Skip to main content

When It Comes to the Cox Center, “What if I Get to Meet a Movie Star?” Isn’t Good Enough


In a recent post, 1889 Institute expounded on the fiduciary duty of elected officials “to act in the best interest of the people of the state as a whole,” a “high duty, executed as a public trust … wherein one puts the people’s interest above one’s own.” This fiduciary duty must not stop with elected officials.

Once an elected body or an elected official – the legislature, a city council, the governor, or a mayor – has taken final action, the faithful implementation of each enacted law, policy, or program falls to an army of bureaucrats. Thus, a fiduciary duty to execute laws and policies with diligence and integrity, tantamount to that of elected officials, must extend to government employees.

Recently, I had a few moments to sit down and watch a show with my children. Unsurprisingly, my son picked a series entitled “The Stinky and Dirty Show.” I was naturally skeptical that the show would yield any real value. However, as I watched, I found myself pleasantly surprised.

Each episode is formulaic. Stinky, a jovial garbage truck, and Dirty, a thoughtful backhoe loader, must confront an obstacle or a challenging problem. Together they must be creative and resourceful to solve the problem by inquiring “what if …?” Occasionally, when the problem is especially challenging, Dirty enters deep-think mode and Stinky responds with, “I know what you’re doing – you’re thinking. Let me help!” Together they hypothesize and ultimately devise a resourceful, innovative solution to their problem and end the episode as heroes. Watching this problem-solving duo, I thought of the times in my professional career when an adult could have benefitted from this show’s moral.

As a recovering bureaucrat, I have seen a lack of experience contribute to bad deals. I have also seen the potential harm caused by jaded, entrenched, and uninspired colleagues. I have seen it in settlement negotiations. I have seen it in the procurement of multimillion-dollar public facilities. And it happens right here in Oklahoma.

To illustrate this phenomenon, consider the recent agreement concerning the Cox Center.

On behalf of Oklahoma City, the Oklahoma City Public Property Authority (OCPPA), a public trust, and Prairie Surf Media (PSM) reached an agreement in which PSM will lease the Cox Center to build a movie and television studio. The rhetoric from the city paints the Cox Center as a black hole. Reportedly, the city believes that the “Cox Center would have been a money sink . . . We didn’t want to operate it for smaller events. It wouldn’t have broken even.”

Further solidifying the city’s own dismal valuation of the Cox Center, language enshrined within the lease agreement states, “[T]he Cox Center is at the end of its useful life and will no longer be used as the City’s primary convention center and may eventually be demolished in deference to a highest and best use of the property.”

So highly (note the sarcasm) did the city value the Cox Center that they were willing to cross their fingers, utter a desperate prayer, and throw a Hail Mary in the hope of scoring some significant, though uncertain, economic gains. The agreement goes on to state:

“[I]n consideration of the economic impact potential presented by the services and the additional and new business opportunities that PSM will generate in attracting the west coast film industry to Oklahoma City, and as an incentive to encourage PSM to locate its operations in the Cox Center, OCPPA has determined that providing lease space to PSM at a rental rate that may be [which should be read as “most definitely is”] less than traditional fair market rental rate is more than adequate consideration in light of the new and additional economic benefits that will arise from PSM’s operations in the Cox Center.

So, given the city’s faith in a future influx of wealth and how much they valued the property, at what price was the city willing to lease the Cox Center? That would be one dollar.

You read that right – one ($1.00) dollar – singular. One dollar to rent 254,500 square feet for an entire year. I can think of numerous people that would be grateful to rent 500 square feet for a dollar a day, let alone for a year. Eventually, in five years, PSM’s rental rate will increase to $250,000 per year. A quick search of leasable commercial properties in Oklahoma City leads me to believe that an annual rate of less than $1.00 per square foot is an excellent deal for PSM.

The lease goes on to make numerous other concessions – such as utilities. PSM, which will occupy more than 78% of the facility, will not pay even a 75% share until after its initial five-year lease term expires, paying only 14% of the estimated utility cost for the first two years. OCPPA will pick up the balance of the $1.1-million-dollar tab. 

Is this what the city considers the highest and best use?

While I was not at the bargaining table to hear the discussions and certainly not capable of knowing the parties’ motives, borrowing a phrase/principle from tort law, res ipsa loquitur, the thing speaks for itself. Concessions as significant as those in the Cox Center agreement don’t occur, at least from my perspective, without a rebuttable presumption of questionable underlying activity. At a minimum, there appears to be a lack of creative problem solving resulting in corporate welfare.

Why this company? Why the concessions? Were there truly no alternatives? Was this lease part of the state’s effort to get California businesses to “leave the coast to get the most?” Or was it the allure of bringing the red carpets and shiny lights of Hollywood to Oklahoma City? Regardless of the motive, the city, and the people could have been better off if the bureaucrats in the room exercised a bit more creativity.

