MUScoop
MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: JoBo2756 on April 21, 2014, 11:10:29 AM
-
I didn't see this discussed elsewhere... apologies if it's already been mentioned, but the Bucks deal includes $100M from the new owners and $100M from Herb Kohl (I think) for a new stadium to replace the Bradley Center in the next 4-6 years.
Here's an excerpt from an ESPN article that Chicos mentioned in another post.
• Silver said he hopes an owners' vote on the sale of the Milwaukee Bucks from Herb Kohl to hedge fund magnates Wes Edens and Marc Lasry can happen within a month. Edens and Lasry (who owns a small percentage of the Brooklyn Nets) agreed to pay $550 million for the Bucks plus $100 million toward the construction of a new arena this week. As part of the deal, Kohl agreed to gift $100 million to the city of Milwaukee for the arena.
The Bucks' current lease at the Bradley Center expires in 2017, and $200 million to $300 million more probably will need to be raised for a new arena, likely with some form of public financing. It isn't clear where that money will come from, but Silver said he was confident that the Bucks would not relocate.
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/10803355/adam-silver-says-pushing-back-nba-age-limit-top-priority
-
Yeah, I didn't see this discussed anywhere either...
-
How about Marquette throwing some money into the new arena as well? There is no reason they can not put $25M or more into the pot, helps the city, why not! They could bet a discounted
amount for the usage for the next 20 or 30 years as well to get some of that money back.
-
Where would they put the new stadium?
The valley?
-
Prob downtown. There is space near the Bradley Center (a big empty lot near the exit from I-43) right? Or is that developed now?
Although it would be kinda weird to have 3 stadiums adjacent to each other.
-
How about Marquette throwing some money into the new arena as well? There is no reason they can not put $25M or more into the pot, helps the city, why not!
I'm not privy to inner knowledge of the finances of Marquette, but I don't know where you think they have $25 million lying around for something like this. Budgets are tight at just about every school in the country, and Marquette announced layoffs 2 months ago.
-
I didn't see this discussed elsewhere... apologies if it's already been mentioned, but the Bucks deal includes $100M from the new owners and $100M from Herb Kohl (I think) for a new stadium to replace the Bradley Center in the next 4-6 years.
Here's an excerpt from an ESPN article that Chicos mentioned in another post.
• Silver said he hopes an owners' vote on the sale of the Milwaukee Bucks from Herb Kohl to hedge fund magnates Wes Edens and Marc Lasry can happen within a month. Edens and Lasry (who owns a small percentage of the Brooklyn Nets) agreed to pay $550 million for the Bucks plus $100 million toward the construction of a new arena this week. As part of the deal, Kohl agreed to gift $100 million to the city of Milwaukee for the arena.
The Bucks' current lease at the Bradley Center expires in 2017, and $200 million to $300 million more probably will need to be raised for a new arena, likely with some form of public financing. It isn't clear where that money will come from, but Silver said he was confident that the Bucks would not relocate.
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/10803355/adam-silver-says-pushing-back-nba-age-limit-top-priority
Shouldn't that read "gift back to the new ownership group"?
-
Where would they put the new stadium?
The old rumor was in the big open lot (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/43.0463704,-87.9173162/BMO+Harris+Bradley+Center,+1001+N+4th+St,+Milwaukee,+WI+53203/@43.045301,-87.9187891,593m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m8!4m7!1m0!1m5!1m1!1s0x880519748afe3d71:0xc34841a20c7519a!2m2!1d-87.917166!2d43.043728) 2 blocks north of the BC....
-
Bradley Center gets torn down after the new one is built. It has too.
-
Where would they put the new stadium?
The valley?
Three sites appear most likely and in this order:
1. North of current BC in the former Park East space. Pros: Undeveloped so it is easy; keeps much of the infrastructure (parking, traffic flow) of the BC relevant; cheapest area to develop. Cons: Pushes facility further away from bars, restaurants and hotels; remains single use facility as won't be a part of a larger development project.
2. Tear down arena and MKE theater. Pros: Even more centrally located within the city; likely can be incorporated with convention center to create a more functional and larger space. Cons: More expensive to develop; Interests of more groups need to be considered
3. Valley: Pro: Potawatomi are far more likely to make a significant contribution if the venue is within walking distance of their properties Con: Doesn't really stimulate the city, it stimulates the casino; really hurts downtown business; Puts the NBA more in bed with gambling than they have been previously
-
Three sites appear most likely and in this order:
1. North of current BC in the former Park East space. Pros: Undeveloped so it is easy; keeps much of the infrastructure (parking, traffic flow) of the BC relevant; cheapest area to develop. Cons: Pushes facility further away from bars, restaurants and hotels; remains single use facility as won't be a part of a larger development project.
2. Tear down arena and MKE theater. Pros: Even more centrally located within the city; likely can be incorporated with convention center to create a more functional and larger space. Cons: More expensive to develop; Interests of more groups need to be considered
3. Valley: Pro: Potawatomi are far more likely to make a significant contribution if the venue is within walking distance of their properties Con: Doesn't really stimulate the city, it stimulates the casino; really hurts downtown business; Puts the NBA more in bed with gambling than they have been previously
Why?
-
Why?
I should have said, it doesn't fit within the current development that is already there. The convention center and the new BC would be quite a distance apart and wouldn't be "connected." That site can certainly be used to build a large complex, but it would be independent of what currently exists.
-
I would peg the possibility of public financing at slim and none. I realize "important people" have been trying to lay the groundwork for this for years .. but ..
Many communities outside of MKE has pre-emptively passed "laws" saying NO to any form of taxation for a new stadium. Not to mention the constant Wisconsin-wide governmental budget cutting that's occurred over the past 3+ years.
The Bucks have few fans in Milwaukee to begin with, as it's just a loser franchise. When the Bucks new owners lay down the ultimatum (and they certainly will) that they'll have to move the Bucks without a new arena, they will hear crickets, minus some Downtown business owners.
-
I would peg the possibility of public financing at slim and none. I realize "important people" have been trying to lay the groundwork for this for years .. but ..
Many communities outside of MKE has pre-emptively passed "laws" saying NO to any form of taxation for a new stadium. Not to mention the constant Wisconsin-wide governmental budget cutting that's occurred over the past 3+ years.
The Bucks have few fans in Milwaukee to begin with, as it's just a loser franchise. When the Bucks new owners lay down the ultimatum (and they certainly will) that they'll have to move the Bucks without a new arena, they will hear crickets, minus some Downtown business owners.
U r probably right in regards to public financing. But how much does bmo pay for rights at the bc? They could try to add Harley and the potowatami to get the lions shAre privaty funded. I agree tho
Public money is a non starter unless some local politicians are interested in being recalled ...
-
I would peg the possibility of public financing at slim and none. I realize "important people" have been trying to lay the groundwork for this for years .. but ..
Many communities outside of MKE has pre-emptively passed "laws" saying NO to any form of taxation for a new stadium. Not to mention the constant Wisconsin-wide governmental budget cutting that's occurred over the past 3+ years.
The Bucks have few fans in Milwaukee to begin with, as it's just a loser franchise. When the Bucks new owners lay down the ultimatum (and they certainly will) that they'll have to move the Bucks without a new arena, they will hear crickets, minus some Downtown business owners.
I don't think anything happens before this November's elections anyway. They have 9-12 months to get their ducks in a row to at least try something.
-
I would peg the possibility of public financing at slim and none. I realize "important people" have been trying to lay the groundwork for this for years .. but ..
Many communities outside of MKE has pre-emptively passed "laws" saying NO to any form of taxation for a new stadium. Not to mention the constant Wisconsin-wide governmental budget cutting that's occurred over the past 3+ years.
The Bucks have few fans in Milwaukee to begin with, as it's just a loser franchise. When the Bucks new owners lay down the ultimatum (and they certainly will) that they'll have to move the Bucks without a new arena, they will hear crickets, minus some Downtown business owners.
The Bucks have more than a few fans. The casual Bucks fan has tired of this poorly run franchise. With new blood in ownership and hopefully front office, they could get this thing turned around. Giannis has the potential to be a star and is very marketable. Having a top 4 draft choice this year is also going to be huge. If the Bucks put a quality product on the court, the fans will come out to support them.
The Bucks leaving Milwaukee would be terrible news for Marquette. Is Marquette going to pay to keep the Bradley Center relevant? If the Bucks move, we are losing a big help with where Marquette is able to play its home games. We eventually would turn into a mid major I feel.
-
Why?
My question too.
There are avenues off of 43 and it looks like it's still accessible from Water and the surrounding bars/restaurants.
I looked around that projected plot and saw lots of blight that could benefit from a new arena.
It's time Milwaukee reinvested in itself. There's only so much good moving out into the hinterland and creating new communities can do for a city.
-
Bradley Center gets torn down after the new one is built. It has too.
Why? I think Milwaukee should just keep building arenas all in the same area until there is one for every citizen.
Collect 'em all, kids!
-
I'm not privy to inner knowledge of the finances of Marquette, but I don't know where you think they have $25 million lying around for something like this. Budgets are tight at just about every school in the country, and Marquette announced layoffs 2 months ago.
So the Bucks leave, where does MU play then, the Mecca, MU would really be going the wrong direction, the building needs to much work the next 10 years per Marc Marotta, like 100M, play
at the Al? The Al cost $31M to build, how much would be a new stadium on campus cost MU if they did it themselves? $200M or more so why not help out?
-
I would peg the possibility of public financing at slim and none. I realize "important people" have been trying to lay the groundwork for this for years .. but ..
Many communities outside of MKE has pre-emptively passed "laws" saying NO to any form of taxation for a new stadium. Not to mention the constant Wisconsin-wide governmental budget cutting that's occurred over the past 3+ years.
The Bucks have few fans in Milwaukee to begin with, as it's just a loser franchise. When the Bucks new owners lay down the ultimatum (and they certainly will) that they'll have to move the Bucks without a new arena, they will hear crickets, minus some Downtown business owners.
For me, it's just about risk vs reward.
Best case scenario: the Bucks become the new Spurs, and have tremendous success for 15+ years. They become a true anchor in the community. The building is packed every game, the team wins multiple championships, there is an influx of cash and jobs thanks to the new "Bucks Economy". (restaurants, parking, hotels, merchandise, television rights, radio broadcasting, advertising, etc.)
Worst case scenario: The Bucks continue to be an unsuccessful franchise, and after a handful of years, the "newness" wears off the arena, and the Bucks are back to attracting 14K per game, and the new owners start looking for more revenue streams (again). "We need to remodel the atrium to host more events on non-gamedays (again). We want to host weddings and corporate functions when the team is out of town. We need more revenue to compete."
Now, if you had $300-500million to bet, which scenario is more likely?
Also, even if they do accomplish the best case scenario, you have to figure the team is going to want another new building in 25 years. That's $15+ million per year in infrastructure the city is giving away, and at the end of it, the building really has no value. It'll be torn down or abandoned when the next one goes up.
- Do we think the Bucks generate more than 15 million per year in economic impact? (I really don't know the answer).
- What about the opportunity cost?
- Could that money be used to help stimulate growth in other businesses?
-
Worse case senario is new area is built and Bucks move to another city.
-
So the Bucks leave, where does MU play then, the Mecca, MU would really be going the wrong direction, the building needs to much work the next 10 years per Marc Marotta, like 100M, play
at the Al? The Al cost $31M to build, how much would be a new stadium on campus cost MU if they did it themselves? $200M or more so why not help out?
I understand your point, but The Al was part of a major fundraising campaign. I don't see how MU has the cash to make a donation large enough to make a difference without a campaign like that, and I doubt that's a priority for the next campaign.
-
Worse case senario is new area is built and Bucks move to another city.
Well, to be fair to pro-sports franchises, after they get their new facilities, they generally stay for a while (figure 15-20 years). I can't think of a team that received a taxpayer stadium and then bolted quickly. Maybe one of the hockey franchises down south?
-
Worse case senario is new area is built and Bucks move to another city.
I'm sure the deal would require a 20-year lease at minimum
-
If I remember correctly, new ownership was the catalyst for the Brewer's resurgence. Once the Selig's were out and a new outlook (and $$$) were involved, it totally changed the public's view (and support) of the franchise.
Kohl is a HORRIBLE meddler in the operations of the team. He makes the late George Steinbrenner look like a disinterested party. Once he is gone, my guess it's addition by subtraction and an improved product on the court.
-
I understand your point, but The Al was part of a major fundraising campaign. I don't see how MU has the cash to make a donation large enough to make a difference without a campaign like that, and I doubt that's a priority for the next campaign.
There are avenues MU has to give and get the money back in a 25 year period, so get a loan for $25M. Do something, it is as important to MU as the Bucks, so help. I do not care who the coach is but playing in an NBA arena, particularly a new one will benefit the program. It would be a showcase for any new recruits in the future. Program has to move forward.
-
Well, to be fair to pro-sports franchises, after they get their new facilities, they generally stay for a while (figure 15-20 years). I can't think of a team that received a taxpayer stadium and then bolted quickly. Maybe one of the hockey franchises down south?
The Charlotte Collesium was built for the Hornets, opened in 1988, and the Hornets moved in 2002. (14 years.)
-
Atlanta had the Thrashers leave, but the Hawks still used the stadium.
-
The Bucks have more than a few fans. The casual Bucks fan has tired of this poorly run franchise. With new blood in ownership and hopefully front office, they could get this thing turned around.
Could you explain by what metric you could suggest "the Bucks have more than a few fans"?
I mean .. the obvious metric would be attendance, which has been in decline. Perhaps you could measure TV viewing, which I don't have the figures on, but I'd imagine are awful. (Who sits down and watches an NBA game, when their team was and is a non-contender, year after year?)
I imagine there may be some "old folks" who recall the successes of the Bucks from yester-year, but they are a dying breed. I can't imagine significant chunks of <30 year olds who give a crap about the Bucks, replacing that dying breed, either.
And, and, and, far more importantly: Who would support the Bucks when a new arena is built and ticket prices then double?
I hope no one is deluded into the concept that a new stadium is "necessary" for anything besides separating more money from fans. (Every governmental meeting on this subject should begin with that disclaimer!)
-
Could you explain by what metric you could suggest "the Bucks have more than a few fans"?
I mean .. the obvious metric would be attendance, which has been in decline. Perhaps you could measure TV viewing, which I don't have the figures on, but I'd imagine are awful. (Who sits down and watches an NBA game, when their team was and is a non-contender, year after year?)
I imagine there may be some "old folks" who recall the successes of the Bucks from yester-year, but they are a dying breed. I can't imagine significant chunks of <30 year olds who give a crap about the Bucks, replacing that dying breed, either.
And, and, and, far more importantly: Who would support the Bucks when a new arena is built and ticket prices then double?
I hope no one is deluded into the concept that a new stadium is "necessary" for anything besides separating more money from fans. (Every governmental meeting on this subject should begin with that disclaimer!)
Fine. Then you won't mind when the Bucks move out of town in 2017. Just one less reason for anyone to pay attention to Milwaukee.
-
Could you explain by what metric you could suggest "the Bucks have more than a few fans"?
I mean .. the obvious metric would be attendance, which has been in decline. Perhaps you could measure TV viewing, which I don't have the figures on, but I'd imagine are awful. (Who sits down and watches an NBA game, when their team was and is a non-contender, year after year?)
I imagine there may be some "old folks" who recall the successes of the Bucks from yester-year, but they are a dying breed. I can't imagine significant chunks of <30 year olds who give a crap about the Bucks, replacing that dying breed, either.
And, and, and, far more importantly: Who would support the Bucks when a new arena is built and ticket prices then double?
I hope no one is deluded into the concept that a new stadium is "necessary" for anything besides separating more money from fans. (Every governmental meeting on this subject should begin with that disclaimer!)
Bingo. The NBA business model doesn't really work in a lot of cities, but they have a lot of teams.
What is the answer? More revenue streams.
How do you get them? Get a new (free) building that has even more places for people to spend money.
Does Milwaukee NEED an arena with a restaurant in it? No. There are dozens of restaurants a short walk away from the BC.
THE BUCKS need an arena with a restaurant in it so they can make more money. Hooray! Economic impact!
-
Fine. Then you won't mind when the Bucks move out of town in 2017. Just one less reason for anyone to pay attention to Milwaukee.
I'm against an arena. Not because I want the Bucks to move, or because I think they are bad at basketball. Even if they were in first place, I wouldn't be in favor of the arena.
I'm against it because it doesn't make economic sense for a city that has enough economic issues.
You want to invest $300-500 million in private business growth? Do something really progressive. Do something that no other city is doing. Utilize Milwaukee's advantages (geography, freshwater, existing infrastructure, skilled labor force, etc.). Do something unique, that will work for Milwaukee and can't just be easily replicated by (insert city).
Don't build an arena, and call it "growth". Don't repeat the same cycle that everybody else is doing.
-
Three sites appear most likely and in this order:
1. North of current BC in the former Park East space. Pros: Undeveloped so it is easy; keeps much of the infrastructure (parking, traffic flow) of the BC relevant; cheapest area to develop. Cons: Pushes facility further away from bars, restaurants and hotels; remains single use facility as won't be a part of a larger development project.
2. Tear down arena and MKE theater. Pros: Even more centrally located within the city; likely can be incorporated with convention center to create a more functional and larger space. Cons: More expensive to develop; Interests of more groups need to be considered
3. Valley: Pro: Potawatomi are far more likely to make a significant contribution if the venue is within walking distance of their properties Con: Doesn't really stimulate the city, it stimulates the casino; really hurts downtown business; Puts the NBA more in bed with gambling than they have been previously
Number 2 makes the most sense, but it won't happen as the BC is the one that gets torn down. Marotta saying that the BC needs 100M over the next decade (or something to that effect) pretty much says what they are thinking.
The valley is too hard to get in and out of for an arena. Only way it happens in the valley is if it is all private money = Potawatomi kicking in 200M for naming rights and as a donation. Won't happen, unless there is some big back room deal with Walker connected to killing the Kenosha casino. So the valley is probably out.
So, I agree that that ParkEast is where it goes. The BC or US Cellular gets torn down, probably the BC. Hard to believe.
I was very against the arena, but if the following is true, I am for it: 200M donated, 50M plus in naming rights, 50M plus in additional donations (corporate, private, and minority owners). That leaves about 150M to finance and that can be done through a TIF that includes real estate and sales taxes in the immediate vicinity and generated at the arena. Not a broad sales tax.
I was very against it, but if for 150M they can get an arena and keep the bucks, with billionaire owners who want to win, I'm for it.
-
Worse case senario is new area is built and Bucks move to another city.
Bucks to VT?
-
Do they then just put in a parking structure where the BC will be torn down to use for the new arena and the US Cell? Restaurants and a parking structure?
-
What's the likelihood that the new arena could be completely privately funded?
-
I'm against an arena. Not because I want the Bucks to move, or because I think they are bad at basketball. Even if they were in first place, I wouldn't be in favor of the arena.
I'm against it because it doesn't make economic sense for a city that has enough economic issues.
You want to invest $300-500 million in private business growth? Do something really progressive. Do something that no other city is doing. Utilize Milwaukee's advantages (geography, freshwater, existing infrastructure, skilled labor force, etc.). Do something unique, that will work for Milwaukee and can't just be easily replicated by (insert city).
Don't build an arena, and call it "growth". Don't repeat the same cycle that everybody else is doing.
Ayup. Well stated.
-
What's the likelihood that the new arena could be completely privately funded?
The only way that would happen is if Kohl says $100 million right now, hoping that with $200 million already committed the public would vote to fund part of it, and when they don't he just says, "Well, here's the rest of what you need." Which is not impossible. But very unlikely.
-
What's the likelihood that the new arena could be completely privately funded?
By whom? And what would their motivation be?
-
The comments here are exactly why a new arena will never get built in Milwaukee. The taxpayers won't pay a dime.
That's okay, because this will be a win-win-win for everyone involved.
Each taxpayer gets to avoid paying about $10 a year in a potential sales tax to fund a new arena.
The new Bucks owners get to move to a thriving market.
And the NBA gets to move out of a dying, rust belt town that most people couldn't find on a map.
See...everyone should be happy.
-
By whom? And what would their motivation be?
I was thinking of the SF Giants stadium (ATT) which was completely funded with private funds.
