Bucks to unveil $500 million stadium plan just north of BC

[jsglow]

To your earlier point, as addressed by me03, cities, counties and states offer huge incentives through things like TIF districts, property tax rebates, sales tax rebates, etc., to attract and retain corporate entities. And, as with sports arenas, they usually lose money on the deal. Ultimately, most decide that the indirect benefits (employment, surrounding development, etc.), outweigh the direct costs.

As to your second point, it would be great if we could let the owners take all the risks. And in a non-competitive marketplace, that's what would happen.
The problem is, other cities want professional sports franchises. There are 30 NBA teams and > 30 cities that want to be NBA cities. And some of those other cities are very willing to take all or a share of the risks off the owners' hands.

In in Milwaukee's case it's actually worse than that standard 'somebody else will kick in if we don't' argument.  No one should forget that the NBA WILL move the team if no arena is built.  This isn't simply an idle owner's threat about the grass being greener somewhere else.  No new arena, no NBA team.  #donedeal.

[MuMark]

I think the key here is not to think of it strictly as a NBA franchise. The Bucks are a company that employs over 100 people. There is full-time and part-time personnel, jobs that would disappear without the franchise. Further, they bring in additional tax revenue through the jock tax. In 2014, that was $6.5 million. Even without the expected NBA salary cap jumps in the next few years, that means in the next 20 years, the jock tax as is would bring in $130 million back to state coffers.

Most likely, the salary cap increase will vastly increase the value of the jock tax, but at current salaries, that will pay for 59% of the proposed bonds. This is all money that will completely go away if the Bucks leave.

I don't know what the Bradley Center maintenance will cost over the next 20 years. However when you factor in the jock tax as is, you are talking about spending at most $90 million in state funds to get this done. High estimates say the BC will require $100 million in maintenance. If that's true, it will be cheaper for the state to help build the arena than it will to let the Bucks go.

I am guessing those estimates are high, but even if it's only $25 million (would be at least that) the state would have to pay for that themselves, and you are still getting a new arena built for $65 million in state funds while retaining a business that draws people downtown and employs over 100 people.

If the arena revitalizes downtown, if the jock tax goes up so the facility essentially pays for itself, if the Bucks are successful and give a sense of state and civic pride, those are all potential benefits, but in terms of actual, tangible, known benefits, I really think those values offset the cost to the state. Anything above that is just icing on the cake.

And since this board is full of MU basketball fans lets not forget that the Bucks aren't the only people that will benefit from the facility.....

This is a great thing for MU Basketball.....

[source?]

I'm just not sold that the NBA draws enough people to make it as impactful as everybody believes. Maybe I'm not doing a good enough job understanding how the television money and player salaries benefit the city/state.

As far as the TIF district, ya, I have to plead ignorance. I'm not aware of the intricacies of how this stuff gets negotiated. I'm just thinking from a high-level. If this is going to be such a boom, then let the owners take the risks, and let the owners profit. I'm totally fine with that. They will be far better at it than the city/state could ever be. Let the whole production be privatized. The city and state can make their money down the line.

If you want to trot out the same argument every single day then just reread the first 13 pages of the thread.

[breadtree]

I think the key here is not to think of it strictly as a NBA franchise. The Bucks are a company that employs over 100 people. There is full-time and part-time personnel, jobs that would disappear without the franchise. Further, they bring in additional tax revenue through the jock tax. In 2014, that was $6.5 million. Even without the expected NBA salary cap jumps in the next few years, that means in the next 20 years, the jock tax as is would bring in $130 million back to state coffers.

Most likely, the salary cap increase will vastly increase the value of the jock tax, but at current salaries, that will pay for 59% of the proposed bonds. This is all money that will completely go away if the Bucks leave.

I don't know what the Bradley Center maintenance will cost over the next 20 years. However when you factor in the jock tax as is, you are talking about spending at most $90 million in state funds to get this done. High estimates say the BC will require $100 million in maintenance. If that's true, it will be cheaper for the state to help build the arena than it will to let the Bucks go.

