NBA team. There's no guarantee this measure will pass, as there are a lot of people opposed to taxes for anything. I sincerely believe that if we do not get an NBA team, it will seriously decrease the forward momentum in this city. We need things happening downtown to make it attractive for people to go there. When the Hornets were here, downtown and Bricktown were buzzing. It was fun to be there. I think we need things like that to encourage people to live downtown, and I think a lot of the downtown housing construction was helped by having a professional team here. Again, without one, it says we're content being a midwestern third tier city with Triple A baseball and a hockey team contesting with the Shreveport Mudbugs and the Laredo Bucks. Personally, I'll pay a lot to have a chance for Oklahoma City to host playoffs or the NBA finals with international coverage instead, for a chance to see the Boston Celtics, the San Antonio Spurs and the Cleveland Cavaliers six nights a year instead. And although I no longer have a grandmother, my mother sees the benefit too. She's one of the biggest proponents of progress and moving forward around, even though she doesn't particularly like basketball.

Betts, I agree with you about when the Hornets were downtown. It was fun. All you just said is true. But surely you can be honest and admit that you support the public paying for a practice facility for millionaires and billionaires - not because it is right - but because you want a team so badly. This is the game that professional sports franchises are playing to the hilt all over this country. The NBA wants people to think they are the equivalent of a public utility, a public school system, transportation infrastructure, etc. They use this to hold cities hostage for new stadiums, arenas, practice facilities, etc. All for private profit. I hope the Sonics come here, but we need to be honest about what's happening here. Holding your nose and voting "yes" is one thing, but saying a "yes" vote is really the right thing to do begs a discussion on what has happened to our sense of public responsibility. A little intellectual honesty would be nice.

Again, I know all the arguments for these kinds of deals. I even understand them. But, in my opinion, they all boil down to "We need this so badly for our city that I'm willing to be blackmailed into using public money for this to happen." There simply is no rational argument that can be made, for a league that pays one player $24,000,000.00 a year, to ask the public-at-large to finance a damn thing. They have allowed the player salaries to go into the realm of the fantastic and now they want the taxpayers of these cities to help pay these salaries (buy paying for other things the team should rightly pay for). Nobody opposing these kinds of things are out to ruin the party, we simply want a rational debate across the board, about what is and what is not the responsibility of the public. Especially galling is the hypocrisy of these so-called "conservative" team owners feeding at the public trough, while handing over campaign contributions to political leaders who scream "giveaway programs!" at every turn for public tax dollars going to anything but defense contractors and sweetheart pork deals that benefit their own kind. It's rank hypocrisy.

OU Adonis
01-08-2008, 02:22 PM
I disagree on the roads issue. You can incorporate toll roads just about anywhere and you only pay if you use it. :)

solitude
01-08-2008, 02:27 PM
I disagree on the roads issue. You can incorporate toll roads just about anywhere and you only pay if you use it. :)

Which is an argument for adding a ticket surcharge to those who actually go to the games - not to tax the public-at-large. :)

betts
01-08-2008, 03:26 PM
Solitude, I agree that player salaries are through the roof. But, the Sonics owners just bought a team last year, and they're the rookies in the BOG. Even if they thought salaries should be lower, they don't have the status or leverage to get it done. I'm sure there's a player's union, and it might be really difficult for even the NBA to lower salaries, although I do not know that for sure. I'd be far more in favor of the Sonic's owners building their own practice facility if they were one of the owners who bought a team when it cost $50 million, rather than $350 million, or if we were Chicago or New York, where the owners are guaranteed a nice return on their investment. Yes, I want the NBA here badly, but far more for our city than for myself. If NBA teams are able to hold cities hostage, it's because those cities, which virtually all already have teams, perceive that degree of value in having one (Seattle excluded, of course). I honestly believe we will not get an NBA team for our city if we do not build them a practice facility, and I think it's shortsighted to pass on a team for $20 million dollars, since I think the Ford desperately needs upgrading anyway. I just hate to see this city slip back to where it was 15 years ago, and the difference I see between us and the cities above us is professional teams. I remember when Charlotte got the Hornets, and a lot of what has happened there has happened since that time. I don't think it's coincidence.

