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

[ChicosBailBonds]

Never been my position. My position is that it is better to build with the Bucks than without. My position has been consistent and based on the facts available. Yours is based on opinion and vague, possibly analogous studies from completely different cities with entirely different situations and goals.

My position is the people of Milwakee, sports fans in particular, believe their city will implode if the Bucks leave that they make decisions out of emotion and not their brains.  That is their choice, but teams have left cities throughout history and those cities somehow managed on.

It's all about choices.  The good news is that the rest of Milwaukee is humming along so well that the excess money that they are just sitting on and have nothing else to do with can be used for this purpose.....

[The Lens]

MLS season runs concurrently with MLB season. I doubt we have the population base to support two summer/fall pro teams.  

MLS is a 34 game season.  That's 17 home games + some traveling team opportunities.  They wouldn't be doing the volume the Brewers do but could give downtown operators weekly opportunities they do not have now.  

[source?]

Your articles are about maintenance and upgrades, not the idea that the building is breaking down or structurally unsound.  Those upgrades and maintence are also estimates over a long period of time and not all of them will be implemented, they are estimated improvements.  That's how this works.

Put another way, if the $25M to $40M could not be secured for the BC to make those improvements, th BC still stands, still has events, still carries on like it does today.  They are wants, not needs.  They might be very important wants, but you're are getting carried away with some of your hyperbolic statements.

I should reach out to Costello. Been a long time since I spoke to him.  Would be good to catch up.

New HVAC required. New elevators required. New parking structure (actual integrity issues brought up in article). New plumbing required. New roof required (yes, a roof is a structural concern). Energy inefficient lighting required (costs more over time than replacing). New security system required. But yes, just keep sticking you fingers in your ears and telling me you can't hear me.

Also, I have no interest in who you know or how long it's been since you spoke to them. That's a large part of why people get annoyed with you.

[zrjones13]

Your articles are about maintenance and upgrades, not the idea that the building is breaking down or structurally unsound.  Those upgrades and maintence are also estimates over a long period of time and not all of them will be implemented, they are estimated improvements.  That's how this works.

Put another way, if the $25M to $40M could not be secured for the BC to make those improvements, th BC still stands, still has events, still carries on like it does today.  They are wants, not needs.  They might be very important wants, but you're are getting carried away with some of your hyperbolic statements.

I should reach out to Costello. Been a long time since I spoke to him.  Would be good to catch up.

If the Bucks leave Milwaukee, the combination of revenue losses and needed repair and maintenance would cost the BMO Harris Bradley Center $100 million over 10 years, Marotta said.

[ChicosBailBonds]

If the Bucks leave Milwaukee, the combination of revenue losses and needed repair and maintenance would cost the BMO Harris Bradley Center $100 million over 10 years, Marotta said.

And others have said that is not true.  RIP Marc

[ChicosBailBonds]

New HVAC required. New elevators required. New parking structure (actual integrity issues brought up in article). New plumbing required. New roof required (yes, a roof is a structural concern). Energy inefficient lighting required (costs more over time than replacing). New security system required. But yes, just keep sticking you fingers in your ears and telling me you can't hear me.

Also, I have no interest in who you know or how long it's been since you spoke to them. That's a large part of why people get annoyed with you.

You can change most of your required to desired and you would be accurate.

[source?]

My position is the people of Milwakee, sports fans in particular, believe their city will implode if the Bucks leave that they make decisions out of emotion and not their brains.  That is their choice, but teams have left cities throughout history and those cities somehow managed on.

It's all about choices.  The good news is that the rest of Milwaukee is humming along so well that the excess money that they are just sitting on and have nothing else to do with can be used for this purpose.....

Hooray! A concrete position or facts supporting an argument. Wait...

[brewcity77]

Your articles are about maintenance and upgrades, not the idea that the building is breaking down or structurally unsound.  Those upgrades and maintence are also estimates over a long period of time and not all of them will be implemented, they are estimated improvements.  That's how this works.

Put another way, if the $25M to $40M could not be secured for the BC to make those improvements, th BC still stands, still has events, still carries on like it does today.  They are wants, not needs.  They might be very important wants, but you're are getting carried away with some of your hyperbolic statements.

If the Bucks leave, the state will have to take care of all that maintenance and upgrades themselves. The HVAC, the pillars outside, any structural issues that may crop up in the next few decades, it will be all on the state. Whether it costs $25M or $100M or more, it will come out of the state's pocket.

Further, the BC without the Bucks will not attract new business. It won't attract bars and restaurants, it won't create attractive outdoor venues like a beer garden and viewing area, it won't encourage businesses and residents to move into the area. There's no guarantee the new arena will do that either, but we know for certain the BC will not.

Would it be nice if the Bucks owners funded this completely privately? Sure. But that isn't going to happen. End of story. Not worth further discussion because it simply will not happen. So again, back to the two options I listed above:

1) Keep the Bradley Center: The Bucks will leave, the state will be on the hook for necessary repairs, and the surrounding area will at best stagnate while the state saves $50M.

