Friday roundup: OKC Thunder want their subsidies sooner, Indy Eleven want theirs later, let me repeat back your orders to make sure I have it right

I’ve already thanked everyone individually, but I’d like to give a collective shoutout to all the readers who signed up as FoS Supporters this membership cycle. The money you send translates directly into time I can spend covering stadium and arena news for you, and I remain extremely heartened by your support. If you sent me your mailing address, your magnets should be en route; if you didn’t, send me your mailing address already, these magnets aren’t going to ship themselves!

And speaking of covering stadium and arena news, let’s cover some stadium and arena news, why don’t we:

Share this post:

Friday roundup: NFL teams debate which fans will be the first to enjoy socially distanced peeing

Pressed for time today, so while I’d love to comment on everything in the world that happened this crazy week, I’m just going to give you a link to my article on news coverage of the California fires and the state’s reliance on incarcerated people to fight them, then get straight to a quickie news recap:

  • The Cleveland Browns will reportedly “consider personal seat licenses” in determining who gets to attend reduced-capacity games this season, which isn’t very specific: Would season ticket holders with PSLs (which is almost all of them) get priority? Would those who spent more get let in first? One can only imagine the Browns front office debating which is the fairest solution, and/or which would help maximize team revenues, because you know that the latter is never very far from sports owners’ conception of the former.
  • If you’ve been jonesing for a picture of what socially distanced urinals will look like, Sports Illustrated has you covered.
  • Pittsburgh’s Sports & Exhibition Authority is, according to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, “requesting $7.4 million to COVID-19-proof Heinz Field, PNC Park, PPG Paints Arena and the David L. Lawrence Convention Center,” whatever “COVID-19-proof” means. (Lots of urinal covers?)
  • There are new reports estimating the costs to the local economy of spring training in Arizona ending early and the Oklahoma City Thunder season ending early and do you think either of them looked at what, say, sales-tax receipts actually did starting in March, or did they just project out how much money is normally spent at these events and assume that it all vanished into thin air once they were canceled? (If you guessed door #2, congratulations, you can skip journalism school and go directly to a newspaper job, if newspapers or jobs still existed.)
  • No huge new revelations in this week’s Epoch Times report on the Los Angeles Angels stadium deal, but it’s a decent roundup and there sure is a ton of me in it, so check it out if you like. (EDIT: Or actually maybe don’t, if you don’t want to support QAnon and anti-vaxxer conspiracy theories. If you want to know what I said, I’ll post it in comments.)
  • This German study of how people’s breath spreads at an indoor concert is kind of genius, and everyone should be watching to see the results if we ever want to be able to attend indoor events again, whether masked or distanced or ventilated with HEPA filters or what. Results are due in four to six weeks, so stay tuned in early October for further updates.
Share this post:

Oklahoma City voters overwhelmingly approve $152m for Thunder arena and USL stadium, but maybe really just wanted parks

Oklahoma City voters overwhelmingly approved a 1% sales tax hike for the next eight years to fund $978 million worth of parks, social service centers, a new soccer stadium for the USL’s OKC Energy, and upgrades to the Oklahoma City Thunder‘s arena. The MAPS 4 plan — the fourth (duh) in a series of sales-tax hikes that have funded downtown development, school renovations, streetcars, and building the basketball arena in the first place — passed by a 72-28% margin.

As with any of these grab-bag proposals, it’s tough to judge from the results exactly what the public is supporting here: Do they think the city needs $140 million worth of new parks, or the Thunder need $115 million worth of arena renovations, or both? Do they think sales taxes — which are considered regressive because low-income residents pay a higher percentage of their income than high-income residents do — are the best way to do it, or is this just the only plan they’ve been presented with? We’ll never know, unless someone does way more detailed polling. (A guy on Facebook says residents should be allowed to vote on each element separately, but Mayor David Holt says that “something for everyone” is exactly how MAPS was designed, which you can see why it would be.)

Regardless, the latest iteration of MAPS means the public price tag of building and upgrading the Thunder arena now reaches a total of $325 million after its third installment of MAPS cash, and OKC Energy will be getting a new 10,000-seat $37 million stadium (expandable if the city wins an MLS expansion franchise, no doubt with MAPS 5 money) at taxpayer expense. Good thing private stadium funding is the trend, or we might be talking about some real money!

Share this post:

Thunder owner seeks $135m in sales-tax money to upgrade arena that already got $195m in sales-tax money in the last 20 years

Way back in the early days of this website, there was a man named Rick Horrow who used to go around to small-to-mid-size cities selling them on the idea of a 1% sales tax hike to pay for big construction projects, usually involving sports venues of some kind. As I recall, Birmingham told him to take a hike, as did Norfolk, but Oklahoma City thought he was the bee’s knees, and signed up for his MAPS plan to use sales-tax money to build, among other things, the new arena that eventually became home to the Thunder.

