Newest Ballpark Trust Revealing

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

That is three posts in a row for wrinkle...

I have high hopes that the trust will be approved tonight. I think the administration has been working with the council to answer their questions. There have been many changes from the original proposal.

The council has done due diligence. The Mayor has raised private dollars to offset building costs. The team is ready to sign. We baseball fans are getting excited.

Don't listen to wrinkle. He was opposed to it from the start, probably only because the mayor was behing it. He opposes the new streets plan, even though it is very similar to the one that he advocated, because it is the mayor's plan.

I "trust" that the council will approve the ballpark trust agreement at tonight's meeting.

Let's play ball.

Your integrity is coming into question, RM. Do you just make up stuff to suit your claim, or are you just a cheerleader for the Trust?

You're wrong that I was against this from the start. I was not. In fact the move from the original site to the current site was welcomed and applauded.

It's mostly this "Trust" Agreement and the acceptance of the so-called 'benefit' of the Trust with which I have problems. It's designed to do much more than build and manage a ballpark and develop the utra-prime real estate of adjoining parcels.

It's Version 33 of a document they wanted signed at Version 1.0 and which still remains very one-sided.

As I stated, the _concept_ being proposed is obtuse, unfair and being foisted upon the public as the only solution. It is not.

Name one thing that Kathy Taylor has done that you have been for.

I didn't think so.

[Wrinkle]

Did you read the last comment? I applauded the change of site.

If you want two, I applauded her decision to not destroy the existing arena.

If you want three, I applauded her stand against the backroom antics of TMUA.

...do I need go on, or are you guys just wrong?

[RecycleMichael]

Thank you wrinkle...I was wrong about you. You do see greatness in the mayor.

Now if we can only get you to like baseball...

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

Thank you wrinkle...I was wrong about you. You do see greatness in the mayor.

Now if we can only get you to like baseball...

Wouldn't consider it 'greatness', just making the proper decision at the proper time.

Baseball is fine. Not a big fan here, but certainly willing to accommodate those who are.

$30 Million in public funding to what amounts to a private operation to own and operate the asset, and exclusive rights to own and develop all important parcels surrounding the thing would seem to be enough. But, not by this agreement. It goes well beyond that. Too far.

[sgrizzle]

$25M in public funding.

[Wrinkle]

Couldn't help but ponder a moment of what this is really about. If you think it's baseball, you've missed it altogether. Baseball is only the leverage. Find something the public wants and leverage it into _cashflow_.

It's cashflow which is the objective here, not baseball. Build a baseball stadium, twelve blocks of intense retail/commercial/residential development. Whatever, just build. It generates cashflow.

That cashflow means subcontracts, to building contractors, roofers, equipment suppliers, material outlets.

It's oil for the machine.

The Trust Agreement is control. Who gets to say what gets done, who gets paid and where the money goes.

This Trust Agreement leaves you all completely out except as baseball ticket purchasers and providers of half the initial cost.

You get to spend a bunch of tax dollars supporting them, they provide you with baseball.

Face it, what's different about this deal and a completely private one where a developer decides to build a ballpark and develop the surrounding property, then ask for a $30 million tax credit or public handout?

...nothing.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

$25M in public funding.

If the public owned this ballpark, to whom would the Drillers be paying their $5 million consession?

[Renaissance]

RM the original trust plan was a joke.  There's a reason the council kept spiking it.  This one still has flaws but it's at least acceptable.  

I'll point out that you immediately suggested bias when I criticized the original plan.  I don't know what Wrinkle's story is, but not everybody who sees the flaws in a trust plan is biased against Taylor.

Although I've been incredibly unimpressed by the way she has handled this whole thing . . .

[Wrinkle]

Besides all that, it is clear to me, if yet unclaimed by those involved, that the ballpark is really the $25-$30 million public cost, while the "donors" $30 will be used to develop the surrounding properties.

So, we're really buying our own ballpark, then giving it to the 'donors'. And, providing them exclusive ownership to surrounding properties to develop at their whim.

If Ms. Kitty had put up a $30 milllion bond issue to build a ballpark, do you think it would've passed?

