BOK Center v. Sprint Center

[Hoss]

For some odd reason I thought this was a forum where we could debate public policy.

I expected this kind of response from someone, but not from you, Conan. Your response, and responses like Hoss's, are why this forum has dwindled to a small number of regulars. The message that comes across time and again is that contrary opinions aren't welcome: "You think differently from us, you should kindly shut up and go away."

The BOK Center may be a fait accompli, but there will be future votes and future decisions about how to allocate public money, and those decisions should be grounded in a solid understanding of how we got to where we are. I'm trying to separate facts from mythology, and I've offered data to back up my opinions.  (The usual complaint about contrarians around here is that they don't back up their claims.)

I jumped into this discussion over the question of why there hadn't been significant development around the BOK Center. I offered an explanation, and when I was challenged on it, I defended my position.

By the way, Conan, way back on page 2 of this thread, you wrote:

"Granted, Blue Dome and Brady were developing at their own rate and had become sustainable districts before the arena was completed."

There's a difference between 'sustainable' and 'successful'.  Ask Eliot or Blake.

I would tend to listen to them, oh, I don't know, because they have a vested interest in the microgeography that is the Blue Dome.  Do you?  Are you down there night-in/night-out?

Oh, I forgot, you said you wouldn't be going to any events down there.  My bad.



And you were a regular?  Your post count doesn't indicate that.  But then again, you did have a real gig at UT...oh, wait a minute.

[nathanm]

Hmm, YT. Your premise is that federal spending has sucked the taxing authority dry, leaving no room for cities? Seems to me that it was the other way around. Cities were sucked dry by white flight to suburbs and unsustainably large annexations and the federal government stepped in and started building a lot of stuff in the deteriorating cities. All this before the deficit ballooned.

Your complaint has been buzzing around since I was a kid, so I compiled a table of the total deficit for selected years since 1903.

year	deficit (millions)	population (millions)	per capita deficit (dollars)
2009	$1,412,686.00	307.006	$4,601.49
2008	$458,555.00	303.202	$1,512.37
2007	$160,701.00	301.579	$532.87
1998	-$69,270.00	270.298	-$256.27
1993	$255,051.00	257.746	$989.54
1988	$155,178.00	244.498	$634.68
1983	$207,802.00	233.791	$888.84
1978	$59,185.00	222.584	$265.90
1973	$14,908.00	211.908	$70.35
1968	$25,161.00	200.706	$125.36
1963	$4,756.00	189.241	$25.13
1958	$2,769.00	174.881	$15.83
1953	$6,493.00	160.184	$40.53
1948	-$11,796.00	146.631	-$80.45
1943	$54,554.00	136.739	$398.96
1938	$89.00	129.824	$0.69
1933	$2,602.00	125.578	$20.72
1928	-$939.00	120.509	-$7.79
1923	-$713.00	111.947	-$6.37
1918	$9,032.00	103.208	$87.51
1913	$0.00	97.225	$0.00
1908	$57.00	88.71	$0.64
1903	-$45.00	80.632	-$0.56

[Townsend]

The message that comes across time and again is that contrary opinions aren't welcome: "You think differently from us, you should kindly shut up and go away."

You're right.  Who ever said that to you should apologize.  Who said it?

[rwarn17588]

The message that comes across time and again is that contrary opinions aren't welcome: "You think differently from us, you should kindly shut up and go away."

Oh, please. This is like blaming the refs if you play a bad game. Stop whining.

You ought to consider that maybe one reason that people are not coming to your defense on this issue is because you've been proven wrong.

[Conan71]

For some odd reason I thought this was a forum where we could debate public policy.

I expected this kind of response from someone, but not from you, Conan. Your response, and responses like Hoss's, are why this forum has dwindled to a small number of regulars. The message that comes across time and again is that contrary opinions aren't welcome: "You think differently from us, you should kindly shut up and go away."

The BOK Center may be a fait accompli, but there will be future votes and future decisions about how to allocate public money, and those decisions should be grounded in a solid understanding of how we got to where we are. I'm trying to separate facts from mythology, and I've offered data to back up my opinions.  (The usual complaint about contrarians around here is that they don't back up their claims.)

I jumped into this discussion over the question of why there hadn't been significant development around the BOK Center. I offered an explanation, and when I was challenged on it, I defended my position.

By the way, Conan, way back on page 2 of this thread, you wrote:

"Granted, Blue Dome and Brady were developing at their own rate and had become sustainable districts before the arena was completed."

