Should a baseball park be public?

[tim huntzinger]

GUIDO!! Here he is trying to control a forum thread and you whiz in the Wheaties! Just throw something up there! You should consider yourself fortunate that after four comments he is ready to move on!  Eight more and he should be done!

'On Politicians who Try to Find Funding for Stadiums' by Timmy

Politicians who try to find funding for stadiums are heros.  Politicians are good people who try hard to help their people, and deserve credit.  Finding funding is hard, and politicians work hard.  Hard work like politicians do should be rewarded, especially if they are helping build baseball stadiums.  Even if they opposed public funding, if they work hard they should be able to get a job with the stadium. Thank you.

[TheArtist]

Despite my joking on the subject at hand, for I really dont either like or dislike baseball, its a neutral topic for me, my thoughts are this...  If the Drillers can get a stadium in Jenks and Tulsa tax payers arent paying for it, great. I dont think that the expense it would take for us to pay for one would be worth it all by itself.

If they get a better crowd in the Jenks area, and I think they will, that will be good for them and all of Tulsa. It will still be the Tulsa Drillers, they will get great crowds, lots of new life, a fresh start and be a bigger presence as part of something like that development in a high profile, lively new area.  

As for a baseball stadium downtown, my fear is that a baseball stadium all by itself will not do much for downtown. I dont see it doing all that much for where its at now to be frank. If it were part of a larger development then it could be a definite plus, for the development and the stadium would have enough synergy, buzz, and energy to become an actual draw. But again, a baseball stadium all by itself downtown would probably get less attendance and do less well than it would in Jenks. It would be a bit selfish to want it there in that instance.

If the baseball stadium were part of a larger development in Tulsa along the river, or in downtown then I could see using some sort of tif or public funding mechanism to help things along. No reason to not at least do what Jenks is doing if we had the opportunity. A new baseball stadium by itself... no way.

Its not as though they are really leaving. I would rather have them be more successful right across the river and take that 30 mill or whatever it is and do something else. That way you have both. Or buy up that cement property and get the 500 mill Tulsa Landing thing plus the baseball stadium there.  That I would support. What was that property 60 mill?  Lets see 30 mill for a baseball stadium by itself downtown... or... 60 mill for a baseball stadium AND 500 mill worth of development along the river. I know what I would pick.

That development in Jenks actually presents the "powers that be" in Tulsa with a real opportunity to get something done in Tulsa. If the people of Jenks can pass a 290 million dollar tif for a 1billion dollar development along its river. Anyone who argued against a 60-90mill tif in Tulsa to get a 500 mill development along its river would appear absolutely pitiful.

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by tim huntzinger

GUIDO!! Here he is trying to control a forum thread and you whiz in the Wheaties! Just throw something up there! You should consider yourself fortunate that after four comments he is ready to move on!  Eight more and he should be done!

Sorry Tim. Free market controls "good", taxpayer-funded sports stadiums "bad."

Is he gone yet?

[RecycleMichael]

You can't argue with the success of the Oklahoma City ballpark. It costs $32.1 million and was the first MAPS project completed. It became the anchor and led to everything that is now Bricktown.

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by recyclemichael

You can't argue with the success of the Oklahoma City ballpark. It costs $32.1 million and was the first MAPS project completed. It became the anchor and led to everything that is now Bricktown.

Well actually.... I or my friends dont go to OKC or look at OKC as being a success because of the baseball stadium. Mainly its because of the living options they have in and around downtown/bricktown and the other Bricktown developments like the clubs, restaurants, canal etc. I know people who live in those condos and lofts. Nobody I know there has or would ever go to a baseball game. I dont care about the baseball stadium. I am not really even impressed with the bricktown canal. Its usually always empty when I have visited. It may be busy on a friday or weekend night and when I went once during their downtown art festival but to me that just shows its not real. Whats really going to turn their downtown around is when all that living gets finished and there are lots of people living there. Then it will really start to look, feel and live like a city. A lot of young people want to live in an urban environment, near the city lights and activities. Its nice to live in a downtown environment and have lots of restaurants nearby, a movie theater, shops, a grocery store etc. Bricktown offers some of that and helped spur the growth of more living options there. More living will then spur more shops, restaurants and so on. I dont see the condo crowd as being the baseball crowd. Do you? I may have you pegged wrong, but would you want to live in a loft apartment or downtown condo?

