(In case a new thread is desired)
NewsChannel 8 - Share Drillers Headed Downtown NewsChannel 8 - Print Drillers Headed Downtown NewsChannel 8 - Email Drillers Headed Downtown NewsChannel 8 - RSS Feeds NewsChannel 8 - Send Drillers Headed Downtown via Instant Messager
NewsChannel 8 - Share This Article
Stay on top of breaking news! Sign up for NewsChannel 8 e-mail alerts.
Your Email:
At a Saturday morning news conference Tulsa Mayor Kathy Taylor announced an agreement between the Tulsa Drillers and the City of Tulsa.
The Drillers have agreed to move their stadium to downtown Tulsa. This decision comes after 8 months of negotiations and according to both sides of the deal, will be mutually beneficial.
NewsChannel 8 will continue to follow this developing story and release new information as it becomes available.
http://www.ktul.com/news/stories/0808/546996.html
The agreement with the Drillers contains many provisions customarily found in comparable agreements, such as safeguards for the City that include but are not limited to:
· Thirty year lease term unless BID retired earlier. Twenty year minimum term.
· City of Tulsa will have use of the ballpark for over 20 days for other events (Concerts, festivals, events, shows, etc.) during baseball season and unlimited use in the off-season for activities and events.
· Lease economic terms consistent with those outlined previously and comparable with other transactions in the Texas League and other municipalities.
· Annual capital contributions from both the Drillers and the Trust to support long-term maintenance of the ballpark.
· An obligation that the Drillers play all seasons required under the lease and a right of first offer in the event of a sale of the team.
· Revenue sharing with the Trust for non-baseball events and participation in the growth in baseball attendance.
Awesome! Play ball! My attendance at Drillers games will definitely increase when they're downtown.
I just hope that Brady and Blue Dome can stay funky, local, and artsy, despite all the new development that will occur around them.
I told Michael I would go to my first baseball game.... if its downtown at the new stadium lol.
Pen & Paper have not met each other yet
Very good news
You all know I am very pro-ballpark.
But I want to point out what this is: it's a power play by the Mayor to put pressure on the Council to approve her trust agreement as written. This agreement has been reached "in principle," but the only thing missing is an entity to contract with! The Council will be told that once they approve the Trust, it will be able to contract with the Drillers to form a lease. Now that this agreement has been reached in principle, why not demand a prudent, accountable, well-formed trust instrument? I hope the Council does not get swept up in KT's manufactured momentum, and demands a better plan for control and oversight of the ballpark.
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
You all know I am very pro-ballpark.
But I want to point out what this is: it's a power play by the Mayor to put pressure on the Council to approve her trust agreement as written. This agreement has been reached "in principle," but the only thing missing is an entity to contract with! The Council will be told that once they approve the Trust, it will be able to contract with the Drillers to form a lease. Now that this agreement has been reached in principle, why not demand a prudent, accountable, well-formed trust instrument? I hope the Council does not get swept up in KT's manufactured momentum, and demands a better plan for control and oversight of the ballpark.
Lobeck did remove himself from the trust so I wouldn't say it's a unchangeable list of people.
The KOTV article has lots of outstanding posts in response to their article. We certainly have our fair share of morons. [:D]
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
You all know I am very pro-ballpark.
But I want to point out what this is: it's a power play by the Mayor to put pressure on the Council to approve her trust agreement as written. This agreement has been reached "in principle," but the only thing missing is an entity to contract with! The Council will be told that once they approve the Trust, it will be able to contract with the Drillers to form a lease. Now that this agreement has been reached in principle, why not demand a prudent, accountable, well-formed trust instrument? I hope the Council does not get swept up in KT's manufactured momentum, and demands a better plan for control and oversight of the ballpark.
Couldn't have said it better.
'manufactured momemtum'....precisely
I seriously doubt this can be resolved by Thursday. Too much work involved.
One question I've yet to see answered is just how much of the IDL tax will be paid by citizens of Tulsa and Tulsa County due to the amount of land and buildings owned by the City and County?
That should be a fairly easy number to determine. So, how much is it?
The economic/civic/quality of life benefit of the ballpark should easily outweigh the total tax burden of local/county/federal properties in downtown as distributed among the populace.
quote:
Originally posted by carltonplace
The economic/civic/quality of life benefit of the ballpark should easily outweigh the total tax burden of local/county/federal properties in downtown as distributed among the populace.
! nominated for dumbest post of the year [:P]
quote:
Originally posted by MDepr2007
quote:
Originally posted by carltonplace
The economic/civic/quality of life benefit of the ballpark should easily outweigh the total tax burden of local/county/federal properties in downtown as distributed among the populace.
! nominated for dumbest post of the year [:P]
Please explain why.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
quote:
Originally posted by MDepr2007
quote:
Originally posted by carltonplace
The economic/civic/quality of life benefit of the ballpark should easily outweigh the total tax burden of local/county/federal properties in downtown as distributed among the populace.
! nominated for dumbest post of the year [:P]
Please explain why.
Why:
quote:
adverb 1. for what? for what reason, cause, or purpose?: Why did you behave so badly?
–conjunction 2. for what cause or reason: I don't know why he is leaving.
3. for which; on account of which (usually after reason to introduce a relative clause): the reason why he refused to go.
4. the reason for which: That is why he returned.
