I'm actually surprised nobody has brought up Remington Park in these arguments. All of the talk surrounding the track's construction and how having a state of the art racetrack was going to add millions to OKC's tourism and the State's coffers by putting OKC on the world map? Sound familiar? What happened when it wasn't generating the dollars and profit margins projected? I tell you what happened, the primary owner dumped it and left OKC holding the bag. Yes, the track is still here but since it opened, I've never seen the place packed. I would be interested in knowing the net profit margin it's generating these days and just how stable it really is? Weren't we sold a bill of goods a couple years ago that the track was loosing money and that was why it had to include slot machines and be allowed to compete with casinos? Folks, there is no doubt in my mind that having the Sonics in OKC will generate money but OKC isn't going have a better "standard of life" because of it. Having the Sonics in town isn't going to increase the wage levels of the jobs it's bringing with it. Minimum wage food service industry and hotel jobs isn't increasing the standard of living of greater OKC and it never will. How is a basketball franchise going to increase the median salary of Oklahoma above $37,000? Sports generate a lot of revenue but the people that reap those revenues are only a select few and I guarantee you, it's never going to be the average citizen.

William, the 'amount' of the tax will not increase. The citizens of OKC, will not pay 'more' they will be paying the same that have been for a longer period of time. Using your logic, what if you had a Kia Spectra and for paying the same amount for a loner period of time, you can trade in that Kia and get a Honda Accord (I am biased because I own one ;)) To me, that would be a no brainer. Something that would last a lot longer and I wouldn't have to pay anything for 7-8 years on repairs.

VOTE NO MARCH 4TH! I'm amused at how supporters try to fool everyone by saying sales taxes will not increase. That's like saying my bank won't increase my car payment --- their just going to extend my original 48 monthly payments to 60 months. Where is the logic? I'm insulted everytime I here his argument, and you should be too.
VOTE NO MARCH 4th!

Troy, I am not sure how often you read the paper, but OKC passed an $835 million bond to improve the streets, sidewalks, parks, drainage systems among other things. Here is the link to the website if you care to read over it: http://www.okc.gov/bonds2007/. The problem with the team owners is they have already paid $350 million for the team (I think, correct me if I am wrong) plus when it comes to moving them, they will probably have to pay that too. I am not 100% sure about who pays in case of relocation, but that would make the most sense. I think this is a sign of good faith on the part of the city to pony up the funds (which we have already been paying anyways-See the original MAPS project) to show we want to be a big league city and move in the right direction and I personally think this the way to do it. I am voting yes and I am urging all of my friends and everyone I know to do so as well.

I think its a great move for the city. Im voting yes.

I don't think all citizens of Oklahoma City should be taxed to reconstruct the Ford Center for an NBA team. What about citizens of Brittain, War Acres, Edmond, Norman, Moore, Bethany etc participating. Let the team owners buildd what they want and maybe they will be satisfied to remain in their owned property without crying for newer amenities. I didn't like the Bass Pro deal the citizens voted to do. The Gaylord family owned a share of Bass Pro. Let the corporate owners pay the fee. Having out of towners eat in Bricktown will in no way provide my family, which is retired on a fixed income, benefit from such things as Bass Pro or the NBA franchise. I cannot afford season tickets and the food and drinks available. Fix our roads and streets. Inspect the paving jobs our vendors are leaving with us and insure that the materials and proccesses they use are in accordance with good quality workmanship. Look at the boulevard that runs north from Memorial at the traffic light between May and Portland. How many sections have already been repaired and how many are in need of repair after only a few years of useage.
First things first.

