The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

This has nothing to do with architecture... I found this article to be a compelling contrast in how success is perceived by the public/media. 

Most would say that the BOK Center has been an unequivocal success thus far...presenting cultural opportunities this town would not have seen otherwise, and producing a larger than expected profit.  Having not seen the numbers produced by the Sprint Center, I wonder if, in terms of those parameters, it has been equally successful?  The perception appears to be that it hasn't, however, because it has not accomplished the one goal it was designed to accomplish...to attract a major league sports franchise (either NBA or NHL)...

Tulsa harbored no such illusion...and I think it is safe to say the voters were not dangled that carrot, thankfully.  It is also probably a significant sting to KC that OKC corralled the NBA with a far less attractive product in the Ford Center...

Read on:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/05/the-empty-arena/7379/

The BOK center was a success in that it was built for rotating events and minor sports, whereas KC was looking primarily for major sports. However if you look in terms of days, the BOK only books a couple of more days a year than KC's arena does. One noticeable difference though is the fact that the BOK Center turns a profit and KC's doesn't.

The Sprint Center probably keeps a lot more tax dollars in town with the Power and Light District and all its chain restaurants right next door.

Visitors to the BOK Center almost have to go out of their way to patronize downtown Tulsa businesses. Visitors to the Sprint Center have to go out of their way not to patronize downtown businesses.

Quote from: TheTed on June 01, 2010, 12:41:03 PM
The Sprint Center probably keeps a lot more tax dollars in town with the Power and Light District and all its chain restaurants right next door.

Visitors to the BOK Center almost have to go out of their way to patronize downtown Tulsa businesses. Visitors to the Sprint Center have to go out of their way not to patronize downtown businesses.

So our choices are a busy arena with lacking retail nearby or a lacking arena with busy business nearby?

Quote from: sgrizzle on June 01, 2010, 01:43:52 PM
So our choices are a busy arena with lacking retail nearby or a lacking arena with busy business nearby?

Kinda like the chicken and the egg, eh Scott.

I don't think, without a specific draw downtown, that business could thrive.  The arena is helping that along, no matter what the nay-sayers say.  They hate that something they wanted to fail isn't failing.

That's how I know I live in mainly conservative demographic.   :)

Quote from: Hoss on June 01, 2010, 02:08:45 PM
Kinda like the chicken and the egg, eh Scott.

I don't think, without a specific draw downtown, that business could thrive.  The arena is helping that along, no matter what the nay-sayers say.  They hate that something they wanted to fail isn't failing.

That's how I know I live in mainly conservative demographic.   :)

There's no doubt the arena is helping. But I'm sure it'd be keeping a whole lot more tax dollars downtown if there were a Power and Light District next door. I say that as someone who actively avoids the P&L when I visit KC because it feels like the the shopping mall of entertainment districts. Give me some dive bar on the other side of downtown. At least that's authentic.

But a lot of people who visit Tulsa for a concert, specifically out of towners, aren't gonna do the necessary homework to find out where the dining/entertainment areas are in Tulsa.

Quote from: TheTed on June 01, 2010, 02:24:11 PM

But a lot of people who visit Tulsa for a concert, specifically out of towners, aren't gonna do the necessary homework to find out where the dining/entertainment areas are in Tulsa.

Probably some truth to that, we had the unfortunate reality of the BOK Center opening right in the middle of the '08 financial collapse which made getting funding for development in the area more difficult and there was still quite a bit of street construction going on which was another disincentive for development.  Give it a little time, I think the city getting off it's arse and deeding over the old City Hall site is one of the bigger needs to furthering development which feeds on the BOK. 

Further development here will be somewhat incrimental, though I have personally seen head counts up at venues in the Blue Dome, Brady, and SoBo up on show nights at the BOK as it is now.

I have several friends in KC who will attend events at the Sprint Center but avoid at all costs the stuff in the P&L district.   According to them the restaurants are some of the worst in the city in terms of food quality.  Most of the people wandering around in the P&L are tourists who are staying in the downtown hotels.   They also report that the P&L has been not very welcoming to African Americans to the point where they recently had to drop the imposed dress code.   http://www.kansascity.com/2010/05/27/1976182/downtown-district-makes-dress.html (http://www.kansascity.com/2010/05/27/1976182/downtown-district-makes-dress.html)

Quoteone are specific restrictions against excessively baggy clothing, undershirts, sweatshirts or athletic attire in the KC Live outdoor area of the Power & Light District. The only stated prohibitions include profanity on clothing, sleeveless shirts on men, sweatpants and full sweatsuits.

The more lenient dress code comes before a peak season that brings several major African-American conventions to downtown.

A city official told the City Council that the Cordish Co., operator of the downtown district, has in recent months taken steps to address numerous claims of unfair treatment against African-American patrons.

"There's a much better improvement in the overall atmosphere in the Power & Light District, as well as the implementation and enforcement of the dress code," Human Relations director Phillip Yelder said Thursday.

Yelder said the city and Cordish recently settled a forma

Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2010/05/27/1976182/downtown-district-makes-dress.html#ixzz0pdIV9ps3

Quote from: joiei on June 01, 2010, 02:46:32 PM
I have several friends in KC who will attend events at the Sprint Center but avoid at all costs the stuff in the P&L district.   According to them the restaurants are some of the worst in the city in terms of food quality.  Most of the people wandering around in the P&L are tourists who are staying in the downtown hotels.   They also report that the P&L has been not very welcoming to African Americans to the point where they recently had to drop the imposed dress code.   http://www.kansascity.com/2010/05/27/1976182/downtown-district-makes-dress.html (http://www.kansascity.com/2010/05/27/1976182/downtown-district-makes-dress.html)

Louisville also has a similar Cordish development in its downtown.  The best thing about KC's P+L district is the Cosentino's grocery store.  It's a local chain (I'm looking at you Reasor's) that built a flagship, urban location that's a hit with people living downtown and those driving in just to visit.  I've heard it gets crowded at lunch with people from the surrounding office towers coming in to pick up the prepared foods and deli sandwiches. 

That being said, all our 'arena district' needs is 2-3 restaurants/bars across the street on Denver (there's already 2 on Cheyenne) but not enough that you keep people from going over to Blue Dome or Brady.  If One Place ever gets off the ground it will have space along Denver from 2nd to 3rd for retail/restaurants, and hopefully the corner tenant at 3rd & Denver is a local restaurant.  Something like '[Wayman] Tisdale's' that is a local sports-themed restaurant/bar would be a cool concept here, with outdoor seating facing the BOK Center plaza.  Another restaurant could go where that parking lot is on the other side of 3rd & Denver next to the bus depot.  Something like a Rock Bottom Brewery would be a good addition here.  That way you have two restaurants/bars with outdoor seating on both sides of 3rd acting as a 'gateway' to the rest of downtown from the entrance to the BOK and the convention center. 

Quote from: Conan71 on June 01, 2010, 02:34:44 PM
Probably some truth to that, we had the unfortunate reality of the BOK Center opening right in the middle of the '08 financial collapse which made getting funding for development in the area more difficult and there was still quite a bit of street construction going on which was another disincentive for development. 

That excuse won't fly, Conan. The location of the arena and the fact that it would be built was set in stone in September 2003, long before the big collapse. One of the arena's biggest pushers during the "Dialog Visioning" process was already in control of a ton of land on the main approach to the arena. He and other developers had plenty of time to start development during relatively prosperous times if they had really believed it would pay off. We were already coming out of the post-9/11/telecom-bubble recession in summer 2003.

And, no, the arena is not making a profit by business standards. It may be covering its operating expenses, but is well short of repaying the cost of construction or depreciation.

The Blue Dome District was already thriving long before the arena was completed. Its success owes more to a concentration of dining and entertainment in a small area, plus events like the Blue Dome Arts Festival and Tulsa Tough that bring people directly to the area, not a mile away.

Quote from: MichaelBates on June 01, 2010, 09:54:07 PM
That excuse won't fly, Conan. The location of the arena and the fact that it would be built was set in stone in September 2003, long before the big collapse. One of the arena's biggest pushers during the "Dialog Visioning" process was already in control of a ton of land on the main approach to the arena. He and other developers had plenty of time to start development during relatively prosperous times if they had really believed it would pay off. We were already coming out of the post-9/11/telecom-bubble recession in summer 2003.

And, no, the arena is not making a profit by business standards. It may be covering its operating expenses, but is well short of repaying the cost of construction or depreciation.

The Blue Dome District was already thriving long before the arena was completed. Its success owes more to a concentration of dining and entertainment in a small area, plus events like the Blue Dome Arts Festival and Tulsa Tough that bring people directly to the area, not a mile away.

Ah yes, any chance for MBates to do his naysaying now that he doesn't have UT to express it on...so are you telling me that concerts like Keith Urban, Nickelback and others don't help BlueDome?  Hmm?

::)

Quote from: MichaelBates on June 01, 2010, 09:54:07 PM
The Blue Dome District was already thriving long before the arena was completed. Its success owes more to a concentration of dining and entertainment in a small area, plus events like the Blue Dome Arts Festival and Tulsa Tough that bring people directly to the area, not a mile away.

You must set a low bar for the term "thriving."

How many places were in the blue dome before the BOK Center construction that are still around today? Arnie's and McNellie's?

Quote from: MichaelBates on June 01, 2010, 09:54:07 PM
That excuse won't fly, Conan. The location of the arena and the fact that it would be built was set in stone in September 2003, long before the big collapse. One of the arena's biggest pushers during the "Dialog Visioning" process was already in control of a ton of land on the main approach to the arena. He and other developers had plenty of time to start development during relatively prosperous times if they had really believed it would pay off. We were already coming out of the post-9/11/telecom-bubble recession in summer 2003.

Do you think that maybe certain columnists and bloggers spending so much effort pushing the idea in the public's mind that the arena was going to sit empty and be a complete failure kept development money on hold until developers were able to see that those prognostications regarding the arena were wrong?

Here's a gem from right before the arena opened:

Quote
And who knows how empty that arena may be and for how long? The Oilers will play the upcoming season at the Fairgrounds Pavilion, and if Expo Square makes some locker room improvements, the hockey team may decide the smaller venue, with its free parking, is a better fit for its typical crowds than an arena they will never come close to filling.
Arena football won't work in the Pavilion without extensive modifications, so the Talons are still looking for a home for 2008. They may have to look beyond the metro area, and once they've found a new home they may not want to come back.

http://www.urbantulsa.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A17072

Quote from: swake on June 02, 2010, 09:23:37 AM
Do you think that maybe certain columnists and bloggers spending so much effort pushing the idea in the public's mind that the arena was going to sit empty and be a complete failure kept development money on hold until developers were able to see that those prognostications regarding the arena were wrong?

Here's a gem from right before the arena opened:

http://www.urbantulsa.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A17072

Wow, was that before or after his come-apart at that public meeting with Taylor?

Quote from: MichaelBates on June 01, 2010, 09:54:07 PM
That excuse won't fly, Conan. The location of the arena and the fact that it would be built was set in stone in September 2003, long before the big collapse. One of the arena's biggest pushers during the "Dialog Visioning" process was already in control of a ton of land on the main approach to the arena. He and other developers had plenty of time to start development during relatively prosperous times if they had really believed it would pay off. We were already coming out of the post-9/11/telecom-bubble recession in summer 2003.

And, no, the arena is not making a profit by business standards. It may be covering its operating expenses, but is well short of repaying the cost of construction or depreciation.

The Blue Dome District was already thriving long before the arena was completed. Its success owes more to a concentration of dining and entertainment in a small area, plus events like the Blue Dome Arts Festival and Tulsa Tough that bring people directly to the area, not a mile away.

In theory, this is true Michael.  I will say, however, that there may have been other factors that discouraged that development around the arena.  I would argue that had the Arena been placed somewhere less convenient to the current convention center, but farther away from some of the social service and other public facilities, that planning such ancillary development might have appeared less risky to investors.  Developers are a risk averse bunch anyway...and I think you are right when you say that there was question about what kind of success the arena would have, so I don't think it is unusual that there was no pure market driven development planned prior to its completion, based on some of the more nuanced reasons given above.  The Power and Light District and the Louisville Live! districts were backed by bonds put forth to voters, so that kind of guarantee is what made those developments happen.  Tulsa, thankfully, didn't do that around the Arena. I think you would agree with that, no?

So, this gets back to good planning and the concept of organic growth.  While it might be easy to criticize the lack of immediate adjacent development around the arena, it is clearly responsible (in part, not solely) for other investments that have been made in Downtown.  I'd argue that those who redeveloped the Mayo Hotel, invested in the Blue Dome, and much of the other smaller business development, factored in the BOK Center as a pro on their pro and con lists prior to making the decision to move forward with those investments, if for no other reason than it means that there might be people in downtown between the hours of 5 pm to 12 pm...  And, thusly, the Arena has had a positive effect on how people view the direction downtown is moving.

I haven't seen the P&L sheet for the Arena, but what is being reported certainly indicates that the Arena is doing better business than expected; and nowhere did I ever see a proforma that showed the Arena would lose money (naturally0.  Is that not true?  If not, I am interested in seeing that data.

Quote from: MichaelBates on June 01, 2010, 09:54:07 PM
That excuse won't fly, Conan. The location of the arena and the fact that it would be built was set in stone in September 2003, long before the big collapse. One of the arena's biggest pushers during the "Dialog Visioning" process was already in control of a ton of land on the main approach to the arena. He and other developers had plenty of time to start development during relatively prosperous times if they had really believed it would pay off. We were already coming out of the post-9/11/telecom-bubble recession in summer 2003.

