What is Millennium Park’s acreage compared to the proposed area for the new Central Park? I say we should shoot for something even more unique than Pritzker Pavilian.

Millennium Park is 24.5 acres compared to approx. 35 acres that is planned for the portion of the OKC Central Park north of the new I-40. This assumes that the park extends between Hudson and Robinson. It would be approx. 52 acres if you extend the park from Walker to Robinson, which was proposed in some of the C2S schemes.

Also, I think it is important to point out that Millennium Park makes up only a small corner of the much larger Grant Park which is 319 acres in total size.

And I like your idea, why not make it better than the Pritzker Pavilion. It would be amazing to have something of that quality.

Another thing to remember: park construction here wouldn’t not involver a “Chicago tax.”

Jay Pritzker, in case you’re curious, was owner (with his brother Robert) of Chicago’s Marmon Group, and founder of Hyatt Hotels. He also endowed the Pritzker Prize for Architecture, perhaps the major award in the field.

Well there you go. Shows you how much I still need to learn.

Millennium Park truly has changed the way people imagine Chicago. I’m glad that Mayor Mick admits it’s the inspiration for the C2S park, because Millennium has always kind of been in my mind when thinking about our own park. Small acreage, highly and uniquely programmed.

I’ve always feared that Millennium Park is beyond the Maps 3 budget, even if we keep it to just the 3 big projects we really need: park, light rail, and convention ctr.

That’s just what I always come up against when I envision my personals Maps dream.

Nick, don’t think you have to worry about Millennium Park idea being beyond the MAPS 3 budget. Mr. Lackmeyer said in his previous blog posting (Mayor Mick’s Dream Park?): “It didn’t come cheap – budget overruns brought the pricetag to just under $500 million.” Core to Shore alone is going to cost 6 times that amount.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Downtown on verge of moving up (Oklahoman, 12/16/2007)
____________________________________________________________________________________
“Cornett said the INITIAL building blocks for Core to Shore development will likely be a part of MAPS 3. ‘MAPS 3 is a funding mechanism, and Core to Shore is a visionary plan that is going to require funding,’ Cornett said. Cornett said money for both the convention center and park will likely be sought with a MAPS 3 sales tax.”
____________________________________________________________________________________
“Core to Shore calls for $3 billion of development during the next three decades, with cost shared by the public and private sectors.”
____________________________________________________________________________________
Let that sink in for a minute…
____________________________________________________________________________________
Core to Shore is a 30 year plan projected to cost $3 BILLION and is just PART of MAPS 3.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Know that the $3 billion isn’t all public money but even presuming just 1/3 being public, at the current one cent tax rate (if they exceed that penny rate they won’t be able to make the misleading claim that it won’t raise taxes) it will take 8 to 10 years to get to the $1 Billion mark (presuming the current revenue of approx $100M/per yr for the Ford tax increase). It will probably increase as the original MAPS averaged $56M/yr and MAPS for Kids has averages $71M/yr all off a 1 cent tax. Again, this is just for the $1 BILLION needed for Core to Shore which is just part of MAPS 3 (which if City leaders actually listen to the people that responded to their survey, the overwhelming suggestions were for public transportation needs like a lite rail system, which is not cheap!).
____________________________________________________________________________________
Oklahoma City’s mass transit overhaul comes with a big price (Oklahoman, 11/5/08)
____________________________________________________________________________________
“The resulting plan included better bus service, commuter rail, a modern streetcar for the downtown area and bus rapid transit, which is a hybrid between bus and rail. Total price tag: $394 million to build and $90 million a year to maintain.”
____________________________________________________________________________________
Just based on the 8 to 10 years to get the 1st Billion for Core to Shore, when you factor in the other elements of MAPS 3, (most of which are unknowns at this point) we MAY BE looking at a corresponding 30 YEAR “temporary” tax to go along with the 30 year plan.

Larry, I don’t think you should confuse the projected investment in Core to Shore with MAPS 3. MAPS 3 will probably be in the $500-800 million range. The $3 billion number is projected investment in Core to Shore, a number that really isn’t very inconceivable (Downtown/Bricktown have experienced about that since MAPS 1).

Neither will MAPS 3 be a permanent funding source for the transit improvements- if anything, it will fund some initial phase of the transit system, like streetcar, but not pay for maintenance. Much of those funds would come from other sources, namely state and federal transportation budgets.

Seems like there’s a lot of taxation fearmongering surrounding MAPS 3 discussions.

