Why do we need a new baseball stadium?

[Friendly Bear]

Our high maintenance mayor wants to indebt the city taxpayers in a downtown TIF for THIRTY years to partially fund the construction of a new baseball stadium.

She seems to like indebting Tulsa's citizens for THIRTY year deals.

The financing of the move of the city hall to the OTC building is another:  A 30 year loan.

Deals that will be around long, long after Mayor  Kathy Taylor is gone (but not forgotten as we'll still be paying for her long, long afterwards).

Really, Mrs. Kitty is a high maintenance woman.

Poor Mr. Lobeck.  

Poor Tulsa.

Why don't some of the supporters of this new tax-and-spend scheme recite all the reasons why this is good for the citizens of Tulsa.

I'll list a few why it just ISN'T good:

1)  The current Driller stadium is PAID FOR.

Debt-free.  That is a wonderful, strategic position for a government facility.

Paid for by nouveau riche Oil Racketeer (and convicted Federal felon) Robert Sutton.

We just need a better class of Oil Racketeer here in Oklahoma today.  

Today's new energy buccaneers like Aubrey McClendon want taxpayer-financed Corporate Welfare for their professional sports franchises.  He and his plutocrat cronies are getting $180 MILLION dollars of the taxpayer's money to move a basketball team he owns to Oklahoma City.

2)  Driller Stadium is a perfectly adequate baseball field.  

It has lights.  

It has good, sanitary, concessions.  

It has functioning relatively clean, indoor bathrooms.

It has a scoreboard.  Actually, a pretty good scoreboard.  

It has box seats available for the local Patricians, so they won't be directly exposed to the local Peons.

3)  The current stadium which seats over 10,000 is rarely full.  When there is a big ticket promotion with Free Q-T tickets, or $1.00 beer nite, they fill up the stadium with 10,000 fans, or more.

Usually, there are 3,000 - 5,000 dedicated fans who regularly turn out.

The new stadium is reported to have only 6,200 seats.  Tiny compared to Driller stadium.

4)  SAFE, free parking is right next to the current Driller stadium, within easy walking distance.

It may NOT be either safe or free in the 'hood where Mrs. Kitty wants to build a new stadium.

5)  It is more or less centrally located for fans to access via the Broken Arrow Expressway, and just 2.5 miles away from Tulsa's center of gravity.

A downtown stadium is even further from Tulsa's center of gravity at 41st and Yale.

6)  Driller Stadium is not located right next to an oil refinery, a 6 lane expressway, or the 'hood.

7) If team owner Mr. Lamebrain wants to take his team and move, that's his right. He has only a year-to-year lease on Driller Stadium.

We can easily find another team.

When our original AAA Tulsa Oilers moved to New Orleans, they were promptly replaced by the AA Tulsa Drillers.  The door didn't even bump their butts.

There is a market for our AA-AAA baseball franchise in Tulsa.  Not a great market.  But, one that year in and year out brings about 3,000 - 5,000  fans out on any given home game.

9) And, the real money is made off of the concessions.  People spend $6.00 on a ticket, and $20+ on concessions, souvenirs, etc.

I'm not sure Mr. Lamebrain really wants competition for food and drink sales from the Blue Dome or Brady Districts.

Hmmmmh?

10) Wonder if this proposed stadium deal is making him money on the construction side?  

Will he be a silent partner with the local construction cabal?

Likely JV name?  Tulsa Stadium Builders?

I'm waiting to hear the stadium promoters offer their selling points.

BATTER-UP!

[]

[AVERAGE JOE]

FB came out of hibernation to ramble about how he doesn't like the deal, so the new ballpark is obviously a great thing for Tulsa.

So easy to pick you apart:

The first and foremost reason for building a new stadium is that the Drillers not only want a new one, they have entered talks with Jenks for building one. Unless we want to see the Drillers move to Jenks (along with the resulting sales tax revenue) we need to step up to the plate.

1) So what?

2) See above.

3) The current stadium is too large. The new stadium will be the right size. So what?

4) Patently untrue about the safety factor. And if a person parks on the street, it will be free since you only have to plug parking meters between 8-5:30 M-F.

