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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Let's at least be honest about all this.

This bull about, "They want to see, with our votes, if we can support an NBA team," is completely ridiculous. Voting on a tax - that is a political issue - is going to show them more than our two years with the Hornets?

Let's at least be honest about all this.

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

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

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

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


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

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


This bull about, "They want to see, with our votes, if we can support an NBA team," is completely ridiculous.

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

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

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

and used for high school basektball teams, sporting camps, birthday parties, and other uses.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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


A healthy debate regarding public responsibility and city priorities is not a bad thing.
Agreed!

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

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


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

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

I think people get tunnel vision about this practice facility.

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

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

2. High school state championship games for smaller schools.

3. City sponsored 3 on 3 tournaments.

4. Youth programs during the summer.

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

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

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

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


Do I think the federal government should be funding things like the Ford Center? No.

Well of course not. You missed the point entirely.

I think people get tunnel vision about this practice facility.

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

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

2. High school state championship games for smaller schools.

3. City sponsored 3 on 3 tournaments.

4. Youth programs during the summer.

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

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

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

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


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

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

An example of a "practice facility"....
The Sacramento Kings Practice Facility (http://www.nba.com/kings/news/The_Sacramento_Kings__Monarch_PF.html)

EDIT: I just found a good story that goes into what these things really are. MSNBC has the scoop (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12759059/)on lavishing the players with luxury in the practice facilities. The article looks at Cleveland and Dallas, who both have these new "practice facilities."

It's fancy digs for the front office and a luxury hang-out for the players.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.okctalk.com/okc-metro-area-talk/11752-ford-center-improvements-up-march-4-vote.html

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

Unless I change my mind! :)

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


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



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

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

I'll be voting yes...

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

The only reason to vote no would be because you hate Oklahoma City.

Agree, anyone who love the city and wants to see it prosper and grow has to vote yes. No way a 18 month one cent tax should be a show stopper to all the positives that I believe will come with NBA presence in the City

One thing nobody is discussing is "What if the NBA never comes to OKC?"

For all we know there might be a group in another city that snipes OKC out of the running. Vegas has an endless supply of private financing. All it would take is for one of the Casinos to say "Come on down, we will build you the best stadium, training and living quarters in the world."

How do we know Clay Bennet and Friends may do the same thing to us in ten years that they are doing to Seattle.

For all we know David Stern may leave the NBA and a new commissioner may pull a few strings to keep the Sonics and every other team in their home cities for awhile.

Any sane person knows you should never 100% plan for anything to happen because things can change to keep it from happening.

Obviosly nobody remembers when United Airlines pulled the rug out from under the city.

I have two reasons to vote no.

One, taxpayers need a break. We pay too much in the form taxes and see little or not benefit in return. The cost living is skyrocketing and a little less sales tax would help working class people like me.

Two, there are bigger fish fry to in OKC right now. Such as the roads, public safety, the mass transit system, increasing our water supply sources so we are not like Dallas in ten years, adding community centers, pools and spray grounds so our kids actually have an option to street gangs and vandalism, I could go all day.

Package the Ford Center improvements and I will be on board. If this sale tax passes, I think OKC is getting tired of sales tax improvements.

Obviosly nobody remembers when United Airlines pulled the rug out from under the city.

This is actually a reason to vote FOR the Ford Center improvments.


One, taxpayers need a break. We pay too much in the form taxes and see little or not benefit in return. The cost living is skyrocketing and a little less sales tax would help working class people like me.

Agree and disagree. As a tax payer I would like to see the Federal government loosen the income tax burden a lot. However, a sales tax at the local level to fund local projects is a good way to raise funds. You might not like the project the money is being spent on but it is the best way to raise the money.


Two, there are bigger fish fry to in OKC right now. Such as the roads, public safety, the mass transit system, increasing our water supply sources so we are not like Dallas in ten years, adding community centers, pools and spray grounds so our kids actually have an option to street gangs and vandalism, I could go all day

The Ford Center vote is not an either/or situation. If the vote for the Ford Center fails new money isn't magically going to pour into the roads and parks. Besides, those things you just mentioned were included in the most recent bond issues.