Shane, maybe you are correct and Core to Shore is going to be broken up into a series of MAPS votes over the next 30 years (instead of one lump project all under MAPS 3). IF it is broken up and only the Convention Center, Central Park/Millennium Park and Mass transit are included in this go around, your numbers may be correct. however there will be MAPS 4, 5, 6, 7, 8…. The new convention center is up to $400M (according to the Mayor, $240 for “Phase 1, the balance for “Phase 2”, whatever that means). $394M for Mass Trans (various funding sources) and whatever else they are going to include in MAPS 3. Understand the economy won’t be this way forever, but can we really count on Federal and State monies?
__________________________________________________________________________________
Not saying it is or isn’t worth it, but you have to realize the numbers they are giving are probably low balled and the actual cost will be much higher. Just like MAPS 1, it ended up costing 50% MORE than what voters were told it was going to cost when MAPS 1 was completed (not counting the extra $120 million for the Ford Center “improvements” to a building that was only 5 years old and designed/built to NBA standards to begin with. The Mayor has been talking about replacing the Convention Center (and the Ford) for at least 2 years now. He has said that the Convention Center costs are in 2009 dollars so will probably end up costing more when it finally gets built, etc., etc.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Did you know the City has already started buying property ($3.68 million, plus the cost of the study mentioned below, plus whatever other properties have been bought by the City) for the Core to Shore when it hasn’t even been put to a vote yet if the residents even want it?
__________________________________________________________________________________
Journal Record, Oklahoma City Mayor Mick Cornett sees green south of downtown (5/15/08)
__________________________________________________________________________________
A preliminary land use plan for Core to Shore was completed late last year and included a preliminary park that on the north end would bump up against a planned grand boulevard where the Interstate 40 bridges currently stand.
__________________________________________________________________________________
In the middle of the proposed park site, which will likely stretch south to the river, is the U.S. Postal Service main city branch at 320 SW Fifth St.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Cornett cited a vote by the City Council last month to buy the post office building, which could help pave the way for the park. Nevertheless, he said if the city does buy the building, it does not ensure a funding source for the park.
__________________________________________________________________________________
“WE HAVE ALREADY BEGUN THE PROPERTY ACQUISITION FOR WHAT WE ANTICIPATE WOULD BE THE CORE TO SHORE PARK,” he said. “How we fund the Core to Shore park remains to be discussed; it could be part of a MAPS 3 discussion.”
__________________________________________________________________________________
The council approved a measure to buy the post office for more than $3.68 million, and cleared the immediate use of $50,000 in earnest money to secure the deal.

Yes, I agree, there will continue to be MAPS programs, making it a continuous “temporary” tax that is consistently updated and voted upon. That’s basically the idea of MAPS at this point- a permanent tax that has to be rejustified and voted on every half decade or so to pay for a new, specific set of projects. It’s a dream tax- straightforward, clearly defined and highly visible results.

Again, MAPS will never be used to pay for maintenance of anything. Even if state/federal transportation money is unavailable, transit maintenance will be a burden shared by municipalities, counties, and regional agencies served.

Yeah, the city has started buying land for the C2S park: but it WAS put to a vote. The money came from the most recent general bond election, and there was earmarked money in that package for land acquisition in C2S.

Didn’t mean to imply that maintenance needs were being funded by any of the MAPS. However they ARE costs that most people don’t consider. Much like when buying or leasing a new car, many people focus on the down payment and monthly lease payment itself. They forget about gas, oil changes, reg maint, emergency maint., insurance, etc. etc. Then a few months down the road (no pun intended) they wonder why they can’t afford it.

“Yeah, the city has started buying land for the C2S park: but it WAS put to a vote. The money came from the most recent general bond election, and there was earmarked money in that package for land acquisition in C2S.”
____________________________________________________________________________________
Hmmmm, that’s a sneaky way of going about doing it. MAPS 3 hasn’t been voted on but a part of a part of a part (part of the Park that is part of Core-to-Shore that is part of MAPS 3). Was it listed on the ballot that way or was this earmark buried in the bond issue as we have recently discovered most earmarks are deeply buried? Kind of goes against the idea behind MAPS that we “pay as we go” instead of incurring debt (thru bond issues), doesn’t it?

Larry, go to the following website:

http://www.okc.gov/bonds2007/ and click on Proposition 5 – Parks and Recreation. Then click on New Park Land. The only Bond project listed in the 2007 Bond in that section is written as follows:

Acquire property for the future development of a downtown metropolitan park in the vicinity of the area bounded by Sheridan Avenue, the Oklahoma River, Western Avenue and Shields Boulevard. Bond proceeds may also be used for excavation, demolition, construction, design, parking, roadway, landscaping, and/ or access improvements.

I wouldn’t call it particularly buried – buried would be Unlisted Bond funds that were allocated for the Park.

