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

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Ok. Put together a business plan and send it to the state. The fact is we care about amenities. We care about public transit, about bike lanes, about having things to do. Look at the cities that are getting more of us. You will see a pattern of investment.

Right, and I'd be all for doing something creative and unique with 350M to attract and retain young people and boomers.

I'm not sure erecting an urban arena is our best bang for the buck if that's are only goal.

AND, this isn't about the Bucks leaving or staying. If that's the argument, then we're just basically being held hostage, and we either pay the ransom, or we die. That's a different debate.

This is about a comprehensive plan to spend my tax dollars on urban development. An arena is part of that, and it can be an important part, but I want to see why it's going to work this time, because last time it didn't really work out.

I don't think that's being negative or being unreasonable.

[jsglow]

You are not looking at what Milwaukee loses if they don't build it. You can't just look at what is added, you have to factor in what is lost by doing nothing. Wait 5 years and the Bucks are gone. We then have to pay for an arena/development/repairs/etc ourselves. Please read the posts, I don't want to repeat myself 20 more times.

Long story short, the arena is being built. The state is contributing. Foregone conclusion. No point in acting like it is still being debated.

This is a KEY factor.  I was originally opposed but the costs associated with the Bucks leaving (a certainty if no arena is built) and a $100+ million BMOBC repair bill borne by Marquette, the Admirals and the taxpayers is pretty unappealing.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

There are plenty of bars within a block of the BC that make money.  But not that one.  Why would I go to a bar that looks like the generic cocktail lounge at a sad Ramada when I could go someplace cool like Turner Hall or Buck Bradley's?

Right, but again, if the BC was such an economic driver, the place would have been quickly remodeled into something that could have been successful.

The hard truth is, an arena isn't the can't miss economic beast that it has been made out to be (by some).

If it was, there wouldn't be property available anywhere near it.

[source?]

Milwaukee needs a large arena. We can build it with the bucks now or on our own later. Those are the stakes. Your cost/benefit analysis is flawed because it focuses 100% on the benefits with no consideration of what you lose. It is substantial. That's the last bullet in my gun. If you aren't convinced then we are probably too far apart.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Milwaukee needs a large arena. We can build it with the bucks now or on our own later. Those are the stakes. Your cost/benefit analysis is flawed because it focuses 100% on the benefits with no consideration of what you lose. It is substantial. That's the last bullet in my gun. If you aren't convinced then we are probably too far apart.

Think bigger.

What happens if Milwaukee simply goes without a large arena?

EDIT:

What I mean is, a lot of people are trying to sell conventional solutions, that includes politicians, city planners, and business owners.

Think outside of that. What are we actually trying to accomplish? How does this money support that goal? Is there a better way to do it?

[zrjones13]

Think bigger.

What happens if Milwaukee simply goes without a large arena?

EDIT:

What I mean is, a lot of people are trying to sell conventional solutions, that includes politicians, city planners, and business owners.

Think outside of that. What are we actually trying to accomplish? How does this money support that goal? Is there a better way to do it?

There will always be a semi large arena in Milwaukee.  We are trying to replace an aging building that is costing the state money.  We have a 250 million dollar potential private investment and they need to borrow 220 million in order to complete the project.  The loan will be paid back by future taxes.  If we fail to build an arena then we lose the 250 million dollar investment, have to pay 100 million on upkeep to an aging arena, and we don't have a pro basketball team.

So is your plan to just demolish the bradley center instead of paying the 100 million?

[brewcity77]

Think bigger.

What happens if Milwaukee simply goes without a large arena?

The BC isn't going anywhere if the Bucks leave. Marquette and the Admirals will play there, it would remain as a concert venue, but cost the state around $100M over the next 20 years. That will also mean 13 millionaires moving out of state and the loss of jock tax revenue.

Or the state spends $150M, keeps the Bucks and jock tax travelers in state, and gets a state of the art arena (albeit for a larger price and up front) while hopefully boosting the downtown area of the state's largest city.

Seems well worth the cost.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

There will always be a semi large arena in Milwaukee.  We are trying to replace an aging building that is costing the state money.  We have a 250 million dollar potential private investment and they need to borrow 220 million in order to complete the project.  The loan will be paid back by future taxes.  If we fail to build an arena then we lose the 250 million dollar investment, have to pay 100 million on upkeep to an aging arena, and we don't have a pro basketball team.

So is your plan to just demolish the bradley center instead of paying the 100 million?

Truthfully, I don't have a plan.

I'm just saying, a lot of people are going to try to convince the public that this is the only solution and we should all just nod along.

Let's engage our critical thinking skills. This is a LOT of money. That's why I'm asking tough questions. I'm not against an arena plan, I just want to make sure that the plan is actually good for Milwaukee in the long run.

EXAMPLE: At some point, somebody thought building Grand Ave (in it's current configuration) was a good idea. It wasn't a good long term plan. They didn't understand the marketplace, the demand, and the potential changes in the retail space.

