There has been favorable talk that a stadium of some size for soccer & american football should be built on the Oklahoma Riverfront for 2020. MAPS IV (2017 vote) would definitely be the souce of funding. A riverfront stadium was left off MAPS III.

What should we build? Expanding a stadium could possibly mean adding an upper-deck and a roof later. Feel free to add some links of existing stadiums which you feel might be what Oklahoma City should be looking toward building.

I would suggest it is way too early to fret on M4, but if it is to be done, it would be folly to not look at phase II of a cc, since clearly a cc will be done before M4 begins.

50k+,With that capacity OKC could host an annual FBS bowl game, bedlam,MLS and also high school 6a playoffs!What is the largest football/soccer stadium in OKC proper?Taft?

If we are going to build, let's look at building something capable of seating 50,000 which could also be used for Division II football games and/or a major bowl game for Oklahoma City. A stadium of this capacity would allow us to have more than enough seats for MLS and/or a major bowl game. College games like Langston vs. Grambling/Sourthern/Prarie View/Lincoln could be played here. Possibly some Oklahoma State University or Tulsa University non conference games or Spring games could be played here. A college bowl game could be played here. Mid-major professional football like the United Football League could be an option. Some NFL exhibition games could be played here. There are a number of possibilities. High school football playoffs could be played in a facility of this size on an every other year rotation. What about adding a track for outdoor track and field events?

Hate to be a wet blanket on this, but neither Oklahoma nor Oklahoma State is going to surrender a home date to accommodate the folly of building a football-like stadium in Oklahoma City. OKC would end up having to pay OU to compensate for the loss of revenue, and the same is increasingly true for Oklahoma State and their brand new facility. The revenues for an alternate-year high school title game won't begin to justify the cost of such a facility.

That leaves the MLS and a bowl game as possible destinations. Given the average recent attendance figures for MLS here, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_League_Soccer_attendance) indicating that venues of 20K are rarely filled to capacity, and the largest facility holds 36K, a 50K MLS venue is an unrealistic goal.

Given a recent story story (http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052748704461304576216330349497852-lMyQjAxMTAxMDEwMjExNDIyWj.html) on the way financing of Paul Brown Stadium has turned sour for its host city (which has an NFL franchise), I think OKC would do well to avoid any such stadium notions for the foreseeable future. As big an advocate as I was of a large, 60K seat stadium facility that was proposed for the fairgrounds about 25-30 years ago, I no longer thing there is a prime opportunity to pursue such a project with nothing to occupy it. The expense would be staggering, and with no anchor tenant to occupy it, we could find ourselves in an even worse situation than Cleveland, and I surely don't see the financial resources in OKC for an NFL franchise.

I know we built the OKC Arena with no tenant, but we were fortunate to have it built for next to nothing compared to other arenas, and its decidedly easier to find occupants for a 18K seat indoor venue than a 50-60K seat outdoor venue with a clear predisposition to events such as soccer or football.

As I said, hate to be a wet blanket, but I believe such a project would be a non-starter.

Sooner Dave is 100% correct.

OKC has no business constructing a stadium now or in the foreseeable future.
This same money should be spent on transportation.
OKC needs a swift commuter or light rail system

I may change my mind, but the way the Council has handled the MAPS brand this go-round, I'm inclined to vote against it in the future. I don't take kindly to bait and switch. There was a lot of a 'trust us' element to this campaign, I put my trust in them, and I have been disappointed.

We will barely be through MAPS III (assuming we are on schedule). I don't see how to have a vote on a MAPS IV before III is finished.

I agree with Midtowner 100%. I was on the fence on MAPS III, but trusted the leaders, which seems to have been mistakenly placed. MAPS IV, if it should be proposed, will be a very difficult sell... not only for me, but for many people I know in the business community.

I am somewhat surprised at the capacity vote numbers (outside of none of the above). If we would be aiming for a pro soccer and/or grand high school football/soccer then a 20,000 stadium is plenty big enough. However the only other major prospective tenants are college and pro football which realistically would need to be more more than 65,000 if considering attracting a pro team, with bedlam + a bowl game are not going to be worth it alone it seems attracting a pro team would need to be a goal for one of that size. Even then under the average number of tickets for OU and OSU stadiums is unlikely to even get a shot at that. Almost a quarter of the votes right now are for between 25,000 to 50,000 which seems to be ill fitted to any type, unless the plan is to finish construction of a pro stadium eventually after a team is signed.

