...The OKC Chamber spent $40,000 on ads at Channel 9 for the "Friends of Tinker" campaign. I wanted to be the first to thank them for putting up the capital it takes to pass a bold proposal as this one. We need to be all very greatful that we have these fine folks doing good work, not just for the city, but for mankind.

How much did GM put up?

And where are all the disgruntled GM Shareholders that are upset that they aren't going to get to lease the thing to Tinker themselves? Perhaps they are paying more attention to affairs what with all the non-sense going on with GMAC.

Doesn't that make you wonder whether Tinker has any use for this property whatsoever?

The only [guaranteed] winner I see here is GM. They get appraised value for a property they'd probably have to take a substantial loss on of they were to sell it on the free market. They also get out from under a substantial tax burden.

If Tinker really needed this land, they'd already be leasing it.

I'm still voting "no" on this, but yes on the other measures.

Same here. We shall see what happens.

I don't like it either - voting no!

Also, if it were really necessary wouldn't Tinker do an eminent domain deal?

Also, if it were really necessary wouldn't Tinker do an eminent domain deal?

Yep -- and doing so, I think they could get the land for a lot less than $55 million. In fact, so could the city. There's a good argument to be made regarding the fair market value of the property that the real fair market value of the property is not much since currently, GM refuses to sell to another auto manufacturer and currently, to simply possess the land, GM is paying a lot of money.

Fair market value is the price for which the product would change hands on an open market between a willing buyer and a willing seller. Considering the stipulations GM is requiring from any buyer, the price a willing buyer would be willing to pay should be considerably less than what the assessor values the land at.

The way this deal is structured really stinks.

Again, I will reiterate the fact that the Tinker Bond is only one of five things on the ballot. I think the other four items are well conceived and worthy.

Mid, what are the other 4 items on ballot? I haven't studied this like I should yet.

T.A.C. 2008 - Tinker Aerospace Complex (http://www.oklahomacounty.org/tacvote/)

That's a new cooperative extension center for OSU-OKC, improvements to the court house, flood preventative measures in NW Oklahoma County, and an improved county records retention system.

All good stuff.

The Tinker deal? Not so much. If the government wants that land, they need to acquire it by eminent domain. The dumbest part about this deal for the taxpayers is that Tinker is going to be able to use this bond issue as "exhibit A" as to the fair market value of that land if we ever do try to condemn the property.

That's a new cooperative extension center for OSU-OKC, improvements to the court house, flood preventative measures in NW Oklahoma County, and an improved county records retention system.

All good stuff.

The Tinker deal? Not so much. If the government wants that land, they need to acquire it by eminent domain. The dumbest part about this deal for the taxpayers is that Tinker is going to be able to use this bond issue as "exhibit A" as to the fair market value of that land if we ever do try to condemn the property.

Hey Mid, Kinda ironic, huh? GM....controversy going in - controversy going out.
Brings back memories of the Oklahoma Industrial Authority ---- damn crooks.

Hey Mid, Kinda ironic, huh? GM....controversy going in - controversy going out.
Brings back memories of the Oklahoma Industrial Authority ---- damn crooks.

Yep.. those guys are snakes, always have been.

I hadn't thought of that. I guess we can all thank the job that the fine people of the Cartwright administration for the fine fact that the voters at least get a crack at unwinding this fine deal. Too bad the Chamber isn't a public trust. It seems that the powers that be finally have a way to keep the sort of documents which would prove this out of the public eye (y'know.. other than storing them in a disorganized fashion all over town in offices which were never open).

The funny thing here is that not a single person, not one in the public eye has made a single comment about how this benefits GM when that's the only party that clearly benefits here.

far off chance of it being an economic stimulus to help out a big time car company thats trying to get back on there feet.. but eh, it was a thought to throw out there.

I don't think any of the measures are worth raising our property taxes. I don't like the fact that only property owners have to pay for these measures.

RealtorJoe, I may presume too much but I do presume that landlords and businesses pass along cost increases such as these in the form of higher rents at the first available opportunity. As such, the tax burden does not fall solely on property owners. And unlike the more transient focused motel taxes and MAPS, the outside visitors don't tend to use or benefit to any degree the local renovations to the courthouse or improved record retention.

Guys ... if Tinker did not want this wouldn't they come out against this? Tinker wants this and I bet they want it bad.

OSUFan, if they cared, do you think they'd come out for it a little stronger? I don't think base commanders are really allowed to get involved in local politics, but no one -- not even the Chamber of Commerce, not even their paid spokesman, Earnest Istook, has claimed that this will create a single job.

