View Full Version : Oklahoma City (Multipurpose) Sports Stadium



Pages : [1] 2

Laramie
07-19-2015, 09:23 PM
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSj7wrQsMqoOfmwOlypISghS3XDUwcSf k0sXm0-5zLVRJeMqVVF8Q http://d13beo3f7vpmvd.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/gallery/chargers-raiders-la-stadium-renderings/screen-shot-2015-01-09-at-2-59-18-pm.png

Oklahoma City (MAPS IV) 2017-2024

Where do we go from here with the future of sports & entertainment in Oklahoma City; if we could put some kind of venue on the MAPS IV ballot in 2017.

Should OKC build for the future now or should we until later like MAPS V (2025). What would excite your future interest?

A basic structure (multipurpose) venue ($100 - $150 million) in the 20,000-25,000-seat range (stadium expansion option) that could handle high school football playoffs, collegiate football and the possibility of MLS expansion/relocation .

A basic structure (multipurpose) venue ($200 - $400 million) in the 40,000-70,000 seat range (stadium expansion option) that could handle the above mentioned activities; preparation for the NFL radar for 2025-2030.

mugofbeer
07-19-2015, 09:29 PM
I think this is a concept worth exploring for a future MAPS program.

ljbab728
07-19-2015, 10:53 PM
As nice as it would be, I don't think it would find favor with the public right now and could jeopardize the passing of the next MAPS plans.

bige4ou
07-20-2015, 09:33 AM
Good concept but if you're going to do it… do it. Put in the money for a good state of the art stadium. I would say retractable roof because then that could potentially put you in the bidding discusion for the Final Fours, NBA All Star Games, ETC. Definitely not there yet but I would bet by the time the next Maps arrives it will be time for this.

Nick
07-20-2015, 09:42 AM
I would love to see something like this, but I don't think it's right for MAPS IV. I'd like to see MAPS IV devoted entirely to mass transit.

benjico
07-20-2015, 10:11 AM
I would love to see something like this, but I don't think it's right for MAPS IV. I'd like to see MAPS IV devoted entirely to mass transit.

Agreed. Transit should be the key issue. I would love to also see initiatives created to help individual neighborhoods and include some lower income areas. Create opportunities for growth in all of OKC, not just downtown for the middle class. Lots of important areas we can impact with MAPS IV that should have priority over the NFL pipe dream.

Laramie
07-21-2015, 08:22 AM
Agreed. Transit should be the key issue. I would love to also see initiatives created to help individual neighborhoods and include some lower income areas. Create opportunities for growth in all of OKC, not just downtown for the middle class. Lots of important areas we can impact with MAPS IV that should have priority over the NFL pipe dream.

Benjico, your concern has sound merit. :congrats: Ask yourself, how much public transit have you used or do you use; would you take advantage of it if we had it?

It will take Oklahoma City time to transition over to public transit. OKC is spread out; therefore the route matrix need to be formulated for those who will need or use transit in the form of street cars & buses.

Our city has been long overdue for some kind of outdoor sports venue, expanded upgrade in transit and city-wide beautification. Transit will be a key; MAPS' appeal has always been the infusion of many project initiatives that appeal to all voters.

MAPS III was $777. MAPS IV will probably be in the neighborhood of $800 million. We should continue to build on city-wide beautification & transit.

Highlight gateway entrances to our unique districts like Paseo, Asian, Stockyard City, Bricktown, Eastside & Southside etc., we need to examine our city as you would in a colonoscopy. Please forgive the word choice. Impressed with the direction OKC is headed. Clean & beautiful our city; because transit and a sports stadium will be counter image productive if our city looks like the pits.

borchard
07-21-2015, 09:17 AM
My thoughts are thus:
I would love to see an outdoor sports venue built.
It NEEDS to be built somewhere in the downtown/ core to shore area.
I think it needs to be the 20K seat model, so it can be used NOW for soccer (USL/NASL/MLS/US Nat'l team), high school football, small college football, concerts, etc... Building a 40-70K seat stadium now, in hopes of getting NFL in 10-15yrs, would be a mistake IMHO. Build it in such a way that it can be easily expanded, if the need arises.

mugofbeer
07-21-2015, 10:08 PM
Maybe both. Mass trans may take 10+ years of collection before construction starts. A stadium could pacify in the short term. OKC needs a good, expandable stadium

C. B.
07-22-2015, 10:17 AM
Any chance this parking lot could be sold & developed into a SSS?
I dropped in RSL's stadium as a scale reference.
11115

SoonerDave
07-22-2015, 11:30 AM
I have a tough time seeing a return on a 20K-seat stadium. If there's a notion that a large-scale sports venue is needed, you need to go up to a minimum 30-40K seat venue, or one that has some truly unique architectural features that allows for reconfiguration into variable capacities. I am squarely on the side that OKC will *not* be a legitimate NFL target in my lifetime, but given the NCAA's predisposition to approve nearly anyone with the application fee that wants to run a bowl game, you'd have to aim that size to create a credible venue. Beyond that, I *do* think that we at least need to keep MLB possibilities on the map, even I find that likelihood only slightly better than the NFL. I can't fathom that either OSU or OU would trade a home game for an "OKC" home game, either, especially given the sudden softness in CFB attendance in general.

I'm the wrong person to ask about soccer. It's entirely lost on me, although I realize it is increasing in popularity among the younger crowd. I'm just not at all convinced you could consistently populate a 20-25K facility for it.

More broadly, I'm not sure *another* sports facility is a good idea for a MAPS X+1 venture. We kicked off MAPS with the current Bricktown Ballpark; I think selling another such park (for whatever sports) is a tenuous proposition at best.

borchard
07-22-2015, 11:40 AM
I have a tough time seeing a return on a 20K-seat stadium. If there's a notion that a large-scale sports venue is needed, you need to go up to a minimum 30-40K seat venue, or one that has some truly unique architectural features that allows for reconfiguration into variable capacities.
The only example I can think of is Toyota Stadium (formerly Pizza Hut Park in Frisco). It holds 20K and for the last several years it has hosted the NCAA FCS Championship game. They also use it as a stop for Jimmy Buffett every summer.

I am squarely on the side that OKC will *not* be a legitimate NFL target in my lifetime, but given the NCAA's predisposition to approve nearly anyone with the application fee that wants to run a bowl game, you'd have to aim that size to create a credible venue.
I also do NOT think OKC will EVER get an NFL team. I also don't think we'd have a great chance to get a D1 Bowl Game. But D2 is definitely a possiblility.

Beyond that, I *do* think that we at least need to keep MLB possibilities on the map, even I find that likelihood only slightly better than the NFL.
I don't think we have any better chance at baseball

I can't fathom that either OSU or OU would trade a home game for an "OKC" home game, either, especially given the sudden softness in CFB attendance in general. Me neither. But like I said D1 isn't what I think we should shoot for.

Laramie
07-22-2015, 12:41 PM
We enter a different era of sports finance--TV money & advertising is what now drives these events. Tickets sales revenue from seats is the gravy. Look at what the Thunder gets in total ticket sales revenue vs. their share of the NBA's $2.6 billion per year.