Even stipulating the property’s diminished value to the city, the public might have received a better deal had the city considered a few more hypotheses, beyond “What if I get to meet a movie star?” What if there were an entity that placed much greater value on the Cox Center? What if there were other potential lessees that did not require such significant concessions? What if the property could be sold to the highest bidder, creating immediate profit while still realizing future job creation, economic diversification, and even tourism? With a few more “what ifs,” the benefit to the public may have been much greater.

Whatever the obstacle, whether it is promoting economic development, resolving housing affordability, or determining the highest and best use of a publicly owned property, government employees have a fiduciary duty to act in the best interest of the general public. This requires thinking beyond the short term, beyond the current term of office, beyond the current administration, beyond the immediate media hype, and beyond self.  Too much is at stake for myopic tunnel vision. Bureaucrats would do well emulate Stinky and Dirty – to be creative, ask “what if,” and openly explore the possibilities.

Brad Galbraith is Land Use Fellow at 1889 Institute. He can be reached at bgalbraith@1889institute.org.

The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the official position of 1889 Institute.

Popular posts from this blog

Present Reforms to Keep the Ghost of State Questions Past from Creating Future Headaches

Oklahoma, like many western states, allows its citizens to directly participate in the democratic process through citizen initiatives and referendums. In a referendum, the legislature directs a question to the people — usually to modify the state constitution, since the legislature can change statutes itself. An initiative requires no legislative involvement, but is initiated by the people via signature gathering, and can be used to modify statute or amend the constitution. Collectively, the initiatives and referendums that make it onto the ballot are known as State Questions.   Recently, there have been calls to make it more difficult to amend the constitution. At least two proposals are being discussed. One would diversify the signature requirement by demanding that a proportional amount of signatures come from each region of the state. The other would require a sixty percent majority to adopt a constitutional amendment rather than the fifty percent plus one currently in place. Both

Oklahoma Mayors Acted Unlawfully With COVID-19 Orders

In response to COVID-19, the mayors of Oklahoma’s three largest cities subjected their citizens to draconian shelter in place orders, restricting their freedom, damaging them financially, and undermining their constitutional rights. The mayoral decrees were more restrictive than those of the Governor, and in significant ways contradicted his policy. To this day, city-mandated social distancing rules remain in place in Oklahoma City, Tulsa, and Norman that are not required by the state’s reopening plan. The mayors claim that where their rules are more restrictive than the state’s, the city rules apply. Was any of this unilateral mayoral activity legally valid? For the reasons examined in my paper published today, An Argument Oklahoma’s Mayors Acted Unlawfully During COVID-19 , the short answer is no. (A summary of the paper can be found here .) A close examination of relevant city ordinances and state laws governing the mayors’ COVID-19 decrees forces the conclusion tha

If Data Is Supposed to Be Our Guide, the Great Coronavirus Shutdown of 2020 Should End

According to the most widely cited model projecting the course of the coronavirus outbreak, today is supposed to be Oklahoma’s peak in daily deaths. Now is a good time to go back to the beginning of the Great Coronavirus Shutdown of 2020, review the goal of our policy, and assess our current status. If our policy should be “data-driven,” as we are constantly told, then let’s actually look at the data and determine our next policy steps accordingly. Spoiler alert: according to the terms set out by those advocating for the shutdown policy, the policy’s continuance is no longer justified. The stated goal of the shutdown policy was to “flatten the curve” so as to prevent hospitals from becoming overwhelmed with COVID patients. The fear was that the virus would spread so fast that at its peak, the number of cases would exceed the overall capacity of the healthcare system. If that peak could be stretched out over a longer period of time, lives would be saved. This concept was il

Same Ol’ Story: Blocking Opportunity, Freedom, Prosperity

I know. Sometimes we sound like a broken record. ANOTHER blog about licensing? Long-term care administration licensing? Seriously? Does this theme not get old? Well, yeah, it’s old. We wish we could stop writing about what may very well be the stupidest, most onerous, and most disgusting type of regulation on the books. Frankly, until something is done about it, we don’t believe we have a choice. And more should be getting done. This is not a partisan issue, after all. The Obama administration put out a white paper on the over-abundance of licensing in the United States and its deleterious effects. Nevertheless, Oklahoma has a do-nothing Occupational Licensing Advisory Commission headed by Labor Commissioner Leslie Osborn who clearly couldn’t care less. They rarely meet and almost never recommend that the legislature repeal a license. Nonetheless, NOTHING is more fundamental to freedom than the ownership of oneself. Therefore, the most basic freedom we have is the right to sell our