Core to Shore is not just a MAPS issue – it’s an overall quality of life piece of the City. I’m not a proponent of only one type of funding if it’s an ambitious project. Moving forward in small steps makes the project one step closer to reality.

I like your photos, Steve.

Larry, it comes from Proposition 5 of the 2007 General Obligation Bond election:

Shall The City of Oklahoma City, State of Oklahoma, incur an indebtedness by issuing registered bonds in the sum of Eighty Nine Million Seven Hundred Fifty-five Thousand Dollars ($89,755,000) to provide funds for the purpose of improving, renovating, acquiring and equipping parks and recreational facilities, to be owned exclusively by said City, to be completed with or without the use of other funds,

http://www.okc.gov/bonds2007/

RE: Shane’s Prop 5 post. Looks like the ballot language and I don’t see where it mentions Core-to-Shore. Just generic “parks and recreation facilities”.

Paul, thank you for your post as well. One has to know what website to go to, find the Bond Issue, find the one that is talking about parks (prop 5) then scroll down to the 8th item….Yeah, it is a little buried. Buried to the extent of an 1,100 page spending bill? No, of course not, but not the easiest thing to find out for the average voter. By buried, I also mean, is this the language that appeared on the ballot? (No) Does even this language make any mention of Core-to-Shore or MAPS 3? (No). If someone even took the time to read the actual proposition (instead of just showing up at the voting booth and depending on the ballot language), one would have to have a frame of reference to know that they were actually describing the Park area of the proposed Core-to-Shore (part of MAPS 3), would they not? To the City’s credit, they did list the propositions separately, but within those propositions, multiple projects are going on. At least within each proposition, it is approve it all or reject it all position. Under the original MAPS, if not mistake, MAPS in its entirity was an up or down vote (all 9 projects or none). MAPS barely passed with 54%. And to both Paul & Shane, I am not saying that Core-to-Shore and MAPS 3 aren’t worthy projects. What I am saying is as with the original MAPS and the recent Ford tax, residents are not always given the truth about what the true cost is going to be, how it is really going to be funded etc., etc. City leaders have to be completely transparent and honest when it comes to spending multi-millions of $$$ on the City level. They need to justify and account for it BEFORE it happens.

My post yesterday failed to make it thru, will break it up into a couple of parts and keep my fingers crossed…LOL
__________________________________________________________________________________
City leaders are proceeding full-steam ahead with Core-to-Shore elements when there might not even be a Core-to Shore. The mayor has hinted that they might not even put MAPS 3 to a vote this year (“voter fatigue”) although that seems unlikely. If the Ford tax is allowed to expire it will be painfully obvious to everyone that any replacement tax will be a tax increase. That is one of the things that has been “successful” about the various MAPS taxes, the misleading claim that multi-millions of dollars can be spent without it effecting taxes. The Mayor even goes on to say “All indications are that the vast majority of people in this community want to go forward” He is basing this on the City’s MAPS 3 online survey where 85% of those that responded said there should be a MAPS 3. Sounds impressive until you realize that the website was up for 4 months and only got 2,367 responses (not just from OKC residents, but from “from all 50 states and 57 countries”)
__________________________________________________________________________________
Just as the Mayor is using the survey as justification for Core-to Shore etc., he used it as proof that the City wanted the Ford improvements/pro sports team and pulling out the Ford improvements even though only a combined 3% of those responding indicated they wanted that. The Downtown “Central Park” (part of Core to Shore) is the “catylist” of the Mayor’s MAPS 3 plan, yet according to the City’s own survey it only got 1.35% of the vote!
__________________________________________________________________________________
cont. below…

MAPS 3 SURVEY RESULTS (from the http://www.maps3.org website)
__________________________________________________________________________________
“The “MAPS 3” Web site asked the question whether the citizens wanted to see the City pursue a MAPS 3 initiative. 2,367 people responded to the unscientific survey with a Yes or No answer. Over 85 percent of those responses were: Yes, Oklahoma City should pursue a MAPS 3 initiative” [2,012 YES votes in a City with a population of 547,274 or approximately less than one half of a percent of the residents of OKC].
__________________________________________________________________________________
“The second question was to those who answered Yes. It asked whether the citizen had suggestions as to what they might like to see in a MAPS 3 initiative. Most of the 2,026 Yes respondents provided an idea, and often several at the same time. In total, there were 2,747 INDIVIDUAL IDEAS SUBMITTED. Though every idea was unique, there were themes that repeated.”
__________________________________________________________________________________
Suggestion: Number of actual votes: [% is of those who took part in the survey, as far as how the whole community feels, that number has to be factored into the total number of residents, as pointed out above, less than one half of one percent participated]
__________________________________________________________________________________
TRANSIT (LIGHT RAIL, STREETCARS, ETC.) 668 (25%)
__________________________________________________________________________________
FORD CENTER IMPROVEMENTS / MAJOR LEAGUE SPORTS/NBA PRACTICE FACILITY 81 (3%)
__________________________________________________________________________________
[in the survey results, Ford improvements and NBA were seperate categories getting 41 & 40 votes respectively, or about 1.5%, since the City effectively combined them in the Ford tax increase vote, the total votes rose to 81]
__________________________________________________________________________________
DOWNTOWN “CENTRAL PARK” 36 (1.35%)
__________________________________________________________________________________
cont. below…