–noun 5. a question concerning the cause or reason for which something is done, achieved, etc.: a child's unending hows and whys.
6. the cause or reason: the whys and wherefores of a troublesome situation.
–interjection 7. (used as an expression of surprise, hesitation, etc., or sometimes a mere expletive): Why, it's all gone!
This is great!
Channel 6 had a story on the deal on Friday. One of the quotes caught my ear (I wish I remembered the reporter that said it).
"The new 60 million dollar ballpark is anticipated to make the city over a hundred thousand dollars in sales tax revenue."
I assume she meant "each year." That's over 1/10th of a percent yearly return.
I heard that same report. If they wanted a more positive spin they should've said:
"The new 60 million dollar ballpark and surrounding development is anticipated to make the city over a hundred thousand dollars in sales tax revenue per year."
What is your point? The new streets capital funding will return $0 on investment. In government, not everything is done with an eye toward the bottom line, it's with an eye toward quality of life. If you can reap a few hundred thousand in additional sales tax revenue, all the better.
quote:
Originally posted by TulsaSooner
What is your point? The new streets capital funding will return $0 on investment. In government, not everything is done with an eye toward the bottom line, it's with an eye toward quality of life. If you can reap a few hundred thousand in additional sales tax revenue, all the better.
The point was that the $60M is a onetime outlay so it sounded like the $100,000 was the only return instead of the fact it was annual.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
The point was that the $60M is a onetime outlay so it sounded like the $100,000 was the only return instead of the fact it was annual.
$60M in a bank account earning you 3% interest will earn you $1.8M a year.
The construction of this ballpark is going to employ quite a few workers. Those payrolls will also go into the local economy. That impact will be much greater than the $100,000 additional sales tax generated by having the facility inside the city limits.
quote:
Originally posted by TeeDub
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
The point was that the $60M is a onetime outlay so it sounded like the $100,000 was the only return instead of the fact it was annual.
$60M in a bank account earning you 3% interest will earn you $1.8M a year.
And in two years you'll have $63.6M and have to drive to Jenks to see a Drillers game.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by TeeDub
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
The point was that the $60M is a onetime outlay so it sounded like the $100,000 was the only return instead of the fact it was annual.
$60M in a bank account earning you 3% interest will earn you $1.8M a year.
And in two years you'll have $63.6M and have to drive to Jenks to see a Drillers game.
Or you could just continue to go see them at 15th and Yale.
Oh wait, neither of us bothered to see them there either... I have no idea why a new stadium would incent us to see them anyway.
quote:
Originally posted by TeeDub
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by TeeDub
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
The point was that the $60M is a onetime outlay so it sounded like the $100,000 was the only return instead of the fact it was annual.
$60M in a bank account earning you 3% interest will earn you $1.8M a year.
And in two years you'll have $63.6M and have to drive to Jenks to see a Drillers game.
Or you could just continue to go see them at 15th and Yale.
Oh wait, neither of us bothered to see them there either... I have no idea why a new stadium would incent us to see them anyway.
I was there wednesday.
And the drillers won't play the fairgrounds in 2010 no matter what anyone in city gov't does.
quote:
Originally posted by TeeDub
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
The point was that the $60M is a onetime outlay so it sounded like the $100,000 was the only return instead of the fact it was annual.
$60M in a bank account earning you 3% interest will earn you $1.8M a year.
Only problem with that is government isn't so good at saving, just collecting and spending.
quote:
Originally posted by MDepr2007
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
quote:
Originally posted by MDepr2007
quote:
Originally posted by carltonplace
The economic/civic/quality of life benefit of the ballpark should easily outweigh the total tax burden of local/county/federal properties in downtown as distributed among the populace.
! nominated for dumbest post of the year [:P]
Please explain why.
Why:
quote:
adverb 1. for what? for what reason, cause, or purpose?: Why did you behave so badly?
–conjunction 2. for what cause or reason: I don't know why he is leaving.
3. for which; on account of which (usually after reason to introduce a relative clause): the reason why he refused to go.
4. the reason for which: That is why he returned. ... et al
I ask a legitimate question about your response to carltonplace's comment, and you refuse to provide a legitimate answer.
Typical.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
I ask a legitimate question about your response to carltonplace's comment, and you refuse to provide a legitimate answer.
Typical.
Because he doesn't have one.
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
This is great!
Channel 6 had a story on the deal on Friday. One of the quotes caught my ear (I wish I remembered the reporter that said it).
"The new 60 million dollar ballpark is anticipated to make the city over a hundred thousand dollars in sales tax revenue."
I assume she meant "each year." That's over 1/10th of a percent yearly return.
Wonder what the revenue was going to be anyway after the city annexation goes into effect....
quote:
Originally posted by MDepr2007
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
This is great!
Channel 6 had a story on the deal on Friday. One of the quotes caught my ear (I wish I remembered the reporter that said it).
"The new 60 million dollar ballpark is anticipated to make the city over a hundred thousand dollars in sales tax revenue."
I assume she meant "each year." That's over 1/10th of a percent yearly return.
Wonder what the revenue was going to be anyway after the city annexation goes into effect....
Moot point, because they were going to leave one way or another; that much is pretty certain.
Fairly low, tickets aren't taxable. However, nice concessions stands, souvenir shops, restaurants and sports bars built around a stadium would be.