The New York Times reports the deal's value at $2.66 billion per year. ESPN's current relationship covering NBA games on television began in 2002, when the network won the rights from NBC. TNT has been covering the NBA since 1988.

NBA extends television deals with ESPN, TNT (http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/11652297/nba-extends-television-deals-espn-tnt)

Sports bring big money to OKC and local businesses | okc.BIZ (http://okc.biz/2014/09/08/cover-story-sports-bring-big-money-to-okc-and-local-business/)

Read an article that cited:
In their second season since moving from Seattle the Thunder made the playoffs, where they were eliminated in the first round by the Lakers. Although the Thunder do not operate their arena, the team still gets roughly $20 million more in premium seating revenue a season from the Oklahoma City Arena than they took in from Key Arena in Seattle.



Forbes current value of the NBA Thunder is $930 million.

Oklahoma City Thunder on the Forbes NBA Team Valuations List (http://www.forbes.com/teams/oklahoma-city-thunder/)

Some will argue about the economic impact of the Thunder on OKC. Just think where this city would be without our NBA franchise; had we not invested in a basic arena structure, where would the Devon Tower be located? Answer: Houston, Texas

OKCisOK4me
07-22-2015, 12:52 PM
I voted no because MAPS shouldn't be about building stadiums anymore. If there are investors for a major league sports team that can honestly see a team doing well here (staying out of the red) then they need to build a stadium on their own.

How many cities have built a stadium with tax dollars hoping to bait a pro franchise (and don't say us with the Ford Center cause that's a given)?

I agree with MAPS IV being solely focused on mass transportation.

Laramie
07-22-2015, 01:05 PM
I voted no because MAPS shouldn't be about building stadiums anymore. If there are investors for a major league sports team that can honestly see a team doing well here (staying out of the red) then they need to build a stadium on their own.

How many cities have built a stadium with tax dollars hoping to bait a pro franchise (and don't say us with the Ford Center cause that's a given)?

I agree with MAPS IV being solely focused on mass transportation.

New York, Los Angeles & Columbus are the only MLS cities that had stadiums built with private funds.


The majority of stadiums used by Major League Soccer teams were built with varying shares of public dollars, according to a stadium background sheet provided by MLS spokesman Dan Courtemanche. But there are a few MLS stadiums built without a public subsidy.

Stadiums built without public money a rarity in U.S. | Las Vegas Review-Journal (http://www.reviewjournal.com/business/stadium/stadiums-built-without-public-money-rarity-us)

Didn't post this in the Development & Buildings section because they would have shredded it without any research. I'm all for transit because it will be the future of our city, a good investment; however, I'd be willing to bet that many of the posters who want transit do not current use the services of mass transit.

bige4ou
07-22-2015, 01:24 PM
Orlando City to privately finance soccer stadium, pay back city - Orlando Sentinel (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/orlando-city-lions/os-orlando-city-soccer-stadium-update-20150529-story.html)

See Orlando's model for getting their team/stadium. Pretty simular to OKC. 100% paid by the team. Still quite a few years for the Energy to get to the point where Orlando was when they began MLS talks but if the ownership has it in their minds that they want to make that a reality then it's possible. I wouldn't think a soccer stadium would have to be part of a Maps in order to happen. Just a strong effort from the Energy ownership to engage strong in the process. I believe this will be in the works before the next Maps gets here anyways. MLS is growing and is already starting to become more and more popular so this would be great for our growing city.

borchard
07-22-2015, 01:44 PM
I voted no because MAPS shouldn't be about building stadiums anymore. If there are investors for a major league sports team that can honestly see a team doing well here (staying out of the red) then they need to build a stadium on their own.

How many cities have built a stadium with tax dollars hoping to bait a pro franchise (and don't say us with the Ford Center cause that's a given)?

I agree with MAPS IV being solely focused on mass transportation.

I guess I disagree with this. I think a MAPS vote that is SOLELY about one issue will almost surely fail. I don't think it matters what that issue is. That is how most of the MAPS votes have succeeded; they are a bundle of projects, with support from people for at least ONE of the items on the list. With MAPS 1 maybe I wasn't really jazzed about the arena, but I REALLY thought we needed a new baseball stadium, then I would vote for the whole package. Or, maybe I saw the river as a giant eyesore that needed to be addressed, but I really didn't care much about baseball, I would have voted for it as well.

Laramie
07-22-2015, 05:08 PM
Good article on Orlando bige4ou:

Orlando already has an MLS franchise. Their current venue the Citrus Bowl is thought to be oversized for what the MLS needs. The Orlando MLS franchise averages 36,911 second to Seattle (40,067); The privately funded 25- to 28,000-seat downtown soccer-specific stadium will be a great investment; Orlando (2,321,418) has a metro with 1 million more residents that OKC. MLS Attendance (http://mlsattendance.blogspot.com/)

The MLS will expand by 4 team by 2020.

Three things you shouldn't expect:


1. Oklahoma City to get one of those 4 franchises because there are too many cities ahead of us in the game.
2. Funk's ownership: Have doubts if they will ever bring MLS to OKC.
3. MLS to enter the OKC market; you will need some kind facility; Taft Stadium (7,500-seats) wouldn't make a temporary home.


https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQIRcn1gzn17okqRdIZq0v1p-SoV3yVyJUTOrwrNH8eYLmhfTJ8Rio Tinto Stadium (SLC - Sandy, Utah): capacity 20,213 - Construction cost $110 million (completed 2008)

Financing for Rio Tinto Stadium (SLC area).

On February 2, 2006, in which 15 percent of the hotel taxes collected in Salt Lake County between July 2007 and 2017, equaling about US $2 Million a year, would be diverted to the project. The bill was passed by the Senate, allowing for the club to announce the commencement of building what was then known as "RSL Stadium".

Put something in place, like a 15,000-20,000 seat facility in downtown/Bricktown/riverfront. You have a better chance for the next wave of expansion which should come around 2020-25; then, like MAPS for HOOPS extension which brought the Thunder you could upgrade the facility.

MLS is the only major league where OKC will have a realistic chance to obtain; our city is diverse, let's plan for the future.

Why not invest $100-$150 million now? Come 2025 (MAPS V), a stadium will cost you in the $200-$300 million range.


I think a MAPS vote that is SOLELY about one issue will almost surely fail. I don't think it matters what that issue is. That is how most of the MAPS votes have succeeded; they are a bundle of projects, with support from people for at least ONE of the items on the list.

You will definitely see the end of MAPS if the MAPS IV initiative is transit only.

okatty
07-22-2015, 05:12 PM
This isn't exactly on topic but I thought it was interesting. Sorry for long post but can't get free link to work.

