The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

News in the from World... Oklahoma City Mayor Cornett is asking for a 1 cent sales tax increase to fund improvements to the Ford Center and for an NBA practice facility.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080116_1__OKLAH17270

quote:

---

OKLAHOMA CITY -- Oklahoma City Mayor Mick Cornett and local business leaders kicked off a campaign Tuesday backing a penny sales tax to fund improvements to the Ford Center and construction of an NBA practice facility.

Voters will decide on March 4 whether to approve the tax, which is expected to raise $120 million over 15 months. Cornett said the improvements are needed in order to lure an NBA team to the city.

If approved, the tax would start Jan. 1, the day after a sales tax for school improvements elapses. The practice facility and other improvements planned specifically for the NBA would not be built if a team does not relocate to the city, and the tax would be shortened to 12 months and would raise about $97 million.

The Seattle SuperSonics have filed for relocation to Oklahoma City, but a vote by the NBA Board of Governors is not expected until April.

Cornett said that an NBA team would provide a major economic boost to the city and that the Ford Center improvements would also be good for concerts, special events and conventions.

The improvements would include new restaurants, bars and concession areas, a television studio suitable for team interviews, decorative floors and walls, improved
bathrooms, a warm-up court and new locker rooms.

No organized opposition to the tax proposal has emerged, but Oklahoma City resident Steve Hunt said he intended to lead an effort against it.

“I am going to try to get a local group of people that I know to get together and hand out literature,” Hunt said. “It's not expensive, what we do. I have a lot of Internet and YouTube experience.”

Hunt will be up against a campaign funded by the Greater Oklahoma City Chamber of Commerce. Chamber President Roy Williams said the group should know by the end of the week how much it would spend on the campaign.

The chamber has backed recent campaigns for an Oklahoma City school bond issue and a city general obligation bond issue which will pay for street projects and other capital improvements. Voters approved both bond issues.

“It will be a much more expensive campaign than the city or school bond campaigns,” Williams said. “We are using campaign professionals that have had experience in these type of campaigns. They put together the strategy. They do the polling. They help construct the campaign.”

---

I would bet that Oklahoma City passes this measure, even though it's a full cent.

It's sad to see such a clear difference in citizens' philosophies between Tulsa and OKC... One of progress and proactiveness and one of, well, NOT.

We couldn't even get four-tenths of a penny and subsequently turned down $125 million in donations and $500 million in development.

THAT, my friends, is sad. [:(]

(On a lighter note, if this passes, OKC's sales tax rate will be wayyyy higher than Tulsa's, so now the naysayer's can't try to claim that our taxes are just toooooo high)

I called this as soon as OKC started looking for a team.  The team would demand money for the arena.   It was also inevitable as soon as it became apperent that Tulsa's arena would be a notch above the Ford Center.  Called it called it called it.
- - -

I'd probably vote this down.  In fact, I'd vote against any proposal that gave money to a multi Billion Dollar institution that had dozens of people on staff each making millions of dollars each year.  Seems like they don't need my pennies.

I admit I might be blinded by the "big time" if a pro team was looking at Tulsa, but usually pro-teams end up sucking money out of a city in new arenas, practice facilities, upgrades, tax incentives, and on and on.  I'm not even sure the large scale economics brings money in to the city, I suppose it probably would.  

Pretty soon a request for State money will come.  Just wait.  It will be important to the image of Oklahoma to have a pro sports team or some such nonsense.  

I'm proud that I am apparently not progressive nor proactive when it comes to subsidizing a multi-billion dollar entertainment enterprise.  I'd be damn happy if they could come and make money, but if they need $120mil so they can entertain a few of them and enrich a handful - no thanks.  

I see a bit of a difference between subsidizing a NBA team and paying for parks (which I voted yes on).  Perhaps OKC has been able to get good measures passed before, but I don't really see this in the same light.  Good JOBS are far more important IMHO.  Enough of those and a pro sports team will come knocking eventually without a bribe.

quote:

---

Originally posted by cannon_fodder

I'm proud that I am apparently not progressive nor proactive when it comes to subsidizing a multi-billion dollar entertainment enterprise.  I'd be damn happy if they could come and make money, but if they need $120mil so they can entertain a few of them and enrich a handful - no thanks.  

I see a bit of a difference between subsidizing a NBA team and paying for parks (which I voted yes on).  Perhaps OKC has been able to get good measures passed before, but I don't really see this in the same light.  Good JOBS are far more important IMHO.  Enough of those and a pro sports team will come knocking eventually without a bribe.

---

I was speaking of the general divide between Oklahoma City and Tulsa in terms of trying to improve their city by whatever means possible.  Oklahoma City has consistently passed measure after measure to improve their city while Tulsa, even with $625 million in free money on the table, turned down a proposal that was less than half of what OKC is about to face.  Granted, the two cities' projects are completely different, and I don't really care whether an NBA team comes to Oklahoma, but it is showing of the kind of attitude toward change.  Here, with all the retirement communities and old money voting no on everything that says tax (and with people like Bates and Eagleton on the loose), we're stuck in a comfy, muddy rut.

quote:

---

Originally posted by cannon_fodder

I called this as soon as OKC started looking for a team.  The team would demand money for the arena.   It was also inevitable as soon as it became apperent that Tulsa's arena would be a notch above the Ford Center.  Called it called it called it.
- - -

I'd probably vote this down.  In fact, I'd vote against any proposal that gave money to a multi Billion Dollar institution that had dozens of people on staff each making millions of dollars each year.  Seems like they don't need my pennies.

I admit I might be blinded by the "big time" if a pro team was looking at Tulsa, but usually pro-teams end up sucking money out of a city in new arenas, practice facilities, upgrades, tax incentives, and on and on.  I'm not even sure the large scale economics brings money in to the city, I suppose it probably would.  

Pretty soon a request for State money will come.  Just wait.  It will be important to the image of Oklahoma to have a pro sports team or some such nonsense.  

I'm proud that I am apparently not progressive nor proactive when it comes to subsidizing a multi-billion dollar entertainment enterprise.  I'd be damn happy if they could come and make money, but if they need $120mil so they can entertain a few of them and enrich a handful - no thanks.  

I see a bit of a difference between subsidizing a NBA team and paying for parks (which I voted yes on).  Perhaps OKC has been able to get good measures passed before, but I don't really see this in the same light.  Good JOBS are far more important IMHO.  Enough of those and a pro sports team will come knocking eventually without a bribe.

---

I told you so....I told you so..I told you so.....Lame...lame...lame....

I enjoy the fact they built a crappy arena and now want to raise taxes again to try to make it halfway decent. They will end up spending as much as we have for our arena and theirs will still be patched together.

quote:

---

Originally posted by DScott28604

On a lighter note, if this passes, OKC's sales tax rate will be wayyyy higher than Tulsa's, so now the naysayer's can't try to claim that our taxes are just toooooo high

---

OKC's sales tax rate may be higher than Tulsa's, but this has nothing to do with whether or not Tulsa's is already too high.  I happen to think it is, especially since basic clothing and foodstuffs are subject to sales tax.  I will vote no on any future sales tax increase, for whatever reason, until Oklahoma exempts those items from sales tax.  Then end does not always justify the means.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve

quote:

---

Originally posted by DScott28604

On a lighter note, if this passes, OKC's sales tax rate will be wayyyy higher than Tulsa's, so now the naysayer's can't try to claim that our taxes are just toooooo high

---

OKC's sales tax rate may be higher than Tulsa's, but this has nothing to do with whether or not Tulsa's is already too high.  I happen to think it is, especially since basic clothing and foodstuffs are subject to sales tax.  I will vote no on any future sales tax increase, for whatever reason, until Oklahoma exempts those items from sales tax.  Then end does not always justify the means.

---

We are taxed and insuranced to death.....

quote:

---

Originally posted by Breadburner

Lame...lame...lame....

---

Hey, plenty of people argued that they had the facilities and they weren't asking for any tax money.  I believe the term used to describe the Ford Center was "world class" even after I pointed out they wanted a $500,000,000 facility in Seattle but would settle for the Ford Center (which serves it's purpose mind you, not knocking it).  But thanks for adding substantively to the conversation.

Oklahoma City continues to turn itself into a really cool place.  I would probably disagree with the tax myself, but apparently it's a price the residents are going to be more than happy to pay to join the big leagues.  Very, very interesting.

First they get talked into passing 1 cent for 15 months for a practice facility, then they will get talked into simply "extending" that tax for 5-10 years to build a new $600 million NBA arena.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve

quote:

---

Originally posted by DScott28604

On a lighter note, if this passes, OKC's sales tax rate will be wayyyy higher than Tulsa's, so now the naysayer's can't try to claim that our taxes are just toooooo high

---

OKC's sales tax rate may be higher than Tulsa's, but this has nothing to do with whether or not Tulsa's is already too high.  I happen to think it is, especially since basic clothing and foodstuffs are subject to sales tax.  I will vote no on any future sales tax increase, for whatever reason, until Oklahoma exempts those items from sales tax.  Then end does not always justify the means.