I am voting no because of nepotism at City Hall. I am voting no because there is so much bad behavior in our local municipal government that has gone unchecked. The City's days in the sun are coming to a screeching halt. Rampant harassment that the City sweeps under the proverbial rug. Just ask the folks in Parks and Recreation.

There is an urban legend of sorts out there -- a very high up City official throwing a stapler at someone's head. This story has made the rounds in City government. The stapler-thrower -- she's been promoted over and over again. Bullies get their rewards at City Hall. This is what the City respects in its leaders. Bad ass--. As long as this is going on - how can I in good conscience allocate more tax revenue to them?

I predict the failure of this vote on March 4.

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

Actually people who don't live in Oklahoma, don't have to pay the tax either.

Maybe not, but people coming to Oklahoma to enjoy an NBA will pay taxes on hotel rooms, restaurants, entertainment and help boost our economy in that way.. especially someone who has family here and comes home to visit and has a vested interest in the growth of the city.

A "no" vote here would be tough for the city to recover from. I don't mind the practice facility at all. If it gets used anything like the Blazer's practice facility does (which I was at on Friday night watching a UCO vs. OU ice hockey match), it'll be valuable to the community. The price tag isn't outlandish at all.

I am voting no because of nepotism at City Hall. I am voting no because there is so much bad behavior in our local municipal government that has gone unchecked. The City's days in the sun are coming to a screeching halt. Rampant harassment that the City sweeps under the proverbial rug. Just ask the folks in Parks and Recreation.

There is an urban legend of sorts out there -- a very high up City official throwing a stapler at someone's head. This story has made the rounds in City government. The stapler-thrower -- she's been promoted over and over again. Bullies get their rewards at City Hall. This is what the City respects in its leaders. Bad ass--. As long as this is going on - how can I in good conscience allocate more tax revenue to them?

I predict the failure of this vote on March 4.

I'll ask you the same thing I asked Rev. Gaddis, ringleader of the pro-John Porter lobby.

What in the WORLD does this have to do with the Ford Center??

I am voting no because of nepotism at City Hall. I am voting no because there is so much bad behavior in our local municipal government that has gone unchecked. The City's days in the sun are coming to a screeching halt. Rampant harassment that the City sweeps under the proverbial rug. Just ask the folks in Parks and Recreation.

There is an urban legend of sorts out there -- a very high up City official throwing a stapler at someone's head. This story has made the rounds in City government. The stapler-thrower -- she's been promoted over and over again. Bullies get their rewards at City Hall. This is what the City respects in its leaders. Bad ass--. As long as this is going on - how can I in good conscience allocate more tax revenue to them?

I predict the failure of this vote on March 4.
Pardon me? Voting No because of NEPOTISM??? What a concept! :bright_id

I'd be happy to see some rational thought from most of the "no" voters. I can't argue with reasons that are well thought out, but some of these are just wacko and off the wall. Let's talk about Oklahoma City as a community, and what we'd like to see for our community. If you're voting no, let's hear some of your hopes and dreams for your comunity, and what you'd like to see done in it's place, or why you think having a new arena is bad for the community. Or, just state:
"I'm against all taxes, no matter what they're for." That's a position that's pretty defensible, since it's an opinion. But, nepotism, staplers, etc? Go campaign for people you think will do a better job. The Ford Center has absolutely nothing to do with who is or isn't in office.

I am voting no because of nepotism at City Hall.

Wha????

Non sequitur much??

I share your suspicions regarding the administration of many public bodies, public trusts especially. The Ford Center, however is something which has a plan which is going to be built for a certain amount of money. There isn't a lot of room here for corruption. This is very unlike there being a 75 million dollar fund for "economic development" where the people writing the paper can charge as much as 10% interest. Now, therein lies the potentiality (more like probability) of corruption. The Ford Center though? I simply can't connect your premises to your conclusion.

Wha????

Non sequitur much??

I share your suspicions regarding the administration of many public bodies, public trusts especially. The Ford Center, however is something which has a plan which is going to be built for a certain amount of money. There isn't a lot of room here for corruption. This is very unlike there being a 75 million dollar fund for "economic development" where the people writing the paper can charge as much as 10% interest. Now, therein lies the potentiality (more like probability) of corruption. The Ford Center though? I simply can't connect your premises to your conclusion.