Oklahoma City is not important enough to send a message to the players and the NBA. They don't need us. Kansas City and Las Vegas are standing in line waiting to build arenas and practice facilities for them, as are other cities, I'm sure. If we were New York or Chicago, we might have the gravitas and the financial clout to make the statement, but if OKC were to stand up to the owners and NBA and say we're not going to support a team when the players make those kind of salaries, they'd just shrug, say "whatever" and move on.

Now, what I think might be doable, although I have no power, is to go to the public and say, "After we get this next round of renovations done, we're going to add a ticket surcharge on every ticket sold to every event in the Ford Center." That money could either be saved for needed renovations in the future, or could be earmarked for something else that benefits the city. I would be fine with that. If we could raise enough money quickly enough for Ford Center renovations with a ticket surcharge, I'd be fine with that. But again, this tax will take so little money out of my pocket that I won't even notice it, and I honestly believe it will be a great thing for this city, even if the Sonics' owners do make money (which is not guaranteed).

The bottom line also, of course, is that people who feel really strongly about not supporting the Sonics can choose to shop in Moore, Bethany, Edmond, Midwest City, etc, and not a penny of their money will go to build the practice facility or upgrade the arena, even if the bond issue passes.

jbrown84
01-08-2008, 04:26 PM
Yes the player salaries and other aspects of the NBA are out of control. Yes, if all the cities would say no to public funding, that might change, but WE ARE NOT IN A PLACE TO START THAT TREND.

We will not get a team if we aren't cooperative. Seattle has had the team for 40 years and they're going to lose it because they would rather hold up their principles.

Doug Loudenback
01-08-2008, 04:31 PM
The difference is that roads are for public use and building and maintaining roads is a legitimate responsibility of the public through their local government. Building a practice facility for a privately-owned basketball team for their exclusive use falls way short of a public responsibility.
Solitude, I understand what you are saying. But what you are saying does not represent what Oklahoma City voters have done beginning with MAPS 1.

The issue you present is whether it is ever appropriate for a city to pay for and build facilities that are to be leased to and used by any privately owned sports team.

I assume that, were you capable of doing so, that you would not "undo" the 1st and 2nd Maps votes which got us the existing arena in the 1st place. And, would you not agree that the existing arena was done in large part with the hopes of attracting either an NBA or NHL (yuch! :numchucks ) team in the 1st place ... i.e., a "privately owned team" since, with the exception of Green Bay, all professional sports teams are privately owned?

If you'd not undo the arena, and if the "price of admission" for an NBA team includes providing a practice facility as well as an arena, what's the point of doing the arena in the 1st place if one is not prepared to "go all the way" to achieve the desired objective?

On a smaller but still not inexpensive scale, the Bricktown Ballpark falls in the same category. Same principle. The city (you and me) bought and paid for it to host a privately-owned AAA team. We did not ask the team to contribute to the cost of construction.

While you may be opposed to the city building and owning sports facilities which are in turn leased to privately owned sports teams, doing so is consistent with what Oklahoma City has done in the past. That includes both the Ford Center and the Bricktown Ballpark.

This time, the requisite definition of "facilities" includes 2 items for the definition to be satisfied: (1) arena; and (2) practice facility. But, even if item (2) were not required, the principle involved would remain the same.

If you differentiate between a sports facility which hosts the sporting events and, in this case, the practice facility, wherein would you say lies the distinction, in principle?

solitude
01-08-2008, 04:57 PM
JBrown,

Principles do matter. If the Sonics won't come to Oklahoma City over 20 million dollars in taxpayer giveaways - they'll go somewhere else, where people like me are screaming mad about all these subsidies and they'll have the same fight there. It's not like people like me aren't in every city (Seattle is just the tip of the iceberg and represented a growing hostility toward this madness). In fact, the tide has begun to turn against this kind of blatant corporate welfare. It's a problem. Yet, I feel as you do that an NBA club would help OKC tremendously. I am just trying to get across the message that only on another planet would my position have been controversial just thirty years ago. In fact, it would have been the expectation that taxpayers are responsible for anything in regards to professional sports teams that would have been considered nutty. Times change.