---

The "Tulsa's sales tax rate is higher than OKC's" was one of the main tenets of the opponents of the River Tax.  I said it with a wink, though [;)], hence the extra letters... The No crowd will always find a way to make something sound bad.  If the River vote were coming up now as opposed to October, I wonder what their lyrics would be. [:P]

quote:

---

Originally posted by DScott28604

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve

quote:

---

Originally posted by DScott28604

On a lighter note, if this passes, OKC's sales tax rate will be wayyyy higher than Tulsa's, so now the naysayer's can't try to claim that our taxes are just toooooo high

---

OKC's sales tax rate may be higher than Tulsa's, but this has nothing to do with whether or not Tulsa's is already too high.  I happen to think it is, especially since basic clothing and foodstuffs are subject to sales tax.  I will vote no on any future sales tax increase, for whatever reason, until Oklahoma exempts those items from sales tax.  Then end does not always justify the means.

---

The "Tulsa's sales tax rate is higher than OKC's" was one of the main tenets of the opponents of the River Tax.  I said it with a wink, though [;)], hence the extra letters... The No crowd will always find a way to make something sound bad.  If the River vote were coming up now as opposed to October, I wonder what their lyrics would be. [:P]

---

And the Yes crowd will always find a way to make a tax increase sound beneficial.  (Let's do it for our kids.)  My opinion is sales taxes are extremely regressive, and the least desireable way of funding public projects.  Lets propose a 25%+ increase in property taxes for development and see how much support that gets from the fat cat Kaiser crowd.  Zilch, I would bet.  "Them that has" will always support sales taxes, because it affects them the least, and they hate property taxes because it impacts them more.

Oklahoma City sales tax rate = 8.375%

Tulsa sales tax rate = 8.517%

If Oklahoma City continues to pass sales taxes higher and higher and have already passed higher rates in the past to make great projects, it sounds like their leaders know how to prioritize their spending.

Unlike Tulsa, who already has a higher sales tax rate and still can't keep up, tells me they can't seem to prioritize their spending.

When Tulsa gets a grip on how they spend money and prioritizes in a proper way and stops knee jerking, I'll continue to vote NO!

Well as I see it we will have an arena sitting empty at the end of the year and OKC will have a crappy arena they want to improve.  I guess Tulsa is incapable of having a ball team?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wilbur

Oklahoma City sales tax rate = 8.375%

Tulsa sales tax rate = 8.517%

If Oklahoma City continues to pass sales taxes higher and higher and have already passed higher rates in the past to make great projects, it sounds like their leaders know how to prioritize their spending.

Unlike Tulsa, who already has a higher sales tax rate and still can't keep up, tells me they can't seem to prioritize their spending.

When Tulsa gets a grip on how they spend money and prioritizes in a proper way and stops knee jerking, I'll continue to vote NO!

---

FWIW, OKC's deal will replace an expiring 1% sales tax, so even if approved, their sales tax rate will remain less than Tulsa's existing rate.

Whoa, whoa, whoa... just a minute here.  who said Oklahoma City's sales tax was going to be higher???  It will remain the same rate as it is today, it will just take the place of the MAPS for Kids 1-cent sales tax, which expires in 2009.  So, our rate will not change... it will remain at 8.375%.

quote:

---

Originally posted by okcpulse

Whoa, whoa, whoa... just a minute here.  who said Oklahoma City's sales tax was going to be higher???  It will remain the same rate as it is today, it will just take the place of the MAPS for Kids 1-cent sales tax, which expires in 2009.  So, our rate will not change... it will remain at 8.375%.

---

Oh, now OKCpulse, why would you want to bring some silly little facts into the discussion?  ;-)  Folks here at tulsanow don't really appreciate facts that don't support their mythology.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:

---

Originally posted by okcpulse

Whoa, whoa, whoa... just a minute here.  who said Oklahoma City's sales tax was going to be higher???  It will remain the same rate as it is today, it will just take the place of the MAPS for Kids 1-cent sales tax, which expires in 2009.  So, our rate will not change... it will remain at 8.375%.

---

Oh, now OKCpulse, why would you want to bring some silly little facts into the discussion?  ;-)  Folks here at tulsanow don't really appreciate facts that don't support their mythology.

---

Excuse you, OC... The article barely mentioned any expiring tax, therefore I don't know about it--it's not drivel.  I had to read it over again to even see it.

So OKC's tax rate will still be lower--big whoop!  The point I was making is that OKC keeps passing measures with wide support for improving their community and Tulsa refused $625 million in free money/development.

quote:

---

Originally posted by okcpulse

Whoa, whoa, whoa... just a minute here.  who said Oklahoma City's sales tax was going to be higher???  It will remain the same rate as it is today, it will just take the place of the MAPS for Kids 1-cent sales tax, which expires in 2009.  So, our rate will not change... it will remain at 8.375%.

---

The City sales tax is higher. OKC does not currently have a county sales tax.

quote:

---

Originally posted by DScott28604

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:

---

Originally posted by okcpulse

Whoa, whoa, whoa... just a minute here.  who said Oklahoma City's sales tax was going to be higher???  It will remain the same rate as it is today, it will just take the place of the MAPS for Kids 1-cent sales tax, which expires in 2009.  So, our rate will not change... it will remain at 8.375%.

---

Oh, now OKCpulse, why would you want to bring some silly little facts into the discussion?  ;-)  Folks here at tulsanow don't really appreciate facts that don't support their mythology.

---

Excuse you, OC... The article barely mentioned any expiring tax, therefore I don't know about it--it's not drivel.  I had to read it over again to even see it.

So OKC's tax rate will still be lower--big whoop!  The point I was making is that OKC keeps passing measures with wide support for improving their community and Tulsa refused $625 million in free money/development.

---

I got your point, and it's well taken.  The focus of your (our) ire should be on Tulsa's city and county leadership.  

For many many years, OKC was in the same position because their city leaders had routinely lied to them, had failed to complete promised projects, etc.  At long last, with their promotion and passage of the original MAPS, they (with new accountable leadership) broke free of that.

Tulsa now finds itself in the exact position that OKC was in 20 years ago.  Broken, dishonest, incompetent city/county leadership, not to mention the TDA, and DTU.  The citizens have been routinely lied to and misled and we've been watching ridiculously incompetent decision-making (kicking Bell's off the fairground anyone?).  Then when they promote tax-raising plans they do it with dishonest and insulting campaigns (the River campaign takes the cake for dishonest and insulting civic campaigns).  

Hopefully sometime soon, Tulsa will find some competent honest leadership (or at least the current leadership will wake up and discover that the lies don't work any more).  When that happens, Tulsans will likely be more inclined to approve sound public projects, just as has been the case in OKC.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:

---

Originally posted by okcpulse

Whoa, whoa, whoa... just a minute here.  who said Oklahoma City's sales tax was going to be higher???  It will remain the same rate as it is today, it will just take the place of the MAPS for Kids 1-cent sales tax, which expires in 2009.  So, our rate will not change... it will remain at 8.375%.

---

The City sales tax is higher. OKC does not currently have a county sales tax.

---

This is true.  Tulsa County has a 1.017% sales tax where Oklahoma County has none.

quote:

---

Originally posted by DScott28604

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:

---

Originally posted by okcpulse

Whoa, whoa, whoa... just a minute here.  who said Oklahoma City's sales tax was going to be higher???  It will remain the same rate as it is today, it will just take the place of the MAPS for Kids 1-cent sales tax, which expires in 2009.  So, our rate will not change... it will remain at 8.375%.

---

Oh, now OKCpulse, why would you want to bring some silly little facts into the discussion?  ;-)  Folks here at tulsanow don't really appreciate facts that don't support their mythology.

---

Excuse you, OC... The article barely mentioned any expiring tax, therefore I don't know about it--it's not drivel.  I had to read it over again to even see it.

So OKC's tax rate will still be lower--big whoop!  The point I was making is that OKC keeps passing measures with wide support for improving their community and Tulsa refused $625 million in free money/development.

---

Ha! 'Free' money was pulled off the table. Otherwise, I'm sure we'd not refuse. But, Oh, it wasn't 'free', perhaps?

BTW, just where are you getting your $625M? The River Tax gratuities were only $112M, and it's the only measure which has failed since the Library.

And, don't bring up that Channels thing again.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TulsaSooner

quote:

---

Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:

---

Originally posted by okcpulse

Whoa, whoa, whoa... just a minute here.  who said Oklahoma City's sales tax was going to be higher???  It will remain the same rate as it is today, it will just take the place of the MAPS for Kids 1-cent sales tax, which expires in 2009.  So, our rate will not change... it will remain at 8.375%.