The baseball stadium downtown did not by itself spur the growth they are seeing. It was a combination of things and I would say the more important of the two are the living and the shopping. A baseball stadium along with those things could indeed help, however plenty of cities have gotten by quite nicely without a baseball stadium, yet no city will go anywhere without living and shopping options.

I am not against a baseball stadium being there per say. I am just against it being there alone. It should be seen as icing on the cake, not the cake itself.  

This is what impresses me about OKCs downtown. This is what will make it really turn around.

http://www.reinventokc.com/default.asp

http://www.legacycommunities.com/aq_construction.html

http://www.theloftsatmaywoodpark.com/

http://www.thecentennialonthecanal.com/index2.html

http://www.themontgomeryokc.com/The%20Montgomery/Home.html

http://www.themontgomeryokc.com/The%20Montgomery/Home.html

http://www.centralavenuevillas.com/index.html

http://www.deepdeuce.com/

http://www.theparkharvey.com/high-rise-features

etc. etc. etc.

Visitors wont make a real downtown. People living there will. You need people living in an area to support businesses. Just like in Jenks, the people moved there first, then came the shopping and amentities and a baseball stadium. You can go out to the edges of where the growth is, its almost always devoid of shopping, convenience stores etc at first, but once enough people start living there, the businesses follow. Something huge like Woodland Hills would be an exception, it leapfrogged the direction the growth was going. Broken Arrow, Owasso etc. same pattern.

I have always thought we need to consider downtown as basically vacant land and grow it back naturally. By treating it like its an urban environment already, that perspecive causes you to not see the true picture and thus not the true solution for making a change. We will be trying gimmicks " remember the main mall" and not see what will make a lasting, real turnaround. Baseball park fine... but not a priority and it shouldnt be taking up more time, thought, conversations and effort than doing the other things that will really make a difference, regardless of what happens.

[cannon_fodder]

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

Hey. No fair. Capitalism and free enterprise is baseball. Even if there is a powerless government commissioner.

Public education is a government duty and part of our fabric from day one. Even though, it seems baseball gets more attention.

To be fair, Baseball has LONG, LONG been the domain of government.  Cities buying, funding, or otherwise providing stadiums.  Public money luring teams to stay or bribing them to move. Heck, baseball even has specific federal laws exempting them from anti-trust.  I'd say baseball is someone removed from a the free-enterprise system (for better or worse).

That said, it IS still a business.

I am not a huge baseball fan.  But I can see other values in a baseball stadium: high school use, tournaments, the bedlam game, concerts, as a soccer venue, maybe even a tie-in to the convention center for large speaking events.  Or, as discussed above an anchor for development.  

I'm not sure if the new stadiums in downtown Memphis, OKC, Des Moines or many other areas led to the development.  But the truth is all of their downtown developments have been successful and all have included a stadium.  The prospect at least deserves consideration.

And in that light, I would be interesting in listening to proposals on the subject.  As a business, I would expect a similar lease agreement that the Oilers, Tallons and other users of public facilities have.  If a private venture, I would expect typical TIF incentives for any such major investment ($25mil of private new building downtown would be nice).

I guess I'm on the fence and it would depend on the individual proposal.  I would not be a big fan of raising taxes just for a stadium, but if a creative way to finance it was found I would not automatically oppose it.  So, my answer to the question "should a baseball stadium be publicly funded" is a resounding - it depends.