Before we passed MAPS 1, the big problem attracting business to OKC was "quality of life". It was mentioned as one of the biggest determining factors when United Airlines chose Indy over OKC for a new maintenance facility in the early ninetys. The package we had offered was over 300 million. We then took a different approach. Instead of giving that money to a business to move here, we decided to invest that money in our city to improve our "quality of life" and MAPS was born. Does having a major league team attract business? It's definitely a nice perk and elevates "quality of life". In retrospect, the Ford Center was a gift. It was the last Maps project done and we had to extend the MAPS tax 6 months to pay for it. At that time we had collected a total of 54 million dollars in interest in the MAPS tax deposits.....so, if you choose to look at it this way, we are currently only 35 million dollars out-of-pocket on the Ford Center. When the Ford Center was bid. One company was low bid by a wide margin because they had screwed up their bid. Flintco decided to honor their bid, even though they had under bid the project by 10 million dollars and would show a loss on the project. So now we're at 35 miliion and we got it done below the builders cost. When it was built, we had 89 million dollars to spend and decisions to make. We decided to build the arena to NBA and NHL spec's in terms of dimensions, with the ability to add all the extra's when we could afford it. We were going to finish it as part of MAPS 3 anyway and now have the opportunity to to have one of the "top tier arena's in the NBA" for under 200 million dollars. Compare those costs with other NBA cities.....Compare those costs with the new arenas in Tulsa, Wichita and Louisville, where they have no chance for an NBA team. We would have finished the Ford Center anyway......getting an NBA team is just a big, fat benefit of that. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The lowest IQs favor the plan. That's pretty telling."...Sound like a real fun dude ..Always a few guys like you in the workplace...Nothing a few beers can't fix though Teddy

Jill, opinions are not limited by geographic boundaries. I don't expect more from you though. After all you originally were saying that the improvements "don't even benefit the team at all" - so, you're a dim light at best. This is the pattern that's reinforced with each post. The lowest IQs favor the plan. That's pretty telling.

Yes Chris, compartmentalize this topic by ignoring the public handout of over $200M in total. Find a means to make it more palatable, like using a $5 analogy. Public funding the requests of billionaire owners is so egregious that diverting your attention from the total cost is the only way to support the plan. So Chris, drop your opposition immediately.

""just re-read some of the posts....and so again, if we don't get the Super Sonics, and we approve the tax-hike, we'll ONLY spend $96 mil?""...It will only cost you $5 Chris..It does make for a more interesting argument when people throw out the total numbers, but paying $5 to land the cities first ever major league team?...Please sacrifice one lunch at Arby's to help out thousands of sports fans who will enjoy an NBA team for years

I assume Ted, you violently oppose spending money for sports venues, and never attend events at the Mariners and Seahawks stadiums, as well as the Key Arena, since public money (amounting to a billion dollars plus) was spent on your venues in Seattle. We're talking a hundred million here. You're free to vote no in our March election if you choose to buy property here, because that's the only way your opinion matters.

I was just in Phoenix for the "ahem" Fiesta Bowl (not much of a fiesta for me!), and I was there last year as well. Last year the arena and stadium sat in a giant empty desolate field, with two small hotels close by and a couple of restaurants. When we went back a year later, I was amazed at the development that has taken place around the area. People want to live by the sports venues, so there are new homes, townhomes, condos, etc. There are new restaurants, hotels and retail space. It's far less of a vast empty field than even one year ago. I think, in a city with more than one professional team, getting a second team probably wouldn't make much of an economic impact. But when you move from being a city with no teams up to join cities like Charlotte and Phoenix, there is an impact. It's got to be a more attractive place to locate new businesses, and I know that the reason two of my college educated children moved to Atlanta and Chicago rather than staying here is simply because there's more to do for a young person. We need to reverse that kind of brain drain, and a NBA team is one of the things kids like to do....the restaurants and clubs that spring up around the area help attract them as well. Then, there is the quality of life issue of having something different to do in the winter here, when it's cold and damp and no fun to do outdoor things, than go to a movie or watch the NBA on your television. It was something my whole family could do together, and the ones that weren't huge basketball fans even enjoyed themselves. Again, it's a way to take the step that separates us from the Wichitas, Omahas and Tulsas to make our city a better place in which to live, and a more attractive place for others to consider relocating. People from other places who tell us to vote "no", especially when they're from Seattle, have suspect motives, since our voting "yes" threatens them with loss of their team. I want us to be competitive for other events than just the NBA too, and an improved Ford Center will help do that, not to mention it would improve my Ford Center experiences when I do go to events there.

Before we passed MAPS 1, the big problem attracting business to OKC was "quality of life". It was mentioned as one of the biggest determining factors when United Airlines chose Indy over OKC for a new maintenance facility in the early ninetys. The package we had offered was over 300 million.