2) Contribute to the Miller Beer Garden: The Bucks will stay, Milwaukee will have a chance at an attractive, promising downtown area, jock tax continues to come in, and over the long term the public funding amounts to $50M.

That's it. Anything further is just fluff and pipe dreams. 1 or 2. Which is it?

[source?]

And others have said that is not true.  RIP Marc

And I am prepared to go on record right now saying ChicosBailBonds is an extension of the cleverbot program designed to flood the Marquette message board with posts. There. It's been said. Fait accompli.

[source?]

You can change most of your required to desired and you would be accurate.

Sure, a roof coming down on my head is no big deal. And what you're saying (do nothing) makes the BC completely ineffective for its stated purpose. Might as well tear it down if there's no AC in the summer or heat in the winter. This is Wisconsin.

[Litehouse]

Chicos, I agree the $100 million number seems high, but it's probably at least $50 million in maintenance costs that have been deferred due to the stadium debate.  So what do you propose as the alternative?  If we don't build a new arena, the Bucks leave, so here's what we're left with:
1) the state loses $10 million/year (and growing) in income tax revenue from the Bucks
2) taxpayers have to pay between $50-$100 million in deferred maintenance costs on the BC anyway
3) the area around the BC goes downhill without the customers from 41 Bucks games to support those businesses
4) the Park East land remains undeveloped
5) then there's all the civic pride/entertainment options/visibility for the city issues that are difficult to quantify economically

[Chicago_inferiority_complexes]

Alright, here's a thought. Let's do nothing. Why try to put our best foot forward to attract a young population base when we can be a third tier toilet of a city and spend nothing? Hey, while we're at it, how about Marquette stops investing in itself. Give up these silly dreams of a new research complex. I'm 100% sure there are more profitable uses for the newly acquired land. I mean, will the new research facility really increase the GDP of the city? Or attract development to the area? You know what they say, if you aren't growing, then you're probably doing the right thing.

So stupid. Tired of the all or nothing demagogues on this issue. It just makes me less and less interested in supporting this.

[source?]

So stupid. Tired of the all or nothing demagogues on this issue. It just makes me less and less interested in supporting this.

Thank you for your comment on my intelligence. I appreciate your well-reasoned and factually supported argument. Please hold for one of our representatives. Your comment is important to us.

[Chicago_inferiority_complexes]

Alright, here's a thought. Let's do nothing. Why try to put our best foot forward to attract a young population base when we can be a third tier toilet of a city and spend nothing? Hey, while we're at it, how about Marquette stops investing in itself. Give up these silly dreams of a new research complex. I'm 100% sure there are more profitable uses for the newly acquired land. I mean, will the new research facility really increase the GDP of the city? Or attract development to the area? You know what they say, if you aren't growing, then you're probably doing the right thing.

Is there any evidence that "young professionals" go to Bucks games? Can someone in favor of putting millions of taxpayer dollars in the hands of billionaires please try to back up their arguments?

Young professionals are not going to Bucks games. No one is going to Bucks games, relatively speaking. And no one is doing anything after Bucks games after, again, relatively speaking, as evidenced by the toilet environment around the current Bradley Center.

[brewcity77]

Young professionals are not going to Bucks games. No one is going to Bucks games, relatively speaking. And no one is doing anything after Bucks games after, again, relatively speaking, as evidenced by the toilet environment around the current Bradley Center.

So...you clearly are in support of the new arena then, right?

Because if you aren't in favor of the "toilet environment" around the current Bradley Center that, based on your comments aren't attracting young professionals, we need something new in hopes of both stimulating said environment and attracting said young professionals.

[Chicago_inferiority_complexes]

Your assuming that a new building is going to attract new people. Study after study demonstrates that this is not the given that you think it is.

[Chicago_inferiority_complexes]

New HVAC required. New elevators required. New parking structure (actual integrity issues brought up in article). New plumbing required. New roof required (yes, a roof is a structural concern). Energy inefficient lighting required (costs more over time than replacing). New security system required. But yes, just keep sticking you fingers in your ears and telling me you can't hear me.

Also, I have no interest in who you know or how long it's been since you spoke to them. That's a large part of why people get annoyed with you.

So in order to fix these issues we need a new building. Imagine if every time you needed home repairs, you bought a new home.  

[GGGG]

Is there any evidence that "young professionals" go to Bucks games? Can someone in favor of putting millions of taxpayer dollars in the hands of billionaires please try to back up their arguments?

Young professionals are not going to Bucks games. No one is going to Bucks games, relatively speaking. And no one is doing anything after Bucks games after, again, relatively speaking, as evidenced by the toilet environment around the current Bradley Center.

I think many people have backed up their points of view in this thread.  And yes, when I have been to NBA games including the Bucks, I see many 20-30ish people in the seats.  Most of the time they are likely using tickets that their employer bought I am sure.  But young professionals do go to Bucks games.

[GGGG]

So in order to fix these issues we need a new building. Imagine if every time you needed home repairs, you bought a new home. 

No.  They need a new building to keep the Bucks.  The Bucks aren't staying without one.

[brewcity77]

Your assuming that a new building is going to attract new people. Study after study demonstrates that this is not the given that you think it is.