5) Downtown is the convergence of the major expressways in town as well as future light rail. The new stadium will be better served by expressways than the current site, making it MORE accessible, not less.

6) ? A six-lane expressway is good for access. The new stadium will also not be located next to an oil refinery nor the "hood".

7) Tell that to Wichita, which lost its team this year due to lack of a new stadium.

? So let me see... there's a market for the product, so we SHOULDN'T build a venue for that product? Put down the crack pipe.

9) Lamson is completely on board with the move, so you happen to be wrong.

10) Paranoid rant.

[waterboy]

Might be kind of late for this discussion. Done deal.

[tulsa1603]

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

Our high maintenance mayor wants to indebt the city taxpayers in a downtown TIF for THIRTY years to partially fund the construction of a new baseball stadium.

She seems to like indebting Tulsa's citizens for THIRTY year deals.

The financing of the move of the city hall to the OTC building is another:  A 30 year loan.

Deals that will be around long, long after Mayor  Kathy Taylor is gone (but not forgotten as we'll still be paying for her long, long afterwards).

Really, Mrs. Kitty is a high maintenance woman.

Poor Mr. Lobeck.  

Poor Tulsa.

Why don't some of the supporters of this new tax-and-spend scheme recite all the reasons why this is good for the citizens of Tulsa.

I'll list a few why it just ISN'T good:

1)  The current Driller stadium is PAID FOR.

Debt-free.  That is a wonderful, strategic position for a government facility.

Paid for by nouveau riche Oil Racketeer (and convicted Federal felon) Robert Sutton.

We just need a better class of Oil Racketeer here in Oklahoma today.  

Today's new energy buccaneers like Aubrey McClendon want taxpayer-financed Corporate Welfare for their professional sports franchises.  He and his plutocrat cronies are getting $180 MILLION dollars of the taxpayer's money to move a basketball team he owns to Oklahoma City.

2)  Driller Stadium is a perfectly adequate baseball field.  

It has lights.  

It has good, sanitary, concessions.  

It has functioning relatively clean, indoor bathrooms.

It has a scoreboard.  Actually, a pretty good scoreboard.  

It has box seats available for the local Patricians, so they won't be directly exposed to the local Peons.

3)  The current stadium which seats over 10,000 is rarely full.  When there is a big ticket promotion with Free Q-T tickets, or $1.00 beer nite, they fill up the stadium with 10,000 fans, or more.

Usually, there are 3,000 - 5,000 dedicated fans who regularly turn out.

The new stadium is reported to have only 6,200 seats.  Tiny compared to Driller stadium.

4)  SAFE, free parking is right next to the current Driller stadium, within easy walking distance.

It may NOT be either safe or free in the 'hood where Mrs. Kitty wants to build a new stadium.

5)  It is more or less centrally located for fans to access via the Broken Arrow Expressway, and just 2.5 miles away from Tulsa's center of gravity.

A downtown stadium is even further from Tulsa's center of gravity at 41st and Yale.

6)  Driller Stadium is not located right next to an oil refinery, a 6 lane expressway, or the 'hood.

7) If team owner Mr. Lamebrain wants to take his team and move, that's his right. He has only a year-to-year lease on Driller Stadium.

We can easily find another team.

When our original AAA Tulsa Oilers moved to New Orleans, they were promptly replaced by the AA Tulsa Drillers.  The door didn't even bump their butts.

There is a market for our AA-AAA baseball franchise in Tulsa.  Not a great market.  But, one that year in and year out brings about 3,000 - 5,000  fans out on any given home game.

9) And, the real money is made off of the concessions.  People spend $6.00 on a ticket, and $20+ on concessions, souvenirs, etc.

I'm not sure Mr. Lamebrain really wants competition for food and drink sales from the Blue Dome or Brady Districts.

Hmmmmh?

10) Wonder if this proposed stadium deal is making him money on the construction side?  

Will he be a silent partner with the local construction cabal?

Likely JV name?  Tulsa Stadium Builders?

I'm waiting to hear the stadium promoters offer their selling points.

BATTER-UP!

