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

[warriorchick]

All I can say is why don't we raise funds to put a Kohl Center on campus? It's an arms race in terms of facilities with the Blue Blood Badgers, and this maybe will elevate us beyond the high school gym that is the Bradley Center

Are you volunteering to chair this effort?  You can start by finding a place on campus to put it.

[mu03eng]

I don't subscribe to the gloom and doom if a sports team leaves, especially one that is trying to fleece the citizens when there are many other bigger fish to fry.  I heard this same doom and gloom when the Raiders and Rams left.  For 20 years, the city has somehow managed to stay erect.  Seattle didn't implode, neither did Kansas City, San Diego, Cincinnati, Vancouver, Newark, Baltimore or any number of other cities that have lost NBA teams over the years.

You throw this list out time and again and those situations and Milwaukee can't be compared.  Everyone of those cities except Vancouver and Newark(really?  They haven't "imploded", do you even know what that word means?) has an NFL team, the number 1 entertainment ticket in town.  They also all have at least two major sports franchises.  Milwaukee, without the Bucks has is out on both counts.  Yes the Packers are within reach for Milwaukee but so are the Bears from a geographical standpoint and we'd never say Milwaukee has two NFL teams.  Plus the Packers don't bring tax revenue to Milwaukee, so I'm pretty sure it doesn't count.

You know what else most of those if not all those cities have going for them?  Weather, the weather isn't as bad in the winter as it is in Milwaukee, take away a major entertainment option in the winter and Milwaukee looks a lot less appealing.

Also, at some point the NBA could surpass the NFL in popularity.  Not saying it will, but there are an awful lot of issues swirling around the NFL and the NBA tv deal and ratings shows it's popularity is exploding.  If that shift does happen, I'd sure as hell hope Milwaukee had one of those chips.

Lastly, just because the public has to spend dollars doesn't mean they are getting fleeced.....even the most pessimistic view would put the total public investment (after tax revenues generated, etc) at less than $100 million.  Given the overall landscape (cities paying for facilities to get a team) there is no reason that we shouldn't invest.

[GGGG]

I tend to agree more with Chicos on this issue than the other side.  I want the new arena.  I think it would be a good thing for Milwaukee.  But if it doesn't happen, it isn't the end of the world.  Yeah the near west side is going to be in bad shape.  But people will find different ways to entertain themselves and spend money doing so.

I know this is terribly coincidental, but Milwaukee pretty much hit its peak during an era where it didn't have an NBA team in the city.  The Bradley Center didn't do much to stop the city's slide, and I don't think it has anything to do with its recent rebound over the past decade or so. 

[Dr. Blackheart]

I don't subscribe to the gloom and doom if a sports team leaves, especially one that is trying to fleece the citizens when there are many other bigger fish to fry.  I heard this same doom and gloom when the Raiders and Rams left.  For 20 years, the city has somehow managed to stay erect.  Seattle didn't implode, neither did Kansas City, San Diego, Cincinnati, Vancouver, Newark, Baltimore or any number of other cities that have lost NBA teams over the years.

Not sure about erect, but many on your list have imploded and even exploded. Social fabric is a fine line.  

Listen, even if the arena funding is all private, the government will have to spend the money on the surrounding infrastructure to support it (roads, utilities, labor, transportation, maintaining existing facilities like the BC, the cost of the empty land at the current site, etc.).  If I am an elected official, I'd rather have skin in the game on arena ownership when the next generation of owners come along. It is prudent.  This leaves an infusion of a boatload of New York capital from the current Bucks owners to spur investment around the arena, a major mistake of other arenas who were built on an urban island.  

Where does the government want to spend their money?  Do they want to own utility vaults, street lights, blacktop, street car rail, an empty Bradley Center, or do they want to own a public-private on-going revenue generating investment?  Easy choice for me. Pick your poison.

[brewcity77]

While it doesn't have to be an arena, Milwaukee does desperately need SOMETHING to go in that space. Since the Park East was torn down, the ghetto has pushed closer and closer to downtown. There is a huge project apartment around 8th and Highland as well as a ton of low-income rental units between McKinley and Walnut centered around 6th-8th Streets.

The less development we see downtown, the more these projects will impinge on downtown. The crime and poverty that used to be more limited to the north side is pushing in all directions, most notably north and west. Keep the void in downtown and you'll see that crime move south and east.

