Let’s see if King Mick will stick to his word.

Seems to me that the HOK report was suppressed for a reason, but why?

In the video the mayor says “You understand the relationship between Bricktown and tourism business. It’s hard for other cities to compete with an entertainment district as vibrant as bricktown, that close to the convention center…”

Yet, he seems determined to put the CC South of the Ford Center which has been proven by two different studies as the wrong site. Plus, it’s also proven that it’s considerably further to Bricktown.
This doesn’t make sense???

I wonder how long it will be before the City announces that it will hire (another) consultant specifically for site selection of the convention center. If that happens, I’m sure that they will clearly choose the site South of the Ford Center. If this happens, it will be very clear that there are other motives involved here other than what’s best for the City!

Steve – I still don’t get your posting of this or the nearly identical one from Feb 17.

I understand this is a big deal. I get that…I promise I do. But since this is the second time (maybe 3rd if you count the original one) that we’ve brought up this quote as if there is some conspiracy happening…or even some news happening.

I pulled the only ‘active’ sentences Mayor used in your quoted breakdown:

“We’re going to continue to revisit the site because this is a pretty big decision.”

“But there are other sites we can consider and we’ll do that on the other side of the vote if it’s successful.”

Isn’t this currently happening? Didn’t the ULI coincide with these quotes?

I am not against this discussion and find it quite interesting…I just think I am missing something that you are trying to point out.

Casey, questions noted.

Pat, I think you’re jumping the gun a little bit. I can’t imagine they would do that. The motive would be really transparent, and I just have a hard time believing they are trying to pull the wool over anybody’s eyes. Surely there is a reason the Mayor and city people prefer the south of Ford Center location? What were the reasons that it appeared in the Core to Shore thing? Has anyone even bothered to ask?

I’m sorry if these are questions that have already been answered. This is the first time that I have really paid attention to the convention center stuff very much.

I know I said earlier that the distance from Bricktown to the south of Ford Center site wasn’t far, and I admitted later that I was wrong. But still I find it hard to believe that there isn’t a good reason the Mayor is pushing this location.

Jeff & Casey, if there actually are reasons that the mayor and/or city manager prefers the location south of the Ford Center as opposed to the ULI recommendations &
the earlier HOK study, this would seem to be a good time to share them and engage in some healthy transparent public discussion, don’t you think? As a guess, Casey, I’d think there would be a good chance that you’d be privy to them … sooo … what’s the scoop?

Casey is right.

Nothing is carved in stone at this time, and there’s plenty of time for the City to validate a location… The Mayor has clearly stated that public discussion and professional input will be evaluated prior to finalizing site selection.

Public discussion has indeed been occurring for at least the last several days. We seem intent on crucifying the Mayor before he’s even had the opportunity to do what he said he would do!

WHY would the City cling to a site that doesn’t make sense? If the City indeed clings to the park site, then we should expect a very thorough and convincing substantiation of that decision.

Still, we have not heard ANY explanation of WHY they like the park site so much. Someone please tell us! We want to know.

I guess this whole issue spins on one’s understanding of how things work at City Hall. If you, for example, are among those who believe that the MAPS 3 ballot was truly a blank slate throughout the summer of 2009 and the items weren’t decided until September, then I can’t see why anyone would worry about this. If, however, you are among those who believe the ballot was pretty much decided behind the scenes as the summer began, then you might also be concerned with how the mayor arrived at the Core to Shore site being the best one when no such conclusion was reached by any expert or group. I’m not saying what’s right or what’s wrong here. I am, however, asking questions, providing more insight as I can, and allowing all of you to reach your own conclusions.
There have been questions asked of me, and I assure you I’m working very, very hard to get a story in to get such questions answered.

Thanks for making it more transparent Steve, I do appreciate what you do for downtown. I really look forward to every Tuesday and new blog postings.