Doug,

My problem lies with two words: Exclusive Use. The arena has hosted Paul McCartney and every other act worth mentioning since its opening. Ice Skating. The Circus. College basketball conference championships and an NCAA regional, all sorts of things, it hasn't been used exclusively for anything. So no, it's not the same thing. The ballpark? It's hosted the Big 12 championships and again, is not the property of the Redhawks and used exclusively for anything.

A practice facility for a professional basketball team would be for their exclusive use. That is the difference. The accurate comparison is not with the arena or the ballpark, but with Bass Pro. How many here supported that?

On Edit: I don't want to lose friends over this issue. It's not worth that. I think the whole package will pass handily. But there will be a measure of disgust registered and, to me, that's a good thing. No, I don't want the Sonics to go anywhere else, but I also want there to be a voice for what's right and just. I honestly believe the blackmail used in professional sports is wrong - grossly unfair and disgusting. Yet, I understand the excitement of NBA basketball in OKC and I look forward to it. I appreciate and respect your viewpoints on this. I hope that you might do the same. For a lot of us, this is a messy thing. Not the least of which is the hypocrisy involved with "conservatives" expecting the government to do things for their basketball team while they contribute hundreds of thousands of dollars to political candidates who do everything possible to keep public money from going to anything that might actually better the lives of our fellow citizens. I understand your excitement and views on this deal - I just hope some of you can understand that mine are just as important and heartfelt to me.

betts
01-08-2008, 05:42 PM
I understand solitude, and I have a couple of friends who feel the same way. If enough people do, the Sonics will go somewhere else, and all those who voted no will have is some pennies in their pockets. The rest of us will be looking at Chris Paul 2 inches high on our televisions and remembering how much better it felt to see him lifesize, and we'll probably spend those pennies and more on NBA League Pass. The restaurants in Bricktown will slowly close, and Mick Cornett will walk around like he's had his heart cut out of him. And we'll have to listen to all the Kansas City trolls rubbing the fact that they have the Sonics in our faces. That may sound alarmist, but I believe it will happen.

Doug Loudenback
01-08-2008, 05:59 PM
Doug,

My problem lies with two words: Exclusive Use. The arena has hosted Paul McCartney and every other act worth mentioning since its opening. Ice Skating. The Circus. College basketball conference championships and an NCAA regional, all sorts of things, it hasn't been used exclusively for anything. So no, it's not the same thing. The ballpark? It's hosted the Big 12 championships and again, is not the property of the Redhawks and used exclusively for anything.

A practice facility for a professional basketball team would be for their exclusive use. That is the difference. The accurate comparison is not with the arena or the ballpark, but with Bass Pro. How many here supported that?
Well, I'm not easily able to make the distinction that you do. By saying this, I'm supposing that you assented to the principle that it's OK for a city to pay for and build a facility that would be used by a private entity, even though you did not directly say that. Otherwise, your reply wouldn't make sense, in context.

Do you mean to say that IF the practice facility was not dedicated to an NBA team's "exclusive use" that your objection in this regard would be rendered moot? So, for example, if the practice facility could be used for some other purpose, you'd have no objection? Before going further with this point, I'll wait for your response.

As for Bass Pro, I have no comment other than to say that, at the time, the City thought that it would be good to have a fine anchor tenant in the Lower Bricktown area and was willing to pay some coin for that to happen. I didn't and don't have a problem with that. But, to the issue at hand, I don't see that Bass Pro is an appropriate analogy to the current situation, if that's what you intended to present.

Back to topic:

I gather from your omission, and other remarks, that you consider it OK for Okc to fund and build a sports facility of some sort for a privately owned team as long as that facility is NOT given the exclusive use of that facility? Or did I not understand what you were saying? I'll wait for your reply before responding further on this point.


On Edit: I don't want to lose friends over this issue. It's not worth that. I think the whole package will pass handily.
No one should, and in my case will, lose friends merely because of a difference of opinion, regardless on the perceived importance of the issue involved. You've presented your views thoughtfully. Whether they are agreeable to me (or anyone) or not doesn't matter. Your messages in this thread are of the highest caliber.