---

The City sales tax is higher. OKC does not currently have a county sales tax.

---

This is true.  Tulsa County has a 1.017% sales tax where Oklahoma County has none.

---

The next time there's a vote, we can expect the County's portion to continue to diminish. They're done with Sales Tax, IMO.

quote:

---

Originally posted by DScott28604

News in the from World... Oklahoma City Mayor Cornett is asking for a 1 cent sales tax increase to fund improvements to the Ford Center and for an NBA practice facility.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080116_1__OKLAH17270

quote:

---

OKLAHOMA CITY -- Oklahoma City Mayor Mick Cornett and local business leaders kicked off a campaign Tuesday backing a penny sales tax to fund improvements to the Ford Center and construction of an NBA practice facility.

Voters will decide on March 4 whether to approve the tax, which is expected to raise $120 million over 15 months. Cornett said the improvements are needed in order to lure an NBA team to the city.

If approved, the tax would start Jan. 1, the day after a sales tax for school improvements elapses. The practice facility and other improvements planned specifically for the NBA would not be built if a team does not relocate to the city, and the tax would be shortened to 12 months and would raise about $97 million.

The Seattle SuperSonics have filed for relocation to Oklahoma City, but a vote by the NBA Board of Governors is not expected until April.

Cornett said that an NBA team would provide a major economic boost to the city and that the Ford Center improvements would also be good for concerts, special events and conventions.

The improvements would include new restaurants, bars and concession areas, a television studio suitable for team interviews, decorative floors and walls, improved
bathrooms, a warm-up court and new locker rooms.

No organized opposition to the tax proposal has emerged, but Oklahoma City resident Steve Hunt said he intended to lead an effort against it.

“I am going to try to get a local group of people that I know to get together and hand out literature,” Hunt said. “It's not expensive, what we do. I have a lot of Internet and YouTube experience.”

Hunt will be up against a campaign funded by the Greater Oklahoma City Chamber of Commerce. Chamber President Roy Williams said the group should know by the end of the week how much it would spend on the campaign.

The chamber has backed recent campaigns for an Oklahoma City school bond issue and a city general obligation bond issue which will pay for street projects and other capital improvements. Voters approved both bond issues.

“It will be a much more expensive campaign than the city or school bond campaigns,” Williams said. “We are using campaign professionals that have had experience in these type of campaigns. They put together the strategy. They do the polling. They help construct the campaign.”

---

I would bet that Oklahoma City passes this measure, even though it's a full cent.

It's sad to see such a clear difference in citizens' philosophies between Tulsa and OKC... One of progress and proactiveness and one of, well, NOT.

We couldn't even get four-tenths of a penny and subsequently turned down $125 million in donations and $500 million in development.

THAT, my friends, is sad. [:(]

(On a lighter note, if this passes, OKC's sales tax rate will be wayyyy higher than Tulsa's, so now the naysayer's can't try to claim that our taxes are just toooooo high)

---

Asking OKC voters to approve a $120 million sales tax to "improve" a FIVE YEAR old arena that cost only $90 million to build has to be an even dumber idea than The Channels.

Expect it to FAIL.  

Voters are taxed out, inflation is soaring, the housing market is tanking nationwide, energy prices are soaring, and the economy is heading South faster than an illegal alien at Felice Navidad.

[8D]

quote:

---

Originally posted by DScott28604

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:

---

Originally posted by okcpulse

Whoa, whoa, whoa... just a minute here.  who said Oklahoma City's sales tax was going to be higher???  It will remain the same rate as it is today, it will just take the place of the MAPS for Kids 1-cent sales tax, which expires in 2009.  So, our rate will not change... it will remain at 8.375%.

---

Oh, now OKCpulse, why would you want to bring some silly little facts into the discussion?  ;-)  Folks here at tulsanow don't really appreciate facts that don't support their mythology.

---

Excuse you, OC... The article barely mentioned any expiring tax, therefore I don't know about it--it's not drivel.  I had to read it over again to even see it.

So OKC's tax rate will still be lower--big whoop!  The point I was making is that OKC keeps passing measures with wide support for improving their community and Tulsa refused $625 million in free money/development.

---

You know DScott, when you quote Oil Capital, I can't successfully use my power of ignore on him (or her)... [:D]

The funny thing is that on several issues I can agree with some of OC's points.... BUT... this guy is STILL coming from the point of view that everything Oklahoma City does is superior to what Tulsa does... everything OKC can do has more potential than what Tulsa can (or should) do..... Tulsa lies to its citizens, OKC doesn't... if there's anyone on this site who functions based on mythology, it's OC... a Tulsa critic on every issue who wishes he were in Houston... and refuses to change screen names to something more appropriate... like Oklahoma City... [:O]

That said, OKC's Mayor Mick is a former sportscaster (KOCO), so he will push hard for this temporary tax... and the citizens of OKC already have the advantage of seeing the benefits of what an NBA team can do for the city.  There was previous criticism when the Ford Center was built, that it was being built "on the cheap."  Cheap all the way down to "width of seats."  The way that arena was pitched to the voters, there's room for the local politicians and the Gaylord-news-cheerleaders to say, "we built the arena to attract an NHL or NBA team"... "now's our chance to git-r-done."  

Clay Bennett (plus the rest of OKC's ownership group) has already spent hundreds of millions of dollars to buy the Sonics... which adds up to far more than Tulsa's $100mil in "private donations" for development that sought to include public sales tax money.  Bennett saw the opportunity to take the team to OKC; they've played the game correctly... they have NBA commish Stern in their back pocket.

And for all those folks who continue to call the Tulsa World, "the Whirled"--- ironically, it's the more conservative Daily Oklahoman who will become a HUGE CHEERLEADER for this project in ways that would make a Tulsa River Tax supporter and the folks at the so-called liberal Tulsa World, BLUSH... [:I]

http://newsok.com/article/3129823/1190260928

Sept. 20, 2007
by John Rohde, The Oklahoman

quote:

---

From where we're standing, it doesn't appear you're particularly fond of the NBA. Too bad, seeing how your franchise has been there since 1967.

You also don't seem too fond of us Okies, neither. Aw, heck, that's all right. We're used to it.

Charles Barkley poked fun at us awhile back and first thing we did was offer to throw him a parade. We're weird that way.

We're easy targets, still fighting our "Grapes of Wrath” reputation.

You guys got Starbucks, and we got Steinbeck.

Hardly seems fair, but we're OK (l-a-h-o-m-a).

We've been readin' what you you've been writin' about us these past few months.

Ya'll think we're nothing but a bunch of land-stealing, crop-dusting, bare-foot, chicken-ranch slumlords, living in shotgun houses with no running water.

But unlike you, we know how to treat an NBA franchise.

Just ask the New Orleans Hornets. They took to us pretty good for two seasons in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. They're welcome back anytime.

Your Sonics are welcome anytime, too.

Next year seems as good a time as any.

Pardon us, but what's your major malfunction about keeping the Sonics?

Here's what we've noticed since last July:

•Some Oklahoma City businessmen purchased your Sonics and WNBA Storm for $350 million, which was roughly $100 million more than face value at the time.

The new owners gave you 15 months to approve funding for a state-of-the-art facility, a place good enough for the NBA, the NHL and every recording artist imaginable — grunge or not.

But ya'll insist on clinging to KeyArena, the league's smallest facility that sits in the original hole dug for the 1962 World's Fair.

You set your clocks ahead for the NFL Seahawks and MLB Mariners, why not the Sonics?

Ownership chairman Clay Bennett keeps reminding you KeyArena is not acceptable, and you just keep ignoring him.

We've got mules around here that are less stubborn.

•Had Bennett and Co. not purchased the Sonics and Storm, they'd both be in San Jose by now.

At least these guys gave you an opportunity to save your franchise.

And you still demand they fork over a few hundred more million for a new arena.

Come on, folks. Try decaf.

•To raise roughly $300 million toward the new facility, all you had to do was extend an existing tax, not increase it.

Your elected officials wouldn't even put this to a vote.

With all the complaining you guys do up there, we figured you were at least allowed to vote.

Had you put the arena proposal on a ballot, the people would have been heard, the issue would have been decided, legislators would have been off the hook, and you all could start complaining about something else.

---

Clay Bennett married into the Gaylord family years ago...

That's right, sportsfans... The Daily Disappointment is so very much on the same page as Clay Bennett and Mayor Mick that months ago back in September, John Rohde wrote... "To raise roughly $300 million toward the new facility, all you had to do was extend an existing tax, not increase it... Your elected officials wouldn't even put this to a vote... With all the complaining you guys do up there, we figured you were at least allowed to vote."

