Since early voting has already begun, it's not too early for this post to go up.

I am convinced this is going to be a tight vote that could go either way. I think it's fair to say that Okc's involvement with the NBA is either coming to an end, or is about to start its new beginning.

So, please, do vote ... and please don't vote in this poll until you've done so. Of course, feel free to comment without voting until you've done so, unless you are not an Okc voter, in which case you can properly vote now even if you haven't voted. For those of you don't live in Okc proper, there are places for your "mark," too.

This not an "anonymous" poll ... who voted how will be displayed.

Thanks, guys and gals, it's been a good fight.

I see that one can vote tomorrow (Monday) at the Oklahoma County Election Board, 4201 N. Lincoln, 8 am until 6 pm. I'm going to try to do that.

Voted no ( or will on Tuesday) because Im not convinced that this is the best deal for OKC. I guess the priority of this issue bothers me as well.

I'll put my Oklahoma roots up against anybody here. I live in OKC and plan to the rest of my life. I work for myself, pay all my taxes and have no record of wrongdoing. I volunteer a significant amount of my services pro bono and contribute to causes that make sense to me and have demonstrable results.

Why don't we discuss the issues of this city that have the most impact? Let's work on solving OKC's problems that we all see every day?

A short list would include: crime/gang activity, street improvements, education, teen pregnancy rates, public health issues such as smoking/obesity/diabetes/ alcohol and drug abuse, inner city housing rehab, public transportation, noise and billboard abatement, etc. elected leader accountability.

I know the above are not glitz/glamour/entertainment related, but in my opinion they are much more important than the basketball issue.

This is a great forum and I hope we get this basketball issue put to bed and start working on real improvements for the city that will benefit us all.

Thanks, Dustbowl. Very informative.

For the rest of you who are Okc voters, please note again that THIS poll is to register either how you DID vote or that you didn't. Please wait until one or the other of those events occurs until you vote in this poll. Another poll exists in the forum for how you INTEND to vote. This one's not it.

If you are not an Okc voter, go right ahead and vote.

Thanks.

Voted no ( or will on Tuesday) because Im not convinced that this is the best deal for OKC. I guess the priority of this issue bothers me as well.

I'll put my Oklahoma roots up against anybody here. I live in OKC and plan to the rest of my life. I work for myself, pay all my taxes and have no record of wrongdoing. I volunteer a significant amount of my services pro bono and contribute to causes that make sense to me and have demonstrable results.

Why don't we discuss the issues of this city that have the most impact? Let's work on solving OKC's problems that we all see every day?

A short list would include: crime/gang activity, street improvements, education, teen pregnancy rates, public health issues such as smoking/obesity/diabetes/ alcohol and drug abuse, inner city housing rehab, public transportation, noise and billboard abatement, etc. elected leader accountability.

As a lifelong citizen and one who proclaims to be involved, then surely you must be aware of the bond issue that passed in December for $800 million. Almost 1/2 of that total initiative will go towards improving our streets.

The City Council is trying to work on billboard / signage abatement as we speak. It's a tough road. You cannot just get rid of them altogether (as much as some people - including myself - would like to see happen). You are talking about people's livelihoods - not only the people who make the signs, but moreso those who depend upon that means of advertising, like it or not.

As for other issues: smoking/obesity/diabetes are more state issues. And given the way the heavy smokers cry "foul" everytime our state legislature starts waving the "no smoking in bars" flag, that issue is not going to be fixed anytime soon. Not only that, but with one of the highest per cap percentages of smoking in the country, our state government is not really anxious to give up that necessary tax revenue.

Again, the other public health issues you brought up, while I certainly believe them to be worthwhile, are not just city issues. They are state issues, they are national issues, they are international issues and they are cultural issues that go far and wide beyond what the scope of local government and local tax payer dollars can accomplish.

As I've noted before (and multiple times), cities in the state of Oklahoma have a single means of paying for their operating expenses, which is through sales taxes. This is state law. They can, also by state law, use Bond Issues, such as the one passed in December, to fund long-term base infrastructure projects such as streets, roads, sidewalks, parks, improved utilities and other "basic" provisions.

MAPS, MAPS for Kids and any other similar initiative based on sales tax is dedicated towards "icing on the cake" projects that enhance the city as a whole and help with its business and economic development.

While I can't unequivocably state that the social ills are not worthy of such funding, it is not within the realm of city government to fund them.