However, after reading your columns, features and blogs, it is pretty clear where you stand, even if you are leaving it up to us to reach our own conclusions. You do exert influence, even if you claim to be neutral.

Don’t be so sure… if you went back in time and looked at the questions I asked and the things I examined while covering the early days of MAPS, you might have thought I was against MAPS.
It just so happens that right now I’m finding a lot to question involving Core to Shore. I’m not here to copy and paste press releases – I’m here to provoke discussion and ensure that people are properly informed as to what’s going on.
In this case I could simply tell all of you that the Mayor says this is the best site for a convention center and that’s that. Or I can tell you more of the story… I choose to do the latter….

The HOK report does give the South of Ford Center site the highest score if you assume all the Core to Shore development occurs as planned (see the speculative score). So, Steve, your claim that no expert or group has said the Core to Shore is the best isn’t exactly true.

What is most striking to me from the HOK report is how weak the density is in downtown OKC. For that reason, I think the new convention center should be put on the main street location or at the Cox site. I think we need to maximize density here at much as we can. Core to Shore is a bad plan overall, because it threatens the density downtown. And when it comes to a downtown, density is king.

Final point, it’s weird that Kirk Humphries and Marsh Pitman are politicking for their site here. Can’t these guys just call up the Mayor’s office? Aren’t they part of this discussion? I mean, these guys are major developers in the area. Or maybe Cornett only listens to Bennett these days?

Wow. I’ve just looked through that HOK report for the first time. Combined with the ULI recommendations it’s pretty upsetting if this information has been available for this long and is just being ignored. But is that the case? Seriously, what’s the deal here? I’m assuming the studies cost quite a bit of money? Both groups look pretty darn qualified.

I kind of feel like an idiot for saying it wasn’t important.

Doug, to be 100% honest, I haven’t had one discussion with him on the convention center. On the few occasions I get to talk to him the convention center seems to slip my mind.

If the best site is the lumber yard site, then I hope it goes there. If the best site is south of the Ford Center, then I hope it goes there. If the best site is…I want what’s best for this city and knowing my dad’s passion for this city and all that he has sacrificed in his life being mayor, I’m sure he wants the same.

James, I saw the same speculative scoring stuff you did in the HOK report. But it says “This scoring matrix assumes that development planned for the Core-to-Shore and Producer’s Cooperative areas south of the new boulevard occured more or less simultaneously with the development of the new convention center.” Does that mean it only works if Core to Shore is complete within 10 years, or however long it takes to build the convention center? That’s where the ULI study concerns me, because they said it will take 50 years for Core to Shore to be finished. I’d really like to understand all of this better.

Steve I don’t agree with everything you write, but I am glad that you are letting us know everything that is happening behind the scenes. I like Mayor Mick, I think he believes he has OKC’s best interests at heart, but I don’t want him saying, “that’s the site, that’s where we are putting it”. So again, thank you for keeping us up to date.

James Evans, the main street site isn’t big enough. If you look at that presentation with the trash paper and the image, the image that they had was at least 5 years old. Walnut Street Bridge hadn’t been completed yet in satelite photo. A couple of those buildings have had some work done to them. Not a bad idea, but not a good location. The Cox site is bad too, because in my opinion, it isn’t big enough either. Plus the city just invested $55 million into it less than 15 years ago. It has an arena that is still used (it will be when the hockey team starts playing, plus Big 12 tourneys).

That leaves 3 sites and one of them is despised by 95% of the people on this site. HOK is an architecture firm, it doesn’t make them infallible. You could get 10 firms to do studies and you would get 10 different opinions. Why are you coming after Kirk Humphries?

We can hardly have a thorough discussion without the MAPS 3 advisory board in place, hold your horses people! Also, the HOK study lists several pros and cons for each of the sites. Their system of weighted scoring didn’t reveal any statistically significant standouts. The study also mentioned that the prospective value of each site is based upon environmental conditions and ease of land acquisition, which have not been completely determined yet. There is more gray in this discussion than black and white.