So, OKC will vote on this... if it gets voted down, Bennett will most likely sell the Sonics and/or move the team to Kansas City's Sprint Center, built at a cost of nearly $300mil...

Game... set... match.  Membership has its priviledges...

quote:

---

Originally posted by USRufnex

quote:

---

Originally posted by DScott28604

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:

---

Originally posted by okcpulse

Whoa, whoa, whoa... just a minute here.  who said Oklahoma City's sales tax was going to be higher???  It will remain the same rate as it is today, it will just take the place of the MAPS for Kids 1-cent sales tax, which expires in 2009.  So, our rate will not change... it will remain at 8.375%.

---

Oh, now OKCpulse, why would you want to bring some silly little facts into the discussion?  ;-)  Folks here at tulsanow don't really appreciate facts that don't support their mythology.

---

Excuse you, OC... The article barely mentioned any expiring tax, therefore I don't know about it--it's not drivel.  I had to read it over again to even see it.

So OKC's tax rate will still be lower--big whoop!  The point I was making is that OKC keeps passing measures with wide support for improving their community and Tulsa refused $625 million in free money/development.

---

You know DScott, when you quote Oil Capital, I can't successfully use my power of ignore on him (or her)... [:D]

The funny thing is that on several issues I can agree with some of OC's points.... BUT... this guy is STILL coming from the point of view that everything Oklahoma City does is superior to what Tulsa does... everything OKC can do has more potential than what Tulsa can (or should) do..... Tulsa lies to its citizens, OKC doesn't... if there's anyone on this site who functions based on mythology, it's OC... a Tulsa critic on every issue who wishes he were in Houston... and refuses to change screen names to something more appropriate... like Oklahoma City... [:O]

That said, OKC's Mayor Mick is a former sportscaster (KOCO), so he will push hard for this temporary tax... and the citizens of OKC already have the advantage of seeing the benefits of what an NBA team can do for the city.  There was previous criticism when the Ford Center was built, that it was being built "on the cheap."  Cheap all the way down to "width of seats."  The way that arena was pitched to the voters, there's room for the local politicians and the Gaylord-news-cheerleaders to say, "we built the arena to attract an NHL or NBA team"... "now's our chance to git-r-done."  

Clay Bennett (plus the rest of OKC's ownership group) has already spent hundreds of millions of dollars to buy the Sonics... which adds up to far more than Tulsa's $100mil in "private donations" for development that sought to include public sales tax money.  Bennett saw the opportunity to take the team to OKC; they've played the game correctly... they have NBA commish Stern in their back pocket.

And for all those folks who continue to call the Tulsa World, "the Whirled"--- ironically, it's the more conservative Daily Oklahoman who will become a HUGE CHEERLEADER for this project in ways that would make a Tulsa River Tax supporter and the folks at the so-called liberal Tulsa World, BLUSH... [:I]

http://newsok.com/article/3129823/1190260928

Sept. 20, 2007
by John Rohde, The Oklahoman

quote:

---

From where we're standing, it doesn't appear you're particularly fond of the NBA. Too bad, seeing how your franchise has been there since 1967.

You also don't seem too fond of us Okies, neither. Aw, heck, that's all right. We're used to it.

Charles Barkley poked fun at us awhile back and first thing we did was offer to throw him a parade. We're weird that way.

We're easy targets, still fighting our "Grapes of Wrath” reputation.

You guys got Starbucks, and we got Steinbeck.

Hardly seems fair, but we're OK (l-a-h-o-m-a).

We've been readin' what you you've been writin' about us these past few months.

Ya'll think we're nothing but a bunch of land-stealing, crop-dusting, bare-foot, chicken-ranch slumlords, living in shotgun houses with no running water.

But unlike you, we know how to treat an NBA franchise.

Just ask the New Orleans Hornets. They took to us pretty good for two seasons in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. They're welcome back anytime.

Your Sonics are welcome anytime, too.

Next year seems as good a time as any.

Pardon us, but what's your major malfunction about keeping the Sonics?

Here's what we've noticed since last July:

•Some Oklahoma City businessmen purchased your Sonics and WNBA Storm for $350 million, which was roughly $100 million more than face value at the time.

The new owners gave you 15 months to approve funding for a state-of-the-art facility, a place good enough for the NBA, the NHL and every recording artist imaginable — grunge or not.

But ya'll insist on clinging to KeyArena, the league's smallest facility that sits in the original hole dug for the 1962 World's Fair.

You set your clocks ahead for the NFL Seahawks and MLB Mariners, why not the Sonics?

Ownership chairman Clay Bennett keeps reminding you KeyArena is not acceptable, and you just keep ignoring him.

We've got mules around here that are less stubborn.

•Had Bennett and Co. not purchased the Sonics and Storm, they'd both be in San Jose by now.

At least these guys gave you an opportunity to save your franchise.

And you still demand they fork over a few hundred more million for a new arena.

Come on, folks. Try decaf.

•To raise roughly $300 million toward the new facility, all you had to do was extend an existing tax, not increase it.

Your elected officials wouldn't even put this to a vote.

With all the complaining you guys do up there, we figured you were at least allowed to vote.

Had you put the arena proposal on a ballot, the people would have been heard, the issue would have been decided, legislators would have been off the hook, and you all could start complaining about something else.

---

Clay Bennett married into the Gaylord family years ago...

That's right, sportsfans... The Daily Disappointment is so very much on the same page as Clay Bennett and Mayor Mick that months ago back in September, John Rohde wrote... "To raise roughly $300 million toward the new facility, all you had to do was extend an existing tax, not increase it... Your elected officials wouldn't even put this to a vote... With all the complaining you guys do up there, we figured you were at least allowed to vote."

So, OKC will vote on this... if it gets voted down, Bennett will most likely sell the Sonics and/or move the team to Kansas City's Sprint Center, built at a cost of nearly $300mil...

Game... set... match.  Membership has its priviledges...

---

Subscribe to Dish or Digital Cable, and enjoy the game, WHEREVER IT IS PLAYED, in the comfort of your humble abode.

All without buying a sky-high priced ticket, an overpriced hot dog, watered down beer, or pay for a parking space and gasoline to get there.

[;)]

quote:

---

Originally posted by USRufnex

quote:

---

Originally posted by DScott28604

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:

---

Originally posted by okcpulse

Whoa, whoa, whoa... just a minute here.  who said Oklahoma City's sales tax was going to be higher???  It will remain the same rate as it is today, it will just take the place of the MAPS for Kids 1-cent sales tax, which expires in 2009.  So, our rate will not change... it will remain at 8.375%.

---

Oh, now OKCpulse, why would you want to bring some silly little facts into the discussion?  ;-)  Folks here at tulsanow don't really appreciate facts that don't support their mythology.

---

Excuse you, OC... The article barely mentioned any expiring tax, therefore I don't know about it--it's not drivel.  I had to read it over again to even see it.

So OKC's tax rate will still be lower--big whoop!  The point I was making is that OKC keeps passing measures with wide support for improving their community and Tulsa refused $625 million in free money/development.

---

You know DScott, when you quote Oil Capital, I can't successfully use my power of ignore on him (or her)... [:D]

The funny thing is that on several issues I can agree with some of OC's points.... BUT... this guy is STILL coming from the point of view that everything Oklahoma City does is superior to what Tulsa does... everything OKC can do has more potential than what Tulsa can (or should) do..... Tulsa lies to its citizens, OKC doesn't... if there's anyone on this site who functions based on mythology, it's OC... a Tulsa critic on every issue who wishes he were in Houston... and refuses to change screen names to something more appropriate... like Oklahoma City... [:O]

That said, OKC's Mayor Mick is a former sportscaster (KOCO), so he will push hard for this temporary tax... and the citizens of OKC already have the advantage of seeing the benefits of what an NBA team can do for the city.  There was previous criticism when the Ford Center was built, that it was being built "on the cheap."  Cheap all the way down to "width of seats."  The way that arena was pitched to the voters, there's room for the local politicians and the Gaylord-news-cheerleaders to say, "we built the arena to attract an NHL or NBA team"... "now's our chance to git-r-done."  

Clay Bennett (plus the rest of OKC's ownership group) has already spent hundreds of millions of dollars to buy the Sonics... which adds up to far more than Tulsa's $100mil in "private donations" for development that sought to include public sales tax money.  Bennett saw the opportunity to take the team to OKC; they've played the game correctly... they have NBA commish Stern in their back pocket.

And for all those folks who continue to call the Tulsa World, "the Whirled"--- ironically, it's the more conservative Daily Oklahoman who will become a HUGE CHEERLEADER for this project in ways that would make a Tulsa River Tax supporter and the folks at the so-called liberal Tulsa World, BLUSH... [:I]

http://newsok.com/article/3129823/1190260928

Sept. 20, 2007
by John Rohde, The Oklahoman

quote:

---

From where we're standing, it doesn't appear you're particularly fond of the NBA. Too bad, seeing how your franchise has been there since 1967.