I may change my mind, but the way the Council has handled the MAPS brand this go-round, I'm inclined to vote against it in the future. I don't take kindly to bait and switch. There was a lot of a 'trust us' element to this campaign, I put my trust in them, and I have been disappointed.

As an attorney, you know it's wrong to tell lies, there has been no bait and switch.

As an attorney, you know it's wrong to tell lies, there has been no bait and switch.

Really? Which projects were they saying would be built last?

No need for any stadium in OKC with two gems a short drive away, and soccer ain't happening around here. Everyone fired up now, can't wait for Sun, but interest always quickly wanes. OKC once a racing hub. No reason it couldn't again be. Build a multi-purpose facilty- 1.5 mile asphalt track, half mile dirt track, drag strip perhaps. the mayor actually on board here. Anyone know a promoter?

Really? Which projects were they saying would be built last?

Surely as a practicing attorney, you would get your evidence straight prior to presenting them as "facts".
Nothing was set in stone, the Mayor did suggest that the CC would be the last built, if you have proof other wise, post it!!!

The Mayor did suggest that the CC would be the last built, if you have proof other wise, post it!!!

^ that's what I'm saying.

Bait & switch = sell one thing, deliver something else. Never during the campaign did any of the pro-MAPS people say that the convention center was going to get priority. It wasn't even suggested. If you don't like the word "promise," I think you'd be right in objecting there, but there certainly were misrepresentations made, and that's going to affect our leaders' credibility in the future.

rcjunkle- it was textbook case of bait and switch. Perhaps no lies that could be proven, but definate misrepresentation.

I'd build an 18-20,000 seater suitable for MLS and high schools. Might be able to get Langston to play someone there. Also would be good for outdoor concerts. Something like this would be awesome for OKC: http://www.houstondynamo.com/stadium

who cares what order it gets built in, its still getting build right?!?!?!

as for the question at hand before the hi-jacking, a 12k-15k seat multipurpose stadium would be ideal, much like the MLS homes in Columbus, OH or Houston, Tx...

High School/Small College football, soccer; Concerts, events, fairs... LOVE this idea

who cares what order it gets built in, its still getting build right?!?!?!

I care.

A lot of people care.

And who knows whether all of these things will be built. They've lied once, so clearly they're capable of that.

Hate to be a wet blanket on this, but neither Oklahoma nor Oklahoma State is going to surrender a home date to accommodate the folly of building a football-like stadium in Oklahoma City. OKC would end up having to pay OU to compensate for the loss of revenue, and the same is increasingly true for Oklahoma State and their brand new facility. The revenues for an alternate-year high school title game won't begin to justify the cost of such a facility.

That leaves the MLS and a bowl game as possible destinations. Given the average recent attendance figures for MLS here, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_League_Soccer_attendance) indicating that venues of 20K are rarely filled to capacity, and the largest facility holds 36K, a 50K MLS venue is an unrealistic goal.

Given a recent story story (http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052748704461304576216330349497852-
lMyQjAxMTAxMDEwMjExNDIyWj.html) on the way financing of Paul Brown Stadium has turned sour for its host
city (which has an NFL franchise), I think OKC would do well to avoid any such stadium notions for the foreseeable future. As big an advocate as I was of a large, 60K seat stadium facility that was proposed for the fairgrounds about 25-30 years ago, I no longer thing there is a prime opportunity to pursue such a project with nothing to occupy it. The expense would
be staggering, and with no anchor tenant to occupy it, we could find ourselves in an even worse situation than Cleveland,
and I surely don't see the financial resources in OKC for an NFL franchise.

I know we built the OKC Arena with no tenant, but we were fortunate to have it built for next to nothing compared to other arenas, and its decidedly easier to find occupants for a 18K seat indoor venue than a 50-60K seat outdoor venue with a clear predisposition to events such as soccer or football.