And note: "before the arena was completed"  That was Sept. of 2008.  I didn't say "before Vision 2025 was passed." Between 2003 and 2008 there was a lot of growth starting to happen.  I think the public commitment to downtown helped inspire a lot more confidence in the area.  Kitchell and other's long-gone clubs aren't things we can point to as having been sustainable nor anything we wanted in the area or they would still be here.  That's one Tulsa native I do not miss.

Michael, I believe we are debating here.  You just happened to run into my droll wit because nothing any of us say will apparently ever make you a believer in the community benefits of the BOK Center, and that's fine, but expect some frustration with your obstinance.  I respect your vast knowledge of Tulsa history, your inquiring mind which has brought to light much about our local government, and your analytical thought process.  But, in some ways I think your analytical side gives you a certain myopia at times about what makes sense on paper isn't really in tune with reality.  I run into this with mechanical engineers quite frequently and I'm guilty of it myself. 

I can't prove my argument about specific sales tax dollars coming in due to shows like Clapton, Elton John/Billy Joel, Sir Paul, or any other show which sold more tickets than the previous capacity we had for shows at the Convention Center, yet common sense will tell you that we had a cap of about +/- 8000 seats at any arena here in town for a concert or other event.  Sell 8,000 or 10,000 more seats and it's indisputable that we took in more sales tax revenue on those nights.  Even if it wasn't money which was drawn in from the burbs or beyond Tulsa County, that's money which was spent here rather than sent out of state to an eBay seller or spent on a Colorado vacation.  You can't prove the BOK specifially has not added to the sales tax base either so I think we are at a stalemate in regards to that.  I think we are all aware consumer spending has been down since roughly the time the arena opened and has been down for close to the last two years.  Sales tax reciepts have been fairly flat.  I would suspect they might have been perceptably lower without the uptick from BOK but again, how does anyone prove (or disprove) that? 

The ROI for community reinvestment isn't as subjective as it is in the business world where money is always the bottom line.  What's the price of pride in the community?  What's the price of being able to add to the quality of life by bringing Paul McCartney to town instead of 3000 or 4000 people going down the pike or to KC or Dallas to see him?  I realize that's one show, but it says something about Tulsa when we are worthy enough to bring in that sort of talent which instills some pride in all of us.

That said, no one wants to discourage debate.  You are simply becoming more and more alone in your crusade against the BOK and V-2025.  People want to feel good about their community, you keep bringing up negatives about something which was a major catalyst to feeling good about Tulsa and Tulsa County again.  Continuing to call a refurbished civic center a waste of money after it's built and by all accounts, self-sustaining, simply doesn't sit well with people who are more proud to live in Tulsa than they were seven years ago.  Take a look and drive by all the various projects V-2025 has brought to the county and then think back to what that location looked like in 2003 and see if you can honestly tell yourself a barren lot or worn out brake shop sitting on a plot of land would look better today.  From this package, we have gotten new community centers, educational facilities, ways to better serve the senior community, helped bring more housing options to the CBD, etc. 

Again, I was against V-2025 and I was against the BOK Center.  Has that package encumbered monies which could have gone to fix streets sooner or kept more police officers on board?  Sure it has, but only if we voted up packages to encumber those funds for other projects.  It seriously concerns me that in the next 20 years I could be paying up to 70% in taxes (for those who don't follow my train of thought: income, consumption, use, and embedded in the cost of goods purchased via corporate taxes and compliance cost with gov't mandates which drives up the manufacturers cost of doing business) so I don't take additional spending lightly.

I think civic spending can be a good investment.  I didn't like the nature of the River Tax for multiple reasons, the biggest being it was an insane slush fund to be managed by a less than trustworthy public servant: Randi Miller whom I think was a proxy for a certain former county commissioner and his pack of cronies.  I also didn't like the way that there was a conditional gift tied to the package and there were too many giveaways to the usual developers and construction companies.  We knew how much they wanted, we simply coudn't get straight answers about what we were going to get in return and when or if we could even do many of the things which were promised in the package.

No one wants to discourage your thought process or your posts here.  When you post here, expect debate and expect to hear some frustration with others opposing views, that's real world discourse taking place.