Let's see....$60 million for a $30 million ballpark, $100,000 in annual revenues....makes 0.167% Annual ROI. Twice that if you just count the actual ballpark, making it 0.33% Annual ROI.
But, you might catch a foul ball.
Downtown Tulsa is at that awkward, voice-cracking stage of development. I think that this stadium could send us into full blown puberty. Just pray that we come out alright.
quote:
Originally posted by wilburchannelcat
Downtown Tulsa is at that awkward, voice-cracking stage of development. I think that this stadium could send us into full blown puberty. Just pray that we come out alright.
Diversity in the works?
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Let's see....$60 million for a $30 million ballpark, $100,000 in annual revenues....makes 0.167% Annual ROI. Twice that if you just count the actual ballpark, making it 0.33% Annual ROI.
But, you might catch a foul ball.
So one person in one place built a $30M ballpark so that is what ours will be? I pointed out previously that the only minor league downtown subgrade field I can find currently under construction is spec'ed at $50M.
The stadium will almost certainly cost more than $30 million, but it will certainly not cost $60 million. Whether it's 40-20, 45-15, or 50-10, there is a significant allotment for land acquisition and control by the Stadium Trust. That's what they're driving at. This trust is being formed to do what, for instance, Global Development Partners was not able to do: build a stadium AND develop the surrounding area.
Sounds like a great plan, but the question comes back to the makeup of the trust board. Why not put representatives of the general public and the downtown property owners on the trust as well? For whatever reason, Mayor Taylor, Councilor Gomez and the rest of the interested parties are not interested in negotiating how the trust is created. They're going to force it on the rest of the City Council and leave it to the Tulsa World to call the council "naysayers" or "obstructionists" if they want to take more time to examine and debate the terms of the trust.
This is not a question of whether to build a ballpark, or whether to develop the surrounding areas. It's a question of how. Frankly, in my mind, the terms of this trust as written approach oligarchy: pay for control. I'm not saying that the wealthy "donors" have bad motives or intentions, but I'm saying it's a bad way to run a city.
And it's going to get the Mayor voted out.
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
Why not put representatives of the general public and the downtown property owners on the trust as well?
The trust may be 4 donors, the serving Mayor, a downtown property owner and one "other" since one of the donors (Lobeck) dropped out of the trust.
I haven't heard anything on what they are going to do with that remaining spot nor if the trust has changed in the last month since it was originally discussed, have you?
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
Why not put representatives of the general public and the downtown property owners on the trust as well?
The trust may be 4 donors, the serving Mayor, a downtown property owner and one "other" since one of the donors (Lobeck) dropped out of the trust.
I haven't heard anything on what they are going to do with that remaining spot nor if the trust has changed in the last month since it was originally discussed, have you?
I believe the trust is now 9 members. I was unable to find the link but I'm almost positive that's what I heard on local this morning.
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
Sounds like a great plan, but the question comes back to the makeup of the trust board. Why not put representatives of the general public and the downtown property owners on the trust as well? For whatever reason, Mayor Taylor, Councilor Gomez and the rest of the interested parties are not interested in negotiating how the trust is created.
I wouldn't say they are unwilling to change,
In fact the trust has been changed.
http://www.newson6.com/Global/story.asp?S=8898022
Time to get off the tinfoil hat brigade
Nine is a good number. 4 donors, one non-donor and the mayor to tie-break.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
Sounds like a great plan, but the question comes back to the makeup of the trust board. Why not put representatives of the general public and the downtown property owners on the trust as well? For whatever reason, Mayor Taylor, Councilor Gomez and the rest of the interested parties are not interested in negotiating how the trust is created.
I wouldn't say they are unwilling to change,
In fact the trust has been changed.
http://www.newson6.com/Global/story.asp?S=8898022
Time to get off the tinfoil hat brigade
Thanks for the link. Good to see they're negotiating. I'll be interested to see if they keep the 12 year terms for the pay-to-play members (aka "donors").
But it's not tinfoil hats, dude. It's recognitiion of the operational style of big money in this town that wants its way and is deliberately blind to constructive criticism until smacked in the face with reality. I'm not talking conspiracy--I'm talking politics. I know what a Saturday morning press conference saying, "we've got a deal if we get a trust approved NOW" is for. It's not progress, it's pressure, and I'm calling it out not to be contrarian but to be a realist.
If you and others on this forum can't see how tone-deaf City Hall's handling of this entire situation has been, I can't help you. But I'm glad to see they're coming around now to compromise and not putting the Council in an impossible position. It looked for a moment like they might.
See you at the ball game.
Sorry, but I for one believe that if people want to build a nice stadium and surrounding district, pay for 50% of it out of pocket with no hopes of return, and then take 8.5% from the people who benefit the most (Drillers) and the other 41% from the people downtown, most of which who have begged for money to be spent downtown while doing their best to hinder development and in the end the citizens get a great new place to enjoy and it didn't cost them one dime? I think they can put The Rothchilds, The Getty, The Queen, and Colonel Sanders on the board if they want to.
I don't get what the complaint is about the stadium and trust now. The trust term length is also being shortened if you read the article. More downtown property owners are being added, the mayors husband will not be on the board despite giving over $2 million dollars to the project.