As I said, hate to be a wet blanket, but I believe such a project would be a non-starter.


This...

I care.

A lot of people care.

And who knows whether all of these things will be built. They've lied once, so clearly they're capable of that.

Yup. It is just so frustrating to see how easily and willingly the good political capital that had been built in the prior projects is washed away. Unfortunately, with the lack of accountability in this round of MAPS, this very kind of issue was staring us in the face from day one (as many here on this forum tried to point out). And here we are, with a situation where this round of political maneuvering will make a "Maps 4" just about impossible.

Very disappointing.

Hopefully a new stadium would bring a football team by 2020. Basketball seems to be a big success so hopefully football would be successful here too!

I care.

A lot of people care.

And who knows whether all of these things will be built. They've lied once, so clearly they're capable of that.


Yup. It is just so frustrating to see how easily and willingly the good political capital that had been built in the prior projects is washed away. Unfortunately, with the lack of accountability in this round of MAPS, this very kind of issue was staring us in the face from day one (as many here on this forum tried to point out). And here we are, with a situation where this round of political maneuvering will make a "Maps 4" just about impossible.

Very disappointing.

I agree with the two comments above. One thing is for certain, we should never again pass/extend a tax without appropriate specificity.

I think we should vote for whatever we don't need the most, by following the example of what the current MAPS has been mutated into...

I'm glad I was the first one to vote "none of the above" and others have followed...

I doubt there will be anymore Maps after what has happened with Maps 3. I will definitely vote NO. Unless everything is legitimately laid out and public opinion is used in every piece of the process...... So, I doubt that will happen...

We will barely be through MAPS III (assuming we are on schedule). I don't see how to have a vote on a MAPS IV before III is finished.

Entirely possible & probable. MAPS project construction goes on for years after the sales tax for them has ended.

MAPS tax ended= 7/1/1999 (5.5 yrs)
Last project completed=2004

MAPS for Kids tax ended=12/31/2008 (7 yrs)
Last project completed= 2014*
20 some projects are yet to even be started, the last "new" building projects, the Downtown elementary school site has been selected and is realistically going to open in 2014. The administration building project is still up in the air (they are still determining if they are just going to make improvements to the existing location or build a new facility). The Mayor stated twice in his 2005 State of the City speech that MAPS 4 Kids construction was scheduled to be completed in late 2010. Apparently, MAPS 4 Kids is 4 years behind schedule (or more)

Ford/NBA tax ended=3/2010 (15 months)
Project completed=3/2012*
(Completion was scheduled for 2010, currently completion is now early/mid next year, 1 to 2 years/seasons behind schedule)

MAPS 3 tax ends=12/31/2017 (7.75 yrs)
Last project completed=2021 (est)

In order to continue the claim that they aren't raising taxes, they can't let the current tax expire. If it is allowed to lapse for even one day, it will be obvious to everyone that it indeed is a tax increase no matter what game of semantics they like to play with it. This makes it harder to pass. Contrary to popular belief, the 1 cent MAPS tax has not been ongoing unbroken since 1993. There was a few months gap between MAPS & MAPS 4 Kids. I have noticed in recent articles the media has correctly been calling MAPS 3 a tax increase. Even the Oklahoman slipped and admitted it after it passed in an editorial...LOL

Entirely possible & probable. MAPS project construction goes on for years after the sales tax for them has ended.

MAPS tax ended= 7/1/1999 (5.5 yrs)
Last project completed=2004

MAPS for Kids tax ended=12/31/2008 (7 yrs)
Last project completed= 2014*
20 some projects are yet to even be started, the last "new" building projects, the Downtown elementary school site has been selected and is realistically going to open in 2014. The administration building project is still up in the air (they are still determining if they are just going to make improvements to the existing location or build a new facility). The Mayor stated twice in his 2005 State of the City speech that MAPS 4 Kids construction was scheduled to be completed in late 2010. Apparently, MAPS 4 Kids is 4 years behind schedule (or more)

Ford/NBA tax ended=3/2010 (15 months)
Project completed=3/2012*
(Completion was scheduled for 2010, currently completion is now early/mid next year, 1 to 2 years/seasons behind schedule)