My biggest issue with the anti-arena crowd is that they have NO answer to what should go in that spot. Downtown has been withering for years. Attempts to revitalize Grand Avenue and the Convention Center have been inadequate and failed to increase traffic. All we're getting are condos, most of which start intended for buyers and end up going to renters years later.

I haven't heard one viable alternative to what should be done with downtown. Not what should be done with this money, or whether we should keep the Bucks, but another way to attract interest to the area and keep it a visible part of the city that Milwaukee wants to showcase as opposed to just another stretch of the north side ghetto expanding.

[Groin_pull]

While it doesn't have to be an arena, Milwaukee does desperately need SOMETHING to go in that space. Since the Park East was torn down, the ghetto has pushed closer and closer to downtown. There is a huge project apartment around 8th and Highland as well as a ton of low-income rental units between McKinley and Walnut centered around 6th-8th Streets.

The less development we see downtown, the more these projects will impinge on downtown. The crime and poverty that used to be more limited to the north side is pushing in all directions, most notably north and west. Keep the void in downtown and you'll see that crime move south and east.

My biggest issue with the anti-arena crowd is that they have NO answer to what should go in that spot. Downtown has been withering for years. Attempts to revitalize Grand Avenue and the Convention Center have been inadequate and failed to increase traffic. All we're getting are condos, most of which start intended for buyers and end up going to renters years later.

I haven't heard one viable alternative to what should be done with downtown. Not what should be done with this money, or whether we should keep the Bucks, but another way to attract interest to the area and keep it a visible part of the city that Milwaukee wants to showcase as opposed to just another stretch of the north side ghetto expanding.

I'd like to hear what Wisconsinites are willing to spend their precious tax dollars on. They all whine about what they DON'T want to invest in. Tell us what is worthy of your money.

[mu03eng]

While it doesn't have to be an arena, Milwaukee does desperately need SOMETHING to go in that space. Since the Park East was torn down, the ghetto has pushed closer and closer to downtown. There is a huge project apartment around 8th and Highland as well as a ton of low-income rental units between McKinley and Walnut centered around 6th-8th Streets.

The less development we see downtown, the more these projects will impinge on downtown. The crime and poverty that used to be more limited to the north side is pushing in all directions, most notably north and west. Keep the void in downtown and you'll see that crime move south and east.

My biggest issue with the anti-arena crowd is that they have NO answer to what should go in that spot. Downtown has been withering for years. Attempts to revitalize Grand Avenue and the Convention Center have been inadequate and failed to increase traffic. All we're getting are condos, most of which start intended for buyers and end up going to renters years later.

I haven't heard one viable alternative to what should be done with downtown. Not what should be done with this money, or whether we should keep the Bucks, but another way to attract interest to the area and keep it a visible part of the city that Milwaukee wants to showcase as opposed to just another stretch of the north side ghetto expanding.

Nor do they talk about how they want to fill the hole in the budget generated by losing tax revenue.  We either spend or we lose revenue, there is no budget neutral way to have the Bucks exit.  If you don't want to spend fine, then how are you going to manage the lost revenue?

[mu03eng]

I'd like to hear what Wisconsinites are willing to spend their precious tax dollars on. They all whine about what they DON'T want to invest in. Tell us what is worthy of your money.

Here's the political issue that has gotten Wisconsin in knots.  There are legitimate things that we shouldn't have or should not be spending money on and there are things we should be spending money.  However, the two sides have staked out binary positions on the issue, it's either spend on nothing or spend on everything.

[4everwarriors]

I'd like to hear what Wisconsinites are willing to spend their precious tax dollars on. They all whine about what they DON'T want to invest in. Tell us what is worthy of your money.

Sign 'em up for that trolley, hey? Gotta have that POS shoved down the old esophagus, ai na?

[brewcity77]

I'd like to hear what Wisconsinites are willing to spend their precious tax dollars on. They all whine about what they DON'T want to invest in. Tell us what is worthy of your money.

This is so incredibly true. Everyone I talk to wants to cut, cut, cut. All I hear about is all the things we don't need to spend money on. At some point, you have to spend somewhere. Just senseless.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Not sure about erect, but many on your list have imploded and even exploded. Social fabric is a fine line.  