I understand that there are hurt feelings over the Novus project, but all they had was a deal to negotiate, there was no real agreement to buy the land yet. And since the scope of development in the area was changing so radically I still say it was a good idea to step back and look at the whole area and what development is possible in the area around the stadium before making a deal with Novus. I think Novus would have had a good chance of seeing their project go forward once that reassessment had happened if they had been patient and cooperative, but instead they threw a hissy fit which in the end is only going to guarantee that they have no chance of ever getting a deal done with the city or the stadium authority anywhere, ever. Suing over conflicts of interest with donors (not investors, donors) to a city trust and filing injunctions to enforce an agreement to "exclusively negotiate" don't just border on the inane.
What they should have done is held a press conference to say that they understood the need to step back and look at what the area around the stadium needs and that they looked forward to working with the trust and hoped that their early recognition of the possibilities for development in the area would give them first position to be able to participate in that development. They should have said that they were very willing to adapt and even expand their planned development in order to take full advantage of the new possibilities now available with a stadium next door. They could have talked with the mayor and have stood with her and Chuck Lamson at the press conference saying they were the first developer that wanted to take advantage of the stadium and want to help rebuild downtown. Taylor is wanting to say that the stadium will help with revitalizing downtown, how better to show that than to have a willing and ready developer present at the press conference announcing the agreement?
If they had done even part of that would their development have gotten done? I don't know but the odds would have been pretty good that they could have done something somewhere in the area of the stadium. What they have now is no shot. They poisoned their own well.
good point swake, but you can't blame Novus for being a little ticked off. Remember? No one would return correspondence for months and then after increasing pressure from the public and from local news they got a letter from the TDA's lawyer. That should have been handled better.
I think its time to forgive and forget. Novus should drop the suit and trust should open negotiations with them once they take the land over from the T(non)DA. Novus plan was a good one, they shouldn't be blacklisted because of their understandable (but probably over reacted) response to status quo bureaucracy.
quote:
Originally posted by carltonplace
good point swake, but you can't blame Novus for being a little ticked off. Remember? No one would return correspondence for months and then after increasing pressure from the public and from local news they got a letter from the TDA's lawyer. That should have been handled better.
I think its time to forgive and forget. Novus should drop the suit and trust should open negotiations with them once they take the land over from the T(non)DA. Novus plan was a good one, they shouldn't be blacklisted because of their understandable (but probably over reacted) response to status quo bureaucracy.
I also think it was poorly handled. The city has several parcels of near-by land that they could work with Novus on developing as an asset to the district. I think the city should go out of their way to make sure that the incident with Novus doesn't become yet another PR fiasco that developers will use as a case-study on why not to attempt a downtown project.
It would be relatively easy to turn this incident into a huge PR opportunity for the city. Novus is being watched, and if the city moves to make nice, and cover the expenses incurred by this small developer who thought he had a project, then the large developers will take notice.
If however Novus has to litigate for the time and money he spent satisfying the requirements of a city that had no intension of allowing his project to take place (without disclosing their intent), then this incident will serve as a warning to others.
It seems like a relatively simple decision.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
I don't get what the complaint is about the stadium and trust now. The trust term length is also being shortened if you read the article. More downtown property owners are being added, the mayors husband will not be on the board despite giving over $2 million dollars to the project.
Pending details, I'm satisfied with the structure of the trust per se. I still think in retrospect that it's an odd way to structure the development of the stadium/surrounding area. Best case is that it is able to cut through various bureaucracies and move quickly to develop the district. Worst case is that it abuses the power its being granted, treats unfavored developers unfairly, and as a result gets hung up in litigation battles that take up the attention and energy of the trustees.
It's silly to pretend the TDA and Mayor's office are blameless here. Novus had dibs on the prime property and got pushed off in an abrupt, potentially tortious manner. Now, this is the way things go--maybe the trust's plans will be far superior to Novus's. Maybe the donor's hotel brand will be much nicer than Novus's, and maybe whatever is built on that corner will be a true centerpiece in the district rather than a prime set of lofts. But what we know for sure is that Wilkinson got treated very badly by an agency that is supposed to be very development-friendly. If he had not made a lot of noise, he was going to get pushed entirely to the wayside. At least now he has the PR and litigation leverage to demand a piece of the pie. Otherwise, by all indications, he was going to be told to take a hike.
It's done now. The adjustments to the trust will make it likely to pass on Thursday; the TDA and newly-formed trust will settle out with Novus by making nice and giving him a sweet deal on an alternative property; and dirt will start moving this fall. Play ball.
I'm not saying the city and TDA are blameless. TDA has built too many sub par developments over the years and lets property remain unused for far too long when it's stated goal is "development". The city failed (apparently) to keep TDA informed that they had other uses for the land. So while TDA was working with Novus the city was working with the Drillers.
This is all part of working with the government, it's difficult, it's slow, it's many not good things. And it also can quickly become personal. The government means working with people that have no motivation other than to do their jobs (and often not even that motivation) and once you make it a personal problem (like with lawsuits) they aren't going to deal with you anymore. This is unlike working in the private sector where making money is the ultimate goal which means you can sue someone over and over and still do a deal if means making good money for both parties, government isn't like that. You make the wrong person mad in government and you find your application is lost, your file incomplete and your calls unanswered.
It would be best for the city to throw a bone to Novus, I just really wouldn't count on it now.
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
[br
It's done now. The adjustments to the trust will make it likely to pass on Thursday; the TDA and newly-formed trust will settle out with Novus by making nice and giving him a sweet deal on an alternative property; and dirt will start moving this fall. Play ball.