And, no, the arena is not making a profit by business standards. It may be covering its operating expenses, but is well short of repaying the cost of construction or depreciation.

The Blue Dome District was already thriving long before the arena was completed. Its success owes more to a concentration of dining and entertainment in a small area, plus events like the Blue Dome Arts Festival and Tulsa Tough that bring people directly to the area, not a mile away.

So what would proprietors of businesses immediately adjacent to the construction area do for a couple of years while their business was blocked by arena construction?  Granted, Blue Dome and Brady were developing at their own rate and had become sustainable districts before the arena was completed.  I'm simply noting that I've seen increased customer traffic in those areas plus SoBo on major show nights downtown.  Reinvestment in an urban area by the city helps inspire confidence in private developers.  As I mentioned in my OP, development around the arena will be incremental and I think the arena has helped provide a good catalyst for that.

I'm not aware of any arenas being devised as major profit centers for metropolitan areas.  I believe the idea is to bring new sales tax dollars into the city via event and convention business and improve the overall liveability of the city.  If the building operation is revenue-neutral, I believe that's considered somewhat of a success these days as many cities operate them at a loss.  It's obvious the arena has not been the bust that many predicted, including myself.  Now that it's done, I'm rather glad it's been built.  It's put Tulsa on the entertainment map for better concerts and events on a scale no one would have imagined (Sir Paul, etc. anyone?) and it's improved the overall downtown cityscape along with the renovation of the Convention Center.

It's kind of hard to complain about all that. 

Quote from: MichaelBates on June 01, 2010, 09:54:07 PM
And, no, the arena is not making a profit by business standards. It may be covering its operating expenses, but is well short of repaying the cost of construction or depreciation.

I read the City's CAFR every year - as I am sure you do - and understand government fund accounting.  Yes, the BOK Center covers its operating expenses - revenue it receives in various forms is greater than the expense it takes to operate the center (utilities, staff, etc).  The arena by itself does not generate enough revenue to cover other capital expenses, such as interest expense and the debt associated with the facility i.e. the 'mortgage'.  The BOK Center is not specifically responsible for generating the income to pay these obligations - sales tax collections are.

And a quick retort to your depreciation and amortization comment.  These are non-cash expenses required under GAAP - who cares if the arena doesn't cover them?  That is why people look at EBITDA when evaluating businesses - it provides a better proxy of actual, free cash flow.

Remember that, although referred to in the City's financial statements as a "business-type activity," the BOK Center (and Convention Center as they are reported together) is not a typical for-profit business.  Did the City get into the arena and convention center business because they are huge money-makers?  Certainly not - they are capital intensive endeavors.  They do, however, attract tourists and spur development - both of which have occurred and are still occurring even in the worst economic downturn since the great depression.

So while the BOK Center doesn't specifically pay for itself, you forget to mention the other piece of the puzzle such as incremental tax receipts from tourism, dining out, parking, jobs created, and other new development downtown.

It is convenient to look at the BOK Center in isolation to make your point, but you are speaking half-truths and doing a disservice to the City by spreading half-baked 'talking points.'

Thank you Patrick.

That was educational.

The arena is a loss leader.  When you don't want someone shopping at your competitor, you subsidize the price of something flashy to get them to come to your store.

Quote from: YoungTulsan on June 02, 2010, 12:04:53 PM
The arena is a loss leader.  When you don't want someone shopping at your competitor, you subsidize the price of something flashy to get them to come to your store.

Wow, that's just wrong on so many levels.

Nothing in town can compete, capacity-wise or other.

When most large acts require venues to hold a certain amount of seats, no flashiness in the world can bring a Paul McCartney to an arena which may be brand new, but only hold 8000 people.  That's essentially where we were at.

Now, if you're talking about other cities with venues the same size (Little Rock, OKC) then that does hold some credence.  But that's marketing.  And so far, it's worked.  To the tune of operating in the black for two straight years.  Which I thought wouldn't be feasible (and I voted for it).

Hoss, I voted against it.  I've since become a convert to V-2025 and come to appreciate how much better the city and county look with the various projects it helped finance.  Most all the predictions by the anti-tax at any cost crowd have proven false.  It's unfortunate some people still can't see the improvements as being a good thing. 

Post-modern Beirut simply wasn't a good look on Tulsa.

Now, I want to know what is going on with our carpet-bombed streets and that package we approved.

Quote from: Conan71 on June 02, 2010, 01:49:28 PM
Hoss, I voted against it.  I've since become a convert to V-2025 and come to appreciate how much better the city and county look with the various projects it helped financed.  Most all the predictions by the anti-tax at any cost crowd have proven false.  It's unfortunate some people still can't see the improvements as being a good thing. 

Post-modern Beirut simply wasn't a good look on Tulsa.

Now, I want to know what is going on with our carpet-bombed streets and that package we approved.

There was a story Monday by KOTV about the big city roads package, it's just about to kick in. I can't find the online version, but if I recall there are 120 road projects that are going to happen over the next three years, almost all are rehab projects. Starts this month I think.

Yes, they said that the amount of road construction is about to increase 4 or 5 fold starting this month.

Wish I held stock in the company that makes orange barrels.

Quote from: sgrizzle on June 02, 2010, 02:03:55 PM
Yes, they said that the amount of road construction is about to increase 4 or 5 fold starting this month.

I can take SW Blvd, I44 or the IDL to go to work and back...all are being worked on.  I'm one of the people who's ok with it though.

Quote from: Patrick on June 02, 2010, 11:05:16 AM
Remember that, although referred to in the City's financial statements as a "business-type activity," the BOK Center (and Convention Center as they are reported together) is not a typical for-profit business.  Did the City get into the arena and convention center business because they are huge money-makers?  Certainly not - they are capital intensive endeavors.  They do, however, attract tourists and spur development - both of which have occurred and are still occurring even in the worst economic downturn since the great depression.

Then people should stop claiming that the BOK Center is making a profit, unless it really is making a profit according to the standard definition of the term.

Quote from: Patrick on June 02, 2010, 11:05:16 AM
So while the BOK Center doesn't specifically pay for itself, you forget to mention the other piece of the puzzle such as incremental tax receipts from tourism, dining out, parking, jobs created, and other new development downtown.

Sales tax and hotel/motel tax receipts have been declining since around the time the BOK Center opened. You've got the burden of proof if you want to claim that receipts aren't as far down as they might be had there been no BOK Center. You'd have to be able to show that the arena allowed Tulsa to capture sales taxes that would otherwise have gone outside Tulsa.

Quote from: MichaelBates on June 04, 2010, 02:06:10 PM
Then people should stop claiming that the BOK Center is making a profit, unless it really is making a profit according to the standard definition of the term.

Sales tax and hotel/motel tax receipts have been declining since around the time the BOK Center opened. You've got the burden of proof if you want to claim that receipts aren't as far down as they might be had there been no BOK Center. You'd have to be able to show that the arena allowed Tulsa to capture sales taxes that would otherwise have gone outside Tulsa.

Kind of hard to make a correlation either way with the huge economic debacle, though one can certainly point to the fact that we've had 18,000+ seat shows sell out which was physically impossible at the old CC.  That capacity, plus the success in selling the capacity brought in acts who would otherwise have passed on Tulsa.  I'd be willing to bet that sales tax and visitor tax collections in the CBD have risen in that time.  There's been more businesses opening and more hotel rooms brought into inventory and more yet to come.

I'm sure it's had somewhat of a cannibalistic effect by simply shifting sales tax collection points from other parts of the city, but who can argue with the level of entertainment it's brought to town and who can honestly believe that all event-goers live within the city limits?

It's helped re-vitalize the downtown area which is something Tulsans have wanted all along, but they don't seem to be willing to admit there's got to be public investment to get the private dollars down there.  The major concert business had all but died out in Tulsa because our biggest venue was, what, 8000 seats in concert configuration?  It costs far too much to book major acts like DMB, Paul McCartney, Metalica, Elton John/Billy Joel, Clapton, etc. without a large arena.  Those shows certainly got people in from the burbs and further.

Quote from: MichaelBates on June 04, 2010, 02:06:10 PM
Then people should stop claiming that the BOK Center is making a profit, unless it really is making a profit according to the standard definition of the term.

Profit - n - the monetary surplus left to a producer or employer after deducting wages, rent, cost of raw materials, etc.

Income - Operating Expenses = Profit (or loss)

The costs associated with building the BOK Center is encumbered by the county and not by the BOK Center itself. Two separate legal entities.

So.. by definition... it is making a profit.

Quote from: sgrizzle on June 04, 2010, 02:28:19 PM
Profit - n - the monetary surplus left to a producer or employer after deducting wages, rent, cost of raw materials, etc.

Income - Operating Expenses = Profit (or loss)

The costs associated with building the BOK Center is encumbered by the county and not by the BOK Center itself. Two separate legal entities.

So.. by definition... it is making a profit.

Oh, but puleeze...let's not muddle the arena-bashing with facts!  Why do you hate Tulsa?

:o

Two reasons why I think the BOK Center is a success:

1)  in the 10 years I lived in Tulsa before the BOK, I attended 1 concert at the Convention Center (Elton John by himself - the rest of the country was getting Elton John and Billy Joel).  Since the BOK, I've attended over a dozen concerts.  That's money I used to spend traveling out of the city and ofen out of the state to see concerts.

2)  whether it's called "profit" or somethiing else, the BOK's reveunes are exceeding its operating expenses by a substantial margin and it is banking cash for future upkeep.  How is that not a good thing?

The fact that the BOK exceeded all expectations during a recession is nothing short of amazing and demonstrats how ready/desparate Tulsa was for a modern arena and top tier entertainment.

Parks and bicycle trails are a huge waste of money as well..   We can all agree they take money to build and maintain. But try to show me one that's generated any income.    Out of towners may even mooch and use our parks without paying to use them.  *gasp*

And why are we spending all this money on streets.    A huge waste of money unless we convert them to toll roads.

Conference USA Men's bball tournament; NCAA 1st and 2nd rounds; the Shock; PBR Nationals.  All of these things would've most likely or definitely bypassed Tulsa if not for the BOK Center. 

Quote from: we vs us on June 04, 2010, 04:03:10 PM
Conference USA Men's bball tournament; NCAA 1st and 2nd rounds; the Shock; PBR Nationals.  All of these things would've most likely or definitely bypassed Tulsa if not for the BOK Center. 

Interesting side note as far as rodeos, the International Finals Rodeo used to be here at the Convention Center.  At the time, I believe it was considered one of the better outside sales tax generators for Tulsa, then IIRC, we lost it to Vegas. 

A big deal was made about the Arabian horse show when we were making the pitch for it, now it's come and gone a couple of times without a whole lot of fanfare.  What's up with that?

Quote from: Conan71 on June 04, 2010, 04:25:33 PM
Interesting side note as far as rodeos, the International Finals Rodeo used to be here at the Convention Center.  At the time, I believe it was considered one of the better outside sales tax generators for Tulsa, then IIRC, we lost it to Vegas. 

A big deal was made about the Arabian horse show when we were making the pitch for it, now it's come and gone a couple of times without a whole lot of fanfare.  What's up with that?

They rebooked for 2011 and 2012, and they're a good chunk of business for area hotels.  Not sure of their impact on other parts of the economy. 

Quote from: sgrizzle on June 04, 2010, 02:28:19 PM
Profit - n - the monetary surplus left to a producer or employer after deducting wages, rent, cost of raw materials, etc.

Income - Operating Expenses = Profit (or loss)

The costs associated with building the BOK Center is encumbered by the county and not by the BOK Center itself. Two separate legal entities.

So.. by definition... it is making a profit.

You have to include the cost of the facility in your calculations or you haven't accounted for all the expenses. SMG may be turning a profit, but the people of Tulsa County won't turn a profit on the arena until the cumulative incremental sales tax generated by the arena is greater than what we paid for it in sales taxes (cost of construction plus bond fees and interest, since we borrowed against future receipts to build it).

The BOK Center will be obsolete, replaced, and its replacement obsolete and in need of replacement before it could generate enough incremental sales tax revenue to pay the taxpayers back what we put into it. That's even if you assume the first year's numbers continue indefinitely -- an assumption John Bolton said we shouldn't make.

Quote from: MichaelBates on June 04, 2010, 05:46:18 PM
You have to include the cost of the facility in your calculations or you haven't accounted for all the expenses. SMG may be turning a profit, but the people of Tulsa County won't turn a profit on the arena until the cumulative incremental sales tax generated by the arena is greater than what we paid for it in sales taxes (cost of construction plus bond fees and interest, since we borrowed against future receipts to build it).

The people of Tulsa wanted an arena... we bought one.
We want parks.. we build parks.
I'm not expecting a profit from my giant TV... I do expect it to provide entertainment.
Profit schmofit.   As long as we don't have to bail it out.

Quote from: BKDotCom on June 04, 2010, 06:19:25 PM
The people of Tulsa wanted an arena... we bought one.
We want parks.. we build parks.
I'm not expecting a profit from my giant TV... I do expect it to provide entertainment.
Profit schmofit.   As long as we don't have to bail it out.

He's just mad he was proven wrong....

...again.

Quote from: BKDotCom on June 04, 2010, 06:19:25 PM
The people of Tulsa wanted an arena... we bought one.