OKC is now in its 4th iteration of MAPS — one was called, hilariously enough, “MAPS for kids,” which always makes me think of this — and don’t you know it, the Thunder owners think it’s high time for them to get another cut of the boodle:

In the third day of proposals for MAPS 4, officials made a pitch for up to $135 million in improvements to Chesapeake Arena and the Thunder practice facility…

The proposed budget includes $55 to $60 million for fan amenities, $30 to $33 million for other arena improvements, $12 to $15 million for practice facility enhancements and arena maintenance at $23 to $27 million.

I would normally make a quip here, but, guys, I’m so tired. Some days writing these posts feels like shooting fish in a barrel; other days it feels like shooting fish that are continually replenished from some unseen reservoir, and that will continue to appear no matter how many I shoot. Hell, I’ve even already written about teams that keep going back to the well for more cash year after year once they get a new stadium — what more is there to add here, other than, “Yeah, the Thunder owners are doing it too”?

Instead, how about I just link to a page that lists Thunder owner Clay Bennett’s net worth, and describes how as a minority owner of the San Antonio Spurs, he maneuvered for the New Orleans Hornets to be temporarily relocated to Oklahoma City, helping pave the way for him to buy the Seattle Sonics and move them there permanently? Yeah, that feels better. Here’s some vaportecture of people at a bar for your trouble:

Share this post:

Friday roundup: Sacramento soccer subsidies, Fire could return to Chicago, and a giant mirrored basketball

Did I actually write a couple of days ago that this was looking like a slow news week? The stadium news gods clearly heard me, and when they make it rain news, they make it pour:

Share this post:

Oklahoma City Thunder arena finally finished, time to talk about building a new one

The Oklahoma City Thunder‘s Chesapeake Energy Arena was opened in 2002 and just finished being renovated this season, but according to at least one fan blog, it’s already obsolete:

There will come a day when the Thunder, metaphorical hat in metaphorical hand, come to local voters asking for money to re-renovate the Peake or money for an entirely new arena. And judging by recent history, and the lamentable timing that led the Peake to be designed barely before the truly modern standards for revenue-generating arena plans came to full fruition (most visibly, for example, a second deck of suites along the sidelines), that day might be coming sooner than people think.

Oh no! We forgot to build double-decked suites!

I’m not actually sure that two levels of suites is so vital to the NBA business, especially in a smallish market like OKC, that it’s worth tearing down an 11-year-old building just to build a new one that’s tricked out like the kids in the big cities have. But don’t let me stop Michael Kimball of the Daily Thunder, who’s off to the races explaining why even though new arenas don’t really help your local economy so much, building another one would still be worth it:

Yes, people spend money at Thunder games, in and near the arena, on many things, and the city gets to keep the sales tax revenue. And yes, a lot of those people come from suburbs and other places outside of Oklahoma City. But at least some of those dollars, coming from a person’s or a family’s entertainment budget, would have been spent elsewhere in the local economy. The Thunder’s presence certainly provides some marketing and advertising for the city, but the amount is hard to calculate.

Still, the Thunder were competitive in the NBA after only half of the inaugural season, and legitimate title contenders in only the third season in OKC. That remains the case, and will remain the case as long as Kevin Durant and Russell Westbrook are on the team. From a fan’s perspective, there’s hardly any more than you can ask for. And from a voter’s perspective, with some imported tax dollars undoubtedly rolling in and Oklahoma City’s increased national and international profile, it’s hard to argue that there’s at least some true and tangible benefit for having the team in town.

So what he’s saying here is that … you can’t put a price on the attention you get from playing in the NBA Finals, I guess? Of course, he also includes a long section on how Oklahoma City did good by paying cash instead of borrowing the arena money, thus avoiding interest payments — which, yes, but it also means you have to shell out the money now rather than putting it off till later, when it’s worth less in present value, something that anyone who’s taken out a home mortgage should understand. So maybe it’s not really worth addressing Kimball’s actual arguments, but better just to sit back and admire the aesthetic perfection of someone arguing on behalf of building a new arena to replace one that’s only just finished being built. Take this any further, and somebody’s going to have to call in the Campaign for Real Time.

Share this post:

Sonics exec on what new arenas do for regular fans: “Nothing”

Ther’s a long article over at Deadspin by Jeremy Repanich, a low-level employeee of the Seattle Sonics before their move to Oklahoma City. And it includes some illuminating, if unsurprising, observations on the reasons why the owner of Seattle’s oldest pro sports team decided to demand a new arena just 12 years after the complete reconstruction of his old one:

When a team can make the same amount of money selling two courtside seats as they can selling an entire section of the upper bowl, they’ll target their sales strategies accordingly. Getting the affluent to your games means pampering them the minute they walk through the doors. At Safeco and CenturyLink fields, the Mariners and Seahawks do just that; they’re gleaming palaces of conspicuous consumption that ensure that fans paying top dollar are given a premium experience with food, drinks, and seatside service delivered efficiently and comfortably. The Sonics couldn’t do that. KeyArena had some low-budget exclusive hangouts, but nothing compared to the city’s other stadiums. So when Sonics execs saw the Seahawks reaping all the attention and getting fat off a stadium financed in part by public money, they didn’t feel happy—they were jealous.