Dennis, you said,

Casey is right.

Nothing is carved in stone at this time, and there’s plenty of time for the City to validate a location… The Mayor has clearly stated that public discussion and professional input will be evaluated prior to finalizing site selection.

Public discussion has indeed been occurring for at least the last several days. We seem intent on crucifying the Mayor before he’s even had the opportunity to do what he said he would do!

WHY would the City cling to a site that doesn’t make sense? If the City indeed clings to the park site, then we should expect a very thorough and convincing substantiation of that decision.

Still, we have not heard ANY explanation of WHY they like the park site so much. Someone please tell us! We want to know.

As far as I can see, Steve is just asking legitimate questions. The “public discussion” to which you refer as having occurred has thus far all been one-sided, the city and/or its representatives having contributed nothing at all. It’s like the city says, “We ain’t talking.” I, and apparently you, and probably others, would just like some answers, a rationale for the city’s default preference, or at the very least some city participation in the public discussion. The city may well have good answers. But only until the city’s answers are all on the table can real public discussion — a two-way discussion — occur.

BEFORE reaching a possible conclusion that the promised public discussion is NOT going to be transparent, and/or concluding that no or insufficient good reasons exist for the site for the convention center to be located south of the Ford Center, I’m one who would like to know that before I jump off the deep end and start forming conclusions based upon the silence of the mayor and/or city manager.

The mayor and/or city manager may well have good reasons for their own and/or the city’s default position. I would like to hear the rationale.

And I would like for the promised public discussion to occur. When driving one’s automobile, one can speak to the front seat passenger for hours on end but if the passenger ignores the speech and doesn’t respond, for whatever reason, no discussion is in fact occurring.

Here’s the rest of what I know:
- This HOK study was not provided to the Core to Shore task force, even though it was being done while the group was still meeting.
- Members of the Core to Shore task force I’ve spoken to say it should have been provided to them.
- The mayor can’t explain why it wasn’t provided to them.
- The mayor says in the video above the Core to Shore site was selected as the best in the Core to Shore planning process (the task force). The Core to Shore task force never voted on a site. The renderings and maps show the convention center site at the mayor’s direction.
- The city has already bought property in the area identified as the Core to Shore convention center site.
- The mayor intends to use $30 million of the MAPS 3 money on buying OG&E property on the Core to Shore convention center site regardless of any other decision.
This is my final writing on this topic.

I have saved your last comment, Steve, noting your comment that

This is my final writing on this topic.

Anyone with a quarter of a brain can draw fair and accurate presumptive inferences as to why you said what you just did.

Before I go off the deep end and get into political stuff yet again (which I really DO NOT enjoy doing), I am:

(1) Saving every comment made in this thread;

(2) Waiting for a few days to see if you begin writing on this topic again. If you do not, I will presume the worst.
If it gets deleted, I will be inclined to post it elsewhere. Hopefully, no need will exist for that to occur.

It has all been saved — 7 pages long before reformatting to make it look pretty. Without your permission, I will now post your last comment, above, at OkcTalk.com.

Why are we fighting over this issue? The people posting in this thread all command respect from the downtown community.

However I will say that I do NOT think that the “crying wolf” on the convention center location is baseless. I think it’s patently obvious that there is a very clear effort from City Hall to make absolutely certain the convention is next to the park, for whatever reason..at times against the advice from within the planning department.

Look at the people planning C2S–its biggest fans. Most of them are marketing people, not city planners or architects–for the most part.

It seems rather obvious that the Mayor has been caught on record lying. Yes, I said it because everyone else has just hinted at it. The questions is what special interest is he serving?

Casey, I missed your reply,

Doug, to be 100% honest, I haven’t had one discussion with him on the convention center. On the few occasions I get to talk to him the convention center seems to slip my mind.