This way they could leverage the City for location and channel the municipal funds (meant for the arena) toward improving the surrounding neighborhood, instrastructure, etc.
-
The comments here are exactly why a new arena will never get built in Milwaukee. The taxpayers won't pay a dime.
That's okay, because this will be a win-win-win for everyone involved.
Each taxpayer gets to avoid paying about $10 a year in a potential sales tax to fund a new arena.
The new Bucks owners get to move to a thriving market.
And the NBA gets to move out of a dying, rust belt town that most people couldn't find on a map.
See...everyone should be happy.
I really wish they would have made the Miller Park tax a "sports and entertainment" tax so we would have some path for ongoing funding of projects like this and others which are sure to arise over the next few years.
I for one hope that it does get done, although any sort of public funding is going to be difficult.
-
The comments here are exactly why a new arena will never get built in Milwaukee. The taxpayers won't pay a dime.
That's okay, because this will be a win-win-win for everyone involved.
Each taxpayer gets to avoid paying about $10 a year in a potential sales tax to fund a new arena.
The new Bucks owners get to move to a thriving market.
And the NBA gets to move out of a dying, rust belt town that most people couldn't find on a map.
See...everyone should be happy.
You're fighting facts with an emotional appeal. Don't do that.
-
I was thinking of the SF Giants stadium (ATT) which was completely funded with private funds.
I literally just read this last week.
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2002/oct/22/privately_built_pacific/
Notice that they specially mention that Milwaukee couldn't do this. And that even they could never do this today.
Any public financing IMO is going to have to be a combination TIF type district, and something like a hotel tax. And perhaps some direct funding of infrastructure by the state, county or city.
-
MU could always share the cell with UWM ;D
-
I don't remember seeing this brought up anywhere, and it's perhaps not really a doable idea, but if the Bucks move why can't Marquette play at Miller Park? There's precedent for hoops being played in a domed baseball stadium (out Sweet 16 win over Kentucky in 1994 was at Tropicana Field in Tampa) and Marquette's season fits nicely into the Brewers off-season. Don't know why a raised floor wouldn't work in the outfield area.
-
The comments here are exactly why a new arena will never get built in Milwaukee. The taxpayers won't pay a dime.
That's okay, because this will be a win-win-win for everyone involved.
Each taxpayer gets to avoid paying about $10 a year in a potential sales tax to fund a new arena.
The new Bucks owners get to move to a thriving market.
And the NBA gets to move out of a dying, rust belt town that most people couldn't find on a map.
See...everyone should be happy.
You are right and wrong, I think it is for every $10.000 you spend here, it is $10 in tax. Another point about keeping a $100M dollar business is that the salaries of the total franchise has to be at least $70M a year, so the state gets $7M of that at least. So over 20 years, that is another $140M they get back from the Bucks, not including the tax on all the food and drinks.
-
I don't remember seeing this brought up anywhere, and it's perhaps not really a doable idea, but if the Bucks move why can't Marquette play at Miller Park? There's precedent for hoops being played in a domed baseball stadium (out Sweet 16 win over Kentucky in 1994 was at Tropicana Field in Tampa) and Marquette's season fits nicely into the Brewers off-season. Don't know why a raised floor wouldn't work in the outfield area.
Miller Park can only be heated 20 degrees warmer than the outside temperature...that might not work well in December and January.
-
I don't remember seeing this brought up anywhere, and it's perhaps not really a doable idea, but if the Bucks move why can't Marquette play at Miller Park? There's precedent for hoops being played in a domed baseball stadium (out Sweet 16 win over Kentucky in 1994 was at Tropicana Field in Tampa) and Marquette's season fits nicely into the Brewers off-season. Don't know why a raised floor wouldn't work in the outfield area.
1. The atmosphere would suck.
2. The Brewers start getting their field ready sometime in January or February. They don't want a basketball floor sitting there.
-
If I remember correctly, new ownership was the catalyst for the Brewer's resurgence. Once the Selig's were out and a new outlook (and $$$) were involved, it totally changed the public's view (and support) of the franchise.
Kohl is a HORRIBLE meddler in the operations of the team. He makes the late George Steinbrenner look like a disinterested party. Once he is gone, my guess it's addition by subtraction and an improved product on the court.
The Bucks were a successful franchise for many years until Kohl took over and canned Don Nelson. It's been so long ago though most people probably don't remember that era.
-
You're fighting facts with an emotional appeal. Don't do that.
You can present as many "facts" as you want. Many Wisconsinites are already on your side...and your side will ultimately win. Congratulations.
As far as my being "emotional"...hardly. I left Milwaukee in '97 and while I certainly don't wish my hometown any ill will, the city is also firmly in my rearview mirror. What happens in Milwaukee has very little impact on me.
I live in an area with 2 MLB teams, 2 NFL teams, 1 NBA team, 1 NHL team, and even an MLS team. Throw in two Pac-12 schools and I'm surrounded by more than enough sports to keep me busy.
When the Bucks move, it won't bother me. And clearly, it won't bother most Wisconsinites. So again, everyone wins.
-
The comments here are exactly why a new arena will never get built in Milwaukee. The taxpayers won't pay a dime.
That's okay, because this will be a win-win-win for everyone involved.
Each taxpayer gets to avoid paying about $10 a year in a potential sales tax to fund a new arena.
The new Bucks owners get to move to a thriving market.
And the NBA gets to move out of a dying, rust belt town that most people couldn't find on a map.
See...everyone should be happy.
You are assuming that the average person spends $10,000 on sales-taxable items. I would argue the $10 number is aggressive.
Your logic, however, is spot on and a testament to the complete and utter short-sighted stupidity of the people in the Milwaukee area who are STILL complaining about the sales tax to fund a ballpark. To have a new stadium for the Brewers costs less than a large beer at the Bradley Center for the average person over a year and it's still a chorus of "I won't support any taxes for a new (insert venue here)!"
Do you people understand how much business the Bucks/MU/Admirals drive to businesses downtown? I have friends who own a bar on Water Street and they count on those events. That business is not unique. Underestimating the ripple effect of letting the Bucks go would be a serious mistake that would definitely show up in a loss of tax revenue from businesses that see profitability go down/away.
-
How about Marquette throwing some money into the new arena as well? There is no reason they can not put $25M or more into the pot, helps the city, why not! They could bet a discounted
amount for the usage for the next 20 or 30 years as well to get some of that money back.
Even if MU had an extra $25 million sitting around (and they don't), there are at long list of buildings Marquette needs before a new arena.
A partial list:
New Bus Ad building
New Nursing building
More student housing
New rec center
Keep in mind that Marquette already plays in a better arena than over 90% of high major teams. If the BOT was ever insane enough to throw money at a new arena, I know I wouldn't be the only alum to stop throwing money at Marquette.
-
Three sites appear most likely and in this order:
1. North of current BC in the former Park East space. Pros: Undeveloped so it is easy; keeps much of the infrastructure (parking, traffic flow) of the BC relevant; cheapest area to develop. Cons: Pushes facility further away from bars, restaurants and hotels; remains single use facility as won't be a part of a larger development project.
2. Tear down arena and MKE theater. Pros: Even more centrally located within the city; likely can be incorporated with convention center to create a more functional and larger space. Cons: More expensive to develop; Interests of more groups need to be considered
3. Valley: Pro: Potawatomi are far more likely to make a significant contribution if the venue is within walking distance of their properties Con: Doesn't really stimulate the city, it stimulates the casino; really hurts downtown business; Puts the NBA more in bed with gambling than they have been previously
I think #2 would be the best option long term. Being able to directly link the Convention Center - New Arena - Bradley Center would give them a lot of options for hosting big events and provide the most economic bang for the buck. It's too bad they spent all that money converting the old Auditorium into the Theater. That was a huge waste of resources, and now it will probably prevent them from putting a new Arena on that block.
They could also build it over the entire 4 blocks that include the BC and parking lots. That would allow the empty space to the north to be developed separately. The Bucks and MU could play at the MECCA for a year. One downside in that situation would be that the Admirals wouldn't be able to stay at the BC. I'd prefer to keep the new arena a basketball building and keep hockey out.
-
So the Bucks leave, where does MU play then, the Mecca, MU would really be going the wrong direction, the building needs to much work the next 10 years per Marc Marotta, like 100M, play
at the Al? The Al cost $31M to build, how much would be a new stadium on campus cost MU if they did it themselves? $200M or more so why not help out?
My understanding is that the bulk of the construction costs for new arenas nowadays are the luxury seating and retail amenities. If you build a basketball arena instead of a full-service entertainment destination, you could save a boatload of money. The Cintas Center (Xavier) was completed in 2000 and cost $46M ($63M today, according to Wikipedia); the Sears Centre in Hoffman Estates was built for $62M in 2006. MU doesn't need a 15,000-20,000 seat arena that fills up twice a year... it would do just fine with a 10,000 seater like Cintas or Sears. In which case, let's say the cost to build would be in the neighborhood of $80-100M.
That being the case... where would you - as an MU alum - rather the university put $25M? Into a multi-surface arena where you're a secondary tenant or as a down-payment for your own on-campus arena?
-
Even if MU had an extra $25 million sitting around (and they don't), there are at long list of buildings Marquette needs before a new arena.
A partial list:
New Bus Ad building
New Nursing building
More student housing
New rec center
Keep in mind that Marquette already plays in a better arena than over 90% of high major teams. If the BOT was ever insane enough to throw money at a new arena, I know I wouldn't be the only alum to stop throwing money at Marquette.
BC might seem better than 90% of of high major arenas on the surface, but beneath the skin, there are a world of problems. Without a major tenant like the Bucks, it will be able to afford putting up the "90%" facade for another 5-7 years at most. It won't be long before it starts to resemble the feel of the Arena.
-
My understanding is that the bulk of the construction costs for new arenas nowadays are the luxury seating and retail amenities. If you build a basketball arena instead of a full-service entertainment destination, you could save a boatload of money. The Cintas Center (Xavier) was completed in 2000 and cost $46M ($63M today, according to Wikipedia); the Sears Centre in Hoffman Estates was built for $62M in 2006. MU doesn't need a 15,000-20,000 seat arena that fills up twice a year... it would do just fine with a 10,000 seater like Cintas or Sears. In which case, let's say the cost to build would be in the neighborhood of $80-100M.
That being the case... where would you - as an MU alum - rather the university put $25M? Into a multi-surface arena where you're a secondary tenant or as a down-payment for your own on-campus arena?
Build a 10,000 seater for a team averages 15,000 in attendance per game? Now that makes a ton of sense.
-
Here is another idea for the governor to get abused on, they have $1B dollars right now, why not give $100M to keep probably a few thousand people in jobs in the facility and around the
facility. Plus charge the hotels a little tax per room to help pay, most of those rooms will be empty for 50 nights for so without the NBA, that is like 25 rooms x 50 nights or at least 1000 rooms, high priced rooms. Time for the state to chip in, basically you need to find different avenues to find money. Let the city build the car lots and keep all the money. To be a big league
city you need a vibrant downtown, 200 days a year the Bradley Center was used, so would the next facility.
-
You can present as many "facts" as you want. Many Wisconsinites are already on your side...and your side will ultimately win. Congratulations.
As far as my being "emotional"...hardly. I left Milwaukee in '97 and while I certainly don't wish my hometown any ill will, the city is also firmly in my rearview mirror. What happens in Milwaukee has very little impact on me.
I live in an area with 2 MLB teams, 2 NFL teams, 1 NBA team, 1 NHL team, and even an MLS team. Throw in two Pac-12 schools and I'm surrounded by more than enough sports to keep me busy.
When the Bucks move, it won't bother me. And clearly, it won't bother most Wisconsinites. So again, everyone wins.
#1 It's not about "winning" for me. It's about economics. I would love for the Bucks to stay, and have the ownership group build whatever arena they want.
#2 I didn't say you were being emotional, I said:
"You're fighting facts with an emotional appeal."
You're using terms like "winning", "thriving", "rust belt", "dying", "can't find on a map".
Those are terms and phrases that evoke an emotion or a feeling.
"Oh no!, we don't want to lose and be a dying city in the rust belt that nobody can find on a map! Quick, build a new arena!"
It's a common technique used in sales, marketing and even politics.
EXAMPLE:
- People buy mini-vans because of practicality, they buy based on functionality. "Look how these seats function!"
- People buy Corvettes because of how it makes them feel. "Look how cool you look!"
I don't want Milwaukee to build an arena because of how it makes us feel. I want them to do it if it makes sense.
-
Here is another idea for the governor to get abused on, they have $1B dollars right now, why not give $100M to keep probably a few thousand people in jobs in the facility and around the
facility. Plus charge the hotels a little tax per room to help pay, most of those rooms will be empty for 50 nights for so without the NBA, that is like 25 rooms x 50 nights or at least 1000 rooms, high priced rooms. Time for the state to chip in, basically you need to find different avenues to find money. Let the city build the car lots and keep all the money. To be a big league
city you need a vibrant downtown, 200 days a year the Bradley Center was used, so would the next facility.
I doubt that the Bucks presence is worth a "few thousand" jobs. And even if it were worth 1,000 jobs, that is a $100,000 per job investment. Not really all that efficient.
-
Here is another idea for the governor to get abused on, they have $1B dollars right now, why not give $100M to keep probably a few thousand people in jobs in the facility and around the
facility. Plus charge the hotels a little tax per room to help pay, most of those rooms will be empty for 50 nights for so without the NBA, that is like 25 rooms x 50 nights or at least 1000 rooms, high priced rooms. Time for the state to chip in, basically you need to find different avenues to find money. Let the city build the car lots and keep all the money. To be a big league
city you need a vibrant downtown, 200 days a year the Bradley Center was used, so would the next facility.
Time for the state to chip in?
I don't think so.
-
Some good discussion here.
http://buckyville.yuku.com/topic/72268/Marquette-at-a-crossroads?page=1#.U1Vzoq1dUQQ
-
Build a 10,000 seater for a team averages 15,000 in attendance per game? Now that makes a ton of sense.
No one is suggesting you can't sell 15,000 tickets to the game even if you only have 10,000 seats... it wouldn't be a problem for most MU home games, anyway.
-
You are assuming that the average person spends $10,000 on sales-taxable items. I would argue the $10 number is aggressive.
Your logic, however, is spot on and a testament to the complete and utter short-sighted stupidity of the people in the Milwaukee area who are STILL complaining about the sales tax to fund a ballpark. To have a new stadium for the Brewers costs less than a large beer at the Bradley Center for the average person over a year and it's still a chorus of "I won't support any taxes for a new (insert venue here)!"
Do you people understand how much business the Bucks/MU/Admirals drive to businesses downtown? I have friends who own a bar on Water Street and they count on those events. That business is not unique. Underestimating the ripple effect of letting the Bucks go would be a serious mistake that would definitely show up in a loss of tax revenue from businesses that see profitability go down/away.
No one here is saying 'don't spend money on anything ever.' Many of us who live in Milwaukee are saying that this is not the most productive or stimulative use of government revenue. I don't mind paying the sales tax at all (I'm already doing it) - I mind giving another huge public subsidy to an industry that's very inefficient, a total monopoly, and doesn't promote the growth that it's supports suggest it does.
Give me the same tax and put it toward building a tech development park or major research campus and I'd be casting a 'Yes' vote. NBA teams move to successful cities, they don't build them.
Everyone please read this before responding to any comments: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost
-
Time for the state to chip in?
I don't think so.
I still think the most likely route is the Super TIF. Let's the city avoid going to a public vote on the issues and allows the MMAC to leverage the dollars they've spent for Walker getting something that they want. My understanding is that it turns the tax into a state tax and earmarks the funds for the project. A good idea in principle (since some projects ought to be managed by the state) but it's clearly being suggested as a way to bypass a vote the MMAC knows they can't win.
-
Some good discussion here.
http://buckyville.yuku.com/topic/72268/Marquette-at-a-crossroads?page=1#.U1Vzoq1dUQQ
I should have known better, but clicked on it anyway. That's the exact opposite of good discussion. Just the usual suspects taking an opportunity to crap on Marquette and offering absolutely nothing about the arena issue.
-
No one here is saying 'don't spend money on anything ever.' Many of us who live in Milwaukee are saying that this is not the most productive or stimulative use of government revenue. I don't mind paying the sales tax at all (I'm already doing it) - I mind giving another huge public subsidy to an industry that's very inefficient, a total monopoly, and doesn't promote the growth that it's supports suggest it does.
Give me the same tax and put it toward building a tech development park or major research campus and I'd be casting a 'Yes' vote. NBA teams move to successful cities, they don't build them.
Everyone please read this before responding to any comments: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost
Your points are good ones, however, it overlooks non-economic facets of the discussion, too. My 17 year-old son still remembers his first MU and Bucks games when he was five. Tech centers and research campuses don't have the same impact.
Fact is, there is an entire entertainment-related industry built around the downtown arenas and the cash those arenas bring to downtown. Most of the people on this board enjoy those venues (and, no, I am not necessarily talking about Art's...) Like it or not, major sports teams have a big impact, not just on the economy but quality of life. The teams go, it impacts quality of life. For $10 per year, I happily pony up for a new arena if it means my son gets to take his kids to their first game, too. Just my opinion.
And considering all the stuff our local governments piss money away on, I am willing to live with another tax for this to ensure we don't become Columbus, Ohio.
-
I should have known better, but clicked on it anyway. That's the exact opposite of good discussion. Just the usual suspects taking an opportunity to crap on Marquette and offering absolutely nothing about the arena issue.
It's a good discussion if your a delusional UW fan, hoping and against hope that MU is in a decline and is facing a crisis. Other than that, not much to see. However, each time they hope/think that somehow MU is about to implode, we seem to rise up. So, here we come MU... get ready for the BE to prosper, a new arena, and success for Wojo.
Seriously, one guy even thinks the BE is having problems and may not be around in a couple of years... talk about not having a clue.
-
No one here is saying 'don't spend money on anything ever.' Many of us who live in Milwaukee are saying that this is not the most productive or stimulative use of government revenue. I don't mind paying the sales tax at all (I'm already doing it) - I mind giving another huge public subsidy to an industry that's very inefficient, a total monopoly, and doesn't promote the growth that it's supports suggest it does.
Give me the same tax and put it toward building a tech development park or major research campus and I'd be casting a 'Yes' vote. NBA teams move to successful cities, they don't build them.
Everyone please read this before responding to any comments: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost
EXACTLY.
I would love more freshwater science tech. Milwaukee is has a unique opportunity being on the lake. Not many cities in the word have that amount of freshwater nearby. Can Milwaukee do something unique that combines advanced technology and possibly something with freshwater science?
I still like energy (both alternative and traditional fossil) as an investment. People are going to need energy. Maybe Milwaukee can get out front and be at the leading edge of energy development or even production.
-
Delusional UW fan is redundant. Anyway, I see this whole thing as a win-win for MU. Either (1) the Bucks get a new arena, and we get to play there. or (2) They don't and move, we get the BC to ourselves, and our local fan-base increases since we're the best basketball entertainment option in town.
-
Your points are good ones, however, it overlooks non-economic facets of the discussion, too. My 17 year-old son still remembers his first MU and Bucks games when he was five. Tech centers and research campuses don't have the same impact.
Fact is, there is an entire entertainment-related industry built around the downtown arenas and the cash those arenas bring to downtown. Most of the people on this board enjoy those venues (and, no, I am not necessarily talking about Art's...) Like it or not, major sports teams have a big impact, not just on the economy but quality of life. The teams go, it impacts quality of life. For $10 per year, I happily pony up for a new arena if it means my son gets to take his kids to their first game, too. Just my opinion.
And considering all the stuff our local governments piss money away on, I am willing to live with another tax for this to ensure we don't become Columbus, Ohio.
Until someone can actually quantify that impact, I'm going to be skeptical of the size of the impact. Of course business owners by the arena want it! But it's the city/state's job to take a broad view of Milwaukee's situation and decide the best use of resources. It's not like Seattle became a 3rd class city when the Sonics (admittedly not a 1:1 comparison) left and I'd rather live in MKE than OKC. The 'minor league city' argument just doesn't hold when you look at hard data and not our nebulous assessments of the city's 'perception.'