I hope so Floyd. I think Gaspar is correct when he says there are a lot of eyes on what happens to Novus now. It would be a shame if all of the potential and momentum that a baseball stadium brings to dowtown development is also the very catalyst for stalling further development.
Its time for everyone to bring their toys back to the sand box and play nice.
As for the TDA being "development friendly", I've never seen evidence of that unless the developer is TU or Tulsa Vision Builders. They need a serious PR facelift themselves.
TDA was _supposed_ to be the background funding and management operation of projects decided upon by other entities, the EDC in particular, which was bypassed for years until re-established a few years ago.
Now, it just gets ignored. (Apparently, they've not achieved the 'right' board makeup yet).
TDA shouldn't be making deals at all as far as what the projects are.
As for the ballpark, the Mayor should've handed it off to EDC until the entire thing was worked out (with her input, of course). Once authorized, TDA should've become the 'developer' of a property owned and operated by TPFA (Tulsa Public Facilities Authority).
At least, that's the way it's designed and intended. Anything else is undue manipulation.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
I don't get what the complaint is about the stadium and trust now. The trust term length is also being shortened if you read the article. More downtown property owners are being added, the mayors husband will not be on the board despite giving over $2 million dollars to the project.
I understand that there are hurt feelings over the Novus project, but all they had was a deal to negotiate, there was no real agreement to buy the land yet. And since the scope of development in the area was changing so radically I still say it was a good idea to step back and look at the whole area and what development is possible in the area around the stadium before making a deal with Novus. I think Novus would have had a good chance of seeing their project go forward once that reassessment had happened if they had been patient and cooperative, but instead they threw a hissy fit which in the end is only going to guarantee that they have no chance of ever getting a deal done with the city or the stadium authority anywhere, ever. Suing over conflicts of interest with donors (not investors, donors) to a city trust and filing injunctions to enforce an agreement to "exclusively negotiate" don't just border on the inane.
What they should have done is held a press conference to say that they understood the need to step back and look at what the area around the stadium needs and that they looked forward to working with the trust and hoped that their early recognition of the possibilities for development in the area would give them first position to be able to participate in that development. They should have said that they were very willing to adapt and even expand their planned development in order to take full advantage of the new possibilities now available with a stadium next door. They could have talked with the mayor and have stood with her and Chuck Lamson at the press conference saying they were the first developer that wanted to take advantage of the stadium and want to help rebuild downtown. Taylor is wanting to say that the stadium will help with revitalizing downtown, how better to show that than to have a willing and ready developer present at the press conference announcing the agreement?
If they had done even part of that would their development have gotten done? I don't know but the odds would have been pretty good that they could have done something somewhere in the area of the stadium. What they have now is no shot. They poisoned their own well.
Everything you said there is exactly what Novus tried to do. They did say they would work with what they wanted to do around the stadium, make design changes, expand the project, pay into the trust, etc. etc. They even offered to help bring businesses to the other potential developments around the stadium through their connections, just like they did bringing in the Atlas Live Hotel developers. They want to see downtown thrive and the development around the ballpark succeed. They reached out just like you advised... the people at the TDA suddenly started ignoring them, not returning calls, started changing the rules, etc, in an effort to get them out. It would have been wonderful if the TDA had initially said " Hey guys, lets all step back since this is a radical change and see what we can do". But thats not what they did.
Could this be trouble on the horizon......?
Or just another thing that could have been avoided if we did not have the "Hurry up and vote for this... or the opportunity will disappear"..... mantra...?
http://www.ktul.com/news/stories/0908/550642.html
quote:
Originally posted by Rico
Could this be trouble on the horizon......?
Or just another thing that could have been avoided if we did not have the "Hurry up and vote for this... or the opportunity will disappear"..... mantra...?
http://www.ktul.com/news/stories/0908/550642.html
\
Naaa, wont really do anything. May give some people room to holler and fuss, but nothing more. The ethics commission may make some recommendations for changes in policies and a pronouncement on their findings on this matter. It will be hard to say that the plane ride influenced the councilors vote. If he was against the plan, he didnt have to take the plane ride and it would have had the same result as him abstaining or voting no. The mayor didnt force him to take the plane and because he took the plane he then felt an obligation to vote yes. Doesnt even make sense.
Drillers finally sign lease for downtown stadium.
The article talks about troubles with financing, but I'm betting that they can work that out with BOK's help. 2010 as an opening date certainly does look iffy however.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20081105_11_A1_hMayor575480
Well, Double A, it would appear the Drillers have signed ****.
The lease has been approved by the trust.
What's the hurry [:D]
Would like to see them get going on this pronto for one good reason that it will cost less to do it now. For instance, a few months ago steel was over 1,000 dollars a ton, now its around 300. Many of the materials costs can be half or a third what they would have been. Sure those high materials costs were over the top, but by any measure they are very low right now.
Am still very anxious to see the detailed renderings. [:)]
so is home plate going to point west facing mecca city hall?
The land for the statium and surrounding development has been secured, and ground breaking should happen before the end of the year: Tulsa World (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectID=11&articleID=20081116_11_A13_hTrust258392%22)
The push for a stadium downtown, Lybarger said, was more for revitalization purposes than baseball, a strategy that has proven successful with Oklahoma City's ballpark in Bricktown.