MAPS 3 tax ends=12/31/2017 (7.75 yrs)
Last project completed=2021 (est)

In order to continue the claim that they aren't raising taxes, they can't let the current tax expire. If it is allowed to lapse for even one day, it will be obvious to everyone that it indeed is a tax increase no matter what game of semantics they like to play with it. This makes it harder to pass. Contrary to popular belief, the 1 cent MAPS tax has not been ongoing unbroken since 1993. There was a few months gap between MAPS & MAPS 4 Kids. I have noticed in recent articles the media has correctly been calling MAPS 3 a tax increase. Even the Oklahoman slipped and admitted it after it passed in an editorial...LOL

Who cares if it's a tax increase or a tax continuance? I agree it's just semantics and makes no difference in how I would vote. The Tea Partiers will vote no in any case. If I'm in favor of the proposals, I'll vote yes. The penny is insignificant to my decision.

Who cares if it's a tax increase or a tax continuance? I agree it's just semantics and makes no difference in how I would vote.

+1

I frankly don't care what they build first. I didn't vote for it because any particular part would be here before another. I say let's wait and see the results once most/everything is finished.

What's going to happen is with typical project overruns and the hotel that was never mentioned there won't be enough $ for the projects citizens actually voted for so the city will return with a maps3 extension campaign, and if an understanably peed off electorate votes it down, they'll be spiting themselves. This was some serious dirty pool by Mick and his co-conspirators. btw, encourage everyone to read Dr Shadid's excellent analysis in the Gazette of the benefit of build it and they will come convention center projects.

+1

I frankly don't care what they build first. I didn't vote for it because any particular part would be here before another. I say let's wait and see the results once most/everything is finished.

No disrespect, MartzMimic, but I think your missing the point. I think a certain level of priority was clearly implied in the last MAPS vote, and a great many people here voted yes as a part of that implicit priority. It is my opinion that the real motivation for MAPS 3 was a convention center, but the powers that be within the city knew going in that such a center was not favorably received - a notion that was later verified by their internal polling. They realized that a variety of other issues were on people's mind, hence the fiction of the MAPS3 idea solicitation, so a ballot full of bait could be presented to the people that would appeal to just enough voters to get a passing vote, with an implicit "trust me" imprimatur from the council. A lot of people, a decent subset represented here, relied on that trust, and that trust has been betrayed. Now, guess what - we're getting the convention center that we know most people were, at best, lukewarm about, and the other issues that seemed to draw more public enthusiasm have now been pushed to little more than back-burner items. The council - and, more broadly, city leadership IMHO has been thoroughly disingenuous about this entire issue, and we see now the breach in public confidence in that leadership as a result.

Having a permanently cynical view of government in general, I saw the MAPS3 ballot, and with absolutely zero accountability in the way it was worded, I aggressively opposed it and voted "no," not because I oppose civic improvement (and I actually support the idea of a new convention center), but I thoroughly distrust government at most any level that's given what amounts to a blank check, and MAPS3 was arguably the biggest blank check this city has ever written. Now, sadly, my own cynicism has been realized much more quickly than even I would have predicted. I am now more firmly convinced than ever that governments - even relatively small city governments - must be nailed to the wall to the fullest extent possible with regard to the promises they make to the citizenry. I freely admit that's a bit of an anal attitude to take - but it is drawn from none other than the manifest actions of the council that demonstrate they view that public trust with disdain.

Much was made of the ballot language being purposefully vague due to the wording of the state constitution regarding municipalities' ability to encumber funds for more than a year. If that's the real issue at hand, which I personally doubt, its time for a review and possible amendment to the state constitution to eliminate or amend that provision. I think that's a convenient escape mechanism that puts tinfoil in the radar about the broader issue at hand - our ability to trust our city government. Regardless of your position on MAPS3, 4, 5, 6 or whatever, or *any* future city-wide improvement notion, a great deal of public goodwill has been traded for a convention center. I'm not sure the citizenry benefits much in that trade off.

Didn't mean to roll on so long, but the point here is that to capture public support for projects, you've got to keep the public trust first, whether that's by implied priorities of projects, or just doing what you said you'd do. I think a great many people here feel like they've been duped, and I can't say I blame them.