We then took a different approach. Instead of giving that money to a business to move here, we decided to invest that money in our city to improve our "quality of life" and MAPS was born.

Does having a major league team attract business? It's definitely a nice perk and elevates "quality of life".

In retrospect, the Ford Center was a gift.

It was the last Maps project done and we had to extend the MAPS tax 6 months to pay for it. At that time we had collected a total of 54 million dollars in interest in the MAPS tax deposits.....so, if you choose to look at it this way, we are currently only 35 million dollars out-of-pocket on the Ford Center.

When the Ford Center was bid. One company was low bid by a wide margin because they had screwed up their bid. Flintco decided to honor their bid, even though they had under bid the project by 10 million dollars and would show a loss on the project.

So now we're at 35 miliion and we got it done below the builders cost.

When it was built, we had 89 million dollars to spend and decisions to make. We decided to build the arena to NBA and NHL spec's in terms of dimensions, with the ability to add all the extra's when we could afford it.

We were going to finish it as part of MAPS 3 anyway and now have the opportunity to to have one of the "top tier arena's in the NBA" for under 200 million dollars. Compare those costs with other NBA cities.....Compare those costs with the new arenas in Tulsa, Wichita and Louisville, where they have no chance for an NBA team.

We would have finished the Ford Center anyway......getting an NBA team is just a big, fat benefit of that.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ted, I really have no interest, but thanks for the invite. I am sure I will talk to you on future posts and we will disagree again. Best of luck to you.

Gary, there is no aptitude test required to vote - so do as you will. All the best to you as well. BTW - if you want to join our fantasy basketball league next year, I can post the league website.

The methods used by proponents of stadium construction to generate economic impact studies have been the subject of heavy criticism from economists. Impact reports overstate the economic impact of a facility because they reference gross effects rather than net effects. (No where in the OKC economic impact report do they account for the money spent on the arena). It's like balancing your checkbook but counting only your deposits and completely ignoring your withdrawals. The impact if further diluted because most spending inside the arena is a substitute for other local recreational spending. (The impact reports conveniently ignores that these dollars would be spent locally anyhow). The economy is not seeing a positive net effect - rather - they're just moving recreational spending from one outlet to another. :::::: A true economic impact of the Hornets would only include new cash flow injected into an economy by visitors from outside the community. (The impact report conveniently just "assumes" that 20% of the attendance is in this class - no facts, just a broad unqualified assumption) Economic impact studies by hired consultants and chambers of commerce universally estimate only positive aspects. Only gross benefits rather than net benefits are measured and reported. They just omit measured costs. Also, the impact reports conveniently ignore potential social impacts, including traffic congestion, vandalism, environmental degradation, disruption of residents' lifestyle, etc. ______ Oppps, Bug - caught again posting completely fictional information. Why you would continue to argue the economics of this is beyond me. These are scholars who did real independent studies - they use complete data. Your argument in supporting this arena funding should simply be : "Having the NBA would be fun. But in order to get it, we have to tax the public. Even though everyone knows there is no economic return, we should do it anyway - because I like sports." The truth will set you free Bug.

Bug, I have decided this is a lost cause. Ted is going to continue to shut down any and every attempt for reason. Ted, we can agree to disagree. I will vote yes, you will have no vote. Good luck in your future trials and tribulations.

New Orleans Hornets Economic Impact
City of Oklahoma City — Revised Analysis

Prepared by
Brent Bryant, Business Manager
Finance Department
City of Oklahoma City
And
Monty Evans, CEcD, Manager
Research & Information Services
Oklahoma City Chamber of Commerce
May 7, 2006

Due to the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans in September 2005, the City of Oklahoma City (City) was approached by the New Orleans Hornets (Hornets) and the National Basketball Association (NBA) to play their 2005-06 season at the Ford Center in Oklahoma City. Such a relocation definitely brought economic benefits to both the City and the State of Oklahoma (State). The impacts of these benefits are divided into 1) game impact, 2) payroll impact, and 3) economic impact. We have attempted to summarize these impacts based on the best information available.