As to the "package passing handily," as I've already said, I take nothing for granted. I think that this will be an emotionally and intellectually charged vote, and, as we can all see from the Obama/Clinton primaries so far, unexpected things do happen. That's why I'll be making my personal "yard sign" to stick in front of my house this weekend!

solitude
01-08-2008, 06:10 PM
Well, I'm not easily able to make the distinction that you do. By saying this, I'm supposing that you assented to the principle that it's OK for a city to pay for and build a facility that would be used by a private entity, even though you did not directly say that. Otherwise, your reply wouldn't make sense, in context.

Do you mean to say that IF the practice facility was not dedicated to an NBA team's "exclusive use" that your objection in this regard would be rendered moot? So, for example, if the practice facility could be used for some other purpose, you'd have no objection? Before going further with this point, I'll wait for your response.

As for Bass Pro, I have no comment other than to say that, at the time, the City thought that it would be good to have a fine anchor tenant in the Lower Bricktown area and was willing to pay some coin for that to happen. I didn't and don't have a problem with that. But, to the issue at hand, I don't see that Bass Pro is an appropriate analogy to the current situation, if that's what you intended to present.

Back to topic:

I gather from your omission, and other remarks, that you consider it OK for Okc to fund and build a sports facility of some sort for a privately owned team as long as that facility is NOT given the exclusive use of that facility? Or did I not understand what you were saying? I'll wait for your reply before responding further on this point.


No one should, and in my case will, lose friends merely because of a difference of opinion, regardless on the perceived importance of the issue involved. You've presented your views thoughtfully. Whether they are agreeable to me (or anyone) or not doesn't matter. Your messages in this thread are of the highest caliber.

As to the "package passing handily," as I've already said, I take nothing for granted. I think that this will be an emotionally and intellectually charged vote, and, as we can all see from the Obama/Clinton primaries so far, unexpected things do happen. That's why I'll be making my personal "yard sign" to stick in front of my house this weekend!

You are correct in my thinking. The arena is used in many ways and the "profits" (lease payments) do not go to anyone but the City of Oklahoma City. The users lease the facility. The practice facility (think offices and luxury gym) would be paid for by the City of Oklahoma City, but would be used exclusively for an NBA team with no lease payments. Big difference.

Kerry
01-08-2008, 06:23 PM
Solitude - I think you need to reconsider your definition of "exclusive use". I think you are under the impression that only NBA players will set foot on the court. That is far from the case.

In pro-cities that I have lived in, team practice facilites are not only used by the team for practice but also community outreach functions and youth sports leagues. Yes the team might have exclusive use but "use" doesn't necessarely mean it is only used 2 hours a day for practice. The Tampa Bay Lightning practice facility in Brandon is open to the public most of the time and for a small fee you can watch practices. For those not able to afford rink-side seats they can see the players up close. Great for taking the kids to see their favorite players.

They have to have exclusive use so they can control when they practice or need the court.

Doug Loudenback
01-08-2008, 06:29 PM
I understand solitude, and I have a couple of friends who feel the same way. If enough people do, the Sonics will go somewhere else, and all those who voted no will have is some pennies in their pockets. The rest of us will be looking at Chris Paul 2 inches high on our televisions and remembering how much better it felt to see him lifesize, and we'll probably spend those pennies and more on NBA League Pass. The restaurants in Bricktown will slowly close, and Mick Cornett will walk around like he's had his heart cut out of him. And we'll have to listen to all the Kansas City trolls rubbing the fact that they have the Sonics in our faces. That may sound alarmist, but I believe it will happen.
I say NOT SO, my sister-in-arms!

Oklahoma City had progressed very nicely before the Hornets landed here for 2 seasons and opened some (my) eyes as to possibilities that could be beyond our experiences prior to October 2005. But, Oklahoma City's health and viability is not based upon whether the city gets an NBA team or not and it will not sink or swim based upon that single item. To be sure, our environs, pleasure, and identity, would be enhanced big time were an NBA team to locate here. But, this city, and the progress made during the past decade and more, will not suddenly become trashed if that does not come to pass.