As a lifelong citizen and one who proclaims to be involved, then surely you must be aware of the bond issue that passed in December for $800 million. Almost 1/2 of that total initiative will go towards improving our streets.

The City Council is trying to work on billboard / signage abatement as we speak. It's a tough road. You cannot just get rid of them altogether (as much as some people - including myself - would like to see happen). You are talking about people's livelihoods - not only the people who make the signs, but moreso those who depend upon that means of advertising, like it or not.

As for other issues: smoking/obesity/diabetes are more state issues. And given the way the heavy smokers cry "foul" everytime our state legislature starts waving the "no smoking in bars" flag, that issue is not going to be fixed anytime soon. Not only that, but with one of the highest per cap percentages of smoking in the country, our state government is not really anxious to give up that necessary tax revenue.

Again, the other public health issues you brought up, while I certainly believe them to be worthwhile, are not just city issues. They are state issues, they are national issues, they are international issues and they are cultural issues that go far and wide beyond what the scope of local government and local tax payer dollars can accomplish.

As I've noted before (and multiple times), cities in the state of Oklahoma have a single means of paying for their operating expenses, which is through sales taxes. This is state law. They can, also by state law, use Bond Issues, such as the one passed in December, to fund long-term base infrastructure projects such as streets, roads, sidewalks, parks, improved utilities and other "basic" provisions.

MAPS, MAPS for Kids and any other similar initiative based on sales tax is dedicated towards "icing on the cake" projects that enhance the city as a whole and help with its business and economic development.

While I can't unequivocably state that the social ills are not worthy of such funding, it is not within the realm of city government to fund them.


Thanks for your response. I'm aware of the funding of the various projects you described. I disagree that the issues are only state or federal or local. I'm not just talking about funding, I'm hoping for more discussion of the problems and the hope that solutions or improvements can be discussed. Funding is always the critical issue, however ideas and possible solutions should not be left to government officials. Let's open and broaden the discussions beyond basketball games and entertainment ideas. Again, thanks.

I now regret that I started this poll when I did as it seems that 4 of you now, 2 yes, 2 no, have already indicated how you DID vote ... unless, of course, you voted on Friday.

Please treat this an an EXIT poll, if you are an Okc voter.

so dustbowl if you want to be open on these issues that others have said are state or national issues, why don't you be open and provide us how other local municipalities are solving these issues, despite them being historically state or national issues?

so dustbowl if you want to be open on these issues that others have said are state or national issues, why don't you be open and provide us how other local municipalities are solving these issues, despite them being historically state or national issues?

Gladly. Right after this tornado passes over me!!!!!!

Let's take this up a little later. Vote NO!!

vote YES!

I live in OKC and plan to the rest of my life.

That stinks for anyone that wants to see OKC become a big league city.

Dustbowl, when this all subsides, you will find that every issue you brought up, and much more IS being discussed by regular citizens right here on this board.

My vote has been cast on N. Lincoln! A huge YES vote ... I complained about the ballot, though, since a HELL YES option was not available. The guy just grinned.

I see that a mod has made the poll anonymous ... not my doing. By making the poll non-anonymous, I was just trying to keep everyone who voted in this poll "honest" so to speak. Life goes on ...

Dustbowl, when this all subsides, you will find that every issue you brought up, and much more IS being discussed by regular citizens right here on this board.


That's great. Looking forward to it.

Feel free to post in those discussions anytime.

I must admit that I didn't fully grasp the intention of this poll when I clicked my vote.

I should have stated "I will vote yes, but I have not done so, as yet."

I am voting yes, but it really has little to do with the Sonics. I feel an arena upgrade---and not in connection with the Sonics---has not been given enough attention. I may be wrong, but I have not heard anyone discuss this vote without the Sonics coming into the conversation.

I want this vote to pass, because I want OKC to continue to remain competitive with other cities in this region. The Ford Center is a decent building, but neighboring cities are already building arenas that will leave the Ford Center in the dust without upgrades. For larger cities, it may not mean much. They may have enough attractions, besides their arena, to barter for the best concerts and events. I don't feel OKC, at the current time, has that same luxury.

I am not voting yes for the Sonics; I am voting yes for OKC to continue to be a player for major concerts and events. If the Sonics were not included in the deal, I would still vote yes. I want my city to continue to go toe-to-toe with the larger cities when it comes to drawing top flight acts. I don't want people from out of state to think of OKC as an after-thought; I want this city to be in the conversation, at all times. These upgrades will ensure that our arena will be competitive for years to come, Sonics or no.