The people of Tulsa were not given a straight up or down vote on an arena in 2003, despite calls at the time to have it stand on its own. It was packaged with money for area colleges and school districts, all lumped together as "economic development."

Over the years, the Chamber has tried to sell voters on the idea that spending money on convention centers and arenas will mean more dollars available for government services. (I seem to recall a billboard campaign to that effect.) But that argument only works if the incremental increase in tax revenue generated by a facility exceeds the tax money devoted to building it and running it. Otherwise, the smarter investment would have been to put the money directly into streets, public safety, and education.

Quote from: MichaelBates on June 04, 2010, 08:33:08 PM
The people of Tulsa were not given a straight up or down vote on an arena in 2003, despite calls at the time to have it stand on its own. It was packaged with money for area colleges and school districts, all lumped together as "economic development."

Over the years, the Chamber has tried to sell voters on the idea that spending money on convention centers and arenas will mean more dollars available for government services. (I seem to recall a billboard campaign to that effect.) But that argument only works if the incremental increase in tax revenue generated by a facility exceeds the tax money devoted to building it and running it. Otherwise, the smarter investment would have been to put the money directly into streets, public safety, and education.

Still stings after seven years, huh?

Quote from: nathanm on June 02, 2010, 12:23:05 AM
You must set a low bar for the term "thriving."

Plenty of other people were calling the Blue Dome District thriving long before the BOK Center opened its doors and well before the vote to fund an arena.

Tulsa World, November 11, 2001 (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?no=subj&articleid=L111101043&archive=yes), a year after an arena tax was defeated at the polls, 22 months before the Vision 2025 vote, just shy of seven years before the arena opened:

Quote
The Blue Dome District

If you've never heard of this  part of town, don't worry: the name was only recently coined. The Blue Dome District is an area downtown that
extends east from the new Williams Companies building to the historic blue-domed filling station at Second Street and Elgin Avenue. Currently, it includes the Studio 310 and Goodfella's nightclubs as well as the relocated SoBo II art gallery and good ol' Arnie's bar.

That's what's already there. What's about to come -- by New Year's Eve, if all goes well -- is another trio of nightspots at the corner of Second Street and Detroit Avenue: the Voodoo Room, Velvet, and an undetermined club or restaurant....

Elsewhere in the neighborhood, the old Route 66 Diner, which burned down in '99, will be reborn by year's end as the 1974 Pub and Grill, a down-home sports bar for the serious fan. Randy King and his daughter Tina are working on the restaurant-club, which will feature occasional live blues bands and a unique hamburger-coney menu borrowed from one of three such shops -- each of them minor legends in food circles -- in El Reno.

Mayfest chairman Michael Patton, May 2002 (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=020511_Ne_a15mayfe&archive=yes), six years before the BOK Center's inaugural event:

Quote
"But that situation has changed dramatically in recent years," Patton said. "And we're hoping that this year's Mayfest can really draw attention to how far downtown has bounced back."

Toward that end, Patton has redrawn the Mayfest map.

In recent years, the festival had started to spread out to the west of the Main Mall, creating more elbow room for the expanding crowds.

But this year's event will refocus attention on the Main Mall itself and shift some attractions toward the northeast, trying to direct part of the festival crowd toward the so-called "Blue Dome" district, which is slowly being redeveloped with restaurants and night spots.

"Tulsa is breathing life back into its downtown," Patton said. "If people are paying attention, they will see that this is an exciting place to be right now."

Not an exciting place to be if only we had an arena, but "an exciting place to be right now."

From an August 2002 article by Michael Overall about the StreetLife proposal (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=020814_Ne_a10invesP&archive=yes):

Quote
Other StreetLife members include a virtual Who's Who of downtown real estate developers, including Michael Sager, who has already transformed the blighted Blue Dome district into a thriving commercial hot spot.

From March 2003 (http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/article.aspx?subjectid=32&articleid=030302_Bu_e1_newle&archive=yes), four months before the Vision 2025 package was put on the ballot, five and a half years before the BOK Center opened its doors:

Quote
Elliott Nelson can easily see beyond the aging facade, and like other ambitious entrepreneurs interested in downtown's metamorphosis, the Tulsa native believes his future lies in part of his hometown's past.

By June 1, his Americanized version of an Irish pub, James E. McNellie's Public House, should be open for business.

Nelson's story is part of a trend that's illuminating dark, previously empty streets with the glare of neon. From the Blue Dome district centered around Detroit Avenue and First and Second streets north to the brick warehouses that make up much of Brady Village, a unique mix of concert halls, nightclubs, bars and restaurants -- many within walking distance of one another -- are bringing Tulsa's downtown back to life.

Small businesses such the pub planned by Nelson can play a big part in rejuvenating downtown, said Jay Clemens, the chamber's president.

And the more of them clustered downtown, the better.

"People have been looking for a concentration of venues downtown for a long time. All of this is wonderful," he said of the recent burst of economic activity around the central business district. "It has an enormous impact on getting people back downtown. . . . It has huge implications of getting people to live downtown.

"It has really started a whole economic chain of activity."...

Richard Becker arrived in Tulsa three years ago from Santa Monica, Calif., to work as a senior video editor for TV Guide. But now he is renovating vacant space next to the Westby Playhouse & Cinema at the corner of Second Street and Detroit Avenue into a smoke-free, 3,500-square-foot bar and restaurant featuring sushi and what he has branded as "Pan Asian" food -- a selective mix of Chinese and Japanese cuisine combined with a sampling of some of his favorite southern West Coast dishes.

Becker is hoping for a May 1 opening for Tsunami....

These new clubs, bars and restaurants "are an experience within walking distance" of each other, [DTU President] Jim Norton said, and their eclectic blend of environments showcase a sampling of what Tulsa has to offer.

"When you have eight to 10 eating spots, then you begin to get a critical mass, and that's how entertainment districts get started," he said.

Clemens agrees that a thriving entertainment scene is that important first step toward a down town where people want to live and shop.

"It's happening, and it's very promising," he said....

Nightclub owner Steve Kitchell, who already owns Studio 310 and the Majestic, is the man behind downtown's latest nightspots.

His trio of clubs along First Street are interconnected within a single, 14,000-square-foot building, although each one has a different ambiance. And so far, the Voodoo Room, 1st Street Alley and the Velvet Room are reaping the rewards of downtown's renaissance.

"We opened June 1, and we've had an overwhelming response," Kitchell said. "Right now, it is the scene downtown."

Business has even surpassed his past business ventures in south Tulsa and Brookside. "In sales, we've crushed those revenues," he said. "It's the trend now -- people want to come downtown."

Kitchell says he is selling 600 cases of Budweiser a week, and probably 500 martinis -- at $6 to $10 a drink -- on an average weekend night.

A few weeks after the Vision 2025 vote, and about five years before the arena hosted its first event, Ed Sharrer wrote an op-ed calling for the arena to be located east of 2nd and Elgin (http://www.tulsaworld.com/opinion/article.aspx?subjectid=65&articleid=030928_Op_g4_lets&archive=yes), for synergy with an existing entertainment district:

Quote
There are restaurants, dance clubs, pubs, an art gallery, and an art movie house within a few blocks of Second Street and Elgin Avenue. Dinner before the game? Dancing after a concert? All within walking distance -- the day the arena opens. Building the arena on the east side of downtown would turn an emerging scene into an instant entertainment destination. These businesses already exist, so there's no need for a "build it and they will come" approach. Let's build the arena where people are already going!

"Already going," not "may be going five years from now."

By August 2004, four years before the BOK Center opened, police were increasing their presence in the area to deal with growing crowds (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=040801_Ne_A1_Downt10901&archive=yes):

Quote
Dalgleish said TPD stepped up patrols of downtown clubs three months ago not because of concerns over violent crime, but to address growing crowds. Club Eclipse routinely gets more than 1,000 patrons each night, and other bars in the area each serve hundreds.

More people in one area means a greater need for police protection and traffic control, Dalgleish said.

"Calls would stack up and prevent officers from getting everywhere they needed to be," he said.

The department now allows five officers to work overtime at the clubs on Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights, with three to six additional on-duty officers helping at closing time from 1:30 to 2:15 a.m.

Dalgleish said the department doesn't receive additional money for the additional officers, but they recoup some of the money through traffic citations.

Typically, the officers work disorderly conduct calls, fights and traffic violations. They also close streets and regulate traffic around Club Eclipse when it closes at 2 a.m. because it's near an on-ramp to Interstate 244.

"Eclipse is on Second Street, which is a major route to the expressways," Dalgleish said.

Before police blocked the roads, Dalgleish said lingering patrons would back up traffic for many blocks.

Though bars and clubs are throughout downtown, Dalgleish said the vast majority of police calls originate in and around the Blue Dome District -- roughly from First to Third streets between Cincinnati and Elgin avenues....

Collins didn't think perceived problems were cutting into his business because sales at McNellie's have exceeded expectations so far.

In the summer of 2006, two years before the BOK Center opened, two young Los Angeles Times travel writers visited the Blue Dome District as part of a cross-country journey (http://www.batesline.com/archives/2006/09/naive-young-ang.html):

Quote
We didn't know a thing about Tulsa, except that it existed. What we found was a town clearly on the rise; industrial-chic brick buildings encased galleries, shops and restaurants worthy of any major arts-concerned metropolis. But the vibe here, hipness and good taste notwithstanding, is unmistakably small-town. Tulsans could easily qualify as our nation's friendliest people.

The original blog entry is no longer on the web, but in a wrap-up story on the trip Avital Binshtock wrote (http://travel.latimes.com/articles/la-tr-twofortheroad31dec31):

Quote
Perhaps the crowning experience was discovering the unexpected charms of Tulsa, Okla.

And she included Tulsa in a February 2007 list of "10 unsung cities full of surprises" (http://articles.latimes.com/2007/feb/04/travel/tr-underrated4):

Quote
Tulsa's on the rise. Its industrial-chic Blue Dome District ends any idea of provincialism, as do its Performing Arts Center (by the architect of New York's World Trade Center) and its spectacular Philbrook and Gilcrease museums. Best of all, Tulsans make you feel at home

Quote from: Hoss on June 04, 2010, 10:07:52 PM
Still stings after seven years, huh?

I just don't like seeing my city suckered into bad investments. False claims about the impact of the BOK Center, if left unanswered, will only make it easier to sell the public on future bad investments. The cost of building the arena is about a third of the total cost of Vision 2025. If that 0.2% tax were going directly into the city's general fund, it would mean an extra $13 million a year to fund public safety, parks, and streets at the same overall sales tax rate. $13 million is the difference between a bit of slightly uncomfortable belt-tightening and the full-blown fiscal crisis the city is currently experiencing. Is the arena generating enough additional economic activity ($433 million a year in additional retail sales) to bring in an extra $13 million a year in city sales tax revenues?

If you're an aging baby boomer who's happy because the arena gives you the chance to see your favorite nostalgia acts, I won't argue with you. If you claim Tulsans in general are getting their $200 million or so worth out of the facility, I probably will argue with you.  :)

Quote from: MichaelBates on June 04, 2010, 10:46:38 PM
I just don't like seeing my city suckered into bad investments. False claims about the impact of the BOK Center, if left unanswered, will only make it easier to sell the public on future bad investments. The cost of building the arena is about a third of the total cost of Vision 2025. If that 0.2% tax were going directly into the city's general fund, it would mean an extra $13 million a year to fund public safety, parks, and streets at the same overall sales tax rate. $13 million is the difference between a bit of slightly uncomfortable belt-tightening and the full-blown fiscal crisis the city is currently experiencing. Is the arena generating enough additional economic activity ($433 million a year in additional retail sales) to bring in an extra $13 million a year in city sales tax revenues?

If you're an aging baby boomer who's happy because the arena gives you the chance to see your favorite nostalgia acts, I won't argue with you. If you claim Tulsans in general are getting their $200 million or so worth out of the facility, I probably will argue with you.  :)

How is it a bad investment as a focal point for bringing business downtown?  Have you asked people like Eliot Nelson if they'd raver NOT have the arena or the ballpark?  How about the other businesses?  Do you think the BBQ contest would have come here without it?  How about the ballpark?

You seem to think that Tulsa is alone in how we fund public convention buildings.  We aren't.  No one every says that these arenas make money.  Ours, after two years, is profitable and that just eats at your craw that you proven wrong.

I'm a middle aged Gen-X er who will argue that we did get our money's worth out of it.  Why?  Because cities like Little Rock, OKC, St Louis, KC don't get exclusive hold on the things that make quality of entertainment (which you cannot put a price tag on) attainable.

A metro area of 1 million couldn't compete with places like Little Rock, Wichita, Omaha and the like with the 40 year old Convention Center.

Obviously not a progressive bone in your body, but hey, that's your opinion.  I don't see many others like it now that the arena is doing what it is doing.

Quote from: MichaelBates on June 04, 2010, 10:46:38 PM
I just don't like seeing my city suckered into bad investments. False claims about the impact of the BOK Center, if left unanswered, will only make it easier to sell the public on future bad investments.

I don't disagree that the arena was a bad investment in the strict sense of public dollars invested versus recovered. But I will argue that the arena was needed for a public spirit investment. The arena made Tulsans proud and has become a public gathering spot where we share time together.