Granted, some of the other “high” vote getters were suggested before the school bond and general obligation bonds, so in theory they have been addressed*, only time will tell if they are or not:
__________________________________________________________________________________
* Infrastructure, Including Streets: 188
__________________________________________________________________________________
* Beautification (includes trees, streetscapes): 117
__________________________________________________________________________________
* General Parks Improvement/Expansion: 123
__________________________________________________________________________________
* Sidewalks: 100
__________________________________________________________________________________
* Education: 77
__________________________________________________________________________________
Downtown Retail: 69
__________________________________________________________________________________
Football or Soccer Stadium: 65
__________________________________________________________________________________
New Convention Center: 40
__________________________________________________________________________________
Senior Citizen Centers: 36
__________________________________________________________________________________
cont. below…

Most of the time, when they are honest with the voters and tell them it is going to be a tax increase, it makes it a much harder sell (the original MAPS barely passed, by 54%). The actual proposition language of the bond issue doesn’t even mention Core-to-Shore/MAPS 3. The bond issue was yet another “it won’t raise taxes”.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Is MAPS 3 a tax increase? Again, from the http://www.maps3.org website
__________________________________________________________________________________
“All NEW sales tax INCREASES must be approved by the people. Though a MAPS 3 sales tax would not increase the sales tax rate from where it is today, the one-cent MAPS for Kids sales tax is temporary, and will expire at the end of 2008. A MAPS 3 sales tax WOULD BE A NEW TAX. It would also be temporary.”
__________________________________________________________________________________
This very paper finally admitted that the Ford tax was a tax increase (conveniently after the Ford vote) and the City Ordinance (what voters were actually voting on, NOT the language that appeared in the ballot question), makes it clear in multiple places that the Ford tax was a new tax.

Off topic again – Larry, I’m confused about your statement about the recent Ford Center vote? How we the citizens led astray from the true cost? What is the true cost?

Larry, it sounds to me like you’re just looking for something to be angry about. Of course Mick wants to MAPS III to pass. It’s his baby. To pretend that he should be some sort of neutral observer is ridiculous.

The city has made these issues as transparent as they can. It’s publicly posted. The fact that the public doesn’t ever go to the city website and actually read the bond issue is nothing new. The fact that most citizens don’t actually vote is nothing new. Should the city go out and advertise *against* MAPS just so that people who don’t want to keep that one cent tax but can’t be bothered to actually look up a bond issue can feel satisfied while remaining totally lazy? (The correct answer to that question is “no”, by the way, the city shouldn’t.)

Cornett has a goal, to make OKC a competitive, modern city. He’s been as honest as I think I’ve ever seen a politician be. And due to that honesty, people have continued voting for his projects. When we built the Ford Center, it was to create an NBA-ready arena. And he was right, it did eventually land us a team. But he was also right that the center was pretty bare-boned, and we would need renovations and improvements to make it truly competitive. We needed to make improvements to seal the deal.

As far as I’m concerned, MAPS should always look to the future. I get that you don’t like that they sort of “looked ahead”, buying up land in preparation for a project that hasn’t even been funded yet. But there’s been no secret that MAPS III was coming, and the mayor has been talking about Core to Shore for quite a while now. All it takes is for someone to pay attention. The fact that people don’t pay attention to local issues is something that has concerned political scientists for decades. That’s certainly not Cornett’s fault.

In response to Pauls question…Larry has written repeatedly that we’re being lied to by our city leaders and that the terms of our lease with the Thunder will require OKC to spend a billion dollars over the course of the lease. He is a spin doctor want-to-be that fails miserably at the task…

Philip, please post where I ever said “the terms of our lease with the Thunder will require OKC to spend a billion dollars.” Although that conclusion is probably correct, it is arrived at by taking the cost that we have spent/agreed to spend so far, doing some basic math (the length of the lease) and projecting those numbers out. The precise cost we don’t really know as I have stressed many times. It may be more, it may be less, but it gives you a good ballpark estimate. We are talking about the projected cost over a 15 to 30 year time period after all. We are required under the terms of the lease to keep upgrading the Ford and Practice Facility to keep them “first rate” NBA facilities. Not once have you disputed my numbers or told me why it won’t cost that much. Please feel free to do so. At least you are back to using “Philip” again, instead of making these accusations under other assumed screen names (as you have done in the past).