Listen, even if the arena funding is all private, the government will have to spend the money on the surrounding infrastructure to support it (roads, utilities, labor, transportation, maintaining existing facilities like the BC, the cost of the empty land at the current site, etc.).  If I am an elected official, I'd rather have skin in the game on arena ownership when the next generation of owners come along. It is prudent.  This leaves an infusion of a boatload of New York capital from the current Bucks owners to spur investment around the arena, a major mistake of other arenas who were built on an urban island.  

Where does the government want to spend their money?  Do they want to own utility vaults, street lights, blacktop, street car rail, an empty Bradley Center, or do they want to own a public-private on-going revenue generating investment?  Easy choice for me. Pick your poison.

None of them imploded as a result of their NBA team leaving.  Baltimore has had issues for 50 years, as an example. 

The spur investment line has been throughly ripped apart in many studies.

End of the day, the local folks of Wisconsin and Milwaukee will have to decide what is important.  If they don't feel this is paramount, then the repercussions will fall where they may. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

I'd like to hear what Wisconsinites are willing to spend their precious tax dollars on. They all whine about what they DON'T want to invest in. Tell us what is worthy of your money.

choo choo trains.....

[brewcity77]

End of the day, the local folks of Wisconsin and Milwaukee will have to decide what is important.  If they don't feel this is paramount, then the repercussions will fall where they may. 

And this is the exact problem. Not doing this cuts off a significant revenue stream, reduces jobs, and leaves a gaping hole in downtown.

Anyone not supporting this needs to counteract it with a proposal that addresses these issues, not just say "eh, we'll get over it, uh, somehow."

[79Warrior]

You throw this list out time and again and those situations and Milwaukee can't be compared.  Everyone of those cities except Vancouver and Newark(really?  They haven't "imploded", do you even know what that word means?) has an NFL team, the number 1 entertainment ticket in town.  They also all have at least two major sports franchises.  Milwaukee, without the Bucks has is out on both counts.  Yes the Packers are within reach for Milwaukee but so are the Bears from a geographical standpoint and we'd never say Milwaukee has two NFL teams.  Plus the Packers don't bring tax revenue to Milwaukee, so I'm pretty sure it doesn't count.

You know what else most of those if not all those cities have going for them?  Weather, the weather isn't as bad in the winter as it is in Milwaukee, take away a major entertainment option in the winter and Milwaukee looks a lot less appealing.

Also, at some point the NBA could surpass the NFL in popularity.  Not saying it will, but there are an awful lot of issues swirling around the NFL and the NBA tv deal and ratings shows it's popularity is exploding.  If that shift does happen, I'd sure as hell hope Milwaukee had one of those chips.

Lastly, just because the public has to spend dollars doesn't mean they are getting fleeced.....even the most pessimistic view would put the total public investment (after tax revenues generated, etc) at less than $100 million.  Given the overall landscape (cities paying for facilities to get a team) there is no reason that we shouldn't invest.

There is ZERO chance the NBA will ever be more popular than the NFL. By the way, take a look at the NFL TV deal. Awfully good for a 16 game season

[ChicosBailBonds]

And this is the exact problem. Not doing this cuts off a significant revenue stream, reduces jobs, and leaves a gaping hole in downtown.

Anyone not supporting this needs to counteract it with a proposal that addresses these issues, not just say "eh, we'll get over it, uh, somehow."

Clearly that arguement isn't working or taking hold.  You guys that want this thing need to do a better job convincing folks.

The voters aren't buying it.  Maybe they don't believe the numbers, the claims, etc.  Maybe it just leaves a stink in their craw that they are having to spend money for a bunch of millionaires for a place to play when there are bigger fish to fry in their opinions.  Remember, about 30% of Americans give a damn about sports.   

[brewcity77]

There is ZERO chance the NBA will ever be more popular than the NFL. By the way, take a look at the NFL TV deal. Awfully good for a 16 game season

I wouldn't be so sure of that. The new generation of parents doesn't have near the amount of loyalty to the NFL, especially with the new concussion reports coming out. It will take years, probably a full generation, but while the NFL is king now, it wasn't always that way, nor will it always be.

[GGGG]

I wouldn't be so sure of that. The new generation of parents doesn't have near the amount of loyalty to the NFL, especially with the new concussion reports coming out. It will take years, probably a full generation, but while the NFL is king now, it wasn't always that way, nor will it always be.

The NFL had the second highest television ratings in its history last year...next to 2010.  The "new generation of parents" may not want their kids playing football, but they are still watching it. 