Oklahoma City's identity, and/or viability and/or vibrancy, does NOT depend on an NBA team being located here. Not at all. We are a tough city rising up from the plains, enduing ups and downs, and we will survive the loss of having an NBA team, should that come to pass. I'm enjoying Bricktown's restaurants and the Harkins cinema and all the rest, as we speak, with no NBA team in town at the empty Ford Center.

But, would that identity/viability/vibrance be substantially enhanced were that to happen? For sure. Will Oklahoma City suddenly atrophy if that doesn't happen? No way.

solitude
01-08-2008, 06:36 PM
Solitude - I think you need to reconsider your definition of "exclusive use". I think you are under the impression that only NBA players will set foot on the court. That is far from the case.

In pro-cities that I have lived in, team practice facilites are not only used by the team for practice but also community outreach functions and youth sports leagues. Yes the team might have exclusive use but "use" doesn't necessarely mean it is only used 2 hours a day for practice. The Tampa Bay Lightning practice facility in Brandon is open to the public most of the time and for a small fee you can watch practices. For those not able to afford rink-side seats they can see the players up close. Great for taking the kids to see their favorite players.

They have to have exclusive use so they can control when they practice or need the court.

Who will own it?

btw: Did you get my links on photography laws to help you with your photo question?

Doug Loudenback
01-08-2008, 06:42 PM
You are correct in my thinking. The arena is used in many ways and the "profits" (lease payments) do not go to anyone but the City of Oklahoma City. The users lease the facility. The practice facility (think offices and luxury gym) would be paid for by the City of Oklahoma City, but would be used exclusively for an NBA team with no lease payments. Big difference.
Not necessarily. Such things as that will depend upon the terms negotiated by the city and an NBA (or other tenant) that would locate here.

The upcoming vote determines what we will OR MAY build, and own, it does not determine the the terms of occupancy/lease. And the practice facility would not be built unless an NBA team had agreed to the terms of lease prior to June 1, 2009. So, when you say, "no lease payments," you are assuming something that will not necessarily be the fact.

A fair amount of discussion was had on this point during the Council's 1/2/08 session. On this point, the upshot was (if I'm accurately reporting and I think that I am) that such matters would be considered in lease terms with any (guess who?) NBA tenant.

What this vote is about is what to build, not the terms of any potential lease.

Kerry
01-08-2008, 07:54 PM
Solitude,

The mayor said the city would own the facilities, unless I missed something.

Yes, I read the photo links you provided an they were helpful. I am not going to push the envelope at work, but I will at other buildings.

jbrown84
01-10-2008, 03:44 PM
JBrown,

Principles do matter. If the Sonics won't come to Oklahoma City over 20 million dollars in taxpayer giveaways - they'll go somewhere else, where people like me are screaming mad about all these subsidies and they'll have the same fight there. It's not like people like me aren't in every city (Seattle is just the tip of the iceberg and represented a growing hostility toward this madness). In fact, the tide has begun to turn against this kind of blatant corporate welfare. It's a problem. Yet, I feel as you do that an NBA club would help OKC tremendously. I am just trying to get across the message that only on another planet would my position have been controversial just thirty years ago. In fact, it would have been the expectation that taxpayers are responsible for anything in regards to professional sports teams that would have been considered nutty. Times change.

Exactly. Let's let the cities that can get away with it be the revolutionaries this time.

glennp
01-11-2008, 01:33 AM
OU, paying taxes for the school system would hopefully help us improve our education scores. Higher scores and graduating number, the higher quality jobs that come to OKC.

Roads are a part of life. We all have to travel on them and you can't single a part of the city out for roads.

Community is made better by improving the quality of life. Having a professional sports team does not benefit a larger percentage of Oklahoma City citizens. The Ford Center can only hold around 20,000 people. There are 500,000 + population in okc alone. Of the 500K your largest age sector is between 45 and 65.

Then you also have a large percentage of the citizens on welfare and/or social security. So the NBA does not improve the largest sectors of citizens.

