$150 TAX COST per avg Resident says City

[metro]

No, actually you are only partially correct. Operating expenses for schools, in Oklahoma, are paid through property taxes. That's not partially correct, that's the huge chunk of any school district's budget. There are many outside funds from bonds, private grants, the federal government, the state government (lottery) and the capital improvements funded through Maps for Kids.

As for Maps For Kids, the flaw in your argument to David is that it's the same one everyone has been knocking David on when it comes to how much per person, etc. People in the Village obviously rack up a lot of sales tax dollars down the street at Penn Square or up the street at Quail Springs at Target, Sam's Club, WalMart and so it goes.

The argument must be consistent.

As betts semi-pointed out, then so must your argument be consistent. These people (including David Glover) are voting NO because of PRINCIPLE, not to save 1 penny. Actually, The Village has a HIGHER TAX RATE than OKC (Oklahoma City Area Sales Tax Rates) . So as betts said, he and others can so choose to spend in the Village or whatever suburb just to boycott OKC on PRINCIPLE. I didn't reference anything on how schools are funded, but I did reference on how they are built. And it has been documented (and I provided a link to Maps for Kids on the OKC.gov website) that over $470 million in OKC tax money is being used for construction and remodeling of schools (including suburban school districts). Again, for construction, remodeling, and technology upgrades (not to pay bills and teachers salaries).

[OSUFan]

Why do the no voters lob out a bunch of "facts" about the campaign but never respond when questioned on them?

[jbrown84]

I can't believe that The Opposition is calling this campaign "deceitful" and "dishonest" when they are saying things like "every MAN, WOMAN, AND CHILD will pay $150 for this".

Right. Let me give little 5 year old Lucy her annual $60,000 allowance so she can go to the store.

[betts]

Not to mention the fact that they are assuring everyone we're getting a team even if this tax proposal is not passed, despite not one shred of evidence supporting that theory. I'm wondering if it doesn't pass, and we don't get a team, if these opposition "leaders" will fade back into the woodwork, or if they'll have the chutzpah to admit they misled people.

[bornhere]

I'm not making that assurance. I don't know if they'll come or not – and obviously, I don't personally care if they come or not.

What I am assuring you is that the sales tax increase is just a part of the total cost. No one will tell you what the total cost will be, or how long you'll be paying it – and I think that's because they believe if you knew, you wouldn't vote for this.

[jbrown84]

Yes, but David Glover and the other opposition leaders ARE saying we'll get a team either way.

Misleading

Dishonest

Deceitful

[DavidGlover]

Time will tell. I do know they would like to be here. OKC has shown it's ability better than any other city. Everyone can agree that the best outcome for 99.9% of people is that no taxes for this and a NBA team comes.

[SouthsideSooner]

Time will tell. I do know they would like to be here. OKC has shown it's ability better than any other city. Everyone can agree that the best outcome for 99.9% of people is that no taxes for this and a NBA team comes.

Most people realize you don't get something for nothing.

Your 15 minutes is up, David.

[jbrown84]

Time will tell. I do know they would like to be here. OKC has shown it's ability better than any other city. Everyone can agree that the best outcome for 99.9% of people is that no taxes for this and a NBA team comes.

No, the best outcome for everybody is a renovated arena that can compete for events and concerts, and houses an NBA team 41 nights a year.

[Karried]

OKC has shown it's ability better than any other city

Everyone can agree that the best outcome for 99.9% of people is that no taxes for this and a NBA team comes.

There are no guarantees of this and that's exactly the sort of thinking and misinformation that will make people Vote NO.

Vote YES!

[BDP]

Everyone can agree that the best outcome for 99.9% of people is that no taxes for this and a NBA team comes.

Not true at all.

Without these improvements the Ford Center's competitive position will begin to erode very rapidly given the size and scope of the arenas that are coming online in the area. There will be more and more venues for the same amount of events and, no doubt, Oklahoma City will have to compete harder and give away more to make up for facility shortcomings just to land the events. With these improvements, though, Oklahoma City not only retains its competitive position for these events, but improves it drastically and increases its chances for even more, bigger and better events.

The NBA is just icing on the cake as it would be a guarantee the venue would be operating for 41+ nights a year with a stable tenant that's paying rent and generating revenue. Without that, the Ford Center and the city has to be at the whim of the concert and convention industries, which are by no means consistent.

So, basically, a NO vote relegates the arena to remaining a second tier facility in an industry where tier 1 facilities are popping up all over the place. A YES vote leap frogs many arenas, making it competitive with some of the best in the industry and insures that Oklahoma City is a major player for large scale events into the future. The possible bonus is that it could help us land a major permanent tenant that, to date, we have not had. And don't think the possibility of a major tenant gets any better than it is right now for a market of our size.

The reality is that getting the NBA is not entirely in our control and if Seattle successfully drags the fight on longer, up to two and a half years longer, that is more time for more markets to work up proposals with their shiny new arenas with at least twice as many amenities as the Ford Center has now. No doubt these owners, who will be losing money during that time, will be looking for the biggest pay off to cover those losses, which almost assuredly will not be in the Oklahoma City market.

So, there really is nothing but downside to voting no and a tremendous upside to a YES vote. Of course, according to your math, I'll have to find a way to scrounge up the $45,000 in disposable income to cover my "average" family of 3's part.

[betts]

Not true at all.

Without these improvements the Ford Center's competitive position will begin to erode very rapidly given the size and scope of the arenas that are coming online in the area. There will be more and more venues for the same amount of events and, no doubt, Oklahoma City will have to compete harder and give away more to make up for facility shortcomings just to land the events. With these improvements, though, Oklahoma City not only retains its competitive position for these events, but improves it drastically and increases its chances for even more, bigger and better events.

The NBA is just icing on the cake as it would be a guarantee the venue would be operating for 41+ nights a year with a stable tenant that's paying rent and generating revenue. Without that, the Ford Center and the city has to be at the whim of the concert and convention industries, which are by no means consistent.

So, basically, a NO vote relegates the arena to remaining a second tier facility in an industry where tier 1 facilities are popping up all over the place. A YES vote leap frogs many arenas, making it competitive with some of the best in the industry and insures that Oklahoma City is a major player for large scale events into the future. The possible bonus is that it could help us land a major permanent tenant that, to date, we have not had. And don't think the possibility of a major tenant gets any better than it is right now for a market of our size.

The reality is that getting the NBA is not entirely in our control and if Seattle successfully drags the fight on longer, up to two and a half years longer, that is more time for more markets to work up proposals with their shiny new arenas with at least twice as many amenities as the Ford Center has now. No doubt these owners, who will be losing money during that time, will be looking for the biggest pay off to cover those losses, which almost assuredly will not be in the Oklahoma City market.

So, there really is nothing but downside to voting no and a tremendous upside to a YES vote. Of course, according to your math, I'll have to find a way to scrounge up the $45,000 in disposable income to cover my "average" family of 3's part.

Wow. Excellent post. Yes, it will be beyond annoying if this vote fails and we have to fix the arena up anyway just to be competitive with Omaha, Wichita and Tulsa.

[flintysooner]

I was just looking at some new photos of Tulsa's BOK Center. I think it is a beautiful structure and coming along very nicely now. I really think we in Oklahoma City cannot rest on past accomplishments.

[jbrown84]

Very well said BDP. You and betts continue to make the best, most intelligent arguments on this subject.