The original New Orleans/Oklahoma City Hornets impact analysis (done in September 2005) had assumed 41 home games with an average attendance of 12,000 per game. This revised analysis uses actual ‘turnstile’ attendance figures (18,737) as reported by the City of Oklahoma City. Additionally, there were 38 home games played at the Ford Center during the 2005-06 season (three less than originally estimated). The differences between the estimated and actual figures are summarized in the table on the following page.

I. Game Impact
Direct Spending
Based on actual ‘turnstile’ attendance, the Hornets averaged 18,737 per game attendance, playing a total of 38 home games (36 regular season and 2 preseason) at the Ford Center during the 2005-06 season. That level of attendance generated an estimated $45,568,384 in direct spending. The assumptions being that 20% of the attendees are from out of town and would spend $200 while the remaining 80% of the attendees are local and would spend $30 per event. Non-resident attendees would account for $749,480 per game and resident attendees would account for $449,688 per game for a total of $1,199,168 in direct spending for each game. For the 38 game season, direct spending is estimated to be $45,568,384 with $28,480,240 from non-residents and $17,088,144 from residents.
Sales Tax Estimates
Also, of the $45,568,384 in direct spending, an estimated 75% (or $34,176,288) would be subject to state & local sales taxes. Based on that, the City could anticipate an additional $1,324,331 (based on a tax rate of 3.875%) in new sales taxes annually while the State would have an additional $1,537,933 (based on a tax rate of 4.5%) in sales tax revenue.

II. Payroll Impact
The estimated player payroll for the Hornets is approximately $57,000,000 annually with additional $3,000,000 in front office payroll, bringing the total annual payroll for the Hornets to $60,000,000. Based on a State income tax rate of 6.0%, this level of payroll could potentially yield $3,600,000 in projected income tax collections.

III. Economic Impact
Employment Impact
Besides the direct game spending impact of the Hornets, the 100 direct jobs (players & front office) would likely generate an additional 129 support jobs in the local economy for a total of 229 direct and induced employment.

Payroll Impact
Based on the assumption that only $6,000,000 (approximately 10%) of the projected teams payroll of $60,000,000 will be spent in Oklahoma (since most of the players reside in other states), the direct & induced payroll impact would be approximately $25,443,078 annually. That would generate an estimated $249,270 in local tax revenues and $1,854,094 in state tax revenues.

Total Economic Impact
Based on the direct game spending impact of $45,568,384 and the payroll impact of $25,443,078, the total economic impact of the Hornets relocation to the City would be approximately $71,011,462. That level of spending and payroll would likely generate $1,573,601 in local tax revenues and $1,854,094 in state tax revenues for the 2005-06 season.

Summary
Based on the above analysis, the economic impact of the Hornets relocation during the 2005-06 season to the City and State was approximately $71,011,462 and likely generated $3,392,027 in state and local tax revenues.

Hi Gary - First, thanks for your concern over my quality of life. I can assure you that I'm doing very well. The amount of items I post has no correlation. I am passionate about the issue of public subsidies awarded to professional sports. Hence, I spend time discussing the topic. The geographic location is irrelevant. I am just as opposed to a new 49ers stadium in Santa Clara, CA. I have afforded myself a life style where I can dedicate my time to things I am passionate about. I also enjoy the latest in technological advancements - so I'm free to read and respond at my leisure from pretty much anywhere. Anyway, let's address your links. ___ MEMPHIS. Well, Mensa, you posted a study from 2001 - let's see how those "projections" panned out in the real world: Dead last in attendance. Ooops - missed all those projection. Forbes magazine estimated the Grizzlies’ operating losses at $18.5 million. Oooops - missed all those projection too. Well Gary, nice work finding a fictional study from half a decade ago - too bad it was disproved entirely by the actual data. ___ LEBRON: This is exactly the point you miss Gary. It's all "substitution" effect. If LeBron plays for 30 years at this same level, then the city might break even on their investment. However, if they spent the money they instead allocated to the sports facilities on multiple items like the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame, they'd be operating at a much higher economic level. So, thanks again for proving the point. ____ ORLANDO: Wow, you found a link from "NBA.COM" that says a publicly funded arena is a good idea ! Amazing ! Perhaps next you can go to phillipmorris.com and post some positives about cigarette smoking. ___ I'll leave you with this Gary - it's a quote from the Spurs - a real live NBA team, that got a real live publicly funded arena. The Spurs went back to the city after 5 years and asked them for more money for renovations. When the city balked and pointed to the failed promises of "economic gains" resulting from the team and arena, here's what they said: Spurs spokesperson Leo Gomez of the notion of an economic boom: "We know better than that. It hasn't worked in any other community in the country. And it's not going to happen here." ___ We're cancelling your badge Detective Gary.

