A Shameful Take-It-Or-Leave-It Deal

My family is a house divided.

Not over Bedlam. Or religion. Or party politics.

The divide involves Tuesday’s special election that will determine whether Oklahoma City taxpayers bear the lion’s share of the cost for a new $900 million arena for the state’s lone major league sports franchise, the NBA’s Thunder.

My two sons, their wives and children are all in. The patriarch and matriarch? Not so much.

I don’t run a professional polling operation, so I can’t know with certainty, but I’d bet there are more than a few households similarly debating the pros and cons of the new arena deal city leaders struck with the Thunder.

One side views the vote through an either-or prism: Either taxpayers agree to extend the penny MAPS’ sales tax for another six years to finance the estimated $900 million area or the Thunder bolt [pardon the pun], delivering a devastating blow to the city’s economy and prestige.

The other side is just as convinced the money could be better spent on helping create a healthier, more sustainable community. Think of the possibilities with a nearly $1 billion investment in infrastructure like housing, transportation, education and social services. Wouldn’t that far exceed what the Thunder generates economically and image-wise for the city and state?

My family are big sports fans. We are pleased Oklahoma has an NBA franchise. We cheer for the Thunder. We want it to be successful. And we want the team to stay here.

But the regressive nature of sales taxes means the heaviest burden will be borne by those who can least afford it … to build an arena that largely will serve the wealthiest Oklahomans who can afford pricey tickets.

I am not opposed to any public investment in a new arena. I also am not oblivious to the challenges of operating a small-market professional sports team that doesn’t enjoy the corporate and broadcast revenues available in the nation’s largest cities.

But it is shameful that well-heeled ownership only committed $50 million to the project. If it were a 50-50 proposition – taxpayers and owners each paying half – we would be having a different conversation.

As Oklahoma Progress Now’s Nabilah Rawdah put it, “We’re not against the Thunder. We’re not against the new arena. We’re against a poorly negotiated deal. We’re getting the most poorly negotiated NBA arena contract in the last decade.”

The anguish over this deal is real. Consider that, like my family, three of the Oklahoma City Council’s most progressive members – James Cooper, JoBeth Hamon and Nikki Nice – also are divided over the deal. Cooper voted to put it on the ballot, Hamon and Nice voted against.

Cooper, of course, helped negotiate provisions that could help ensure arena employees are paid a living wage and at least half come from neighborhoods riven with unemployment and underemployment.

It also includes a “labor peace” component that could afford further protection should arena workers decide to organize.

Add in the fact a construction project of this magnitude would help employ hundreds of workaday Oklahomans – some undoubtedly from union shops – and it makes sense that organized labor also would be supporting Tuesday’s referendum.

This has been a highly nuanced debate, which is a very good sign for Oklahoma City going forward. It suggests city residents are paying closer attention to what their city leaders are doing, saying and proposing.

The reality is, government leaders are more likely to make better decisions – ones that help lift more boats – if they’re hearing from more than just the C-Suite offices.