Here is an american football stadium which could probably be used for soccer:

Gerald Ford Stadium (Dallas - SMU) Built in 1999 capacity 32,000 at a cost of $42 million:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3007/2941106905_a3154c7f12_z.jpg

University of Minnesota Stadium built in 2006 capacity 50,800 at a cost of $288 million:

http://stadium.gophersports.com/

The 50,805 seat on-campus "horseshoe" style stadium is designed to support future expansion to seat up to 80,000 people, and cost $288.5 million to build.

Red Bull Arena in New Jersey opened in 2010; cost $190 million with a seating capacity of 25,000.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9e/Red_Bull_Arena_on_the_First_Day.jpg


It is relatively inexpensive to build in Oklahoma City; the sooner we plan and break ground the cheaper it will be.

I know that many people were not happy with the fact that some of the more popular and non-revenue substaining projects weren't going to be built first; however, look at it this way--the convention center is going to generate much needed economic impact revenue; expanding the sales tax base which will boost the Oklahoma City economy.

Many of the projects like the Wellness Centers, Sidewalks, Central Park, River improvements and Rail were going to be projects that the City would have to put money into for general upkeep; these projects are not going to be self supporting.

The Convention Center is going to provide new dollars into the Oklahoma City economy, much needed tax revenue and the general exposure and advertising about our City that your couldn't buy on Madison Avenue. The improvements at Fair Park will be revenue producing.

The important thing is that all of the projects get completed.

Look at the 'impact' of having the NBA in OKC has done for the image of this state and the OKC area. Personal community appearances the players make and how they project and represent Oklahoma City. I remember when we voted on the extension for MAPS I; then Mayor Humphries (old home fries) said that we didn't need the Indoor Sports Arena. Just think what would have happened had we left it off because Humphries was afraid that the 6-month extension wasn't going to be approved by voters.

No disrespect, MartzMimic, but I think your missing the point. I think a certain level of priority was clearly implied in the last MAPS vote, and a great many people here voted yes as a part of that implicit priority. It is my opinion that the real motivation for MAPS 3 was a convention center, but the powers that be within the city knew going in that such a center was not favorably received - a notion that was later verified by their internal polling. They realized that a variety of other issues were on people's mind, hence the fiction of the MAPS3 idea solicitation, so a ballot full of bait could be presented to the people that would appeal to just enough voters to get a passing vote, with an implicit "trust me" imprimatur from the council. A lot of people, a decent subset represented here, relied on that trust, and that trust has been betrayed. Now, guess what - we're getting the convention center that we know most people were, at best, lukewarm about, and the other issues that seemed to draw more public enthusiasm have now been pushed to little more than back-burner items. The council - and, more broadly, city leadership IMHO has been thoroughly disingenuous about this entire issue, and we see now the breach in public confidence in that leadership as a result.

Having a permanently cynical view of government in general, I saw the MAPS3 ballot, and with absolutely zero accountability in the way it was worded, I aggressively opposed it and voted "no," not because I oppose civic improvement (and I actually support the idea of a new convention center), but I thoroughly distrust government at most any level that's given what amounts to a blank check, and MAPS3 was arguably the biggest blank check this city has ever written. Now, sadly, my own cynicism has been realized much more quickly than even I would have predicted. I am now more firmly convinced than ever that governments - even relatively small city governments - must be nailed to the wall to the fullest extent possible with regard to the promises they make to the citizenry. I freely admit that's a bit of an anal attitude to take - but it is drawn from none other than the manifest actions of the council that demonstrate they view that public trust with disdain.

Much was made of the ballot language being purposefully vague due to the wording of the state constitution regarding municipalities' ability to encumber funds for more than a year. If that's the real issue at hand, which I personally doubt, its time for a review and possible amendment to the state constitution to eliminate or amend that provision. I think that's a convenient escape mechanism that puts tinfoil in the radar about the broader issue at hand - our ability to trust our city government. Regardless of your position on MAPS3, 4, 5, 6 or whatever, or *any* future city-wide improvement notion, a great deal of public goodwill has been traded for a convention center. I'm not sure the citizenry benefits much in that trade off.