I met out-of-towners at the Eagles concert and a slew of Memphis fans at the conference basketball tournament who both talked about what a beautiful city we have. The arena brought them here and I was glad to talk about Tulsa and show my pride in my hometown.

Quote from: MichaelBates on June 04, 2010, 08:33:08 PM
The people of Tulsa were not given a straight up or down vote on an arena in 2003, despite calls at the time to have it stand on its own. 

Big deal. Vision 2025 passed by a 20-point margin. If the arena were that big of a sticking point, Vision wouldn't have passed by such a huge margin, which I think virtually everyone will describe as a "mandate."

Quote from: rwarn17588 on June 05, 2010, 08:20:50 AM
Big deal. Vision 2025 passed by a 20-point margin. If the arena were that big of a sticking point, Vision wouldn't have passed by such a huge margin, which I think virtually everyone will describe as a "mandate."

Once again, those pesky facts.

I found this blurb from the day after's Tulsa World to be telling of the opposition to the proposals:

QuoteOpponent Michael Bates acknowledged defeat a little after 7:30 p.m., saying early returns indicated that all propositions were going to pass with a good margin countywide.

Bates told a crowd of about 30 people at an opposition watch party that the apparent outcome was "disappointing."

"We worked pretty hard because we believed sincerely from the heart that these propositions were not right for our city and a sales tax increase is not going to be good for our economy," he said.

"A tax is not going to lead us into a golden era of prosperity, and I still believe that," Bates said.

Quote from: RecycleMichael on June 05, 2010, 07:47:32 AM
But I will argue that the arena was needed for a public spirit investment. The arena made Tulsans proud and has become a public gathering spot where we share time together.

Glad you're back, Michael.

Do you really think the arena inspire feelings of any sort in most of Tulsa County's half-million residents? Perhaps people in your social and professional circles had that reaction. You're entitled to your feelings; I just doubt that they're widely shared.

One of the sad things about the Vision 2025 campaign was the constant drumbeat from the Vote Yes side that we needed the arena in order to feel proud of our city, that we should feel ashamed for our "lack of investment in ourselves" (despite voter approval of something like a billion dollars in city, county, and school improvements over the previous decade). I felt then, and still feel, that we have far better reasons to feel good about our city.

I don't get the "gathering place" argument either. Tulsans gather at River Parks for the 4th of July fireworks and Oktoberfest, for Mayfest, for the Tulsa State Fair, at the zoo, the PAC, neighborhood parks, high school football games, and Cain's Ballroom, on Brookside, in the Brady and Blue Dome districts. The arena brings people together who have a particular interest and who have the disposable income for a ticket (or can justify funding club seats out of their company's marketing budget).

Quote from: rwarn17588 on June 05, 2010, 08:20:50 AM
Big deal. Vision 2025 passed by a 20-point margin. If the arena were that big of a sticking point, Vision wouldn't have passed by such a huge margin, which I think virtually everyone will describe as a "mandate."

The packaging of the proposal into four propositions, lumping the arena in with higher education, common education, and medical projects, was done very deliberately. There was even an attempt to lump the American Airlines subsidy with the arena, but AA officials protested. They grouped the projects as they did because they feared the arena -- which had been twice defeated by voters in the City of Tulsa -- could not stand on its own, and I think it's reasonable to assume that they had polling confirming their fears. Arena backers conducted extensive surveys in the months before the election was set. Might it have won anyway? Possibly, especially after months of messaging that "we have to do something" to fix the local economy (which was already on the upswing).

Quote from: MichaelBates on June 05, 2010, 07:44:12 PM
Glad you're back, Michael.

Do you really think the arena inspire feelings of any sort in most of Tulsa County's half-million residents? Perhaps people in your social and professional circles had that reaction. You're entitled to your feelings; I just doubt that they're widely shared.

One of the sad things about the Vision 2025 campaign was the constant drumbeat from the Vote Yes side that we needed the arena in order to feel proud of our city, that we should feel ashamed for our "lack of investment in ourselves" (despite voter approval of something like a billion dollars in city, county, and school improvements over the previous decade). I felt then, and still feel, that we have far better reasons to feel good about our city.

I don't get the "gathering place" argument either. Tulsans gather at River Parks for the 4th of July fireworks and Oktoberfest, for Mayfest, for the Tulsa State Fair, at the zoo, the PAC, neighborhood parks, high school football games, and Cain's Ballroom, on Brookside, in the Brady and Blue Dome districts. The arena brings people together who have a particular interest and who have the disposable income for a ticket (or can justify funding club seats out of their company's marketing budget).

The packaging of the proposal into four propositions, lumping the arena in with higher education, common education, and medical projects, was done very deliberately. There was even an attempt to lump the American Airlines subsidy with the arena, but AA officials protested. They grouped the projects as they did because they feared the arena -- which had been twice defeated by voters in the City of Tulsa -- could not stand on its own, and I think it's reasonable to assume that they had polling confirming their fears. Arena backers conducted extensive surveys in the months before the election was set. Might it have won anyway? Possibly, especially after months of messaging that "we have to do something" to fix the local economy (which was already on the upswing).

Michael, this is just sour grapes seven-years-old.  2025 passed.  You can't unpass it.  What's done is done.

Most people I talk to think it's a great thing for the city.  On both sides of the political spectrum.  You seem to be the lone holdout.

What happens next year when we get the NCAA regional here?  Are you going to talk down the economic benefits the city will have from out-of-town visitors that we would never have gotten?

Sadly, I suspect my answer is 'yes'.

I wonder what circles you run in that don't love the arena. We have been to many hockey, football and basketball games and mingled with many Tulsans who love the atmosphere of the BokCenter. The concerts we have seen have been magical and I love that the biggest stars in entertainment have been to our city the past year.

I love the arena and I love downtown on nights when they are bringing in big shows. It adds to Tulsa and the extra few dollars it costs me each year are well worth it in my opinion.  

Quote from: MichaelBates on June 05, 2010, 07:44:12 PM
Glad you're back, Michael.

Do you really think the arena inspire feelings of any sort in most of Tulsa County's half-million residents?

According to a poll, yes. When you have a facility that has a 75 percent favorable rating barely a year after it opens, I'd say that inspires feelings. Positive ones, in fact.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=16&articleid=20090913_16_A1_TheBOK578262&archive=yes

I know for a fact that I'll remember the Paul McCartney concert for the rest of my days. And very fondly, I might add. And I wasn't even a Beatles fan.

Quote from: MichaelBates on June 04, 2010, 02:06:10 PM
Sales tax and hotel/motel tax receipts have been declining since around the time the BOK Center opened. You've got the burden of proof if you want to claim that receipts aren't as far down as they might be had there been no BOK Center.

My man, this is a weak point to argue.  There is no way to prove/disprove it.  The burden of proof is on you as much as it is on me.  Yes, aggregate tax receipts are down... globally.  "It's the economy, stupid."

Quote from: MichaelBates on June 04, 2010, 02:06:10 PM
You'd have to be able to show that the arena allowed Tulsa to capture sales taxes that would otherwise have gone outside Tulsa.

Check license plates in the various parking lots around the BOK Center and on the street the night of a concert.  People drive in from out of town - out of state - to catch some of these acts.  The acts would not have stopped without it.  Fact.  End of argument.  Full stop.

This is the most fun thread I've read on this forum in some time. I miss the good old days of healthy TulsaNow debate...back before the admins booted all the a-holes off. Am I the only one who misses them, or just the only one who visits this site to be entertained first, informed second?

Now we have super nice guys (Bates and Patton) arguing. I can get in to this. This, friends, is entertainment.

My two cents:

There are a few different types of people in Tulsa

A. Midtowner types. These folks tend to love Tulsa. They value the local places. They like parks, trails, statues, and fountains. They'd double the number of all of those things if it helped to make Tulsa cooler. They don't mind paying for nice either. They go out. They want to be entertained. They want Tulsa to be a city in which we should all be proud....not necessarily for it's friendliness, or it's cleanliness, or its convenience, or its "live-ability", but for its art, architecture, entertainment, restaurants, culture, night-iife, festivals, etc. They drink Marshall Beer and eat at Elote. They go downtown every time there's an event. They buy Steve Cluck's shirts. These people travel and when they do, they can't help but wish Tulsa offered some of the same things that other cities offer.

B. South Tulsa types. These folks tend to love Tulsa. They love the Christian subculture. They like high school football and are proud to pack the orange slices for their kids' soccer games. They love the conveniences that Tulsa offers. Affordable homes, wide streets, a large selection of churches from which to choose, good public schools (in south Tulsa), and a concentration of consistent chain restaurants are all attractive to these folks. They too want to be proud of Tulsa. They're the ones who want to be proud of its conveniences, its cleanliness, and its friendliness...and of course its live-ability. These people travel to experience the culture that they don't even look for or care about in their home town and they're really pleased with the lifestyle.

C. Everybody else. These folks live here for some reason or another. They don't really care about any of this stuff. They just want to go to work, come home, watch some TV, and go to the lake on the weekend. They may occasionally complain about roads or road construction, and they care about police only when they get a ticket or when they are a victim of a crime. Other than that, they don't care...and that's okay. As for pride? They may care more about the Sooners or Cowboys than they do about Tulsa. Tulsa's just a place to live. It suits them fine. They may like their neighbors or their church or their kids' teams, and they may even go downtown to a BOK event, but those things are all just a part of life and they don't connect their emotions for those things to their emotions for Tulsa. They may even be more likely to be proud of their specific neighborhood than they are of Tulsa as a city.

I know those are broad generalizations, but you get the picture...

In that context, many of us on this forum identify most with group A. We're reading this message board because we care about the details. We have these conversations because we want a better Tulsa and to most of us, that means more unique and attractive venues, parks, sights, retail, restaurants, events, festivals, etc. Most of us are thrilled to have an arena and would gladly pay for it times two...not because it pays for itself or makes money or whatever...but because it makes our city a better place to live. We might even overlook the way these things are financed if we have to, just don't stop giving us nice things. Bates cares about Tulsa. I know this to be a fact. He doesn't necessarily seem to need any of those things to contribute to his pride.
I kinda do. I want bells and whistles. I want visitors to Tulsa to have the same feelings I have when I'm in another city. I want people to be jealous of my hometown. The Tulsa that existed before the arena was less cool than the one we have now. I like a cooler Tulsa. I know you do too, Michael. I think the only difference between us is that we have a different stance on their (bells and whistles) value and on the sacrifices needed to make them a reality. I think they're really valuable and I think it's worth the sacrifice. I understand that you don't believe them to be as valuable and you are not willing to sacrifice to get them. It's okay if we disagree.

As for the arena's affect on downtown....Ed Sharrer was right (because he's a smart dude). It should've been on the other side of downtown. It was a mistake to put it over there. Most people that I know agree with that sentiment. Our city already suffers from having its entertainment areas all spread out and detached...and we perpetuated it by placing the arena over there...away from the entertainment areas....I guess hoping that another one will sprout up around it? How's that working out?

I echo Michael Patton's sentiment about the civic pride benefit of the BOK. It is a gathering place, though in a different way than the River Parks. I believe in this idea of emotional momentum. It's a fickle thing. There was some momentum already going in the Blue Dome before the arena came to be, but to counter you a bit, Mr. Bates, after 1974, Goodfellas, and Kitchel's places went out of business, they might not have been so quickly replaced if not for positive momentum that the arena helped to create. I know for a fact that Joe Momma's wouldn't be downtown if Vision 2025 hadn't passed. No Joe Momma's means no Boomtown Tees, no Max Retropub, etc, etc. It also means that my south location (which I've since sold), goes out of business and I'm back looking for a job instead of providing 65. It means one of downtown's biggest advocates doesn't have the avenue or the credibility to work to better our town. For some reason as a business owner, people care more about what I have to say than they would if I sold Amway....not that there's anything wrong with Amway.

I have to wonder if Elliot would've continued to develop in the Blue Dome District without that momentum. Would there be a Dilly Deli where 1974 once was or a Yokozuna where Tsunami was? Would Tom and Angie Green have the IDL Ballroom and Electric Circus, and ENSO? How would Dwelling Spaces be doing?

Furthermore, what was the arena's affect on The Mayo, The Courtyard Marriot, and The Holiday Inn? I have to believe these things all benefitted from the momentum that this major thing helped to create.

We can't overlook the emotional value that something like the BOK center has. It has made many a Tulsan believe that we can be something better. It has turned some of group B and C into group A. People tell me all the time at Joe Momma's that they are so happy to have discovered downtown. They're south Tulsans who never thought about a lifestyle different than the one they were used to. They do now. Their new lifestyle includes spending money with local restaurants instead of chains and visiting downtown Tulsa instead of another city.

Every time Joe Momma's steals a customer away from Hideaway, it helps Tulsa. Every time someone who used to eat and drink at TGI Fridays goes to McNellies, it makes our city better. Keeping our dollars in town is critical right now and the downtown restaurants and bars (almost entirely local) are doing a great deal to help....and the arena helps us a great deal.

To me there's no argument here. Vision 2025 was good for Tulsa. The River vote would've been good for Tulsa. The next vote that groups B and C vote down, will be another missed opportunity for Tulsa. Meanwhile, OKC is voting Yes. Little Rock is voting Yes. They grow. They attract employers, conventions, tourists and we...."win by not raising taxes?"

Tulsa can continue the pattern of only raising taxes in a reactionary way to bandage our city (see the recent street vote) or we can start raising them to make our city healthy and strong so that it doesn't need bandages.