The location of Tulsa's ballpark in the historic Greenwood area between the Brady and Blue Dome entertainment districts and just south of OSU-Tulsa will also have connectivity benefits, he said.
The George Kaiser Family Foundation has secured some of the dilapidated property surrounding the stadium site, which the trust will purchase for redevelopment.
The trust's redevelopment effort is restricted to the area around the stadium bounded by Detroit Avenue to the west and Burlington Northern & Santa Fe railroad to the south.
Lybarger said the trust also will initiate a master plan for arts and entertainment development that will provide a cohesive plan that benefits the entire area.
quote:
Originally posted by carltonplace
a strategy that has proven successful with Oklahoma City's ballpark in Bricktown.
O RLY? Bricktown has success? you could fool me. I see lots of vacancies down there and the place feels like a ghost town during the day. This is not the 24 hour entertainment district they promoted it to be.
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
This is not the 24 hour entertainment district they promoted it to be.
Yes it is. 8pm-midnight, 6 days a week.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
This is not the 24 hour entertainment district they promoted it to be.
Yes it is. 8pm-midnight, 6 days a week.
HA! [:P]
"I went down the street to the 24-hour grocery. When I got there, the guy was locking the front door. I said, 'Hey, the sign says you're open 24 hours.' He said, 'Yes, but not in a row."
Steven Wright
Does Tulsa act before OKC did in placing a special curfew for under 18 for the area? That is if it's as popular....
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
This is not the 24 hour entertainment district they promoted it to be.
Yes it is. 8pm-midnight, 6 days a week.
yeah, well at least someone is being honest about it.
I'd guess there is more 24 hour activity in the Asian District than in Bricktown. at least more happy endings.[}:)]
I think the moderator needs to remove that comment by inteller. There needs to be a readily available way to notify the moderators of offensive and inappropriate comments.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
I think the moderator needs to remove that comment by inteller. There needs to be a readily available way to notify the moderators of offensive and inappropriate comments.
what is offensive about that comment? the fact that bricktown is so desolate?
Mr.Inteller's comment is no more offensive or stupid than some others on here.
Smart assed? Yes. One can find many smart assed replies in these forums.
"the truth is never hatefull"
oh......btw.I am no Inteller lover.
on that note:
And if your reading this BikerFox: IF YOU EVER OBSTRUCT TRAFFIC AGAIN AND STICK YOUR TOUNGUE OUT AND RAISE YOUR _SS AT ME AGAIN IT WILL NOT BE PRETTY!
BikerFox does not read; if he did then he would know that spandex and mullets are no longer fashionable and would be able to tell what size bike helmets are before buying a child's size that pinches his brain (for that matter spandex so tight that it shows his brain).
Back to the Drillers.
quote:
Originally posted by ARGUS
Mr.Inteller's comment is no more offensive or stupid than some others on here.
Smart assed? Yes. One can find many smart assed replies in these forums.
"the truth is never hatefull"
oh......btw.I am no Inteller lover.
on that note:
And if your reading this BikerFox: IF YOU EVER OBSTRUCT TRAFFIC AGAIN AND STICK YOUR TOUNGUE OUT AND RAISE YOUR _SS AT ME AGAIN IT WILL NOT BE PRETTY!
I'm actually hoping that he will get a job with Tay delivering pizza, then I'll buy the old Joemammamobile land cruiser and get a two fer on one of their delivery excursions.
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
I think the moderator needs to remove that comment by inteller. There needs to be a readily available way to notify the moderators of offensive and inappropriate comments.
what is offensive about that comment? the fact that bricktown is so desolate?
Other than being really racist?
Are Asian massage "happy endings" racist or cliche? I don't think he was implying that all Asians or even all Asian messages give happy endings nor that they are prostitutes. Certainly nothing worse, or even to the level of anything one would see on network TV.
But while on subject, why are the "Asian massage" places near my house open until 3am or other odd times?
Not that I care. They could be labeled "brothel" for all I care. Maybe are, maybe they arent. But it sure is odd.
And if you need a MOD, you can PM the mod or email the admin per the TOS. Not sure how effective it is, but it's available.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Are Asian massage "happy endings" racist or cliche? I don't think he was implying that all Asians or even all Asian messages give happy endings nor that they are prostitutes. Certainly nothing worse, or even to the level of anything one would see on network TV.
But while on subject, why are the "Asian massage" places near my house open until 3am or other odd times?
Not that I care. They could be labeled "brothel" for all I care. Maybe are, maybe they arent. But it sure is odd.
And if you need a MOD, you can PM the mod or email the admin per the TOS. Not sure how effective it is, but it's available.
they are open till 3am? crap man where do you live?
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
I think the moderator needs to remove that comment by inteller. There needs to be a readily available way to notify the moderators of offensive and inappropriate comments.
what is offensive about that comment? the fact that bricktown is so desolate?
Other than being really racist?
I tell you what is racist, when a place calls itself "asian massage" and then you come to find out its just a couple of toothless okie fatties trading on the Asian culture.
OMG! Toofless! That must be for the happy ending.
quote:
Originally posted by carltonplace
OMG! Toofless! That must be for the happy ending.
there's no challenge in that.
Inteller, correct me if I'm wrong... but it would be amazingly strange if you were racist against Asians. Am I thinking correct on that?
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Inteller, correct me if I'm wrong... but it would be amazingly strange if you were racist against Asians. Am I thinking correct on that?