Sorry.  [^]

[David Arnett]

Tulsa has public land available both in downtown and on the river banks.  With a private contractor recently selected to market Tulsa's public sites for development nationwide, some group may soon arise with a proposal at one location or another that would be multiuse and include a baseball stadium in Tulsa as, apparently, there is one in Jenks.  The public land and possibly a Tax Increment Financing (TIF) district would not need a public vote as it did not in Jenks.

I used baseball as an example because many are neutral on such a proposal.  

As we watch OKC, voters continue to pass city development issues and they are seeing the economic benefits multiply.  Tulsa officials have been demonized (as in the River Vote) for even bringing such issues to the public.  Voter support for development issues should be, in my opinion, easier to gather than support for basic infrastructure (repairing City of Tulsa streets) as that is a basic government service that should have been budgeted at a higher level over the last several decades by multiple administrations.  Some strongly suggest that street repair will accomplish little, if any, multiplying growth within the local economy.  

However, the "they must be evil to put such a question on the ballot" voices within the community may have intimidated public office holders from moving development questions to the public realm.   I hope not.

Every time I travel near or across the Arkansas River, I get a little mad – a sand mad.  For all of my life, the Arkansas River has remained the most obvious public development opportunity in Northeastern Oklahoma and everyone has failed to make it happen.  Water in the river should be the objective, but there is no TIF potential because there is no commercial transaction to tax in the middle of a river.  Let the cities do whatever they want on the banks of the river, but the greater community issue is to get water visible in the dang thing.

But that is another thread for another time.

[MH2010]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

quote:Originally posted by recyclemichael

You can't argue with the success of the Oklahoma City ballpark. It costs $32.1 million and was the first MAPS project completed. It became the anchor and led to everything that is now Bricktown.

Well actually.... I or my friends dont go to OKC or look at OKC as being a success because of the baseball stadium. Mainly its because of the living options they have in and around downtown/bricktown and the other Bricktown developments like the clubs, restaurants, canal etc. I know people who live in those condos and lofts. Nobody I know there has or would ever go to a baseball game. I dont care about the baseball stadium. I am not really even impressed with the bricktown canal. Its usually always empty when I have visited. It may be busy on a friday or weekend night and when I went once during their downtown art festival but to me that just shows its not real. Whats really going to turn their downtown around is when all that living gets finished and there are lots of people living there. Then it will really start to look, feel and live like a city. A lot of young people want to live in an urban environment, near the city lights and activities. Its nice to live in a downtown environment and have lots of restaurants nearby, a movie theater, shops, a grocery store etc. Bricktown offers some of that and helped spur the growth of more living options there. More living will then spur more shops, restaurants and so on. I dont see the condo crowd as being the baseball crowd. Do you? I may have you pegged wrong, but would you want to live in a loft apartment or downtown condo?

The baseball stadium downtown did not by itself spur the growth they are seeing. It was a combination of things and I would say the more important of the two are the living and the shopping. A baseball stadium along with those things could indeed help, however plenty of cities have gotten by quite nicely without a baseball stadium, yet no city will go anywhere without living and shopping options.

I am not against a baseball stadium being there per say. I am just against it being there alone. It should be seen as icing on the cake, not the cake itself.  

This is what impresses me about OKCs downtown. This is what will make it really turn around.

http://www.reinventokc.com/default.asp

http://www.legacycommunities.com/aq_construction.html

http://www.theloftsatmaywoodpark.com/

http://www.thecentennialonthecanal.com/index2.html

http://www.themontgomeryokc.com/The%20Montgomery/Home.html

http://www.themontgomeryokc.com/The%20Montgomery/Home.html

http://www.centralavenuevillas.com/index.html

http://www.deepdeuce.com/

http://www.theparkharvey.com/high-rise-features

etc. etc. etc.

Visitors wont make a real downtown. People living there will. You need people living in an area to support businesses. Just like in Jenks, the people moved there first, then came the shopping and amentities and a baseball stadium. You can go out to the edges of where the growth is, its almost always devoid of shopping, convenience stores etc at first, but once enough people start living there, the businesses follow. Something huge like Woodland Hills would be an exception, it leapfrogged the direction the growth was going. Broken Arrow, Owasso etc. same pattern.