I agree. That post made no sense at all in relationship to the March 4 vote. I'm curious with the username, "foiaokco8." I would imagine it is "Freedom Of Information Act OKC '08". Hmmm. Maybe we'll soon be enlightened?

Betts, you too said it well, as usual.

COME ON! There is so much corruption in City government. You think they are somehow immune to the good ol boy politics of the state legislature? A "NO" vote on March 4 is a symbolic gesture as much as anything. It's about trust in public officials waning. I'm a former minor league baseball player. I love sports more than anyone - so don't get on ME because you don't think nepotism is a problem. I guess it wasn't a problem that the Mayor of Detroit was sleeping with his Chief of Staff either. The only thing that didn't make that nepotism was that she wasn't his wife!

I stand by my assertion - the vote will NOT pass on March 4. And I love Oklahoma. Do you pay attention to anything?I've made a living out of the Freedom of Information Act. FOIA OKC 08. And, I know what secrets that City holds onto. As always, the challenge is in finding and knowing the RIGHT questions to ask.

Ok...well go vote no then. And be sure to spread your message to all that will listen. I'm sure they'll vote no because of it.

COME ON! There is so much corruption in City government. You think they are somehow immune to the good ol boy politics of the state legislature? A "NO" vote on March 4 is a symbolic gesture as much as anything. It's about trust in public officials waning. I'm a former minor league baseball player. I love sports more than anyone - so don't get on ME because you don't think nepotism is a problem. I guess it wasn't a problem that the Mayor of Detroit was sleeping with his Chief of Staff either. The only thing that didn't make that nepotism was that she wasn't his wife!

I stand by my assertion - the vote will NOT pass on March 4. And I love Oklahoma. Do you pay attention to anything?I've made a living out of the Freedom of Information Act. FOIA OKC 08. And, I know what secrets that City holds onto. As always, the challenge is in finding and knowing the RIGHT questions to ask.

No one is getting on you because nepotism isn't a problem. I didn't hear anyone say that. It may very well be a problem, but at what point do you hold the city back due to the fact that there might be corruption in some departments of city government? What do you do to make "symbolic gestures," in regards to corruption in county government, state government, the federal government? Do you punish everything with these gestures? Do you simply not support anything so as to make it clear there is corruption here, there and everywhere?

FOIA, if you vote no, that is not the message you will be sending. No one will hear that message in this context. If you want to grandstand on this issue, wait until we're electing public officials. That makes a lot more sense.

Clearly I was not off at all to compare you to those who will vote no to send some kind of message that our schools need to be better. WHAT??

COME ON! There is so much corruption in City government. You think they are somehow immune to the good ol boy politics of the state legislature? A "NO" vote on March 4 is a symbolic gesture as much as anything. It's about trust in public officials waning. I'm a former minor league baseball player. I love sports more than anyone - so don't get on ME because you don't think nepotism is a problem. I guess it wasn't a problem that the Mayor of Detroit was sleeping with his Chief of Staff either. The only thing that didn't make that nepotism was that she wasn't his wife!

No. Your argument is a non sequitur. You allege (and maybe rightly so) that there is nepotism in city government.

A quick look to the Oklahoma Statutes, particularly 11 O.S. section 8-106 quickly tells us that what is going on here is not a crime, although it may create the appearance of impropriety.

Surely, using your vast FOI expertise, if there is any actual wrongdoing in the municipal government, you'd be able to get those records and expose it yourself, or better yet, expose the same to the Attorney General. Since you haven't done that, I'm assuming your main objection lies with the fact that there's the mere appearance of impropriety. You're talking about two city employees in vastly different roles.

Further, even if there were such impropriety, what on Earth does that have to do with anything on March 4th? The police and the auditor both have tremendous discretionary power to spend money when and where they see fit. With the March 4th vote, we already know how much will be spent, when it'll be spent and what we're getting. Bids must be submitted in the manner prescribed by state law. There is really very little room for corruption here.


