If you take a snapshot of the last 18 months of downturn you might be correct that if Seacrets paid a lump sum and OPA fought the assessment value that after all costs to get the tax assessment lowered there might be some savings.  However, did you look at it going the other way?  Over the course of time assessments and the value of property has increased. Therefore, the taxes have increased and Seacrets bears the "risk" of those increases entirely.  If the assessed value increases or the tax rate increases it all belongs to them. It is rare - the last 18 months being one of these periods - where assessed values go down. Under your plan, if property assessments went up and/or the tax rate went up we would eat any increase. Over the term of the previous lease we would have seen a reduction in net income as taxes/assessed value went up if we followed your scenario.

Further, the lease gives Secrets the right to, at their own sole expense, fight on our behalf any assessment value. Given one of the few things everyone seems to agree on is that Moore is a shrewd businessman, he has the right to fight any assessment increase, at no cost to OPA, and save himself some money. If he does it inures to his benefit in tax savings and ours in a lower assessed value. 

Over a five year period of a normalized economy, I believe we will see an increase in property values and/or an increase in the tax rate to make up the difference in the lower revenue generated should property values remain depressed. So while there might be a small amount of savings during a downturn, I think the hedge against increased taxes and assessments is prudent and over the past ten years has provided us protection. 

Ted