I mentioned in the Superbar thread (this was discussed there as well) that lots of investments would bring similar traffic to bars/entertainment businesses on Water/3rd. More condos, office buildings, or a new convention center would have a similar impact and employ a lot more people than the arena/Bucks would.
For me, it's looking at the NBA and seeing that it's not a sustainable investment for cities of MKE's size. If we're banking on the team being good in order for the investment to pan out, that's a terrible idea. For every OKC there's a Marlins, Cincinnati - heck - even Dallas is losing money hand over fist on that Cowboy's stadium.
-
Until someone can actually quantify that impact, I'm going to be skeptical of the size of the impact. Of course business owners by the arena want it! But it's the city/state's job to take a broad view of Milwaukee's situation and decide the best use of resources. It's not like Seattle became a 3rd class city when the Sonics (admittedly not a 1:1 comparison) left and I'd rather live in MKE than OKC. The 'minor league city' argument just doesn't hold when you look at hard data and not our nebulous assessments of the city's 'perception.'
I mentioned in the Superbar thread (this was discussed there as well) that lots of investments would bring similar traffic to bars/entertainment businesses on Water/3rd. More condos, office buildings, or a new convention center would have a similar impact and employ a lot more people than the arena/Bucks would.
For me, it's looking at the NBA and seeing that it's not a sustainable investment for cities of MKE's size. If we're banking on the team being good in order for the investment to pan out, that's a terrible idea. For every OKC there's a Marlins, Cincinnati - heck - even Dallas is losing money hand over fist on that Cowboy's stadium.
This is exactly where I'm at.
I will say that if they can get the cost down to something more reasonable (maybe $100million?? I dunno), then I think it's probably worth it.
Obviously the Bucks do have SOME economic impact, I just don't think it's $300-500 million.
-
I don't think it's fair to compare a basketball arena to football and baseball stadiums.
NFL stadiums are a horrible investment, since they only get used about 10-12 days a year and require huge infrastructure investments to handle such large crowds. Baseball stadiums are better, since they get used 81 days/year. Arenas provide the most economic impact because they can be used 200+ days a year and draw crowds to the area during the winter months.
-
Until someone can actually quantify that impact, I'm going to be skeptical of the size of the impact. Of course business owners by the arena want it! But it's the city/state's job to take a broad view of Milwaukee's situation and decide the best use of resources. It's not like Seattle became a 3rd class city when the Sonics (admittedly not a 1:1 comparison) left and I'd rather live in MKE than OKC. The 'minor league city' argument just doesn't hold when you look at hard data and not our nebulous assessments of the city's 'perception.'
I mentioned in the Superbar thread (this was discussed there as well) that lots of investments would bring similar traffic to bars/entertainment businesses on Water/3rd. More condos, office buildings, or a new convention center would have a similar impact and employ a lot more people than the arena/Bucks would.
For me, it's looking at the NBA and seeing that it's not a sustainable investment for cities of MKE's size. If we're banking on the team being good in order for the investment to pan out, that's a terrible idea. For every OKC there's a Marlins, Cincinnati - heck - even Dallas is losing money hand over fist on that Cowboy's stadium.
This entire discussion is the EXACT same one that went on with Miller Park. How many of you think it was a bad idea to give the Brewers a new home?
Oh...and how many times has the selling point "MU plays in an NBA arena." been used on the recruiting trail? If the Bucks go, is there enough activity for the BC to stay a decent facility or does it slowly turn into the arena? What impact does that have on MU?
-
Nm
-
This entire discussion is the EXACT same one that went on with Miller Park. How many of you think it was a bad idea to give the Brewers a new home?
Most economists do.
It's tough to quantify the impact of a single stadium because of all the external factors (general economic growth, other projects, weather) but almost all credible research has shown that stadiums have little to no impact on the area they are built. They only serve to shuffle dollars around in the economy, not create new dollars.
-
I don't think it's fair to compare a basketball arena to football and baseball stadiums.
NFL stadiums are a horrible investment, since they only get used about 10-12 days a year and require huge infrastructure investments to handle such large crowds. Baseball stadiums are better, since they get used 81 days/year. Arenas provide the most economic impact because they can be used 200+ days a year and draw crowds to the area during the winter months.
This is a fair point. I don't think it proves that the stadium would be a good idea, but my analogy was not very strong.
-
EXACTLY.
I would love more freshwater science tech. Milwaukee is has a unique opportunity being on the lake. Not many cities in the word have that amount of freshwater nearby. Can Milwaukee do something unique that combines advanced technology and possibly something with freshwater science?
I still like energy (both alternative and traditional fossil) as an investment. People are going to need energy. Maybe Milwaukee can get out front and be at the leading edge of energy development or even production.
Production? Based on the abundant energy resources we have? Development? Why not ask WE Energies how much fun it was to get a couple of power plants built...
Milwaukee is not a hub of forward thinking. Sorry, but it's true. If we can't get an arena built, there is no way (in my opinion) that we find a way to make the substantial infrastructure investments that are required to accomplish your goals.
-
I don't think dropping a half a billion on a new arena is really an example of "forward thinking."
-
The Fact that the City is really only looking at 50% of the bill right now leads me to believe it will get done Maybe it ends up 60/40 Private to public. That would be a good deal for the city to have a 1st class Stadium in the city for the next 25 years so the downtown can keep growing, and only have to pay 40% of it. Seattle already has a football team, and they will end up with a BBALL team at some point I think.
If at 60 /40 private to public is not a good deal then how is Chicago going to do the Depaul stadium? MU has a Huge interest in keeping this. When our team is no good our donations are also much less.
-
Most economists do.
It's tough to quantify the impact of a single stadium because of all the external factors (general economic growth, other projects, weather) but almost all credible research has shown that stadiums have little to no impact on the area they are built. They only serve to shuffle dollars around in the economy, not create new dollars.
I do not doubt what you are saying at all. In my opinion, the discussion goes beyond $$$ and to quality of life. Sports teams have a big impact on quality of life in a city. I think we can all agree on that.
Could money be spent elsewhere vs. an arena? Absolutely. Would losing the Bucks, especially if they improve under new ownership in a few years, hurt from a quality of life standpoint? As someone who remembers those great teams in the 1980s, I would say it would have a very negative impact.
-
I don't think dropping a half a billion on a new arena is really an example of "forward thinking."
We are talking about "forward thinking" and "government involvement" at the same time. The odds of this combination occurring together are as about as remote as being eaten alive by a bear in your own living room.
-
Production? Based on the abundant energy resources we have? Development? Why not ask WE Energies how much fun it was to get a couple of power plants built...
Milwaukee is not a hub of forward thinking. Sorry, but it's true. If we can't get an arena built, there is no way (in my opinion) that we find a way to make the substantial infrastructure investments that are required to accomplish your goals.
You're not necessarily wrong, but that's kind of my point.
If Milwaukee wants to raise my taxes to do something truly innovative, I'm cool with that.
If Milwaukee want to raise my taxes because the NBA has a broken business model and needs a subsidized building that will not generate enough revenue to justify the taxes spent, then no I'm not cool with that.
Do I think the Bucks are good for Milwaukee. YES. Do I think they are $300-$500 million good for Milwaukee? No.
-
We are talking about "forward thinking" and "government involvement" at the same time. The odds of this combination occurring together are as about as remote as being eaten alive by a bear in your own living room.
So because that rarely occurs, we should combine "government thinking" with "same old, same old" instead?
Look if the local citizenry want to drop serious money on another arena to make sure the Bucks stay around for another 20-25 years, so their five year old kids will have nice memories of their childhood, that's fine. But in so doing they should be honest that such investments don't have much (if any) of an economic payoff.
-
So because that rarely occurs, we should combine "government thinking" with "same old, same old" instead?
Look if the local citizenry want to drop serious money on another arena to make sure the Bucks stay around for another 20-25 years, so their five year old kids will have nice memories of their childhood, that's fine. But in so doing they should be honest that such investments don't have much (if any) of an economic payoff.
I would throw on 'and want to use a regressive tax to fund those memories.' Let's not forget that those hit the hardest by this tax (on the margin) will be the least likely to be able to afford tickets to enjoy what's going on in the new arena.
-
This entire discussion is the EXACT same one that went on with Miller Park. How many of you think it was a bad idea to give the Brewers a new home?
Oh...and how many times has the selling point "MU plays in an NBA arena." been used on the recruiting trail? If the Bucks go, is there enough activity for the BC to stay a decent facility or does it slowly turn into the arena? What impact does that have on MU?
To answer that question, you have to understand the opportunity cost. For the 70% that don't care about the Brewers, they might have felt a tax could be implemented for something else. You'll get all kinds of opinions on that one. If you are a sports fan, you will likely skew one way. If you aren't, you may skew the other.
-
So because that rarely occurs, we should combine "government thinking" with "same old, same old" instead?
Look if the local citizenry want to drop serious money on another arena to make sure the Bucks stay around for another 20-25 years, so their five year old kids will have nice memories of their childhood, that's fine. But in so doing they should be honest that such investments don't have much (if any) of an economic payoff.
I'm sorry to say but I doubt the average citizen has the motivation to actually become informed about all the dynamics involved. If you doubt this, look at Congress.
-
So because that rarely occurs, we should combine "government thinking" with "same old, same old" instead?
Look if the local citizenry want to drop serious money on another arena to make sure the Bucks stay around for another 20-25 years, so their five year old kids will have nice memories of their childhood, that's fine. But in so doing they should be honest that such investments don't have much (if any) of an economic payoff.
Just to add to this, if NBA franchises were getting 50-75 years of use out of the buildings, then that would also make for a different case.
But, right now, it's most likely going to be about 25 years until the Bucks come asking for a major renovation or a new building. Almost every NBA franchise has done it. To put that into perspective, Miller Park is already 13 seasons old. Would it be a good investment for Milwaukee to replace it in another 12 years?
-
Look, I think getting the stadium done is a good idea for a lot of reasons that go beyond funding an NBA team in a league with a broken business model.
I agree that there are better places to spend money. I simply doubt that elected politicians can actually find them.
Question for you all...what does Milwaukee look like without the Brewers and Bucks? And what happens to MU? What building do we call "home"? I doubt that the BC is viable without the Bucks, so how long until it gets run down?
-
I agree that there are better places to spend money. I simply doubt that elected politicians can actually find them.
I simply don't understand your thought process here. "Well, I guess we should spend it on this because they won't figure out anything better."
-
Most economists do.
It's tough to quantify the impact of a single stadium because of all the external factors (general economic growth, other projects, weather) but almost all credible research has shown that stadiums have little to no impact on the area they are built. They only serve to shuffle dollars around in the economy, not create new dollars.
Did you really just play the "almost all credible research" card?
-
I simply don't understand your thought process here. "Well, I guess we should spend it on this because they won't figure out anything better."
1) The Milwaukee County pension plan
2) Not one but two sewage plants built on the waterfront
3) A deep tunnel sewage system
4) A parking garage and Milwaukee transit system bus maintenance facility built on lakefront property near Summerfest
5) A convention center that was under-sized and non-competitive from the day it was designed
6) The Northwest Highway debacle
7) Turning down the old Northwest Air when they wanted Milwaukee as the hub
ALL of these were BIG $$$$ decisions that the local government screwed up in epic fashion, costing us untold amounts of money. Finding the money for Miller Park was at least a "push" and I am sure a new arena would be the same. I'll take that at this point.
And AGAIN, it's about more that $$$ in my opinion.
-
You're not necessarily wrong, but that's kind of my point.
If Milwaukee wants to raise my taxes to do something truly innovative, I'm cool with that.
If Milwaukee want to raise my taxes because the NBA has a broken business model and needs a subsidized building that will not generate enough revenue to justify the taxes spent, then no I'm not cool with that.
Do I think the Bucks are good for Milwaukee. YES. Do I think they are $300-$500 million good for Milwaukee? No.
I think this is the right way to look at it, so the challenge is going to be how to make the Arena as a whole worth that much to Milwaukee, not just the Bucks. It's an opportunity to provide an attraction that will draw people downtown and promote development, so how can the city best take advantage of it? If we're building a new arena just to keep the Bucks, it's not worth it. It needs to be more than that.
-
I don't think dropping a half a billion on a new arena is really an example of "forward thinking."
Who is spending a half a billion? They need $200 million more than what private individuals are already spending. Those individuals aren't giving their money to the city to spend as they see fit, they are spending it for a new arena.
The public is on the hook for about $200 million and that is without additional contributions by other private enterprises.
There is also no economic impact of city beautification, parks, etc. but they sure make cities better.
-
I think this is the right way to look at it, so the challenge is going to be how to make the Arena as a whole worth that much to Milwaukee, not just the Bucks. It's an opportunity to provide an attraction that will draw people downtown and promote development, so how can the city best take advantage of it? If we're building a new arena just to keep the Bucks, it's not worth it. It needs to be more than that.
This is right. If you look at the events at the BC, there are many events outside the Bucks already.
-
Who is spending a half a billion? They need $200 million more than what private individuals are already spending. Those individuals aren't giving their money to the city to spend as they see fit, they are spending it for a new arena.
The public is on the hook for about $200 million and that is without additional contributions by other private enterprises.
There is also no economic impact of city beautification, parks, etc. but they sure make cities better.
Thank you...
-
There is also no economic impact of city beautification, parks, etc. but they sure make cities better.
But no one claims that parks have a substantial economic benefit. That's all I am saying. Just be honest about how much economic benefit such a project would have.
-
But no one claims that parks have a substantial economic benefit. That's all I am saying. Just be honest about how much economic benefit such a project would have.
Fine, then I support building a new arena for $200 Million in public funds because the overall perceptual benefit of Milwaukee is enhanced enough by being a two-sport big league town that I would deem that investment worthwhile.
Even if the economics are break-even or slightly under, they aren't so far in the red that "soft" factors shouldn't play a role.
-
This is right. If you look at the events at the BC, there are many events outside the Bucks already.
But if we build a new Arena, it has to do more than the BC, because we already have that. It has to be an attraction all the time, not just when there's an event.
-
But no one claims that parks have a substantial economic benefit. That's all I am saying. Just be honest about how much economic benefit such a project would have.
I can unequivocally quantify the economic benefit Miller Park as being at least $14,000 over the past 13 years. Because that's got to be about what I've spent on tickets, parking, concessions, hotels, etc. a) despite my not having a mailing address in the five-county area anytime during that period and b) that wouldn't have been spent even if County Stadium and the Brewers were still around.
I may not be representative, but I'm certainly not an anomaly.
-
Did you really just play the "almost all credible research" card?
I get where you're coming from so I'll link what I understand to be the most authoritative academic paper on the matter.
<http://www.csus.edu/indiv/h/howellj/econ145_s2009/Assignments/SportsStadiumFunding.pdf>
I'll then add that a basketball message board isn't the best place to sum up complex economic research articles, nor do I have enough desire to convince anonymous people on the internet that I'm willing to invest time in summarizing said research. Those that are truly interested in hearing some informed opinions on this will find the articles themselves and all others wouldn't read them even if I posted them.
I don't think I should have to invest much effort in defending a consensus that most haven't bothered to learn about.
-
Here's an idea. I'm generally in the no public financing and no arena has any kind of economic impact worth a damn. However, there is one huge gap Milwaukee has that has lingered for years that you just might be able get solved in conjunction with the Bucks issue.
We have a convention center that doesn't see a lot of convention traffic. One it's not big enough and two we didn't have the hotel space to support a larger convention. Especially in the summer(non-Bucks/MU conveniently) there are a lot of meetings/conventions that would love to use Milwaukee. The hotel situation is getting better and we should have enough downtown/near downtown inventory by the time my plan would take place.
So here's what you do, create a joint building for convention center and arena. Conventions that need a ton of space can use the arena if it's not in use, it reduces the footprint on the city, ties in with the existing infrastructure and potentially opens up additional revenue streams by bringing in conventions that weren't coming previously.
Just a thought.
-
Who is spending a half a billion? They need $200 million more than what private individuals are already spending. Those individuals aren't giving their money to the city to spend as they see fit, they are spending it for a new arena.
The public is on the hook for about $200 million and that is without additional contributions by other private enterprises.
There is also no economic impact of city beautification, parks, etc. but they sure make cities better.
Thank you Marquette_g. For or against, the argument should be about taxpayers spending 150M to 200M with a 200M gift and 50 to 100M in other donations/naming rights.
Stop dropping "half a billion" as it isn't tax payers half a billion.
I was against it, but, when one looks at the amount of public involvement, if true, I feel Milwaukee would be making a hugh mistake not to do this deal. Forward thinking is taking the offer, in my opinion if these number hold up.
Agree to disagree, but let's use the number we think are correct. If it is/was 500M from the taxpayers, I'm against it as well and it aint happening. But that is not what is being discussed.
And yes, we spend for parks, the arts, museums, etc... and we should to a point. That is the type of stuff that makes cities work and part of the reason people want to live in cities versus a small town in the middle of no where.
-
And yes, we spend for parks, the arts, museums, etc... and we should to a point. That is the type of stuff that makes cities work and part of the reason people want to live in cities versus a small town in the middle of no where.
In agreement with your sentiment of being honest in our facts:
Parks: Public good
Arts: Public good/non-profit
Museums: Public good/non-profit
NBA Team/Arena: privately owned, for-profit company.
I'm just saying let's not equate two fundamentally different things.
-
Here's an idea. I'm generally in the no public financing and no arena has any kind of economic impact worth a damn. However, there is one huge gap Milwaukee has that has lingered for years that you just might be able get solved in conjunction with the Bucks issue.
We have a convention center that doesn't see a lot of convention traffic. One it's not big enough and two we didn't have the hotel space to support a larger convention. Especially in the summer(non-Bucks/MU conveniently) there are a lot of meetings/conventions that would love to use Milwaukee. The hotel situation is getting better and we should have enough downtown/near downtown inventory by the time my plan would take place.
So here's what you do, create a joint building for convention center and arena. Conventions that need a ton of space can use the arena if it's not in use, it reduces the footprint on the city, ties in with the existing infrastructure and potentially opens up additional revenue streams by bringing in conventions that weren't coming previously.
Just a thought.
Depending on cost, this could be a great idea. Not sure what it does to the Frontier Airlines center but that's a sunk cost that isn't working. MKE needs to find NEW ways to bring people to the city that aren't contingent on the scouting abilities of the Bucks front office. While the Bucks aren't the only draw to the new arena (MU/concerts/shows), they are the one that needs to be successful to make it work. It's easy to look at OKC and say 'look it works!' but I'd rather not pin my investment hopes on finding another Kevin Durrant.
Adding a convention center would be a great idea that - let's face it - isn't likely to happen.
-
Here's an idea. I'm generally in the no public financing and no arena has any kind of economic impact worth a damn. However, there is one huge gap Milwaukee has that has lingered for years that you just might be able get solved in conjunction with the Bucks issue.
We have a convention center that doesn't see a lot of convention traffic. One it's not big enough and two we didn't have the hotel space to support a larger convention. Especially in the summer(non-Bucks/MU conveniently) there are a lot of meetings/conventions that would love to use Milwaukee. The hotel situation is getting better and we should have enough downtown/near downtown inventory by the time my plan would take place.
So here's what you do, create a joint building for convention center and arena. Conventions that need a ton of space can use the arena if it's not in use, it reduces the footprint on the city, ties in with the existing infrastructure and potentially opens up additional revenue streams by bringing in conventions that weren't coming previously.
Just a thought.
Now that's a pretty good idea.
I'd also add that if there was someway to include/revitalize/renew Grand Ave in that plan, then you'd have something.
Now, I'm not saying turning Grand Ave. into Bayshore because that is a losing proposition. But, maybe Milwaukee could do an innovative start-up/incubator program with office spaces available at Grand Ave. They already do some of this, but maybe they could really pump it up and add some real funding and bring something unique back to downtown.
Put it this way: The Bucks can't afford to sign top level free agents, right? Build through the draft, right?
Well, maybe Milwaukee should start investing in incubation opportunities to try to grow jobs and companies vs recruiting them to come downtown (ie Kohl's, Manpower, etc.). Maybe you could grow and develop some innovative young talent.
Just some random thoughts about how to spend tax dollars...
-
Now that's a pretty good idea.
I'd also add that if there was someway to include/revitalize/renew Grand Ave in that plan, then you'd have something.