I stand by my assertion - the vote will NOT pass on March 4. And I love Oklahoma. Do you pay attention to anything?I've made a living out of the Freedom of Information Act. FOIA OKC 08. And, I know what secrets that City holds onto. As always, the challenge is in finding and knowing the RIGHT questions to ask.

It's your right to vote however you see fit. Even if it is for an incredibly stupid reason.

A "NO" vote on March 4 is a symbolic gesture as much as anything.

I stand by my assertion - the vote will NOT pass on March 4. And I love Oklahoma.

I prefer to make symbolic gestures that do not hurt my community. Personally, were I to vote "NO", I would believe I was making an anti-Oklahoma statement, because I think the Ford Center improvements will be at least good, if not great, for our community. So, you'll have to count me out on that symbolic gesture. And you'd better do a lot more spreading of your particular gospel if you want your symbolic gesture to mean anything more than "I don't want to spend my tax money to bring an NBA team here." That's the message David Stern and the Board of Governors are going to get, and they're probably not that interested in the private pecadillos of our civic leaders.

I'm voting for Huckabee because that stupid a$$hole at McDonald's gave me a biscuit instead of a McMuffin.

You know, if I confined myself to throwing things as small as staplers, people would think I just didn't care anymore.

Maybe not, but people coming to Oklahoma to enjoy an NBA will pay taxes on hotel rooms, restaurants, entertainment and help boost our economy in that way.. especially someone who has family here and comes home to visit and has a vested interest in the growth of the city.Karried, yes I know, and yes you are right. You also know, and probably would agree that, I have as much if not more of a vested interest in the growth of this city as anyone, especially someone who doesn't even live in Oklahoma City, or Oklahoma for that matter.

Nothing makes me happier than out of towners spending tons of money to boost our economy. I would also venture to say that no one here is anymore pro sales tax than I am. But, due to my opposition regarding the collecting and expending any of my tax dollars to pay for a practice facility, for the first time since 1984 I will vote NO on a sales tax increase or extension. And I've not missed a vote.

Granted everyone has a right to weigh in and express their opinions on this issue. Even those who don't live here. But do it factually. For those who would infer that anyone who elects to vote no, regardless of their reason for doing so, hates Oklahoma City, I would simply respond with, bite me.

You got me Andy157, I don't live in OKC or Oklahoma. However, I didn't leave by choice. I had to. After graduating from OU I had to leave the state to get a job just like 10s of 1,000s OU/OSU graduates. I don't know if I will ever have a chance to move back to OKC but I can tell you this, if I had an opportunity for a decent paying job in OKC after I graduated I would have never left. In order for me to move back to OKC it would take one incredible job to make what I earn now. Maybe if a few major global companies move to OKC a position might just open up. And maybe with increased employment opportunities someone graduating in 2010 won't have to move.

BTW - it was someone from OKC that made the "hate OKC" comment.

Karried, yes I know, and yes you are right. You also know, and probably would agree that, I have as much if not more of a vested interest in the growth of this city as anyone, especially someone who doesn't even live in Oklahoma City, or Oklahoma for that matter.

Nothing makes me happier than out of towners spending tons of money to boost our economy. I would also venture to say that no one here is anymore pro sales tax than I am. But, due to my opposition regarding the collecting and expending any of my tax dollars to pay for a practice facility, for the first time since 1984 I will vote NO on a sales tax increase or extension. And I've not missed a vote.

Granted everyone has a right to weigh in and express their opinions on this issue. Even those who don't live here. But do it factually. For those who would infer that anyone who elects to vote no, regardless of their reason for doing so, hates Oklahoma City, I would simply respond with, bite me.

You will spend more money on the gas used to go vote no than you will on contributing to the practice facility

Why not prove a point to the oil companies as well and just stay home that day instead :tiphat:

Karried, yes I know, and yes you are right. You also know, and probably would agree that, I have as much if not more of a vested interest in the growth of this city as anyone, especially someone who doesn't even live in Oklahoma City, or Oklahoma for that matter.

Nothing makes me happier than out of towners spending tons of money to boost our economy. I would also venture to say that no one here is anymore pro sales tax than I am. But, due to my opposition regarding the collecting and expending any of my tax dollars to pay for a practice facility, for the first time since 1984 I will vote NO on a sales tax increase or extension. And I've not missed a vote.