That is why I am voting yes.

I am not voting yes for the Sonics; I am voting yes for OKC to continue to be a player for major concerts and events. If the Sonics were not included in the deal, I would still vote yes. I want my city to continue to go toe-to-toe with the larger cities when it comes to drawing top flight acts. I don't want people from out of state to think of OKC as an after-thought; I want this city to be in the conversation, at all times. These upgrades will ensure that our arena will be competitive for years to come, Sonics or no.

That is why I am voting yes.

Although I would love to have a basketball team, I agree completely. That's why I'm not worried about having to be promised a team before voting "yes". This upgrade needs to be done regardless, for all your excellent reasons.

I am excited at the prospect of having the Sonics, but I would LOVE the NHL. Unfortunately this isn't that big of a hockey town.

How long before the city persues its second pro sports team?

I don't understand why we cannot at least move up a tier in hockey. Wasn't there some reason Bob Funk did not want to do that?

Voted yes this morning. Everybody go vote, we are going to need all the votes we can get.

I don't understand why we cannot at least move up a tier in hockey. Wasn't there some reason Bob Funk did not want to do that?

If I recall correctly, that "second-tier" hockey league that we once aspired to move into folded because of financial troubles several years ago. Funk was a hero at the time by seeing it for what it was and not making that move. Had he done so, we most likely would not have a team at all right now.

Someone might better recall the circumstances (and this might be worthy of its own thread), but I believe the scenario played out similar to this.

betts, why are you listed under "I'm not a qualified voter in Okc but would have voted Yes if I could"?

I can't see how everyone is voting anymore. Doug, did you change the poll from public to anonymous?

I was wondering about betts too, Jbrown. I would have sworn she was from OKC proper.

I voted yes - just three people in the polling station when I was there.

No I didn't change it, solitude. As I mentioned in an earlier comment in this thread, a mod must have done that ... it wasn't me. I preferred it not to be anonymous as an integrity "check" on the poll itself.

But, JBrown, you said,
betts, why are you listed under "I'm not a qualified voter in Okc but would have voted Yes if I could"?
Does that mean that YOU can presently see who voted how even though I cannot? I'm puzzled ...

I am excited at the prospect of having the Sonics, but I would LOVE the NHL. Unfortunately this isn't that big of a hockey town.

How long before the city persues its second pro sports team?

We weren't a big basketball town either until the Hornets came. Heck the CBA failed for crying out loud. It's all about perception. Don't think more would attend hockey games if the NHL was here? You're fooling yourselves. I do think it would be harder to sellout hockey than basketball, especially if/when we land an NBA team. I imagine in time, if we get the NBA, our city continues to thrive, we'll see NHL or MLS before too long. Let's not get ahead of ourselves and start pursuing a second team until we for sure land a first.

No I didn't change it, solitude. As I mentioned in an earlier comment in this thread, a mod must have done that ... it wasn't me. I preferred it not to be anonymous as an integrity "check" on the poll itself.

But, JBrown, you said,
Does that mean that YOU can presently see who voted how even though I cannot? I'm puzzled ...

You have to click on the vote totals on the right. See how they are purple instead of black? I discovered it by accident.

You have to click on the vote totals on the right. See how they are purple instead of black? I discovered it by accident.
EXCELLENT, jbrown! Thanks very much ... the mods didn't change a thing ... it was only me being ignorant!

Voted yes today.


Why don't we discuss the issues of this city that have the most impact? Let's work on solving OKC's problems that we all see every day?

We do this everyday, but I don't see how the issues are related, unless you think having a basketball team will contribute to and exacerbate any current problems the city has and, if so, that would be an interesting thing to pursue, because I've never heard that theory before.

In the end, I think this is about elevating and really just maintaining the city's quality of life through the improvement of public assets. We have sort of touched on the restrictions the city has in its revenue generation strategies and maybe your dissension is tied to that. If so, then I would say that investing in infrastructure that brings people into the city is actually one of the best ways to generate revenue through its current tax structure in order to address some of the issues you mention.

I'm in no way saying that a nationally competitive facility would fix our problems and march us into utopia, but I don't see how maintaining the arena in a fashion that soon won't even be competitive in the state for the very events we've attracted the last few years would fix anything either. I think there is only upside to this. The fact that we can do this, combined with the fact that we have recently addressed funding for other broader improvements, all without changing our taxation rate, has tremendous up side.