Couldn't our EDC and TDA work a deal on the surrounding properties by negotiation with local developers to bring about a development of particular interest to the City?

Sure they could.

This Trust agreement is a power grab, in addition to a public give-away of property, rights and involvement.

Half the money, none of the say.

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

Besides all that, it is clear to me, if yet unclaimed by those involved, that the ballpark is really the $25-$30 million public cost, while the "donors" $30 will be used to develop the surrounding properties.

So, we're really buying our own ballpark, then giving it to the 'donors'. And, providing them exclusive ownership to surrounding properties to develop at their whim.

If Ms. Kitty had put up a $30 milllion bond issue to build a ballpark, do you think it would've passed?

Couldn't our EDC and TDA work a deal on the surrounding properties by negotiation with local developers to bring about a development of particular interest to the City?

Sure they could.

This Trust agreement is a power grab, in addition to a public give-away of property, rights and involvement.

Half the money, none of the say.

It's fascism disguised as philanthropy.

[PonderInc]

The City is the sole beneficiary of the trust.  The trustees do not benefit from it, despite the fact that they're donating 30 million to the project.  What part of that is not clear?

I like the changes that have been made to the trust.  They've resolved all the issues that I had with it, in the beginning.

Let's approve the dang thing and play ball.  If the council dithers around on this any longer, there won't be time to build a stadium before the opening of the 2010 season.

Wichita, meanwhile, has a stadium, but no team.  Could we lose the Drillers to Wichita?  I don't know, but I bet that if they had philanthropists willing to donate $30 million to the success of their city, they wouldn't be trashing them at every opportunity.  

It's going to be a ridiculous embarrassment if this thing fails.

[RecycleMichael]

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

RM the original trust plan was a joke.  There's a reason the council kept spiking it.  This one still has flaws but it's at least acceptable.  

I don't disagree. But the council did take their time and worked to get some better terms. That is the way for the process to work.

This agreement is now acceptable. The public investment has oversight and the project should benefit Tulsa. The process worked.

If you are against the project now, it is either because you don't like baseball or don't like public trusts.

But the reality is, that baseball brings a very good demographic to downtown. Young families every night of the week during the summer will fill our downtown. That will be good for downtown.

Yes, you can be suspicious of trusts and authorities. Yes, there have been some abuse of public confidence by some of them. The same is true for any political group handling taxpayer money. For every fairgrounds trust or housing authority trust in the news I can match you with the PAC, library trust or parking authority trust that does a remarkable job without fanfare or controversy.

But this stadium trust has agreed to be completely open in their meetings and allow city of Tulsa approval of all expenses and complete city council approval of all debt.

Most trusts are totally formed with public dollars exclusively. This one is starting with 30 million dollars in private funds. It needs to be formed now or they won't be able to complete the work in time for the start of the 2010 season. Screwing around forever will accomplish exactly what the critics of Tulsa keep saying. Tulsa, do something...anything.

Let's get this stadium built before we run out of time and run off the investors.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by PonderInc

The City is the sole beneficiary of the trust.  The trustees do not benefit from it, despite the fact that they're donating 30 million to the project.  What part of that is not clear?

I like the changes that have been made to the trust.  They've resolved all the issues that I had with it, in the beginning.

Let's approve the dang thing and play ball.  If the council dithers around on this any longer, there won't be time to build a stadium before the opening of the 2010 season.

Wichita, meanwhile, has a stadium, but no team.  Could we lose the Drillers to Wichita?  I don't know, but I bet that if they had philanthropists willing to donate $30 million to the success of their city, they wouldn't be trashing them at every opportunity.  

It's going to be a ridiculous embarrassment if this thing fails.

I asked long ago in this thread for anyone to post any 'benefit' the City receives from this. No one has posted a thing. Fact is, there is none directly. The 'benefit' is related to the cashflow of construction, jobs, etc. along with whatever future sales tax may be garnished, less ticket sales since no tax is collected for them.

All those things happen no matter how the deal is constructed. IF it were a private deal, those very same benefits would happen for the City. So, why not make it fair?