This is merely going to allow Tinker to bulldoze 2.2 million worth of existing buildings and move the same jobs and facilities to the GM building. That's all we've been promised.

As for the other issues, the flood control issue is a no-brainer. Fixing that now is FAR less expensive than it'll be when that area is actually developed. It's also a lot cheaper to fix it now than to continue to pay for all of the damage out that way due to substandard flood control measures.

The courthouse' big problem is their HVAC. The pipes there are the original 1930's pipe. It's leaky and in bad shape. The county will probably be able to recoup their 10 million investment eventually and since no absolute disaster has yet occurred, we'll have continual use of the facility. A functioning courthouse is something the county cannot not get along without. I don't see much option there.

The county records is the cheapest issue on the ballot. I think the cost per taxpayer if you break it down is about a penny per month on this. Keeping county records safe and making them more accessible to the public is a good thing.

The OSU program does a lot for the community. I'm for this. The public sees a direct benefit. That's my test for whether to vote for these things.

Burpee came out against it strong. Those still within the system, if they were to speak out, would be signing a death sentence more or less....

true. . but could there be some "sour grapes" feelings since his departure from the Chamber's aerospace program. . . .

. . .and Robert Conner, recenetly retired Executive Director, is a strong proponent. . did an "editorial" in the paper on Saturday. Burpee has been gone from the depot scene for several years. . . Conner has not, and I believe he is in a a more knowledgeable positions to know the pros and cons.

Good summary of the issues, Mid.

I think I will join you in voting for them all except the GM thing.

Exactly people on base can't campaign for or against this but do you actually think this would be happening if there was any chance Tinker did not want this? I'm not that synical. I've seen clips on the news with current personal at Tinker talking about how the space would help them. They wouldn't be doing this if they didn't want this.

Also, I have not seen Istook's name connected with any of this in any way shape or form. The main face of this seems to be Commissioner Ray Vaughn.

OSUFan, anytime I see any sort of county involvement with the GM property, I am automatically suspicious. There have been some pretty serious shenanigans involved whenever GM has been in the picture, I don't expect that to be much different now.

All I've seen are under the rosiest of projections by Vaughn is that Tinker would get the land on a long-term lease from the County. Tinker would then use the facility for exactly the same purpose as they are using their existing facility, i.e., moving existing jobs into a nicer building.

I can see no good result for the county here in that quite a bit of ad valorem revenue will vanish while there is no promised economic benefit. If Tinker wanted this land for a new maintenance facility or some other sort of new facility, I might be persuaded, but no such new use has been promised.

I don't think the voters should part with $55 million on such a speculative gamble. Especially when the cost of being wrong is about a million dollars a year in tax revenue.

Istook put out a press release and made a statement regarding this. It would be interesting to see who is paying him to make those statements since he's just a private attorney these days (associated with Foshee & Yaffee, I think).

Are you thinking of Sen. Inhofe? He has made some statements but I haven't seen anything from Istook.

Also, the Sec. of the Air Force has been quoted as saying this is a good deal for Tinker. There is only so much people on base can say publically but this is a great thing for Tinker (if passed).

“This is a significant benefit to Tinker Air Force Base. I see the quality of productive life for Tinker enhanced for years to come.”
Secretary of the Air Force

Are you thinking of Sen. Inhofe? He has made some statements but I haven't seen anything from Istook.

Also, the Sec. of the Air Force has been quoted as saying this is a good deal for Tinker. There is only so much people on base can say publically but this is a great thing for Tinker (if passed).

“This is a significant benefit to Tinker Air Force Base. I see the quality of productive life for Tinker enhanced for years to come.”
Secretary of the Air Force

Then why doesn't the Air Force simply BUY IT at fair market value? Right now, the United States is fighting a war in Iraq that is costing taxpayers $341.4 million per day (http://costofwar.com/). Quick math tells me the whole GM thing could be purchased for about 4 hours of this war in Iraq. Using county taxpayer money is NOT how we finance national defense and facility upgrades/expansion for the pentagon. Follow the money.

Are you thinking of Sen. Inhofe? He has made some statements but I haven't seen anything from Istook.

Can't remember where I saw it now, maybe the Oklahoman? No idea.



Also, the Sec. of the Air Force has been quoted as saying this is a good deal for Tinker. There is only so much people on base can say publically but this is a great thing for Tinker (if passed).

