Originally Posted by
HOT ROD
Rover, its not so much of a skyline vs skyline deal. it is moreso a benchmarking analysis.
City A paid X dollars for their Omni and received a 24+ floor tower with residential. Appears to be a win for the city (and skyline) and a win for Omni.
Oklahoma City paid $84M in TIFF to Omni in addition to $10M+ for the parking garage and receiving a 17 floor tower, no residential, and the hotel count much lower than the consultants the city also paid millions for had recommended at 750 rooms.
It's almost as if the city let Omni not only WIN the contest which then had 750 rooms as a requirement but then let OMNI dictate what gets built and that OKC should pay almost half reducing their risk AND that OKC can't give TIF to another hotelier that would compete with OMNI.
Rover - you're very astute on these type of analytics, you can't tell me that the city came out ahead on this. And all some of us on the forum are doing is pointing to other city's experiences to question why OKC allowed Omni to put us into second best again.
The skyline impact is just a small part of the argument since a 750 room hotel would definitely have a positive impact vs a 600 room. The bigger, more important issue is why we let Cathy and the gang hand over the kitchen sink to get something not much bigger than the hotel we already have - basically Sheraton + Renaissance (going horizontal) = Omni. For nearly $100M taxpayer contribution?
I hope this puts the argument into better prospective. This should have been much more and I'm not just talking about height.
Bookmarks