This latest streets vote should've never been necessary. If we had been conducting our business well over the years and investing in growing our city and encouraging its citizens to spend money in town, we'd not have the budget problems we currently have. Our streets would be better, we'd have more police, and we'd have a more attractive and special city.

Someday the anti-tax folks will get it. It's almost never a bad idea to invest in improving the city.

I don't deny the "fix the spending" part of it at all, but there's an equally important piece. Maybe these tough times and the hard looks at the budget that they make us take will play a part in improving the efficiency of our government for the future. Hopefully we can combine that with some creative initiatives to invest some new dollars into additional improvements and attractions.

Quote from: JoeMommaBlake on June 06, 2010, 12:41:51 AM
This is the most fun thread I've read on this forum in some time. I miss the good old days of healthy TulsaNow debate...back before the admins booted all the a-holes off. Am I the only one who misses them, or just the only one who visits this site to be entertained first, informed second?

Now we have super nice guys (Bates and Patton) arguing. I can get in to this. This, friends, is entertainment.

My two cents:

There are a few different types of people in Tulsa

A. Midtowner types. These folks tend to love Tulsa. They value the local places. They like parks, trails, statues, and fountains. They'd double the number of all of those things if it helped to make Tulsa cooler. They don't mind paying for nice either. They go out. They want to be entertained. They want Tulsa to be a city in which we should all be proud....not necessarily for it's friendliness, or it's cleanliness, or its convenience, or its "live-ability", but for its art, architecture, entertainment, restaurants, culture, night-iife, festivals, etc. They drink Marshall Beer and eat at Elote. They go downtown every time there's an event. They buy Steve Cluck's shirts. These people travel and when they do, they can't help but wish Tulsa offered some of the same things that other cities offer.

B. South Tulsa types. These folks tend to love Tulsa. They love the Christian subculture. They like high school football and are proud to pack the orange slices for their kids' soccer games. They love the conveniences that Tulsa offers. Affordable homes, wide streets, a large selection of churches from which to choose, good public schools (in south Tulsa), and a concentration of consistent chain restaurants are all attractive to these folks. They too want to be proud of Tulsa. They're the ones who want to be proud of its conveniences, its cleanliness, and its friendliness...and of course its live-ability. These people travel to experience the culture that they don't even look for or care about in their home town and they're really pleased with the lifestyle.

C. Everybody else. These folks live here for some reason or another. They don't really care about any of this stuff. They just want to go to work, come home, watch some TV, and go to the lake on the weekend. They may occasionally complain about roads or road construction, and they care about police only when they get a ticket or when they are a victim of a crime. Other than that, they don't care...and that's okay. As for pride? They may care more about the Sooners or Cowboys than they do about Tulsa. Tulsa's just a place to live. It suits them fine. They may like their neighbors or their church or their kids' teams, and they may even go downtown to a BOK event, but those things are all just a part of life and they don't connect their emotions for those things to their emotions for Tulsa. They may even be more likely to be proud of their specific neighborhood than they are of Tulsa as a city.

I know those are broad generalizations, but you get the picture...

In that context, many of us on this forum identify most with group A. We're reading this message board because we care about the details. We have these conversations because we want a better Tulsa and to most of us, that means more unique and attractive venues, parks, sights, retail, restaurants, events, festivals, etc. Most of us are thrilled to have an arena and would gladly pay for it times two...not because it pays for itself or makes money or whatever...but because it makes our city a better place to live. We might even overlook the way these things are financed if we have to, just don't stop giving us nice things. Bates cares about Tulsa. I know this to be a fact. He doesn't necessarily seem to need any of those things to contribute to his pride.
I kinda do. I want bells and whistles. I want visitors to Tulsa to have the same feelings I have when I'm in another city. I want people to be jealous of my hometown. The Tulsa that existed before the arena was less cool than the one we have now. I like a cooler Tulsa. I know you do too, Michael. I think the only difference between us is that we have a different stance on their (bells and whistles) value and on the sacrifices needed to make them a reality. I think they're really valuable and I think it's worth the sacrifice. I understand that you don't believe them to be as valuable and you are not willing to sacrifice to get them. It's okay if we disagree.

As for the arena's affect on downtown....Ed Sharrer was right (because he's a smart dude). It should've been on the other side of downtown. It was a mistake to put it over there. Most people that I know agree with that sentiment. Our city already suffers from having its entertainment areas all spread out and detached...and we perpetuated it by placing the arena over there...away from the entertainment areas....I guess hoping that another one will sprout up around it? How's that working out?

I echo Michael Patton's sentiment about the civic pride benefit of the BOK. It is a gathering place, though in a different way than the River Parks. I believe in this idea of emotional momentum. It's a fickle thing. There was some momentum already going in the Blue Dome before the arena came to be, but to counter you a bit, Mr. Bates, after 1974, Goodfellas, and Kitchel's places went out of business, they might not have been so quickly replaced if not for positive momentum that the arena helped to create. I know for a fact that Joe Momma's wouldn't be downtown if Vision 2025 hadn't passed. No Joe Momma's means no Boomtown Tees, no Max Retropub, etc, etc. It also means that my south location (which I've since sold), goes out of business and I'm back looking for a job instead of providing 65. It means one of downtown's biggest advocates doesn't have the avenue or the credibility to work to better our town. For some reason as a business owner, people care more about what I have to say than they would if I sold Amway....not that there's anything wrong with Amway.

I have to wonder if Elliot would've continued to develop in the Blue Dome District without that momentum. Would there be a Dilly Deli where 1974 once was or a Yokozuna where Tsunami was? Would Tom and Angie Green have the IDL Ballroom and Electric Circus, and ENSO? How would Dwelling Spaces be doing?

Furthermore, what was the arena's affect on The Mayo, The Courtyard Marriot, and The Holiday Inn? I have to believe these things all benefitted from the momentum that this major thing helped to create.

We can't overlook the emotional value that something like the BOK center has. It has made many a Tulsan believe that we can be something better. It has turned some of group B and C into group A. People tell me all the time at Joe Momma's that they are so happy to have discovered downtown. They're south Tulsans who never thought about a lifestyle different than the one they were used to. They do now. Their new lifestyle includes spending money with local restaurants instead of chains and visiting downtown Tulsa instead of another city.

Every time Joe Momma's steals a customer away from Hideaway, it helps Tulsa. Every time someone who used to eat and drink at TGI Fridays goes to McNellies, it makes our city better. Keeping our dollars in town is critical right now and the downtown restaurants and bars (almost entirely local) are doing a great deal to help....and the arena helps us a great deal.

To me there's no argument here. Vision 2025 was good for Tulsa. The River vote would've been good for Tulsa. The next vote that groups B and C vote down, will be another missed opportunity for Tulsa. Meanwhile, OKC is voting Yes. Little Rock is voting Yes. They grow. They attract employers, conventions, tourists and we...."win by not raising taxes?"

Tulsa can continue the pattern of only raising taxes in a reactionary way to bandage our city (see the recent street vote) or we can start raising them to make our city healthy and strong so that it doesn't need bandages.

This latest streets vote should've never been necessary. If we had been conducting our business well over the years and investing in growing our city and encouraging its citizens to spend money in town, we'd not have the budget problems we currently have. Our streets would be better, we'd have more police, and we'd have a more attractive and special city.

Someday the anti-tax folks will get it. It's almost never a bad idea to invest in improving the city.

I don't deny the "fix the spending" part of it at all, but there's an equally important piece. Maybe these tough times and the hard looks at the budget that they make us take will play a part in improving the efficiency of our government for the future. Hopefully we can combine that with some creative initiatives to invest some new dollars into additional improvements and attractions.

You sir, have just earned my nomination for post of the year.

Quote from: JoeMommaBlake on June 06, 2010, 12:41:51 AM
Someday the anti-tax folks will get it. It's almost never a bad idea to invest in improving the city.

I'm about as conservative as you get.  Most mainstream conservatives would refer to me as a kook and ostracize me from their party (The GOP).  I voted for Ron Paul in 2008.  I believe in ending the foreign empire.  I believe in shutting down the Federal Reserve.  I believe in getting rid of the Department of Education, the Department of Homeland Security, the CIA, and getting out of the UN, World Bank, NAFTA, NATO, and it goes on and on.

So that makes me a kook far right whacko in many peoples eyes.


HOWEVER......

I believe the whole argument for limited government on a FEDERAL level means that things are handled better on a LOCAL level.  Most conservatives are blindly against anything that is a tax or governance without giving any credence to its merits.  The whole purpose of the Constitution and its limits on the federal government were in the interests of decentralized powers.

I repeat, decentralized POWERS.  That isn't to say that no government whatsoever has the right to control certain aspects of society which individuals (whom I believe need to be protected from out of control power structures) on their own would not be able to accomplish.

It isn't an issue of no government or power structure has the right to perform certain services and directives, the main question needs to be, what LEVEL of governance is that specific issue tackled by in the most EFFICIENT and non-corruptible manner.

The problem with the federal government today is that it is so out of control huge that it attracts corruption exponentially more as its consolidated powers grow.  It is like a gravitational force, the bigger the power over the masses increases, the more special interests, elites, corporations, and the obscenely wealthy will target that power so they can hijack it.

So think about this for a minute.  Conservatives are opposed to the government having  all of these powers.  Some of these functional services of government are a necessity.   The most efficient level for them to be handled on is not Federal.  For many of them, it is not even on a State level (although our State is a fairly small one in terms of population and budget)..  When the community handles something, it is often times the best, most efficient, and least corruptible manner in which to handle things.  Not to say that our local "oligarchy" as some like to refer to it as, is not without flaw.  But take any function our City and County governments are performing and hand it off to a HIGHER power and that corruption and inefficiency only increases.  Hand it off to a smaller entity and I don't believe some of these issues (such as roads, amenities, the arena, ballpark, universities, retail developments, infill, etc.) could be handled properly by an entity smaller than say the City of Tulsa.  The goal of our Republic with limits on government to protect the individual from the tyranny of the majority and/or elite should still have a little bit of pragmatism attached to it.  We still need to see the forest from the trees.   Limit out of control power consolidation, but also realize that there is a certain level on which things NEED to be done.  Accept that sometimes things that you oppose on a Federal level should be SUPPORTED on a local one.

Just because you are a conservative and oppose BIG things doesn't mean that you can't anchor your sentiments and realize that some things are a necessity and getting them done on a local level is absolutely the most efficient and effective way to get things done for the betterment of the community.

This is why I can both oppose the out of control Federal government and also appreciate the fact that the BOK Center has been a good thing for Tulsa County.

Blake, you pretty much just won the thread. 

+ eleventy billion.

I think the recent hotel openings have to be attributed to the arena and the new entertainment downtown.  I do not feel like there is an influx of business to downtown (especially with the economic downturn) to warrant the investment in the holiday in and courtyard.  It is kind of interesting the investment in downtown in Tulsa is starting to transform it into something better, like a place people actually go.  I also think things are too spread out.  Blue dome is the only location besides elote that is open at night.  (Elote gets all that hotel business by themselves).  I am suprised by the concerts that have come through.  Hopefully I will be suprised by the WNBA attendance.  Even of we argue the arena won't pay for itself now.  It's effects are obviously generating investment in downtown and places for people to spend money.  Which means more tax revenue even if there is no event.

Good post Blake.

Quote from: JoeMommaBlake on June 06, 2010, 12:41:51 AM
This is the most fun thread I've read on this forum in some time. I miss the good old days of healthy TulsaNow debate...back before the admins booted all the a-holes off. Am I the only one who misses them, or just the only one who visits this site to be entertained first, informed second?

Yes, you are.  The forum was dying.  Way back when, the debate was healthy, but the a-holes poisoned it.  Booting those guys was necessary or none of these latest threads could exist.  Well, they could exist, but they'd devolve before normal thoughtful posters bothered to join.  All the discussion of the latest developments downtown?  We're taking honest looks at what might work and what won't--but who would bother if FOTD was still around sh*tting on every single one?

Back to regularly scheduled thread (and yes, you're 100% correct about the arena location).

Back to regularly scheduled thread (and yes, you're 100% correct about the arena location).

I'm probably in the minority but I like the location of the arena. Especially on the NEW east bound section of the IDL. That spot as you're heading south towards the bridge is a spectacular view of the city skyline and the BOK only adds to that. Yeah, it's a good walk to the other entertainment districts but hopefully with a healthy DT and new infill it won't seem that way in the future.

I'm probably in the minority but I like the location of the arena. Especially on the NEW east bound section of the IDL. That spot as you're heading south towards the bridge is a spectacular view of the city skyline and the BOK only adds to that. Yeah, it's a good walk to the other entertainment districts but hopefully with a healthy DT and new infill it won't seem that way in the future.

Blake, I appreciate your thoughtful response, and I think you're onto something with your three-way division of Tulsans. In fact, I think it's reflected in the PLANiTULSA survey from 2008, where midtown and south Tulsans -- your groups A and B -- generally felt that their views were represented in the planning process, while north, west, and east Tulsans -- group C -- feel disenfranchised.

I think your description of group C is lacking. These people do love Tulsa, but perhaps they love it for different reasons than you do. Mostly they love it because it's home. They grew up here or somewhere nearby. The people they grew up with are here.  They do spend money with local businesses, but it may be the neighborhood barbecue joint where they can eat for $5 a head instead of some high-class midtown bistro where they'll get less food for three times the price (and feel out of place, to boot). I'm not sure how their neighborhood pride is any different than group A's downtown/midtown pride. Are group A people blameworthy because they don't take pride in Tower Heights or Red Fork?