[zrjones13]

Truthfully, I don't have a plan.

I'm just saying, a lot of people are going to try to convince the public that this is the only solution and we should all just nod along.

Let's engage our critical thinking skills. This is a LOT of money. That's why I'm asking tough questions. I'm not against an arena plan, I just want to make sure that the plan is actually good for Milwaukee in the long run.

EXAMPLE: At some point, somebody thought building Grand Ave (in it's current configuration) was a good idea. It wasn't a good long term plan. They didn't understand the marketplace, the demand, and the potential changes in the retail space.

Well we've had 10 years to think about it now we have a deadline.  I think a new arena is good for Milwaukee whether it leads to the extra economic development or not.  There really isn't any other option for where to put the new arena.  Losing the bucks would hurt the economy and that is what a lot of people are failing to realize.

[hairy worthen]

Think bigger.

What happens if Milwaukee simply goes without a large arena?

EDIT:

What I mean is, a lot of people are trying to sell conventional solutions, that includes politicians, city planners, and business owners.

Think outside of that. What are we actually trying to accomplish? How does this money support that goal? Is there a better way to do it?

You are thinking too narrow. You are seeing $350 million on a new arena and thinking only in terms future economic gains. Can you quantify what it would mean to Milwaukee in terms if economic impact if we didn't have the bucks? What about intangible loss. Why do cities build and maintain parks, plant trees, make the city beautiful, etc.  Using your logic we shouldn't do any of those things because they give us no bang for the buck in terms of economic development. I would argue having the bucks and a new facility are things that make Milwaukee more liveable and in the long run will attract people to Milwaukee.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

You are thinking too narrow. You are seeing $350 million on a new arena and thinking only in terms future economic gains. Can you quantify what it would mean to Milwaukee in terms if economic impact if we didn't have the bucks? What about intangible loss. Why do cities build and maintain parks, plant trees, make the city beautiful, etc.  Using your logic we shouldn't do any of those things because they give us no bang for the buck in terms of economic development. I would argue having the bucks and a new facility are things that make Milwaukee more liveable and in the long run will attract people to Milwaukee.

Now we're getting someplace.

I'd just like to see somebody try to put some context for how we can evaluate that value. There is certainly value there, but what's it worth?

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Losing the bucks would hurt the economy and that is what a lot of people are failing to realize.

How much will it hurt? I'm not entirely sure it's as much as some people would have us believe.

[brewcity77]

Now we're getting someplace.

I'd just like to see somebody try to put some context for how we can evaluate that value. There is certainly value there, but what's it worth?

That's why I mention cost of keeping the Bucks and cost of losing them.

Spend $150M to keep them, keep the millionaire tax payers and jock tax visitors, and have a chance to revitalize Milwaukee's downtown.

Or lose the Bucks, spend $100M over the next 20 years for upkeep on the BC anyway (state will be on the job without the Bucks), lose the tax revenue, and let downtown continue status quo.

Basically, spend $50M more (albeit up front) and the state keeps the Bucks, the tax revenue (should easily offset the difference), and gets a new Arena and the chance to revitalize downtown. Seems very low risk for potentially very high reward.

[hairy worthen]

Now we're getting someplace.

I'd just like to see somebody try to put some context for how we can evaluate that value. There is certainly value there, but what's it worth?

Someone smarter than me could probably figure out economic impact of the bucks leaving. Lost taxes, hotels, parking revenue, money being spent on downtown businesses, all of that. I don't think you can put a value on the intangible loss.

Milwaukee has lost sports teams before and people were crushed, affects the city psychologically. I think the money people spend on bucks related things is disposable income so if they are not spending it on the bucks they will spend it elsewhere but maybe not downtown. I think the intangible loss would be huge. Should we get rid of the Pac, museum and zoo as well? Those are all expensive things that make cities livable and I would say professional sports teams fall into that category.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Someone smarter than me could probably figure out economic impact of the bucks leaving. Lost taxes, hotels, parking revenue, money being spent on downtown businesses, all of that. I don't think you can put a value on the intangible loss.

Milwaukee has lost sports teams before and people were crushed, affects the city psychologically. I think the money people spend on bucks related things is disposable income so if they are not spending it on the bucks they will spend it elsewhere but maybe not downtown. I think the intangible loss would be huge. Should we get rid of the Pac, museum and zoo as well? Those are all expensive things that make cities livable and I would say professional sports teams fall into that category.

Ya, I get it. I don't mean to sound so anti-everything.

The Bucks and an arena certainly have value. I'm just not sure it's as magical as some people would have us believe.

As far as zoo, museum, etc., it's a little different for me. Those aren't for-profit businesses that are requiring public funding, or else they are going to leave.

[source?]

Just for reference, the Bucks' current payroll is just under $58 million. At 10% tax rate, over the next 20 years, that's $116 million in lost state revenue. From player salaries alone. Not coaches, not staff, not owners, not property taxes (millionaires have to live somewhere), nothing else taken into account. If their payroll stays the same for the next 20 years.

[hairy worthen]

Ya, I get it. I don't mean to sound so anti-everything.

The Bucks and an arena certainly have value. I'm just not sure it's as magical as some people would have us believe.

As far as zoo, museum, etc., it's a little different for me. Those aren't for-profit businesses that are requiring public funding, or else they are going to leave.

I don't think you sound anti everything. You are asking legit questions that should be asked. I just think it's more complex than most people think.

[zrjones13]

How much will it hurt? I'm not entirely sure it's as much as some people would have us believe.

"the bradley center has a gross economic impact of $204.5 million each year and supports 2,350 jobs that generate $73.1 million in annual payroll. The study also stated that 30 percent of Bradley Center attendees come from outside Milwaukee, Waukesha, Washington and Ozaukee counties and those attendees spend $41.6 million in downtown Milwaukee. In all, the Bradley Center drew 1.2 million people to its events in its last fiscal year, which ended June 30, 2011."Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce.


That year the bucks had an attendence of 631,000 so that's over half of the 1.2 million.  I'm sure most of that payroll (73.1 million) is buck's players so you would lose pretty much all of that.  It seems losing the bucks would have a huge impact on the economy.    

[zrjones13]

Just for reference, the Bucks' current payroll is just under $58 million. At 10% tax rate, over the next 20 years, that's $116 million in lost state revenue. From player salaries alone. Not coaches, not staff, not owners, not property taxes (millionaires have to live somewhere), nothing else taken into account. If their payroll stays the same for the next 20 years.

The salary cap is increasing to almost 90 million in 2016.  In 2012 the jock tax was 10.7 million, so increasing the salary cap by 32 million could raise it nearly 50%.

[source?]

The salary cap is increasing to almost 90 million in 2016.  In 2012 the jock tax was 10.7 million, so increasing the salary cap by 32 million would raise that to at least 13 million. 

Same 20 year period, $260 million.

[forgetful]

Amen, Chick.

I can only imagine what $400 million or more could do if a financially strong donor invested in a fund to buy down tuition. Or perhaps develop needed programs to elevate Marquette's presence in the world. A basketball arena is a ridiculous expense when we have a world class facility less than a mile away. If we were in Ames, Iowa; Carbondale, IL or Columbia, MO, maybe. But we're not.

Basically a 5% decrease in total tuition and fees for each student.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Well we've had 10 years to think about it now we have a deadline.  I think a new arena is good for Milwaukee whether it leads to the extra economic development or not.  There really isn't any other option for where to put the new arena.  Losing the bucks would hurt the economy and that is what a lot of people are failing to realize.

Not true.  Losing the Bucks would not necessarily hurt the economy.  Other cities have lost pro teams and done just fine.

The inflated numbers used to validate teams value to a city is always an interesting argument....one usually based on ego and city penis size validation more than real economic numbers.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Someone smarter than me could probably figure out economic impact of the bucks leaving. Lost taxes, hotels, parking revenue, money being spent on downtown businesses, all of that. I don't think you can put a value on the intangible loss.

Milwaukee has lost sports teams before and people were crushed, affects the city psychologically. I think the money people spend on bucks related things is disposable income so if they are not spending it on the bucks they will spend it elsewhere but maybe not downtown. I think the intangible loss would be huge. Should we get rid of the Pac, museum and zoo as well? Those are all expensive things that make cities livable and I would say professional sports teams fall into that category.

There have been papers done on this stuff by WMG, and others.  Thing is, the impacts are so widly different it is hard to take them seriously.  LA loses the Ram and Raider, Seattle loses the Sonics, Louisvill doesn't add a NBA team...neither does KC....so on and so forth.  The impacts to justify adding a team or the $$ lost swing wildly to very little or nothing, to the GDP of a medium size country.

[source?]

There have been papers done on this stuff by WMG, and others.  Thing is, the impacts are so widly different it is hard to take them seriously.  LA loses the Ram and Raider, Seattle loses the Sonics, Louisvill doesn't add a NBA team...neither does KC....so on and so forth.  The impacts to justify adding a team or the $$ lost swing wildly to very little or nothing, to the GDP of a medium size country.

GDP is not the argument here. Milwaukee will need a new arena in the next 20 years. We can build it in 20 years, after the Bucks leave, on our own, or we can build it with the Bucks. This doesn't feel like it should be that big of an argument.

[ChicosBailBonds]

GDP is not the argument here. Milwaukee will need a new arena in the next 20 years. We can build it in 20 years, after the Bucks leave, on our own, or we can build it with the Bucks. This doesn't feel like it should be that big of an argument.

Maybe, though if they are building arenas now to only last 45 years before they fall down by themselves, that's a sad state of affairs.  Feels like "need" and "want" are being used as synonyms.