[]

The current stadium is paid for yes, but the Drillers had already made it clear they ARE MOVING no matter what.  They had signed a letter of intent to move to Jenks.  So we stood to lose the Drillers and be left holding an empty stadium (albeit, paid for).  Do you really think ANOTHER minor league team would come here when the Drillers would be right down the road in Jenks?  Talk about an oversaturated market.  So Kathy 1) kept the Drillers in Tulsa, and 2) put something downtown that will be yet ANOTHER draw.  I think this is a brilliant move on her part.  If she had let them move to Jenks, you would have lambasted her for that too, I'm sure.

[sgrizzle]

9/11

[we vs us]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

9/11

It changed everything!

[godboko71]

Lets not also forget, that the fair board wants the Drillers gone either way, so there lease would not be renewed in the near future anyway.

This way we don't lose the team, the tax base, and we keep our all knowing fair board happy.

Plus for me this means I will be a season ticket holder year in and year out with the movie. The team is in walking distance from my "hood" on the west side of downtown. Yeah I am willing to talk in the summer heat to watch baseball.


As for parking, no large parking lot, be it scattered about or in one location is safe. Hell when people have to park in different areas that means there is less cars to cover said vandals and thieves donkey while they commit there crimes. Plus lets not forget about the bike patrols we have downtown, and the extra police, so I think everyone will be safe in the "hood."


Also as for seating, all the proposed "renderings" and "designs" I have seem make it seem like there is room for future expansion. I have a feeling we could expand to 10,000 seats if the need came up.

As for the cost increases, I have a feeling some of that money is going to the Greenwood Chamber, so at the end of the day it should help spear even more development.

As for the tax downtown, those businesses are used to it I am sad to say, if you want to wait a few years and lose the Drillers we could get donors to bay the other half too, but what team would want to come here? None, Jenks is just to close they would be feeding off the same user base. In 10 years maybe we could support two teams though.

[booWorld]

According to an article in today's Tulsa World, no one spoke for or against the proposed assessment district at the actual presentation.

However, the article has a couple of quotes from after the meeting:

quote:from P.J. Lassek's article in the June 28, 2008 Tulsa World:


Paul Wilson of Twenty First Properties said after the meeting that he "cannot support the mayor's plan to tax downtown property owners at a rate six times greater than the current assessment." Wilson said the company owns property primarily located at 11th Street and Denver Avenue.

He said properties next to the ballpark would enjoy higher value and increased services and should pay at a higher rate, instead of having a flat rate for all properties.

Michael Sager owns more than 20 pieces of property, some in the far East Village and the rest in the Blue Dome area near the proposed ballpark site.

"I firmly support the assessment district," he said. "The effect ballparks have in downtown areas is documented in many cities."

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the current assessments are generally higher the closer a property is to the small fountain in the middle of the Avenue of the Sister Cities where it intersects with Main Maul.  The new assessments will most likely be a worse deal for the owners of properties near the southwest corner of downtown and a sweeter deal for the owners of properties near the northeast corner of downtown, and possibly for the owners of properties near 5th & Main.

And if the City Council approves the proposed new downtown improvement district, then yes, it appears as though it will be a done deal in a few weeks.

[sgrizzle]

Yes it's "up to a 6x increase" but in the grand scheme of what it costs to own and operate a business, it's pretty much a drop in the bucket.

[booWorld]

Perhaps.

But Paul Wilson was quoted by P.J. Lassek, so it might be, as a representative of Twenty First Properties, that he simply cannot support the mayor's plan.

Think about what the current special assessment district is supposed to provide.  Do you think that downtown property owners are currently receiving satisfactory service from DTU at a mere 1/6th of the proposed new assessment rate?  

Don't be surprised if some downtown property owners are a bit leery of the proposed long-term assessments.  The mayor's presentation was yesterday.  The same Tulsa World article mentioned a City Council vote on July 10th.  To me, this doesn't seem like much time for public input on quasi-public downtown project of this magnitude.

[AVERAGE JOE]

quote:Originally posted by booWorld

Perhaps.

