Sorry to hear you were sick (I was ill Monday). Have you been back to the Journal Record site lately? They have a hot topic blog going on there (I don't have the direct link to the entire blog but am sure you can figure out how to get to it). I had presented Mr. Streuli a list of 16 questions (and a few sub-questions) to ask the Mayor (this was in response to the editorial you had posted a link to earlier). Even though I didn't get any response from the Mayor or my council person when I sent the same questions in weeks ago, Mr. Streuli did get responses to all 16 from the Mayor's Chief of Staff, Mr. Holt. Unfortunately, Mr. Holt didn't read my closing sentence where I said "unless these questions are answered honesty and without spin..." Anyway, you have to click on the "Reader asks Mayor responds" to see the original questions, but his responses and my "comments" (should be a total of 17, but only 12 are visible yet) are at the link below: :-)
_________________________________________________________________
http://blogs.journalrecord.com/hottopic/2008/02/19/questions-for-the-mayor/

I didn't go to Toby Keith's, as I was sick with what's been going around here. I don't know if Philip went. That imposter has been doing the same thing on the Seattle Times website,and what was terrible about that was that he was posing as someone from Oklahoma, being terribly rude and foul mouthed. Since he listed himself as being from Oklahoma, everyone up there was very upset with "us", which was awful and of course his plan. I was pretty sure it was him when he started posing as Philip, since he took names of real people from Oklahoma when he posed up in Seattle. I don't post on any Seattle forums, but I like to read them to see what's going on with the team.

The most discreet thing I can suggest is registering at OKCtalk if you haven't already. My screenname there is Betts. You'd figure it out pretty quickly, so I don't think I have to be too quiet about it. Haha! You can send me a message if you are a member.

LOL, we are both a bit long winded (and if anyone doesn't like it they can scroll right past it). Don't know the percentage you and I take up, but in just the combined feedback of all the articles I have book marked on this subject, it is a document just over 300 pages long (and growing every day). Literally a book could be published on this. LMAO

hi Jill...Now if we can only figure out a way to contact each other without it getting "published"...there are a few people out there that are a bit scary (if you know what I mean) LOL Did you go to the rally Sat at Toby Keith's? I would have been there but didn't find out about it until long after it was over. Also, did you see my posts disavowing the Jill & Philip posting impostor? What that person is doing is just plain wrong. If he/she were doing it to me, think I would click on the link at the bottom of every post they make and report them.

Larry, having met people I've talked to on websites before, I've learned people are pretty much the same in person as they are online (if they post as much as you and I do!). I'd be delighted to meet you. I have to admire your tenacity as well, and I appreciate the fact that you actually live here. I can appreciate differences of opinion, even if it's not always obvious, as long as they're genuine and the poster has what they feel are Oklahoma City's best interests at heart.

Jill, I understand completely about someone confusing opinion with fact, if I ever implied that, I sincerely apologize...sometimes things get left out in subsequent posts that have been clearly stated/supported/documented etc., in previous ones. I don't think you have ever done that. I do want to say that although I don't agree with your conclusions I do admire your tenacity and willingness to keep up the dialog (even when some facts or analogies are refuted, you keep plugging away). In a sense I like the challenge presented. Shucks, I appreciate the offer to treat me to an NBA game, but no need for that, perfectly willing to go dutch! You seem like a nice person who is sincere in her beliefs. I would love the opportunity to sit down with you and Philip (Bug), Michael and Roger sometime and hash this out. Hopefully, we could keep it civil as we have mostly been able to do here. Yeah, I know I would be outnumbered but it is nice to be able to put faces and "real people" to an online first name.

Don't disagree that it would add another "check on the Pro side of the list for the BOG", but from what I have seen the other side of the list (reasons for them NOT to approve the relocation request are a LOT longer than the Pro side)...if ANYONE can guarantee me that this temporary tax will truly end in 15 months (without being replaced/extended by another temporary tax, for any purpose, for at least 1 year), I will vote YES.

Larry, if this arena deal passes, I'll treat you to an NBA game so you can see what's been done, and we can discuss the pros and cons of the upgrades. If it doesn't, I'll be going to Dallas to Mavs' games a couple of times a year, and won't feel much like company.

"How good is good enough? This becomes an arena "arms race" as it were...when is it going to end?"...In 15 months

"You have pointed out all the reasons why the BOG should NOT approve a move here (and I agree with you on that), yet somehow this tiny little upgrade (in the NBA's eyes) erases all the reasons for them to deny relocation? Again, I am confused."...Really no need to be confused Larry...It sends a message....An overwhelming and powerful message?...Not exactly, but it would be another check on the Pro side of the list for the BOG