Paul, I do have that info and will post when I get the opportunity. I will apologize in advance for the post as it will be rather lengthy and convoluted (Phillip has said before that I stated things as fact rather than opinion and that I made things up etc etc), so I went thru and documented everything with footnotes and labels within the post clearly showing which things were opinion and which were facts…

I think the city fairly assumes active citizen engagement when it puts things to the vote, that citizens will come to the table prepared and knowledgable from the media and from information directly disseminated by OKC.gov and city staff. During the weeks leading up to the bond vote in 2007, all information related to the bond issue was prominently displayed as the top item on the city’s web site; the fact that the link to the bond issue information is STILL on the home page a year and a half after the vote is a testament to the public accountability of our city government.

We don’t live in a perfect city by any means, but our city leadership is far from being deceptive, secretive, or disingenuous. But I understand that there will always be people looking for reasons to distrust government.

Shane, I suppose we have different definitions of what constitutes “deceptive, secretive, or disingenuous” then and that’s fine. To say that it is posted in one or two places (and in this case, not clearly labeled as a MAPS 3 or Core-to-Shore project) is borderline at best. Governments track record has shown that they can’t be trusted, and with every tax or bond vote that trust must be re-earned. There were bond issue after bond issue that failed because of government not doing what they said they would do. A year or two ago there was an article saying that an audit was performed on the City and it was discovered that 3 bond issues going back 16 years or so, the projects had never been started much less completed, yet the City was coming to voters with yet more bond issues. Perhaps you don’t remember the numerous articles lambasting the original MAPS…the cost over-runs…the budget over-runs…the resignation of people that were in members of the oversight committee because of the disaster they were observing around them thru the process. I definitely disagree with your statement that “the city fairly assumes active citizen engagement when it puts things to the vote, that citizens will come to the table prepared and knowledgable from the media and from information directly disseminated by OKC.gov and city staff.” When there actions show just the opposite. City government says they want high voter turnout but then do everything they can to discourage voter turnout. Frequently, they will only put one issue on the ballot (so as not to “confuse” voters). Instead of holding just a handful of elections a year (and the associated cost, one article said every city election cost taxpayers $100,000). We have multiple elections in a short period of time. We had the national election, then the school bond election, then the general obligation bond election, then the Tinker/GM election, then elections to fill vacancies on the City Council…etc., etc. None of those elections could have been combined? Of course they could, but instead they split them up to encourage that only their target audience is the one that shows up at the polls. In other words, what they really mean is they want high voter turnout from those supporting their position. Just as opinion poll questions are written this way, ballot questions are written to get the result they want from the voter, and I have seen in many cases (State questions as well), what the ballot language and the campaign that goes along with it says is the opposite of what the legislation (or City Ordinance etc) will actually do.