If the best site is the lumber yard site, then I hope it goes there. If the best site is south of the Ford Center, then I hope it goes there. If the best site is…I want what’s best for this city and knowing my dad’s passion for this city and all that he has sacrificed in his life being mayor, I’m sure he wants the same.

We hope for the same thing, Casey. And I share your and your dad’s passion for our city. For each of us, however, to pursue our personal aspirations is not sacrificial in nature and I do disagree with your choice of words in that respect. Pursuing one’s goals, whatever those goals may be, merely represents an individual choice about doing what one feels strongly about doing and individually sets out to do. The personal reward is either in the accomplishment, or at least in the attempt to accomplish, whatever the personal goals may be. In that context, there is no sacrifice. There is only the self-satisfaction for doing one’s best, and that is enough.

All that verbiage aside, make no mistake from my remarks:

I regard what your dad has accomplished as mayor of your and my city in the highest regard. Among other things, he was the closer on the Skirvin Hilton project; he was critically important, probably paramount, in the Hornets temporary location here which was step one in the path which no one could then say where it would lead; and, ultimately, in his leadership concerning the Ford Center sales tax vote which paved the way for the city hosting the team which would be named the Thunder. Without that leadership, I am of the firm opinion that our city would not have a professional NBA team today. Our city owes your father much for what he has done and that fact is not lost on me for a moment.

It would not be a bad thing, though, for him to lay out the reasons for locating the convention center south of the Ford Center. Many in this city are hungering for an open discussion, ideas pro and con. I want your dad to lead the way in the discussion, and, in the end, for a consensus to emerge. That next step, though, is not up to me, is it.

OK?

In the meantime the Mayor is proposing what I guess is a major street race through Bricktown and the OKC central board and its champion have completely ignored it while continuing to repeatedly pound the same agenda-driven issues again and again. Has this horse been plugged enough?

as this issue keeps getting tossed about, a thought occurs to me regarding the city’s purchase of the property in the “preferred” location. CTS, in some form or fashion, is going to happen, regardless of the time frame. the mayor is well aware of the importance of the convention center. by leaning towards putting it in one location, does that not improve the city’s negotiating power regarding another possible location? namely, we might get a good deal on either the cotton mill or the lumberyard precisely because we DON’T have to buy it (not to mention the difficulty for the seller in finding another buyer), and we could put the property south of the ford center to another beneficial use?

maybe we should not be so quick to throw rocks and assume the worst in the city leadership that has, so far, gone light years in pulling us out of the disaster that was the late 1980s. just a thought.

What is your definition of “quick,” david? And are today’s leaders really the same ones that pulled us out of the disaster that was the late 1980s? Or do they just sit in the same chairs?

“…If you, for example, are among those who believe that the MAPS 3 ballot was truly a blank slate throughout the summer of 2009 and the items weren’t decided until September, then I can’t see why anyone would worry about this. If, however, you are among those who believe the ballot was pretty much decided behind the scenes as the summer began, then you might also be concerned with how the mayor arrived at the Core to Shore site being the best one when no such conclusion was reached by any expert or group….” — slackmeyer

Hard to believe it was a “blank slate” since it was supposed to have been put in front of voters a year earlier when it got bumped for the Ford tax vote (3/08). Think the only question then was what to replace the $120M slot formerly occupied by the Ford.

MAPS 3 was being considered at least as earlier as 7 years ago (2/9/03, when Humphreys was Mayor and Burns Hargis was the head of the Chamber) in this article written by Steve:

http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:mPcRKHS2Aa8J:www.mynewsok.com/city-seeks-right-track-for-proposed-rail-system/article/

[Quote]At a recent chamber of commerce retreat, light rail dominated discussions of what could be a future “MAPS 3 to follow the original downtown improvement projects and public school overhaul now under way. Hargis envisions a light rail connecting State Fair Park, Will Rogers World Airport and downtown by the state’s centennial in 2007.[/Quote]

captcha = immersed bull