By the most important voters, too: The Customers.

After a year, the Skirvin is doing just fine | NewsOK.com (http://newsok.com/article/3211621/1204610832)

The Journal Record - Article (http://www.journalrecord.com/article.cfm?recid=86713)

That's a great distinction.

As I recall, there were quite a few naysayers on the Skirvin issue, too. Were they not? Boy, that crow must really taste good by now.

As I recall, there were quite a few naysayers on the Skirvin issue, too. Were they not? Boy, that crow must really taste good by now.
Though nothing I know of has been identified about that, I'd be surprised if many of the people who oppose today's vote would have been/were not opposed in principle to the city purchasing the Skirvin, keeping it alive though in a dead-zone and working with private enterprise to make the Skirvin Hilton happen.

Oklahoma City has become a model of what a city has the capacity to do to blend public and private interests and mold a great city and I'm very proud of that. I hope that I'll be even more proud at 10 p.m. tonight.

As for "crow," never tried that ... or possums! My wife's dad liked to hunt 'em and bring 'em home to cook and skim of the grease! Yech! Maybe crow is the same, don't know, don't want to know! :dizzy:

I'm sure David Glover was against it.

I just love how the NO people keep pointing out that no other city has financed an arena with sales tax.

They must be forgetting about the fact that MAPS was a revolutionary idea that MANY, MANY, MANY cities have tried to duplicate. They have sent committees here to see how we did it. So suddenly it's a bad thing that OKC will be the first to build an arena without having to go into tremendous debt that will take years to pay off?

I very much agree with Doug. I think it is an important example how our citizens were able to come together regardless of many individual differences and support an effort that included public effort. I admit that I was skeptical when the original MAPS was proposed but I have been very pleasantly surprised at the results.

It will be even better once they can replace the tile in the lobby. One of the first things I noticed was how weathered and dirty, even cracked, the tile looks. I asked about it and they said they hate it but have to keep it because it was "historic" and they couldn't get historic tax credits if they took it out. I realize it's great to preserve as much as we can but sometimes things are beyond saving. Once the historic tax credits expire though, about 4 years from now, they will replace the floor with something brand new that very closely resembles the look of the current floor. There are other examples of this throughout the building but that is the biggest one.

The Skirvin is a wonderful hotel and a huge asset to downtown. I would recommend visitors to stay either there or the Colcord, or possibly the Waterford Marriott.

I just love how the NO people keep pointing out that no other city has financed an arena with sales tax.

They must be forgetting about the fact that MAPS was a revolutionary idea that MANY, MANY, MANY cities have tried to duplicate. They have sent committees here to see how we did it. So suddenly it's a bad thing that OKC will be the first to build an arena without having to go into tremendous debt that will take years to pay off?

Stop with the juvenile jabs at people with a different opinion than yours.

I voted NO on this deal because I believe we could possibly get a better deal down the road without the OPUBCO cousins. I could be wrong, but I have an opinion.

I voted FOR all the other MAPS proposals and I supported the Skirvin project. This deal just stinks to me. It's being crammed down our throats with fear-mongering and jingoism (local vs. national) right out of the Republican playbook. "Vote yes or we will never get a team and OKC will implode" I'm also disgusted by the religious play by Kirk and the other Christian conservatives. Spend money on a basketball team and throw a few bucks at things like education, etc.

The group mind think in this City is amazing. The Karl Rove bashing of dissenting opinion is still alive and well in OKC. Do I have to remind you that Mick the Mayor was the first mayoral candidate to blatently use partisan politics in the Mayor's race? It has always been a gentlemen's agreement that partisan politics should not be used in City elections. Kirk didn't do it. Both Noricks were gentleman enough not to do it. Yes, I would be just as disgusted if a Democrat used partisan politics in a city election.

OKC is my home and just because I dissent on this one issue does not make me a person with no vision or as Mick the Mayor says 'You just don't get it". Disgusting.

I'm not surprised in the least. This is a great hotel, and something I'm so proud we didn't tear down. I remember when I first moved here and the Skirvin was open how impressed with parts of it I was. I was so distressed when it closed, and almost panicky at the thought of it being torn down. This is a great thing the city has done.

Stop with the juvenile jabs at people with a different opinion than yours.

What was juvenile about it? I really, really don't see where you got that.


I just love how the NO people keep pointing out that no other city has financed an arena with sales tax.

They must be forgetting about the fact that MAPS was a revolutionary idea that MANY, MANY, MANY cities have tried to duplicate. They have sent committees here to see how we did it. So suddenly it's a bad thing that OKC will be the first to build an arena without having to go into tremendous debt that will take years to pay off?


How exactly do you propose to (1) keep the Ford Center competitive with other cites, especially Tulsa, and (2) get an NBA team without Clay Bennett? It's not a retorical question. Let's hear some solid ideas.

I don't recall there being any public opposition to the Skirvin project.

It's being crammed down our throats with fear-mongering and jingoism (local vs. national) right out of the Republican playbook. "Vote yes or we will never get a team and OKC will implode" I'm also disgusted by the religious play by Kirk and the other Christian conservatives. Spend money on a basketball team and throw a few bucks at things like education, etc.