I'm not the one hurling the racism accusations. You have me confused with Mr. Wakeford there.
So...about the drillers moving downtown...
One construction bid... Zero financing bids (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20081202_11_A11_TheTul404183%22)
I am not sure if this is new topic worthy but here goes...
I thought the bids to this have came a little soon after the finalization of the lease, but thought maybe there was something else to the story that I was missing.
Generally i like to keep an eye on contracts/RFP/RFQ's ect because I like to know what processes they are using. (I am a contracting junky... it is my day job). However I really don't remember this popping up on my radar.
Even if the stadium trust had established itself on or about 9/12 (the last time I can find where they had NOT been formed yet), and then proceeded to quickly put together an RFP for the stadium, that only leaves about 60days to do a 39.6 million dollar proposal. Which is rather odd. I have bid on several multi million dollar projects in my time, albeit a short, and 60 days is not alot of time to get everything put together and make sure that you have accounted for everything. I would imagine that the acquisition lead time for this was even shorter. Probably closer to 45days.
Now I am not a construction professional, but I do remember my contractors taking a little time to bid simple roofing jobs, on already established buildings. The would have to review drawings to make sure everything was correct. Now this is not a roofing job, and I would bet there are more drawings then I could imagine (this is not a design build, and they want to break ground in Jan)...
Generally I am not a conspiracy theororist, but in this case I would say that logistically it would have been imposible to put together that kind of package in that short amount of time without inside knowledge or prior access to information.
Who are the citizen representatives (not affiliated with any major position or recognized "family" in tulsa) to the trust?
Wow, scary but the comments see to be right:
One bid - from a company essentially controlled by George Kaiser, who pushed for this deal, and owns the bank that will likely finance the deal. Considering there was only one bid, that's scary.
Why only one bid? We are in a slow down, you would think the same entities that just got down with the BOK would be interested. Dallas is wrapping up major stadium construction. U Tulsa just got done with a major renovation. Okla. State just got done with major renovations.
There should be PLENTY of qualified contractors out there to bid on this. Why only one bid? Why only from a company that was created specifically for this project?
I don't like it one bit. My corruption/bad deal warning light went off big time.
Also in saying that I mean that if they limit the amount of time in which multiple contractors can respond, generally they will not. Specially if the contractor feels that there may be a "fix". No reason to waste 200-500k on a bid that you might be losing to begin with. (Don't laugh at that number either, I have worked with companies who have spent 1.5million to TRY and win a contract worth 35m)
To me it sounds like they created a new entity and quoted up to the budgeted value, so the rest of the project can be lined out and get underway. They have less than 30 days until groundbreaking.
The upside is that if construction costs rise, the stadium trust takes no hit from it.
Yes, but this is another cost plus contract. Did the Arena have a Not To exceed value?
While there is a Not to Exceed value, if the contractor cannot perform for that amount of money, what are they going to do? Give the company a bad name? I am pretty sure you are not going to see the Tulsa Stadium Construction Co. LLC bidding on projects for GreenBay or Denver any time.
are they requiring performance/payment bonds? Is there a Surity that will be required to finish the project if the contractor fails miserably?
I do find it quite humorous that the bid came in 400k under the well publicized budget figure for the stadium.
Looks like Mayor Taylor will leave her financial mark (mistake) on downtown much like Lafortune did with the arena.
What I find interesting is that the bid is so close to the estimated cost because the original estimate was made before materials prices, steel, shipping, etc. dropped through the floor.
Either the newest plans called for something nicer and or larger than they originally had wanted when they came up with the estimate. Or that bid is too high. Or the original estimate, made when costs were much higher, was way too low.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
What I find interesting is that the bid is so close to the estimated cost because the original estimate was made before materials prices, steel, shipping, etc. dropped through the floor.
Either the newest plans called for something nicer and or larger than they originally had wanted when they came up with the estimate. Or that bid is too high. Or the original estimate, made when costs were much higher, was way too low.
Great point Artist. Steel, concrete, copper wire/pipe, fuel needed in construction - all down 50% or more. Yet the bid is off 1.2% from the estimate?
At least with the BOk Center costs actually did rise substantial. Here they fall and we still see no benefit from it.
As negative as I could be, I am going to just say I look forward to this new stadium and will have at least 4 season tickets.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
was way too low.
ding ding ding! We have a winner!
Who designed it and for how much was that ?
Did that winning company give out anything more than the 6 month old drawings already out there?
Even the kitchen table group did better in providing eye candy.....
quote:
Originally posted by MDepr2007
Who designed it and for how much was that ?
Did that winning company give out anything more than the 6 month old drawings already out there?
Even the kitchen table group did better in providing eye candy.....
I've seen detailed floorplans but no exterior shots.
I have seen new drawings and plans.
This will take a couple of years to build. I hope they break ground in December and get started soon.
What a great place for a ball game.
The rest of us want to see the elevations. [8D]I am not so interested in the nuts and bolts of the thing, mostly just how its gonna look. [:D]
Gosh , even seeing a drawing/diagram has become a private club [:(]
Even PJ noticed all the insider interlocking connections (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20081204_11_A1_Thepro239213%22)
OMG. If one wanted to design a project as a caricature of Tulsa's insider culture, one could hardly do any better than this ballpark deal. I started to try to diagram all of the interconnections, but stopped when I got a headache. ;-)
It is what it is. It ain't pretty, but it's the only way the thing was getting built. Might have been a different story if SemGroup hadn't missed their bet and the bond markets weren't such a mess. Then we could float municipal bonds and have an extra name donor to avoid the conflicts. As it is, though, it's still getting done.