Jealousy, though, isn’t much of a campaign strategy, as Repanich started to learn once the angry calls from fans started pouring in. (With no talking points provided by team management, he resorted to telling callers that the Sonics “needed a new arena to be competitive in the league” — an argument he apparently grabbed out of thin air.) He then describes a staff meeting led by team president Wally Walker:

He went through a litany of minor reasons why the team needed a new arena: higher capacity, bigger arena footprint, more room for high-end concessions, more places for premium seat holders, a.k.a. the super rich, the people who could afford a pair of courtside season tickets for $70,000. These were the justifications he offered us to explain why we were asking for a heaping pile of taxpayer dollars. After Walker’s spiel, a member of the sales staff asked the fateful question: “Wally, what will this arena upgrade do for Joe Sixpack—the regular fan?”

Dead silence.

After an uncomfortable few seconds, Walker said, “Well, nothing.” The wind went out of me. It was as if he’d punched me in the stomach. Walker tried to backtrack, but the damage had been done. The battle for hearts and minds had ended before it’d even begun.

The whole article is a great read, and is especially recommended for anyone interested in what it feels like to work for an organization that is trying to sell tickets to the very fans that it plans to abandon the minute it can. If there’s an odd note, it’s that Repanich seems to reserve most of his ire for Walker and Howard Schultz, less for demanding a new arena and selling the team to out-of-towners when they couldn’t get one than for being inept about the way they went about it. “I didn’t see how we’d get an arena deal led by men who couldn’t conceive of it as anything but a rich man’s boondoggle, perpetrated on behalf of other rich people,” Repanich writes. Howard Schultz, it seems, was worse than an envy-driven, greedy carpetbagger; he was a lousy liar.

Share this post:

Seattle arena bill really most sincerely dead

I’ve given short shrift here to the slowly simmering campaign to allocate tax money to a renovation of Seattle’s KeyArena, and this is why:

A bill to help pay for an expansion of KeyArena was declared “dead” by its chief sponsor Wednesday, but a top aide to Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels vowed to keep trying to revive the proposal in the waning days of the legislative session.

The proposal, Substitute Senate Bill 6116, passed the Senate Ways & Means committee over the weekend and had appeared poised for a vote of the full Senate Wednesday evening.

But when majority Democrats talked about the bill in caucus, too many objections surfaced, according to Sen. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, the bill’s prime sponsor.

“The bill is dead for the session. Really dead,” Murray said.

The bill would have extended the sales-tax surcharge that is paying for the Mariners‘ Safeco Field and the Seahawks‘ Qwest Field and used the proceeds for renovation of both the KeyArena and the University of Washington’s Husky Stadium, as well as arts and affordable housing projects. Clay Bennett, owner of the Oklahoma City Thunder (formerly the Seattle Supersonics), would have to pay Seattle $30 million if the state legislature allocated renovation money and no new NBA team arrived within five years — but given that the state would likely have to put up at least $150 million toward the renovation, you can see where some legislators might not consider that a good ROI.

Also of note: The tattered remnants of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer covered this turn of events by running a five-sentence AP story. That whole web-only journalism thing is really going just swimmingly, huh?

Share this post:

Special to the Times: Rehashed fluff

Yesterday’s Seattle Times re-ran a New York Times article on how the Oklahoma City Thunder (formerly the Seattle Sonics) are contributing to their new hometown. “Despite dismal record, the Thunder is contributing to city’s booming town status,” runs the Seattle paper’s headline. And how are they contributing exactly?

Well, we learn that the transfer of the Sonics has been “an unqualified success,” that it helps make OKC more attractive to employers because people think, “If I take this job, I get to live in Oklahoma City!”, that there’s “a big-time excitement here,” and that the team’s arrival sends “a coast-to-coast signal that this city is primed for the limelight.”

The voices behind these sentiments belong to, respectively: NBA commissioner David Stern, OKC Mayor Mick Cornett, Thunder player Desmond Mason, and Times NBA reporter Jonathan Abrams. Also interviewed by the Times: Thunder GM Sam Presti. And that’s it – not a single independent economist or urban planner, let alone an actual critic of the Thunder’s move.

A more honest headline would have been “Advocates of Sonics Move Say It’s Working Out Great For Oklahoma City” – but that’s apparently too much honesty for either coast’s Times.


Share this post: