GUEST COLUMN: Threat to move OU sports out of Norman is toothless
In recent interview, OU President Harroz suggested that if the City of Norman does not pay for a new arena in the University North Park district, then OU would consider moving OU sports to other cities. This statement is unfortunate. It does not set the tone for a collaborative partnership between the City and OU and the threat itself is disingenuous.
Certainly, we can understand why OU would want to dip into city, county, and school tax revenues to pay for a publicly owned arena. It is a sensible business strategy to use an arena to attract investors for a restaurant and bar cluster, especially if OU can shift the costs to taxpayers. An arena hosting OU basketball and women’s gymnastics would generate foot traffic for nearby restaurants and bars raising the development value of the land in the area.
The point of locating a new arena in the UNP is to raise the development value of the land owned by OU Foundation. If OU chose to locate basketball and gymnastics competitions in Moore or OKC, it would still need an anchor for its 90 acres of land in the UNP area. Will Moore give OU Foundation 90 acres to develop plus build a new arena for OU to lease? Not likely.
It is unclear why OU choose to threaten to move OU sports from Norman. This strategy was used to convince OKC voters to approve a sales tax to fund a new arena of the NBA Thunder team. The situation in Norman, however, is different. A new arena won’t make Norman a “big league” city. The proposed new arena won’t be the nicest or biggest in the SEC! OU is already a member of the SEC with or without a new arena.
This ultimatum strategy could undermine future collaborative community building opportunities in Norman. Instead of being a generous development partner, OU/OU Foundation looks like a greedy land developer which puts its own financial interests ahead of community wellbeing.
The threat of losing OU sports is not credible. The arena is meant to serve as an anchor for 90 acres of land five miles from campus. If it was just about a new arena, OU could build one right next to Lloyd Noble in its sports complex.
Clearly locating a new arena in the UNP is the best way to leverage OU Foundation’s land holdings.
Norman leaders should bargain from a position of strength. If OU Athletics and OU Foundation could get a better offer, wouldn’t they have made this public? Let OU bring an actual competing offer to the table. Maybe Moore would give them 90 acres and build a new arena? Maybe OKC would give them a sweetheart deal on leasing the new Thunder area?
City council should focus on a plan that addresses Norman’s priorities and not be distracted by empty threats. TIF schemes are powerful tools because they secure public funds for a targeted project plan without requiring a public vote. City council has not asked voters if they want to tie up $220 million in tax revenues for the next 25 years for a new arena and another bar and restaurant strip.
Comprehensive economic and fiscal impact analyses are crucial to inform the decision. The arena TIF plan may “work” to pay off the project costs and debt, but this does not indicate the impact on city, county, or school budgets. Afterall, the UNP land will not sit vacant for 25 years without a new arena, and TIF is not needed to meet market demand for housing.
It is time to weed through the threats, focus on market fundamentals, and do what is best for Norman.
No comments:
Post a Comment