CLEVELAND — The billionaire owner of the Cleveland Cavaliers, Dan Gilbert, is a lucky man. When LeBron James, his transcendent native son, left for Miami, the owner threw an impressive tantrum, going on about “cowardly betrayal.”
Despite that, James felt the tug of home and returned to Cleveland to revive Gilbert’s moribund franchise. In the N.B.A. finals, James resembled a Sherpa as he strapped a depleted team to his back and tried to drag it to the summit.
Gilbert made a splendid pile of cash off the Return. According to Sports Business Daily and Forbes, the Cavaliers’ revenue jumped by $67 million last season, while team salaries increased by just $15.2 million.
In the off-season, Gilbert dug his fingers into another pile of money, this one made up of taxpayer dollars. A year earlier, Gilbert and his fellow sports billionaires here — Larry Dolan, who owns the Indians, and Jimmy Haslam, who owns the Browns — had worked together to push through a referendum that extended a countywide “sin tax” on cigarettes, beer and liquor.
Over the next 20 years, taxpayers in Cleveland and Cuyahoga County will sluice $262 million into improvements for the city’s arenas and stadiums. This straitened city has already pumped $800 million into its sports stadiums.
Sweet deals for team owners are a distinguishing feature of pro sports capitalism. Costs are socialized, and profits remain private. Cleveland’s owners argue that this is only just: The stadium and the arena are publicly owned, and like any landlord, the city and the county should look after repairs and improvements.
Their logic does not apply more broadly. The team owners took control of the process of auctioning off naming rights for these public stadiums. The Browns sold their stadium’s rights for $100 million to FirstEnergy Corporation; the Indians will get $58 million over 16 years from Progressive Insurance; Gilbert’s home loan business paid a terrific sum to Gilbert’s team to name the place Quicken Loans Arena.
The owners shared not a penny with the hard-pressed city.
The Cleveland Indians have their hearts set on a new sound system. The Browns’ Haslam — whose truck-stop company, Pilot Flying J, just last year paid a $92 million fine to avoid a federal fraud prosecution — has compiled a list of improvements to be funded out of the public purse.
That sports teams, which are active charitable givers, have an umbilical tie to civic identity is not a fanciful notion. That this means that teams are drivers of economic progress, however, is a hallucination.
When James decided to return to Cleveland, city leaders and a few journalists retailed a narrative about L’Effect LeBron. They estimated that his return would pour many tens of millions of dollars into the city and speed the “Cleveland Renaissance.”
Cleveland has charming, leafy neighborhoods, fine museums and theaters and splendid lake views. More college-educated young adults are moving downtown, and there is indisputably more investment, building cranes and vibrancy to be found in Cleveland than a decade ago. At the same time, in the last month for which figures are available, Cuyahoga County’s job growth rate was 0.0.
The city’s poverty rate hovers near 37 percent, and the infant mortality rate is 13.0 per thousand births, compared with about 4.0 in New York City, which has no shortage of poverty.
Public schools have absorbed cut after cut.
I called George Zeller, who has analyzed the economy here for decades. He declined to talk renaissance, saying no such animal existed. “The theory that all of these sports teams are producing a gigantic boom is completely false,” he said.
Yet sin-tax dollars tumble into the hands of billionaires who employ millionaires.
The day after the end of the N.B.A. finals, I walked into the Cleveland office of Peter Pattakos. An ebullient lawyer, a sports fan and an Akron native, he helped lead the battle against the sin-tax extension. Ask a question, and he’s off at a sprint.
“It’s outrageous that these are public entities and we let these billionaires derive untold profits,” he said. “They kept saying, ‘Keep Cleveland strong,’ with the implied threat that they’d leave town if we didn’t underwrite their stadiums.”
The anti-sin-tax campaign was a peasant crusade. Pattakos’s ragtag band suggested a $3 surcharge on sports tickets. The owners rolled their collective eyes.
“Proposing to punish Cuyahoga County families and sports fans by imposing a new, large ticket tax to pay for major repairs,” the owners complained in a news release, “is terribly flawed.”
A surcharge, they complained, would make it even more difficult for families to buy tickets. That argument has an out-of-body quality, as the owners set the prices. (The Cavaliers will raise ticket prices 15 percent next year, the first such hike in five years.)
The teams’ owners and supporters outspent opponents, $3 million to $30,000. The vote to extend the sin tax, however, was not a blowout. Voters in the city of Cleveland rejected it; suburban voters carried the election.
Pattakos motioned for me to follow him, and we clattered downstairs. He led a walking tour of the Warehouse District. We passed handsome restaurants and bars, and lots of for-rent signs on vacant storefronts. Job losses are like a river eroding the shore.
“You’re telling me we should spend our tax money fixing up stadiums?” he asked, over his shoulder.
The Gateway Economic Development Corporation of Greater Cleveland acts as the landlord for the basketball arena and the Indians’ field. (The Cavaliers and the Indians pay Gateway’s operating expenses, about $3 million per year.) I placed phone calls and sent detailed emails to its executive director, Todd Greathouse. The next peep I hear from that office will be the first.
In editorializing for the sin tax, The Cleveland Plain Dealer argued that the city had a landlord’s responsibility to pay for upkeep. Left unexplained was why the landlord had never tried to renegotiate terms with ever more wealthy teams.
(Note: The Indians offer a sort of exception. They rank next to last in the American League in attendance. The night I attended a game, the crowd had the feel of an extra-large backyard barbecue, and 25 percent of the fans seemed to be rooting for the visiting Chicago Cubs.)
Over the winter, the Cavaliers’ emissaries arrived with a new proposal. They wanted locals to split the cost — in addition to the sin-tax dollars — of overhauling their arena. Adam Silver, the N.B.A. commissioner, added his voice, saying that the league would love to have the All-Star Game in Cleveland, if only its burghers would ante up again for the billionaire owner.
The Cavaliers’ chief executive says the overhaul would add to Cleveland’s “economic momentum.”
To be a wealthy sports owner is to feel no burn of embarrassment.
Email: powellm@nytimes.com
:ot:

Dustin
07-22-2015, 06:19 PM
MAPS IV should be for mass transit and general transportation.

borchard
07-22-2015, 06:57 PM
MAPS IV should be for mass transit and general transportation.

And honestly if that's all it contains, it will fail

Snowman
07-22-2015, 07:19 PM
MAPS IV should be for mass transit and general transportation.

If by general transportation you mean city roads and bridges, that usually happens with GO bonds, which the last round was more than thus sum of all MAPS3 funds before inflation.

SoonerDave
07-23-2015, 12:48 PM
And honestly if that's all it contains, it will fail

If you want to know why MAPS3 succeeded, it was because TPTB learned this very lesson: you never make a city-wide notion like MAPS about one single issue. You may well have only one or two primary notions in mind, but to get it passed, you must logroll a *bunch* of things, each of which draws some support that, in turn, gets enough voters out to create what amounts to the electoral equivalent of a quorum.

OKC pols knew waaaay in advance that a MAPS3 based solely on a convention center had virtually zero chance of passing, even though that was the driving force behind MAPS3. But they also knew that things like senior centers and railway and other notions each had their own level of support (along with the other items), and, voila you have MAPS3 passing. In a way, it's almost a populist version of how Congress gets what we'd call "pork barrel" legislation passed; the legislation may stink, but if you glue a few roses to the barrel, you turn a few of those nays into yays.