I am guessing those estimates are high, but even if it's only $25 million (would be at least that) the state would have to pay for that themselves, and you are still getting a new arena built for $65 million in state funds while retaining a business that draws people downtown and employs over 100 people.

If the arena revitalizes downtown, if the jock tax goes up so the facility essentially pays for itself, if the Bucks are successful and give a sense of state and civic pride, those are all potential benefits, but in terms of actual, tangible, known benefits, I really think those values offset the cost to the state. Anything above that is just icing on the cake.

"However, according to leading sports economists, stadiums and arenas rarely bring about the promised prosperity, and instead leave cities and states mired in debt that they can't pay back before the franchise comes calling for more.

"The basic idea is that sports stadiums typically aren't a good tool for economic development," said Victor Matheson, an economist at Holy Cross who has studied the economic impact of stadium construction for decades. When cities cite studies (often produced by parties with an interest in building the stadium) touting the impact of such projects, there is a simple rule for determining the actual return on investment, Matheson said: "Take whatever number the sports promoter says, take it and move the decimal one place to the left. Divide it by ten, and that's a pretty good estimate of the actual economic impact."

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/09/if-you-build-it-they-might-not-come-the-risky-economics-of-sports-stadiums/260900/

The report cites the work of Andrew Zimbalist, a sports economist at Smith College, who has questioned the economic impact of new sports arenas.

"One should not anticipate that a team or a facility by itself will either increase employment or raise per capita income in a metropolitan area," Zimbalist said in 2009.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/publicly-funded-sports-arenas-add-little-to-local-economy-report-says-cc9ehcj-201706591.html

As University of Chicago economist Allen Sanderson memorably put it, “If you want to inject money into the local economy, it would be better to drop it from a helicopter than invest it in a new ballpark.”

Studies demonstrating pro sports stadiums’ slight economic impact go back to 1984, the year Lake Forest College economist Robert Baade examined thirty cities that had recently constructed new facilities. His finding: in twenty-seven of them, there had been no measurable economic impact; in the other three, economic activity appeared to have decreased. Dozens of economists have replicated Baade’s findings, and revealed similar results for what the sports industry calls “mega-events”: Olympics, Super Bowls, NCAA tournaments and the like.

http://www.thenation.com/article/162400/why-do-mayors-love-sports-stadiums

[warriorchick]

Don't most of those studies assume that the arenas are 100% financed by the taxpayers?

What if it is like the case in Milwaukee's proposed new arena, where the public would only pay a fraction of the total costs?

[brewcity77]

So breadtree, are you illiterate? Because clearly you were incapable of reading the post you quoted.

I said nothing about promised prosperity. I deliberately avoided that, instead focusing on how the investment would be relatively minimal compared to guaranteed revenue returns.

Talking about employment gains is idiotic and shows you did not comprehend what I wrote. These jobs already exist. Keeping the Bucks will preserve them. Nowhere am I talking about newly created jobs. So again, pointless text.

Economic impact in the sense of the articles you quote are looking at gaining a new franchise or hoping a new Arena will spur growth. Again, your reading comprehension sucks. Must be that UW-Madison education. I specifically said any of that would be icing on the cake, and that this project at worst would be little more than break even compared to the resulting tax and job losses that would be guaranteed if the Bucks were to leave.

[real chili 83]

Brew, reeelaaaax.  Have a brew. 

[brewcity77]

Brew, reeelaaaax.  Have a brew.  

Already am  

Just a pet peeve when someone quotes a post and then writes a huge wall of text that doesn't acknowledge any of what they quoted. Message board ignorance.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Why should somebody who lives in another state care if it is all private money or some sort of split?


It isn't your money.

Thank goodness you weren't making the decision on Miller Park or the Brewers would be gone now.

And Milwaukee would have ceased to exist as a result.....