Didn't mean to roll on so long, but the point here is that to capture public support for projects, you've got to keep the public trust first, whether that's by implied priorities of projects, or just doing what you said you'd do. I think a great many people here feel like they've been duped, and I can't say I blame them.

Since you voted no to start with your opinion carries a little less weight than those who voted yes like me. As I said, I voted yes without depending on any specific timeline for various projects. Do I have some project that I favor over others? Sure. But the order of construction would not have affected my vote in the least and while I may disagree with some decisions, I don't feel "duped".

It is relatively inexpensive to build in Oklahoma City; the sooner we plan and break ground the cheaper it will be.

While some kind of stadium would be nice, if we had a pressing need for it, you would be correct. But we don't and won't for many, many years.

It is relatively inexpensive to build in Oklahoma City; the sooner we plan and break ground the cheaper it will be.

Doesn't make these types of things cheap though. And that's not entirely true that the same building costs less to build in OKC rather than somewhere else. That is way too simplistic thinking.

I know that many people were not happy with the fact that some of the more popular and non-revenue substaining projects weren't going to be built first; however, look at it this way--the convention center is going to generate much needed economic impact revenue; expanding the sales tax base which will boost the Oklahoma City economy.

Many of the projects like the Wellness Centers, Sidewalks, Central Park, River improvements and Rail were going to be projects that the City would have to put money into for general upkeep; these projects are not going to be self supporting.

The Convention Center is going to provide new dollars into the Oklahoma City economy, much needed tax revenue and the general exposure and advertising about our City that your couldn't buy on Madison Avenue. The improvements at Fair Park will be revenue producing.

The important thing is that all of the projects get completed.

Look at the 'impact' of having the NBA in OKC has done for the image of this state and the OKC area. Personal community appearances the players make and how they project and represent Oklahoma City. I remember when we voted on the extension for MAPS I; then Mayor Humphries (old home fries) said that we didn't need the Indoor Sports Arena. Just think what would have happened had we left it off because Humphries was afraid that the 6-month extension wasn't going to be approved by voters.
http://articles.boston.com/2011-04-22/business/29464000_1_exhibit-space-and-hotel-convention-sports-sports-leisure-international
More likely to produce deficits it seems. If the projects people actually voted for get done, it'll be because voters swallowed their pride and agreed to an extension after all the $ is spent on the convention center and new hotel. Refresh me, were fairgrounds projects ever mentioned in the campaign? Slipped that one in.

Since you voted no to start with your opinion carries a little less weight than those who voted yes like me. As I said, I voted yes without depending on any specific timeline for various projects. Do I have some project that I favor over others? Sure. But the order of construction would not have affected my vote in the least and while I may disagree with some decisions, I don't feel "duped".

What I omitted in my previous reply was that the shuffling of timelines and shifting of priorities often leads to the items deemed least popular, least desirable, or merely having the least support among the powers-that-be often are at substantially higher risk never to happen - because they were never sincerely intended in the first place.

If you don't feel duped, that's fine, but understand that many in the rest of this audience feel like a bit of slick deal was made, and good faith has been abrogated in the process - even in the absence of a specific or implied schedule violation.

Somewhere, we have strayed way too far off topic! I sense that there are some bad feelings carrying over from the MAPS III vote.

As I mentioned, we should look at the revenue producing items:

1. Convention Center - economic impact of bringing new dollars into the state & city coffers. Expand the sales tax base. The CC will bring about possible one large hotel (excess of 700 rooms) and a number of small hotels (under 200 rooms).

2. Fairgrounds expanded space & renovation of existing arena, barns, exhibition space - insure that current Rodeos and Horse Show stay in the city. Economic impact of bringing in new dollars into the state & city coffers and expand the state & city's tax base.

3. Many of the non revenue producing items like the Wellness Centers, Trails, Sidewalks, Oklahoma River, Transit & Downtown Park will require upkeep. Transit will be an investment because at least we will have our foot in the door and we will be able to look at future expansion.

Let's move on past this bad pill.