It may be superficial, but the reality is that having events and activities that the city is proud of goes a long way to mitigating the effects of apathy as well. How often do you hear that you "can't do that here". Personally, I think elevating the city's stature to a major league player in any facet, be it sports, tourism, conventions, etc., and in a way no one thought possible just a few short years ago, only helps to silence the naysayers and actually helps with support for your concerns if for nothing else than for the excitement and pride it generates in the community for the community itself. You do these things and you will find that the community begins to say "yeah, maybe can do that… maybe we can be an attractive city to live" on a whole host of issues, not just sports.

So, I would say, if anything, the issues you mentioned are more positively related to issues like improving city infrastructure, than negatively related.

EXCELLENT, jbrown! Thanks very much ... the mods didn't change a thing ... it was only me being ignorant!

Actually, something did change Doug. I can see it now too when I click on the purple - but before yesterday, the names were right there and a link to "See Poll Results" - that's gone. So we're not ignorant at all. You can still see it, but in a different way than we could before.

Voted yes today.



We do this everyday, but I don't see how the issues are related, unless you think having a basketball team will contribute to and exacerbate any current problems the city has and, if so, that would be an interesting thing to pursue, because I've never heard that theory before.

In the end, I think this is about elevating and really just maintaining the city's quality of life through the improvement of public assets. We have sort of touched on the restrictions the city has in its revenue generation strategies and maybe your dissension is tied to that. If so, then I would say that investing in infrastructure that brings people into the city is actually one of the best ways to generate revenue through its current tax structure in order to address some of the issues you mention.

I'm in no way saying that a nationally competitive facility would fix our problems and march us into utopia, but I don't see how maintaining the arena in a fashion that soon won't even be competitive in the state for the very events we've attracted the last few years would fix anything either. I think there is only upside to this. The fact that we can do this, combined with the fact that we have recently addressed funding for other broader improvements, all without changing our taxation rate, has tremendous up side.

It may be superficial, but the reality is that having events and activities that the city is proud of goes a long way to mitigating the effects of apathy as well. How often do you hear that you "can't do that here". Personally, I think elevating the city's stature to a major league player in any facet, be it sports, tourism, conventions, etc., and in a way no one thought possible just a few short years ago, only helps to silence the naysayers and actually helps with support for your concerns if for nothing else than for the excitement and pride it generates in the community for the community itself. You do these things and you will find that the community begins to say "yeah, maybe can do that… maybe we can be an attractive city to live" on a whole host of issues, not just sports.

So, I would say, if anything, the issues you mentioned are more positively related to issues like improving city infrastructure, than negatively related.


You make some excellent points here. No question there are benefits that can aid all these other concerns. Some you can reach out and touch, some you cannot; anecdotal if you will, but they are there.

I was told I could vote by the city, past mayor Humphries, the chamber and the Oklahoman, but...they got it wrong :)

Oh drat.

I voted yes!!

I also noted there were quite a few younger people voting today, more than I can ever remember seeing at the polls. Many of these younger people were first time voters. I would assume that these younger people would be in favor of the tax if it means getting an NBA team.

David, please don't tell me that you, a resident in the Village if I recall, thought that you could vote on a referendum to change an Okc ordinance!

FWIW, I dropped by my usual polling place (St. Luke's Methodist) at 11:30 to see how heavy or light the voting was ... the people in charge said that it was quite heavy and to look at the machine ... it said 303 ... I asked how that compares to say, a primary election, and was told that it might be half that for the primary. Probably not as heavy as in a general election, however.

So, in my precinct, at least, the turnout was described as "heavy."

Same here Doug.. the vote count was at 322 at 12:10pm......

Voted a BIG, HUGE YES!

My voting location was 85 I believe, and its a lower turnout voting location normally.....

I went in at about 9 am, and the turnout seemed pretty high compared to previous local elections. It was only 50-60 ballots – I don't recall the exact number – but that's a lot in my precinct.

They were at 210 at our poll 12:30pm, but we usually have more people vote after work, so we're about average for this kind of off election. We're on the edge of Warr Acres, they have a city council election, so that might bring out more in our area, even though they don't vote at same place.

They were at 365, I believe, at the Episcopal Church Of The Resurrection (13112 N Rockwell) around 11:30 AM.

I voted yes.



Considering the potential higher voter turnout than expected, I would say that is a very good sign for the "yes" vote. There certainly has been far more advertising for "yes" that I have noticed.

You would think high voter turnout would help the yes side.