[brewcity77]

Miller Park has undoubtedly been good for West Milwaukee. That area south of the stadium was a wasteland. Now there are tons of restaurants and new businesses that previously never had interest in the area. From the Parkway south to Lincoln, a new, thriving business district has sprouted up that didn't exist 15 years ago.

I know, stadiums are no guarantee of growth, but Miller Park has definitely led to a growth spike in an area that was previously moribund.

[TedBaxter]

- The state will have to kick in $100 million just to keep the Bradley Center functional WITHOUT an NBA team as a resident if they do not build the new arena.  Would they spend the $100 million or just knock it down knowing they don't have a tenant for 41-45 nights a year? 

- That area of the city becomes an issue and hotels and restaurants will lose a great deal of it's business.  How many close?

- A city with 2 major sports franchises goes down to 1.  What kind of impact does this have for future and current businesses in trying to sell Milwaukee as a major city?  From January to April you lose any national and international mention of Milwaukee as a result of losing the one major sports franchise.

- You lose at least 200 jobs in the city affiliated with the Bucks alone in addition to jobs lost from the arena loss and potential businesses around the new arena.

To me this is a nobrainer for a city and state that doesn't a high number of visible national businesses.  You can contribute state money to improve the states highway infrastructure, which I support, and help companies in all 4 corners of the state to improve jobs opportunities, but you are going to let a sports franchise walk and lose jobs for money that you can recoup?

[mu_hilltopper]

The problem is, that argument can be made for any $50m+ business.

If, say, Miller Brewing said they were going to consolidate their operations to Colorado and shut down their Milwaukee operations .. unless the state, city, and county came up with $350m for them to build a new brewery..  and a beer-slide water park that was open 41 days a year ..  

Well, you say, holy crap, we can't lose 1200 jobs.  Think of the lost tax revenue!  And that beer-slide water park sounds pretty cool, we want one of those.   We can't lose our identity, our major-city reputation is about beer.  And two crappy major sports teams.  Let's raise $350m, the alternative is awful and this is a no-brainer!

[brewcity77]

The problem is, that argument can be made for any $50m+ business.

If, say, Miller Brewing said they were going to consolidate their operations to Colorado and shut down their Milwaukee operations .. unless the state, city, and county came up with $350m for them to build a new brewery..  and a beer-slide water park that was open 41 days a year ..  

Well, you say, holy crap, we can't lose 1200 jobs.  Think of the lost tax revenue!  And that beer-slide water park sounds pretty cool, we want one of those.   We can't lose our identity, our major-city reputation is about beer.  And two crappy major sports teams.  Let's raise $350m, the alternative is awful and this is a no-brainer!

Forget about the Bucks and the new arena. I want a beer slide water park.

[jsglow]

Miller Park has undoubtedly been good for West Milwaukee. That area south of the stadium was a wasteland. Now there are tons of restaurants and new businesses that previously never had interest in the area. From the Parkway south to Lincoln, a new, thriving business district has sprouted up that didn't exist 15 years ago.

I know, stadiums are no guarantee of growth, but Miller Park has definitely led to a growth spike in an area that was previously moribund.

Wait just a minute there Brew.  It only became a wasteland when I stopped cruising Beloit Road and Lincoln Avenue for Pius XI girls.   

[brewcity77]

Wait just a minute there Brew.  It only became a wasteland when I stopped cruising Beloit Road and Lincoln Avenue for Pius XI girls.   

So it became a wasteland because of warriorchick?

[ChicosBailBonds]

Why should somebody who lives in another state care if it is all private money or some sort of split?


It isn't your money.

Thank goodness you weren't making the decision on Miller Park or the Brewers would be gone now.

Wasn't much of Miller Park paid for by people living out of state that came into town to rent a hotel, rent a car, etc? 

[source?]

The problem is, that argument can be made for any $50m+ business.

If, say, Miller Brewing said they were going to consolidate their operations to Colorado and shut down their Milwaukee operations .. unless the state, city, and county came up with $350m for them to build a new brewery..  and a beer-slide water park that was open 41 days a year ..  