Granted everyone has a right to weigh in and express their opinions on this issue. Even those who don't live here. But do it factually. For those who would infer that anyone who elects to vote no, regardless of their reason for doing so, hates Oklahoma City, I would simply respond with, bite me.

Hi Andy, While I have the same problem as you with the practice facility, I have made the choice to go ahead with a "YES" vote. However, I want to say I agree with you that a "NO" vote should not be considered by anyone as a vote of hatred toward our city. A "NO" vote should be respected whether one supports the proposal or not. We are a city with many interests and divergent viewpoints and to put anybody in a box and say they "hate Oklahoma City" for any reason is uncalled for.

I can understand both sides of the issue...

The other thing to consider, in my opinion, is that it is a great compliment to have someone who no longer lives here want to see the city prosper and do well ... someone advocating the positives of OK... someone 'cheerleading' to the rest of the nation .. .. we have a lot of posters on this board who had to move away because of job opportunities and such, and they are usually the most 'vocal' when it comes to supporting the city of OKC. ( I'm thinking HotRod, Kerry, Curt, SweetSourPoke, the owner of the site and many others).

I feel that having lived here and now in another state might offer a different perspective on how other major cities have become major cities.

I welcome opinions and input from those who have lived here and no longer do...they bring a lot to the table just as those still living here and love this city do.

I think we can all agree that regardless of where we currently reside, we all want the best for this city and state.

First post.

I'm voting no because:

1. I've been given no compelling reason to vote 'yes.' Glittering generalities about being a 'major league city' or being in an essentially imaginary 'elite tier of cities' or being put 'on the map' don't mean anything to me.

Which NBA cities were elevated to the 'elite tier' by dint of getting an NBA team?

Similarly, we are told that getting an NBA team will 'get people talking about us.' Where, other than the sports pages and ESPN, will this talk be going on? Fortune? Forbes? The Economist?

2. Maybe I just missed it, but I've seen nothing about the lease/rent terms the city will have with an NBA team. Will those terms be the same that we had with the Hornets, or more generous or less generous?

3. How long will it be before the prospective NBA franchise comes back requesting or demanding further financial concessions? Three years? Five years?

4. If we approve this, how long will it be before the Chamber and other 'downtown leaders' discover that Oklahoma City has mysteriously fallen off the map again, and that we need to pony up for the NHL or the NFL or both to be 'on the map' or in 'the elite tier of cities'?

5. If we tie up our more-or-less permanent temporary sales tax for fifteen months, how will this affect other projects for which we might want to use that money? The city had a MAPS 3 plan in rough draft form which will be on hold for more than a year while we raise money for a single project focused on a single organization: the NBA.

6. On a purely personal note, a couple of the presumptive team owners in this scenario represent a number of social and political qualities I find reprehensible, and I have no desire to spend a dime of my money on them.

Nothing makes me happier than out of towners spending tons of money to boost our economy. I would also venture to say that no one here is anymore pro sales tax than I am. But, due to my opposition regarding the collecting and expending any of my tax dollars to pay for a practice facility, for the first time since 1984 I will vote NO on a sales tax increase or extension. And I've not missed a vote.

Granted everyone has a right to weigh in and express their opinions on this issue. Even those who don't live here. But do it factually. For those who would infer that anyone who elects to vote no, regardless of their reason for doing so, hates Oklahoma City, I would simply respond with, bite me.

I understand being anti practice facility, and it's my least favorite part of the tax proposal. I just hope people realize that regardless of why you vote no, we will not get an NBA team if this proposal doesn't pass. I don't want to hear people saying "We did such a good job of supporting the Hornets, that I thought the NBA would put a team here even if we didn't pass the tax proposal." That is not going to happen. So, people who vote "no" have to accept the fact that they are voting "No NBA", and be comfortable with that fact.

Thanks Kerried. I grew up in Northern California and attended OU for 5 years before moving to Florida. Although I only lived in the OKC area for 5 of my 38 years, I will always consider OKC my adopted hometown. I loved living in the OKC metro and was very sad to leave. I still remember passing the Lindsey St exit on I-35 as I drove the Ryder truck out of town thinking how much it sucked that I was leaving.

