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.