Not saying that's right or wrong or whether MAPS should or shouldn't have been done that way; the political reality is that's precisely how it was done....

warreng88
07-25-2015, 12:30 PM
Yeah, if MAPS IV contains only mass transit, it will fail. It has to include a few other things to appeal to everyone, not just people who want mass transit. People are going to complain that roads are too bad and we need to fix those before focusing on mass transit (even though focusing on mass transit would cause for less cars to be on the road, thus negating to need to fix the roads every few years). So, with the GO Bond coming due in 2017, that will need to be coupled with MAPS IV to include road improvements and I would guess bus system/stop improvements, more sidewalks, trails, etc.

mkjeeves
07-25-2015, 01:32 PM
Unequivocally, no.

zookeeper
07-25-2015, 07:34 PM
No way. Municipalities have long had interests in funding streets, transit alternatives, public works, etc. To stretch that to really believe it's a public responsibility to build stadiums is to have lost all perspective on the world and what is, and is not, the responsibility of towns and cities. I know there can be differing opinions, but I truly don't understand how some think it's the taxpayers job to build stadiums. Done all the time? So are a lot of other bad things. We shouldn't follow bad examples no matter how many times it is done.

bige4ou
07-27-2015, 12:47 PM
Oklahoma City to Study Feasibility of Future MLS Stadium - Athletic Business (http://www.athleticbusiness.com/more-news/oklahoma-city-to-study-feasibility-of-future-mls-stadium.html)

Pete has anything ever came of this?

Laramie
07-27-2015, 08:14 PM
...I know there can be differing opinions, but I truly don't understand how some think it's the taxpayers job to build stadiums. Done all the time? So are a lot of other bad things. We shouldn't follow bad examples no matter how many times it is done.

The concern we all have as taxpayers; how is our money being spent...

We built:


Stockyard Coliseum: Oklahoma City Warrior (ice hockey), Rodeos, Wrestling, Boxing were major tenants
Civic Center Music Hall: the Oklahoma City Symphony was its major tenant. Used also for the circus, musicals, conventions...
All Sports Stadium: the OKC 89ers were the major tenants.
State Fair Arena: The OKC Blazers & National Finals Rodeo were key tenants. Used also for Ice Capades & State Fair Rodeo, PBR...
Myriad Convention Center: The OKC Stars, Barons (ice hockey), OKC Wranglers, OKC Yard Dawgz, Oklahoma Defenders (arena football),
...Oklahoma Coyotes (roller hockey); yet the primary function was a convention center.
Bricktown Ballpark: primary tenant (minor league baseball)
Chesapeake Energy Arena: OKC Thunder has been the major tenant.

We are very fortunate to have an NBA franchise in our community because we are the 42nd largest metro area, yet we possess 1 of 30 NBA franchises.

As a firm believer in some form of OKC rail transit, it won't solve our transit problems. It's a step in the right direction, street cable cars will be a 'quality of life' vehicle more so than the people it will actually transport on that 4 plus miles of track.

Why would a multipurpose football/soccer stadium in the downtown core area be any different from other 'quality of life' facilities we have built?

SoonerDave
07-28-2015, 07:20 AM
No way. Municipalities have long had interests in funding streets, transit alternatives, public works, etc. To stretch that to really believe it's a public responsibility to build stadiums is to have lost all perspective on the world and what is, and is not, the responsibility of towns and cities. I know there can be differing opinions, but I truly don't understand how some think it's the taxpayers job to build stadiums. Done all the time? So are a lot of other bad things. We shouldn't follow bad examples no matter how many times it is done.

It is most certainly not the taxpayers' job to build stadiums, but it is their civic privilege to do so under the democratic process if they so choose.

If a private group can make a case that it is in the long-term best interests of a municipality to fund a structure, be it a stadium, ballpark, or flagpole, then by all means those voters should have the right to do so.

The biggest mistake we can see from a municipality failing to see beyond its blinders with regard to the financing of a stadium is no more than three hours south - where Jerry Jones proposed what amounted to a renaissance of the Fair Park area by building JerryWorld and a comprehensive retail district around Fair Park at the location of the current Cotton Bowl, provided the city of Dallas would fund a share of it. The blinders-on leadership at the time said exactly what was offered here; there was No Stinking Way the City should be subsidizing a project for a billionaire, so Jones pulled up stakes and built his stadium in Arlington. Now Dallas has since realized the Cotton Bowl is a crumbling structure, and put together funding for lipstick-on-a-pig improvements to at least give the place the illusion of currency, while the area around Fair Park continues to represent some of the worst parts of the Dallas area.

This is the essence of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face; Jones had laid out a plan that would have reinvigorated the Fair Park are for the next fifty years, but the shortsighted notion that "We Just Ain't Gonna Help No Stinking Billionaire" prevailed, and FP remains a near-blighted area with almost no hope of renewal. And guess what? Jerry has his stadium, Arlington is reaping the benefits, and Dallas is left with its crumbling, lipstick-on-a-pig stadium and the still-awful Fair Park area.

The investment Dallas could have returned jobs, tax revenue, and tourism to that part of Dallas for generations in ways they'll never know. (As an aside, I heard from some Dallas-area folks in that time that indicated to me there was no love lost for the city leadership at that time for lots of other reasons, and there was considerable sentiment in favor of getting the NFL's Cowboys back "home" from Irving, but that sentiment and support for the project fell on deaf ears...)

This isn't to say that OKC should or should not pre-emptively fund (or not fund) a municipal stadium of some point. The point is the long-term value of such a facility should be weighed, and if it provides a realistic, reasonably demonstrable benefit, the voters should have the privilege of approving a tax to support it.

The politics of unilateral dogma about "the city can't fund these kinds of projects EVER!!!!!" are from a bygone era. And I say that as a card-carying, Reagan-era, supply-side conservative. There are examples of bad (horrendous) public funding, like Cleveland and it's NFL stadium, and the idiotic American Indian Cultural Center right here in OKC, and there are examples of good funding, like MAPS. The point is to learn from those bits of history going forward, not cover our head in a shroud and say "NEVER!!!!"

If the public *and* the private sector can benefit from it, we should always have the option of letting the voters make the final choice. Under the old guard notion of "the public shouldn't finance stadiums," the Bricktown Ballpark would be a dream that would never have moved from paper to reality, and OKC's downtown renaissance almost certainly would never have happened.

As I noted earlier in this thread, I don't support this stadium project because I don't believe in the long-term viability or supportability of it. Not because "we shouldn't be spending public money on a stadium." Yes, I know we've got road and infrastructure issues to deal with, but those are neither mitigated nor militated by the notion of a stadium project.

Throckmorton
07-28-2015, 08:18 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcwJt4bcnXs

David
07-28-2015, 09:26 AM
As good as John Oliver's videos usually are, I think it's pretty backwards if you apply the logic to OKC. The city isn't having its arm twisted by an owner group to pay up for a new stadium, this entire thread is citizen speculation about what could be built.

Maybe in a decade or two we'll see that behavior with the Thunder, but not enough of the city even begins to care enough about soccer for similar pressure from the Energy to have comparable weight.