I have always thought we need to consider downtown as basically vacant land and grow it back naturally. By treating it like its an urban environment already, that perspecive causes you to not see the true picture and thus not the true solution for making a change. We will be trying gimmicks " remember the main mall" and not see what will make a lasting, real turnaround. Baseball park fine... but not a priority and it shouldnt be taking up more time, thought, conversations and effort than doing the other things that will really make a difference, regardless of what happens.

I grew up in OKC so I got to see first hand the development of the downtown/bricktown area. So my views about this topic is different than others. I responded to the area like this, "Hey, there is cool things to do down here. Wouldn't it be nice to live down here so I don't have to drive all the way down here to do something and then drive all the way home!" Some of my other friends saw it like this, "Let's move down here, and they will only continue to build more stuff down here because more people live down here."

Instead of looking at this thru the eyes of "which came first the chicken or the egg?", when talking about how to revitalize downtown (things to do downtown vs. places to live downtown). I think it would be better to look at this as, what kind of overall direction or mixed use plan (living and attractions) can we as the public buy into for downtown. The great thing about the OKC MAPS project was that there was a specific plan that was laid out way before the vote.  The first MAPS project barely passed but when they had to ask for an extention for the 1st MAPS, it passed by a larger margin. The 2nd MAPS also passed by a large margin.(http://okc.about.com/od/citygovernment/a/okcmaps3.htm ) I think that is because people began to trust their city leaders with their money.  I think that was the major problem with the river project vote.  I think Tulsa county leaders had a hurried plan and tried to hit a one shot homerun without having proper planning or specific details. As a result, a large portion of the people in Tulsa County did not like the vague plan or simply did not trust them with their money.  If the City of Tulsa could learn from this and put out a progressive specific plan and then only ask for the money for this specific plan or at least only ask for tax money in phases, I think it would probably work the same way it did in OKC. It would barely pass the first time, you have to get passed the doubters and "no tax" people then as the project was successful, the next phases would pass by larger and larger margin later.

[chesty]

I have conflicting views on this subject and am still spending time thinking it over.  I am usually a free market kinda person who believes that government and public money do not mix well with private business.  Professional and college sports seem to bring an interesting dynamic to this discussion that does not exist in other markets.

One point I want to bring out is that Canada does not allow public money to be used for professional sports facilities.  They are all privately owned by the teams owners.  This has led to an exodus over the years of professional hockey teams to the US.  It just seems unnatural for a HOCKEY team to move from Winnepeg to Phoenix.  There are now only 6 teams in the NHL in Canada.  The owners claim that one of the major reasons in the lack of public funds to refurbish or build new facilities.

[waterboy]

One has to ask why professional sports require public funding when similar businesses do not? Sports is a business. One that extorts public monies from its locales, yet offers no loyalty. A business that continues to offer little to the communities they serve other than the hope for enticing tourism to fund bars and restaurants. The reason the Canadian teams move to the states is that as a business owner you follow cheap, easy, "free" capital and labor. We are enablers of that movement. Somehow, otherwise staunchly capitalist people change their bootstraps philosphies and jump onto this bandwagon. Curious to me. The only publicly funded sports franchise that makes sense to me is the community of Green Bay owning the Packers. The exemptions from anti-trust that allow pro sports to be the great good ole' boy club they are were made 80years ago and not by disinterested parties. The issue needs to be revisited.

As far as OKC success, two things come to mind. One, they never looked to Tulsa as a model for how to fund their developments nor should we look to them. We are a different community with different politics and demographics.  Two, that plan was greatly aided by the Murrah building disaster and its subsequent well planned memorial efforts. That created a steady stream of visitors which made the original Bricktown efforts more feasible. But I do agree MH, that small steps need to be made to establish credibility with our leaders and their plans. From the very start of the river vote I made that assertion and it still holds true.