Brian: I am not saying that the City/mayor should actively campaign against something they are obviously trying to get you to vote for. But they need to avoid the spin, half-truths and yes, in some cases, outright lies (can document those if you want) when they are pushing it, if that is in a speaking engagement or the formal campaign for the vote.
__________________________________________________________________________________
“…the center was pretty bare-boned….”
__________________________________________________________________________________
I have asked for this before, but will ask again. If anyone can provide a link or a story written at the time that supports the “bare bones” contention of the Ford, please post. I have looked for such articles but haven’t been able to find any. I found numerous articles about other MAPS projects being scaled back to minimize cost over-runs (but even with these cut backs, MAPS still came in $113M OVER BUDGET….sold to voters as costing $238M, actual cost of $351M, nearly a 50% increase).
__________________________________________________________________________________
When the Ford Center was pitched under MAPS, it along with all of the MAPS projects were promised to be the best (not the best we could afford or the best when compared to other cities). The Arena was described as “State of the Art”, “Crown Jewel” etc. The MAPS Arena (aka Ford Center) was almost scrapped completely due to budget over runs of the other MAPS projects. If I remember correctly, when Kirk Humphreys ran for Mayor, his campaign slogan was we can “finish MAPS on time and on budget”, neither ended up being true, as it was under Mayor Humphreys that the original MAPS tax was truly extended for 6 months in order to “finish MAPS right” as that campaign was called. When the Ford Center opened, Mayor Humphreys said: “We have a FIRST-RATE FACILITY …” (Journal Record, June 7, 2002) If some things finishing touches were left undone, it was because we didn’t have a tenant and the tenant would bear the cost of putting any finishing touches.
__________________________________________________________________________________
There are numerous quotes describing the Ford in very positive terms, here are just a couple. From ESPN website: “Oklahoma City high on list of home sites for Hornets” Updated: September 18, 2005.
__________________________________________________________________________________
“When Oklahoma City opened up its Ford Center three years ago, its residents surely hoped that it would one day host a major professional sports team. After all, IT WAS BUILT TO SATISFY BOTH NBA AND NHL SPECIFICATIONS. … Representatives in Louisville, Ky.; Nashville, Tenn.; San Diego; and Kansas City, Mo., also offered to temporarily host the team, but no city can offer THE STATE-OF-THE-ART FACILITY with as many open dates as Oklahoma City can.”
__________________________________________________________________________________
The Associated Press: “Associated Press “Hornets to call Oklahoma City, Baton Rouge ‘home’” Updated: September 21, 2005.
__________________________________________________________________________________
“Numerous other cities — including San Diego, Las Vegas, Nashville, Tenn., and Kansas City, Mo. — also made offers to host the team for the upcoming season, but Oklahoma City had what few others could offer — A TOP-QUALITY ARENA with few scheduling conflicts. ….. If the team exceeds last season’s revenues by more than 5 percent, Oklahoma City would receive 80 percent of the proceeds to cover ABOUT $2 MILLION IN expenses for game-day operations, housing, office space and ARENA IMPROVEMENTS for the Hornets.”
__________________________________________________________________________________
Associated Press — “Hornet would get up to $10M if temporary move fails” — Updated: September 21, 2005.
__________________________________________________________________________________
“The agreement calls for the city to install A NEW BASKETBALL FLOOR, BUILD A HORNETS TEAM SHOP AND MAKE OTHER UPGRADES TO THE FORD CENTER and also attempt to repeal sales tax on Hornets tickets and seek tax credits and benefits for the team.”
__________________________________________________________________________________
Then you wrote that you agreed with the Mayor: “We needed to make improvements to seal the deal.”
__________________________________________________________________________________
This is also incorrect as Bennett had already filed for relocation SIX WEEKS BEFORE the Ford tax vote was announced. Bennett was the driving force behind the trying to get an NHL expansion team that he would own (the expected tenant for the Ford Center). But since we didn’t know which team, much less which sport, if any, would eventually be in the Ford, it was built to meet both NHL & NBA specifications. Bennett knew what the Ford was like from the beginning. Stern even said that improvements were not necessarily needed for OKC to get a perm team. The Mayor even said (Journal Record, 12/21/07), “That’s my opinion. That’s all it is,” [Mayor Cornett] said. Nor has he been told by NBA officials that an arena upgrade is definitely necessary, Cornett said. “They have not said that to me. I’ve suggested that to them, and they have not disagreed. But they have not said that to me,”
__________________________________________________________________________________
Associated Press on ESPN’s website (12/20/07)
__________________________________________________________________________________
“Cornett said he had spoken with the NBA and had preliminary discussions about a lease with the SuperSonics but the decision to seek public funding for the upgrades was not forced upon him. NBA commissioner David Stern said during an April visit that the Ford Center, which cost only $89 million to build, did not necessarily need upgrades to host an NBA team permanently.”
__________________________________________________________________________________
Here is the April Stern item: Sporting News website (April 13, 2007)
__________________________________________________________________________________
“ ‘I think the last two years here have demonstrated that this city can do the job as well,’ Stern said. Stern said he DIDN’T THINK THE FORD CENTER, which cost only $89 million and opened in 2002, NECESSARILY NEEDED TO BE UPGRADED TO HOST AN NBA TEAM IN THE FUTURE.”

Paul wrote: “How we the citizens led astray from the true cost? What is the true cost?”
__________________________________________________________________________________
This is the abbreviated breakdown of the cost. I do have a completely documented/footnoted version that I can post as well to satisfy certain people that claim I am making stuff up and presenting things as facts instead of as my opinion. To me, it seems fairly obvious which is which, but I understand reading comprehsion isn’t everyone’s strong suit (not you Paul).
__________________________________________________________________________________
It was brought out by the judge in the trial that Seattle was under no obligation to keep making improvements to the Key to bring it up to whatever the changing NBA standards happen to be (the Key is only a few years older than the Ford and was described by Stern as a “state of the art” arena, and a model for NBA arenas). Sound familiar? They started talking about improvements and/or replacing the Key about 8 years after it opened. Sound familiar? Under the lease with OKC, Bennett doesn’t have that problem. This was sold to the voters as only being a penny tax that was only going to last for 15 months, expecting to raise $120M. However, again according to the lease that the City in their “sophistication” agreed to, it is going to cost much, much more than the $120 Million (with no way to pay for it, as the Ford tax only runs 15 months, not 15 or 30 years). It could end up costing more or less than the total I have calculated, but based on what we know so far and the length of the lease, here is a ballpark estimate:
__________________________________________________________________________________
$90M Initial cost of Ford Center (built to NBA/NHL standards)
__________________________________________________________________________________
+ $100M Cost of improvements to bring the Ford up to the Current NBA standards (after only 5 years)
__________________________________________________________________________________
+ $300M (15 year lease or $100M every 5 years…ongoing improvements so the Ford “continues to be a first-class NBA arena”, this is the language used in the lease)
__________________________________________________________________________________
+ $300M (if lease is extended to 30 years, that’s another $100M every five years…ongoing improvements so the Ford “continues to be a first-class NBA arena” this is the language used in the lease)
__________________________________________________________________________________
+ $90M (at least) for the renegotiated naming rights to a building the team doesn’t own..this is the amount Memphis got for their naming rights, a slightly smaller market than OKC. Granted, this number may not be this high any more given the current economic conditions. This is money that rightfully belongs to the City and could have nearly paid for the improvements.
__________________________________________________________________________________
+ $6.14M (15 years x $409,000 for the current naming rights the City has to but back into the Ford to help for maintenance)
__________________________________________________________________________________
+ $6.14M (if lease is extended to 30 years or another 15 years x $409,000 for the current naming rights the City has to but back into the Ford to help for maintenance)
__________________________________________________________________________________
+ $25M for the practice facility (already up $4M from previous reports)
__________________________________________________________________________________
+ $0.3M (15 years x $20,000 of the practice facility rent that has to be put back into maintenance)
__________________________________________________________________________________
+ $0.3M (another 15 years x $20,000 of the practice facility rent that has to be put back into maintenance)
__________________________________________________________________________________
$917.88M TOTAL (over the full 30 year lease, if only 15 years, the total is $611.44M)
__________________________________________________________________________________
Of course none of the above numbers account for inflation or the added expense of a replacement arena (something both the Mayor and Bennett have hinted at a few times) etc., etc. Like I said this is going to cost us AT LEAST this much, probably much, much more. IMO

Larry, I think you’re intent on finding fault where there really isn’t much there. You are frustrated with the idea that in the GOB 2007 the downtown park land acquisition wasn’t labeled as “The park that will be central to the Core to Shore plan and probably will be a MAPS 3 project, too.” Clearly anyone who followed city news at the time would be familiar with the plans. The language in the bond says the money would be used for acquisition of property and “may also be used” for construction of the park- so voters knew that further funds would probably be needed in the future. And informed voters knew that the city was talking about Core to Shore and MAPS3, both of which have been listed prominently on the city’s home page and both of which have extensive amounts of information available online.

As for your Ford Center number crunching, of course the Ford Center will continue to cost money for maintenance and upgrades. You realize that of your own $917.88M figure that most of it is paid for by the lease agreements you cite from the team? And some of your numbers don’t really match the lease agreement I’ve seen. Here is the simplest lease agreement description I have found:

http://blog.newsok.com/nbainokc/2008/03/14/okc-sonics-agree-to-form-ford-center-lease/

I’m likely done with the debate because I understand we have a fundamental difference in that you are inherently distrustful of government. On the other hand, I inherently trust the local government (it’s a weakness of mine!) because ever since I was old enough to care (about 3 years ago) I have been impressed with the openness of our city’s government and I have been able to freely delve into any information I have ever needed without leaving my desk chair.

Obviously, the two $300M listed items are PROJECTED or IMO, based on the previous “need” for $100M after the 1st 5 years: IF $100M every 5 years of the lease is needed…could be more, could be less, but no matter what the cost is, that IS what it has cost so far and based on the FACT that:

“The City will be responsible for paying all Capital Improvements: general maintenance and repair costs reasonably necessary in order to ensure that the Arena continues to be a first-class NBA arena.”

I’ll insert one inconvenient fact into this whole debate:
Since Ford Center opened in 2002, it has consistently generated a profit, not a loss, for the city.
n/m

Larry has hijacked this discussion. No one is going to take the time to refute everyone one of his statements, nor should they waste the time. His mind won’t be changed no matter how many facts we throw at him.