I loved going to Cavalary and Blazer games at the Myriad and then going to Bricktown for a drink after the game. That was before Bricktown was popular. I even took my father-in-law to see the Tampa Bay Storm play Ft Worth in an AFL game at the Myriad the day before we moved. I also went to see the Blazers play at State Fair Arena and caught a foul ball at All Sports Stadium when the 89ers were playing the Iowa Cubs. Name me another city in America where a broke college student had so many sports options.

:bright_id
You will spend more money on the gas used to go vote no than you will on contributing to the practice facility

Why not prove a point to the oil companies as well and just stay home that day instead :tiphat:I will? The Church where I vote is less than 1,000' from my front door. No need for you to fret over the cost of my gas. I'll walk. How about this, I'll stay home, if you stay home, or I'll go vote, if you go vote. Either way we'll cancell each other out.:bright_id

First post.

I'm voting no because:

1. I've been given no compelling reason to vote 'yes.' Glittering generalities about being a 'major league city' or being in an essentially imaginary 'elite tier of cities' or being put 'on the map' don't mean anything to me.
Which NBA cities were elevated to the 'elite tier' by dint of getting an NBA team?
Charlotte, Denver, Salt Lake City, Indianapolis
Omaha, Des Moines, Little Rock, Wichita

Which group would you rather be in?


Similarly, we are told that getting an NBA team will 'get people talking about us.' Where, other than the sports pages and ESPN, will this talk be going on? Fortune? Forbes? The Economist??

Actually, Forbes has a very interesting article entitled "The Business of Basketball" every year, and they do have multiple sports related articles. How many people watch ESPN in the United States and around the world? How many people read "The Economist""? Again, there are worse things than being on the sports pages of the New York Times, Chicago Tribune, Washington Post, LA Times and USA Today 82+ times a year.


2. Maybe I just missed it, but I've seen nothing about the lease/rent terms the city will have with an NBA team. Will those terms be the same that we had with the Hornets, or more generous or less generous??
Difficult to say, although I doubt the Sonics (or Hornets) would get a $40 million guarantee like the Hornets did in 2005-7.


3. How long will it be before the prospective NBA franchise comes back requesting or demanding further financial concessions? Three years? Five years??
Again, impossible to say, although it's harder to get financial concessions when a team is already in place than when a city is trying to lure a team.


4. If we approve this, how long will it be before the Chamber and other 'downtown leaders' discover that Oklahoma City has mysteriously fallen off the map again, and that we need to pony up for the NHL or the NFL or both to be 'on the map' or in 'the elite tier of cities'?
All the data I've seen says that adding a second or third team does not cause an incremental increase in revenue or quality of life for a city, so one would have to be particularly interested in that sport to be interested in bringing one in.


5. If we tie up our more-or-less permanent temporary sales tax for fifteen months, how will this affect other projects for which we might want to use that money? The city had a MAPS 3 plan in rough draft form which will be on hold for more than a year while we raise money for a single project focused on a single organization: the NBA.
It depends on whether you think a upgrade of the Ford Center is a MAPS-like project, and a first step into a second downtown renaissance. Personally, especially since the Crosstown has four more years until completion, I'm fine with an 18 month hiatus. We already have the money to acquire downtown parkland, and there's not that much else that can be done in Core to Shore until the Crosstown is completed. One of the nice things about renovating the Ford Center is that we can see progress occurring in downtown while we wait to be able to see any from Core to Shore. It makes it feel less like things are stagnating.


6. On a purely personal note, a couple of the presumptive team owners in this scenario represent a number of social and political qualities I find reprehensible, and I have no desire to spend a dime of my money on them.