In another thread I stated that we need to do this remodel to compete with other cities, yes. Whether we have an NBA team or not, we are in competition with other cities in our region for events: Omaha, Wichita, Tulsa and Kansas City are the ones that come immediately to mind. I believe that, whether we ever get an NBA team, we need to be competitive with these cities to keep special events, most importantly, the Big Twelve Tournament, but also other concerts, conventions, etc. We're not that distinguishable one from another, and there's not that much to do in one versus the other than we can afford to fall behind.
______________________________________________________
The compete I was talking about is related more to other events than the NBA, to my way of thinking. This vote is more about the vote than the remodel, I believe. In other words, it is my opinion. Just trying to make that clear, since I've been accused of presenting opinion as fact. The NBA has had two small market cities who have not done well in terms of fan support. Both of them had arenas presented as fait accompli. They were not achieved by the will of the people. Charlotte and Memphis. Since we too are a small market town, I honestly believe David Stern wants to receive a message from Oklahoma City that we are ready to support a professional team and excited about doing so. A vote is the best way to gauge a city's support on a person by person basis. It's a bit tricky, since most cities voting already have a team in town, and they've bonded with the team. We have to vote for the "idea" of a team, but still, it will reassure him and the Board of Directors that this move, which isn't a perfect move, let's be honest, is going to work. That's why I don't think Stern needs a big super fancy upgrade here. He wants the arena to compare to other NBA arenas, so we're not the joke of the league, but he more wants to know what we think.
______________________________________________________
I agree 100% that moving the Hornets or the Grizzlies would be a much better idea. I think Stern agrees as well. However, he's a little stuck. Memphis built a new arena, and Stern would be VERY reluctant to move a team from a city that has built the NBA an arena. Things would almost have to be impossible and horrible, with the city of Memphis asking them to leave. As far as the Hornets go, that was always the best idea, to my way of thinking. But they're really very good this year. And all of a sudden, people in New Orleans are going to games. If they keep going to games, the Hornets aren't leaving, because their contract doesn't end until 2014 if they achieve above a certain minimum attendance level. By the way, to get the Hornets, New Orleans had to improve their arena and agree to build a practice facility to get the Hornets, which they did.
______________________________________________________
I'm not sure you can use the words "financial" and "sense" indisputably in the same sentence with "NBA". What I believe will happen if we get an NBA team is not terribly measurable in cold, hard dollars. I believe we will continue to have people from around the state come in for NBA games, and that those people will eat in our restaurants and perhaps stay in our hotels. There may even be a few from Wichita or Kansas City like there were the first year. I believe that the free advertising we will get on ESPN 100 nights a year is almost priceless (although you can buy it for about $1 million for 30 seconds), and that being in major newspapers around the country will do great things for our somewhat lackluster image nationwide. I believe that if we get playoff games or were to have a team that made it to the NBA finals, it would be a financial windfall for our city. New Orleans estimated (and I realize city estimates can be somewhat overblown) an $80 to $90 million windfall from hosting the NBA All Star Game. But regardless, I think of NBA teams like parks, libraries, museums and Civic Centers. They're such iconic things for your city, and they improve quality of life to such a degree, that they shouldn't have to make money. We all pay for leisure time activities somehow. Runners have city purchased parks in which to run, golfers have municipal golf courses, most cities have tennis courts, and basketball goals. Very many things people use for amusement in their leisure time are paid for by the government. I don't see that this should be so different, especially when we get far more publicity and income from an NBA team than a public golf course.
______________________________________________________
Off the top of my head, I cannot remember if Stern has every publicly said he supports the move to OKC. But I think he at least reluctantly supports it. I think if you'd ask him if he'd rather have a team in Oklahoma or Seattle, he'd say Seattle, but their refusal to build an arena is tying his hands. But again, I think that Stern thinks that if other cities have built more expensive arenas than we're being asked to do, that if we're not willing to do this, we aren't ready to have an NBA team. He may also be worried about a Seattle lawsuit. They'll sue anyone for anything, it seems. If Stern moves the Sonics to OKC after we've turned down an arena funding proposal, how does he tell Seattle that's somehow different from them not being willing to build an arena, especially since it's for less money? They'll come up with some reason to sue the NBA for that one. How does he recommend the move to his Board of Governors when by turning down the proposal, OKC has done precisely what Seattle has done, and he's asking the BOG to approve the move of the team? It's just not logical. To me, and I'm sure to them.
______________________________________________________
As to why the NBA isn't doing their part, I have no idea. I don't know if they ever help out anywhere. I know we've all said Bennett was maybe/maybe not talking hypothetically, but actually the power will be a little different if the BOG approves the move. Bennett will then have to move (unless he wants to stay in Seattle, a thought I'm sure he regards with horror) and all of a sudden he has to seek terms from the city. No more is it the city trying to lure a team. They've already got one. I think the city can be a little more hardnosed on this contract, since it's not already written and since there isn't another contribution from Bennett et al toward the arena. That's just my take. The mayor has repeatedly said there's not a contract. I know we won't be giving them a financial guarantee, like was done with the Hornets.
______________________________________________________As for your last comment about the gift, I agree and disagree. Yes, Clay Bennett has always wanted a team. Yes, it is a pain in the neck for him to travel back and forth, especially since he is a hated man in Seattle. But, the other owners had no real interest in owning a team. They were more interested in bringing a team specifically to Oklahoma City. Clay Bennett would actually have been perfectly happy keeping the team in Seattle with a new arena. He wasn't lying about that fact. But, I digress. So, perhaps not as much a gift from Clay Bennett as from Aubrey McClendon, Tom Ward and the others. They don't even go to games in Seattle, so it's not as if they bought this team for pleasure. I honestly believe they bought the team not just for the enjoyment of people in OKC, but also for the improvement of OKC, it's image and all the other things I've mentioned I think are advantages. If we do not approve this tax proposal and the BOG does not approve the move, I believe they will sell their shares and take their loss, and that will be the last we hear of the NBA in OKC in the forseeable future. Clay Bennett could hang on to his percentage, but they hate him in Seattle, where the team may stay, so he'd probably end up selling too. If that didn't happen, I believe the team would move to Kansas City, Louisville, Las Vegas, maybe even San Jose or Anaheim.