Now, I'm not saying turning Grand Ave. into Bayshore because that is a losing proposition. But, maybe Milwaukee could do an innovative start-up/incubator program with office spaces available at Grand Ave. They already do some of this, but maybe they could really pump it up and add some real funding and bring something unique back to downtown.
Put it this way: The Bucks can't afford to sign top level free agents, right? Build through the draft, right?
Well, maybe Milwaukee should start investing in incubation opportunities to try to grow jobs and companies vs recruiting them to come downtown (ie Kohl's, Manpower, etc.). Maybe you could grow and develop some innovative young talent.
Just some random thoughts about how to spend tax dollars...
One of the under appreciated parts of the gap that should be addressed as well. Mitchell is a shell of it's former use. Without an airline hub here, schedule and competition sucks. However, increasing traffic with conventions as well as tourism might bring an airline in that would in turn improve schedule allowing more companies to relocated to Wisconsin as well.
Also, I LOVE the idea of an innovation center at the Grand Ave. We've tried to do a couple of innovation/development meetings off site of our building and there is no where to do it in Milwaukee. Actually ended up using the MU engineering building, which worked great but the masses don't have access to that.
-
Look at it, there are only 30 some cities and really less than that, that have NBA teams, New York and LA have two. You want to be Des Moines, Tulsa, Lexington or what would Oklahoma
City be without there team, a boring ghost town, did you see Toronto yesterday, the place was starving for a winner. They had thousands outside the arena. Bucks win, the whole country
knows about them, how about the PR for the city. MU Basketball for sure is no longer the answer, a pro team does help. The owners will give half or more, the city has done nothing downtown
to get excitement in our city, a pro franchise helps. Sure it might not be the right economic answer for a city, but it keeps people talking about Milwaukee. The Bucks can draw 15,000 fans a game or more if they can put a product on the floor, the next two years can help the franchise get back to the 80's, that were great NBA times in Milwaukee. Build a new arena, an exciting fun
place to go and you might even get a free agent. Ray Allen loved it here, Aaron Rodgers does now, a winner does help. How else are we going to get the downtown exciting again?
-
In agreement with your sentiment of being honest in our facts:
Parks: Public good
Arts: Public good/non-profit
Museums: Public good/non-profit
NBA Team/Arena: privately owned, for-profit company.
I'm just saying let's not equate two fundamentally different things.
But do people in New York wear MOMA shirts or Knicks jerseys? A sports team is part of the local identity and it does draw outside money into the economy. People actually go to Green Bay on purpose don't they? I have friends who fly out to Lambeau several times a year to watch a game . Without the Pack? Not so Much.
-
Here's an idea. I'm generally in the no public financing and no arena has any kind of economic impact worth a damn. However, there is one huge gap Milwaukee has that has lingered for years that you just might be able get solved in conjunction with the Bucks issue.
We have a convention center that doesn't see a lot of convention traffic. One it's not big enough and two we didn't have the hotel space to support a larger convention. Especially in the summer(non-Bucks/MU conveniently) there are a lot of meetings/conventions that would love to use Milwaukee. The hotel situation is getting better and we should have enough downtown/near downtown inventory by the time my plan would take place.
So here's what you do, create a joint building for convention center and arena. Conventions that need a ton of space can use the arena if it's not in use, it reduces the footprint on the city, ties in with the existing infrastructure and potentially opens up additional revenue streams by bringing in conventions that weren't coming previously.
Just a thought.
Just build the arena on the block of the MECCA and Milwaukee Theater and connect it to the convention center, and also have a connection to the Bradley Center across the street to provide even more space if necessary. You could make a bridge over Kilbourn like the one over Wells. That's what I was talking about in one of the posts above. Then you could also use the Convention Center space for all kinds of hospitality options before games as well.
-
Here's an idea. I'm generally in the no public financing and no arena has any kind of economic impact worth a damn. However, there is one huge gap Milwaukee has that has lingered for years that you just might be able get solved in conjunction with the Bucks issue.
We have a convention center that doesn't see a lot of convention traffic. One it's not big enough and two we didn't have the hotel space to support a larger convention. Especially in the summer(non-Bucks/MU conveniently) there are a lot of meetings/conventions that would love to use Milwaukee. The hotel situation is getting better and we should have enough downtown/near downtown inventory by the time my plan would take place.
So here's what you do, create a joint building for convention center and arena. Conventions that need a ton of space can use the arena if it's not in use, it reduces the footprint on the city, ties in with the existing infrastructure and potentially opens up additional revenue streams by bringing in conventions that weren't coming previously.
Just a thought.
My question on this is what is the market for conventions to Milwaukee even if the space was there? Cleveland, if I recall, has some big convention space due to the Space X center or whatever they call it. I'd be curious if people are beating down their doors to have a convention there. With the weather, etc, I guess I never saw Milwaukee on the top of my list for a convention and I love Milwaukee. Not sure the average Joe gets real excited about it.
-
The NBA can buy the team back from the owners if no progress has been made on new arena. Is that good?
-
The NBA can buy the team back from the owners if no progress has been made on new arena. Is that good?
It means the new owners have to work their asses off to get a new arena built or they lose the team they just bought. So for those who want the new owners to be loyal to Milwaukee, it's good.
On the other hand, it's the NBA being a bunch of punk bitches trying to hold a city ransom so it can make more money. That's bad.
-
My question on this is what is the market for conventions to Milwaukee even if the space was there? Cleveland, if I recall, has some big convention space due to the Space X center or whatever they call it. I'd be curious if people are beating down their doors to have a convention there. With the weather, etc, I guess I never saw Milwaukee on the top of my list for a convention and I love Milwaukee. Not sure the average Joe gets real excited about it.
I don't have any firm numbers but a surprising number of my friends are meeting planners and they talk about all the time how Milwaukee could be a big convention destination in the summer. There are plenty of hotel, food, and entertainment spots, as well as the lake that the convention scene would love to take advantage of. There could even be some side adventures into Chicago without having to deal with Chicago during the day.
Apparently the convention scene is relatively stale....nobody wants to keep going to Anahiem, Dallas/Houston, and Orlando.
Again the key is the Milwaukee summer, no one is going to come here in winter.
-
Here's an idea. I'm generally in the no public financing and no arena has any kind of economic impact worth a damn. However, there is one huge gap Milwaukee has that has lingered for years that you just might be able get solved in conjunction with the Bucks issue.
We have a convention center that doesn't see a lot of convention traffic. One it's not big enough and two we didn't have the hotel space to support a larger convention. Especially in the summer(non-Bucks/MU conveniently) there are a lot of meetings/conventions that would love to use Milwaukee. The hotel situation is getting better and we should have enough downtown/near downtown inventory by the time my plan would take place.
So here's what you do, create a joint building for convention center and arena. Conventions that need a ton of space can use the arena if it's not in use, it reduces the footprint on the city, ties in with the existing infrastructure and potentially opens up additional revenue streams by bringing in conventions that weren't coming previously.
Just a thought.
I like it. You can also use the convention center to better manage the students who arrive early for the games so its much more controlled chaos. Also wouldnt have to wait in the cold for games :P
-
Pro sports teams are about civic pride and having a place be thought of as a "major league city" in the eyes of people with deep pockets. Yes, it's very difficult to track when economic impact teams have on a city unless you ask people to list every penny they spent that was motivated by having such teams in the area. Things with a narrow scope like a freshwater research facility or a tech center hardly gives the average person much of anything to relate to, unlike a pro sports franchise.
-
Marquette should propose the closing of Wisconsin Avenue and if the city approves it will create a separate fund raising for $25 million. I bet we would find a lot of interest in naming the new Marquette University mall.
-
I don't have any firm numbers but a surprising number of my friends are meeting planners and they talk about all the time how Milwaukee could be a big convention destination in the summer. There are plenty of hotel, food, and entertainment spots, as well as the lake that the convention scene would love to take advantage of. There could even be some side adventures into Chicago without having to deal with Chicago during the day.
Apparently the convention scene is relatively stale....nobody wants to keep going to Anahiem, Dallas/Houston, and Orlando.
Again the key is the Milwaukee summer, no one is going to come here in winter.
Yeah, I could see that with the festivals, the lake, etc. Wonder how much Summer traffic they would have to drive to make it work.
-
Yeah, I could see that with the festivals, the lake, etc. Wonder how much Summer traffic they would have to drive to make it work.
Let's be honest. Milwaukee is not going to draw many conventions, no matter what time of year.
-
Marquette should propose the closing of Wisconsin Avenue and if the city approves it will create a separate fund raising for $25 million. I bet we would find a lot of interest in naming the new Marquette University mall.
I would guess that Marquette would rather use such donors to give to a new business building.
-
Hopefully this goes through. Marquette is a big beneficiary as we are counted on as a tenant, yet we don't have to bear the capital cost. The NBA has said this issue has to be solved by 2017 or they will force the owners to move the franchise to a city that has an arena that meets their requirements. I think the NBA is incredibly short sighted on things like this. But that is the reality. I think playing in an NBA arena is a plus for recruiting especially since it is so convenient to campus.
-
The NBA better be saving up right about now ..
http://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/blog/2014/04/report-nba-could-buy-back-bucks-if-no-arena-deal.html
-
The NBA better be saving up right about now ..
http://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/blog/2014/04/report-nba-could-buy-back-bucks-if-no-arena-deal.html
The new owners will get the money privately. Financial markets are strong these days.
-
Pro sports teams are about civic pride and having a place be thought of as a "major league city" in the eyes of people with deep pockets. Yes, it's very difficult to track when economic impact teams have on a city unless you ask people to list every penny they spent that was motivated by having such teams in the area. Things with a narrow scope like a freshwater research facility or a tech center hardly gives the average person much of anything to relate to, unlike a pro sports franchise.
No doubt that pro sports bring more civic pride. Pro sports franchises are definitely good for a city.
However, they are clearly a private entity, and there is nothing really "wrong" with the current free facilities. The owners just want to make more profit.
If the city is going to hand out grants to private businesses, I'd like to see it in something that has some good potential for a big return years from now. Incubation of tech jobs seems like a good place to start. Freshwater science is interesting because it takes advantage of Milwaukee's most unique natural feature, and can't be easily replicated.
Give me a great economy with lots of well payed careers, and I'll show you a market that can support a NBA team.
I don't know that giving the Bucks a building is going to create a great economy and/or a market that can truly support a NBA franchise.
It's simply rearranging the deck chairs on a sinking ship. Fix the hole in the ship, then we'll worry about the deck chairs.
Milwaukee needs careers, not just "jobs".
-
I don't have any firm numbers but a surprising number of my friends are meeting planners and they talk about all the time how Milwaukee could be a big convention destination in the summer. There are plenty of hotel, food, and entertainment spots, as well as the lake that the convention scene would love to take advantage of.
If Indy can do it, Milwaukee should be able to. Unfortunately the Wisconsin Center District turns everything they touch to sh*t.
-
No doubt that pro sports bring more civic pride. Pro sports franchises are definitely good for a city.
However, they are clearly a private entity, and there is nothing really "wrong" with the current free facilities. The owners just want to make more profit.
If the city is going to hand out grants to private businesses, I'd like to see it in something that has some good potential for a big return years from now. Incubation of tech jobs seems like a good place to start. Freshwater science is interesting because it takes advantage of Milwaukee's most unique natural feature, and can't be easily replicated.
Give me a great economy with lots of well payed careers, and I'll show you a market that can support a NBA team.
I don't know that giving the Bucks a building is going to create a great economy and/or a market that can truly support a NBA franchise.
It's simply rearranging the deck chairs on a sinking ship. Fix the hole in the ship, then we'll worry about the deck chairs.
Milwaukee needs careers, not just "jobs".
Was building Miller Park rearranging the deck chairs on a sinking ship? This situation is eerily similar to County Stadium and Bud Selig. Once they replaced the owner and got a new stadium look how much better the Brewers have become. They are now looked up to by other small market club and their popularity is through the roof in the state of Wisconsin right now. The same thing could happen with the new Bucks owners and a new stadium. The people of Wisconsin will support a quality product. Unfortunately Herb has been a very mediocre owner, which has led to disinterest amongst the casual basketball fans in WI. With the right people in place it can be restored.
-
There has to be answers to the following questions to make a new arena work:
1) What's the demand? The Bucks can't fill the Bradley Center and its doubtful there is demand for double the number of luxury suites. Milwaukee just does not have the corporate headquarters and large regional operations to support that level of demand. Folks, this aint Chicago, or even Minneapolis.
2) If Milwaukee and Wisconsin spend $200 million to $300 million on a new arena, what public priorities do not get funded? Do roads not get repaired; policemen and firemen not get raises; do schools not get a little bit extra; or, maybe, the tax for the new arena might be the straw that breaks the camel's back on the new business that wants to locate in Wisconsin. By itself, the public funding for the arena is nothing. But it's part of a load that's increasing the burden of taxpayers during a post-industrial age where Wisconsin is still trying to find its way.
3) Lets say the state builds this thing. It likely will be financed with 25-year or 30-year bonds. At the maturity of the bonds, lets suppose someone in Seattle, New York, San Francisco or some other city has built the newest and most fabulous arena imaginable. Who is to say we will not be having this debate again in 2038 to 2040? If you had asked someone in 1986 whether we would be debating a new arena in 2013, they'd think you were nuts!
4) Will the departure of the Bucks have an impact on the quality of life in Milwaukee? We have basketball -- and pretty good basketball -- in Marquette. But like the Brewers, the symphony, Summerfest, improved restaurants, and ballet, the Bucks are part of the ambiance that makes Milwaukee attractive to professionals. Without the Bucks, can companies attract people to Milwaukee at the same rate as say, Nashville, Indianapolis, New Orleans, Oklahoma City etc.
5) How much private investment will be sucked out of the community. There's an attractive and thriving restaurant community near the arena. Private investors, entrepreneurs and others have built businesses nearby. Now, a publicly funded arena with new dining and entertainment options that's publicly subsidized steps up and competes? Huh, that's hardly fair! Or reasonable.
If I'm cynical about this, it's because I live in Illinois. We bought our second-tier baseball team a shiny new stadium south of downtown Chicago. We took a decidedly mediocre football team and built it a $600 million, way-over-budget stadium in about the worst place you could put it in the city. We finally got some backbone and said no to the Cubs, who are duking it out with the neighbors over an enhancement of Wrigley Field.
Given our history and the model of the Bradley Center, it's only 15 years until the Bears start screaming for a new stadium. After all, they have the smallest stadium in the NFL.
-
There has to be answers to the following questions to make a new arena work:
1) What's the demand? The Bucks can't fill the Bradley Center and its doubtful there is demand for double the number of luxury suites. Milwaukee just does not have the corporate headquarters and large regional operations to support that level of demand. Folks, this aint Chicago, or even Minneapolis.
2) If Milwaukee and Wisconsin spend $200 million to $300 million on a new arena, what public priorities do not get funded? Do roads not get repaired; policemen and firemen not get raises; do schools not get a little bit extra; or, maybe, the tax for the new arena might be the straw that breaks the camel's back on the new business that wants to locate in Wisconsin. By itself, the public funding for the arena is nothing. But it's part of a load that's increasing the burden of taxpayers during a post-industrial age where Wisconsin is still trying to find its way.
3) Lets say the state builds this thing. It likely will be financed with 25-year or 30-year bonds. At the maturity of the bonds, lets suppose someone in Seattle, New York, San Francisco or some other city has built the newest and most fabulous arena imaginable. Who is to say we will not be having this debate again in 2038 to 2040? If you had asked someone in 1986 whether we would be debating a new arena in 2013, they'd think you were nuts!
4) Will the departure of the Bucks have an impact on the quality of life in Milwaukee? We have basketball -- and pretty good basketball -- in Marquette. But like the Brewers, the symphony, Summerfest, improved restaurants, and ballet, the Bucks are part of the ambiance that makes Milwaukee attractive to professionals. Without the Bucks, can companies attract people to Milwaukee at the same rate as say, Nashville, Indianapolis, New Orleans, Oklahoma City etc.
5) How much private investment will be sucked out of the community. There's an attractive and thriving restaurant community near the arena. Private investors, entrepreneurs and others have built businesses nearby. Now, a publicly funded arena with new dining and entertainment options that's publicly subsidized steps up and competes? Huh, that's hardly fair! Or reasonable.
If I'm cynical about this, it's because I live in Illinois. We bought our second-tier baseball team a shiny new stadium south of downtown Chicago. We took a decidedly mediocre football team and built it a $600 million, way-over-budget stadium in about the worst place you could put it in the city. We finally got some backbone and said no to the Cubs, who are duking it out with the neighbors over an enhancement of Wrigley Field.
Given our history and the model of the Bradley Center, it's only 15 years until the Bears start screaming for a new stadium. After all, they have the smallest stadium in the NFL.
Brilliant post! Thanks
-
There has to be answers to the following questions to make a new arena work:
1) What's the demand? The Bucks can't fill the Bradley Center and its doubtful there is demand for double the number of luxury suites. Milwaukee just does not have the corporate headquarters and large regional operations to support that level of demand. Folks, this aint Chicago, or even Minneapolis.
2) If Milwaukee and Wisconsin spend $200 million to $300 million on a new arena, what public priorities do not get funded? Do roads not get repaired; policemen and firemen not get raises; do schools not get a little bit extra; or, maybe, the tax for the new arena might be the straw that breaks the camel's back on the new business that wants to locate in Wisconsin. By itself, the public funding for the arena is nothing. But it's part of a load that's increasing the burden of taxpayers during a post-industrial age where Wisconsin is still trying to find its way.
3) Lets say the state builds this thing. It likely will be financed with 25-year or 30-year bonds. At the maturity of the bonds, lets suppose someone in Seattle, New York, San Francisco or some other city has built the newest and most fabulous arena imaginable. Who is to say we will not be having this debate again in 2038 to 2040? If you had asked someone in 1986 whether we would be debating a new arena in 2013, they'd think you were nuts!
4) Will the departure of the Bucks have an impact on the quality of life in Milwaukee? We have basketball -- and pretty good basketball -- in Marquette. But like the Brewers, the symphony, Summerfest, improved restaurants, and ballet, the Bucks are part of the ambiance that makes Milwaukee attractive to professionals. Without the Bucks, can companies attract people to Milwaukee at the same rate as say, Nashville, Indianapolis, New Orleans, Oklahoma City etc.
5) How much private investment will be sucked out of the community. There's an attractive and thriving restaurant community near the arena. Private investors, entrepreneurs and others have built businesses nearby. Now, a publicly funded arena with new dining and entertainment options that's publicly subsidized steps up and competes? Huh, that's hardly fair! Or reasonable.
If I'm cynical about this, it's because I live in Illinois. We bought our second-tier baseball team a shiny new stadium south of downtown Chicago. We took a decidedly mediocre football team and built it a $600 million, way-over-budget stadium in about the worst place you could put it in the city. We finally got some backbone and said no to the Cubs, who are duking it out with the neighbors over an enhancement of Wrigley Field.
Given our history and the model of the Bradley Center, it's only 15 years until the Bears start screaming for a new stadium. After all, they have the smallest stadium in the NFL.
My gut says a new arena wont get built.
-
Question though. What happens to MU if the Bucks do move? Do they just play at the BC until the end of time? Plus you also have to consider the Admirals arent going anywhere either.
-
Get ready for the 2018 Seattle (Star)Bucks. MU better get in front on a stadium solution for MU hoops. The NBA has the right to buy the Bucks in 2018 for $575M. if sold to Seattle the NBA could get considerably more for the franchise. Stability is good for the NBA but money talks.
-
I think that having Seattle hanging over the head of local fanbases is even more valuable to the NBA than actually moving a franchise there.
I personally think that the arena eventually gets built, but if somehow it isn't is there any chance The Pottawatomie would kick in to get something built in the Valley Fields area? Is that something that would even be possible or that Marquette would want to be connected to?
-
Let's be honest. Milwaukee is not going to draw many conventions, no matter what time of year.
Agree
-
Get ready for the 2018 Seattle (Star)Bucks. MU better get in front on a stadium solution for MU hoops. The NBA has the right to buy the Bucks in 2018 for $575M. if sold to Seattle the NBA could get considerably more for the franchise. Stability is good for the NBA but money talks.
+1
-
My gut says a new arena wont get built.
Your gut is wrong. Under the gun is how things get done in government. My gut says they get it done and piss off a bunch of people in the process which will be totally forgotten by the time it opens except for the bitter few.
-
Your gut is wrong. Under the gun is how things get done in government. My gut says they get it done and piss off a bunch of people in the process which will be totally forgotten by the time it opens except for the bitter few.
I hope you're right
-
I hope you're right
Me too, for selfish MU reasons.
-
Why do people necessarily think the Bucks leaving is bad for MU? I think we would have an increase in fans as the best bball option in town, and we would get better local media coverage. Right now, they're probably our main competition for entertainment dollars from local casual fans. We would get better dates for scheduling at the BC. It's already a better venue than all but a handfull of other college teams. I could see it being a problem in another 20-30 years when the BC really does need to be replaced though.
-
Why do people necessarily think the Bucks leaving is bad for MU? I think we would have an increase in fans as the best bball option in town, and we would get better local media coverage. Right now, they're probably our main competition for entertainment dollars from local casual fans. We would get better dates for scheduling at the BC. It's already a better venue than all but a handfull of other college teams. I could see it being a problem in another 20-30 years when the BC really does need to be replaced though.
MU would still be playing at the arena if the Bucks weren't here. Simple as that.
-
Was building Miller Park rearranging the deck chairs on a sinking ship? This situation is eerily similar to County Stadium and Bud Selig. Once they replaced the owner and got a new stadium look how much better the Brewers have become. They are now looked up to by other small market club and their popularity is through the roof in the state of Wisconsin right now. The same thing could happen with the new Bucks owners and a new stadium. The people of Wisconsin will support a quality product. Unfortunately Herb has been a very mediocre owner, which has led to disinterest amongst the casual basketball fans in WI. With the right people in place it can be restored.
Miller Park and a new Bucks arena aren't exactly apples to apples. For the record, I'm not necessarily in favor of Miller Park either, but it's much easier for me to make a case for a baseball stadium than a new Bucks Arena.
#1 County Stadium was 50 years old and falling apart. There was a specific NEED for a new stadium. In another 23 years, when the BC is 50 years old, I'd probably be more interested in building something new for the Bucks. I assume the Brewers will get 40-50 years use out of Miller park. That's like 80-100 million people through the turnstyles. That's a good amount of use.
#2 The Bucks have a building that functions fine. They just want MORE revenue. That's it. Also, even if you build the Bucks a new arena, odds are they will be back again in 25 years asking for a a major renovation or another new building. The business model is broken, and it's dependent upon public subsidization. That's not going to stop. In 25 years, the Bucks will draw a max of around 20million before they ask for something new.
#3 The Brewers were TERRIBLE when they moved into Miller Park. Miller Park didn't magically make them good. The franchise finally drafted well, got a little lucky, and a lot of really good prospects came up around the same time. Now, Miller Park and the current ownership has certainly helped them STAY competitive by giving the Brewers some financial flexibility, but Miller Park wasn't a magic bullet. They sucked for years, and people were pissed at the time. We all forget about it now because of the success, but go back to 2003 and ask people what they thought.
#4 What is a realistic scenario if the Bucks do get a new arena? Do we expect them to compete for titles? Is making the playoffs good enough? What would average attendance have to be to make it "worth it"?
#5 My deck chair analogy is really just about money being moved around vs money being "created". Certainly the Bucks help bring money downtown. That's good. However, there are several studies that illustrate that "growth" from new stadiums isn't necessarily "growth", but rather just moving $ from someplace else.
I would never say NO PUBLIC FUNDING, because that is ham-fisted and stupid. But, I'm also not going to hand $300million to the Bucks so we can be back in the same position in another 25 years. We need a better plan than that.
-
My question on this is what is the market for conventions to Milwaukee even if the space was there? Cleveland, if I recall, has some big convention space due to the Space X center or whatever they call it. I'd be curious if people are beating down their doors to have a convention there. With the weather, etc, I guess I never saw Milwaukee on the top of my list for a convention and I love Milwaukee. Not sure the average Joe gets real excited about it.
Clevelanbd actually hosts some large conventions. There's Fabtech, a big manufacturing show, and from my short stint in the rubber processing world the big show is Rubber Expo which is also in Cleveland. (Rubber Expo actually rotated years with Pittsburgh.)
-
Why do people necessarily think the Bucks leaving is bad for MU? I think we would have an increase in fans as the best bball option in town, and we would get better local media coverage. Right now, they're probably our main competition for entertainment dollars from local casual fans. We would get better dates for scheduling at the BC. It's already a better venue than all but a handfull of other college teams. I could see it being a problem in another 20-30 years when the BC really does need to be replaced though.
And we would be able to schedule a lot more weekend games at convenient times for the TV networks
-
I think this movement is interesting:
http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/common-ground-demands-better-school-facilities-or-no-support-for-arena-b99240726z1-254102011.html
http://www.commongroundwi.org/fair-play/
I mean .. imagine if their incredibly valid point gets legs.
NNaaaaaaaaaah. Who am I kidding?
-
#5 My deck chair analogy is really just about money being moved around vs money being "created". Certainly the Bucks help bring money downtown. That's good. However, there are several studies that illustrate that "growth" from new stadiums isn't necessarily "growth", but rather just moving $ from someplace else.
I would never say NO PUBLIC FUNDING, because that is ham-fisted and stupid. But, I'm also not going to hand $300million to the Bucks so we can be back in the same position in another 25 years. We need a better plan than that.
This is true. Going to sporting events, bars and restaurants comes from disposable income. If the money is not spent on Bucks games it will be spent on something else. There would still be some economic loss to the city, but not that much.
However, having the Bucks around makes the city a more livable place, similar to parks, zoos, museums and the arts. I never could understand people when they bitch about the city putting up a sculpture or planting trees and landscape, etc. Those are things that make a city livable and attractive. Helping with economic development is important too, but it shouldn’t be either/or. If the money does not go to build a new arena it will not magically appear and go to help economic development and the plight of the poor. It doesn’t work that way in the real world.
I do not buy the argument that a professional sports team is for the sole purpose of profit of the owners. That is certainly in the equation, but a professional sports team also promotes community pride, and provides entertainment. Sports teams represent the city in most people’s eyes. You have to take the good with the bad and not cut off your nose to spite your face.
Using the argument that there is no interest in the team and the franchise sucks is incredibly short sighted. The city has supported the Bucks for 45 years. The last 15 to 20 have been up and down, (mostly down,) but this franchise has also been very successful both in terms of winning percentage and attendance. If the team wins, the city will support it whole heartedly, there is no question about that. Back in the dark years of MU basketball, attendance and interest in the team was down. I am sure glad people didn’t say we should dump MU basketball because the team is not good for a stretch of time. Not apples to apples comparison I understand, but the same logic.
-
Miller Park and a new Bucks arena aren't exactly apples to apples. For the record, I'm not necessarily in favor of Miller Park either, but it's much easier for me to make a case for a baseball stadium than a new Bucks Arena.
#1 County Stadium was 50 years old and falling apart. There was a specific NEED for a new stadium. In another 23 years, when the BC is 50 years old, I'd probably be more interested in building something new for the Bucks. I assume the Brewers will get 40-50 years use out of Miller park. That's like 80-100 million people through the turnstyles. That's a good amount of use.
#2 The Bucks have a building that functions fine. They just want MORE revenue. That's it. Also, even if you build the Bucks a new arena, odds are they will be back again in 25 years asking for a a major renovation or another new building. The business model is broken, and it's dependent upon public subsidization. That's not going to stop. In 25 years, the Bucks will draw a max of around 20million before they ask for something new.
#3 The Brewers were TERRIBLE when they moved into Miller Park. Miller Park didn't magically make them good. The franchise finally drafted well, got a little lucky, and a lot of really good prospects came up around the same time. Now, Miller Park and the current ownership has certainly helped them STAY competitive by giving the Brewers some financial flexibility, but Miller Park wasn't a magic bullet. They sucked for years, and people were pissed at the time. We all forget about it now because of the success, but go back to 2003 and ask people what they thought.
#4 What is a realistic scenario if the Bucks do get a new arena? Do we expect them to compete for titles? Is making the playoffs good enough? What would average attendance have to be to make it "worth it"?
#5 My deck chair analogy is really just about money being moved around vs money being "created". Certainly the Bucks help bring money downtown. That's good. However, there are several studies that illustrate that "growth" from new stadiums isn't necessarily "growth", but rather just moving $ from someplace else.
I would never say NO PUBLIC FUNDING, because that is ham-fisted and stupid. But, I'm also not going to hand $300million to the Bucks so we can be back in the same position in another 25 years. We need a better plan than that.
1) Obsolescence has sped up in the last 50 years. Even more so in the last 20. Still have your same phone from 5 years ago?
2) You are right. They want more revenue so they can compete with all of the franchises in the NBA that have venues that generate revenue and profit that make it possible for the owners to invest in the franchise. This is called competition. If you can't compete, you go away. See: Circuit City, Linens and Things, American TV, etc...
3) This is related to #2. The Bucks are terrible now just like the Brewers were. The Brewers got a new stadium and, lo and behold, attendance goes up as excitement around the park brings people out. With extra $$$ flowing in, ownership is able to upgrade aspects of the organization that were lacking pre-Miller Park (like the scouting department and the minor league organizations -this comes from someone who was there, by the way). These investments pay off in a few years and the Brewers no longer suck and, in fact, they are able to compete from time to time.
4) Who knows but if the Brewers can make the playoffs once in a while in a sport where there is no real salary cap then it is within the realm of possibility that the Bucks can compete at the highest level if they are smart and invest in the organization like the Brewers did (because of the $$$ from Miller Park) in a sport with a salary cap.
5) True. But what is the cost when you REMOVE a franchise from a city? Is that a neutral event? I don't think it is.
One more thing to your post...I agree that 25 years is a fairly short time period in the grand scheme of things. We have to remember, though, that the BC was NOT built for the Bucks. It was built because the Pettit's wanted to bring an NHL franchise to Milwaukee back in the 1980s. Unfortunately, when the NHL expanded the expansion fee was so over the top that it was impossible to do (if I recall correctly). This is why the sight lines and layout of the BC is so crappy for basketball. It's also why the "upgrade" option isn't really do-able, trying to turn a hockey arena into a state of the art basketball facility simply cannot be done - the bone structure isn't right. My GUESS is that an arena that is built with a "basketball first" mentality would have a useful life of longer than 25 years.
-
MU would still be playing at the arena if the Bucks weren't here. Simple as that.
I'm not so sure that would be true. Don't forget that the BC was donated to the city by the owners of the Milwaukee Admirals.
-
I'm not so sure that would be true. Don't forget that the BC was donated to the city by the owners of the Milwaukee Admirals.
Hw may have meant MECCA
-
My gut says a new arena wont get built.
Your gut is right.
-
Hw may have meant MECCA
That is what I thought as well. My point is, the BC was not built for the Bucks. So why would MU be playing in MECCA if the Bucks weren't here?
-
That is what I thought as well. My point is, the BC was not built for the Bucks. So why would MU be playing in MECCA if the Bucks weren't here?
The bucks were the biggest reason for the bc. Yes the petits wanted a hockey team and that was part of the equation but they weren't building the BC only for the admirals and a possible nhl team. I don't think the petits put up every penny for the BC either.
-
The bucks were the biggest reason for the bc. Yes the petits wanted a hockey team and that was part of the equation but they weren't building the BC only for the admirals and a possible nhl team. I don't think the petits put up every penny for the BC either.
The Pettit's put up about half.
And I wonder if they knew that the building would be considered obsolete in only 25 years if they would have even bothered.
-
The Pettit's put up about half.
And I wonder if they knew that the building would be considered obsolete in only 25 years if they would have even bothered.
Wrong. The Pettit's put it all up. It was a gift to the city. Here are some references since I am sure you will argue this.
And are you kidding? Would they even have bothered? You have a lot to add to this board but statements like these sap your credibility.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMO_Harris_Bradley_Center
http://stadiums.findthebest.com/q/1358/1381/How-much-did-BMO-Harris-Bradley-Center-located-in-Milwaukee-Wisconsin-cost-to-build
http://www.bmoharrisbradleycenter.com/arena-info/arena-highlights
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1985-10-27/sports/8503130715_1_mayor-maier-lloyd-and-jane-pettit-new-arena
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1683&dat=20031112&id=GMQcAAAAIBAJ&sjid=t44EAAAAIBAJ&pg=6731,684935
-
In agreement with your sentiment of being honest in our facts:
Parks: Public good
Arts: Public good/non-profit
Museums: Public good/non-profit
NBA Team/Arena: privately owned, for-profit company.
I'm just saying let's not equate two fundamentally different things.
akmarq, valid point. But one has to consider that the Bucks, even if private are barely a for profit company. Kohl made a lot on the sale, not operating it. If they stay in Milwaukee, the new owners won't make much on a sale. They also have a civic component for the city, more so than a typical company. I doubt the investors expect to make much if any money from operations. Breaking even seems like more of a goal or clearing a few million. Not about a return on investment. What private companies that are truly for-profit, expand, build or move without government financial help? Not many.
-
Wrong. The Pettit's put it all up. It was a gift to the city. Here are some references since I am sure you will argue this.
And are you kidding? Would they even have bothered? You have a lot to add to this board but statements like these sap your credibility.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMO_Harris_Bradley_Center
http://stadiums.findthebest.com/q/1358/1381/How-much-did-BMO-Harris-Bradley-Center-located-in-Milwaukee-Wisconsin-cost-to-build
http://www.bmoharrisbradleycenter.com/arena-info/arena-highlights
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1985-10-27/sports/8503130715_1_mayor-maier-lloyd-and-jane-pettit-new-arena
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1683&dat=20031112&id=GMQcAAAAIBAJ&sjid=t44EAAAAIBAJ&pg=6731,684935
And if I recall correctly. The Pettit's got so irritated with the City of Milwaukee they almost pulled their money out a few times.
-
Wrong. The Pettit's put it all up. It was a gift to the city. Here are some references since I am sure you will argue this.
And are you kidding? Would they even have bothered? You have a lot to add to this board but statements like these sap your credibility.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMO_Harris_Bradley_Center
http://stadiums.findthebest.com/q/1358/1381/How-much-did-BMO-Harris-Bradley-Center-located-in-Milwaukee-Wisconsin-cost-to-build
http://www.bmoharrisbradleycenter.com/arena-info/arena-highlights
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1985-10-27/sports/8503130715_1_mayor-maier-lloyd-and-jane-pettit-new-arena
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1683&dat=20031112&id=GMQcAAAAIBAJ&sjid=t44EAAAAIBAJ&pg=6731,684935
If they knew there would not be an NHL franchise and it would be no longer valued by the NBA, would they have done things differently? I'd think so, but who knows.
-
No you are correct. I misread the wiki page you linked to.
-
And if I recall correctly. The Pettit's got so irritated with the City of Milwaukee they almost pulled their money out a few times.
You do remember correctly.
This is why I have no faith in local politicians. How can you almost screw up a $90 million gift????
-
1) Obsolescence has sped up in the last 50 years. Even more so in the last 20. Still have your same phone from 5 years ago?
I guess you're right, but if that's the case, Milwaukee should let the Bucks walk. We could get a lot more bang for our tax dollar investing in an infrastructure that is going to last more than 25 years. Hell, turn Grant Park into a world class links golf course right on the lake and try to attract an annual golf tournament. At least that would last more than 25 years and you could amortize the cost over a longer period.
2) You are right. They want more revenue so they can compete with all of the franchises in the NBA that have venues that generate revenue and profit that make it possible for the owners to invest in the franchise. This is called competition. If you can't compete, you go away. See: Circuit City, Linens and Things, American TV, etc...
In this specific scenario, the Bucks business model doesn't work without taxpayers subsidizing it. I don't recall American TV getting a grant to upgrade all of their facilities so they could stay in business. They went out of business and that cost a lot of people a lot of jobs. Oh well. That's competition. Somebody else will fill the void.
3) This is related to #2. The Bucks are terrible now just like the Brewers were. The Brewers got a new stadium and, lo and behold, attendance goes up as excitement around the park brings people out. With extra $$$ flowing in, ownership is able to upgrade aspects of the organization that were lacking pre-Miller Park (like the scouting department and the minor league organizations -this comes from someone who was there, by the way). These investments pay off in a few years and the Brewers no longer suck and, in fact, they are able to compete from time to time.
It's hard for me to make this jump. Miller Park didn't scout or draft Braun, Fielder, Weeks, Hardy, etc. That was done using smart front office people, a ton of very high draft picks, and a little bit of luck. Now, Lohse, Garza, Ramirez, etc. are probably attributable to Miller Park as it gave the organization some financial flexibility.
4) Who knows but if the Brewers can make the playoffs once in a while in a sport where there is no real salary cap then it is within the realm of possibility that the Bucks can compete at the highest level if they are smart and invest in the organization like the Brewers did (because of the $$$ from Miller Park) in a sport with a salary cap.
I'm just not so sure. The NBA is just a different game. I can't think of the last city that built a new arena and felt a bump in how their organization performed. I could certainly be wrong, I don't have any data on that. I think drafting Kevin Durrant and Russell Westbrook helped the Thunder more than their facility.
5) True. But what is the cost when you REMOVE a franchise from a city? Is that a neutral event? I don't think it is.
Totally fair. The Bucks walking will cost the city $. Will it cost the city more than $300million? Do the Bucks generate more than $15-20 million per year in revenue for Milwaukee? Maybe they do if you count income taxes from the players and coaches. I honestly don't know.
One more thing to your post...I agree that 25 years is a fairly short time period in the grand scheme of things. We have to remember, though, that the BC was NOT built for the Bucks. It was built because the Pettit's wanted to bring an NHL franchise to Milwaukee back in the 1980s. Unfortunately, when the NHL expanded the expansion fee was so over the top that it was impossible to do (if I recall correctly). This is why the sight lines and layout of the BC is so crappy for basketball. It's also why the "upgrade" option isn't really do-able, trying to turn a hockey arena into a state of the art basketball facility simply cannot be done - the bone structure isn't right. My GUESS is that an arena that is built with a "basketball first" mentality would have a useful life of longer than 25 years.
Could be. I'm just not sure I want to be $300million+ on that.
-
If they knew there would not be an NHL franchise and it would be no longer valued by the NBA, would they have done things differently? I'd think so, but who knows.
That might be true but one of the articles references the Bucks possibly leaving as a reason why they stepped up. I think it's in the Tribune article.
What was old is new again...
-
What do we expect ticket prices to be like at the new arena compared to the BC? If this is "for the City". I think its a good question. Because it seems to me the real reason to build the arena is for the NBA/Bucks to make more money. Chances are with the new arena my family will be even less likely to go. Assuming hikes in ticket prices and parking/concessions etc.
-
akmarq, valid point. But one has to consider that the Bucks, even if private are barely a for profit company. Kohl made a lot on the sale, not operating it. If they stay in Milwaukee, the new owners won't make much on a sale.
Maybe the answer could be that if the city puts up money to build the new arena, the city shares in the profits when the team is sold. Of course, there would be a lot of details to be worked out....
-
If Indy can do it, Milwaukee should be able to. Unfortunately the Wisconsin Center District turns everything they touch to sh*t.
Indianapolis has some significant advantages over Milwaukee. It's centrally located, doesn't have Chicago right next door, better weather, NFL franchise, Indy 500, larger metropolitan area, the list goes on.
There seems to be some misconceptions on this board about other cities, and how they compare to Milwaukee.
-
Indianapolis has some significant advantages over Milwaukee. It's centrally located, doesn't have Chicago right next door, better weather, NFL franchise, Indy 500, larger metropolitan area, the list goes on.
There seems to be some misconceptions on this board about other cities, and how they compare to Milwaukee.
I agree. How much bigger of an economic center is Milwaukee these days compared to say Brookfield and Waukesha combined?
-
This is true. Going to sporting events, bars and restaurants comes from disposable income. If the money is not spent on Bucks games it will be spent on something else. There would still be some economic loss to the city, but not that much.
However, having the Bucks around makes the city a more livable place, similar to parks, zoos, museums and the arts. I never could understand people when they bitch about the city putting up a sculpture or planting trees and landscape, etc. Those are things that make a city livable and attractive. Helping with economic development is important too, but it shouldn’t be either/or. If the money does not go to build a new arena it will not magically appear and go to help economic development and the plight of the poor. It doesn’t work that way in the real world.
I do not buy the argument that a professional sports team is for the sole purpose of profit of the owners. That is certainly in the equation, but a professional sports team also promotes community pride, and provides entertainment. Sports teams represent the city in most people’s eyes. You have to take the good with the bad and not cut off your nose to spite your face.
Using the argument that there is no interest in the team and the franchise sucks is incredibly short sighted. The city has supported the Bucks for 45 years. The last 15 to 20 have been up and down, (mostly down,) but this franchise has also been very successful both in terms of winning percentage and attendance. If the team wins, the city will support it whole heartedly, there is no question about that. Back in the dark years of MU basketball, attendance and interest in the team was down. I am sure glad people didn’t say we should dump MU basketball because the team is not good for a stretch of time. Not apples to apples comparison I understand, but the same logic.
Is Louisville less livable because they don't have a NBA team? Seattle? San Diego? Is Los Angeles twice as livable because there are two NBA teams? Isn't all of this in the eye of the beholder and when you attach $$$$ to it, that may also play into people's thinking?
-
Guns, prior to the cash flow that came from the opening of Miller Park, the Brewers didn't have the money to do proper scouting or invest in the player development personnel that work in the minor leagues. As an example, and if I remember correctly, at the end of the Selig ownership it was so tight that the Brewers subscribed to a scouting newsletter - that was the extent of the "scouting" budget. That does not feed the bulldog, as evidenced but the product on the field.
You are right, Miller Park didn't draft anyone. But it did provide the $$$ that allowed the Brewers to hire the people to draft and develop them.
-
Let's be honest. Milwaukee is not going to draw many conventions, no matter what time of year.
Not all conventions are created equally. Milwaukee could do very well attracting small to mid-level conventions if they addressed many of the issues others have cited in this thread. That stated, they are never going to compete for major conventions for many of the reasons others have cited in this thread.
-
Is Louisville less livable because they don't have a NBA team? Seattle? San Diego? Is Los Angeles twice as livable because there are two NBA teams? Isn't all of this in the eye of the beholder and when you attach $$$$ to it, that may also play into people's thinking?
Louisville is right on the river where the climate isn't winter 6 months of the year.
-
Guns, prior to the cash flow that came from the opening of Miller Park, the Brewers didn't have the money to do proper scouting or invest in the player development personnel that work in the minor leagues. As an example, and if I remember correctly, at the end of the Selig ownership it was so tight that the Brewers subscribed to a scouting newsletter - that was the extent of the "scouting" budget. That does not feed the bulldog, as evidenced but the product on the field.
You are right, Miller Park didn't draft anyone. But it did provide the $$$ that allowed the Brewers to hire the people to draft and develop them.
I understand your theory, but Tampa Bay had no money, Oakland has no money, and the Twins did their best drafting and scouting when they had no money. Same for Cleveland who drafted most of their talent before Jacobs Field was built. Remember all of the talent the Expos had as they were going bankrupt?
Scouting and drafting can be aided by budget (I understand that logic), but I don't think it's a simple cause and effect.
Too many teams have done it too well without huge budgets.
Oh, also, teams that have extended runs of being bad (brewers, twins, tampa, Cleveland, etc.) get 8-10 years of really high draft picks help stock their minor league system with better players. It's a numbers game. Give me a top 5 pick in every round of the draft for 10 years, and I bet I'll have a pretty good minor league system. Certainly their are outliers (Pittsburgh & KC come to mind), but on the whole, being bad helps restock minor league talent... not new stadiums.
-
Is Louisville less livable because they don't have a NBA team? Seattle? San Diego? Is Los Angeles twice as livable because there are two NBA teams? Isn't all of this in the eye of the beholder and when you attach $$$$ to it, that may also play into people's thinking?
I agree, but keep in mind that this debate is being waged on a basketball fan message board. I would assume most people here over value sports considerably because it is an important part of their own lives. The reality is that losing the Bucks would have almost zero impact on a large majority of the people living in Milwaukee and the state of Wisconsin.
-
I understand your theory, but Tampa Bay had no money, Oakland has no money, and the Twins did their best drafting and scouting when they had no money. Same for Cleveland who drafted most of their talent before Jacobs Field was built. Remember all of the talent the Expos had as they were going bankrupt?
Scouting and drafting can be aided by budget (I understand that logic), but I don't think it's a simple cause and effect.
Too many teams have done it too well without huge budgets.
Oh, also, teams that have extended runs of being bad (brewers, twins, tampa, Cleveland, etc.) get 8-10 years of really high draft picks help stock their minor league system with better players. It's a numbers game. Give me a top 5 pick in every round of the draft for 10 years, and I bet I'll have a pretty good minor league system. Certainly their are outliers (Pittsburgh & KC come to mind), but on the whole, being bad helps restock minor league talent... not new stadiums.
I think you are confusing payroll with budget. I don't know about the teams you mentioned but I do know that the Brewers were so cash poor that EVERYTHING got cut, not just the salaries at the major league level. Without the money to scout the guy to draft with the #5 pick or the minor league coaches to teach him and prepare him to move up the ladder, it's a waste.
-
This is true. Going to sporting events, bars and restaurants comes from disposable income. If the money is not spent on Bucks games it will be spent on something else. There would still be some economic loss to the city, but not that much.
However, having the Bucks around makes the city a more livable place, similar to parks, zoos, museums and the arts. I never could understand people when they bitch about the city putting up a sculpture or planting trees and landscape, etc. Those are things that make a city livable and attractive. Helping with economic development is important too, but it shouldn’t be either/or. If the money does not go to build a new arena it will not magically appear and go to help economic development and the plight of the poor. It doesn’t work that way in the real world.
I do not buy the argument that a professional sports team is for the sole purpose of profit of the owners. That is certainly in the equation, but a professional sports team also promotes community pride, and provides entertainment. Sports teams represent the city in most people’s eyes. You have to take the good with the bad and not cut off your nose to spite your face.
Using the argument that there is no interest in the team and the franchise sucks is incredibly short sighted. The city has supported the Bucks for 45 years. The last 15 to 20 have been up and down, (mostly down,) but this franchise has also been very successful both in terms of winning percentage and attendance. If the team wins, the city will support it whole heartedly, there is no question about that. Back in the dark years of MU basketball, attendance and interest in the team was down. I am sure glad people didn’t say we should dump MU basketball because the team is not good for a stretch of time. Not apples to apples comparison I understand, but the same logic.
This is an interesting point. I'm not too tied into the Bucks being good vs being bad, or "deserving" a new arena.
I'd like to see if there are other examples of NBA franchises that have constructed new arenas and had it improve performance (which we know draws people) and draw enough people (both live and on TV) to make an positive economic and civic impact in the city/state.
I don't care that the Bucks are bad. I'm just not a fan. Doesn't matter to me.
But, if the city pays for a new arena and they are bad, then the city isn't likely to see a return on investment. That's what makes me nervous.
If a new arena would turn the Bucks into the Spurs, then I'd sign up. Not because I'm a fan, but because I think a 20 year run of success would make a bigger economic and civic impact, and would probably be worth it.
-
This is an interesting point. I'm not too tied into the Bucks being good vs being bad, or "deserving" a new arena.
I'd like to see if there are other examples of NBA franchises that have constructed new arenas and had it improve performance (which we know draws people) and draw enough people (both live and on TV) to make an positive economic and civic impact in the city/state.
I don't care that the Bucks are bad. I'm just not a fan. Doesn't matter to me.
But, if the city pays for a new arena and they are bad, then the city isn't likely to see a return on investment. That's what makes me nervous.
If a new arena would turn the Bucks into the Spurs, then I'd sign up. Not because I'm a fan, but because I think a 20 year run of success would make a bigger economic and civic impact, and would probably be worth it.
Brooklyn Nets. Huge turnaround with the move.
-
This is an interesting point. I'm not too tied into the Bucks being good vs being bad, or "deserving" a new arena.
I'd like to see if there are other examples of NBA franchises that have constructed new arenas and had it improve performance (which we know draws people) and draw enough people (both live and on TV) to make an positive economic and civic impact in the city/state.
I don't care that the Bucks are bad. I'm just not a fan. Doesn't matter to me.
But, if the city pays for a new arena and they are bad, then the city isn't likely to see a return on investment. That's what makes me nervous.
If a new arena would turn the Bucks into the Spurs, then I'd sign up. Not because I'm a fan, but because I think a 20 year run of success would make a bigger economic and civic impact, and would probably be worth it.
I am not saying a new arena would make the bucks better or worse on the court. I am saying don't make any decision based on how the team is doing recently because team success can and do change.
-
I think you are confusing payroll with budget. I don't know about the teams you mentioned but I do know that the Brewers were so cash poor that EVERYTHING got cut, not just the salaries at the major league level. Without the money to scout the guy to draft with the #5 pick or the minor league coaches to teach him and prepare him to move up the ladder, it's a waste.
So do we really think that the Brewers were so much more poor than the Twins (almost contracted), Oakland, Tampa, Expos Moved to San Juan and then Washington), Cleveland (before jacobs field), that they were so much worse at scouting?
I'm not talking payroll. I'm talking organizational $.
I don't think the Brewers were bad at drafting because of County Stadium. I think they were bad at drafting because they were bad at drafting.
They magically got "better" at drafting when they had higher picks. Happens to a lot of teams.
-
I am not saying a new arena would make the bucks better or worse on the court. I am saying don't make any decision based on how the team is doing recently because team success can and do change.
I agree completely.
But, the rub for me is that I don't know if a new arena is a predictor of future success, and without on-court success, I don't think the team has the civil and economic impact that it needs to in order to justify the cost.
-
There seems to be some misconceptions on this board about other cities, and how they compare to Milwaukee.
+1
Like it or not, Milwaukee is more like Indianapolis, Kansas City, Columbus, etc than it is like Chicago, St. Louis, or even Seattle/Portland. So this argument about needing MKE to be a 'big league' city is misplaced. Milwaukee isn't a big league city - it's a medium/small city. It's the 39th most populous metro area in the country.
I love living here - but let's not pretend MKE is some beacon of modern metropolitan lifestyle.
-
I think this movement is interesting:
http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/common-ground-demands-better-school-facilities-or-no-support-for-arena-b99240726z1-254102011.html
http://www.commongroundwi.org/fair-play/
I mean .. imagine if their incredibly valid point gets legs.
NNaaaaaaaaaah. Who am I kidding?
Agreed that it's interesting. Common Ground has had some success in their work over the past 5 years or so. I think they have the organizing capacity to have a significant influence if funding were to come down to a referendum.
-
Seems like many people here are expending a lot of energy debating an arena that will never be built.
The Bucks are gone in 2017. The new owners want that. The NBA wants that. And the Wisconsin taxpayers want that.
Milwaukee has the Brewers, the Packers, UW sports, and of course, MU hoops. For a shrinking rust belt city, that's pretty darn good. Milwaukee doesn't have the vision, the population, or the money to support an NBA team.
Too many other thriving cities want to be part of the NBA. Once the Wisconsin taxpayers shoot down any public support plan (and they will), the new owners will calmly and quickly move on to Seattle, Kansas City, Louisville, Las Vegas, or San Jose.
Milwaukee will lose its NBA team, but hey, its taxpayers got to save about $10 a year. Enjoy.
-
Seems like many people here are expending a lot of energy debating an arena that will never be built.
The Bucks are gone in 2017. The new owners want that. The NBA wants that. And the Wisconsin taxpayers want that.
Milwaukee has the Brewers, the Packers, UW sports, and of course, MU hoops. For a shrinking rust belt city, that's pretty darn good. Milwaukee doesn't have the vision, the population, or the money to support an NBA team.
Too many other thriving cities want to be part of the NBA. Once the Wisconsin taxpayers shoot down any public support plan (and they will), the new owners will calmly and quickly move on to Seattle, Kansas City, Louisville, Las Vegas, or San Jose.
Milwaukee will lose its NBA team, but hey, its taxpayers got to save about $10 a year. Enjoy.
That is the sad truth!
-
+1
Like it or not, Milwaukee is more like Indianapolis, Kansas City, Columbus, etc than it is like Chicago, St. Louis, or even Seattle/Portland. So this argument about needing MKE to be a 'big league' city is misplaced. Milwaukee isn't a big league city - it's a medium/small city. It's the 39th most populous metro area in the country.
I love living here - but let's not pretend MKE is some beacon of modern metropolitan lifestyle.
St Louis is 50-something most populous... and it's a dump. Portland has 5k more people than MKE.
-
Seems like many people here are expending a lot of energy debating an arena that will never be built.
The Bucks are gone in 2017. The new owners want that. The NBA wants that. And the Wisconsin taxpayers want that.
Milwaukee has the Brewers, the Packers, UW sports, and of course, MU hoops. For a shrinking rust belt city, that's pretty darn good. Milwaukee doesn't have the vision, the population, or the money to support an NBA team.
Too many other thriving cities want to be part of the NBA. Once the Wisconsin taxpayers shoot down any public support plan (and they will), the new owners will calmly and quickly move on to Seattle, Kansas City, Louisville, Las Vegas, or San Jose.
Milwaukee will lose its NBA team, but hey, its taxpayers got to save about $10 a year. Enjoy.
Sad..but very true
-
St Louis is 50-something most populous... and it's a dump. Portland has 5k more people than MKE.
If OKC can get a team I know st Louis could
-
So, this was just a lucrative face savin' measure for Herbie, hey?
-
So, this was just a lucrative face savin' measure for Herbie, hey?
It sounds like it. Why else would it be sold for 550 mil? Over 100 mil over its worth
-
Seems like many people here are expending a lot of energy debating an arena that will never be built.
The Bucks are gone in 2017. The new owners want that. The NBA wants that. And the Wisconsin taxpayers want that.
Milwaukee has the Brewers, the Packers, UW sports, and of course, MU hoops. For a shrinking rust belt city, that's pretty darn good. Milwaukee doesn't have the vision, the population, or the money to support an NBA team.
Too many other thriving cities want to be part of the NBA. Once the Wisconsin taxpayers shoot down any public support plan (and they will), the new owners will calmly and quickly move on to Seattle, Kansas City, Louisville, Las Vegas, or San Jose.
Milwaukee will lose its NBA team, but hey, its taxpayers got to save about $10 a year. Enjoy.
I agree with alot of what you are saying. However, Im not sure the new owners want that. If the stadium doesnt get built. The NBA buys the team. Nothing says the new owners get to move the team.
Also, $10 a year, maybe for the average citizen. But if you think the cost to go to a Bucks game or an MU games is not going to change with a new arena. I have a bridge to sell you...
-
So, this was just a lucrative face savin' measure for Herbie, hey?
If you think this was a face saving gesture by Kohl you have no clue. This guy has devoted all of his efforts to keeping the Bucks in MKE and has had numerous offers to sell over the years. He has always held out because he wants the team to stay in WI. He may not be a great owner, but his heart is in the right place.
-
I'm not so sure that would be true. Don't forget that the BC was donated to the city by the owners of the Milwaukee Admirals.
The BC would not have been built if not for the Bucks being tenants, they were not going to build an arena on speculation that Milwaukee would get an NHL team. I did mean the U.S. Cellular arena is where MU would be right now if the BC wasn't built. If the Bucks don't get a new arena and MU gets stuck with the BC...take a look at the mess DePaul has with the Rosemont and there is MU's Future. MU needs to be active in this process as it's in their best interests also. The Bucks need a new arena and so does MU.
-
Seems like many people here are expending a lot of energy debating an arena that will never be built.
The Bucks are gone in 2017. The new owners want that. The NBA wants that. And the Wisconsin taxpayers want that.
Milwaukee has the Brewers, the Packers, UW sports, and of course, MU hoops. For a shrinking rust belt city, that's pretty darn good. Milwaukee doesn't have the vision, the population, or the money to support an NBA team.
Too many other thriving cities want to be part of the NBA. Once the Wisconsin taxpayers shoot down any public support plan (and they will), the new owners will calmly and quickly move on to Seattle, Kansas City, Louisville, Las Vegas, or San Jose.
Milwaukee will lose its NBA team, but hey, its taxpayers got to save about $10 a year. Enjoy.
I can't speak for every tax payer, but for me personally, it's just about ROI.
If the Bucks and the city can show me a plan that would make a new arena a good investment (from a civil and economics standpoint), then I'll get on board.
That's it.
Not complicated.
-
It sounds like it. Why else would it be sold for 550 mil? Over 100 mil over its worth
The valuation is based on owning an NBA team, not the Bucks in particular.
Here's a great read by Simmons on the purchase. http://grantland.com/features/the-worlds-most-exclusive-club/ (http://grantland.com/features/the-worlds-most-exclusive-club/)
Even if the team is moved to Seattle, it's not a $550 mil valuation. The team has to win to justify that valuation.
-
I think this movement is interesting:
http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/common-ground-demands-better-school-facilities-or-no-support-for-arena-b99240726z1-254102011.html
http://www.commongroundwi.org/fair-play/
I mean .. imagine if their incredibly valid point gets legs.
NNaaaaaaaaaah. Who am I kidding?
What is valid about their point? It's an emotional appeal(note I'm not arguing for a new arena here), it's easy to SAY we don't have good enough facilities.
The Bucks say their facility isn't good enough, schools say their facilities aren't good enough, playgrounds aren't good enough. What is the metric used to determine this? What is the minimum threshold school facilities need to be at?
People are far to prone to throw money at something and say know it's better without empirically proving it is better
-
St Louis is 50-something most populous... and it's a dump. Portland has 5k more people than MKE.
Metro area, not city population:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Metropolitan_Statistical_Areas
STL is 19th. Portland is 24th.
Have you been to the westside north of Wells? Let's not be too quick to point out the flaws in other cities.
-
+1
Like it or not, Milwaukee is more like Indianapolis, Kansas City, Columbus, etc than it is like Chicago, St. Louis, or even Seattle/Portland. So this argument about needing MKE to be a 'big league' city is misplaced. Milwaukee isn't a big league city - it's a medium/small city. It's the 39th most populous metro area in the country.
I love living here - but let's not pretend MKE is some beacon of modern metropolitan lifestyle.
I would argue that the 39th largest metropolitan area is the county isn't "medium/small." I have lived in medium and small places and Milwaukee is eons closer to the modern metropolitan lifestyle when compared to most places. Sometimes I don't think people who live in Milwaukee fully appreciate the city, what it has to offer, and how convenient everything is.
Chicago, San Francisco, New York, etc. are great places. World class cities. But they are a bitch to get around in and terribly expensive. Milwaukee doesn't offer what those places offer, but it is the next step down with a fraction of the headaches.
-
What is valid about their point? It's an emotional appeal(note I'm not arguing for a new arena here), it's easy to SAY we don't have good enough facilities.
The Bucks say their facility isn't good enough, schools say their facilities aren't good enough, playgrounds aren't good enough. What is the metric used to determine this? What is the minimum threshold school facilities need to be at?
People are far to prone to throw money at something and say know it's better without empirically proving it is better
I've worked with some of the CG folks and it was proven empirically. They went to pretty much every school field in the 5 county area and observed problems/recorded condition. The facilities were then ranked in order of need. It's been a well researched and documented process.
Have you seen some of the MPS fields? No rational person would allow a child to move at high speeds on them.
-
I would argue that the 39th largest metropolitan area is the county isn't "medium/small." I have lived in medium and small places and Milwaukee is eons closer to the modern metropolitan lifestyle when compared to most places. Sometimes I don't think people who live in Milwaukee fully appreciate the city, what it has to offer, and how convenient everything is.
Chicago, San Francisco, New York, etc. are great places. World class cities. But they are a bitch to get around in and terribly expensive. Milwaukee doesn't offer what those places offer, but it is the next step down with a fraction of the headaches.
Medium and small for a city - not for all places to live in the country. I'm talking about the group of places that could conceivably host a professional sports team, not all of the US.
-
I've worked with some of the CG folks and it was proven empirically. They went to pretty much every school field in the 5 county area and observed problems/recorded condition. The facilities were then ranked in order of need. It's been a well researched and documented process.
Have you seen some of the MPS fields? No rational person would allow a child to move at high speeds on them.
I've played kickball on some of those fields and have the scars to prove it.