They want city government to handle its basic responsibilities for public safety and infrastructure without digging deeper into their pockets. They aren't interested in being forced to subsidize the lifestyle of group A, especially when it seems that group A is making a lot more money than they are. They will only vote for such a proposition if they're convinced it will somehow generate jobs or bring in more tax dollars to pay for those basic services. That's how the arena was sold to enough of group C to pass -- that plus logrolling it with higher ed projects and downplaying it in the ad campaign. However warm and fuzzy the arena makes group A people feel, it hasn't created manufacturing or engineering jobs -- jobs that bring in far more new money to the local economy than tourism or entertainment ever will. And the best way for Tulsa to have turned that $200 million into better infrastructure and parks and public safety would have been to apply it directly to infrastructure and parks and public safety. The arena is a loser for the people in group C.

I don't buy the idea that the BOK Center made downtown's new hotels viable. The Courtyard and the old/new Holiday Inn fill a niche in the mid-range business hotel market, something previously unavailable downtown. Notice that investors chose to overhaul a couple of old buildings in the downtown core, with all their challenges and idiosyncrasies, rather than build a new hotel on bare ground right across the street from the arena with taxpayer assistance.

Now, regarding Blue Dome's fate had the BOK Center not been built, I think you sell yourself and your fellow entrepreneurs short. Blue Dome already had the kind of momentum and critical mass that districts like Cherry Street and Brookside had experienced years earlier -- without the aid of a major attraction. If you hadn't come to the Blue Dome District, someone else would have. If anything, Blue Dome's existence adds to the value of the BOK Center: An evening at a minor league hockey game is more appealing because it can be combined with a Joe Momma's cuban sandwich or sweet potato fries at McNellie's. Yes, there have been business failures in Blue Dome, just as there have been in Tulsa's other entertainment districts. (Think of all the changes Leon's has been through in the last few years.) But enough people are used to coming to Blue Dome for dining and entertainment that a new business has a shot at capturing some of the market that's already there. I'm sure that BOK and PAC events bring in business, but I've also seen Joe Momma's and McNellie's packed on nights when no events are scheduled. The Blue Dome District is an attraction in its own right.

Finally, you all are entitled to your feelings about the BOK Center, but it strikes me as sad that you'd rank a building designed by an out-of-towner, reusing elements he used in other cities (like the iconic glass wall on the PAC in Dayton, Ohio), filled with events that hundreds of other cities have, as cooler than one-of-a-kind places like Joe Momma's. I can imaging an out-of-towner envying Tulsa for McNellie's beer selection, the friendly vibe  and great coffee at Shades of Brown, or the history and atmosphere of Cain's Ballroom. It's people like Blake Ewing, Elliott Nelson, Melinda Borum, Cheri Asher, Brian Franklin, Scott Smith, Jim and Alice Rodgers, Mary Beth Babcock, along with earlier generations of entrepreneurs who make Tulsa cool in ways that no other city can duplicate.

I'll have to address the rest of Blake's points another time; there's laundry to do.

What you're missing is that the BOK Center (more correctly, the acts that play there) is what initially brings people into town, not Blue Dome, Brookside, or Cherry Street. Once they're here, we have a chance to capture their business and, if we're lucky, impress them enough to make them want to come back.

Also, I don't see how you can handwave away the impact that major events have on hotel occupancy, and therefore the economics of opening a new hotel.

Quote from: nathanm on June 08, 2010, 03:46:25 PM
What you're missing is that the BOK Center (more correctly, the acts that play there) is what initially brings people into town, not Blue Dome, Brookside, or Cherry Street. Once they're here, we have a chance to capture their business and, if we're lucky, impress them enough to make them want to come back.

I could be wrong, but I don't think he's denying any of that.
I think he's saying that the number of people that the BOK center brings in + the business it generates + the entertainment it provides isn't worth the startup cost.

Quote from: MichaelBates on June 04, 2010, 08:33:08 PM
The people of Tulsa were not given a straight up or down vote on an arena in 2003, despite calls at the time to have it stand on its own. It was packaged with money for area colleges and school districts, all lumped together as "economic development."

Over the years, the Chamber has tried to sell voters on the idea that spending money on convention centers and arenas will mean more dollars available for government services. (I seem to recall a billboard campaign to that effect.) But that argument only works if the incremental increase in tax revenue generated by a facility exceeds the tax money devoted to building it and running it. Otherwise, the smarter investment would have been to put the money directly into streets, public safety, and education.

And every town in Tulsa County benefitted multiple times with new facilities, as did our local colleges.  I didn't like the nature of the tax initially, but how can anyone argue with how much it's done to improve the cityscape and the uh countyscape?

Quote from: Conan71 on June 08, 2010, 04:11:50 PM
And every town in Tulsa County benefitted multiple times with new facilities, as did our local colleges.  I didn't like the nature of the tax initially, but how can anyone argue with how much it's done to improve the cityscape and the uh countyscape?

Denial isn't just a river.

Quote from: Conan71 on June 08, 2010, 04:11:50 PM
but how can anyone argue with how much it's done to improve the cityscape and the uh countyscape?

He is arguing because he spent so much time (and political capital) arguing it was going to be an complete failure and he turned out to be very wrong.

So now he's shifting his argument to one that admits the project's success, but now argues that the cost wasn't worth the success.

Quote from: JoeMommaBlake on June 06, 2010, 12:41:51 AM
My two cents:

There are a few different types of people in Tulsa

C. Everybody else. These folks live here for some reason or another. They don't really care about any of this stuff. They just want to go to work, come home, watch some TV, and go to the lake on the weekend. They may occasionally complain about roads or road construction, and they care about police only when they get a ticket or when they are a victim of a crime. Other than that, they don't care...and that's okay. As for pride? They may care more about the Sooners or Cowboys than they do about Tulsa. Tulsa's just a place to live. It suits them fine. They may like their neighbors or their church or their kids' teams, and they may even go downtown to a BOK event, but those things are all just a part of life and they don't connect their emotions for those things to their emotions for Tulsa. They may even be more likely to be proud of their specific neighborhood than they are of Tulsa as a city.

I know those are broad generalizations, but you get the picture...

Yes Blake, those are broad generalizations.  
And I think the majority of folks in group "C" would consider those generalizations to be a little condescending.

These people are just as "Tulsan" as anyone in this city.

Many of these people are lifelong Tulsans.  Many of them are older.  Quite a few of them are veterans and ex-military.  They've been around the block a time or two... and I like drinking with some of them at a Sweatin' Bullets concert every bit as much as I like hittin' up Blue Dome or Brady or Cherry Street or Brookside....

I would point out that the closer Tulsa County voters lived to the river, the more likely they were to vote for the river tax.  Simple, eh?  Let's not forget that there were "aginners" in south Tulsa and midtown.  And there were supporters in east Tulsa and north Tulsa.

If Kathy Taylor knew anything about this city, she could have made the river tax a citywide tax-- and it would have passed.  For it to pass countywide, she could have tried to make George Kaiser's generous donations into something that benefited more of Tulsa than just making sure the Arkansas River "has water in it."

How 'bout making sure McClure Park's pool "has water in it?"
How 'bout making sure an ably staffed police force can get to the scene of a crime faster than typical pizza delivery?

The people in "group C" consider their lives and safety and the education of their children and grandchildren to be more important than subsidized downtown luxury lofts and mixed use development.... and they logically resent the political chest-thumping of downtown-only supporters and their patricians in the local pol bureaucratic merry-go-round and the private patronage sector.

They resent having their tax money used to dismantle their neighborhood's playground equipment in favor of a three-hole golf course.... they resent having their tax money used to fund the construction of a BMX park in their neighborhood in which none of the local kids skateboard.... they resent having to choose between a limo-liberal and a Southern Hills republican for mayor.... they believe rivers should be used for canoeing, swimming, camping, boating and fishing... and not as a backdrop for jogging....

They were just as angry, if not angrier.... than anyone from south Tulsa or midtown about the dismantling of Bells Amusement Park.  They have traditionally considered downtown to be highly unwelcoming and are more likely to choose a $5 Little Caesars pepperoni and a six-pack of Coors over a JoeMamma's specialty pizza and a couple of Marshalls'.... this doesn't make them any less "Tulsan" than anybody else, including those posting on this forum.... they will proudly choose Oklahoma BBQ over Phat Philly's, Tulsa-style chicken fried steak over downtown quiche, and the White River Fish Market over hipster sushi.... and I see more OU and OSU flags and bumper stickers in midtown and off Cherry St. than I do in Turley....

And being an older demographic, those I have spoken with are largely supportive of my efforts at bringing back the Roughnecks to the old ballpark at the fairgrounds.... it makes more sense to them than having the county tear it down the same way they did to Bells.... and a few were unsurprised to hear about the Murph-------cough, cough... er, uh... the fairgrounds' hardball tactics on lease terms for a pro soccer team...... and there's also a younger hispanic demographic in group "C" that likes this idea, too... ooops, spoke too much.... how much for one of those vintage Roughnecks t-shirts?  ;D

Interesting how building and or widening more and more roads and intersections, in South Tulsa to build Mc Mansions and strip malls is seen as,,, I dont know, free perhaps?  But redeveloping older buildings like the Mayo (where the roads already exist)  into "luxury lofts" is a "subsidy"?  Encouraging mixed use, pedestrian/mass transit friendly, density so that people dont have to drive as much or as far is seen as inefficient?

When taxpayers dollars go to the status quoe, suburban lifestyle development its fine.  But when taxpayers want, what is really a small share of that pie, to go to support urban lifestyle development, its wasteful and suspect?

People in downtown and mid-town dont scream bloody murder every time millions are spent to build and or rehabilitate, residential streets.  It seems to just happen naturally and urban development is something out of the ordinary you have to ask, fight and beg for. But think about how many "homes" or how many streets are not having to be built or maintained with the addition of the residences in the Mayo Hotel and Mayo Building (plus the hotel and other businesses in them).  Its money going to help residences get built versus more streets getting built. One persons subsidy may be anothers necessity lol. You all dont need those expensive roads in South Tulsa anyway, isnt that what you all have those fancy SUV's for?  ;)

Jeff, I think everyone realizes Mayor Taylor had Mr. Kaiser's ear.

I'm still curious how such a sharp businesswoman and businessman would have made such a gross miscalculation in believing that this could only happen county-wide so she deferred to Randi Miller of all people. I'd always heard Mr. Kaiser approached the county first with the offer of his donation but your comments make me wonder why the city did not try to take the lead on the River Tax.

In hindsight, if we would have approved that tax, the road projects funding would have never happened and we sure as heck wouldn't have the ability to raise sales taxes very easily for other public safety and infrastructure needs.   

The NCAA tournament coming next year is a big deal too.  I wonder how many out of towners we will have in downtown Tulsa around the Bock Center?

Wow, lots to address. I'll do my best to respond to each of the comments.

QuoteI think your description of group C is lacking. These people do love Tulsa, but perhaps they love it for different reasons than you do. Mostly they love it because it's home. They grew up here or somewhere nearby. The people they grew up with are here.  They do spend money with local businesses, but it may be the neighborhood barbecue joint where they can eat for $5 a head instead of some high-class midtown bistro where they'll get less food for three times the price (and feel out of place, to boot). I'm not sure how their neighborhood pride is any different than group A's downtown/midtown pride. Are group A people blameworthy because they don't take pride in Tower Heights or Red Fork?

If it sounded like I was suggesting that group C didn't love Tulsa, I apologize. I just don't see how you're getting that. Just because they don't care about where the arena is doesn't mean they don't love Tulsa. They love Tulsa for different reasons than I do? Because it's home? It's my home too. I grew up here, too. I grew up with people who are here. I spend money at my neighborhood BBQ joint, though it always costs more than $5 (I need to know your BBQ joint, I guess). I don't eat at high-class midtown bistros. I'm proud of my local neighborhood and of another local neighborhood in which I own some property. What reasons do you think I love Tulsa?

I also didn't mean to make any assertions as to where these folks live. I said Groups A and B tend to live in Midtown and South Tulsa respectively, but didn't mean to insinuate that Group C folks can't also live in those same areas. There are Group C people living in my midtown neighborhood. My point is that there are people who live in Tulsa who are just doing life without any major opinions about the details of the city unless something directly and immediately affects them. I don't understand why Michael would ask if group A is to blame for not caring about Red Fork. Did I insinuate that there was something wrong with Group C for caring about their specific neighborhood? I think you guys are reading me wrong. Group C is just fine with me. They make up the majority of Tulsans. They work, they play, they do their thing in town and they're happy. They aren't logging on to any message boards to chat about Tulsa. They're just going about life the way most people do. That's all. I've read back over what I originally wrote a few times and still can't figure out what JeffM thinks is condescending. I didn't say there was anything wrong with that group or that there was anything wrong with caring more about OU and OSU than about the details of what happens in Tulsa. It's what I expect out of most people, frankly. After reading your post, I assure you that you and I aren't talking about the same people. The people you described have opinions about the details. Parks, rivers, soccer, etc. all matter to the folks in your group. So, let's call Jeff's group...group D. Done.