The important thing is that it's out in the open and stays that way, in order to prevent abuse. This wasn't the case six months ago. I hope they have learned their lesson from the TDA fiasco.
yeah and that kind of "welp, that's just the way it goes" apathetic attitude is the reason we have rampant and blatant cronyism around here.
and people wonder why there is such a disenchantment with government around here.
Look--I was in the "DO SOMETHING MAYOR TAYLOR--ANYTHING" camp when it came to getting the Drillers downtown. She did. This is how it's happening if it's going to happen.
As long as it's out in the open, I don't see that it's a bad thing. I'm trying to figure out who's profiting and who's losing out here, and I'm not really seeing any victims. John Snyder of Manhattan is one of the moving forces behind this thing, and when you factor in his donation, he doesn't stand to profit on the deal (directly, anyway--he's got a lot at stake downtown, including the Mayo). Kaiser is floating the bonds because nobody else will--the muncipal markets are trash right now.
Basically, if you want a ballpark now, this is how it's going to be. As long as we're watching carefully and it's above board, I don't see how having a coterie of folks making it happen is absolutely a bad thing.
I'd rather be looking cock-eyed at the TBAG cronies over the Jenks ballpark cronies any day.
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
Look--I was in the "DO SOMETHING MAYOR TAYLOR--ANYTHING" camp when it came to getting the Drillers downtown. She did. This is how it's happening if it's going to happen.
As long as it's out in the open, I don't see that it's a bad thing. I'm trying to figure out who's profiting and who's losing out here, and I'm not really seeing any victims. John Snyder of Manhattan is one of the moving forces behind this thing, and when you factor in his donation, he doesn't stand to profit on the deal (directly, anyway--he's got a lot at stake downtown, including the Mayo). Kaiser is floating the bonds because nobody else will--the muncipal markets are trash right now.
Basically, if you want a ballpark now, this is how it's going to be. As long as we're watching carefully and it's above board, I don't see how having a coterie of folks making it happen is absolutely a bad thing.
oh man, have they got you fooled. All of the under the table palm greasing was done WAY before this deal came out to the public. They can be out open and above table about it now because the dirty deeds are already in the books/estimates/what have you.
For what it's worth, I'm on board with the questions posed by Bates as well as his conclusions.
http://www.batesline.com/archives/2008/12/inside-baseball.html
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
Look--I was in the "DO SOMETHING MAYOR TAYLOR--ANYTHING" camp when it came to getting the Drillers downtown. She did. This is how it's happening if it's going to happen.
As long as it's out in the open, I don't see that it's a bad thing. I'm trying to figure out who's profiting and who's losing out here, and I'm not really seeing any victims. John Snyder of Manhattan is one of the moving forces behind this thing, and when you factor in his donation, he doesn't stand to profit on the deal (directly, anyway--he's got a lot at stake downtown, including the Mayo). Kaiser is floating the bonds because nobody else will--the muncipal markets are trash right now.
Basically, if you want a ballpark now, this is how it's going to be. As long as we're watching carefully and it's above board, I don't see how having a coterie of folks making it happen is absolutely a bad thing.
and to think that less than half of Tulsa wants it in downtown[;)]
Of course this was all done way before the announcement was made moving the ballpark to Greenwood. Why do you think contracts and options were being negotiated months before the announcement. Whats funny though is that I've heard that Snyder who bought the PPG Warehouse building is trying to fight off the rest of the donors who are pushing for him to give it to the Trust...talk about ironic!
Lets say a "lender/benefactor" does fund the bonds since no one else will...the only recourse the lender would have according to the terms the Trust has laid out for bids is for the lender to go after the assets of the Trust. They cant go after the City for any shortfall in revenues...so hypothetically speaking, the Trust buys all the surrounding properties with assessment funds or donated funds and leases those lands for development (i.e. reconcilation museum, living arts, other commercial, etc)..the ballpark is built but over budget, theres no more money to pay the bonds back...the lender would get to attach the properties and even the ballpark since they are the only assets of the Trust.
Also keep in mind that the lawsuit by downtown property owners against the assessment hasnt been decided. What if the courts rule in favor and the $25mil thats supposed to come from that assessment dries up? Then what? I would think that should be settled before anything else.
This whole situation reminds me of "Hot Fuzz"... Mainly "For the Greater Good". Everyone sit down and shut up. We know whats best for the town and we don't want anyone questioning it. We will publish an article the outlines how jacked up our process of award was and try to make it sound good for the people who just want a pretty story... Since we are actually coming out and saying it, it doesn't sound that bad and they will fall inline... For the Greater Good.
In reality the trust has awarded a contract for which they have no firm bid. They are using liquidated damages as a punitive form of punishment, which is bad juju. They say that the trust will receive any of the underruns... I would have rather seen an overrun/underrun sharing. Give the contractor a little benefit to not spend every nickle.
I do like how they say that they will review all bids from manhattan etc... After working for a Government contractor and after been in the government (over 8 years between the 2) I know that a "good" contractor can make something that only costs a 1.50 look like they got it for 2.25 and that was a steal.
Good job stadium trust... you may have some of the population fooled, but not all.