No, I'm not. My assumption is that the old building is not going to attract new people. For evidence, I look at the past 15-20 years of the old building not attracting new people and see no reason to think that would change.

However, while the new building may not attract new people, the complex around it very well could. Having a beer garden would attract a crowd not currently going downtown. All you have to do is go to Estabrook Park or Humboldt Park during the summer to see clear evidence of this. The outdoor viewing area would attract a crowd not currently going downtown. All you have to do is go to Brady Street or Highbury during a major soccer event to see clear evidence of this.

Further, the new building would continue to attract the people the current building is already attracting. Even with Bucks attendance numbers down, they are still attracting over 14,000 on average per game. Even if only half of those seats are filled, that's around 300,000 people coming downtown per year. Take the Bucks away and you'll take those people away. But in the early 2000s when the Bucks were good, they were attracting over 16,000 per game every year, and most of those seats were filled. Say you get back to those attendance numbers, even if only 75% of the seats are full, that's around 500,000 people coming downtown per year. That won't happen without the Bucks, and the Bucks won't be here without the new arena.

Will the new arena generate more business? We don't know. Quite possibly not. But it will give the city some new amenities, will give it the opportunity to generate new business (an opportunity that 100% will not exist without it), and will keep bringing people downtown that otherwise will not be there.

Then add in the tax received from Bucks players and jock tax from Bucks visitors, honestly, I just don't see any way this isn't a very worthwhile investment for the state.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Alright, here's a thought. Let's do nothing. Why try to put our best foot forward to attract a young population base when we can be a third tier toilet of a city and spend nothing? Hey, while we're at it, how about Marquette stops investing in itself. Give up these silly dreams of a new research complex. I'm 100% sure there are more profitable uses for the newly acquired land. I mean, will the new research facility really increase the GDP of the city? Or attract development to the area? You know what they say, if you aren't growing, then you're probably doing the right thing.

I'm sorry, but it's not this simple.

This isn't simply a "GIVE ME 500M OR THE CITY WILL CRUMBLE!"

Realistically, Milwaukee needs a large indoor venue. HOWEVER, the city will not burn to the ground if the Bucks move. The city also won't burn to the ground if the Bradley Center is simply knocked down, and tenants go back to using the arena.

Now, I'm not saying any of this is ideal at all... but like I said, this isn't simply an either/or scenario. If it was, then the Bucks should really play hardball and make the city pay for EVERYTHING because the Bucks have ALL of the leverage.

The truth is, the Bucks don't have all of the leverage.

This is a partnership. I'm absolutely okay with my tax dollars being used for large scale city planning. But, I'm also entitled to ask questions about how this money is getting used and how it's going to work.

That doesn't mean I think Milwaukee is a toilet that should rot from the inside out. It means I'm skeptical that the right decisions will be made, because the decisions they made in 1988 didn't work out. The decisions made for Grand Ave didn't work out. The decision to build the Park East freeway didn't work out. The list goes on and on.

It's okay to spend tax dollars... let's just make sure they are spent transparently and correctly.

[MU111]

So in order to fix these issues we need a new building. Imagine if every time you needed home repairs, you bought a new home.  

Exactly.  Not to mention that someday the new arena will also need substantial repairs that someone will need to pay for.  All buildings need to be maintained.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Exactly.  Not to mention that someday the new arena will also need substantial repairs that someone will need to pay for.  All buildings need to be maintained.

Yep.

I like the new design and the ideas... but we'll likely be doing a major remodel within 20 years, and the tax payers will be expected to pick up the tab.

[ChicosBailBonds]

If the Bucks leave Milwaukee, the combination of revenue losses and needed repair and maintenance would cost the BMO Harris Bradley Center $100 million over 10 years, Marotta said.

FEAR THE DEER?: Some economists believe Milwaukee will not take much of a hit if the NBA moves the Bucks franchise to a different state.

The NBA has the right to buy back the Bucks from Edens and Lasry and possibly move the franchise if construction is not underway by November 2017, according to ESPN reports .

“(The NBA) does have a monopoly on their own product, so as a result, they can kind of pit cities and towns and states against one another and they threaten to leave if they don’t get their pound of flesh,” Slivinski told Wisconsin Reporter.

But Slivinski is confident Milwaukee wouldn’t take much of a hit if the Bucks relocate to another state.

“It’s almost immaterial whether the team is there or not,” Slivinski said. “It’s not going to generate any new economic activity because the team is there.”

[mu03eng]

Yep.

I like the new design and the ideas... but we'll likely be doing a major remodel within 20 years, and the tax payers will be expected to pick up the tab.

Whats the point?  If we don't have a new arena, the Bucks are leaving and the state is on the hook for keeping the BC viable and they lose the revenue stream.  This is a known.

Do we want to risk the known happening on the chance that the credits and debits work out to slightly negative if we build a stadium?  I'm probably restating Brew's point but far less eloquently....we know what we've got now and that it won't work long term, and we know that if we spend a little now we've got a good shot at least neutral in net, potentially home run if we do it right.