My VOTE is NO. We are the only city that I have researched that has asked the citizens to pay for the arena and practice facility. Others use tourism tax or some other sort of tax that impacts those who only use this facility.



Why should I pay for taxes for a school if I do not have any kids or plan to have kids?

Why should I pay taxes for road repair in southern OKC if I never go past reno?

Because it makes the community better.

dcsooner
01-11-2008, 05:41 AM
glennp: Newsflash! OKC is not a tourist destination. What age group do you think can afford the most expensive tickets, maybe 45-65. It would take 10 years to raise the money from a tourist tax. A ticket surcharge could be used, but again, it would take significant time to generate the funding necessary to upgrade the facility in the next year or two. Your arguments reflect an overall selfishness that suggests if I do not get direct benefit then I will not support X. This is shortsighted and in my opinion incorrect. Their are definite tangible benefits to OKC's name and image being broadcast nationwide several times a year, being in newspapers nationwide for almost 6 months out of the year. Businesses and people want to live and work in Cities with entertainment and Quality of Life "options". Why should we have to support the Mavericks and buy their merchandise and tickets etc. when we can do the same for a team with OKC on the jersey. Aren't you tired of having to always comment on how much better some other place is because of a vibrant downtown? I could go on but, for some staying behind others is acceptable.

metro
01-11-2008, 09:15 AM
OU, paying taxes for the school system would hopefully help us improve our education scores. Higher scores and graduating number, the higher quality jobs that come to OKC.

Roads are a part of life. We all have to travel on them and you can't single a part of the city out for roads.

Community is made better by improving the quality of life. Having a professional sports team does not benefit a larger percentage of Oklahoma City citizens. The Ford Center can only hold around 20,000 people. There are 500,000 + population in okc alone. Of the 500K your largest age sector is between 45 and 65.

Then you also have a large percentage of the citizens on welfare and/or social security. So the NBA does not improve the largest sectors of citizens.

My VOTE is NO. We are the only city that I have researched that has asked the citizens to pay for the arena and practice facility. Others use tourism tax or some other sort of tax that impacts those who only use this facility.

Only City? How about Orlando or Sacramento? Orlando just shelled out about a half a billion in public money for a new arena. We're getting off cheap with a total cost of $190 million. I'm pretty sure there are other cities as well who have publically paid for arena and practice facility. Oh, and other NBA cities are bigger tourism cities than OKC. OKC doesn't currently generate enough tourism to bring in the dollars necessary in a short amount of time. That's the urgency with passing this on extending the current sales tax, not increasing it.

JWil
01-11-2008, 02:19 PM
I sort of agree with you Solitude. I cringe at the thought of some of the outrageous salaries of sports professionals, actors, celebrities etc.


We have no one to blame there but the general public. Over the past 30-40 years, the demand for more movies, TV shows/stations/channels and more teams have driven players' salaries. Those people only get what they do because they fuel a huge market for those respective entertainment mediums.

solitude
01-11-2008, 03:05 PM
We have no one to blame there but the general public. Over the past 30-40 years, the demand for more movies, TV shows/stations/channels and more teams have driven players' salaries. Those people only get what they do because they fuel a huge market for those respective entertainment mediums.


That's a bizarre spin on player salaries. I wonder why those same dynamics don't work in all market-driven industries? I'm sorry, but 24 Million Dollar contracts for ONE PERSON for ONE YEAR is not the fault of the "general public."

betts
01-11-2008, 04:26 PM
I think one of the things people fail to realize is that this is a timing and time issue. Yes, we all recognize that there are other things Oklahoma City needs, and it's hard to argue that some of them might not be needed more. But, this is a timing issue. There are only 30 NBA teams, and all but two of them are fairly firmly settled in their respective cities. Teams don't move very often. If we don't pass this bond issue and secure a team now, it could be years and years before another one is available. This is like needing to buy a new car and finding out that the house of your dreams, which you've been saving for and are not quite ready to buy, is on the market. If you don't buy it now, someone else may, and it may never be for sale again in the forseeable future. So, if you really want that house, you limp along in your old car for a while, and buy the house. What people seem to think is that if we don't pass the bond issue, Clay will move the team here anyway, because he really wants it here.....let's call his bluff. What I'm hearing is that this is an NBA issue, not a Sonics' issue, and that this is what David Stern wants to see passed, to convince him and the board of governors that Oklahoma City, a small market, is ready to step up and support a team. Ultimately, what they want matters far more than what Clay and the other Sonics' owners want. The BOG blocked the sale of the Timberwolves to a NewOrleans group in the past, because they didn't think the city was ready for or interested in the NBA. The same thing could easily happen here if we do not pass this bond issue, and from what I'm hearing, almost surely will. You don't call David Stern's bluff, because there are at least five other cities our size or bigger who would be happy to take the Sonics off our hands.