Ted, please do not try to insult anyone anymore. Your insults are average at best, but I am sure you are trying your hardest. And maybe you need more of a lesson on Econ 101 than I do. Economics is the social science that studies the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services. Since you seem to be quoting people who think that an NBA team will not work economically, I will post some that do think it will work. This is one for the city of Memphis: http://planning.memphis.edu/NBAmarket.pdf. My favorite part is: “There is potential for benefits beyond the direct and indirect purchases associated with the operation of the arena and NBA team. Both the academic and professional communities of economists, accountants and city planners agree that major league sports teams can have numerous positive benefits for the local community.”

So you are saying that economists, accountants and city planners are all wrong? OK, here is another one: http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=1782852. This is a story that Lebron James alone has had a huge impact on the economy. I am not saying he will be as good but Kevin Durant could single handedly have a huge impact as well:

“The economic impact of James is hard to miss. Enough James jerseys have been sold to outfit 76 capacity crowds at Gund Arena or 55 percent of the greater Cleveland area. On a smaller scale, "The LeBron Effect" can be observed at the businesses around the arena. James' rise in the NBA meant 40 to 70 more rooms were filled on game nights at the Radisson Hotel across from the arena. That's gross revenue of approximately $300,000, according to Vern Fuller, the president of the hotel's ownership group who played with the Indians from 1964-1970. "LeBron has pumped new life into this economy," said Geoff Rose, director of operations for The Winking Lizard Tavern, a bar located a few doors down from the hotel. "There's a lot more foot traffic and a lot more energy from this community and the people that now come in from out of town."
This last one is from the city of Orlando (where half of my extended family currently resides): http://www.nba.com/magic/orlandoeventscenter/design_unveiled.html
“In designing the community’s new Events Center we feel we have created the framework for a facility that will be the catalyst for economic revitalization in downtown’s West side, while establishing a flexible design that will serve as a great home and attract the nation’s premier events,” said Alex Martins, Orlando Magic Chief Operating Officer.

The last point that I am going to make and I will call it quits is directly towards Ted. Simple question, how sad is your life? In the last two days, you have posted 22 times about an arena I assume you have never been to and a city that you do not live in. Bug, no offense, but you are not a whole lot better, but at least you live in the same state so you need to state your claim. Ted, I know you have right to free speech, but should really do it where it will make a difference. I know the first time I saw you on here, I was thinking, “Well I guess he can have an opinion because it is the city that currently (but not for long) houses the Sonics.” Then you kept replying it seemed like every hour on the hour and it is just plain sad. People, vote for this because it WILL benefit our economy and it is going to spring us forward to Core to Shore that will change the whole look of OKC and make it a first class town for people to come visit and move to. Who knows? In 30 years we might even get the Olympics! (that last part was a joke)

Bug, you're not that bright. I am a born and bred Okie with an education and an eccentric outlook.
http://www.koco.com/entertainment/755027/detail.html

my mistake: final cost to build was $87.7 million

I can't find the info Bug is requesting but the bid by Flintco was the exact dollar amount that was supposedly left in the MAPS fund....less than $70 million. What does it matter though? The new tax will just be another fleecing of Oklahoma City.

Yeah, we read it the first 4 times you posted it. Now are you going to help us resolve this wager or not?

I believe that the Sonics are good for OKC and Ted believes that the Sonics are bad for Seattle. I think we have a win-win here. We can unload the burden of the Sonics from Seattle. I think we should help them further escape the plague of major league sports by also taking the Seahawks off their hands, after all, we have a much nicer 85,000 seat stadium 30 minutes from downtown OKC that we're not using on Sunday's anyway.....win-win