You also don't seem too fond of us Okies, neither. Aw, heck, that's all right. We're used to it.

Charles Barkley poked fun at us awhile back and first thing we did was offer to throw him a parade. We're weird that way.

We're easy targets, still fighting our "Grapes of Wrath” reputation.

You guys got Starbucks, and we got Steinbeck.

Hardly seems fair, but we're OK (l-a-h-o-m-a).

We've been readin' what you you've been writin' about us these past few months.

Ya'll think we're nothing but a bunch of land-stealing, crop-dusting, bare-foot, chicken-ranch slumlords, living in shotgun houses with no running water.

But unlike you, we know how to treat an NBA franchise.

Just ask the New Orleans Hornets. They took to us pretty good for two seasons in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. They're welcome back anytime.

Your Sonics are welcome anytime, too.

Next year seems as good a time as any.

Pardon us, but what's your major malfunction about keeping the Sonics?

Here's what we've noticed since last July:

•Some Oklahoma City businessmen purchased your Sonics and WNBA Storm for $350 million, which was roughly $100 million more than face value at the time.

The new owners gave you 15 months to approve funding for a state-of-the-art facility, a place good enough for the NBA, the NHL and every recording artist imaginable — grunge or not.

But ya'll insist on clinging to KeyArena, the league's smallest facility that sits in the original hole dug for the 1962 World's Fair.

You set your clocks ahead for the NFL Seahawks and MLB Mariners, why not the Sonics?

Ownership chairman Clay Bennett keeps reminding you KeyArena is not acceptable, and you just keep ignoring him.

We've got mules around here that are less stubborn.

•Had Bennett and Co. not purchased the Sonics and Storm, they'd both be in San Jose by now.

At least these guys gave you an opportunity to save your franchise.

And you still demand they fork over a few hundred more million for a new arena.

Come on, folks. Try decaf.

•To raise roughly $300 million toward the new facility, all you had to do was extend an existing tax, not increase it.

Your elected officials wouldn't even put this to a vote.

With all the complaining you guys do up there, we figured you were at least allowed to vote.

Had you put the arena proposal on a ballot, the people would have been heard, the issue would have been decided, legislators would have been off the hook, and you all could start complaining about something else.

---

Clay Bennett married into the Gaylord family years ago...

That's right, sportsfans... The Daily Disappointment is so very much on the same page as Clay Bennett and Mayor Mick that months ago back in September, John Rohde wrote... "To raise roughly $300 million toward the new facility, all you had to do was extend an existing tax, not increase it... Your elected officials wouldn't even put this to a vote... With all the complaining you guys do up there, we figured you were at least allowed to vote."

So, OKC will vote on this... if it gets voted down, Bennett will most likely sell the Sonics and/or move the team to Kansas City's Sprint Center, built at a cost of nearly $300mil...

Game... set... match.  Membership has its priviledges...

---

Did you have a point?  Or did you intend for your post to be nothing more than another one of your ranting streams of random personal attacks and innuendo?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wrinkle


Ha! 'Free' money was pulled off the table. Otherwise, I'm sure we'd not refuse. But, Oh, it wasn't 'free', perhaps?

BTW, just where are you getting your $625M? The River Tax gratuities were only $112M, and it's the only measure which has failed since the Library.

And, don't bring up that Channels thing again.

---

Actually, there was $117m in DONATIONS for improvements along RiverParks and another $5m or so for pools, etc... Then the Tulsa Landing, which was a $500m development... Am I really that far off? NO.

And who EVER said anything about Channels?[?]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oil Capital

Quote

Did you have a point?  Or did you intend for your post to be nothing more than another one of your ranting streams of random personal attacks and innuendo?

---

I expressed my opinion of you in the first paragraph.  

If you chose not to read any further, it is not my fault...

quote:

---

Originally posted by USRufnex

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oil Capital

Quote

Did you have a point?  Or did you intend for your post to be nothing more than another one of your ranting streams of random personal attacks and innuendo?

---

I expressed my opinion of you in the first paragraph.  

If you chose not to read any further, it is not my fault...

---

Read the whole thing.  Again, did you have a point?

quote:

---

Originally posted by DScott28604

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wrinkle


Ha! 'Free' money was pulled off the table. Otherwise, I'm sure we'd not refuse. But, Oh, it wasn't 'free', perhaps?

BTW, just where are you getting your $625M? The River Tax gratuities were only $112M, and it's the only measure which has failed since the Library.

And, don't bring up that Channels thing again.

---

Actually, there was $117m in DONATIONS for improvements along RiverParks and another $5m or so for pools, etc... Then the Tulsa Landing, which was a $500m development... Am I really that far off? NO.

And who EVER said anything about Channels?[?]

---

I'd say so since Tulsa Landing wasn't affected by vote. If it's not going to happen, it's because our Mayorness and her now former Chief ED ignored them to death in favor of East End development/persons.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wrinkle

quote:

---

Originally posted by DScott28604

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wrinkle


Ha! 'Free' money was pulled off the table. Otherwise, I'm sure we'd not refuse. But, Oh, it wasn't 'free', perhaps?

BTW, just where are you getting your $625M? The River Tax gratuities were only $112M, and it's the only measure which has failed since the Library.

And, don't bring up that Channels thing again.

---

Actually, there was $117m in DONATIONS for improvements along RiverParks and another $5m or so for pools, etc... Then the Tulsa Landing, which was a $500m development... Am I really that far off? NO.

And who EVER said anything about Channels?[?]

---

I'd say so since Tulsa Landing wasn't affected by vote. If it's not going to happen, it's because our Mayorness and her now former Chief ED ignored them to death in favor of East End development/persons.

---

Wrong again.  The developer said that the vote was almost make or break deal because of land acquisition.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oil Capital

Read the whole thing.  Again, did you have a point?

---

The point is that OKC and the Daily Oklahoman can be just as disingenuous as you accuse Tulsa of being.

The point is that OKC has some of these projects finished to where their citizens can see progress.

The point is that OKC built an arena "on the cheap" to attract an NHL or NBA team... and now they have attracted a team.  Clay Bennett paid $350mil for that team... and OKC people have a chance to vote to upgrade their facilities to an NBA level if they want an NBA team.

The point is that all the naysaying and negative pontificating over Tulsa's "corrupt government" is overblown; OKC has the Gaylords...

I could call you a name, OC... but then you'd play the victim card again... followed by another insult by you... followed by another condenscendingly sarcastic lawyer remark... followed by another "oh,no... I'm the victim of personal attacks" card... followed by my favorite...

The "Whoa!!! I have all the facts and statistics" card and that TulsaNow posters are afraid of facts...

let's cut to the chase...
 
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=5310&whichpage=7&SearchTerms=Davaz

read pgs 5-8... heck, read all 8 pgs if you want... very illuminating... [;)]

quote:

---

Originally posted by USRufnex

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oil Capital

Read the whole thing.  Again, did you have a point?

---

The point is that OKC and the Daily Oklahoman can be just as disingenuous as you accuse Tulsa of being.

The point is that OKC has some of these projects finished to where their citizens can see progress.

The point is that OKC built an arena "on the cheap" to attract an NHL or NBA team... and now they have attracted a team.  Clay Bennett paid $350mil for that team... and OKC people have a chance to vote to upgrade their facilities to an NBA level if they want an NBA team.

The point is that all the naysaying and negative pontificating over Tulsa's "corrupt government" is overblown; OKC has the Gaylords...

I could call you a name, OC... but then you'd play the victim card again... followed by another insult by you... followed by another condenscendingly sarcastic lawyer remark... followed by another "oh,no... I'm the victim of personal attacks" card... followed by my favorite...

The "Whoa!!! I have all the facts and statistics" card and that TulsaNow posters are afraid of facts...

---

you do have an amazing imagination.  That was quite the rehash of information that has been known to anyone paying attention.  

Gee, OKC built an arena?  Really?

Tell me, if I am wrong about Tulsa's government not having the trust of its citizens and I am wrong about OKC's government having some time ago overcome that same handicap...   why is it that OKC keeps passing civic improvement votes, time after time and Tulsa struggles to pass any?  Where am I wrong in that simple recounting of history?  

Am I wrong that Tulsa's leaders have repeatedly lied to us ?

Bell's removal from the fair grounds
Kathy Taylor's hiring of the "consultants" to give her the answer she wanted on moving city hall.
TDA telling us there were countless developers chomping at the bit for the chance to develop the Tower View site.
TDA telling us the same thing about the Greenwood area property.
The various lies that were fed to us regarding the river tax (no matter what your view of the quality of the proposal itself, it's a little hard to deny the sales job was full of lies).