[David Arnett]

Chesty, dittos on the "free market kinda person" and the dilemma on funding for some special projects.  I do believe there is a need for public funds to support public need that CAN NOT be done with private capital and would support "infrastructure" projects much more quickly than "operational" increases in government budgets.

However, Waterboy Bates and others may want to follow the latest proposal in OKC that will, as I understand it, fund the operations of an NBA team – not a facility, but operations costs.  Also, we look to OKC because they are ahead of Tulsa and their efforts are working.

I brought my privately earned capital and moved both my home and business into downtown Tulsa five years ago – even before the Vision 2025 projects were selected.  

At this moment, I don't believe downtown should receive additional public funds for any project no matter how compelling.  There are several things in the funded pipeline that when done will make a huge difference in downtown and private developers have an obligation to get their own acts together.  

I am currently the closest resident to the new BOK Center and while I have never been a big arena supporter, my enthusiasm is growing based on proximity and knowledge of the project.  I was the public information manager for all the Vision 2025 projects until I left that position recently to pursue new opportunity and advance Tulsa Today which I have operated since 1996.  I have written there several pieces that downtown folk or those interested in downtown may enjoy including;  My pot hole, Downtown Wildlife, Downtown Living: A walking report, and Defending Tulsa.  Other stories on downtown may be found by typing "downtown" in the search engine within that site.

However, I believe there is a public need for the river and published so in "Conservatives should support river infrastructure."  In my opinion, it was a disgrace upon all parties and the greater community that the River vote failed and I wrote about that in "River Review."  I will write more on that later.

[NativeTulsans]

Tulsa should have a baseball park downtown with retail and entertainment around it.  I don't care if public money is used.

[FOTD]

Part of the problem with government lies in acting on what "should or shouldn't" be for everyone...See, I think the government shouldn't be in business building.

[waterboy]

I think that's the first time MB and WB were listed together as though we have similar outlooks! We share skepticism of government ability and responsibilities, but at vastly different levels. I'm also taller and shave regularly.

OKC may be making a popular, common decision in subsidizing the Sonics but that doesn't make it right or ensure its success. Remember why they even got the chance? The Sonics attempted to extort Seattle for another new arena if I remember right. That's a prediction for OKC in a few years if they don't cover their operational costs to the right tune.

I would hope Tulsa would demand some pretty definitive answers as to how much quantifiable contribution to the community comes with providing a sports business its primary asset. And if they can prove their numbers I'll propose an enclosed bicycle/jogging path that would serve many more taxpayers than a stadium. Any body in?

[David Arnett]

Hope I did not offend you with the grouping WB – heck MB and I were once friends – which goes to prove the old adage, "there are no permanent friends or permanent enemies in politics."

Back to the subject of a baseball park – OKC built an identity downtown when there was none.  They were in far worse shape than Tulsa's downtown is now before they began and that, I suspect, was an advantage as they solicited public support.  The entertainment and sports venues work together with residential housing and, in this case, residential followed public investment in OKC venues.

To accomplish a vibrant downtown, residential heartbeats are necessary.  Most, if not all cities, promote convention and large venue entertainment for their downtowns because it brings people into the core when the regular customers (downtown office workers) are not there and the infrastructure is underused.  This also supports weekend retail in downtown.

During the last Tulsa Tough rally, visiting racers were impressed with how attractive, fun and clean downtown Tulsa seemed to them.  Tulsans sometimes miss the quality of what exists now (Brady, Blue Dome, etc).  Currently developers are building more residences – some funded in part by Vision 2025 – and there is "buzz" about more development from the city's effort in marketing available city owned land.  Within a large "master development" in the northeastern quadrant of the core there might be room for a stadium (baseball, soccer, football or a combination) as an anchor entertainment draw. An anchor feature or facility is critical just as an anchor tenant is to a shopping center.  Maybe a stadium is not the best destination attraction for downtown Tulsa which is a long way around to say, I may be on board with an enclosed track.  Or is there some other thing that would be better?  What do we want downtown's identity to be – not for just one segment of the community, but as a regional draw?