[JoeMommaBlake]

I think this debate speaks to a larger issue. Michael has mentioned several times his issues with the nature of Vision 2025 and Conan brought up some good points about the river as well. I think we can include the ballpark package in the mix for the sake of conversation. Our city and county government have historically been run so poorly that we're often (if not always) forced to support things with which we have issues or else risk getting nothing done at all. The citizens voted against the few packages before 2025, voted against the river development and would've voted against any ballpark initiative had it been up to them, not because Tulsans don't want the river developed, a new ballpark or arena, etc. The times they've voted against those things, it was always because the plans were poorly constructed, poorly timed, shady or manipulative, or smelled of back-room dealings.

I don't like it that I have to "like" the way the ballpark was brought to be. I really don't like it. I do, however, love that the ballpark is what it is and where it is. I'm being forced to "like" a bad plan because I like most of the end result. Bates doesn't want us getting used to passing bad bills. I get it. I don't want us to either. It just sucks that bad bills are the only ones we ever (seriously...ever) get and if we can't pass them, we get nothing at all.

Tulsa continues to run the city poorly. We have a city council and a mayor who can't get along and a history of sketchy county commissioners. There's little to no creativity and very poor execution of the very few good ideas that anyone in local government ever has. See "Shop Tulsa", if you even know what it is.

The saddest biproduct of this pattern is that it affects the morale of the citizenry. My reasons for singing the praise of the arena have far less to do with its current economic impact and much more to do with its longer term emotional impact. The arena and the ballpark (however they came to be) have done more for Tulsa's morale than improved parks or streets ever could've....not just a little bit more, a ton more. I'm not saying arenas are more important than streets, I'm saying that at the time, the arena solved a greater problem, a dying morale. We can survive bad streets and even the bad feelings that they create. Streets can be more easily rebuilt than resolve can. Tulsa was losing our faith.

What I am saying is this. I believe it is just as important for a city to maintain the morale of its citizenry as it is for it to maintain their streets and parks and the two are not related as much as we'd hope. Before the arena was built, Tulsa's morale was in worse condition than its streets. Tulsans had begun to lose faith that we could increase our significance as a city. Our rivals up the turnpike were undergoing a massive upgrade and we were two failed votes in and losing pride and losing hope. We were not handling the fact that OKC was becoming more significant and attractive than Tulsa for the first time....ever? I get the left-brained side of this Michael, and I think it's important to consider and discuss. I just ask that you recognize the right brained part of it. Our politics are not too dissimilar. Where we're disagreeing here is on our assessment of the emotional value of an arena. We needed it, not for revenue but for morale. I've seen what similar things have helped to create in OKC. It's a changed place. It's a better place. Tulsa is already starting to enjoy some of the same changes.

When a city's emotional state starts to spiral downward (especially when neighboring cities are providing such a dynamic contrast), something has to happen to stop the spiral and kick it back the other way. Was an arena more important than streets and parks and whatever else? For us....this time....yes.

It shouldn't have had to come to this. It shouldn't have been necessary. Had our city's government operated with integrity, creativity, and leadership in the many years prior, streets, parks, arenas, etc. wouldn't even be issues. They'd be taken care of as a regular part of business and we wouldn't be debating which was more important or a better use of our tax dollars.

Hopefully in the years to come, people with vision, creativity, courage, and leadership will run for office. My fear, however, is that those folks will continue to be the busy and productive entrepreneurs and business leaders that they are, while many of our leadership positions are filled with people who don't want to get a real job, are tired of their existing one, are retired from their previous career, or are climbing a political ladder.

There is a beautiful future for Tulsa. I'm excited to be a part of it and to raise my family here. I'm optimistic that we can use the arena and the ballpark as important catalysts toward a continued renewal of our downtown area. I think we'll see that these splashes that have been made downtown will have ripple effects that enhance our city from the core to its limits and I'm excited to be a witness to it.

[TheArtist]

  I think its important to have both "work and play".  They are both essentials to the human condition and we as citizens have a right to gather together and create a city that has the best of both.
 
As much as we sometimes think intellectually or feel in our hearts that if we were to focus on having; great schools, low crime, super infrastructure, etc. the economy should blossom and then we should be able to afford the fancy "playthings". But I am afraid the reality is that we would forever be reaching for that goal (and very likely arguing for generations about how to get there, more police or more teachers for lowering crime, vouchers vrs public schools, city or county, etc. etc. ) and never getting to the "fun" anyway.  All work and no play. You cant live like that.  Broadening and exaggerating the picture to make a point, we can't deprive ourselves of the smallest joys because we know there is war and hunger somewhere in the world.  

 We are never going to have it all, but we can seek to constantly improve one, then the other, then back as the winds of change, desire, and feeling of importance sweep through time. Not all of us are going to be in agreement as to which, at this time, is most important lol.  Let the voters decide.

As a struggling young artist, yea I needed more work and jobs and a safer environment, etc.,, but the struggle to make it in the world was made worthwhile by being able to enjoy the rewards that were to be had.  I needed the occasional movie, to hang out with friends being stupid, or to go to the park at the end of a hard days work and enjoying the beauty, smelling the roses.  I also knew that I wouldn't always be struggling, and that later in life I would want to live in a city that had fancy things to enjoy. I have always wanted to be in a city that I could be proud of because it too had nice things like other cities. If it didn't I would move to a city that did have those things and work there.  I am not a Mennonite or something lol, different strokes..... What the heck would I be here for if it was a city that just focused on trying to figure out the best way to fund schools, roads and police only to never get there and then not have any "joys" to boot. For you know that's the way it would be, that's just life and the reality of the economics and politics of our city.

  But I personally feel that its time for our city to focus again on schools. We tackled what we saw as our faltering sense of pride and a foreboding that our city was losing its appeal on the entertainment/ "things to do", lively environment, front.  The importance of that cant be underestimated. I suppose some people don't get it or care about those things in the same manner or extent or something. Tulsa was getting down right depressing and I do think some of these things like the Arena, the ballpark, expanding colleges, fixing up River Parks, rehabbing old buildings downtown, etc. gave us a much needed shot of hope and optimism to energize us to get back to work again.   Our urban core is on its way and now, we have some grand and shiny baubles to point to lol,  and my attention at least, is looking at our schools and making them more desirable so that families will be more likely to move to our city. ( But again, important as they may be,  we can't have a city that only caters to families with kids). In order to serve the citizens of this city, there should be something for people of all ages, urban or suburban lifestyle needs, economic circumstance, and stages of life.  

[joiei]

 I think its important to have both "work and play".  They are both essentials to the human condition and we as citizens have a right to gather together and create a city that has the best of both.
 
As much as we sometimes think intellectually or feel in our hearts that if we were to focus on having; great schools, low crime, super infrastructure, etc. the economy should blossom and then we should be able to afford the fancy "playthings". But I am afraid the reality is that we would forever be reaching for that goal (and very likely arguing for generations about how to get there, more police or more teachers for lowering crime, vouchers vrs public schools, city or county, etc. etc. ) and never getting to the "fun" anyway.  All work and no play. You cant live like that.  Broadening and exaggerating the picture to make a point, we can't deprive ourselves of the smallest joys because we know there is war and hunger somewhere in the world.  

 We are never going to have it all, but we can seek to constantly improve one, then the other, then back as the winds of change, desire, and feeling of importance sweep through time. Not all of us are going to be in agreement as to which, at this time, is most important lol.  Let the voters decide.

As a struggling young artist, yea I needed more work and jobs and a safer environment, etc.,, but the struggle to make it in the world was made worthwhile by being able to enjoy the rewards that were to be had.  I needed the occasional movie, to hang out with friends being stupid, or to go to the park at the end of a hard days work and enjoying the beauty, smelling the roses.  I also knew that I wouldn't always be struggling, and that later in life I would want to live in a city that had fancy things to enjoy. I have always wanted to be in a city that I could be proud of because it too had nice things like other cities. If it didn't I would move to a city that did have those things and work there.  I am not a Mennonite or something lol, different strokes..... What the heck would I be here for if it was a city that just focused on trying to figure out the best way to fund schools, roads and police only to never get there and then not have any "joys" to boot. For you know that's the way it would be, that's just life and the reality of the economics and politics of our city.

  But I personally feel that its time for our city to focus again on schools. We tackled what we saw as our faltering sense of pride and a foreboding that our city was losing its appeal on the entertainment/ "things to do", lively environment, front.  The importance of that cant be underestimated. I suppose some people don't get it or care about those things in the same manner or extent or something. Tulsa was getting down right depressing and I do think some of these things like the Arena, the ballpark, expanding colleges, fixing up River Parks, rehabbing old buildings downtown, etc. gave us a much needed shot of hope and optimism to energize us to get back to work again.   Our urban core is on its way and now, we have some grand and shiny baubles to point to lol,  and my attention at least, is looking at our schools and making them more desirable so that families will be more likely to move to our city. ( But again, important as they may be,  we can't have a city that only caters to families with kids). In order to serve the citizens of this city, there should be something for people of all ages, urban or suburban lifestyle needs, economic circumstance, and stages of life.  

two thumbs up. 

[Conan71]

I don't like it that I have to "like" the way the ballpark was brought to be. I really don't like it. I do, however, love that the ballpark is what it is and where it is. I'm being forced to "like" a bad plan because I like most of the end result. Bates doesn't want us getting used to passing bad bills. I get it. I don't want us to either. It just sucks that bad bills are the only ones we ever (seriously...ever) get and if we can't pass them, we get nothing at all.

Tulsa continues to run the city poorly. We have a city council and a mayor who can't get along and a history of sketchy county commissioners. There's little to no creativity and very poor execution of the very few good ideas that anyone in local government ever has. See "Shop Tulsa", if you even know what it is.

The saddest biproduct of this pattern is that it affects the morale of the citizenry. My reasons for singing the praise of the arena have far less to do with its current economic impact and much more to do with its longer term emotional impact. The arena and the ballpark (however they came to be) have done more for Tulsa's morale than improved parks or streets ever could've....not just a little bit more, a ton more. I'm not saying arenas are more important than streets, I'm saying that at the time, the arena solved a greater problem, a dying morale. We can survive bad streets and even the bad feelings that they create. Streets can be more easily rebuilt than resolve can. Tulsa was losing our faith.

You've really made some great points and I appreciate your contribution both from your perspective as a citizen and that of a business owner.  I think we tapped into the intangible value of things like morale and pride that government investment can create which aren't typically associated with return on investment.  To be perfectly clear, I hate the trend of arenas and stadiums becoming "obsolete" in a span of 20 to 30 years, but they are a matter of civic pride and by that yardstick, it's a worthwhile investment.

Everyday, I'm reminded of things the government does which really pisses me off as a taxpayer, but as a businessman, they've helped contribute in ways to the bottom line of the company I work for.

[Hoss]

You've really made some great points and I appreciate your contribution both from your perspective as a citizen and that of a business owner.  I think we tapped into the intangible value of things like morale and pride that government investment can create which aren't typically associated with return on investment.  To be perfectly clear, I hate the trend of arenas and stadiums becoming "obsolete" in a span of 20 to 30 years, but they are a matter of civic pride and by that yardstick, it's a worthwhile investment.

Everyday, I'm reminded of things the government does which really pisses me off as a taxpayer, but as a businessman, they've helped contribute in ways to the bottom line of the company I work for.

But the thing about the CC is that it really was obsolete and falling apart.  I cannot tell you how many hockey games I attended where I watched as pieces of the ceiling would come off during a hockey game.  Granted they weren't' very big pieces, but you don't expect that to happen.

I think some people expected a 40 year old (now nearly 50 years old) facility to take us into the next millennium.  I for one am glad that the citizens of Tulsa County saw fit to vote this into existence.

Let the naysayers say what they may, but I know many people who have attended events and have come back with the 'wow' factor.  And when those happen to be out-of-towners, that wow factor travels by word of mouth.

[Conan71]

But the thing about the CC is that it really was obsolete and falling apart.  I cannot tell you how many hockey games I attended where I watched as pieces of the ceiling would come off during a hockey game.  Granted they weren't' very big pieces, but you don't expect that to happen.

I think some people expected a 40 year old (now nearly 50 years old) facility to take us into the next millennium.  I for one am glad that the citizens of Tulsa County saw fit to vote this into existence.

Let the naysayers say what they may, but I know many people who have attended events and have come back with the 'wow' factor.  And when those happen to be out-of-towners, that wow factor travels by word of mouth.

The "Maxwell House" was a great facility when it opened and it served it's purpose well over the years, but Tulsa was getting by-passed by other metro areas and that would have continued without the BOK.  I vibrate every time I drive past the old Driller's Stadium at Expo Square that a perfectly well-maintained ball park sits dormant, but it's really hard to dispute the buzz and vitality the new park has brought to downtown this year.  For the umpteenth time, the ballpark did in a matter of months for downtown what 50 years of Downtown Tulsa Unlimited never could accomplish.

Tulsa could have blithely gone along as a third or fourth tier city while our civic center continued to crumble.  Who wants to relocate to an area that is crumbling and doesn't show obvious signs of civic pride?