There is a reason Tulsa city and county voters don't trust their government.   Tell me Rufnex, what could it be?

quote:

---

Originally posted by DScott28604



The point I was making is that OKC keeps passing measures with wide support for improving their community and Tulsa refused $625 million in free money/development.

---

No we didn't.  We passed on an unnecessary  county-managed slush-fund for river development which is going to happen anyhow with some other mechanism.  That whole campaign was one huge joke after another.

quote:

---

Originally posted by inteller

Well as I see it we will have an arena sitting empty at the end of the year and OKC will have a crappy arena they want to improve.  I guess Tulsa is incapable of having a ball team?

---

Well, the obvious answer to that question is that OKC is about a 20% larger market than Tulsa.  OKC/Express Sports put together exhibition games for the NBA and NHL... but still only got their chance AFTER Hurricane Katrina.

The big 4 (NFL, NBA, NHL, MLB) have never been interested in Tulsa to my knowledge... and the metro area is still under 1-million in population.  

Tulsa's metro area population is less than that of Fresno, CA, Dayton, OH and Louisville, KY.

Last year at this time there was speculation about the NHL, but nothing was done...

http://www.tulsaworld.com/sports/article.aspx?articleID=070107_Sp_B2_Sport21312

Despite Tulsa's small size, Major League Soccer (you knew I'd get to it) [;)] ... was proactively interested in Tulsa... a Conventions, Sports & Leisure feasability study in 2003 showed that Tulsa could be projected to average over 14,600 fans per game, while the same CS&L study for Kansas City projected an average attendance of 12,000 fans per game... I still believe we had the fanbase, but lacked the local corporate support to get it off the ground...

now, all we have are memories(some good ones, though)...  http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showpost.php?p=13597102&postcount=25

(http://tulsaroughnecks.com/images/tulsa_roughnecks_217_pics_145.jpg)

----These days, I think Tulsa's only shot is getting the WNBA Seattle team out of pity from Bennett.... or a top level Arena football team.... once again, it appears neither of those leagues have actively sought out Tulsa....

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oil Capital


you do have an amazing imagination.  That was quite the rehash of information that has been known to anyone paying attention.  

Gee, OKC built an arena?  Really?

Tell me, if I am wrong about Tulsa's government not having the trust of its citizens and I am wrong about OKC's government having some time ago overcome that same handicap...   why is it that OKC keeps passing civic improvement votes, time after time and Tulsa struggles to pass any?  Where am I wrong in that simple recounting of history?  

Am I wrong that Tulsa's leaders have repeatedly lied to us ?

Bell's removal from the fair grounds
Kathy Taylor's hiring of the "consultants" to give her the answer she wanted on moving city hall.
TDA telling us there were countless developers chomping at the bit for the chance to develop the Tower View site.
TDA telling us the same thing about the Greenwood area property.
The various lies that were fed to us regarding the river tax (no matter what your view of the quality of the proposal itself, it's a little hard to deny the sales job was full of lies).

There is a reason Tulsa city and county voters don't trust their government.   Tell me Rufnex, what could it be?

---

con·de·scen·sion  
Function: noun
Etymology: Late Latin condescension-, condescensio, from condescendere
Date: 1647
1 : voluntary descent from one's rank or dignity in relations with an inferior
2 : patronizing attitude or behavior

More of your condescending pretend-to-know-it-all while advancing your anti-Tulsa agenda through anti-Tulsa talking points worthy of the Daily Oklahoman... in subtle and not-so-subtle ways...

I really don't know about Bell's... it depends on what replaces it... I'm bettin' on the horsies...

I thought moving city hall to that big glass thingy was actually a good move... it's costing a lot, hopefully it'll save money in the long run and consolidate things...

"Countless developers at the Towerview"???  Sorry, now you're the one exaggerating.

Greenwood Chamber of Commerce is buying that Greenwood property for $1.8 mil.... http://www.ktul.com/news/stories/0108/487364.html

Despite the overselling, exaggeration and little white lies told by the pro-river people and their media handlers, this would have passed on a citywide vote despite the fact that many of the local electorate thought they were voting for three man-made islands in the middle of the Arkansas River... and if you think the anti-river people didn't do the same thing, I've got a bridge in Alaska to sell ya... too bad Mayor Taylor wasn't as politically savvy in understanding the local/county electorate as she should have been... a $5mil last min bribe to north Tulsa and the magic 22k seat whatever-you-want-it-to-be stadium sold the week before the election was also insulting...

but saying that $282mil in public funds that didn't have every single "i" dotted and "t" crossed is a "slush-fund" or that it wouldn't affect the Tulsa Landing project one way or the other is a LIE, too.......

Too bad you can't be as toxically skeptical of the naysayers in this city as you do Tulsa government.... or be even mildly skeptical of what this thread is supposed to be about... namely, the "1 cent sales tax to fund improvements to the Ford Center and for an NBA practice facility."

Strangely enough, Tulsa's naysayers and aginners are intensely critical of the Tulsa World but mum when it comes to the traditional propagandistic cheerleading, cronyism and demonization of political opponents engaged in on a regular basis by the Daily Oklahoman.

Curious how your intense skepticism is limited to Tulsa only.  And I don't think you had any decent things to say about LaFortune's administration either... hmmm, zero nice things to say about Tulsa since you've been posting on this forum...

Strangely enough, you have yet to speak one single word of criticism towards Oklahoma City local government in this entire thread...

Strange days indeed... most peculiar...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Conan71

quote:

---

Originally posted by DScott28604



The point I was making is that OKC keeps passing measures with wide support for improving their community and Tulsa refused $625 million in free money/development.

---

No we didn't.  We passed on an unnecessary  county-managed slush-fund for river development which is going to happen anyhow with some other mechanism.  That whole campaign was one huge joke after another.

---

If the NBA doesn't come to OKC, what do you call the $97mil in sales tax dollars the city will still get....?!?

(http://www.populationstatistic.com/images/apu_simpsons.jpg)

"Hmmm, this is not a slush-fund, Conan... in OKC, this is called a squishy-fund.... would you like one?"

quote:

---

Originally posted by USRufnex

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oil Capital


you do have an amazing imagination.  That was quite the rehash of information that has been known to anyone paying attention.  

Gee, OKC built an arena?  Really?

Tell me, if I am wrong about Tulsa's government not having the trust of its citizens and I am wrong about OKC's government having some time ago overcome that same handicap...   why is it that OKC keeps passing civic improvement votes, time after time and Tulsa struggles to pass any?  Where am I wrong in that simple recounting of history?  

Am I wrong that Tulsa's leaders have repeatedly lied to us ?

Bell's removal from the fair grounds
Kathy Taylor's hiring of the "consultants" to give her the answer she wanted on moving city hall.
TDA telling us there were countless developers chomping at the bit for the chance to develop the Tower View site.
TDA telling us the same thing about the Greenwood area property.
The various lies that were fed to us regarding the river tax (no matter what your view of the quality of the proposal itself, it's a little hard to deny the sales job was full of lies).

There is a reason Tulsa city and county voters don't trust their government.   Tell me Rufnex, what could it be?

---

con·de·scen·sion  
Function: noun
Etymology: Late Latin condescension-, condescensio, from condescendere
Date: 1647
1 : voluntary descent from one's rank or dignity in relations with an inferior
2 : patronizing attitude or behavior

More of your condescending pretend-to-know-it-all while advancing your anti-Tulsa agenda through anti-Tulsa talking points worthy of the Daily Oklahoman... in subtle and not-so-subtle ways...

I really don't know about Bell's... it depends on what replaces it... I'm bettin' on the horsies...

I thought moving city hall to that big glass thingy was actually a good move... it's costing a lot, hopefully it'll save money in the long run and consolidate things...

"Countless developers at the Towerview"???  Sorry, now you're the one exaggerating.

Greenwood Chamber of Commerce is buying that Greenwood property for $1.8 mil.... http://www.ktul.com/news/stories/0108/487364.html

Despite the overselling, exaggeration and little white lies told by the pro-river people and their media handlers, this would have passed on a citywide vote despite the fact that many of the local electorate thought they were voting for three man-made islands in the middle of the Arkansas River... and if you think the anti-river people didn't do the same thing, I've got a bridge in Alaska to sell ya... too bad Mayor Taylor wasn't as politically savvy in understanding the local/county electorate as she should have been... a $5mil last min bribe to north Tulsa and the magic 22k seat whatever-you-want-it-to-be stadium sold the week before the election was also insulting...

but saying that $282mil in public funds that didn't have every single "i" dotted and "t" crossed is a "slush-fund" or that it wouldn't affect the Tulsa Landing project one way or the other is a LIE, too.......

Too bad you can't be as toxically skeptical of the naysayers in this city as you do Tulsa government.... or be even mildly skeptical of what this thread is supposed to be about... namely, the "1 cent sales tax to fund improvements to the Ford Center and for an NBA practice facility."