I will just say that Ford Center was built for basic NBA standards, and it was designed some 10 years ago. This certainly change in a decade. While we were building the Ford Center, other NBA cities were spending 2-5 times what we were. If anyone in OKC (Larry) thought we were getting an arena as plush as those, they were only hearing what they wanted to hear. Lastly, why would the city want a private company to pay for improvements to a city-owned building? If they even agreed, said private company would then require ownership in the building, which would be horrible for the city in the long run, and be ripe for major conflict between the city and private business.

One question: When was the idea of the I-40 relocation first brought up and when was the route they it is currently on decided upon? The reason I ask this is that ground was not broken on the Ford Center until Spring 1999 and if the idea of tearing down the old I-40 and putting it elsewhere was not realized until after the FC was built, they might not have realized expansion was possible.

Getting back on track, I think the Millenium Park is a great looking space, but I am not sure if we should get into something like that at this time. I think building a public space with a small amphitheatre off the Myriad Gardens (like Devon was proposing) would be best because I don’t think we have a need for something like that right now. JMHO.

The I-40 route was decided before construction started on Ford Center. And yes, I agree, we have a thread hijacking here. The question is, do you, the readers want me to interject in this sort of thing or just let you folks sort it out?

Shane, not sure where you are coming from on this: “You realize that of your own $917.88M figure that most of it is paid for by the lease agreements you cite from the team? And some of your numbers don’t really match the lease agreement I’ve seen.”
____________________________________________________________________________________
The numbers I used come from the lease agreement itself. The Mayor and City Manager both said the approached the lease negotiations with a “break-even” philosophy. Said when it was all said and done the City might make $150K a year. While all of the numbers sound impressive, the $150K a year is after the rent payments, the food and beverage agreement, etc., etc.
____________________________________________________________________________________
[http://newsok.com/article/3216641/1205556130]
____________________________________________________________________________________
City, Sonics frame Ford Center lease (3/15/2008)
____________________________________________________________________________________
“Oklahoma City Manager Jim Couch said the city expects to at least break even financially on the deal and could generate as much as $150,000 in additional revenue.” … ” ‘That’s an example of where we were trying to ensure that there was kind of a break-even philosophy on our behalf,’ Mayor mick Cornett said. ‘The most important thing to us is where we are at the end of the deal, and we think we’ll be in a break-even position.’ ”
____________________________________________________________________________________
Understand that there can be some confusion as to the lease rent amount. In the link you provided it says: “The team must pay the city $28,000 in game day expenses and additional rent of $12,000 per game” The 28,00 just covers expenses or “break-even” for the City for that part, the “profit” the City gets from the rent is the $12,000 a game. Did the math before on it and if you take the 12,000 per game multiplied by 41 games a year and divide that into the $100M cost of improvements, if I remember correctly, it will take almost 193 YEARS for the taxpayers to be repaid or “break-even” on the Ford and 210 YEARS for the Practice Facility.

Steve, (and others) I do apologize if you think I have hijacked the thread. That is not my intent at all. My posts are long but if I don’t include the dates, quotes etc then I get accused of making stuff up. Try to document why I have come to the conclusions I have… Again, I do apologize if any have been offended.

Larry, I think the complaint isn’t so much the length of your comments, but rather that they are a complaint against how Ford Center was funded and portrayed to voters. That isn’t the topic of this discussion.
This blog is structured around conversations where a topic is presented and people exchange ideas about that specific topic.
You might be better off with a open range online forum – something like http://www.okctalk.com.

Steve, this is your blog, feel free to interject and/or cut off discussion when it is no longer productive. We are really close to that point in this topic, if we are not there already.

Larry, just a little constructive criticism and please take it in that vain. This blog is not quite like the comments section in the normal Oklahoman articles (maybe I am giving Steve’s blog a little too much credit, but I don’t think so). There are serious people here, including business and civic leaders, who take comments and ideas seriously. It is not unusual to have the actual party involved in a city dispute give their view on this blog, whether that be a developer, city leader, etc. That is something very rare and these discussions should be kept at a high level, in my opinion, to maintain such openness.

Additionally, personal attacks are rare and Steve will usually delete such comments as soon as they are found. Personally, I applaud efforts to keep city leaders accountable and honest even if I disagree with the apparent point of contention you may have regarding the Ford Center. We need to keep all of our city/county/state leaders’ feet to the fires to ensure we are obtaining the best government possible. However, when we have to scroll through five pages of apparently random thoughts, disjointed quotes and convoluted ideas, all your points are lost in a sea of minutiae by employing such tactics. It is usually best to keep it simple, on point to the blog topic, without personal insults (no matter what is thrown your way–Steve will take care of the babysitting in the rare instance it is needed), and relatively short.

Brent: point taken in the spirit it was given. Thanks!

Thanks Brent, couldn’t have said it better myself.