jbrown84
01-11-2008, 04:41 PM
That's a bizarre spin on player salaries. I wonder why those same dynamics don't work in all market-driven industries? I'm sorry, but 24 Million Dollar contracts for ONE PERSON for ONE YEAR is not the fault of the "general public."

How about movie stars and music stars?

solitude
01-11-2008, 04:54 PM
I think one of the things people fail to realize is that this is a timing and time issue. Yes, we all recognize that there are other things Oklahoma City needs, and it's hard to argue that some of them might not be needed more. But, this is a timing issue. There are only 30 NBA teams, and all but two of them are fairly firmly settled in their respective cities. Teams don't move very often. If we don't pass this bond issue and secure a team now, it could be years and years before another one is available. This is like needing to buy a new car and finding out that the house of your dreams, which you've been saving for and are not quite ready to buy, is on the market. If you don't buy it now, someone else may, and it may never be for sale again in the forseeable future. So, if you really want that house, you limp along in your old car for a while, and buy the house. What people seem to think is that if we don't pass the bond issue, Clay will move the team here anyway, because he really wants it here.....let's call his bluff. What I'm hearing is that this is an NBA issue, not a Sonics' issue, and that this is what David Stern wants to see passed, to convince him and the board of governors that Oklahoma City, a small market, is ready to step up and support a team. Ultimately, what they want matters far more than what Clay and the other Sonics' owners want. The BOG blocked the sale of the Timberwolves to a NewOrleans group in the past, because they didn't think the city was ready for or interested in the NBA. The same thing could easily happen here if we do not pass this bond issue, and from what I'm hearing, almost surely will. You don't call David Stern's bluff, because there are at least five other cities our size or bigger who would be happy to take the Sonics off our hands.

I'm sorry, betts, but that doesn't fly.

David Stern and the NBA will decide on OKC as an NBA-ready city based on whether the people-at-large will support a tax to subsidize their league? Hardly. In the end, this is a political issue - not a referendum on Oklahoma City's ability to actually support a basketball team. This is the kind of campaign tactics the Mayor's office is using because they want the team. Period. They will say and do anything to get it, including bowing to the unreasonable demands of asking taxpayers to subsidize their teams.

When you have a sports-crazy mayor like Mick Cornett (former sportscaster and current owner of a sports film company), it's dangerous business. He wants an NBA team so badly that he can go against his own "conservative" principles ( I remember his campaign) and ask taxpayers to pay the ransom demand. Make no mistake, that's all this is - holding a city hostage for giveaways from the city treasury - for billionaire owners and millionaire players. This is about POLITICS and what is a public responsibility and what is not.