My politics are completely different from those of the owners whose politics I know. But, the Sonics owners are not bringing the team here to make bundles of money, because they won't. In fact, they've got an excellent chance of losing money or breaking even at best. So, to my way of thinking, this is a philanthropic move on their part. I believe the aphorism "Don't look a gift horse in the mouth." If these people want to do something this great for Oklahoma City, with no guarantee of financial solvency for the team, then I'm not going to let their personal politics get in the way of something that will improve my city. This is the whole flaw in the thinking of many people who oppose the arena. These owners have already spent $400 million of their money to purchase a team, and they'd like to bring it to Oklahoma City. They're not asking the city to contribute to the purchase price. Actually, they're not even asking the city to upgrade the arena. It's the NBA doing that, and even if the Sonics' owners were willing to fund the arena improvements themselves, I do not believe they would be allowed to do so by the NBA. Voting "no" is not taking a stand against Clay Bennett or Aubrey McClendon. It's simply saying "I do not want an NBA basketball team in Oklahoma City." and David Stern and the Board of Governors will take us at our word.

Again, still no one has provided a solid reason for voting "no". Any claims that have been used have not been backed by sufficient evidence. Bornhere, care to back up your claims with sufficient data and sources? Others provided sources against your claims. We're open to being fair, but no solid evidence warrants criticism.

1. I've been given no compelling reason to vote 'yes.' Glittering generalities about being a 'major league city' or being in an essentially imaginary 'elite tier of cities' or being put 'on the map' don't mean anything to me.

sounds to me like you could care less about OKC progressing as a city.


Similarly, we are told that getting an NBA team will 'get people talking about us.' Where, other than the sports pages and ESPN, will this talk be going on? Fortune? Forbes? The Economist?

The Bees Buzz On - TIME (http://www.time.com/time/insidebiz/article/0,9171,1126732,00.html)

http://www.okctalk.com/hornets-sonics/5555-hornets-thriving-nba-does-right-okla-city.html?highlight=hornets+article

http://www.okctalk.com/hornets-sonics/4946-11-30-05-knight-ridder-article.html?highlight=hornets+article

http://www.okctalk.com/hornets-sonics/5007-12-9-05-oregonian-article.html?highlight=hornets+article

http://www.okctalk.com/hornets-sonics/4889-minneapolis-tribune-article.html?highlight=hornets+article

http://www.okctalk.com/okc-metro-area-talk/4897-glowing-article-okc.html?highlight=hornets+article

http://www.okctalk.com/hornets-sonics/4627-philiadelphia-inquirer-article.html?highlight=hornets+article

There was also a lengthy New York Times article that appeared in the main section, not sports.


2. Maybe I just missed it, but I've seen nothing about the lease/rent terms the city will have with an NBA team. Will those terms be the same that we had with the Hornets, or more generous or less generous?

That is not being decided by this vote, so it should have no effect on your decision.


3. How long will it be before the prospective NBA franchise comes back requesting or demanding further financial concessions? Three years? Five years?

You can worry about that later. Again, that has nothing to do with NOW.


4. If we approve this, how long will it be before the Chamber and other 'downtown leaders' discover that Oklahoma City has mysteriously fallen off the map again, and that we need to pony up for the NHL or the NFL or both to be 'on the map' or in 'the elite tier of cities'?

You clearly have a negative attitude about the city's progress. No one one has every (seriously) proposed anything that wasn't feasible in OKC. One major league team is, but 2 or 3 will not be economical in OKC for a while. City leaders aren't going to be promoting any of those other leagues any time soon.


5. If we tie up our more-or-less permanent temporary sales tax for fifteen months, how will this affect other projects for which we might want to use that money? The city had a MAPS 3 plan in rough draft form which will be on hold for more than a year while we raise money for a single project focused on a single organization: the NBA.

There's nothing potentially part of MAPS III that is so pressing it can't wait 18 months.


6. On a purely personal note, a couple of the presumptive team owners in this scenario represent a number of social and political qualities I find reprehensible, and I have no desire to spend a dime of my money on them.

So are you saying that you research the ownership of every business you patronize to make sure that you agree with every bit of their politics?

Again, still no one has provided a solid reason for voting "no".
Now wait just a minute, Metro ... are you saying with a straight face that the nepotism argument "didn't hold water" (to quote from My Cousin Vinny). Get real. That argument was a killer!

Didn't read all the nepotism posts to be honest Doug. In all fairness, even if nepotism is a good excuse, regardless of a few in city hall who might have nepotism issues, the FORD CENTER is a community issue and affects the community as a whole, not just the NBA and city officials. This vote as you know has much farther reaching implications.