I'm not familiar with CG at all so I definitely appreciate the info. My follow up would be, why does it need to be incremental spend to get these facilities up to snuff......sounds like MPS has decided to prioritize in a different direction(good or bad is up for debate).
-
I can't speak for every tax payer, but for me personally, it's just about ROI.
If the Bucks and the city can show me a plan that would make a new arena a good investment (from a civil and economics standpoint), then I'll get on board.
That's it.
Not complicated.
I agree. I'd also throw in some concept of "priorities" to that conversation.
If it's "just a $10 problem" for taxpayers, then how about that $10 for the schools? For the parks? For the bridges and roads? How about some corporate welfare, maybe an airline to create a hub here, now that we've lost all others? Et cetera.
To have an honest conversation about new taxes, you need to have a real plan with all the priorities on the table, not just talk about the wonders of 10 guys on a court, entertaining you out of $100+ for a ticket, (and likely losing.)
-
I've played kickball on some of those fields and have the scars to prove it.
I'm not familiar with CG at all so I definitely appreciate the info. My follow up would be, why does it need to be incremental spend to get these facilities up to snuff......sounds like MPS has decided to prioritize in a different direction(good or bad is up for debate).
Sounds like a group of people see that there is a chance to raise taxes and they dont want to be left off the gravy train.
-
The valuation is based on owning an NBA team, not the Bucks in particular.
Here's a great read by Simmons on the purchase. http://grantland.com/features/the-worlds-most-exclusive-club/ (http://grantland.com/features/the-worlds-most-exclusive-club/)
Even if the team is moved to Seattle, it's not a $550 mil valuation. The team has to win to justify that valuation.
The value is what someone will pay for it, of course. The purchase of an NBA team is not a business decision, it is an emotional and ego driven decision. I bet if the team were being sold to the highest bidder, who could then freely move the team without any of Kohl's restrictions, it is worth more. The fact that the Buyer agrees to kick in at least 100M to an arena to keep them in Milwaukee, tells me that that a Buyer was willing to pay was more than 550M. What would a Buyer have been willing to pay if they didn't have to kick in 100M and could move the team to another city? That is the true value.
-
I've played kickball on some of those fields and have the scars to prove it.
I'm not familiar with CG at all so I definitely appreciate the info. My follow up would be, why does it need to be incremental spend to get these facilities up to snuff......sounds like MPS has decided to prioritize in a different direction(good or bad is up for debate).
CG is a community organizing group so they are largely helping those in the community direct efforts to achieve goals. They are less of an agenda setter; their model is to listen to member organizations (churches, civic groups, etc) and then coordinate efforts between them into a campaign. So the focus on school recreational facilities is in response to the community wanting improvements but seeing little movement from MPS. It's also easier to get traction for the campaign if it links to the arena in some obvious way (all for sports facilities).
-
Sounds like a group of people see that there is a chance to raise taxes and they dont want to be left off the gravy train.
See above. CG isn't a lobbying group or a special interest group. They are an organizing group for local churches and civic organizations. So the 'someone' is largely the engaged citizens of Milwaukee. That line of thinking isn't as strong when it's the people paying the taxes agitating for the funding.
-
What is valid about their point? It's an emotional appeal(note I'm not arguing for a new arena here), it's easy to SAY we don't have good enough facilities.
The Bucks say their facility isn't good enough, schools say their facilities aren't good enough, playgrounds aren't good enough. What is the metric used to determine this? What is the minimum threshold school facilities need to be at?
People are far to prone to throw money at something and say know it's better without empirically proving it is better
I don't think you can categorize it as "emotional" .. It's about priorities. The worst thing that could be said is that not everyone prioritizes education over entertainment. (leading to our downfall.)
-
See above. CG isn't a lobbying group or a special interest group. They are an organizing group for local churches and civic organizations. So the 'someone' is largely the engaged citizens of Milwaukee. That line of thinking isn't as strong when it's the people paying the taxes agitating for the funding.
I say let taxing start. I dont live in Milwaukee County and I would bet that all of the surrounding counties are going to pass referendum or policy that wont allow them to be involved in the tax. I think a few are heading down that road already. IE Racine. Expect all the 5 county area to follow suit very soon.
http://journaltimes.com/news/local/opposed-to-an-arena-tax----resolution-on/article_3638835a-07b8-11e3-92ca-0019bb2963f4.html
-
I agree. I'd also throw in some concept of "priorities" to that conversation.
If it's "just a $10 problem" for taxpayers, then how about that $10 for the schools? For the parks? For the bridges and roads? How about some corporate welfare, maybe an airline to create a hub here, now that we've lost all others? Et cetera.
To have an honest conversation about new taxes, you need to have a real plan with all the priorities on the table, not just talk about the wonders of 10 guys on a court, entertaining you out of $100+ for a ticket, (and likely losing.)
Right, and I'm willing to concede that a sexy new arena might be more beneficial that a "sexy new freshwater sciences research grant" or airport infrastructure. I get it.
There is some civic/community needs and it's not just economics.
I just want to see the cost and benefits laid out in an honest and objective way. (not likely I suppose).
-
I don't think you can categorize it as "emotional" .. It's about priorities. The worst thing that could be said is that not everyone prioritizes education over entertainment. (leading to our downfall.)
That's a tough one, because by it's nature, "education" is related to children, and it automatically evokes emotion from most.
It's technically not an emotional appeal, but anytime you talk about education or schools, it almost automatically becomes that way.
-
I agree, but keep in mind that this debate is being waged on a basketball fan message board. I would assume most people here over value sports considerably because it is an important part of their own lives. The reality is that losing the Bucks would have almost zero impact on a large majority of the people living in Milwaukee and the state of Wisconsin.
Yup, that's exactly my point. Some people would cry the world is ending, but a bunch would have no problem with it at all. Too many myopic viewpoints here colored in a sports lens....which is understandable. That's why to me San Diego, Seattle, Louisville, are not any less of a city because they don't have the NBA. A franchise can certainly help get people excited, etc, but people go overboard with overvaluing what it does for a community.
-
Right, and I'm willing to concede that a sexy new arena might be more beneficial that a "sexy new freshwater sciences research grant" or airport infrastructure. I get it.
There is some civic/community needs and it's not just economics.
I just want to see the cost and benefits laid out in an honest and objective way. (not likely I suppose).
Another great point. Imagine if a non-sexy business, say, meat packers or beer brewers came and asked for $200m to build a plant that'd be in business for generations, providing middle-income jobs for thousands.
It'd be laughed out of the newspaper.
Meanwhile. $200m for 10 guys to bounce a ball, plus some restaurant workers .. NOW we're talkin!
-
Louisville is right on the river where the climate isn't winter 6 months of the year.
I get it, but we can substitute other cities if you wish. Minneapolis had the Lakers, then they had no one. They have the T-Wolves. Cincinnati used to have the Royals, but no NBA team in a long time. Cities like to have teams for civic pride, show how big their wiener is to other cities, etc. Look, I love sports, made it my career, but I don't believe for a second that if a team leaves is kills a city or that a city gaining a team is suddenly enchanted. For some individuals, that is certainly the case. For the city as a whole, the numbers don't support that view. They are nice to have, I would rather have one than not have one, but to a degree. Not at any cost.
-
Another great point. Imagine if a non-sexy business, say, meat packers or beer brewers came and asked for $200m to build a plant that'd be in business for generations, providing middle-income jobs for thousands.
It'd be laughed out of the newspaper.
Meanwhile. $200m for 10 guys to bounce a ball, plus some restaurant workers .. NOW we're talkin!
Well, that's actually why I think Milwaukee should build Google and facebook a $500million dollar campus (250m each) in downtown and make them sign a 30 years lease.
-
What is valid about their point? It's an emotional appeal(note I'm not arguing for a new arena here), it's easy to SAY we don't have good enough facilities.
The Bucks say their facility isn't good enough, schools say their facilities aren't good enough, playgrounds aren't good enough. What is the metric used to determine this? What is the minimum threshold school facilities need to be at?
People are far to prone to throw money at something and say know it's better without empirically proving it is better
We spend more per pupil on public education than any nation on Earth and our rankings continue to drop. If we are going to bring up appropriate places to spend taxpayer money, I think those without sin should cast the first stone. That puts people who allocate funds for public education way at the back of the line.
-
Meanwhile. $200m for 10 guys to bounce a ball, plus some restaurant workers .. NOW we're talkin!
This is another great point that has only been tangentially addressed. Is what MKE needs really more low-wage service jobs? Building your economy through minimum wage work isn't near as stimulative as bringing in jobs that pay solid, middle-class wages. The arena would likely give a nice bump to the bar/entertainment owners downtown, but those aren't the business owners providing family-supporting careers in the city.
-
http://www.fieldofschemes.com
Just go here and you can read all of the data why public funding is a terrible idea.
-
1) Obsolescence has sped up in the last 50 years. Even more so in the last 20. Still have your same phone from 5 years ago?
You're talking technology...and I actually go about 4 years before replacing my phone. Four years later, the phone still makes phone calls. It may not run the apps as fast as the new ones, but for what I use it for, that is fine.
Let's not confused WANT with NEED. Everyone WANTS something new, that doesn't mean you need it. I have to have these conversations with my kids. There is a significant difference. The BC can still hold that 94' piece of wood just fine along with 19.5K fannies in the seats. They have suites. They don't have some of the other revenue sources that others have. Question I have is if they build the new playground for millionaires and the team still blows, are corporations, people, etc going to be able to afford these new amenities anyway? Are you pricing the average guy out of the market?
2) You are right. They want more revenue so they can compete with all of the franchises in the NBA that have venues that generate revenue and profit that make it possible for the owners to invest in the franchise. This is called competition. If you can't compete, you go away. See: Circuit City, Linens and Things, American TV, etc...
Not a good comparison. Circruit City, American TV, Linens and Things don't have revenue sharing or salary caps in place like the NBA does. The vast majority of the Bucks revenue comes from television and ticket sales. Ticket sales are a product of the team sucking.
3) This is related to #2. The Bucks are terrible now just like the Brewers were. The Brewers got a new stadium and, lo and behold, attendance goes up as excitement around the park brings people out. With extra $$$ flowing in, ownership is able to upgrade aspects of the organization that were lacking pre-Miller Park (like the scouting department and the minor league organizations -this comes from someone who was there, by the way). These investments pay off in a few years and the Brewers no longer suck and, in fact, they are able to compete from time to time.
Interesting. Miami Marlins got a new stadium...how is there attendance doing? Doesn't always work out the way you are stating. There is a halo effect with new stadiums that people want to come down and check out the new digs, that lasts for awhile, but ultimately they have to win.
4) Who knows but if the Brewers can make the playoffs once in a while in a sport where there is no real salary cap then it is within the realm of possibility that the Bucks can compete at the highest level if they are smart and invest in the organization like the Brewers did (because of the $$$ from Miller Park) in a sport with a salary cap.
The Bucks problem is that too many NBA players don't want to live the majority of their prime earning years in Milwaukee.
-
I can't speak for every tax payer, but for me personally, it's just about ROI.
If the Bucks and the city can show me a plan that would make a new arena a good investment (from a civil and economics standpoint), then I'll get on board.
That's it.
Not complicated.
Exactly how I view it. I'm fine with stadiums, pro sports, etc, but at what cost, what options, etc. What's the plan, who is paying, who benefits, who doesn't benefit (opportunity costs), etc. Agree, its not complicated.....politics makes it very complicated.
-
http://www.fieldofschemes.com
Just go here and you can read all of the data why public funding is a terrible idea.
Don't care.
I want to get drunk in a nicer building, and I think that taxpayers should help pay for that since I didn't use up their resources sending me to University.
Shut down public transportation if they have to, I don't use it anyway.
-
Another great point. Imagine if a non-sexy business, say, meat packers or beer brewers came and asked for $200m to build a plant that'd be in business for generations, providing middle-income jobs for thousands.
It'd be laughed out of the newspaper.
Meanwhile. $200m for 10 guys to bounce a ball, plus some restaurant workers .. NOW we're talkin!
Ding ding ding....winner
-
We spend more per pupil on public education than any nation on Earth and our rankings continue to drop. If we are going to bring up appropriate places to spend taxpayer money, I think those without sin should cast the first stone. That puts people who allocate funds for public education way at the back of the line.
Agree with this also....you are right...there are reasons for this, however, which shall shut the thread down....
-
Question though. What happens to MU if the Bucks do move? Do they just play at the BC until the end of time? Plus you also have to consider the Admirals arent going anywhere either.
If the Bucks move, the fiscal reality of the situation will force the razing US Cellular arena as the city/district will not be able to justify keeping up two aging arenas next door to each other.
Admirals, MU and UWM will then share the BC for as long as the building is able to keep the ice frozen. From where I stand, I would estimate the BC has perhaps 10-15 of economic life remaining before the infrastructure replacement and operating costs will simply become too much.
At some point - be it 1, 5, 10, 15 or 50 years from now - the city and the tenants are going to be forced to deal with the aging building... not another lipstick on the pig refurbishment, but an actual "tear-the-walls-out" renovation. The MMAC estimated $300M to renovate the BC, but this was to supposed NBA standards. Standards for the AHL and NCAA are much less, but by how much is unknown. It will be certainly be more than the $80M short-term fix that was discussed a decade ago, but it won't be $300M. If it's $100M, then I can see that getting done via a combination of private financing with little need for any public money... which means that yes, MU will be at the BC until the end of time (or at least the distantly foreseeable future). However, if that number is $250M, then I don't see how MU, the Admirals, the city, UWM and taxpayers are going to be able to put that kind of cash together... if perhaps MU was asked to foot a 10% share of that, then they'll have a decision of their own to make as $25M is already 1/4 to 1/3 of the way towards the cost of building their own arena.
IMO - Bottom line is this: If the Bucks leave town, an on-campus (or near-campus) arena for Marquette is inevitable. That doesn't mean it gets built right away, but the economics of the situation will likely force MU's hand into a massive fundraising effort.
If I had to take a stab at it, I would imagine a groundbreaking near 16th and Canal sometime between 2025 and 2030.
-
This is another great point that has only been tangentially addressed. Is what MKE needs really more low-wage service jobs? Building your economy through minimum wage work isn't near as stimulative as bringing in jobs that pay solid, middle-class wages. The arena would likely give a nice bump to the bar/entertainment owners downtown, but those aren't the business owners providing family-supporting careers in the city.
I look at it like this
If Wisconsin is a democratic state as statistics proves it to be, then a new arena will indeed get built. Leave it up to the citizens to vote!
-
I'm about 4 pages late with this, but I think some people underestimate Milwaukee's desirability as a convention location.
Some anecdotal evidence-- Milwaukee won a bid to host the USA Triathlon Age Group National Championships for both 2013 and 2014. All accounts I have read have praised Milwaukee as the host. They actually saw a 22% increase in the number of athletes for 2012 to 2013. Part of this can be attributed to growing interest in the sport, but I think some can also be attributed to Milwaukee as the host city. The economic impact for the event was estimated at $8-$10 million.
Year Site # of Athletes
1999....... St. Joseph, MO............ 1,000
2000 ....... St. Joseph, MO ........... 1,050
2001 ....... Coeur d’Alene, ID ........ 1,025
2002 ....... Coeur d’Alene, ID ........ 1,125
2003....... Shreveport, LA............ 1,200
2004....... Shreveport, LA............ 850
2005....... Kansas City, MO.......... 1,230
2006....... Kansas City, MO.......... 900
2007....... Portland, OR................ 1,200
2008....... Portland, OR................ 1,100
2009....... Tuscaloosa, AL............. 1,100
2010....... Tuscaloosa, AL............. 1,700
2011....... Burlington, VT............. 2,500
2012....... Burlington, VT............. 3,500
2013....... Milwaukee, WI............ 4,300
-
Ok...see Seattle Supersonics. Or New Jersey Nets. Or Los Angeles Rams. All moved from antiquated arenas. All became better franchises after the move.
The Marlins have royally ticked off the fan base by twice building World Series winners and then doing massive salary dumps that landed the team in the cellar. I think that's a different set of circumstances, even with the new stadium.
-
Ok...see Seattle Supersonics. Or New Jersey Nets. Or Los Angeles Rams. All moved from antiquated arenas. All became better franchises after the move.
The Marlins have royally ticked off the fan base by twice building World Series winners and then doing massive salary dumps that landed the team in the cellar. I think that's a different set of circumstances, even with the new stadium.
Minnesota Twins aren't much better with Target Field
Detroit Lions still aren't setting the world on fire
It's easy to cherry pick examples to prove one's point. I think the point that most people are making is that where you come down on the issue shouldn't be contingent on how good the Bucks might get. When you're playing with other people's money, you ought to be able to demonstrate the positive return you're going to give them. So far no one from the NBA/Bucks/MMAC has done that.
-
Another great point. Imagine if a non-sexy business, say, meat packers or beer brewers came and asked for $200m to build a plant that'd be in business for generations, providing middle-income jobs for thousands.
It'd be laughed out of the newspaper.
Meanwhile. $200m for 10 guys to bounce a ball, plus some restaurant workers .. NOW we're talkin!
Yet another example of the probable stupidity of the local politicians in this area.
-
I was just out to lunch and saw on the news that Virgina Beach wants to build a stadium hoping that a NBA or NHL team will move there in the near future. That strikes me a weird city for a team to move to considering the other cities that are available.
-
Minnesota Twins aren't much better with Target Field
Detroit Lions still aren't setting the world on fire
It's easy to cherry pick examples to prove one's point. I think the point that most people are making is that where you come down on the issue shouldn't be contingent on how good the Bucks might get. When you're playing with other people's money, you ought to be able to demonstrate the positive return you're going to give them. So far no one from the NBA/Bucks/MMAC has done that.
We are talking about antiquated facilities and the impact on the franchise. The Twins and Lions do not fit the category. Plus, the Lions have revenue sharing as part of the NFL.
I don't doubt that a new arena is a "push" at best. Losing the Bucks, however, is a negative for the area economically. That is almost certain.
-
I was just out to lunch and saw on the news that Virgina Beach wants to build a stadium hoping that a NBA or NHL team will move there in the near future. That strikes me a weird city for a team to move to considering the other cities that are available.
They should ask Kansas City how that worked out.
-
Exactly how I view it. I'm fine with stadiums, pro sports, etc, but at what cost, what options, etc. What's the plan, who is paying, who benefits, who doesn't benefit (opportunity costs), etc. Agree, its not complicated.....politics makes it very complicated.
Yup, the argument that publicly funded arenas for pro sports franchises benefit the city and the people isn't universally applicable. You can't just plop an arena anywhere in a city and see a guaranteed return on the investment. It has to be tied to a broader development plan to be beneficial.
-
When you're playing with other people's money, you ought to be able to demonstrate the positive return you're going to give them. So far no one from the NBA/Bucks/MMAC has done that.
THIS. So much of THIS.
-
THIS. So much of THIS.
Once again, you won't have to pay for a new arena. So don't sweat it. Too many forces are at work to make sure it doesn't happen.
Ladies and gentlemen, your Seattle Bucks.....
-
Once again, you won't have to pay for a new arena. So don't sweat it. Too many forces are at work to make sure it doesn't happen.
Ladies and gentlemen, your Seattle Bucks.....
Why is it so complicated for tax payers to want to see how the investment will work?
If they can show me that it's good for the city, I'm on board.
-
Once again, you won't have to pay for a new arena. So don't sweat it. Too many forces are at work to make sure it doesn't happen.
Ladies and gentlemen, your Seattle Bucks.....
Not sure MU isnt better off without the Bucks...
-
Ok...see Seattle Supersonics. Or New Jersey Nets. Or Los Angeles Rams. All moved from antiquated arenas. All became better franchises after the move.
The Marlins have royally ticked off the fan base by twice building World Series winners and then doing massive salary dumps that landed the team in the cellar. I think that's a different set of circumstances, even with the new stadium.
The Raiders moved, too, did they get better? Cowboys moved from one stadium to another....not better. I think you are associating way too much with the movement and success...it's not that simple. The Boston Red Sox play in arguably the most antiquated stadium in baseball...they seem to be doing just fine.
So many variables that you are ignoring. By the way, the Rams may be moving again, so not a franchise I would use in your examples.
-
What does the mayor of Milwaukee think about this situation?