Even though I consider the wholesale give-away of all surrounding land and the stadium itself to a Trust excessive, I could live with that if that's all it were.

The Trust should be in a role of operating the stadium, perhaps go so far as to actually own it (though, I've repeatedly suggested our Public Facilities Authority should actually own the thing, then contract operations to the Trust or another entity). IF we wanted this Trust to have more control, we could pass them the surrounding land and allow them to control its' development, though another option would be for EDC/TDA to negotiate with a number of developers for what our city planning, with public input, deems appropriate. Those decisions are proposed to be made by the Trust exclusively, as currently written.

It really is structured as a private development with public money paying half the cost. The one thing which distingushes it from a private development is the government protection and guarantees made via this Trust. Best of both worlds. Risk-free private development and no liabilities.

But, it goes beyond that, with stated expectations of this Trust expanding its' role to include other aspects, including the potential for team ownership or purchase, which may/not be the Drillers or baseball for that matter. And, they're hoping to be the authority for all the IDL area to "help redevelope downtown", starting with the IDL Services contract currently held by DTU.

Their power should be limited to a much larger degree than that.

[cynical]

Bingo!  At last someone gets it.  It didn't just happen to Wichita.  It also happened to El Paso.  Both cities, with good but not new stadiums, are now reduced to independent league teams (teams with no ties to major league teams).  When the new El Paso Diablos team first started a couple of years ago, the ownership was asking the locals to house the players -- apparently wages weren't high enough to pay rent.  Tulsa does outdraw El Paso and Wichita.  I read that when the Wranglers moved to Sprindale to become the Naturals, their attendance increased 216%.  

What if the accusations against the donors cause them to pull their money off the table?  Would the Drillers have any real interest in staying here, even with the possibility of a Jenks location?

quote:Originally posted by PonderInc

The City is the sole beneficiary of the trust.  The trustees do not benefit from it, despite the fact that they're donating 30 million to the project.  What part of that is not clear?

I like the changes that have been made to the trust.  They've resolved all the issues that I had with it, in the beginning.

Let's approve the dang thing and play ball.  If the council dithers around on this any longer, there won't be time to build a stadium before the opening of the 2010 season.

Wichita, meanwhile, has a stadium, but no team.  Could we lose the Drillers to Wichita?  I don't know, but I bet that if they had philanthropists willing to donate $30 million to the success of their city, they wouldn't be trashing them at every opportunity.  

It's going to be a ridiculous embarrassment if this thing fails.

[PonderInc]

In the same way that the PAC benefits Tulsa.  It provides a venue, owned by the city, that brings events, culture and entertainment to Tulsa.  It attracts visitors and tax dollars.  It makes Tulsa a cooler place than say, Topeka, KS, which lacks a venue for high-caliber national touring productions.  It improves the quality of life for Tulsans who enjoy the arts, or simply want to live in a city with a variety of entertainment options.  It allows us to retain professional artists, dancers and musicians, who would otherwise leave Tulsa for other cities.  It offers a place where school kids can see their first symphony or stage production, and possibly inspire them to pursue dreams of a more vibrant future than working at a call center.  (My only complaint about the PAC is its 70's architecture, and the loss of the historic Tulsa Hotel that was demolished for it.)

In this case, the benefit will be a ballpark and surrounding developments to compliment the area.  It will transform an empty lot into a place where you and your kids can enjoy 80 home games a year from spring until fall.  It will provide an outdoor venue for concerts and events. Perhaps it will expose kids to their first glimpse of gorgeous, historic architecture, and make them dream of something cooler than the SuperWalmarts they see every day.  It will definitely spur downtown development, which, again attracts and retains tax dollars in the city of Tulsa... And it allows us to keep a Tulsa tradition in Tulsa, reather than losing the Drillers to another city.

You can call me a dreamer if you want. I like people who see an empty lot and imagine a ballpark.  I don't like people who see a mouse turd and imagine an unscalable mountain.  And  I'm definitely getting tired of MIDGET thinking: "Mediocre Is Definitely Good Enough for Tulsa."  

NOT.