betts
01-11-2008, 06:06 PM
Solitude, I strongly disagree, and if this measure fails, you will see that it's true. Seattle, a city that has supported a team for 40 years, a city three times as big as Oklahoma City and with an arena that's not that different from ours, is probably going to lose their team because they initially would not refurbish the Key Arena. Clay Bennett came in and asked for a brand new arena, but Howard Schultz would have settled for a restructuring of the lease and a renovated Key. David Stern works for the owners, and the owners want the new arenas. Even if they're holding the cities hostage, and Orlando just agreed to a new $450 million dollar arena to keep from losing the Magic, that's the price of doing business with the NBA.....and the NFL, NHL and MLB. Minneapolis had to build a new stadium to keep the Twins. Right or wrong, if you want a team, you play by their rules. Again, we're talking about a league with 30 teams. That's scarcity, and the market pays for scarcity. I don't mind, solitude, if you just say you don't want to pay for an NBA team, so you don't care if we get one. But do not fool yourself into thinking we are a big enough city with enough clout to stand up to the NBA. They'll shrug their shoulders and move on. A vote no means no team, almost assuredly. I'm not willing to gamble, because I think we'll get far more value than $125 million from having a team here. I was happy to pay for the Redhawks stadium, even though I don't like baseball. I was happy to build the Ford Center initially, even though I don't go to concerts. I was happy to pay for the Civic Center upgrades, even though I don't have season tickets to the Symphony or go there more than once every couple of years. I pay for the library even though I never check out books. They all improve the quality of life in this city, as would an NBA team. They all help bring in new businesses and keep college graduates here. Unlike the rest, an NBA team would put OKC in the national spotlight on a regular basis. I think it would be a great thing for OKC, and I think Mick Cornett is right.

solitude
01-11-2008, 06:15 PM
Solitude, I strongly disagree, and if this measure fails, you will see that it's true. Seattle, a city that has supported a team for 40 years, a city three times as big as Oklahoma City and with an arena that's not that different from ours, is probably going to lose their team because they initially would not refurbish the Key Arena. Clay Bennett came in and asked for a brand new arena, but Howard Schultz would have settled for a restructuring of the lease and a renovated Key. David Stern works for the owners, and the owners want the new arenas. Even if they're holding the cities hostage, and Orlando just agreed to a new $450 million dollar arena to keep from losing the Magic, that's the price of doing business with the NBA.....and the NFL, NHL and MLB. Minneapolis had to build a new stadium to keep the Twins. Right or wrong, if you want a team, you play by their rules. Again, we're talking about a league with 30 teams. That's scarcity, and the market pays for scarcity. I don't mind, solitude, if you just say you don't want to pay for an NBA team, so you don't care if we get one. But do not fool yourself into thinking we are a big enough city with enough clout to stand up to the NBA. They'll shrug their shoulders and move on. A vote no means no team, almost assuredly. I'm not willing to gamble, because I think we'll get far more value than $125 million from having a team here. I was happy to pay for the Redhawks stadium, even though I don't like baseball. I was happy to build the Ford Center initially, even though I don't go to concerts. I was happy to pay for the Civic Center upgrades, even though I don't have season tickets to the Symphony or go there more than once every couple of years. I pay for the library even though I never check out books. They all improve the quality of life in this city, as would an NBA team. They all help bring in new businesses and keep college graduates here. Unlike the rest, an NBA team would put OKC in the national spotlight on a regular basis. I think it would be a great thing for OKC, and I think Mick Cornett is right.


Whatever. I'm through arguing this. You yourself said, "right or wrong." Well, that's what I mean by principle. I'd like to see big league sports here, but it's not the be all and end all that everybody (influenced by ex-sportscaster Mick Cornett) thinks it is. It's this kind of thing with billionaire owners, ridiculously paid players and corporate welfare that makes me like it less and less. I loved watching Bart Starr in the Sixties. I read recently where Starr made less in one season than highly-paid quarterbacks today are paid for one QUARTER of one GAME. It just doesn't excite me like it used to. The thuggy NBA least of all.

Kerry
01-11-2008, 07:39 PM
It is quite obvious that no one on here is going to change anyone's minds, so I say - Solitude, vote No if you want to. You will be in the minority and you will have to pay the tax anyhow. People that die with honor are just as dead.

Doug Loudenback
01-12-2008, 12:24 AM
It is quite obvious that no one on here is going to change anyone's minds, so I say - Solitude, vote No if you want to. You will be in the minority and you will have to pay the tax anyhow. People that die with honor are just as dead.
Kerry, the bold part above remains to be seen and it should not be taken for granted that the measure will pass. Recent example: New Hampshire primary.

kevinpate
01-13-2008, 05:55 AM
> an affirmative vote should NOT be taken for granted.

whether one is fer or agin the idear, Da Dawg's statement should supply a heapin' helpin' of motivation to ya