I'm sure someone will be happy to tell me I'm making stuff up, but I think generally, high voter turnout is considered negative for tax and bond issue votes. There is a certain group of people which always votes in these elections – the 'likely voters' who are usually targeted by the advertising. When people outside the likely voter group go to the polls, it's usually to vote no.

One thing that's different about this vote, though, is the direct appeal to evangelicals and fundamentalists in the Kirk Humphreys mailer which was posted in another topic. IIRC, that was part of what made the difference when Cornett was elected mayor - he got out a church vote which normally didn't pay much attention to local races.

And finally, we don't actually know there's a high voter turnout. We're making that guess made on a very small amount of feedback.

Oh my gosh, there were a bunch of old, old people at my poll and I know they are going to vote no! They don't have any interest in the future at this point!

Please, call your friends, your friends kids, your employees, everyone on your list and get that vote (and the young vote) out there! This is about the future of OKC!

Kim

I voted at that school right across from Moore High School and I only lived a few blocks away and when I entered the building, the place was empty and I was the only one voting and then I turn in the ballots, the ballot count was 303 and I voted YES

And finally, we don't actually know there's a high voter turnout. We're making that guess made on a very small amount of feedback.

That's absolutely true. I can't argue that.

This will be my last time to vote in Moore. I voted for about $70 Million worth of bonds for the Moore School District and for the incumbent mayor, Glenn Lewis. I thought to myself that $70 Million seems a lot smaller now than it did when I first voted.

I thanked the ladies who were running the place and told them I was moving to Oklahoma City. They wished me well.

The machine count was 76 which was ballots so I was the 38th person.

Oh my gosh, there were a bunch of old, old people at my poll and I know they are going to vote no!

I think you're probably right. I was alone at my precinct this morning so I don't know anything about the voters' ages. But this is demographically a fairly old neighborhood.

This will be my last time to vote in Moore. I voted for about $70 Million worth of bonds for the Moore School District and for the incumbent mayor, Glenn Lewis. I thought to myself that $70 Million seems a lot smaller now than it did when I first voted.

I thanked the ladies who were running the place and told them I was moving to Oklahoma City. They wished me well.

The machine count was 76 which was ballots so I was the 38th person.

Yeah, I also voted for Glenn Lewis also

Welcome to OKC flintysooner! If this vote passes, it's going to be an even better place to live. I'm moving downtown if it passes, but will wait a bit to do so if it doesn't to see what happens to property values.

Oh my gosh, there were a bunch of old, old people at my poll and I know they are going to vote no! They don't have any interest in the future at this point!

Please, call your friends, your friends kids, your employees, everyone on your list and get that vote (and the young vote) out there! This is about the future of OKC!

Kim

Kim, I beg to differ. That's making a lot of older folks out to be pretty selfish. Most all of them have children and grandchildren they think about as well. My father is 77 and he voted Yes and said 'most' of his friends planned to as well. Your statement was maybe painting the picture with too broad a brush.

Do we find out the results of the voting tonight or do we have to wait until tomorrow?

My father is 77 and he voted Yes and said 'most' of his friends planned to as well

Let's hope you are right because there were a lot of older people where I Voted as well!

Do we find out the results of the voting tonight or do we have to wait until tomorrow?

I am guessing that the local channels with have numbers as they come in on the bottom of the screen, with "unofficial" results on the 10pm news.

I am guessing that the local channels with have numbers as they come in on the bottom of the screen, with "unofficial" results on the 10pm news.

Alright, cool, guess I'll check it out at work or check it on the internet for the news, let's pray it passes so I can watch my Magic kick Seattle's asses every year!

I know the Chamber is having a watch party and they thought they would know by about 9:30 at the latest. I'm not affiliated with the Chamber, but was picking up about 125 VOTE YES TODAY signs last evening and that's what they said.

Sorry if that sounded mean. While I was there one of the really old ladies said "I can't see this. Help me find the NO line" Scary part is she drove to the polls!

Oh, and in my Belle Isle voting location if was 559!!!!!

I voted YES at about 10:30 this morning. The only two others casting their votes at the time were both elderly women. I was somewhere around 125 or something.

With mods' permission, we can have our own online watch party right here. Start up a new topic thread, post as we see results starting to come in (7:01 p.m.), sit back, cross our fingers, and just keep commenting till the fat lady has sung!

Anyone know where the Chamber watch party is and if it's public.


Or should we actually have a physical OKCTalk watch party somewhere in Bricktown?