Strangely enough, Tulsa's naysayers and aginners are intensely critical of the Tulsa World but mum when it comes to the traditional propagandistic cheerleading, cronyism and demonization of political opponents engaged in on a regular basis by the Daily Oklahoman.

Curious how your intense skepticism is limited to Tulsa only.  And I don't think you had any decent things to say about LaFortune's administration either... hmmm, zero nice things to say about Tulsa since you've been posting on this forum...

Strangely enough, you have yet to speak one single word of criticism towards Oklahoma City local government in this entire thread...

Strange days indeed... most peculiar...

---

Strange indeed.

Bell's:  It's a parking lot.  Go take a look.

Moving city hall may or may not turn out to be a good deal  (I'm betting on not because that's what the operating expense numbers in the "study" actually showed).  But the FACT is that the city government lied about their contract with the consultant.  They told us it was a fixed-price contract (which any study worth looking at should be).  But then it leaked out that there was actually a bonus payment if the consultant reach Kathy's preferred result.

When the TDA went out to seek proposals for the TowerView block property, they crowed about how there was soooo much interest from developers and that they would get multiple great proposals.  Well, we all know that they got ONE flakey proposal.   No exaggeration here, pal.

Yes, I know Greenwood Chamber is buying that property.  They were the ONLY entity to submit a development proposal... after the TDA told us that, once again, there was lots of interest from developers and there would be multiple proposals from which to choose.  Not so much.  Even earlier this week, the TDA Chairman was quoted in the World as saying:

"“We’ve acted in good faith and have done all we can do,” he said. “There are others who are chomping at the bit for this property.” Strange and peculiar indeed.  They went through the RFP process a couple years ago and got exactly ONE proposal, after telling us this exact same thing about how much interest there was.  And now they again want us to believe that people are "chomping at the bit for this property."  Uh Huh.   http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectID=11&articleID=20080111_1_A1_hAGre83223 (http://"World article")


I'd be interested in seeing examples of the "lies" put out by the opponents of the River Tax.  If there were some, I'll happily condemn that too.  But lies from elected leaders are a far more serious matter, as they destroy trust, as we have seen in abundance here in Tulsa.

I did not say anything about a slush fund.

As to the Tulsa Landing, I also did not say it would not have affected Tulsa Landing one way or the other.  It MIGHT have put a process in place to help Tulsa Landing.  BUT, it was and is a complete lie to say that it would have assured the development of Tulsa Landing or that the failure of the River Tax would make Tulsa Landing impossible, both of which were at the very least strongly implied by the pro-tax folk.


I really don't have an opinion on the proposed tax in OKC.  And I don't really care enough one way or the other.  You see, I don't live in OKC.   I live in Tulsa.  That matter is for Oklahoma Citians to decide.  I am naturally skeptical of all tax increase proposals and am generally skeptical of public subsidies for pro sports.  But again.  I don't live there or have any particular reason to have an opinion on their local tax issue.

Again, I don't regularly read or even open the website of the Daily Oklahoman.  Its rather peculiar that the lack of criticism of another city's newspaper would be noteworthy to you.  Strange indeed.  I don't post criticisms of the Kansas City or Dallas papers here on the Tulsa forum either.  Oooohhhh, it's a conspiracy!


The last thing this board needs is another Tulsa cheerleader, but it is just not true that I've had zero nice things to say about Tulsa.  I'll try to post more happy talk, okay?


Sorry, but to the extent I pay attention to OKC's government (and it's a whole lot less than I pay attention to Tulsa's because, again, I LIVE IN TULSA, NOT OKC...), I'm just not seeing anything to criticize the OKC government about, at least on this topic.  As I said at the beginning of this conversation.  OKC's government was where Tulsa's is about 20 years ago.  But for whatever reason, and however they did it, they have managed to install and maintain a pretty good operation in their city and county governments down there.  Somehow or another they've been able to make a lot of great things happen down there.  One has to be pretty delusional not to see that.  I hope Tulsa can get there some day soon.

quote:

---

Originally posted by USRufnex----These days, I think Tulsa's only shot is getting the WNBA Seattle team out of pity from Bennett.... or a top level Arena football team.... once again, it appears neither of those leagues have actively sought out Tulsa....

---

Unfortunately, that's no longer a possibility.  A group of female business leaders in Seattle bought the WNBA club off Bennett and is keeping it there.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/wnba/346461_storm08.html?source=mypi

What is up with the Tulsa Landing thing?  The developer seemed genuine. It seems like the mayor is trying harder to get the baseball stadium downtown than to get the baseball stadium by the river along with 500million in development. Is there no effort going on to try and secure enough property so the developer can move ahead?

Even though the river vote thing was a fiasco it seems to me that we shouldn't drop the ball on a potential development along the river. Is it that they are worried that the river development will hurt potential development plans for downtown? Downtown is fine to push for but not at the expense of losing a great development along the river.

I am starting to smell an interesting mix of greed, fear and desperation with all the card games going on. I wish people would just be honest, especially if they want the citizens to "chip in".

Exaggerations of the type we have been talking about on here do not do anyone any good. Investors know better and the people will figure it out in short order. Then your really in a pickle. Hows that riverwalk phase 2 going? They shuffled some dirt around, yet again, for the cameras. I have been by there several times and those tractors havent moved since. You can only do that so many times before someone smells a rat.

 Nobody is going to build a hotel downtown at the towerview site. Nor is anyone going to build one at the old City Hall site. Nobody is going to build a grocery store downtown either.

The only way we can make any honest progress is to be honest about our situation. For only then will we be able to make good descisions. We may not like what we see when we are honest, at first. But once we get an honest picture we can them be truly excited about the descisions we will be making because they will honest and sure to make progress. The deceptions, exaggerations, secrecy, and hot air thing is getting old. Look at where it got Bells.

Chuck Lamson apparently ruled out the Tulsa river site for the Drillers.  It's either Jenks by the river or downtown.

As for Tulsa Landing, those developers wanted a land handout in exchange for putting in the lifestyle center.  My guess is that they're waiting on the next handout and will be right back on board when we're ready to give it to them.  I would also guess that Mayor Taylor is waiting a while for passions to significantly fade before wading back into river development (pun intended).  It's going to take a TIF at minimum.

And in my opinion, making sure downtown devlopment is on pace should be a higher priority than developing the Tulsa portion of the river.  The City might be waiting to see what comes of the land parcel package downtown before trying again to give away the river real estate.

I share your frustration with all the secrecy, but sometimes that's the only way to get parties to come to the table.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oil Capital

Strange indeed.

Bell's:  It's a parking lot.  Go take a look.

---

I have.  Maybe you should brush up on your reading comprehension.  I'm betting (yes, my guess is...) some of this has to do with expansion for expo square in general, quarter-horses and expanded racetrack facilities (casino?), not necessarily in that order.

quote:

---

Moving city hall may or may not turn out to be a good deal  (I'm betting on not because that's what the operating expense numbers in the "study" actually showed).  But the FACT is that the city government lied about their contract with the consultant.  They told us it was a fixed-price contract (which any study worth looking at should be).  But then it leaked out that there was actually a bonus payment if the consultant reach Kathy's preferred result.

---

More bull from you.  You simply DON'T KNOW... you pretend to know... you side with the naysayers, pretending to be a whistle-blower when you're nothing more than a no-at-all-costs critic... you consistently stand in opposition to any and all decisions made at the city level.... you've been doing this for years now...

quote:

---

When the TDA went out to seek proposals for the TowerView block property, they crowed about how there was soooo much interest from developers and that they would get multiple great proposals.  Well, we all know that they got ONE flakey proposal.   No exaggeration here, pal.

---

I thought the number used was "several" but I'm just a guy who grew up here and chose to move back, not a subtle critic of all things Tulsa who never wanted to live here in the first place...

quote:

---

Yes, I know Greenwood Chamber is buying that property.  They were the ONLY entity to submit a development proposal..........
I'd be interested in seeing examples of the "lies" put out by the opponents of the River Tax.  If there were some, I'll happily condemn that too.  But lies from elected leaders are a far more serious matter, as they destroy trust, as we have seen in abundance here in Tulsa.

---

Really?  So why would the Greenwood Chamber buy the property if there were no interested parties?.... I think the interested parties based their decisions on a rejuvenated downtown/east village... and have hedged their bets these days, not unlike a certain guy from SF who bought half of downtown...

And how is exaggerating interest different from what happens in other cities.  I've been watching the group that runs Major League Soccer for over a decade... they come up with a list of "interested" cities every year-- there's ALWAYS lots of interested parties... the joke in soccer circles is that there's going to be a very serious announcement about MLS expansion "in the next 60-90 days"...but the devils always in the details... if Tulsa's previous soccer proposals have anything in common with the way the city in general does business... everything's always hush-hush and behind closed doors...