Good morning Jill...really not trying to rattle your cage or anything....I am still confused about a few things...
_________________________________________________________________
Didn't you contend in another thread we need to do this remodel to compete with all those other cities, now you are saying we don't need to compete? I am confused.
_________________________________________________________________
You have pointed out all the reasons why the BOG should NOT approve a move here (and I agree with you on that), yet somehow this tiny little upgrade (in the NBA's eyes) erases all the reasons for them to deny relocation? Again, I am confused.
_________________________________________________________________
This relocation would make perfect sense to the BOG IF we were talking about moving a team like the Memphis Grizzlies or the Hornets as they are small market also, comparable on nearly every level to OKC. That's one of the numerous reasons I think its a done deal already, it's not a matter of if, but when (and maybe which team, since Seattle is in a legal dispute and the Hornets want to come back).
_________________________________________________________________
Stern has said we don't necessarily need any improvements to the Ford to land a permanent team. We relieved Sterns concerns when we supported the Hornets. This City bent over backwards and did everything it could. We paid for the relocation, we paid for the housing, we paid and paid and paid (but because of the profit sharing agreement the city came out ahead on the deal). We aren't getting the same deal here, we are going to pay, and pay and pay, and get little money in return. I don't see how that makes any financial sense at all.
_________________________________________________________________
So, there is no doubt to Stern (maybe to the other owners, but not Stern). Why? He has publicly said as much. Stern supported the sale to Bennett, someone he has known and had a professional relationship for 20 years. Bennett has made no secret that he wants a team in OKC (well, except when he is talking to the Seattle media). Stern has publicly said he supports the move.
_________________________________________________________________
If this is not a lot of money to the NBA (and I agree with you, it isn't, to them it is the equivalent of the pennies a day we will pay), why aren't they doing their part? The owners paid $350 million for a team no matter where it is, so that is immaterial. It was reported that the City has agreed to pay much of the same things we paid for the Hornets, so you can't add that to the owners contribution either (that goes to the City/Taxpayer side of the ledger) Yes, the City denied it and Bennett said he was speaking hypothetically to the Sonics employees. But why would he bring it up if it wasn't at least a distinct possibility (we had done the same for the Hornets, so why wouldn't we do it for the Sonics too...after all we did all of that for a temporary stay, they are talking about a permanent move).
_________________________________________________________________
To say it is a "gift" to OKC (they aren't handing ownership over to the City are they?) isn't accurate. When the Gaylord's, Bennett's and numerous other wealthy civic philanthropists give gifts to a community, there maybe a few strings attached (they want their name on the building, or the money has to be spent certain ways), but in the end the University or the City owns it from that point on. The Sonics owners aren't doing that, are they? This is a rich man's toy that they wanted for themselves, since they live here they want the toy to be here to...even though they are worth millions, it gets old traveling back and forth all the time whenever you need to take care of something. While we might get some pleasure out of their toy, we aren't the reason they are doing it.

We won't have jewelry stores in our arena, nor will we have a double bank of suites, as OKC is too small for that many suites. I doubt we'll have rotundas that look like the capitol, and terrazzo floors with inlays of airplanes. We won't have two team stores, we'll just have one. And I doubt our bathrooms will resemble those in nice hotels. That's what you get for your extra $200 million in Dallas, and we don't need that to be successful here. Larry, what I believe this is all about, and perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't think I am, is David Stern asking Oklahoma City to show him that they're willing, as individuals, not as the owners, to support having an NBA team in the city. He wants to know that we really want to have a team, because we're a small market and he probably worries about that. He wants us to send him and the Board of Governors a message that tells them that we will value a team, and we can show that by giving up what, to the NBA, is not a huge amount of money.

Because we're not spending $400 million Larry, that's why I'm not expecting American Airlines. I think we'll have a really nice arena, but I expect to get what I paid for. I've never found that you get more than you paid for in the building business. If the arena looks terrible, or doesn't have what the plans show, then I'll be mad. But if we have an NBA team, I'll get over it. See, I'd pay a penny tax for 15 months just to get a team. I'd pay a ten cent tax for 15 months to get a team here. Because I'd love to have a team in OKC. I think it would be great for Oklahoma City on so many different levels, and I would love to have something else to do in the winter, when the weather and the fact that it gets dark at 5 p.m. limit entertainment options. And you can't beat a $10 ticket to see some of the best athletes in the world play. I've seen a lot of lousy movies for $10, but not many lousy basketball games.

What if the plans you saw don't turn out anything like that (a visual version of what they said/did), what's the difference? Please help me understand this.

Why aren't you expecting the American Airlines arena? As you have pointed out in previous threads we are in competition with all of these newer, better, more expensive arenas. We are in competition for an NBA team, competition for concerts, conventions, Big 12 etc etc. How good is good enough? This becomes an arena "arms race" as it were...when is it going to end?

Please help me understand this, you said: "I expect what I think you can get for $100 million, and I don't really care what they say about it, before or after. I've seen the plans, I think they look good" What ARE you expecting? What have you seen of the plans that make them look good? The pics in the powerpoint presentation are of OTHER arenas. The floor plans only show you square footage (not what it's going to look like). The only artist rendering I saw of the remodeled Ford is the grand glass atrium style, south entrance. Again, please help me understand what you are basing everything on. Granted, you and I as individuals aren't going to be losing much even if it does all get flushed down the improved toilets, but collectively we are talking $100 million. I am sorry but that's a lot of money in my book.

I guess. I was pretty happy with what we got for $89 million. I'm going to trust them on this one. Considering I'll probably drop a few cents a day on this one for 15 months, I'm going to get my money's worth. That's the way I look at it. See, I never expected more than what we got. I knew we were spending low dollars, so I expected to see something low dollar. It's like looking at a 5,000 square foot house. If the real estate agent tells you it costs $50,000,even if she tells you its the Taj Mahal, you know it was probably built on the cheap, and you don't expect anything but a cheap facsimile. I think we'll get a nice arena for an extra $100 million. I don't expect the American Airlines arena. I expect what I think you can get for $100 million, and I don't really care what they say about it, before or after. I've seen the plans, I think they look good, and that's good enough for me. Clearly, it's not acceptable to you, Larry, but we are different people, with different expectations. I don't mean that in a bad way, it just seems to be the truth. That's why there is no way to resolve this disagreement/discussion...whatever you want to call it.

"Because words don't really matter. What matters is the truth." For the sake of argument, lets completely ignore what was said/done under MAPS. What about now? How do we determine the truth? Comparing reality that we can see and touch (verify) compared to what was said. We will know what the truth is about THIS upgrade only AFTER it is completed when we will be able to see if they delivered on what they said they would do this time. Right?

Again, Larry, we're arguing about semantics. So, they didn't finish MAPS on time or on budget. How many homebuilders finish on time or on budget? And you're holding the ex-mayor to the word "right". What difference does any of this make? If he'd finished MAPS on time, not had cost overruns and said we were finishing MAPS "on a budget" would you be any more in favor of this issue? Because words don't really matter. What matters is the truth. And the truth is, without any window dressing, we have an $89 million dollar arena, and our competition has arenas worth $300 million, $360 million and probably $400-500 million. We can't compete, pure and simple. We have a little edge because Bennett and the other owners are from here and because we were good hosts to the Hornets. Enough of an edge for us to get away with a $100 million remodel. Not enough for us to be given a team if we won't remodel our $89 million arena, state of the art or not, done right or not.

