Core to Shore: Questions and Answers
As always I appreciate readers leaving comments, and when questions are asked, I always try to answer in the best way possible. Several questions popped up during today’s live blogging:
“What was Mick’s excuse for not attending? I’m starting to smell fish over in MidTown coming from City Hall.” – Steven
“Steve, would you mind explaining the difference between the two sites?” – Mark
“Mark, I would go one further. A post that neutrally analyses the pros and cons of each location, including distances from important other (related) sites like hotels, Bricktown restaurants, Ford Center, etc.” – Brian J.
“Whats the story on the Producers Coop/Lumberyard confusion? Don’t know anything about this.” – Jeffrey
“I’m interested to hear your thoughts. You have covered and catalogued as much about downtown OKC’s re-development as anyone. “– MartzMimic
MY ANSWERS:
Steven: I don’t know why Mayor Cornett didn’t attend. His secretary reported he was in town and had ordered a DVD of the presentation. Not sure if that’s got the same value as being in the room and getting to hear afterwards from all the people who attended.
Mark: I never heard any concrete arguments for the Core to Shore site south of Ford Center from anyone other than Cornett. He has repeatedly quoted the Core to Shore task force as having chosen it, but that’s not true. They never voted on the matter and the site was shown in dozens of sketches and renderings after Cornett, who was chairing the task force, reported that a site needed to be shown but it wouldn’t mean a final decision had been made. At the time several members of the task force felt the convention center should be located south of Bricktown, but no full discussion on the matter was allowed. Proponents of the site south of Bricktown (there are actually two, which I’ll address in a moment) argue it has everything the Core to Shore site doesn’t: immediate access to hotels, clubs, restaurants and entertainment venues.
Brian: I would urge you to contact Mayor Mick Cornett and City Manager Jim Couch to inquire as to whether such a report exists if that is something you want to see.
Jeffrey: Mayor Cornett has declined to acknowledge the lumberyard site as separate from the Producers Coop site. But proponents of the lumberyard site say it alone would be big enough for a convention center. This could be significant, proponents say, because Gary Gregory is now brokering the Coop site for what many believe is a very inflated price of $121 million. It is believed the lumberyard could be bought for much less money.
Thank you for joining our conversation on OKC Central. We encourage your discussion but ask that you stay within the bounds of our commenting and posting policy.
Comments
Steve,
Why is the park-side site so important to Cornett? Don’t you think he has the City’s best interest in mind? The convention center will move to South of Bricktown if that’s the logical site, won’t it?
If the “Lumber Yard” is that narrow strip between the Co-op & I-40, then there’s not even enough room to put 2 Cox Centers… Much more land will be required unless the plan includes sharing the existing Ford & Cox facilities (which I think it should). Even then, the ULI-recommended expansion space doesn’t exist.
Dennis, not sure about motives in this case (will leave others to conspiracy theorize on that), but even with the best of intentions, sometimes people are sold on an idea and no matter what evidence exists to the contrary, they forge right on ahead.
Am very curious as to why the City would pay $60,000 to bring the experts here and then the Mayor decides not to attend(Steve has said the Mayor has ordered a dvd for later). The City manager and some staff were there and some Council members but why was the Mayor MIA? Understand if the Mayor and the panel don’t see eye-to-eye on everything, but this has the appearance of the arrogant attitude that Cornett sometimes displays. IMO
There’s no conspiracy or crookedness. Cornett is just too stubborn to let off. This Core to Shore stuff was his brain child.
The mayor is only one person. He is entitled to his opinion just as every one else is. Because he has an opinion does not necessarily mean that his opinion will win the day. I believe that there is still an advisory panel that will be looking at making recomendations on all of the MAPS3 items. And then the city council will have their say.
I wonder if the mayor had been there if someone would not be complaining that he was there to intimidate and influence to panel and the discussion. By not being there he will get what most of us will get and that is a video, the written report, and somebody to tell us what happened.
I remember that the locations for the canal and the ball park were moved several times before they were actually sited. I think that we need to have more confidence that the right decisions will be made. We are starting to sound like Tulsa.
All I am trying to say is that we should trust the process and not get caught up in personl attacks. People will disagree about what is the best way to grow our city. I believe that it is because there is no absolute perfect, foolproof, money-back guaranteed way to do it. Debate about the merits of one proposal versus another is good and needed. Remember that the process is political. We should expect those involved to use the political process to push for what they believe in. However, the biggest impediment to growth is when we can’t accept that we have differences without being bitter and personally offended by it. The best asset we have as a community is our ability to work together for a common good. I would hate to see us waste it just as we are emerging as one of America’s great cities. Nothing can kill our momentum faster than negative energy. In the debate over where to put the new convention center the important thing to remember regardless of where it eventually ends up is we are getting a new convention center and a new iconic park.
Rodney, I’m pretty careful to guard against personal attacks. Not seeing it here. Instead, people are questioning why the mayor, after having personally chaired the Core to Shore task force and having been so involved with that effort, didn’t match that with the ULI panel. One should note all the ULI panelists volunteered their time here – they were not paid (the money spent was on ULI staff time, travel, lodging costs and materials). I also saw dozens of people give up their time for this process.
As for being one of nine votes – well, that’s not quite true if the MAPS oversight board is set up as proposed where the mayor can remove members at will.
We’ll see what happens.
WOW, $130,000 for a week’s worth of “ULI staff time, travel, lodging costs and materials”? Seems a little on the high end if the panelists weren’t paid.
Excellent point about the Oversight Committee.
And that comment makes it more important that if the City is going to pay $60,000 (+ $70,000 from corporates), that it is important that the Mayor at least be in attendance even if they don’t see eye to eye on everything. Why pay experts for their opinion if you can’t even show the courtesy of attending? (Yes, City staff and some Council members were there). From watching the presentation, one might think Humphreys was Mayor.
My guess is that the Mayor wasn’t at the presentation today because he didn’t want to answer any questions afterwards. The Experts from the ULI study objectively made suggestions on how to develop our downtown. Our Mayor, on the otherhand, clearly has his own agenda for what he thinks is best. It’s amazing how quickly he went from being a tv reporter to an “expert” on urban development!
Someone needs to ask him questions about how much he has flip-flopped on this convention center site. He shouldn’t be able to “prefer” the C2S site one day, then propose an open process the next. Why has no one called him on this?