SoonerDave
07-28-2015, 10:13 AM
As good as John Oliver's videos usually are, I think it's pretty backwards if you apply the logic to OKC. The city isn't having its arm twisted by an owner group to pay up for a new stadium, this entire thread is citizen speculation about what could be built.

Maybe in a decade or two we'll see that behavior with the Thunder, but not enough of the city even begins to care enough about soccer for similar pressure from the Energy to have comparable weight.

Considering the Peake is going through its second round of big renovations already, and just passed the 13-year anniversary, I'd think it might not take a decade for the "new arena" rumbles to start. It will be well after the KD/RW era has passed, and an entirely new leadership structure will almost certainly in place at the city level by then, so it will be anyone's guess how that all plays out.

Jersey Boss
07-28-2015, 10:23 AM
The Cowboy stadium is another example of transferring wealth to the wealthiest from the populace at large. Not every team goes this route as contrasted with the pro football teams in NY. This article explains the Jerry World stadium and how it came to be and how much it costs us taxpayers. Yes it costs us in Oklahoma as well.
In Stadium Building Spree, U.S. Taxpayers Lose $4 Billion - Bloomberg Business (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-09-05/in-stadium-building-spree-u-s-taxpayers-lose-4-billion)

The Giants partnered with the New York Jets to build a privately financed $1.6 billion stadium in suburban New Jersey, with each team borrowing $650 million. While the Cowboys haven’t won a Super Bowl since 1996, the Giants have won two in four years.

Like the Cowboys’ facility, MetLife Stadium contains martini bars, field-level clubs with leather chairs and HD video screens. The Giants and Jets also landed a naming rights partner, securing a 25-year deal with MetLife Inc. worth as much as $20 million annually, according to the New York Times.

Packwood, the former Senate Finance chairman, calls MetLife Stadium “the most expensive stadium built without public money” and said the private financing shows “it can be done.”

“You come back to this thin line of, ‘What is a legitimate municipal government undertaking?’” Packwood said. While he draws the line at sports venues, he said too many voters and local politicians don’t. “If the owner can get away with the public putting up part of the money, he’s going to do it.”

Laramie
07-28-2015, 10:40 AM
Good find, Jersey Boss:


“It’s part of the corruption of the federal tax system,” said James Runzheimer, 67, an Arlington lawyer who led opponents of public borrowing for the structure known locally as “Jerry’s World.” “It’s use of government funds to subsidize activity that the private sector can finance on its own.”

Good thing we're not discussing a $1 billion venue. MAPS IV will probably bring in $800 million over 7 year extension (no sales tax increase). We're talking about $100 million for a stadium which represents about 1/8 of that pie (12.5%); transit will probably be the center piece.

Taxpayers will pay one way or another. If it's privately developed they'll want TIF money. There's no way around it. If the city builds it through bonds, sales tax hike or extension, there will be less restriction or its use than with a privately developed venue.

Would you want the NFL Cowboys in OKC (?) (LMAO); that was the dream child of Clay Bennett & Aubrey McClendon as they grew up: to purchase the Dallas Cowboys and relocate them to Oklahoma City.

borchard
07-28-2015, 10:56 AM
It is most certainly not the taxpayers' job to build stadiums, but it is their civic privilege to do so under the democratic process if they so choose.

If a private group can make a case that it is in the long-term best interests of a municipality to fund a structure, be it a stadium, ballpark, or flagpole, then by all means those voters should have the right to do so.

The biggest mistake we can see from a municipality failing to see beyond its blinders with regard to the financing of a stadium is no more than three hours south - where Jerry Jones proposed what amounted to a renaissance of the Fair Park area by building JerryWorld and a comprehensive retail district around Fair Park at the location of the current Cotton Bowl, provided the city of Dallas would fund a share of it. The blinders-on leadership at the time said exactly what was offered here; there was No Stinking Way the City should be subsidizing a project for a billionaire, so Jones pulled up stakes and built his stadium in Arlington. Now Dallas has since realized the Cotton Bowl is a crumbling structure, and put together funding for lipstick-on-a-pig improvements to at least give the place the illusion of currency, while the area around Fair Park continues to represent some of the worst parts of the Dallas area.

This is the essence of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face; Jones had laid out a plan that would have reinvigorated the Fair Park are for the next fifty years, but the shortsighted notion that "We Just Ain't Gonna Help No Stinking Billionaire" prevailed, and FP remains a near-blighted area with almost no hope of renewal. And guess what? Jerry has his stadium, Arlington is reaping the benefits, and Dallas is left with its crumbling, lipstick-on-a-pig stadium and the still-awful Fair Park area.

The investment Dallas could have returned jobs, tax revenue, and tourism to that part of Dallas for generations in ways they'll never know. (As an aside, I heard from some Dallas-area folks in that time that indicated to me there was no love lost for the city leadership at that time for lots of other reasons, and there was considerable sentiment in favor of getting the NFL's Cowboys back "home" from Irving, but that sentiment and support for the project fell on deaf ears...)

This isn't to say that OKC should or should not pre-emptively fund (or not fund) a municipal stadium of some point. The point is the long-term value of such a facility should be weighed, and if it provides a realistic, reasonably demonstrable benefit, the voters should have the privilege of approving a tax to support it.

The politics of unilateral dogma about "the city can't fund these kinds of projects EVER!!!!!" are from a bygone era. And I say that as a card-carying, Reagan-era, supply-side conservative. There are examples of bad (horrendous) public funding, like Cleveland and it's NFL stadium, and the idiotic American Indian Cultural Center right here in OKC, and there are examples of good funding, like MAPS. The point is to learn from those bits of history going forward, not cover our head in a shroud and say "NEVER!!!!"

If the public *and* the private sector can benefit from it, we should always have the option of letting the voters make the final choice. Under the old guard notion of "the public shouldn't finance stadiums," the Bricktown Ballpark would be a dream that would never have moved from paper to reality, and OKC's downtown renaissance almost certainly would never have happened.

As I noted earlier in this thread, I don't support this stadium project because I don't believe in the long-term viability or supportability of it. Not because "we shouldn't be spending public money on a stadium." Yes, I know we've got road and infrastructure issues to deal with, but those are neither mitigated nor militated by the notion of a stadium project.