So, it's entirely possible (dare I say, likely) that there are still multiple plans for that area... which would explain why that land was purchased by the chamber...

You want to know lies put out by the river tax opponents???... geez, where to start... So, I take it you didn't read ANY of Friendly Bear's posts?... you didn't read anything from Michael Bates's and the others who pushed out propaganda that there'd be these low water dams built by Vision2025 that we supposedly already paid for... and stretched that point to include fiscally irresponsible talk of spending "surplus funds" on river development... failing to say these are projected funds--

With the news the past few days on the economy, I wouldn't be counting those "projected surplus" chickens so quickly....

And to say that there are lying local pols in Tulsa and nowhere else, is well...... a lie.  

Of course you'll counter that you never actually said that... and play the victim card again and post that you guess you'll have to become a "cheerleader."   awww... that's just precious...

quote:

---

I did not say anything about a slush fund.

---

If you had better reading skills, you'd see I was responding to someone else.... also, if you read the entire TW article, it explicitly says that if the tax passes and the NBA doesn't come to OKC, the city will still get $97mil-- I see a double standard here... what if Vision2025 had that little caveat as part of the Boeing proposal ("If Boeing doesn't come here, the city will still get $97mil")... Bates and company would be all over it like flies on XXXX... besides, it ain't always about you, punkin'... [:D]

quote:

---

As to the Tulsa Landing, I also did not say it would not have affected Tulsa Landing one way or the other.  It MIGHT have put a process in place to help Tulsa Landing.  BUT, it was and is a complete lie to say that it would have assured the development of Tulsa Landing or that the failure of the River Tax would make Tulsa Landing impossible, both of which were at the very least strongly implied by the pro-tax folk.

---

"strongly implied"??? yeah, that street runs both ways.  The "no" people took the naive view that voting against the River Tax would have little effect on Tulsa Landing.

It wasn't a matter of "whether or not" rejecting the river tax was going to affect the Tulsa Landing project; it was a matter of degree... last I heard from the guy, he compared the prospects of getting it done w/o the taxes to "taking the stairs" instead of riding the elevator... pretending that rejection of the tax for the river isn't going to deeply affect the possible success or failure or feasability of Tulsa Landing is a rejection of common sense...

quote:

---

I really don't have an opinion on the proposed tax in OKC.  And I don't really care enough one way or the other.  You see, I don't live in OKC.   I live in Tulsa.  That matter is for Oklahoma Citians to decide.  I am naturally skeptical of all tax increase proposals and am generally skeptical of public subsidies for pro sports.  But again.  I don't live there or have any particular reason to have an opinion on their local tax issue.

Again, I don't regularly read or even open the website of the Daily Oklahoman.  Its rather peculiar that the lack of criticism of another city's newspaper would be noteworthy to you.  Strange indeed.  I don't post criticisms of the Kansas City or Dallas papers here on the Tulsa forum either.  Oooohhhh, it's a conspiracy!

---

Funny how you spare no effort to defend anyone from OKC posting on this site... funny how some of the details from your posts mirror previous  articles from The Oklahoman... coincidence?  perhaps.

quote:

---

The last thing this board needs is another Tulsa cheerleader, but it is just not true that I've had zero nice things to say about Tulsa.  I'll try to post more happy talk, okay?

---

Oh, nice play of the "cheerleader" card.  I have NEVER been a cheerleader for Tulsa.  I have been critical of the city on a number of issues.  Many of us have.  YOU, on the other hand, have been predictably anti-EVERYTHING because you previously hated it here.  Maybe you've had some sort of change-of-heart....

Of course, we'll never know... because now that I've called you on it, you'll turn into "little miss sweetness and light" for awhile until going back to your "everything in tulsa is corrupt" nature...

quote:

---

Sorry, but to the extent I pay attention to OKC's government (and it's a whole lot less than I pay attention to Tulsa's because, again, I LIVE IN TULSA, NOT OKC...), I'm just not seeing anything to criticize the OKC government about, at least on this topic.  As I said at the beginning of this conversation.  OKC's government was where Tulsa's is about 20 years ago.  But for whatever reason, and however they did it, they have managed to install and maintain a pretty good operation in their city and county governments down there.  Somehow or another they've been able to make a lot of great things happen down there.  One has to be pretty delusional not to see that.  I hope Tulsa can get there some day soon.

---

Where did you get the opinion that Tulsa is where OKC was 20 years ago?  It certainly implies that you lived there.... or maybe that you previously posted stuff on an OKC website?... or maybe you're just taking your opinions off what others say about OKC and have no experience living in OKC?.... if you chime in on this thread posting how Tulsa may eventually get where OKC was 20 years ago... are you telling me you come to this conclusion despite having never lived there???

Because I DID live in OKC 20 years ago and still visit a few times a year... so I can sympathize with what the occasionally trolling OKC poster may say on a Tulsa thread about the NBA...... you however, POUNCE on it, using any mis-step as a "gotcha" moment so you can accuse TulsaNow posters in general of not knowing the "facts" as you see them...

for someone who calls himself "Oil Capital" and claims to not be from OKC, who may or may not still have the hots for Houston, this quote is very telling...

"For many many years, OKC was in the same position because their city leaders had routinely lied to them, had failed to complete promised projects, etc. At long last, with their promotion and passage of the original MAPS, they (with new accountable leadership) broke free of that.

Tulsa now finds itself in the exact position that OKC was in 20 years ago."

What promised projects?!?  What new accountable leadership?!?  Mayor Norick, Mayor Humphries?

I lived in OKC for most of the decade of the 80s, which was pre-MAPS and still keep reasonably up to date on other OKC stuff, because I have friends in OKC... are you talking about the Myriad Gardens?... or the post-MAPS grumbling over the massive amounts of public money used to attract what my friends there termed "a glorified bait shop" (Bass Pro)... And how exactly would YOU know?...

Or are you just talking out your a$$?

quote:

---

Originally posted by DScott28604

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:

---

Originally posted by okcpulse

Whoa, whoa, whoa... just a minute here.  who said Oklahoma City's sales tax was going to be higher???  It will remain the same rate as it is today, it will just take the place of the MAPS for Kids 1-cent sales tax, which expires in 2009.  So, our rate will not change... it will remain at 8.375%.

---

Oh, now OKCpulse, why would you want to bring some silly little facts into the discussion?  ;-)  Folks here at tulsanow don't really appreciate facts that don't support their mythology.

---

Excuse you, OC... The article barely mentioned any expiring tax, therefore I don't know about it--it's not drivel.  I had to read it over again to even see it.

So OKC's tax rate will still be lower--big whoop!  The point I was making is that OKC keeps passing measures with wide support for improving their community and Tulsa refused $625 million in free money/development.

---

First - the $625 million wasn't "free", it was just discounted - we still had to pay an increased tax to get at it.  So you could call it "half-price" money, but not "free money".

Second, it is a HUGE deal that OKC's tax rate will still be lower than Tulsa's.  If I could vote to drop our tax rate .2% and have an NBA team in town, I'd do that in a heartbeat.  Screw the river development.  Jenks will continue to use private funds and it will be developed anyway.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Floyd

Chuck Lamson apparently ruled out the Tulsa river site for the Drillers.  It's either Jenks by the river or downtown.

As for Tulsa Landing, those developers wanted a land handout in exchange for putting in the lifestyle center.  My guess is that they're waiting on the next handout and will be right back on board when we're ready to give it to them.  I would also guess that Mayor Taylor is waiting a while for passions to significantly fade before wading back into river development (pun intended).  It's going to take a TIF at minimum.

And in my opinion, making sure downtown devlopment is on pace should be a higher priority than developing the Tulsa portion of the river.  The City might be waiting to see what comes of the land parcel package downtown before trying again to give away the river real estate.

I share your frustration with all the secrecy, but sometimes that's the only way to get parties to come to the table.

---

I have no inside 411 so this is total, wild speculation on my part:

As soon as the city consolidtates their engineering department at OneTech and maintenance moves to the old Tulsa Airpark, there's going to be good size parcel of land available on the SOUTH side of the 21st St. bridge which the city owns now and will need to do something with.

A sizeable component (18%, that's sizeable when you consider how many miles of improvement were to take place) of the river tax was someone on the inside trying to grease someone else's pockets on the concrete plant land.  How else can anyone explain the major escalation in value on that parcel in one year between the channels and the RTP?

I'm speculating that for cost of demo and a $1 per year lease, there will be an M.U.D. on the COT M & E base.  

Of course, that is without me taking into full consideration what all the city's legal obligations are with existing properties to be shuttered with the consolidation at OT.  Assuming TDA or another entity takes it over, that's what I would envision unless there were provisions under the financing of th OT purchase which would preclude that.

Based on the success of that, later there will be a private transaction for the concrete plant by a developer with money to do their own deal.