And I may have his slogan confused with another candidates, but when Humphreys ran for Mayor at the time it was we could "finish MAPS on time and on Budget (neither turned out to be true) as he was the one who pushed for the 6 months extension. There was talk of scrapping the Ford altogether because of the cost over runs on the other projects.

Jill wrote: "I agree we should have done it five years ago, but we ran out of MAPS money." We DID run out (due to cost over runs of the other MAPS projects) originally but the MAPS tax was extended for 6 months for the Ford, to "finish MAPS right" as the campaign was called.

Vote YES for more civic pride, for improvement in our image nationwide, for a better facility for concerts and other events. Vote yes just to keep pace with Tulsa, who is finishing up a $200 million arena and isn't even getting an NBA team. Vote yes to have a better chance to keep getting the Big Twelve basketball championship and NCAA regionals. We're paying $750 million for schools with MAPS for Kids, and we just passed another bond issue to pay for new roads and fire stations. If we bring an NBA team to Oklahoma City, just having it here as a business will increase our tax base, but I believe it will also encourage more people to move towards the center of the city, which improves the property tax base in OKC. Wonder why Edmond and Deer Creek have better schools? It's because of the average housing price of the homes sold there. You have to have a higher tax base to improve schools, and if we could encourage more people to move back to OKC, that would help. Having more to do in the city makes it a more inviting place to live. Also, to improve schools you have to have the teachers. If you look at what they're paying teachers in Dallas or Houston, you might think that's why our college graduates are leaving the state and moving there. But if you factor in cost of living in those two cities, teachers have about the same amount of disposable income here as there. One of the major reasons our young teachers are leaving is because there's more to do in those cities. Having an NBA team would given young adults one more entertainment option, which would help. It would also encourage other downtown entertainment options as well.

VOTE NO,NO,NO "A penny saved is a penny earned" 100 million dollars left in taxpayers pockets would stimulate local economy. Do not fall for the "if you don't" The city has taken loans for improvement of city owned property before and allowed repayment by the users of them. (city docks) Why not now ? Even if this tax fails the city will figure another way to get what it wants. Want to improve the city ? Pay teachers what they are worth, fix the roads, improve police and fire services. Wake up !!!!

"VOTE NO = Lower Taxes. Who is funding all the advertising? The NBA can come without taxpayer funded luxury improvements. 121 Million divided by 550,000 residents is the equivalent of $200+ on every man woman and child. Not all but most of the $200 will be on the citizens of OKC"...Very unrealistic...Hundreds of thousands of folks from Norman, Moore, Edmond,Yukon, Midwest City and Mustang consistently spend in OKC...And even though it's mentioned often it's not a tax increase....We all know the tax will be extended anyway...Might as well get an NBA team and a great arena out of it

Larry, we're talking 2024 here. Who can project into the future? I'll be a senior citizen, and I can apply for the sales tax credit then, so I won't even have to pay for an arena if I don't want to. But, if the team is making money, and they want a new arena in 2024, I'd be all for them paying at least part of the costs. And I'd spend as much time promoting that concept as I am this concept. I believe in fairness. If they're not making money, but the city loves them and has grown and prospered, well then, I might think the city should should most of the costs. Because I believe in fairness. Right now, it seems fair to me, since the owners have spent all this money for a team they're going to share with the city, that we should fix up our own arena. I agree we should have done it five years ago, but we ran out of MAPS money. So, the next best thing is to do it now, when the MAPS for Kids tax runs out, so that at least our sales tax doesn't go up. It may not drop, but we're not paying two penny sales taxes the way this is set up.

Hi Jill, you wrote: "If they're making a reasonable return on their investment, then the next time the teams needs upgrades or a new arena, the owners can help, commensurate with their return. It seems fair to me" I agree with you, that does sound fair. [DISCLAIMER: this is conjecture and purely my opinion but based on what they have done before]. Unfortunately, it probably won't happen that way as once they have 100% public funding, they are unlikely to expect anything less than that the next time around. Can't really blame them since Bennett's experience with other cities (San Antonio 84%, New Orleans 100% and now Seattle 79%--but want to increase to 100%) all have heavy public financing. Just seems likely they will do the same here that they are doing in Seattle. After a few years and they have gotten tired of their rich man's toy (not an investment, certainly not a good investment, since they have publicly said they would be thrilled just to break even) there will probably be a "request" for a new arena with 100% taxpayer money again. With a negotiating threat to move the team (just as they are doing in Seattle). The Mayor’s chief of staff, David Holt, wrote: "the replacement value of the Ford Center in 2008 dollars would likely be almost TWICE as much as the original $89 million. Anyone following the construction industry knows that costs have exploded in recent years." Of course construction prices could go down but that seems as likely as us ever seeing gasoline under $1 a gallon again. So it looks like I was being conservative when I wrote previously in a thread that a new arena would cost around %750,000 million. If they are asking for a new $500 arena now, by the time (when ever that is) they ask for a new one here, it will be around the Billion dollar range. That IS scary.

Vote yes.

Private donations are funding the advertising. The NBA WILL NOT come without this tax proposal being passed. There is no person who has said the NBA will be here if we don't pass the tax, and there are multiple people who have said we won't get a team. And, as far as the taxes go, who shops at Quail Springs? Do you think people from Edmond don't? Who shops at Penn Square Mall? Do you think people from Nichols Hills and the Village don't. They all pay taxes that benefit Oklahoma City,even if they're not in the city. People from El Reno, Yukon, Bethany, Del City, Midwest City and Shawnee all come to Oklahoma City to shop, and they pay taxes. People who come to visit from other cities pay this tax. If you dont' want to pay the tax, all you have to do is shop somewhere else than in OKC. So, it's not even a completely involuntary tax. Shop in the Village or Bethany and you won't pay the tax. I'd like a beautiful new Ford Center that I can be proud of, that competes with the arenas in Tulsa, Wichita, Omaha and Kansas City. I'd like an NBA team, with the advertising you get for your city on ESPN and in major newspapers around the country. I'd like a team, which would help attract business and keep more of our college graduates home. They leave for Dallas and Chicago because there is more to do. An NBA team is a great source of pride and entertainment for a community.