And you concede that it "might take a full generation."  Saying something might happen in 30 years isn't really a reason to invest in something like an arena right now.  (And I do want the arena.)

[brewcity77]

The NFL had the second highest television ratings in its history last year...next to 2010.  The "new generation of parents" may not want their kids playing football, but they are still watching it. 

And you concede that it "might take a full generation."  Saying something might happen in 30 years isn't really a reason to invest in something like an arena right now.  (And I do want the arena.)

I wasn't commenting on that at all in relation to the arena, simply noting that the idea that the NBA could never overtake the NFL is incorrect. Maybe it won't, but at some point, some sport WILL overtake the NFL, and likely in our lifetime. Nothing lasts forever.

[MuMark]

David Aldridge ‏@daldridgetnt  22m22 minutes ago
Bucks beating NY for a prominent FA shows how NBA world has changed dramatically. New CBA, new owners, new realities. Old advantages gone.

[Litehouse]

Clearly that arguement isn't working or taking hold.  You guys that want this thing need to do a better job convincing folks.

The voters aren't buying it.  Maybe they don't believe the numbers, the claims, etc.  Maybe it just leaves a stink in their craw that they are having to spend money for a bunch of millionaires for a place to play when there are bigger fish to fry in their opinions.  Remember, about 30% of Americans give a damn about sports.  

I agree the argument doesn't seem to be catching on, but the opponents also seem to have their fingers in their ears with their eyes closed repeating "no, no, no, no, no".  I haven't seen anyone explain how the deal doesn't make sense financially for the state.

[brewcity77]

I agree the argument doesn't seem to be catching on, but the opponents also seem to have their fingers in their ears with their eyes closed repeating "no, no, no, no, no".  I haven't seen anyone explain how the deal doesn't make sense financially for the state.

Unfortunately, this is just the state of politics in Wisconsin right now. Ever since the start of Walker's union busting, both sides have just moved further and further apart, and whether the plan makes sense for both sides or the state as a whole, no one will agree on anything that isn't their own idea. I haven't heard one counter-argument to the arena other than "we don't need them". And trust me, I've been involved in this discussion a lot.

[Eldon]

The NFL had the second highest television ratings in its history last year...next to 2010.  The "new generation of parents" may not want their kids playing football, but they are still watching it. 

And you concede that it "might take a full generation."  Saying something might happen in 30 years isn't really a reason to invest in something like an arena right now.  (And I do want the arena.)

I wonder to what extent this comes from new and improved television sets.  Two points.  First, super high quality television sets, new-and-improved surround sound systems, greater program production on behalf of networks, etc., makes people less inclined to see the game in person.  That is to say, to some extent the higher TV ratings competes with in-game experience.  I'm curious if NFL attendance has been down in conjunction with the increase in TV ratings. 

Second, super high quality television, surround sound, etc., may also pull in new viewers to football that would not have watched otherwise.

The thing is, though, that super high quality TV sets, surround sound systems, etc., has also likely boosted NBA ratings as well.  So I think a better measure of the NFL popularity is not just to measure the overall increase in TV ratings, but rather the relative increase (decrease?) in NFL TV ratings compared to the NBA.

In any case, I believe that the concussion problem is huge for the NFL.  Is football as dangerous as concussion-advocates claim?  It may be that the NFL is correct in its argument that more research needs to be done to make a definite conclusion, but it nevertheless seems that there is an increase in the perception that football can be a very dangerous sport.  And this is a problem for the NFL.  If this perception persists, I can certainly see basketball, or possibly baseball, as the most popular sport.

[moomoo]

some positive developments

Bucks owners purchased some land next to the proposed site, for the purpose of being a bridge to the entertainment center

Milwaukee city officials preliminarily approved their end of the financing

and the most positive update, from Fitz's mouth----

"I’m certainly hoping that there will be Democrat senators, from my perspective, that will support the arena deal, and there will be enough votes to get the arena completed. I’m very optimistic," said Fitzgerald.

[Galway Eagle]

Sen Kohl was a dem and he was heart set on keeping the Bucks in Milwaukee. I'm quite certain that he's probably making some calls to convince the other dem senators to vote yes

[brewcity77]

Sounds like Barry and Bo will be adding their support Monday.

@cf_gardner: Bucks holding news conference in Madison on Monday featuring UW coach Bo Ryan and athletic director Barry Alvarez. State presence vital.