Absolutely agree! And to point out the idiocy of Dallas City Council even more.... It was reported that after Jones built Cowboys Stadium in Irving, and then applied to host the Super Bowl, that the City of Dallas reportedly DEMANDED their share of the pre-game parties, festivals, etc... that go along with a Super Bowl

SoonerDave
07-28-2015, 11:21 AM
Absolutely agree! And to point out the idiocy of Dallas City Council even more.... It was reported that after Jones built Cowboys Stadium in Irving, and then applied to host the Super Bowl, that the City of Dallas reportedly DEMANDED their share of the pre-game parties, festivals, etc... that go along with a Super Bowl

Reminds me of the old Mother Goose (?) story about the momma bear who wanted her kids to help make bread, asking something along the lines of help to reap the wheat, grind the wheat into flour, and mix up the dough, and they all said "no," but once it was all done, they were more than ready to beg for "their fair share." And mom said "no." :) These days, that'd get the momma bear (or goose or whatever story it was) labeled a "1% er", thrown in jail, and excoriated on social media :)

borchard
07-28-2015, 11:31 AM
Thought this was interesting:

Atlanta mayor offers Hawks public money to replace 16-year-old arena, but only if it?s ?reasonable? | Field of Schemes (http://www.fieldofschemes.com/2015/07/27/9537/atlanta-mayor-offers-hawks-public-money-to-replace-16-year-old-arena-but-only-if-its-reasonable/#comments)
Atlanta mayor offers Hawks public money to replace 16-year-old arena, but only if it’s “reasonable”
Posted on July 27, 2015 by Neil deMause
Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed says he’s met with the new owners of the Hawks about their stated desire for a new or renovated arena, and any hopes you may have had that he was going to tell them, “Fine, you want to replace your 16-year-old arena, do it on your own dime,” you can forget about that:

Reed said he’s met once with the team’s new owners and repeated his willingness to consider a deal involving the use public funds. The mayor first indicated that option last year in the wake of controversy involving the team’s previous leadership.

“What I’m willing to do is come to the table with a plan that makes sense and is fair to the people of Atlanta,” Reed said. “I’m not closed to participating in a reasonable plan to make sure that the Hawks remain in the city and that’s what I expressed in our meeting.”

Mayor Reed has a bit of a weird history with sports subsidies, being a prime mover behind giving hundreds of millions of public dollars to the Falcons for their new stadium, then declaring offering the Braves money to keep their from moving to Cobb County to be too rich for his blood, then offering $150 million for the Hawks to extend their lease when they weren’t even threatening to break it. There’s also the little matter that the Hawks couldn’t leave without paying off about $100 million in remaining bonds on the Philips Arena (and couldn’t leave before 2018 without paying an additional $75 million in penalties), but that’s apparently not going to stop Reed from leading with his wallet.

Possible sites for a new arena would be the Atlanta Civic Center (the current filming site for Family Feud, according to Wikipedia), a rehab of the existing Philips Arena (which the Hawks own), or a third, undisclosed site. Total cost: Who knows?

Prediction: This is not going to end well.

SoonerDave
07-28-2015, 11:42 AM
The Cowboy stadium is another example of transferring wealth to the wealthiest from the populace at large. Not every team goes this route as contrasted with the pro football teams in NY. This article explains the Jerry World stadium and how it came to be and how much it costs us taxpayers. Yes it costs us in Oklahoma as well.
In Stadium Building Spree, U.S. Taxpayers Lose $4 Billion - Bloomberg Business (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-09-05/in-stadium-building-spree-u-s-taxpayers-lose-4-billion)

Perhaps its splitting hairs, but I think its important to point out a subtlety in that headline. If you or I tell someone "I just lost $100", you'd think (naturally) that, somehow, $100 had fallen out of my wallet or otherwise escaped my ownership. That's not what's at hand here.

I'm no financial wizard, but I'm reasonably sure I understand that this $4B figure tossed around is the estimated difference in US treasury revenue *not* collected in the form of taxes on investment interest under the presumption the investors who purchased the tax-exempt bonds would have inevitably bought non-tax-exempt investments had JerryWorld never been built.

If those same investors just found other similarly tax-exempt bonds, of which there are plenty, and presumably at similar rates, the actual "loss" in treasury receipts is closer to zero. And if the assumption is that all Eville Rich People are out to maximize every buck they have, surely they would have sunk their money into some other similarly tax-free investment.

The reality is the $4B is money that never existed in the first place, but makes a great headline when it gores a favorite ox.

Now, I"m not saying that the goal to limit public financing of stadiums isn't a bad idea, but let that philosophy stand on its own. Don't manufacture inflammatory rhetoric to bolster the case.

gopokes88
07-28-2015, 01:32 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcwJt4bcnXs

He's overall right, but if you don't think spending the $200 million on the Peake was the right thing to do for OKC then I dk what to tell you. I moved here simply because of the Thunder. The thunder gives this city an energy, something to be proud of, an identity other then a bombing and tornadoes, and something everyone in the city rallies around.

Sure we're the exception to the rule, but that video doesn't apply to OKC in this case.

zookeeper
07-28-2015, 02:45 PM
@SoonerDave: I only gave my opinion - as you did. I said I understand there are other opinions, we don't all have to agree about this. Some of us believe, or not, in things on principle only. And that includes no matter how the mathematics work out.

kwhey
07-28-2015, 04:18 PM
As good as John Oliver's videos usually are, I think it's pretty backwards if you apply the logic to OKC. The city isn't having its arm twisted by an owner group to pay up for a new stadium, this entire thread is citizen speculation about what could be built.

Maybe in a decade or two we'll see that behavior with the Thunder, but not enough of the city even begins to care enough about soccer for similar pressure from the Energy to have comparable weight.

If you don't think the Thunder won't start doing that when they want a new arena, you are delusional. You want a new stadium/arena, build your own damn home.

SoonerDave
07-28-2015, 07:22 PM
@SoonerDave: I only gave my opinion - as you did. I said I understand there are other opinions, we don't all have to agree about this. Some of us believe, or not, in things on principle only. And that includes no matter how the mathematics work out.

That's fine, but understand, too, that when the mathematics are offered in support of a opinion, and the math is used in what could reasonably be termed a disingenuous way, it should be called out, too. And when the cold light of reality starts to expose the principle as flawed, there comes a time when standing on principle becomes cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. I get the principle of not giving a billionaire free civic money. I also understand the principle of that billionaire becoming a billionaire by virtue of knowing how to make money - and if that billionaire asks me to join a venture with him and it stands to benefit an entire city for decades, standing on the principle and refusing to compromise it becomes the very essence of a pyrrhic victory.

the michigander
07-28-2015, 08:07 PM
For mass transportation to succeed here its has to be metro wide from Midwest city to Yukon and norman to Edmond. It cant go thru okc then no stops in Bethany or ward acres for instance.

Jersey Boss
07-28-2015, 08:16 PM
That's fine, but understand, too, that when the mathematics are offered in support of a opinion, and the math is used in what could reasonably be termed a disingenuous way, it should be called out, too. And when the cold light of reality starts to expose the principle as flawed, there comes a time when standing on principle becomes cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. I get the principle of not giving a billionaire free civic money. I also understand the principle of that billionaire becoming a billionaire by virtue of knowing how to make money - and if that billionaire asks me to join a venture with him and it stands to benefit an entire city for decades, standing on the principle and refusing to compromise it becomes the very essence of a pyrrhic victory.
Show me the numbers how this transfer of public monies benefits an entire city for decades. Sure some restaurants and hotels could possibly see an uptick, but why should tax payers be showing favor to a couple of industries? Entertainment budgets for most families are rather static. Just because a sporting team graces us with their presence does not mean that those families will get raises to cover the expense of going to the game. Instead of going to the movies they go to a game. So the local economy sees no net gain as the tax revenue stays static. Additionally with the expense incurred by the populace of the initial investment comes the additional public expenses of more police, more transit, and possibly more roads. I don't see Bill Warren with his hand out looking for tax payer funded theaters. How does a city recoup the expense of the money given to your favorite billionaire if it comes at the expense of other forms of taxable entertainment?