QuoteThey want city government to handle its basic responsibilities for public safety and infrastructure without digging deeper into their pockets. They aren't interested in being forced to subsidize the lifestyle of group A, especially when it seems that group A is making a lot more money than they are. They will only vote for such a proposition if they're convinced it will somehow generate jobs or bring in more tax dollars to pay for those basic services. That's how the arena was sold to enough of group C to pass -- that plus logrolling it with higher ed projects and downplaying it in the ad campaign. However warm and fuzzy the arena makes group A people feel, it hasn't created manufacturing or engineering jobs -- jobs that bring in far more new money to the local economy than tourism or entertainment ever will. And the best way for Tulsa to have turned that $200 million into better infrastructure and parks and public safety would have been to apply it directly to infrastructure and parks and public safety. The arena is a loser for the people in group C.

Are you suggesting that The Arena was built to accommodate the lifestyle of group A? I think you're way off. Have you been to a BOK event? I beg you to come downtown and hang out next time there's a BOK concert. Also, the Group C you guys are describing...some sort of lower-middle class redneck group that refuses to eat at bistros (which is not how I intended to categorize them)...that's who goes to Oilers and Talons games....at The BOK Center. They always seem really really happy to be there.

As for the suggestion that spending $200 Million on parks and public safety would've done more to bring engineering jobs to Tulsa...I'm super confused. Are there engineering firms out there begging for better parks? Are there corporations passing Tulsa by for other cities because our crime rate is too high and our grass is too tall at out city parks?

All I hear about is conventions choosing other cities over ours because our downtown doesn't have the entertainment and hotel options that other cities have. I hear about companies caring about a city having enough night-life and urban residential to appeal to their young employees and that they consider those types of things when looking for a place to locate....I don't hear anything about parks. In fact, the last time we had an opportunity to improve our largest park, the one adjacent to our largest natural resource and that touches west Tulsa, south Tulsa, and midtown, the majority of our area's public said "no thanks." It could be argued that the momentum from that investment, combined with positive things already happening in Tulsa, would've accelerated the positive infill to a whole new level.

QuoteNow, regarding Blue Dome's fate had the BOK Center not been built, I think you sell yourself and your fellow entrepreneurs short. Blue Dome already had the kind of momentum and critical mass that districts like Cherry Street and Brookside had experienced years earlier -- without the aid of a major attraction. If you hadn't come to the Blue Dome District, someone else would have. If anything, Blue Dome's existence adds to the value of the BOK Center: An evening at a minor league hockey game is more appealing because it can be combined with a Joe Momma's cuban sandwich or sweet potato fries at McNellie's. Yes, there have been business failures in Blue Dome, just as there have been in Tulsa's other entertainment districts. (Think of all the changes Leon's has been through in the last few years.) But enough people are used to coming to Blue Dome for dining and entertainment that a new business has a shot at capturing some of the market that's already there. I'm sure that BOK and PAC events bring in business, but I've also seen Joe Momma's and McNellie's packed on nights when no events are scheduled. The Blue Dome District is an attraction in its own right.

Michael. I respectfully disagree with a good amount of that. I'm not selling anyone short. I love the Blue Dome and think we've come in to our own. I'm very proud of our little district and am optimistic that it will one day soon be Tulsa's best place to eat, shop, and play. I know what was done before the arena and some of it (McNellies) was indeed special. It wouldn't, however, be what it is today without help. Steve Kitchell's stuff was there (may they rest in peace), Goodfellas (sniff), 1974, Outlaws Ranch, etc. The Blue Dome was a club district...a kinda sketchy one. It was only significant because it allowed for multiple club developments in concentration with much cheaper rent than anywhere else. Those busineses turned over all the time and had the cops called out every weekend. There were shootings and even an unfortunate death. Comparing that Blue Dome to the one that exists today...the one with Lee's Bikes, Fleet Feet, Boomtown Tees, Dwelling Spaces, Joe Momma's, El Guapos, The Dilly Deli, Yokozuna, Blue Dome Diner, The Dust Bowl, Enso, Flytrap Music Hall, IDL Ballroom, Candy Bar, Dirty's, etc. is crazy. Seriously. Not even close. You say if I hadn't come down here, someone else would've. Who is that, I ask? I've been downtown a year and a half and until the last 6 months, the only new businesses in the Blue Dome District to open other than The Flytrap were Elliot's. Businesses haven't been rushing down to the Blue Dome District until very recently.

So...lastly. Let's look at the economic impact of the BOK center as a falling domino. You're right if you need the next domino in the line to be the end all. I, however, believe there's a long line of them waiting to fall. We need that big one to fall, so that the next one can fall and then the next and then the next. There's been talk on this thread about McClure park and jobs and streets and cops, etc. A Tulsa with an arena is more likely to be able to provide those things. . . not for any direct reasons, but rather for some notable indirect ones. Arenas contribute to the attractiveness of a city for businesses looking to locate jobs. Arenas attract people from rural  areas to the city where they spend money in hotels and restaurants, therefore generating sales tax revenue. Arenas help people to be proud of their city in ways they weren't before. They keep people here for events and concerts instead of allowing them to visit nearby cities.

I'm lucky. I have a wonderful vantage point. I get to meet people face to face every time we have an arena event. They come in smiling. They even leave smiling sometimes... :) They tell me how incredible it is that The American Idol tour, or Paul McCartney, or PBR, or Neal Diamond is in Tulsa. They love this. They aren't just mid-towners. These are people from all around. People from Bartlesville regularly come to downtown to spend their cash. This is not the issue you want to be right on. It's all I'm saying. You have too notable a voice, Michael. You've earned the right for your opinion to matter to a large audience. What value is it to Tulsa to continue to work to discredit the merits of The BOK Center? I don't understand why you would keep fighting this battle. What's the value of convincing us that the arena was a bad idea? So we won't vote on another one? So we won't buy the lie that large projects like that can be good for the city? Can someone give me an example of a large city that practices sound government, keeps taxes low, provides no frills, no bells and whistles, just runs a nice solid efficient government and focuses on parks and public safety? Can someone give me an example of an American city that's growing, that's wonderful and beautiful and clean with smooth streets and water-filled pools...but that spends no money on attractional items?

The buzz-worthy cities in America over the last five years, Austin, Portland, Denver, Scottsdale, etc. all have something in common and it's not a tidy efficient low tax government or a renewed focus on parks. It's that they foster a largely desirable way of life by investing creatively into their city. Man, I sound like a Democrat right now... My apologies. I promise I don't mean to. Their govt. works in tandem with entrepreneurs and developers to continue to create very attractive places for people to be.

Our arena is an important color on the canvas. It's making people believe in a more vibrant and colorful Tulsa and one can't put a value on that.

No more long posts from me. Sorry 'bout that.

I just heard your new ad on the radio today about the local economy Blake..  Were you inspired by this thread to make it or has it been playing before today?

Quote from: JoeMommaBlake on June 09, 2010, 01:14:21 AM

No more long posts from me. Sorry 'bout that.

Another well written post.
JoeMammaBlake for Mayor!

QuoteI just heard your new ad on the radio today about the local economy Blake..  Were you inspired by this thread to make it or has it been playing before today?

It's been running for a while. I'm just not creative enough to have more than a few soap boxes to stand on.
:)

Thanks for the kind words, BK. Not sure I'm up for being the mayor just yet. That just doesn't look like a fun job to me right now.

Quote from: JoeMommaBlake on June 09, 2010, 01:14:21 AM
You have too notable a voice, Michael. You've earned the right for your opinion to matter to a large audience. What value is it to Tulsa to continue to work to discredit the merits of The BOK Center? I don't understand why you would keep fighting this battle. What's the value of convincing us that the arena was a bad idea? So we won't vote on another one? So we won't buy the lie that large projects like that can be good for the city? Can someone give me an example of a large city that practices sound government, keeps taxes low, provides no frills, no bells and whistles, just runs a nice solid efficient government and focuses on parks and public safety? Can someone give me an example of an American city that's growing, that's wonderful and beautiful and clean with smooth streets and water-filled pools...but that spends no money on attractional items?

The buzz-worthy cities in America over the last five years, Austin, Portland, Denver, Scottsdale, etc. all have something in common and it's not a tidy efficient low tax government or a renewed focus on parks. It's that they foster a largely desirable way of life by investing creatively into their city. Man, I sound like a Democrat right now... My apologies. I promise I don't mean to. Their govt. works in tandem with entrepreneurs and developers to continue to create very attractive places for people to be.

Our arena is an important color on the canvas. It's making people believe in a more vibrant and colorful Tulsa and one can't put a value on that.

No more long posts from me. Sorry 'bout that.

Michael and Blake, thank you both for taking the time to write well-reasoned posts.  Michael, with all due respect, I think you are still approaching the impact of the BOK Center from a hypothetical point of view whereas Blake has seen on a nightly basis what the BOK means to his business. 

Prior to V-2025 passing in 2003, the Blue Dome was hardly "vibrant".  Arnie's had relocated there due to a tiff with the landlord on Cherry St.  At that time you had Arnie's, the pawn shop to the east, and I think Route 66 diner, plus Kitchell's various clubs and about anyone else David Sharp and Michael Sager could attract with cheap rent, in other words, not tennants with staying power. It was a sketchy area.  McNellie's did not open until 2004.  I'd love for Nelson to chime in and give some perspective as to whether or not the V-2025 projects weighed on him to bank so heavily on the Blue Dome in subsequent investments.

You are going to be hard-pressed to find a more recent business owner in the downtown area who will say the BOK Center and V-2025 improvements (Mayo included) didn't weigh on their decision to locate downtown.  Those businesses become the collection points of new revenue and are truly the payback for creating an arena.  I think it shows an overall pride in the area we would not have seen with our crumbling civic center.  Speaking of, civic centers have been a part of human culture ever since man decided to live in communities together.

QuotePrior to V-2025 passing in 2003, the Blue Dome was hardly "vibrant".  Arnie's had relocated there due to a tiff with the landlord on Cherry St.  At that time you had Arnie's, the pawn shop to the east, and I think Route 66 diner, plus Kitchell's various clubs and about anyone else David Sharp and Michael Sager could attract with cheap rent, in other words, not tennants with staying power. It was a sketchy area.  McNellie's did not open until 2004.  I'd love for Nelson to chime in and give some perspective as to whether or not the V-2025 projects weighed on him to bank so heavily on the Blue Dome in subsequent investments.

You are going to be hard-pressed to find a more recent business owner in the downtown area who will say the BOK Center and V-2025 improvements (Mayo included) didn't weigh on their decision to locate downtown.  Those businesses become the collection points of new revenue and are truly the payback for creating an arena.  I think it shows an overall pride in the area we would not have seen with our crumbling civic center.  Speaking of, civic centers have been a part of human culture ever since man decided to live in communities together.

Yep.

Quote from: Tulsa World
Tulsa Mayor Dewey Bartlett on Wednesday said of the BOK Center, which soon will enter its third year in business, "We've helped show the world what we're capable of, business-wise. ... We can do as good or better than anyone else in this country -- and the world."

Bolton noted that the venue is ranked one of the top in the world in ticket sales, too. Wednesday's announcement was the 77th concert and/or concert announcement made since it opened its doors.

It has since sold more than half a million tickets and raised more than $3.5 million in sales tax revenue for the city, he said.

Read more from this Tulsa World article (http://www.tulsaworld.com/scene/article.aspx?subjectid=269&articleid=20100609_371_0_TmPtyi648575)

Quote from: BKDotCom on June 09, 2010, 08:07:57 PM
It has since sold more than half a million tickets and raised more than $3.5 million in sales tax revenue for the city, he said.

So it's on track to repay the public's sales tax investment sometime around the year 2122.

Quote from: MichaelBates on June 10, 2010, 12:42:32 PM
So it's on track to repay the public's sales tax investment sometime around the year 2122.

Man, it's like you only read what you write.

Try to read some of the very informative posts about how it's not just the Arena producing positives for the city.  The Arena's helped develop areas all around inner Tulsa raising values and producing business opportunities. 

When is the streets package set to pay for itself?

Quote from: MichaelBates on June 10, 2010, 12:42:32 PM
So it's on track to repay the public's sales tax investment sometime around the year 2122.

Let it go.  Obsession is not healthy...

Quote from: MichaelBates on June 10, 2010, 12:42:32 PM
So it's on track to repay the public's sales tax investment sometime around the year 2122.

Based on current sales tax revenues, in a tough economy, not including things (like hopefully yearly NCAA tournament).  Or the other new businesses locating downtown.  Its not like you build a giant arena and then some magical fairy comes and drops off a truckload of money to the exact cost of the build within 364 days.

Quote from: MichaelBates on June 10, 2010, 12:42:32 PM
So it's on track to repay the public's sales tax investment sometime around the year 2122.

Not everything in this world has to turn a profit, you know. I'm pleased as punch that it pays for its own operating expenses and puts a few million in extra sales tax revenue in our pocket to boot. Isn't that right around what the interest is costing us?

Quote from: nathanm on June 10, 2010, 01:41:13 PM
Not everything in this world has to turn a profit, you know. I'm pleased as punch that it pays for its own operating expenses and puts a few million in extra sales tax revenue in our pocket to boot. Isn't that right around what the interest is costing us?

And the $3.5mm collected is only the arena itself.  That doesn't take into account how much more sales tax has been collected by businesses within the IDL on show and game nights.  Brookside, Cherry St. and SoBo get before and after show/game business as well. 

Quote from: Conan71 on June 10, 2010, 02:07:35 PM
And the $3.5mm collected is only the arena itself.  That doesn't take into account how much more sales tax has been collected by businesses within the IDL on show and game nights.  Brookside, Cherry St. and SoBo get before and after show/game business as well. 

Who cares.  Last time I was there the popcorn was too salty.  The BOK Center = fail.

A few replies to previous points:

* $200 million is a lot of money, and it's worth debating whether it was well spent. It's money that we might have chosen to leave in the taxpayers' pockets or put directly into basic public services -- the services we haven't been able to fully fund for years. About a third of the V2025 tax went to the arena. If that had been a city sales tax instead, it would have brought an additional $13 million a year into the general fund.

* Not everything has to turn a profit, but a public investment should return a public benefit commensurate with the investment. Good streets, safe streets, clean water, fire protection, parks all provide a direct benefit to the general public. The BOK Center doesn't provide that kind of benefit.

* So does it provide an indirect benefit that justifies the investment? It's been claimed that the BOK Center benefits the public by bringing outside dollars into Tulsa that generates revenue to pay for more basic services than we could have otherwise afforded. But the sales tax revenue and hotel/motel revenue numbers don't back up that claim.

* The other indirect benefit claimed is the revitalization of downtown, the Blue Dome District in particular. I've quoted contemporaneous accounts from 2001, 2002, and 2003 (http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=15649.msg166798#msg166798) indicating that Tulsans saw the Blue Dome as a lively, exciting place to be, before the BOK Center was even on the ballot. Certainly by the time the BOK Center opened its doors in 2008, plenty of people had found the Blue Dome District without the draw of a BOK Center event to get them into the neighborhood. In 2006, two young writers from the LA Times declared their Tulsa experience in the Blue Dome District as "perhaps the crowning experience" of a cross-country road trip. You may remember tumbleweeds rolling down Elgin the week before the Eagles concert, but written, contemporaneous descriptions contradict your memory.

* It seems silly to talk about an occasional 18,000-seat sellout as a draw to help businesses develop downtown, when DFEST drew 70,000 last year, downtown churches draw well over 10,000 every Sunday, TCC's downtown campus has 6,700 students, and enough people come downtown to work every day to fill the BOK Center at least twice over. (See the Trust for Public Land's stats (http://www.tpl.org/tier3_cd.cfm?content_item_id=6280&folder_id=673).) The 1st Street exit alone was carrying 4,200 cars a day (http://www.cityoftulsa.org/media/2896/revised2007-counts_2.pdf) right to the Blue Dome District in 2006. In 2008, each leg of the IDL carried over 46,000 cars a day. The people have always been there; what was lacking was a collection of restaurants and pubs and shops to keep them around after work or church or school.

* It's important to understand what makes a city lively. If it's really mostly about interesting and affordable old buildings infused with entrepreneurial energy -- and that's the lesson I draw from the success of Brookside, Cherry Street, 18th and Boston, and Blue Dome and similar districts across the country -- then we can spend fewer tax dollars more strategically and save the rest for other purposes. I encourage you to read Cities Back from the Edge: New Life for Downtown by Roberta Brandes Gratz (http://www.nhi.org/online/issues/100/cities.html) (or at least the excerpt I've linked). Gratz contrasts the "urban husbandry" approach -- targeted public investments to enhance what private individuals are doing -- with the "project planning" approach that most cities take.

* The arena fad has created a taxpayer-funded bidding war between cities, and it leaves event promoters in a position to demand ever bigger, ever more elaborate venues on someone else's dime. Acts and tournaments that would have happily made use of an 8K-10K seat arena once upon a time can now afford to skip smaller venues because so many cities have been suckered into building big venues. The Mabee Center hosted the NCAA Midwest Regional in 1974 (the regional finals), and early round games in 1975, 1978, 1982, and 1985. Now it takes 18K seats to get looked at for 1st and 2nd round games.

* The big-project mentality feeds a mindset of helplessness. For six or seven years Tulsans heard city leaders say that Tulsa was behind the times, had nothing to offer our younger citizens, and wouldn't improve until we convinced voters to tax themselves to build a big arena. How many entrepreneurs were discouraged from launching a business downtown by that kind of talk? How many more will we discourage by saying our progress depends on dropping another $200 million on another monolithic public works project?

* Blake mentioned downtown entertainment options as an important factor for conventions. When I'm at a convention, the odds are pretty slim that I'll have free time the evening the local arena has something I'm interested in seeing. Most evenings, I'll be at dinner with potential customers or potential suppliers, attending receptions or plenary sessions. The nearby entertainment options that make a convention locale attractive are the ones that are there every night of the week -- restaurants, pubs, galleries, shopping -- places open late, where you can go to relax after the day's official events are over. A place like the Blue Dome District offers far more to visiting conventioneers than the BOK Center does.

* Cities that don't have a big publicly-funded attraction? Savannah's a good example: The draw is the historic district, and its restoration was funded largely by two private entities (plus scores of individuals): The Historic Savannah Foundation and the Savannah College of Art and Design. The main thing government did to help was to stop demolishing history for public buildings, to turn down urban renewal money (voted down three times), and to approve zoning that protects historic buildings and streetscapes. There is a new convention center, but it came online in 2001, after Savannah had already become world-renowned thanks to Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil (1994). Even that book and the 1997 movie owes their existence and appeal to Savannah's historic district. If you have an interesting, beautiful city, and you protect what makes it interesting and beautiful, people will want to find a reason to visit. The biggest urban mistakes I saw in Savannah involved government-funded efforts that destroyed distinctive buildings, neighborhoods, and public spaces to try to make Savannah more like other "modern" cities for the sake of "economic development." Savannah finally gave up that game sometime in the 1980s before too much damage was done.

* Yes, I believe the BOK Center is a public subsidy for the lifestyles of Groups A and B. Blake mentioned the Talons and the Oilers. We already had a place for those teams to play and so far every crowd they've drawn to the BOK Center would have comfortably fit in the old arena. Nearly all of the special events that the BOK Center  has hosted would have fit in the old Convention Center arena or the Mabee Center. What's left are a small number of big concerts. The taxpayers spent $200 million to give people with enough disposable income the opportunity to drop $50 or more a ticket for a couple of hours of entertainment by touring nostalgia acts. Had we spent that money on pools (among other things), many more kids around Tulsa would have the chance for many more hours of entertainment this summer for a negligible admission fee.

Michael, PM me your address and I will mail you a check for $332 to buy out your share of the BOK Center if you are so unhappy about it. I'll even add whatever you figure the debt service cost you will undoubtedly calculate out. I'm sure a couple of other members will be happy to buy out your wife and kids shares.

I've been to exactly one concert there, Dave Matthews. I would have spent money outside the Tulsa economy to go see him in KC, Dallas, or ABQ otherwise. I've not utilized the BOK and I'm perfectly happy it's here. I like the civic pride it's brought in that's why I'm making this offer- so that perhaps you will quit complaining about it.

Road repairs are coming, to my knowledge there's been no massive crime wave after losing the police officers and more people aren't dying in fires. I also disagree with BD being "vibrant" in 2002 unless I were to count kitchell's transient business model typified by plywood, lots of crappy paint and low lighting. How many of those places you cited still exist?  Yep life was coming back to downtown but it wasn't as sustainable as it is
now.

Quote from: Conan71 on June 10, 2010, 09:51:36 PM
Michael, PM me your address and I will mail you a check for $332 to buy out your share of the BOK Center if you are so unhappy about it. I'll even add whatever you figure the debt service cost you will undoubtedly calculate out. I'm sure a couple of other members will be happy to buy out your wife and kids shares.

I've been to exactly one concert there, Dave Matthews. I would have spent money outside the Tulsa economy to go see him in KC, Dallas, or ABQ otherwise. I've not utilized the BOK and I'm perfectly happy it's here. I like the civic pride it's brought in that's why I'm making this offer- so that perhaps you will quit complaining about it.

Road repairs are coming, to my knowledge there's been no massive crime wave after losing the police officers and more people aren't dying in fires. I also disagree with BD being "vibrant" in 2002 unless I were to count kitchell's transient business model typified by plywood, lots of crappy paint and low lighting. How many of those places you cited still exist?  Yep life was coming back to downtown but it wasn't as sustainable as it is
now.

Conan, don't you know it's just sour grapes?  I watched him rail on the arena (and other things) during his stint writing for UT.  He railed on it before the vote, then he railed on the process that selected the architect, then he railed on the design.  I don't think anything would have swayed him then, so it's not going to sway him now.

The line in the World the night V2025 passed was telling about him and the 30 other people at a watch party for the vote no crowd.

30?  Really?  Was that all you could muster up in a county of about 600,000?  Especially in a mainly anti-progress demographic.

Hell, Conan, I'll split that with you if buying him out means he quits fishing for reasons to tell people it was wrong to build.

Tell that to Eliot, or to Blake, or to any of the current business owners downtown.

Oh, wait, he already has.  They didn't buy it, either.

Quote from: Conan71 on June 10, 2010, 09:51:36 PM
Michael, PM me your address and I will mail you a check for $332 to buy out your share of the BOK Center if you are so unhappy about it. I'll even add whatever you figure the debt service cost you will undoubtedly calculate out. I'm sure a couple of other members will be happy to buy out your wife and kids shares.

I've been to exactly one concert there, Dave Matthews. I would have spent money outside the Tulsa economy to go see him in KC, Dallas, or ABQ otherwise. I've not utilized the BOK and I'm perfectly happy it's here. I like the civic pride it's brought in that's why I'm making this offer- so that perhaps you will quit complaining about it.

Road repairs are coming, to my knowledge there's been no massive crime wave after losing the police officers and more people aren't dying in fires. I also disagree with BD being "vibrant" in 2002 unless I were to count kitchell's transient business model typified by plywood, lots of crappy paint and low lighting. How many of those places you cited still exist?  Yep life was coming back to downtown but it wasn't as sustainable as it is
now.

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 (http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=15649.msg166370#msg166370):

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

Let me try to re-make my point that I tried to make earlier in the thread.  Maybe I didn't get it across clearly.  And this is aimed at mainly the conservative types like Bates who are still opposing V2025 in hindsight based on its financial merits.

If you truly believe that amenities for the community are a waste of money because they don't pay dividends (Like buying a TV that doesn't spit out dollar bills from a slot every time you watch it) - so be it.  What I am worried has happened to your thought process on the whole matter is that you have applied the same opinions of government spending efficacy to the local level as you have formed about the Federal government.  They aren't the same.  Being one of those people who believes in dramatically reducing the size of the federal government, I can sympathize with your position - I just think you may be clouded by your understanding of federal waste.

Let me run some numbers here, and I am going to use the following rounded numbers to simplify things:

Tulsa County Population: Approximately 600,000

United States Population: Approximately 300,000,000

Tulsa County = 1/500th of the United States population

Estimated FY2011 Federal Budget expenditures: $3.8 trillion ($3,800,000,000,000.00)

Ignoring the "who pays what in taxes" and "donor state" arguments, we can break down the Tulsa County's share of the Federal spending forced on them at 1/500th of $3.8 trillion (annually)

Tulsa County's share of the federal spending:  $7.6 billion anually

For each citizen of Tulsa County that spending burden is $12,666.66 anually

The BOK center's cost is approx $200,000,000 (Not getting into every odd & end here)

The BOK center is being paid for by folks in Tulsa County over a period of 13 years through a sales tax.

$200,000,000 / 600,000 = $333 per citizen / 13 years = $25 anually

Just triple these for the approximate total for all of V2025 ($1,000 / $75 anually)

......

Amortized over 13 years thru V2025, the cost of the BOK Center amounts to roughly 1/500th of what is being asked of each citizen to send off to Washington at its current level.

Now, let's look at what Federal government was like 10 years ago.

FY2001 Federal Budget: $1.9 Trillion

The last budget submitted by President Bill Clinton was 1/2 of what is now being submitted by Obama.  Was the Federal government too small in 2001?

Just with the savings by cutting federal expenditures in half, we could build 250 BOK CENTERS OVER 13 YEARS or one every 2.7 weeks.

My point being, our local spending squabbles are minuscule in comparison to the federal spending behemoth we are faced with.  Yet when we invest locally, we get direct benefits, much more-so than sending dollars to Washington.  If our federal spending burden were reduced by just 12%, we could have Vision2025 x 10 while at the same time enjoy a cut in government spending.  (12% reduction from $12,666.66 burden = $1500 savings = 20 X the Vision2025 spending burden)

Your fight isn't with the community, it is with Washington.  And if Washington makes it harder on us to raise monies of our own to use on the community, it isn't a reason to just give up on the community.

Quote from: MichaelBates on June 10, 2010, 10:41:18 PM
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 (http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=15649.msg166370#msg166370):

"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.

:o

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.

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

Quote from: MichaelBates on June 10, 2010, 10:41:18 PM
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?

Quote from: MichaelBates on June 10, 2010, 10:41:18 PM
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.

Quote from: MichaelBates on June 10, 2010, 10:41:18 PM
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 (http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=15649.msg166370#msg166370):

"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.

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.

  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.  

Quote from: TheArtist on June 12, 2010, 06:12:55 PM
 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. 

Quote from: JoeMommaBlake on June 12, 2010, 03:37:59 PM

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.

Quote from: Conan71 on June 14, 2010, 03:06:48 PM
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.

Quote from: Hoss on June 14, 2010, 03:22:45 PM
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?