I would rather see a "MAPS" style penny tax between Oklahoma and Cleveland counties to put in a light rail from north Edmond to OU's campus in Norman, with 5-10 stops along the way at various major residential/commercial/retail areas areas (i.e. running south down Broadway Extension until about Wilshire and then running down Western/Penn through 50th, connecting up with the downtown system, down through Moore and into Norman via Flood). I think this type of system would do more for the OKC metro area in the next 25 years than anything else we could do (pertaining to capital improvements).

With average construction costs around $1M/mile you're looking at about $40M-$60M investment for construction and probably a yearly subsidy of $2-5M split between the counties. Not a bad deal in my opinion.

Here is an american football stadium which could probably be used for soccer:

Gerald Ford Stadium (Dallas - SMU) Built in 1999 capacity 32,000 at a cost of $42 million:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3007/2941106905_a3154c7f12_z.jpg


The stadium already existed. The $42m was to significantly upgrade what was already there.

Somewhere, we have strayed way too far off topic! I sense that there are some bad feelings carrying over from the MAPS III vote.

As I mentioned, we should look at the revenue producing items:

1. Convention Center - economic impact of bringing new dollars into the state & city coffers. Expand the sales tax base. The CC will bring about possible one large hotel (excess of 700 rooms) and a number of small hotels (under 200 rooms).

2. Fairgrounds expanded space & renovation of existing arena, barns, exhibition space - insure that current Rodeos and Horse Show stay in the city. Economic impact of bringing in new dollars into the state & city coffers and expand the state & city's tax base.

3. Many of the non revenue producing items like the Wellness Centers, Trails, Sidewalks, Oklahoma River, Transit & Downtown Park will require upkeep. Transit will be an investment because at least we will have our foot in the door and we will be able to look at future expansion.

Let's move on past this bad pill.
yeah good citizens of OKC who voted for sidewalks senior wellness centers and transport and were a victim of a textbook case of bundling and bait and swith scam, aided by a complicit local "news" outlet, the well heeled elites got their convention center at a very questionable site and will more likely produce deficits than revenue enhancement , and fairgrounds projects thay forgot to mention in all those smarmy trust me ads, they'll be back to ask for an extension for the sidewalks senior welness centers and streetcars. Move past, more like recall. Trust them, these are the people that brought us Canadian River cruises.

yeah good citizens of OKC who voted for sidewalks senior wellness centers and transport and were a victim of a textbook case of bundling and bait and swith scam, aided by a complicit local "news" outlet, the well heeled elites got their convention center at a very questionable site and will more likely produce deficits than revenue enhancement , and fairgrounds projects thay forgot to mention in all those smarmy trust me ads, they'll be back to ask for an extension for the sidewalks senior welness centers and streetcars. Move past, more like recall. Trust them, these are the people that brought us Canadian River cruises.

It's a conspiracy I tell, a down right conspiracy, call the FBI, OSBI, OCPD, OCSD, CSI, Dragnet, Hiwaii Five-O, Sheriff Andy Taylor and Deputy Barney, we have to stop these mean evil people.

rc, $50 says the council has to come back to the people for an extension to do the projects citizens actually voted for, though this time there won't be beaucoup chamber $ financing the campaign because thery don't care about senior wellness centers, or much probably about seniors for that matter, not their demo. You on rc?

rc, $50 says the council has to come back to the people for an extension to do the projects citizens actually voted for, though this time there won't be beaucoup chamber $ financing the campaign because thery don't care about senior wellness centers, or much probably about seniors for that matter, not their demo. You on rc?

By the end of MAPS3 I'll qualify as a senior citizen, I'll let you know which center I'm at and you can drop off the $50

By the end of MAPS3 I'll qualify as a senior citizen, I'll let you know which center I'm at and you can drop off the $50

Actually, a picture of you in front of a "Coming Soon....2025" sign may have to suffice (grin)

By the end of MAPS3 I'll qualify as a senior citizen, I'll let you know which center I'm at and you can drop off the $50
Come on rc- put $50 behind the piehole. favorite charity. You in?

Come on rc- put $50 behind the piehole. favorite charity. You in?

I normally don't gamble, but since this is no gamble, make it $500 and I'm in. Make the check payable to Ally's house. (they take Visa, MC and Discover if your short on cash)