HOT ROD
07-29-2015, 03:07 AM
I agree as others have stated, that MAPS IV should be transit and beautification focused only. This would give the city the next logical boost in infrastructure putting a huge chunk of cash to really make a significant statement and investment in its transit offerings.

I actually don't want any other projects for MAPS IV other than Transit (Streetcar expansion in downtown/core, Commuter Rail and Bus [with Suburb participation], and significantly expanded and enhanced city bus and trolleys), transit centers/park n rides/stations, bike trails, sidewalk completion, street lighting, placemaking, and freeway beautification (I think the state needs to participate in this as well). Can you imagine a 5-year $700M-$900M Transit MAPS and what that could fund, and maybe some more TIGER Federal dollars? Maybe-MAYBE light rail from downtown to and along NW Expressway could be another route if that is cost effective.

I think MAPS V could be a stadium initiative, perhaps also a cc expansion then unless they do a Maps 3.5 before MAPS IV for that and perhaps the Riverpark and Senior Centers (you know, a do-it right MAPS III for a few more years collection).

SoonerDave
07-29-2015, 07:07 AM
]Show me the numbers how this transfer of public monies benefits an entire city for decades[/B]. Sure some restaurants and hotels could possibly see an uptick, but why should tax payers be showing favor to a couple of industries?

I am referring to the specific plan that Jones had laid out for Fair Park/Dallas. The plan wasn't just to rebuild the Cotton Bowl, but also as I understand it, to build an extensive retail/entertainment district in and around the Fair Park area that is more or less a blighted waste right now. I may be oversimplifying things, but my simple brain says more retail and more entertainment translates to more jobs, more retail revenue, and more tax revenue for the city - and that retail district would have endured during the offseason for generations - just as MAPS and the ballpark was the seed for reinvigorating downtown. But I guess all the MAPS success is a fraud, and there's been no revenue benefit as a result.


]Entertainment budgets for most families are rather static. Just because a sporting team graces us with their presence does not mean that those families will get raises to cover the expense of going to the game. Instead of going to the movies they go to a game. So the local economy sees no net gain as the tax revenue stays static. Additionally with the expense incurred by the populace of the initial investment comes the additional public expenses of more police, more transit, and possibly more roads. I don't see Bill Warren with his hand out looking for tax payer funded theaters. How does a city recoup the expense of the money given to your favorite billionaire if it comes at the expense of other forms of taxable entertainment?

That presumes that the natural growth of ANY city won't necessitate the same thing - that's a strawman causation argument that doesn't even pass the sniff test. On that basis, we should prohibit ANY kind of growth on the fear that success might require more infrastructure!! Gasp!!

Kudos to Bill Warren for not looking for a handout. But comparing Warren to a billion-dollar NFL franchise is like comparing a fly swatter to an atomic bomb.

Keep in mind that I, in general, don't like the notion of giving civic money to private investors. I get that. But I'm not so hard-over on the concept that I can turn a blind eye to reasonable proposals that do exactly that. Perhaps the old notion of the exception proving the rule applies here.

We're obviously on opposite sides on this, and that's fine; c'est la vie. And I will admit that I've let the discussion veer off course away from an OKC stadium to one about JerryWorld, so in that vein I'll apologize and not keep pushing this drift beyond this post. In a nutshell, I'm simply offering the notion that we sometimes *have* to at least listen to proposals that might offend our reactive sensibilities.

betts
07-29-2015, 08:01 AM
I voted no because I think we now need to focus on transit. I know there's a MAPS for neighborhoods push, but really, the best thing we can do for our neighborhoods as a city is link them with public transit, IMO.

I do think leisure time activities are a great place for improvements, but significantly improved transit will move us far further forward as a city than a sports arena.....at this point. I think the Chesapeake Arena project, with hindsight, gave us a massive push. But a second sports stadium would not have the dramatic impact that the first did

David
07-29-2015, 09:30 AM
If you don't think the Thunder won't start doing that when they want a new arena, you are delusional. You want a new stadium/arena, build your own damn home.

I literally addressed that in the post you quoted: Maybe in a decade or two we'll see that behavior with the Thunder.

Last I checked with the delusions they told me I was fine, so I'm pretty sure I'm not delusional.

Laramie
07-29-2015, 10:22 AM
We did it for OKC's Lincoln Park Zoo funded by a dedicated 1/8 cent sales tax approved by voters in 1990 ; so why not a permanent 1 cent sales tax collection (MAPS) for capital improvements fund budget?

gopokes88
07-29-2015, 03:00 PM
If you don't think the Thunder won't start doing that when they want a new arena, you are delusional. You want a new stadium/arena, build your own damn home.

The consequences of losing the thunder would be enormous. The city would lose stature, income (the thunder players put $100,000,000 in earnings into our economy and pull in revenue from other places as well), and it would lose something that makes it special. If we had 3-4 pro teams losing one wouldn't be devastating but losing the only one we have would be beyond depressing. Historically, if a city only has one team they will fight to keep it. Look at Sacramento.

Should OKC pay for all of it? No, but should we tell them to go take a hike? No. We spend money on public art because it increases quality of life, the thunder improves quality of life in OKC.

gopokes88
07-29-2015, 03:06 PM
I voted no because I think we now need to focus on transit. I know there's a MAPS for neighborhoods push, but really, the best thing we can do for our neighborhoods as a city is link them with public transit, IMO.

I do think leisure time activities are a great place for improvements, but significantly improved transit will move us far further forward as a city than a sports arena.....at this point. I think the Chesapeake Arena project, with hindsight, gave us a massive push. But a second sports stadium would not have the dramatic impact that the first did

I agree with this, sorta.

Just build a stadium to have one? I'd do it but I like stuff like that. I'm not expecting it to be anything near the peake. However, if we were told have X stadium in place by X date and you will be awarded an MLS team then we absolutely do it. MLS will be the next major sports league and I think will eventually become the #3 league. (football and basketball are too big and too American to catch up too) Getting in on the near ground floor of the mls would pay massive dividends in the future.

I'm surprised teams haven't started writing in permanent exit fees if the team leaves. IE
Thunder wants a new arena.
City says ok, but you will owe us a $150 million exit fee plus inflation should the team ever be relocated. They can't really hold you hostage anymore but they do get their arena.

borchard
07-29-2015, 04:07 PM
I voted no because I think we now need to focus on transit. I know there's a MAPS for neighborhoods push, but really, the best thing we can do for our neighborhoods as a city is link them with public transit, IMO.

I do think leisure time activities are a great place for improvements, but significantly improved transit will move us far further forward as a city than a sports arena.....at this point. I think the Chesapeake Arena project, with hindsight, gave us a massive push. But a second sports stadium would not have the dramatic impact that the first did

The reason MAPS has been so successful IMHO is because it has been so broad-based in it's scope. We didn't do MAPS JUST for the arena. We did MAPS for:
The arena
The baseball stadium
The canal
The river
The Fairgrounds
The whitewater complex
Central Park
Senior Centers
etc...
etc...

A MAPS ballot with ONE item on it, no matter what THAT item is, will fail. And it probably should, for being so narrowly focused.
What if MAPS IV was for:

Extending the light rail line,
a soccer/football stadium,
greater walk-ability for the city,
(Your pet project here).

Would people vote for it then? Yes

kwhey
07-29-2015, 05:44 PM
The consequences of losing the thunder would be enormous. The city would lose stature, income (the thunder players put $100,000,000 in earnings into our economy and pull in revenue from other places as well), and it would lose something that makes it special. If we had 3-4 pro teams losing one wouldn't be devastating but losing the only one we have would be beyond depressing. Historically, if a city only has one team they will fight to keep it. Look at Sacramento.

Should OKC pay for all of it? No, but should we tell them to go take a hike? No. We spend money on public art because it increases quality of life, the thunder improves quality of life in OKC.

So you support corporate welfare? That is what that is when a sports franchise bullies a city into building them an arena/stadium. But since we are all about giving money to billionaires, how come people don't get into the games for free. After all, we used our money to build it, so it is part ours. Free games for everybody!!

Jersey Boss
07-29-2015, 06:51 PM
The consequences of losing the thunder would be enormous. The city would lose stature, income (the thunder players put $100,000,000 in earnings into our economy and pull in revenue from other places as well), and it would lose something that makes it special. If we had 3-4 pro teams losing one wouldn't be devastating but losing the only one we have would be beyond depressing. Historically, if a city only has one team they will fight to keep it. Look at Sacramento.

Should OKC pay for all of it? No, but should we tell them to go take a hike? No. We spend money on public art because it increases quality of life, the thunder improves quality of life in OKC.

Public art is far more accesible to the public than NBA tickets are. Additionally the museums do not dictate that only one artist(franchise) can exhibit the public art. Bennet, Sinclair, et al. are in a better position to pay for their operating plant than artists are. It is a losing proposition that benefits a very small % of the metro population.

Laramie
07-29-2015, 08:07 PM
So you support corporate welfare? That is what that is when a sports franchise bullies a city into building them an arena/stadium. But since we are all about giving money to billionaires, how come people don't get into the games for free. After all, we used our money to build it, so it is part ours. Free games for everybody!!


Thunder lease agreement (then Ford Center) with SMG in 2008:


Revenue Year One Estimated Revenue
Arena Rent $ 1,640,000
+ Naming Rights Payment $ 409,000
+ Practice Facility Rent $ 100,000
= $ 2,149,000

Rent

The Thunder pay $1,640,000 in annual Arena Rent ($40,000 per game) for forty-one (41) regular season NBA home games. Additional Rent of $40,000 is to be paid for each preseason and postseason home game. Rent is subject to periodic CPI adjustments, capped at 3% annually. The Thunder also pay an annual Practice Facility Rent of $100,000. Sect. 2(a)(i) & (iii), pg. 2
The Thunder pay game expenses to the amount of $28,000 per home game no later than fifteen (15) days after the end of the calendar month. The Thunder also remit naming rights revenues to SMG in the amount of $409,000 in quarterly installments. Sect. 4.1, pg. 2930

License Fee

The Thunder will remit to SMG $12,000 as a license fee for each home game played. Sect. 4.1.3, pg. 2930

Source: https://www.okc.gov/fordcenter/ArenaUseLicenseAgreementMemo.pdf

Good read: MAPS, Sonicsgate, And The Oklahoma City Thunder http://www.welcometoloudcity.com/2015/7/3/8616529/oklahoma-city-thunder-MAPS-seattle-sonicsgatehttp://

betts
07-29-2015, 08:41 PM
So you support corporate welfare? That is what that is when a sports franchise bullies a city into building them an arena/stadium. But since we are all about giving money to billionaires, how come people don't get into the games for free. After all, we used our money to build it, so it is part ours. Free games for everybody!!

How much of the $425 million purchase price for the team did you or citizens of OKC provide? Should the city, in years when the team loses money, be required to reimburse the owners for their losses? Does the city receive no benefits from having a team here, in terms of not only tax revenue, but also people being willing to stay here/move here because quality of life has improved with the Thunder presence? Should a city not spend its money to improve quality of life for its citizens?

Laramie
07-29-2015, 10:25 PM
Public art is far more accesible to the public than NBA tickets are. Additionally the museums do not dictate that only one artist(franchise) can exhibit the public art. Bennet, Sinclair, et al. are in a better position to pay for their operating plant than artists are. It is a losing proposition that benefits a very small % of the metro population.

What does accessibility have to do with it? There's great art throughout the city (museums, monuments, buildings, facades...)

Tell us which propositions benefit the city, outside the basics: Utilities (Water & garbage), Transportation, Street Maintenance & Pubic Safety (Police & Fire departments)?

OKC Thunder (The Professional Basketball Club, LLC) is valued at $930 million (13th among 30 NBA franchises): The Business Of Basketball - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/nba-valuations/#page:2_sort:0_direction:asc_search:)


You don't want to lose a billion dollar high profile corporation like the NBA Thunder that advertises Oklahoma City as apart of its brand 41 nights on the road, 8-20 nationally televised games annually. The economic impact, publicity & notoriety afforded Oklahoma City through the NBA Thunder is immeasurable.

kwhey
07-30-2015, 08:19 AM
How much of the $425 million purchase price for the team did you or citizens of OKC provide? Should the city, in years when the team loses money, be required to reimburse the owners for their losses? Does the city receive no benefits from having a team here, in terms of not only tax revenue, but also people being willing to stay here/move here because quality of life has improved with the Thunder presence? Should a city not spend its money to improve quality of life for its citizens?

Hell, just give the Thunder the arena. On top of that don't tax them either because they improve the quality of life in OKC. All citizens should also be required to pay a Thunder tax because we are lucky to have a professional sports franchise. Yippee!!!

Richard at Remax
07-30-2015, 08:30 AM
If it comes down to it and a couple of cents from my daily purchases go towards a new arena, I don't care one bit.

Whats different here is that we don't take out bonds and loans, ect that take 30 years to pay off with silly interest (although I do wish they would do that with roads). We raise the money and have cash in hand. Can't get too sour over that.

betts
07-30-2015, 09:14 AM
Hell, just give the Thunder the arena. On top of that don't tax them either because they improve the quality of life in OKC. All citizens should also be required to pay a Thunder tax because we are lucky to have a professional sports franchise. Yippee!!!
I don't think you understand. Both owners and city give something and get something from a team being here. We as a city spent about half of what the owners did to get a team here. We have no financial obligation as a city to cover potential losses the team might incur. Pretty much all small market teams operate in the red years they don't make the playoffs. The city gets 82+ days of incredibly good advertising when the team plays - television air time, newspaper columns, countless blog posts. MAPS is the primary impetus for the explosion of our downtown and outlying areas like Midtown, the Plaza District and 23rd St, and these things are all the reason we're finally keeping and luring in educated Millenials. Taxes like those we pay for MAPS projects have given us an unimaginable (at the time they were conceived) return for our money both in terms of quality of life and real revenue. You don't get something for nothing.