Well, you say, holy crap, we can't lose 1200 jobs.  Think of the lost tax revenue!  And that beer-slide water park sounds pretty cool, we want one of those.   We can't lose our identity, our major-city reputation is about beer.  And two crappy major sports teams.  Let's raise $350m, the alternative is awful and this is a no-brainer!

Where are these cities lining up to build Miller Brewery a water park? Because I can think of a couple willing to pay for an arena.

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

The problem is, that argument can be made for any $50m+ business.

If, say, Miller Brewing said they were going to consolidate their operations to Colorado and shut down their Milwaukee operations .. unless the state, city, and county came up with $350m for them to build a new brewery..  and a beer-slide water park that was open 41 days a year ..  

Well, you say, holy crap, we can't lose 1200 jobs.  Think of the lost tax revenue!  And that beer-slide water park sounds pretty cool, we want one of those.   We can't lose our identity, our major-city reputation is about beer.  And two crappy major sports teams.  Let's raise $350m, the alternative is awful and this is a no-brainer!

1) The city, county and state would only be contributing $250 million to the Bucks not $350 million.
2) Is Miller planning to invest $250 million in private funds like the Bucks owners?
3) Is Miller considering investing an additional $500 million to develop the surrounding area?
4) Is the state on the hook for $25-100 million of expenses if Miller leaves?

If the answer to each of those questions is yes, then you are correct it is a no brainer!  Doesn't matter if it is the Bucks, Miller, NWML, etc.  Supporting such plans just makes sense.  Glad to see you support the new Bucks arena.   

[jsglow]

So it became a wasteland because of warriorchick?

Exactly.  Nashville Fr. Ryan girls > Pius girls. No contest.

(With the exception of any scooper's beautiful and delightful wife.)

[ChicosBailBonds]

Exactly.  Nashville Fr. Ryan girls > Pius girls. No contest.

(With the exception of any scooper's beautiful and delightful wife.)

What about DS girls?

[jsglow]

What about DS girls?

I'm a southside More man.  The blue blood eddies wouldn't allow it.  They could afford to bribe DS girls with popcorn and soda at the movies.  We were tapped out after the $3 ticket. 

That's alright.  We still kicked their sorry arse in football every year.  Golf, not so much.

[mu_hilltopper]

1) The city, county and state would only be contributing $250 million to the Bucks not $350 million.
2) Is Miller planning to invest $250 million in private funds like the Bucks owners?
3) Is Miller considering investing an additional $500 million to develop the surrounding area?
4) Is the state on the hook for $25-100 million of expenses if Miller leaves?

If the answer to each of those questions is yes, then you are correct it is a no brainer!  Doesn't matter if it is the Bucks, Miller, NWML, etc.  Supporting such plans just makes sense.  Glad to see you support the new Bucks arena.  

1. Only $250m!!!  That's a steal.
2. Sure!
3. That's what they say!
4. Yup.  Maybe a little less.   Think of all those abandoned buildings in Miller Valley, ala Tower Automotive. 

[MUDPT]

Any way the state can fund this by adding a "Milwaukee Basketball Arena" donation on our state income tax form?  Or is that just reserved for "Green Bay Football Stadium?"

[dgies9156]

Exactly.  Nashville Fr. Ryan girls > Pius girls. No contest.

(With the exception of any scooper's beautiful and delightful wife.)

Uhhh, I passed on Father Ryan women in favor of an Iowa girl! A Marquette woman no less.

As to Father Ryan, having two Father Ryan women in my family (my sisters), don't mess with them! They're pretty, but tough as nails and they bite back!

(Note, the writer is a Father Ryan grad and a Marquette grad!)

[jsglow]

Uhhh, I passed on Father Ryan women in favor of an Iowa girl! A Marquette woman no less.

As to Father Ryan, having two Father Ryan women in my family (my sisters), don't mess with them! They're pretty, but tough as nails and they bite back!

(Note, the writer is a Father Ryan grad and a Marquette grad!)

I knew you'd chime in dgies!  Go purple and red!