Early voting begins today in Tuesday’s Oklahoma City referendum on whether to build a $900 million Thunder arena with $850 million in public money. What should you, the OKC voter, or you, the non-OKC resident watching in horror from afar, know as the polls open? Here’s what one local TV station thinks is important:
- The arena deal “includes a commitment from the Thunder to stay in Oklahoma City beyond 2050.”
- The $850 million in public money would come from extending a one-cent sales tax surcharge for an additional six years after it was initially set to expire, plus from $70 million in an existing arena reserve fund.
- To anyone who asks why Thunder owner Clay Bennett would only put in 5.5% of the cost, Mayor David Holt says, “Anybody who says, ‘Well, they should do this’ or ‘They should do that,’ this is what they’ve agreed to. These are the terms by which they will agree to sign a long-term agreement in Oklahoma City. Any ideas beyond that have already been rejected. So, we have to move forward in agreement. We can’t make anyone do anything. They have other options.” (Holt did not specify Bennett’s other options, mayors seldom do.)
- “The owners should be embarrassed that they only put out $50 million like that’s a meaningful contribution,” counters Kennesaw State University economist J.C. Bradbury. “The public’s going to pay for it, but the private part will keep all the money. That’s not a partnership. That’s exploitation.”
The arena deal also could include a community benefits agreement about wage guarantees for arena jobs, but any such CBA would only be negotiated after the $850 million was approved, so Bennett wouldn’t really have much incentive to commit to much, now would he?
The Greater Oklahoma City Chamber says it has spent at least $478,000 in ad buys on its pro-arena campaign; the opposition Buy Your Own Arena campaign says it has “a very, very modest budget.” Turnout is expected to be low, since this is a special election with nothing else on the ballot, which means even a little campaign spending could have a disproportionate impact. Sports spending referendums pass 58% of the time, according to research by University of Colorado economist Geoffrey Propheter (whose new book on sports and property taxes I really owe a fuller review to, still planning on it when I find the time), and bigger campaign spending gaps are generally associated with a higher chance of victory, so it would be nice to know the exact spending numbers, but we likely won’t know those until after the election.
In the meantime, we can all enjoy watching Holt and Bradbury fight it out on RagingTireFire.com (formerly known as Twitter):
If you can't win the debate, change it. No stadium critic is arguing arenas haven't been 100% publicly funded. The argument is that ALL available evidence suggests it's a terrible idea. Plus, several small markets have privately financed venues (Salt Lake City, Charlotte, Vegas). https://t.co/rF0PX1yOml pic.twitter.com/IUKfknAr6t
— J.C. Bradbury (@jc_bradbury) December 7, 2023
But, if the mayor suggests we look to Wikipedia, rather than economics professors at Oklahoma universities, well, at least be right.
MSA: Public % last arena
Milwaukee: 48%
Raleigh: 87%
Memphis: 83%
Salt Lake City: 0%
Buffalo: 44% pic.twitter.com/TpAwsY531Q— J.C. Bradbury (@jc_bradbury) December 7, 2023
“includes a commitment from the Thunder to stay in Oklahoma City beyond 2050.”
You know, I really tried with this one.
But when I read that sentence out loud in my kitchen it sounded like “We will be back for at least another billion in taxpayer grift within 25 years, you can mark it down on your calendar”
It is interesting that the Mayor pointed out the franchises options without ever mentioning any of the options the people of Oklahoma city have.
“This is what they’ve agreed to. These are the terms by which they will agree to sign a long-term agreement in Oklahoma City.”
Translation: “The team has me and the city over a barrel.”
This is an intelligence test for the voters of Oklahoma City. Pass it and I’m guessing that the Monorail guy from The Simpsons will be headed there, along with a caravan full of other charlatans.
Mr. Twister: it’s NOT a “Thunder arena, their 43 nights per year- out of 365- means they’re the anchor tenant to our “mall.” Run them out of town, and repeat the loser mentality that Seattle deeply regrets.
They’re GOLD to our community and yes, we have no other options like the Special interest dude proclaims.
What leverage does Bennett have? Is he going to threaten to move the team to Seattle (oh the irony) or Vegas? Of course not, the NBA is looking at $2.5 billion or more expansion fees for those markets in the next five years, nobody is letting Clay Bennett move the Thunder there. So even if the team is important enough to pony up public cash, and I believe in some instances that can be the case, drive a harder bargain than $50 million for a $900 million arena.
Ding! The Vegas and Seattle plays are gone. Memphis and New Orleans tried kicking the tires about relocating to Vegas within the last 5 years and was summarily shut down by the league. Everyone knows those 2 cities are getting expansion teams. Arenas are already built for them. Heck Vegas is such a shoo-in the same development group that renovated Climate Arena in Seattle are privately-financing a new one off the Strip. As you said, the owners are not turning down $5 billion+ in expansion fees for OKC to relocate. If they did, they should just get out of the league for financial malpractice.
What Bennett and others should do is wait until those teams are rewarded. Then they can play the exploitation game with markets like Kansas City, St. Louis and Nashville.
These feckless OKC politicians need to demand more from billionaires who regularly profit close to $100 million/year from the team.