Comments on: Shall We Build a Big Pavilion?

By: Steve Lackmeyer

Steve Lackmeyer — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 13:05:17 +0000

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

By: Larry

Larry — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 02:54:54 +0000

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

By: Brent

Brent — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 02:32:39 +0000

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.

By: Steve Lackmeyer

Steve Lackmeyer — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 20:47:16 +0000

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.

By: Larry

Larry — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 20:32:28 +0000

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.

By: Larry

Larry — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 20:27:22 +0000

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.

By: Steve Lackmeyer

Steve Lackmeyer — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 17:16:59 +0000

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?

By: Gary

Gary — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 17:02:12 +0000

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.

By: Brian

Brian — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 16:37:00 +0000

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.

By: Steve Lackmeyer

Steve Lackmeyer — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 15:58:05 +0000

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