The Oklahoma City Thunder face yet another challenging and regrettable circumstance as they attempt to pursue their career.
No young talent in the NBA, the premier professional basketball league in the world, is currently more brilliant than 25-year-old Shai Gilgeous-Alexander.
One of the best basketball analysts in the world has called this Oklahoma City Thunder player, who was named to the first team of the NBA last season, “one of the craftiest scorers in the league.” This observer exclaims that Gilgeous-Alexander is “leaving opponents guessing as to which way he’s going to move next.”
However, it’s never a mystery where Thunder’s owner, venture capitalist Clayton Bennett, plans to move next. He’s taking the path that will put the greatest amount of tax money in his pocket.
Bennett led the group that purchased the Seattle Supersonics for $325 million in 2006, marking his first NBA franchise ownership. After Seattle officials rejected Bennett’s demand for a brand-new $500 million arena that would be primarily financed by local taxpayers rather than himself, Bennett relocated that franchise to Oklahoma City two years later.
Public authorities in Oklahoma City were not as disinterested in helping the already wealthy as those in Seattle. Journalist Judd Legum writes that their city’s existing arena was “built in 2002 at taxpayer expense.” They quickly approved $100 million in additions to the facility, and in 2019 they approved an additional $115 million in improvements.
Bennett, the owner, would not be satisfied with those many millions. Similar to his actions in Seattle the previous year, Bennett made it clear that he desired a whole new arena. OKC mayor David Holt swiftly issued a warning, saying it would be better to give Bennett his new venue than to lose the Thunder to another city.
Later, Bennett and Holt would reach an agreement to construct a new arena downtown. That arena is expected to cost an astounding $900 million to build. The Bennett ownership group would just be required to pay $50 million as their portion. The city would supply the remainder. Or, more precisely, the average OKC household would lose out on the remainder.
Mayor Holt made every effort to conceal that fact. He asserted that no additional taxes would be required to fund Bennett’s new b-ball palace. That assertion would be true in theory. According to Holt’s funding proposal, a one-cent local sales tax that was about to expire would be extended, and Bennett’s new residence would be built with all of the money raised.
The city services that the community one-cent sales tax had been supporting, ranging from renovations to new affordable housing alternatives and neighborhood parks to crisis centers for addiction and mental health breakdowns, were the losers in that two-step financing process.
The Holt plan was approved by the OKC City Council in September with a vote of 7–2. A citywide vote on the designated sales tax extension is scheduled for December 12. However, there has been some opposition to the idea in the community, with JoBeth Hamon being one of the two members of the City Council who voted against the new arena subsidies.
According to Hamon, “I think OKC is more than just a sports team—we are a vibrant place full of arts, culture, and great music.” “The wealthy gain from this deal, while regular people never benefit from it because it was negotiated from a position of fear and scarcity.”
A grassroots movement called “Buy Your Own Arena” was promptly started by other local OKC activists in opposition to the City Council’s magnanimity toward the wealthy Bennett and his friends.
As noted by the local Rev. Lori Allen Walke last month, Oklahoma City has many more urgent needs than just constructing an arena for the wealthiest residents. Due to the lack of affordable housing in the area, 42% of renter households currently pay more than 30% of their gross income in rent.
Rev. Wolke continued, saying that given Oklahoma City’s present housing issues, it is evident that something has gone distinctly “amiss” in the city to have “a plan to build a new house for multi-millionaires, but not one to house average Oklahomans.”
22 economists from Oklahoma have just weighed in, calling the new arena agreement a “imprudent use of public money.” The University of Oklahoma economist Cynthia Rogers notes that the Bennett franchise subsidy “will not have a meaningful impact on economic growth or economic activity in the Oklahoma City metropolitan area.”
Rogers continues, saying that the agreement will instead “divert money away from other needs.”
OKC native Nick Singer continues, “When I take my kid to a neighborhood park and not a single one has a bathroom, I wonder why can’t we get some money allocated to fix these problems?”
The public’s discomfort in Oklahoma City has been exacerbated by comparisons between the Oklahoma City arena contract and other recent NBA arena agreements. Alex Shirley, a local, claims that the NBA’s Sacramento Kings are contributing 51 percent of the $284 million total cost of construction for their new stadium—more than five times what Bennett is contributing for his OKC arena. Sixty-three percent of the cost of the Detroit Pistons’ new hoops palace is being covered by them.
In the 17 years since he established the Thunder in Oklahoma City, Bennett, the team’s owner, has witnessed a significant increase in the value of his franchise, which now stands at $1.75 billion as opposed to the $325 million it first cost his ownership group. If a new arena is built, its value will rise significantly, which offers Bennett and the other wealthy owners plenty of motivation to make significant investments in the Thunder subsidy referendum that takes place next week.
The impending subsidy deal is being referred to by Mayor Holt as “truly a win-win for all of us.” The past few months have shown that a sizable portion of the OKC population definitely disagrees.