VOTE NO = Lower Taxes. Who is funding all the advertising? The NBA can come without taxpayer funded luxury improvements. 121 Million divided by 550,000 residents is the equivalent of $200+ on every man woman and child. Not all but most of the $200 will be on the citizens of OKC. Do most citizens think there is where they want their money to go?

VOTE NO = Lower Taxes. Who is funding all the advertising? The NBA can come without taxpayer funded luxury improvements. 121 Million divided by 550,000 residents is the equivalent of $200+ on every man woman and child. Not all but most of the $200 will be on the citizens of OKC. Do most citizens think there is where they want their money to go?

Larry says, " Of course they COULD lose millions here just as they are in Seattle. They COULD also make money (as the Hornets did when they were here)." They could make money just as the Hornets did. But, George Shinn bought his franchise when they were far cheaper, and despite making money on the team, he still hasn't paid back the $30 million he owes for moving the team to New Orleans. If you've got an $400 million plus investment and you make 10 million dollars on that team, that's a 2.5% return on your investment. Not great. Would you be willing to invest your money for that kind of return, Larry? The average team makes about $10 million dollars, but 30% lost money. That's why I said I'd be willing to improve the Ford Center this time. The Sonics' owners making a $400 million plus gift to the city, without any guarantee of making money. We need our arena to at least be up to Tulsa and Wichta standards if nothing else, so we can compete with them. We improve our arena, givine up a few pennies a day for 15 months. Then, we can look at how the team does. If they're making a reasonable return on their investment, then the next time the teams needs upgrades or a new arena, the owners can help, commensurate with their return. It seems fair to me.

Vote yes.

"The Sonics have been losing millions in Seattle. Where's the data that says they won't lose millions here?" Of course they COULD lose millions here just as they are in Seattle. They COULD also make money (as the Hornets did when they were here).

the quote on the Key was from www.nba.com (presume that site does belong to the NBA)...did read elsewhere a bit ago (long after I posted) that it was SUPPOSED to be "fully supported by earned income from the building" (to pay for the bonds)...that article said something to the effect, it was paying for itself initially. Then over the past few years as demand for revenue stream producing items (such as the luxury boxes) decreased as attendance to the Sonics games decreased, the projections used when they sold the bonds have failed to materialize.

I'd love to see the proof there's going to be big money available. The Sonics have been losing millions in Seattle. Where's the data that says they won't lose millions here? This is something everyone in Oklahoma City can enjoy, either from the standpoint of civic pride, improved centralization of downtown or simply enjoying a higher level of sports than we've had in the past (except when the Hornets were here). The owners will have spent almost half a billion dollars on the team if it moves here, and we're asking them to keep spending? If you think we get nothing out of having a team here, that's one thing, but if you can see benefit for a variety of reasons, then it's ridiculous to vote "no". A NO vote means "No NBA." Don't let anyone tell you otherwise, because they can't. I thought Oklahomans were against handouts, because that's what this would be. People who are voting "No" want the team to pay for the Ford Center upgrades, even though the Ford Center belongs to Oklahoma City, not the Sonics. To me, that sounds like entitlement. Come to OKC and lose money, let us enjoy the team, but don't expect us to pay a cent to upgrade the arena that's owned by the city.

3 Bs -- BIG money, BOGUS deal, BAD use of public money. Read "Free Money: How the Wealthiest Americans' Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (and Stick you with the Bill). This is not a good deal for our city. Vote NO on March 4th. And ask for in-depth, fair coverage of this issue. Ask that editorials in favor of this debacle are no longer run on the front page of this paper. What a disgrace to the journalism profession.

This was a very good column by Berry and he's right, the choice is ours. Through the use of a one cent sales tax, we control OKC's future. Lets step up to the big leagues, OKC. Vote YES on March 4th.

From the Democratic Caucus in Washington: "The Seattle Supersonics’ lease on KeyArena is set to expire in 2010. Team owners[Schultz et al) say they’ve lost $60 million over the last five years, and if they don’t receive funds this year to expand the arena to make it more profitable, they may leave town."
______________________________________________________
"Schultz urged lawmakers to pass legislation that would extend the existing King County hospitality tax that built Safeco and Qwest fields in order to pay for a Key Arena remodel."
______________________________________________________

In 2001, the SuperSonics were sold to an investment group led by Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz. When the new owners demanded that the City underwrite a costly expansion and remodel of the Key Arena, Seattle officials balked, which led to the team being sold to a group of Oklahoma City businesspeople, led by billionaire Clay Bennett.
______________________________________________________
I'd link these but my computer won't copy and paste links and I don't want to type them out by hand. Trust me, the words are copied precisely. I've never heard of Schultz asking for a new arena, just Clay Bennett. Key Arena hasn't paid for itself, because the remodel was paid for with bonds, just like Safeco and Qwest. None of them are retiring until 2012, so they've been paying interest on these bonds all these years. If it has paid for itself already, Bennett wouldn't be offering a buyout to help retire debt on the remodel, and he is.

Larry wrote previously and Jill responded: “Didn’t Seattle offer for more than a year (prior owners included) to remodel the arena? Didn’t the previous and current owners kept saying no, its a new arena and a new lease or we sell the team and/or leave?” No Larry, the previous owners were asking for a remodel of the Key Arena,not a new arena, but the city of Seattle wouldn’t even offer acceptable terms for that.

_________________________________________________________________
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2544711
_________________________________________________________________
New Sonics owner: Key Arena won’t cut it (August 9, 2006)
_________________________________________________________________
Bennett said: “‘As we’ve said before, we don’t believe KeyArena is a satisfactory facility,’ ... Bennett,.... said his group is not ruling out a possible remodel of KeyArena, but made clear he’d rather put together a “world-class” sports and entertainment complex on a yet to be determined site.”

_________________________________________________________________
(same article) Seattle’s mayor, “Nickels expressed the city’s desire to keep the Sonics at KeyArena and said PREVIOUS OFFERS FOR A REMODEL are still available. ‘The deal offered to the previous ownership group is still on the table,’ Nickels said. KeyArena was remodeled in 1994-95 and the Sonics have a lease until 2010 with the city. The team and NBA commissioner David Stern both have said that LEASE is the league’s most unfavorable to a team and MUST BE CHANGED -- or better yet, a NEW place must be built with a NEW LEASE -- for the teams to prosper in the region.”

_________________________________________________________________
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2959106&campaign=rss&source=NBAHeadlines
_________________________________________________________________
Key Arena not Sonics’ future home, owner says (August 3, 2007)

_________________________________________________________________
“Bennett said Key Arena -- the Sonics’ current home and the smallest venue in the NBA -- is NOT an option for the team.”

_________________________________________________________________
http://www.tulsaworld.com/sports/article.aspx?articleID=20080217_2_B3_hNBAc71440
_________________________________________________________________
Stern expects Sonics’ move (2/17/2008)
“Sonics owner Clay Bennett and his predecessor, Howard Schultz, have BOTH SAID THE SONICS COULDN’T REMAIN in Seattle without public funding for a NEW ARENA.”

http://www.nba.com/sonics/tickets/KeyArena_Info-30295-51.html
_________________________________________________________________
“KeyArena is the first publicly financed arena fully supported by earned income from the building.” Hmmm, the building actually has paid for itself? What a concept, maybe we should try that here.

Vote yes.

People who think the Sonics will come here without passing this thing are probably the same people who thought the Hornets were staying. Shinn wanted to stay, and Bennett wants to come here. Look who got their way. Stern said the Hornets were going back to New Orleans and he didn't mention it, but he must not have cared if they were going to lose money, because they are. Bennett may want to move the Sonics here but Stern gets to decide. They'll be in Seattle or Kansas City next year if we vote no. Who's dumb enough to think we can do what Seattle couldn't. Try and stand up to the NBA and they'll walk right by and not give you a second look.

"Meanwhile the vote no folks are gaining momentum kind of like Obama."...Or it's just two or three folks with several poster names

By the way, if anyone is interested in getting yard signs, bumper stickers, posters, etc supporting the March 4th vote, you can get them at the Chamber of Commerce at 123 Park downtown. There's parking right outside, which makes it easy to stop and pick them up. I don't work for the Chamber, I'm just passing the information on to anyone who's interested.

Bill says, "That's your opinion. You have no idea what will really happen. My opinion is they will try again if the sales tax fails. They want to be here." My opinion, that the Sonics will NOT move here if we don't pass the arena proposal is also the opinion expressed in the article above these comments, it's expressed by Mick Cornett, it was expressed by Ted Streuli in the Journal Record. Try again how, Bill? I'm just curious where you think "they" will get $120 million in six weeks. The vote in Oklahoma City is March 4th. The Board of Governors votes April 18th. What miraculous money is coming forth between March 4th and April 18th? The owners will have spent half a billon dollars to bring this team to OKC by the time they get here (if they get here). There's no guarantee they will make money in OKC, and a lot of data to suggest there's a reasonable chance they won't. We're supposed to expect the owners to spend another $100 million of their own money to upgrade an arena they don't own? That seems like Oklahoma City is sitting here with it's hand out. Would it be fairer if Oklahoma City bought the team, if it moves here? It would, wouldn't it? We get to enjoy the team, so we should pay for it. It would be our team. Then it would make sense to you to fix up the Ford Center with our money since it's our team? Right? That does make sense, and seems fairer than asking someone who doesn't own the Ford Center to fix it up. So, how should we get the money to buy this team? How do we come up with the $600 million dollars? I guess it would have to come out of our tax money, wouldn't it? Doesn't it seem cheaper to you to let the Sonics owners bring the team here, and we fix up our own arena? In the long run, it would save us a lot of money. We won't have to take the risk of losing millions either. We'll let the team owners do that. Sounds like a good deal to me....a better deal than if OKC had to buy the team, but the owners are still going to share it with us. Imagine.

Bill, you're right. There are a bunch of conspiracy theorists out there on blogs. But, there are some that are a bit more trustworthy than others. If you have trouble believing there are people in Seattle supporting the "no vote" in Oklahoma City, then I would say you're entirely too trusting. If this vote doesn't pass, it gives Seattle more time to work out an arena deal, more time to try to wear Clay Bennett down and get him to sell, and it raises the real possibility the Sonics will stay in Seattle. Again people, vote NO if you want, but don't fool yourself that we're still getting an NBA team. NO means NO NBA.

"Didn't Seattle offer for more than a year (prior owners included) to remodel the arena? Didn't the previous and current owners kept saying no, its a new arena and a new lease or we sell the team and/or leave?" No Larry, the previous owners were asking for a remodel of the Key Arena,not a new arena, but the city of Seattle wouldn't even offer acceptable terms for that. Anything CAN happen at the last minute, but I don't think it will. I don't think the city of Seattle can come up with an acceptable arena plan in the six weeks between the March 4th vote and April 18th. They've burned their bridges with Clay Bennett. He was treated so badly up there (when he truly was willing to stay), that I think it would take nothing less than a $450 million arena to make him stay. I do believe David Stern is on his side with that one item. And there's no way the city of Seattle can come up with an arena plan that's not got some financing either from the city (which would have to be voted upon), the state legislature (their session ends early this year and they've been very reluctant to vote on this issue) or private sources. I doubt Clay would be willing to give up even the money he was a year ago, because he's no longer very fond of the city of Seattle, and private investors won't build an arena if he's the owner. It's a conundrum, which is why I think if, and only if, we pass this arena proposal, the team will move here. On the other hand, I'm a proponent of the arena upgrades even if we don't get a team, so I'm happy to be left hanging at least a little bit.

Jill wrote: "Trust me, if Seattle had built that new arena they were asking for, the Sonics would have stayed in Seattle. Mr. Stern would rather have a team in Seattle than in Oklahoma City. It doesn't look good for the league if teams are moving all the time. Seattle has a 40 year history with the team, they're a much larger market, and a much bigger city. He's only got two teams in the Pacific Northwest right now. All of those are reasons David Stern would rather have a team in Seattle than in Oklahoma City. I feel 100% comfortable saying that if someone came up with the money to build an arena in Seattle March 3rd, the Board of Governors vote would be to keep the team in Seattle. That's one of the reasons I think the team will possibly even stay in Seattle if we don't build an arena. They'll get the city to agree to a remodel of the Key, make some concessions on the contract and they'll be stuck there. Or Kansas City or Las Vegas. He'll do that to make a point, and a renovated Key Arena is better than an $89 million unrenovated arena in OKC to the him and the rest of the country." I DON"T DISAGREE. Didn't Seattle offer for more than a year (prior owners included) to remodel the arena? Didn't the previous and current owners kept saying no, its a new arena and a new lease or we sell the team and/or leave? Anything CAN happen at the last minute, that is for sure. Nothing is done until the contracts are signed. That is why I question the wisdom in committing to a sales tax (earliest reports said it would take all $100 million to bring the Ford up to NBA standards again) when the team hasn't signed here.

And you know what. I think we are going to find out because like I was saying yesterday the NO vote is gaining momentum like Obama. The die hards are still there for support but most all of the Jonny Come Lates seem to be opposed. It's gonna be darn close.

That's your opinion. You have no idea what will really happen. My opinion is they will try again if the sales tax fails. They want to be here.

The notion that OKC will still get and NBA team if we don't pass this proposition on March 4th is a big mistake. Our civic leaders have and are investing over 400 million dollars in an attempt to get OKC our first major league team. If this blows up in their face in the form of a no vote on March 4th, Don't expect anyone else to attempt it in the foreseeable future.

Things you read on a fan blogs are always realible information. You can find out who shot Kennedy, whats going to happen on Lost, and how Seattle is going to save the Sonics by helping OKC websites. Some of you people need some serious help.

The audacity in the belief that OKC can and will support an NBA franchise for longer than five years is a complete fantasy. In case you haven’t noticed, large companies have been leaving Oklahoma City and a greater rate than have been coming in and the company’s coming in aren’t exactly paying high wages. Call centers vs. UAW and GM just don’t match up well. Oh and just so I can dispel the inevitable comment “unemployment is down in OKC,” well sure it is, when your unemployment runs out, you are dropped off that list. In case you haven’t noticed, the metro area has lost the GM plant (as well as thousands of associated jobs from their suppliers) as well as other large employers in the past ten years and people think we need an NBA team so some poor sap who makes $12.00 an hour at a call center or any other low paying job can take “whomever” to a game and spend 30-50% of their biweekly paycheck instead of buying food, a car, paying rent, child support, buying a house etc… you know the things that people SHOULD be doing with their money.

So, how about something useful such as a 1% sales tax to bring in Big Business and higher paying jobs! Now there is an idea, after all, Chesapeake can’t save us all, or Nichols Hills for that matter as he turns it in to AUBRYLAND.

We could use the money to modernize the city in a useful manner such as replacing the city's aging and underutilized bus/public transportation system? I know, I know, “I see buses every day and hardly anyone uses them” right? Well, how about smaller buses and more routes. That might be more useful than waiting hours for a single large underutilized bus. It might make taking a bus even more thinkable to those of us with multiple automobiles. Now, don’t get me wrong, I have two SUVs and love our new Lincoln MKX and I love to drive but even the most frivolous of spenders does a double take at $3.00 a gallon. If the City had a more defined and better developed public transportation system than that would appeal to many employers as being progressive rather than saying, “hey lets move to OKC because they have an NBA team and everyone knows if you have an NBA team, your now a big city.” Right?

Oh wait, what am I thinking, how about roads and bridges that aren’t ranked among the worst in the nation every year! (By the way, have you driven down May Avenue or 23rd street lately, its hard for a Hummer to make it down those roads, and yes I know, we issue bonds to cover those repairs but you know what, I would gladly pay an extra 1% tax if I knew my car wasn’t going to be rattled to death by our city roads.)

No, No, how about developing our school system even further and putting things back in to schools like PE, Drama, band, or heaven forbid offer an after school program to help develop the young mind. Let’s build the City’s infrastructure to the point that Big Businesses want to come to OKC and create jobs that pay more than the poverty level for an average four person household. Maybe that’s a much better way to spend money rather than wasting it on a horrific idea like improving what is already a sub par Ford Center.

Should the common Oklahoma City resident actually vote for this farcical idea, I would like a guaranty that Bennett, McLendon and Cornett will pay for the improvements out of their own pocket if the team fails to draw an attendance average of 9,000 people over the first five years. Why? Because they know if OKC fails to meet the requirements in a lease agreement that they can sell or move the team to another city that can! They have nothing to lose but millions on overpaid whiny “athletes” who play a game that isn’t worth watching. By the way, honestly, how many of you reading this have watched more than 10 NBA games on TV this year (or perhaps in your life); the whole game, not just part of one?

We need this so called “improvement” to the FORD center and an NBA team like we need another church on the corner (entirely different subject but seriously, have you looked around lately, some are larger than the Ford center? Maybe the donation plate at those places could be used to take up a collection for the improvements at the Ford center)

Lastly, if you want to improve the Ford Center, find another sponsor other than “Ford” who will foot the bill, such as Bennett and McLendon. Maybe they can call it the Chesapeake and OLD Money center.

Here's an interesting comment from one of the key players in Save our Sonics: "Chris [Seattle politician] is in contact with those guys [steve and friends]. I’ll give him this, he’s passionate about his cause.

Lets give him credit. If he screws things up here he simply costs us our team. If he can put the kabosh on things down there and prevent a move he has then probably influenced the entire economic model of the NBA, gotten our city a better deal, and accomplished a lot of what he wants to do. If somehow Bennett loses the home court in OKC then this fiasco becomes an even bigger embarassment than ever. I’d tend to think that Stern would be hesitant to go down this road again." So, tell me again who all thinks the Sonics will be moving here if we don't pass this arena proposal?

The "Vote no" groups in OKC are getting help from the people in Seattle. It's being admitted openly. Does that make anyone wonder if the Seattleites think the Sonics will be coming to OKC if we don't pass the tax proposal? Of course they'll tell us (and they may even be telling the misguided "Vote no" people) that the Sonics are moving to OKC regardless, but there's no data to support that supposition.

"Hi Jill, maybe you missed my earlier reply... your premise (We don't get a team if we do the same thing Seattle did to lose theirs) is flawed. Seattle is NOT losing their team because they wont build a new stadium. As reported earlier, the Sonics ownership NEVER intended to keep the team in Seattle. They bought the team with the sole purpose of moving it to OKC." Larry, that is not correct. First of all, there were two offers for the Seattle Sonics. Mr. _____, who's name I forget, offered $425 million for the team, on the condition he be allowed to move them to San Jose, no questions asked. His offered was not allowed to be accepted. Mr. Bennett's offer, of $75 million less, was accepted on the condition that he spend one year trying to get an arena built in Seattle. Now, I know none of the owners, but I do happen to know a couple of people who have reason to know the owners. What I was told was that Clay Bennett and at least three of the other owners were perfectly content to keep the team in Seattle. They were a little worried about the size of the Oklahoma City market, and felt it would be better to see if the Hornets would be available to move back. Clearly, Aubrey felt differently, but he's the one who has the most invested in Oklahma City of all of them. Trust me, if Seattle had built that new arena they were asking for, the Sonics would have stayed in Seattle. Mr. Stern would rather have a team in Seattle than in Oklahoma City. It doesn't look good for the league if teams are moving all the time. Seattle has a 40 year history with the team, they're a much larger market, and a much bigger city. He's only got two teams in the Pacific Northwest right now. All of those are reasons David Stern would rather have a team in Seattle than in Oklahoma City. I feel 100% comfortable saying that if someone came up with the money to build an arena in Seattle March 3rd, the Board of Governors vote would be to keep the team in Seattle. That's one of the reasons I think the team will possibly even stay in Seattle if we don't build an arena. They'll get the city to agree to a remodel of the Key, make some concessions on the contract and they'll be stuck there. Or Kansas City or Las Vegas. He'll do that to make a point, and a renovated Key Arena is better than an $89 million unrenovated arena in OKC to the him and the rest of the country.

Jill, by the way, thank you for posting the link to Ted Streuli's article (cant get to work now tho, it says it is only available to subscribers). As a result, I wrote a letter to him (basically asking "What happened?) and got a very nice, hand written reply. I sent him the same list of 16 questions/concerns about this that I have sent my council person and the Mayor over 2 weeks ago and to date have yet to even receive a generic "thank you for writing" form letter (much less any answers). Mr. Streuli thanked me for my letter and said he would ask the Mayor all 16 of them. He said he would post the responses online in his blog.

Hi Jill, maybe you missed my earlier reply... your premise (We don't get a team if we do the same thing Seattle did to lose theirs) is flawed. Seattle is NOT losing their team because they wont build a new stadium. As reported earlier, the Sonics ownership NEVER intended to keep the team in Seattle. They bought the team with the sole purpose of moving it to OKC. "Where's the city going to come up with $120 million in six weeks if we fail to pass this tax proposal?" It's not like the City has to have the $120 million in hand. Even if the vote passes, not one penny gets collected until Jan 1st of next year. There are many methods the city can use to secure financing as have been discussed in a previous article (none of which I remember as being particularly acceptable as most meant incurring long term debt, and if not mistaken, they would also require an election to get approved). The city can promise the re-negotiated naming rights and cover nearly the entire cost of the upgrades. As I said in another thread, if they will word the election so the sales tax will only go into effect to make up for the funding gap (if any) between the renegotiated naming rights and the cost of the improvements, I will vote "yes". Perhaps the Sonics owners can pay? I know that is not the preferred method from the NBA's point of view or Bennett's either. Not surprised they are going after the public funding since Bennett's experience in other cities (San Antonio, New Orleans and now Seattle all are heavily publicly funded). Only 8 arenas of the 30 are 100% publicly funded (we would be the ninth). Yet 5 arenas have ZERO public financing. (I posted the info I think you wanted on this part in another thread). Why can't we meet somewhere in the middle maybe? I actually agree with you on your questions on why would the BOG approve this (I had asked you very similar questions earlier). i think the answer is, they won't. Do these improvements do anything to change the very questions you asked?

Larry says, "The only way we are going to find out if I am right in my conclusions is if the vote fails. If the vote passes, we will never know. I understand you don't want to take the what you see as a risk because you are convinced you are correct. If the vote fails and the Board of Governors rejects the relocation (and gives the sales tax vote as the reason for it). I will admit I was wrong and apologize to you and everyone on these forums. If it turns out I am correct, will you do the same?" If the vote fails, and we get an NBA team anyway, I may be on the floor passed out with shock, but yes, I will admit I was wrong. The only problem, Larry, is that if we are wrong, we still have a team. If you are wrong, we have nothing. You are basing your opinion on nothing other than a gut feeling. We are basing our opinion on statements by the mayor, Ted Streuli the editor of the journal record, who discussed this with the mayor and Berry Trammel above. We are also noting that David Stern has yet to say the words "Oklahoma City" amid all the stern words about Seattle losing their team. I'm also basing it on Mark Cuban saying that the Oklahoma City deal has to be better than Seattle if he's going to vote for relocation. Do you, Larry, have anything other than a