But Paul Wilson was quoted by P.J. Lassek, so it might be, as a representative of Twenty First Properties, that he simply cannot support the mayor's plan.

Think about what the current special assessment district is supposed to provide.  Do you think that downtown property owners are currently receiving satisfactory service from DTU at a mere 1/6th of the proposed new assessment rate?  

Don't be surprised if some downtown property owners are a bit leery of the proposed long-term assessments.  The mayor's presentation was yesterday.  The same Tulsa World article mentioned a City Council vote on July 10th.  To me, this doesn't seem like much time for public input on quasi-public downtown project of this magnitude.

To your point, it would be more equitable if the assessment were higher for properties closer to the ballpark (NE downtown) and lower for properties further away (SW downtown). Paul Wilson/Twenty First Properties would be happy and could get back to doing absolutely nothing with their holdings.

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by AVERAGE JOE

To your point, it would be more equitable if the assessment were higher for properties closer to the ballpark (NE downtown) and lower for properties further away (SW downtown)...

At first glance, tiered assessments based on distance from the ballpark seem to me as though they'd be more equitable.  However, I'm not familiar enough with the existing or the new assessments to say what is fair.

Apparently, according to P.J. Lassek, Paul Wilson is not pleased with the ramifications the new assessments will have for Twenty First Properties.  As far as I know, it's any landowner's right to do absolutely nothing with his or her holdings as long as the taxes are paid and minimum health codes / property standards are maintained.  If Twenty First Properties is trying to emulate the Tulsa Development Authority, then they may be holding on to vacant real estate for decades to come.

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by booWorld

quote:Originally posted by AVERAGE JOE

To your point, it would be more equitable if the assessment were higher for properties closer to the ballpark (NE downtown) and lower for properties further away (SW downtown)...

At first glance, tiered assessments based on distance from the ballpark seem to me as though they'd be more equitable.  However, I'm not familiar enough with the existing or the new assessments to say what is fair.

Apparently, according to P.J. Lassek, Paul Wilson is not pleased with the ramifications the new assessments will have for Twenty First Properties.  As far as I know, it's any landowner's right to do absolutely nothing with his or her holdings as long as the taxes are paid and minimum health codes / property standards are maintained.  If Twenty First Properties is trying to emulate the Tulsa Development Authority, then they may be holding on to vacant real estate for decades to come.

Boo, you are straight keepin' it real. The simple answer to the question that is the title to this thread is that we don't need a new stadium. This is purely a question of wants, not of needs.

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by Double A

The simple answer to the question that is the title to this thread is that we don't need a new stadium. This is purely a question of wants, not of needs.

You beat me to the punch.  I was getting ready to post something very similar to what you said about wants versus needs.

I'd like to see more realism on this forum.

Some people want a baseball stadium downtown.  No one actually needs one.

Some people would love to have the option of riding rail transit in Tulsa, but a true "need" for it is dubious.

Some people wanted a hydroelectric dam across the river, a lake with islands, highrise apartment buildings on the islands, etc.  But somehow Tulsa has managed to survive without any of that.

There are many examples.  Some questions I think we ought to be asking about large projects funded wholly or substantially by the public:

- Who wants to do what?
- Why?
- Exactly where and for how much cost?
- Who will pay?  How will they pay and for how long?
- Who will benefit?  How much and for how long?
- How fair and unfair is it likely to be to how many people?
- How does the proposal fit into the Comprehensive Plan, if at all?
- How does the project fit into its immediate surroundings?  Into a larger urban context?
- How long will it take to build the project?
- What will be its probable lifespan?
- What happens when the project is no longer useful, wanted, or "needed"?

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by booWorld

As far as I know, it's any landowner's right to do absolutely nothing with his or her holdings as long as the taxes are paid and minimum health codes / property standards are maintained.

Do you ever listen to yourself?  You are arguing that the city should REWARD do-nothings who buy up huge chunks of property for speculative purposes.  Wilson is hanging out doing nothing and hoping someone will build something nice around him.  Last I checked, that makes him part of the problem.

And FB, you should stop now with this "'hood" talk.  Greenwood is safe.  You've exposed your biases on other occasions and it's ugly.