I didn't agree with the tactics either. I rarely do, that's why I rarely listen to them. You have to cut through the rhetoric and base your vote off your concern, because, honestly, if you vote against something because of the tactics, then you have voted just as superficially as someone who voted for it based on the tactics.

If you think a better deal was to be had at a future date, then I can understand that. I just wouldn't agree, given the situation in Seattle and the realities surrounding how Oklahoma City got to this junction. I think Oklahoma City has long been hampered by not acting when it was in good position to do so and I can't imagine a better position than we are in now on this issue. I think that the Ford Center needed these improvements with or without an NBA team and I really don't think that we'd even be discussing them without a strong prospect of getting a major league team, and that prospect will never be any stronger than it is right now. If we miss that window now, we will find ourselves playing catch up in a game we had won and I would hate to see that happen.

What was juvenile about it? I really, really don't see where you got that.




How exactly do you propose to (1) keep the Ford Center competitive with other cites, especially Tulsa, and (2) get an NBA team without Clay Bennett? It's not a retorical question. Let's hear some solid ideas.

Did you mean rhetorical question?

Please read my post again for the answer to your question. Thanks.

The gist of my argument is that there could be other groups interested and we could benefit from the competion rather than accepting a brother-in-law deal like the current proposal. If Clay is interested, why wouldn't other groups? If OKC is such a hot item, we could benefit from that fact. Is competition a solid idea?

I didn't agree with the tactics either. I rarely do, that's why I rarely listen to them. You have to cut through the rhetoric and base your vote off your concern, because, honestly, if you vote against something because of the tactics, then you have voted just as superficially as someone who voted for it based on the tactics.

If you think a better deal was to be had at a future date, then I can understand that. I just wouldn't agree, given the situation in Seattle and the realities surrounding how Oklahoma City got to this junction. I think Oklahoma City has long been hampered by not acting when it was in good position to do so and I can't imagine a better position than we are in now on this issue. I think that the Ford Center needed these improvements with or without an NBA team and I really don't think that we'd even be discussing them without a strong prospect of getting a major league team, and that prospect will never be any stronger than it is right now. If we miss that window now, we will find ourselves playing catch up in a game we had won and I would hate to see that happen.

Good points. I wouldn't vote for an issue solely on the basis of what any politician would say. I was just pointing out the disgusting tactics.

If Clay is interested, why wouldn't other groups? If OKC is such a hot item, we could benefit from that fact. Is competition a solid idea?

There's only going to be so much interest in something that costs $300+ in upfront investment. Who else in OKC would be interested besides the members of the PBC? If these people are out there, why haven't they said anything? I don't buy it.

The gist of my argument is that there could be other groups interested and we could benefit from the competion rather than accepting a brother-in-law deal like the current proposal. If Clay is interested, why wouldn't other groups? If OKC is such a hot item, we could benefit from that fact. Is competition a solid idea?

The ONLY reason "other groups" would be interested and why OKC is such a "hot item" is because we will approve moves like we did yesterday to do what is necessary to make our city viable.

You obviously either don't know, or choose to remain blind to how this NBA thing works..... What we are doing is the MINIMUM to even be considered BY ANY GROUP. Obviously you have a problem with Clay and his group and it appears to me that you veil your opposition to them with your opposition to this tax extension. Just my opinion.

This isn't like buying a car or a house.... there aren't others out there. You have to take the opportunity when it presents itself. Kudos to the citizens of OKC for passing this extension....

Did you mean rhetorical question?

Please read my post again for the answer to your question. Thanks.

The gist of my argument is that there could be other groups interested and we could benefit from the competion rather than accepting a brother-in-law deal like the current proposal. If Clay is interested, why wouldn't other groups? If OKC is such a hot item, we could benefit from that fact. Is competition a solid idea?

My argument would be that OKC isn't such a hot item. The only reason this group is interested is because they live here, and Clay Bennett has wanted a team for OKC for years. Aubrey McClendon is certainly investing A LOT of money in OKC, as is Tom Ward, with his purchase of the Kerr McGee building, and Bob Howard with the Midtown Renaissance investment. This groups wants a team in OKC because they're all big OKC boosters, and because OKC growing will help all of them as well.

Oklahoma City is the size of Memphis, which hasn't had a profitable season since they moved there. We're just a little bit bigger than New Orleans, and we know how they've supported their teams. The Jazz are doing well because they're good. Small markets tend to do well when the team is doing well, and they tend to do badly when the team is doing badly. There's been no other group trying to bring a team to OKC (except perhaps George Shinn, and if you prefer him as an owner, you might study the history of the Hornets). There are only 30 teams, and the chances of another team being allowed to move here if we treat Clay Bennett badly is about zero. David Stern takes things personally, and if we'd told the NBA we didn't care about getting the Sonics yesterday by not passing the tax proposal, they would have taken us at our word.

The only two other corporations in OKC that I can think of that might be able to support an NBA team, especially during losing seasons are the Sonic Corp and Devon. I suspect both were offered a chance to join the current ownership group and declined.

So, I think there would be very little competition to put a team in OKC besides the current competition,and given a choice between the OKC ownership group and George Shinn, I suggest we be satisfied with our current option. George Shinn still hasn't paid the NBA for the last relocation he made, and he'd be looking for as much, and probably more than the Sonics' owners.

Why is this in the Skirvin thread?