“This is a significant benefit to Tinker Air Force Base. I see the quality of productive life for Tinker enhanced for years to come.”
Secretary of the Air Force

When have you ever known a Bush Administration official to contradict a chamber of commerce?

pretty sure I'm not going to change anyone's mind, but would like to offer up a couple of points. . .Tinker was "established" on donated land; Glenwood area at athe end of the NS runway was "cleared" by a bond issue; the Navy complex was built on land initially purchased by the County. Had the last two factors (Glenwood/Navy) not ocurred, I'm not sure Tinker would still be operational. . . and "our" jobs would probably have gone to San Antonio (Kelly) which would still be open.

As another poster stated, this is a very complex issue, but the bottom line is not very different from the NBA. . .are we willing to "step up" (as we have in the past) and provide the "incentive" for the Air Force and private industry to continue to invest in the federal aerospace industry in the Oklahoma City area. . .or will they elect to look elsewhere? The Rockwell's, Boeing's, et al, are in the Oklahoma City area BECAUSE of Tinker and the Air Logistics Center. The AF/military is not significantly different that any major business/industry (or the NBA). . .they have to look at the bottom line. . .if other communities are willing to foster/invest, then that is where they want to be. So. . .I'm voting YES. . . on all propositions.

pretty sure I'm not going to change anyone's mind, but would like to offer up a couple of points. . .Tinker was "established" on donated land; Glenwood area at athe end of the NS runway was "cleared" by a bond issue; the Navy complex was built on land initially purchased by the County. Had the last two factors (Glenwood/Navy) not ocurred, I'm not sure Tinker would still be operational. . . and "our" jobs would probably have gone to San Antonio (Kelly) which would still be open.

As another poster stated, this is a very complex issue, but the bottom line is not very different from the NBA. . .are we willing to "step up" (as we have in the past) and provide the "incentive" for the Air Force and private industry to continue to invest in the federal aerospace industry in the Oklahoma City area. . .or will they elect to look elsewhere? The Rockwell's, Boeing's, et al, are in the Oklahoma City area BECAUSE of Tinker and the Air Logistics Center. The AF/military is not significantly different that any major business/industry (or the NBA). . .they have to look at the bottom line. . .if other communities are willing to foster/invest, then that is where they want to be. So. . .I'm voting YES. . . on all propositions.

No. They should, but they don't. This administration is putting the trillion dollar wars on the Chinese credit card. But, you're telling me the taxpayers of Oklahoma County need to help finance a relatively small pentagon project? I hear Military-Industrial Complex propaganda loud and clear in your post. Basically, you're saying my own federal government is holding me hostage. You're right. They have enslaved cities the very way in which President Eisenhower warned us about. The Pentagon, Rockwell, Boeing - that whole Military-Industrial Complex is alive, well and still feeding at the trough - with the same people walking out the military door into the private military sector for payback and bribes in a sick symbiotic relationship. It's called organized crime in law enforcement circles (at least in the movies). Yet, we accept it and play right along. We need CHANGE. Yes, that word means something.
http://img65.imageshack.us/img65/6124/aaaaajv15bkaaaaaaj7h6qhi9.jpg

I hear Military-Industrial Complex propaganda loud and clear in your post.

No you don't. . .I understand the revolving door and I don't agree with it. Additionally, I can't speak for the "Administration". . .I only have experience with the AF, and I can assure you they look at the bottom line every year. Do "things" get budgeted/paid for that (in my opinion) shouldn't. . .yes. . .but that happens in any business. The fact that I'm paying for it upsets me as well, but again. . you have to make sure you have all the facts as you look at the bottom line. I also reiterated that this is a very complex issue and one that isn't served well by generalities.

The chamber is not a charity, does anyone know who is really behind the funding of all the marketing campaign? Burpee's is not only the past commander, he was President of the OKC Chamber, he probably has a better understanding of both sides of this issue than anyone, If he is against it, it must be a very bad deal. (http://newsok.com/voters-left-to-decide-tinker-deal/article/3241845/?tm=1210480623) Bonds could pay off 10% and if you read the ballot language (http://www.oklahomacounty.org/tacVote/gmfacilities.asp) they do not have to spend the money on buying GM or helping Tinker.

wasnt aware that Burpee was the President of the Chamber. . .I thought he was head of the Aerospace Division. Additionally, he retired in from the AF in 1990. . .things have changed significantly in the last 18 years. Before he is crowned all knowing "king", I'd like to have a little more info on his departure from his position with the Chamber.

Yeah, I think that the 10% ceiling for bonds is absolute crap, although I will admit that I'm not exactly an expert on municipal bonds. I know that the gains realized are tax free though!