-
1) The Milwaukee County pension plan
2) Not one but two sewage plants built on the waterfront
3) A deep tunnel sewage system
4) A parking garage and Milwaukee transit system bus maintenance facility built on lakefront property near Summerfest
5) A convention center that was under-sized and non-competitive from the day it was designed
6) The Northwest Highway debacle
7) Turning down the old Northwest Air when they wanted Milwaukee as the hub
ALL of these were BIG $$$$ decisions that the local government screwed up in epic fashion, costing us untold amounts of money. Finding the money for Miller Park was at least a "push" and I am sure a new arena would be the same. I'll take that at this point.
And AGAIN, it's about more that $$$ in my opinion.
Guns, I posted this a few pages ago - decisions made by our politicians that were horrific wastes of money or "investment" decisions that were so short-sighted that it would wind up costing us tens, in not hundreds, of millions of dollars over time. How much economic benefit do you think being a major airline hub would have been? How about NOT permanently impairing entire areas of the (should be high value) lakefront and riverfront with sewage treatment facilities?
If we are going to talk about ROI, I submit that you are putting entirely too much faith in the ability of politicians/bureaucrats to make moderately decent (at best) decisions.
One thing I had forgotten...what is the ROI on Summerfest grounds? The city gets about $1.4 million in rent annually for prime lakefront acreage. That is a paltry sum compared to what could come in if the entire area were redeveloped. Will redevelopment ever happen? No way, not a chance. Waaaaay to much is brought into the local economy from the festivals.
Remarkably, the same argument for a new arena...
-
The Raiders moved, too, did they get better? Cowboys moved from one stadium to another....not better. I think you are associating way too much with the movement and success...it's not that simple. The Boston Red Sox play in arguably the most antiquated stadium in baseball...they seem to be doing just fine.
So many variables that you are ignoring. By the way, the Rams may be moving again, so not a franchise I would use in your examples.
You are right, although I would argue Al Davis was capable of overcoming any possible advantage given to his team. I am not saying a new arena is a cure-all. I am saying that for some franchises, it has made a huge difference. Of course this isn't universally applicable, I know that. I just know what happened here with the Brewers.
As it relates to all those who want to see an ROI on a new arena... Please show me the impact on ROI from removing the Bucks from the area. As CIO ("I" for investment, not information), I know ROI. I want to see you quantify the impact on ALL the area establishments that will NOT have clients coming in for drinks, dinner, parking, etc... Then, please calculate the multiplier effect that is caused from the absence of money that service workers, owners, etc... would have earned that would have gone into other establishments and services they would have utilized and consumed...
This isn't simple math, people. Depending on the viewpoint, a person can make EITHER side of this argument fit their viewpoint. Even with the best of unbiased intensions, the math is incredibly difficult to do and based on assumptions that are nearly unknowable.
Again, this isn't about ROI alone. It's about quality of life and how we fell about/others look at our city. I remember the pre-Kohl days when the Bucks were good. This city CAN and WILL support a successful NBA franchise - I have seen it happen. It just needs something to cheer for once in a while.
-
Guns, I posted this a few pages ago - decisions made by our politicians that were horrific wastes of money or "investment" decisions that were so short-sighted that it would wind up costing us tens, in not hundreds, of millions of dollars over time. How much economic benefit do you think being a major airline hub would have been? How about NOT permanently impairing entire areas of the (should be high value) lakefront and riverfront with sewage treatment facilities?
If we are going to talk about ROI, I submit that you are putting entirely too much faith in the ability of politicians/bureaucrats to make moderately decent (at best) decisions.
One thing I had forgotten...what is the ROI on Summerfest grounds? The city gets about $1.4 million in rent annually for prime lakefront acreage. That is a paltry sum compared to what could come in if the entire area were redeveloped. Will redevelopment ever happen? No way, not a chance. Waaaaay to much is brought into the local economy from the festivals.
Remarkably, the same argument for a new arena...
Right, city politics, capital expenditures and infrastructure are not entirely about ROI.
However, if we are handing out 300million, I think it's at least a (large) consideration.
In no particular order:
1. ROI (short and long term)
2. Opportunity Cost
3. Impact of them leaving
4. Civil impact (short and long term)
As far as past performance predicting future performance, the Bucks have been bad for a long time. Even with a new building, they will be bad. I don't think a bad basketball team in a nice arena is going to help civic pride and/or make a large economic impact.
-
Guns, I posted this a few pages ago - decisions made by our politicians that were horrific wastes of money or "investment" decisions that were so short-sighted that it would wind up costing us tens, in not hundreds, of millions of dollars over time. How much economic benefit do you think being a major airline hub would have been? How about NOT permanently impairing entire areas of the (should be high value) lakefront and riverfront with sewage treatment facilities?
If we are going to talk about ROI, I submit that you are putting entirely too much faith in the ability of politicians/bureaucrats to make moderately decent (at best) decisions.
One thing I had forgotten...what is the ROI on Summerfest grounds? The city gets about $1.4 million in rent annually for prime lakefront acreage. That is a paltry sum compared to what could come in if the entire area were redeveloped. Will redevelopment ever happen? No way, not a chance. Waaaaay to much is brought into the local economy from the festivals.
Remarkably, the same argument for a new arena...
It's the same argument on the surface...
I forget the number, but I recall Rick Schlesinger saying a couple years ago that the Brewers track sales by zip code and that 25-30% of their tickets were being sold to people outside the 5-county area. I would suspect Summerfest is probably around that same percentage, maybe even a bit higher. Even so, those two alone account for 3.5M tickets annually (2.7M for Brewers, 800k for Summerfest), ergo nearly a million "visits" to the city of Milwaukee from people outside the 5-county area. Let's say that 10% of those people were coming to Milwaukee any way and decided to attend a game/concert while they were here, another 5% are no-shows, and 50% don't spend another dime during their visit. You still have 350,000 visits (net 10%) from people who are actually making an "economic impact" in the area that is directly attributable to the Brewers and/or Summerfest.
The problem with your argument is that even if the Bucks sold out all 41 games (41 x 19,000), they would have to "net 45%" to have the same economic impact on the city as the Brewers and Summerfest (presuming, of course, that Brewer fans, Bucks fans and Summerfest-goers spend about the same amount of money on average, which I would say is probably pretty darn close); however, I would suspect the Bucks sell less than 10% of their tickets outside the 5-county area... even if they netted that full 10% (78,000 visits), that's still less than economic impact of Summerfest alone.
Summerfest and the Brewers have drawing power outside the 5-county area, that's why you can make the economic impact argument for the Brewers and Summerfest. The Bucks simply do not have that kind of draw... and it's unlikely that they ever will. Growing up just north of Madison, before the age of 18 I went with my family to at least 20 Brewer games, maybe a dozen Packer games, a half dozen Bucky football games, Summerfest twice, and Wrestlefest '88. Not once did we ever consider going to a Bucks game. And by the way, all of those games were attended in the 80's and early 90's when the Badgers, Packers and Brewers sucked rhino.
A new arena might help the Bucks sell 750k tickets annually, but if nearly all of those tickets are being bought by people in the 5-county area (who would likely spend that money locally anyway), I can't see where the city or metro area is ever going to reap the benefit of their $300M investment.
-
Not sure MU isnt better off without the Bucks...
Been thinking this exact same thing. Louisville and I think Creighton benefit from being the only show in town. Marquette will become THE basketball team of Milwaukee by default.
-
Don't care.
I want to get drunk in a nicer building, and I think that taxpayers should help pay for that since I didn't use up their resources sending me to University.
Shut down public transportation if they have to, I don't use it anyway.
YES. Skat for Mayor!
-
Been thinking this exact same thing. Louisville and I think Creighton benefit from being the only show in town. Marquette will become THE basketball team of Milwaukee by default.
'cept they won't, because of UW.
-
You are right, although I would argue Al Davis was capable of overcoming any possible advantage given to his team. I am not saying a new arena is a cure-all. I am saying that for some franchises, it has made a huge difference. Of course this isn't universally applicable, I know that. I just know what happened here with the Brewers.
As it relates to all those who want to see an ROI on a new arena... Please show me the impact on ROI from removing the Bucks from the area. As CIO ("I" for investment, not information), I know ROI. I want to see you quantify the impact on ALL the area establishments that will NOT have clients coming in for drinks, dinner, parking, etc... Then, please calculate the multiplier effect that is caused from the absence of money that service workers, owners, etc... would have earned that would have gone into other establishments and services they would have utilized and consumed...
This isn't simple math, people. Depending on the viewpoint, a person can make EITHER side of this argument fit their viewpoint. Even with the best of unbiased intensions, the math is incredibly difficult to do and based on assumptions that are nearly unknowable.
Again, this isn't about ROI alone. It's about quality of life and how we fell about/others look at our city. I remember the pre-Kohl days when the Bucks were good. This city CAN and WILL support a successful NBA franchise - I have seen it happen. It just needs something to cheer for once in a while.
I agree, the ROI of them leaving needs to be examined as well. It absolutely needs to be considered. The BC is a sunk cost, so let's get real about the cost of the arena vs the cost of them leaving.
But, if you know ROI, you know that saying "It's about quality of life and how we fell about/others look at our city." isn't a good enough reason to spend 300million, right? Maybe 50mil, maybe 100mil... but it's not good enough to just write a check and say "it is what it is".
You want to improve the quality of life in Milwaukee, find ways to stimulate growth and middle class jobs. Don't worry about creating more bartending and waitress jobs around the arena. Every/any city does that, and they call it "growth". Stupid. The pro sports gravy train will stop at some point.
It's not sustainable. You can't keep spending $300million-500million every 25 years to keep a bunch of restaurants in business downtown and keep calling it "growth".
You want to make a real economic impact? Find something cutting edge that you can get on before any other city. Create the next silicone valley. Incubate businesses/ideas/talent. Make Milwaukee a must-go for entrepreneurs between 25 and 45. Create unique living spaces and work spaces. Develop programs with local colleges for young, talented people. Work with Madison/UWM/Marq./Whitewater/etc.
Spend money of recruiting/developing and retaining young talent. Don't blow money trying to retain a broken business model that you'll have to repeatedly subsidize to keep happy.
-
On day one 2 people offered to foot 40% of the bill. That is more then likely going up from there. For all you people that want them to leave Milwaukee (which is bad for the city, Bad for MU) where would you be comfortable at? 2/3 private 1/3 public? The Bucks and the bradley center generate some amount of Tax's either through Ticket sales or rents or or people spending money in the area )hotels, resturants, ETC. Everybody is so down on this. I on the other hand think that the fact that the 1st day they offered to pay 40% of the cost that it will end up gettting done at some % of public and private funding.
-
The Raiders moved, too, did they get better? Cowboys moved from one stadium to another....not better. I think you are associating way too much with the movement and success...it's not that simple. The Boston Red Sox play in arguably the most antiquated stadium in baseball...they seem to be doing just fine.
So many variables that you are ignoring. By the way, the Rams may be moving again, so not a franchise I would use in your examples.
And the new owners are largely credited with refurbishing that stadium and enabling that stadium to make as much extra money as possible (Green Monster seats, club seats, concourses, etc).
Overall I don't necessarily disagree with the point, but teams being able to milk as much money out of their fans during games is very very important, especially for smaller franchises.
-
'cept they won't, because of UW.
And Louisville and UK. And Creighton and Nebraska? I think you're more likely to see casual fans jump the bandwagon.
-
You want to make a real economic impact? Find something cutting edge that you can get on before any other city. Create the next silicone valley. Incubate businesses/ideas/talent. Make Milwaukee a must-go for entrepreneurs between 25 and 45. Create unique living spaces and work spaces. Develop programs with local colleges for young, talented people. Work with Madison/UWM/Marq./Whitewater/etc.
I think they're using saline mostly, these days. But I like where you're heading with this.
-
You want to make a real economic impact? Find something cutting edge that you can get on before any other city. Create the next silicone valley. Incubate businesses/ideas/talent. Make Milwaukee a must-go for entrepreneurs between 25 and 45. Create unique living spaces and work spaces. Develop programs with local colleges for young, talented people. Work with Madison/UWM/Marq./Whitewater/etc.
This is an even bigger pipe dream than the Bucks winning an NBA championship.
-
'cept they won't, because of UW.
UW is still 80 miles to the west, that issue exists today except it is MU, UW and the Bucks. Now you're eliminating one. Basically, if you want to attend a high level basketball game in person in the city, you have two choices today, maybe 3 when UW-milwaukee is decent. Now that number is taken down one.
I know people will argue how beneficial it is to have NBA guys around. Maybe. Though plenty of top tier programs that don't have a NBA team within 100+ miles or more that seem to do just fine as well. That same UW-madison would make that list. So would Duke, UNC, Louisville, Florida, etc. The reverse is also true. If having a NBA franchise in the city is so beneficial to a college program, why isn't Utah, Miami U, Cleveland State, Houston, SMU and TCU, USC, Detroit, DePaul, Northwestern, etc, etc not better college programs over the long haul. Seems to me, people might make that association a little bit too casually.
-
200M, plus 50M to 100M in naming rights and minority investors, etc. 150M to 200M from taxpayers.
This will get done. At those numbers, I'm for it as well.
MU makes more money since there will be more lower seats available.
As a fan, I'm looking forward to a well designed arena with better site lines and seating.
-
I think they're using saline mostly, these days. But I like where you're heading with this.
I nominate this for non-basketball post of the year.
-
You want to make a real economic impact? Find something cutting edge that you can get on before any other city. Create the next silicone valley. Incubate businesses/ideas/talent. Make Milwaukee a must-go for entrepreneurs between 25 and 45. Create unique living spaces and work spaces. Develop programs with local colleges for young, talented people. Work with Madison/UWM/Marq./Whitewater/etc.
Spend money of recruiting/developing and retaining young talent. Don't blow money trying to retain a broken business model that you'll have to repeatedly subsidize to keep happy.
Unless you can put Milwaukee under a glass dome, I think the weather is always going to make that difficult. It's certainly a great think to strive for, to become the next Hollywood, or Silicon Valley, or Research Triangle, but it seems to me that usually those areas have either geography and\or climate that helps draw in the talent pool to make it happen in the first place, or a by product of.
-
This is an even bigger pipe dream than the Bucks winning an NBA championship.
You're right.
But, if we are talking about opportunity costs, if we are talking about quality of life, if we are talking about future economic impact, let's really talk about it.
I know "joe-6pack" who listens to 1250WSSP isn't going to understand investing in emerging technologies and incubation programs... but surely some of the smart guys on this board understand.
We aren't some yokel voters, and we aren't politicians pimping for votes.
Silicone Valley! I stand by my statement. In fact, I rub my face all over this statement.
-
Unless you can put Milwaukee under a glass dome, I think the weather is always going to make that difficult. It's certainly a great think to strive for, to become the next Hollywood, or Silicon Valley, or Research Triangle, but it seems to me that usually those areas have either geography and\or climate that helps draw in the talent pool to make it happen in the first place, or a by product of.
Maybe something in freshwater sciences???
You're right, if it were that easy, everybody would be doing it, so I know it's not that easy.
BUT, I'd just like to see some forethought put into how we invest our tax dollars into "growth". Opening more restaurants and filling some more hotels rooms isn't exactly 300million dollars worth of "growth".
Milwaukee isn't ever going to grab Google and move them to Milwaukee.
But, could they grow their own Google?
Could you become the AAA market for Silicon Valley? (I'm talking in broad terms, not specifically silicon valley)
-
If Detroit can figure out a way to build the new Red Wings stadium (coming in 2016) I'm pretty confident that Milwaukee will get it worked out. The Wings stadium is going to be a 400 million dollar building with Ilitch paying for half of it. We're talking about a pretty similar situation here as far as private vs public funding.
-
I nominate this for non-basketball post of the year.
Is Keefe taking a nap or something? I would have expected at least a half-dozen pictures by now.
-
If Detroit can figure out a way to build the new Red Wings stadium (coming in 2016) I'm pretty confident that Milwaukee will get it worked out. The Wings stadium is going to be a 400 million dollar building with Ilitch paying for half of it. We're talking about a pretty similar situation here as far as private vs public funding.
Mark down this might be the first time in history someone used Detroit as an example related to urban development. ;) Helps, again, that the Wings are good and have been for many many years. People actually care about the Wings, there is also this insatiable desire to keep throwing money at Detroit as often as possible so the politicians can say they are doing something.
-
Mark down this might be the first time in history someone used Detroit as an example related to urban development. ;) Helps, again, that the Wings are good and have been for many many years. People actually care about the Wings, there is also this insatiable desire to keep throwing money at Detroit as often as possible so the politicians can say they are doing something.
Well get used to it because urban farming is about to blow up. Detroit is rising from the ashes (litterally)
-
Maybe something in freshwater sciences???
You're right, if it were that easy, everybody would be doing it, so I know it's not that easy.
BUT, I'd just like to see some forethought put into how we invest our tax dollars into "growth". Opening more restaurants and filling some more hotels rooms isn't exactly 300million dollars worth of "growth".
Milwaukee isn't ever going to grab Google and move them to Milwaukee.
But, could they grow their own Google?
Could you become the AAA market for Silicon Valley? (I'm talking in broad terms, not specifically silicon valley)
You should run for mayor. You have already done more work on a message board than our current mayor has done in his whole tenure.
-
You should run for mayor. You have already done more work on a message board than our current mayor has done in his whole tenure.
I'm talking out my ass.
I honestly have no idea on any of this crap, and I freely admit that.
I'm just not sure a $300million dollar gift to the Bucks does as much good as it can/should.
If they show me that it will work and helps everybody out in the long run, then so be it. Here's my $10 and hand me a shovel.
-
I'm talking out my ass.
I honestly have no idea on any of this crap, and I freely admit that.
I'm just not sure a $300million dollar gift to the Bucks does as much good as it can/should.
If they show me that it will work and helps everybody out in the long run, then so be it. Here's my $10 and hand me a shovel.
Most great ideas start with someone talking out of their ass.
I think you will see justification for it moving forward. Marotta has already laid some of that groundwork with his comments about the high maintenance costs of the BC and other comments.
-
I'm talking out my ass.
I honestly have no idea on any of this crap, and I freely admit that.
I'm just not sure a $300million dollar gift to the Bucks does as much good as it can/should.
If they show me that it will work and helps everybody out in the long run, then so be it. Here's my $10 and hand me a shovel.
Does 150M change your mind at all instead of using the 300M number. It will be less than 300M, just with naming rights. Will the empirical evidence support a taxpayer ROI at 150.... I don't know that it will, but even without that proof/evidence, it is enough to change my mind on the subject.
-
You're right.
But, if we are talking about opportunity costs, if we are talking about quality of life, if we are talking about future economic impact, let's really talk about it.
I know "joe-6pack" who listens to 1250WSSP isn't going to understand investing in emerging technologies and incubation programs... but surely some of the smart guys on this board understand.
We aren't some yokel voters, and we aren't politicians pimping for votes.
Silicone Valley! I stand by my statement. In fact, I rub my face all over this statement.
No the main problem is the rich brogrammers and connected investors who will invest in this (and amazingly overvalue it out of reality) have no interest in living in Milwaukee. They generally come from the coasts, went to school on the coasts, have their business (mommy/daddy) connections on the coast.
Chicago could try, but Milwaukee? It would just look pathetic. You're competing with a lot of cities for something that there isn't that big of a piece of pie for. Startups don't employ that much and generally don't share their returns with the city they inhabit nor it's inhabitants. Notice how San Fran absolutely LOOOOOOVVEEESSSS Google right now ::)
-
Maybe something in freshwater sciences???
You're right, if it were that easy, everybody would be doing it, so I know it's not that easy.
BUT, I'd just like to see some forethought put into how we invest our tax dollars into "growth". Opening more restaurants and filling some more hotels rooms isn't exactly 300million dollars worth of "growth".
Milwaukee isn't ever going to grab Google and move them to Milwaukee.
But, could they grow their own Google?
Could you become the AAA market for Silicon Valley? (I'm talking in broad terms, not specifically silicon valley)
Some type of entertainment district expansion (Like KC's P&L but sooo much less douchey). Public transportation expansion. More walkable living areas to encourage more people to live downtown. I'm all for that. A city that stops investing in itself is a city that gets left behind. Sorry If I was harsh earlier, I was focusing on your desire to create/be the next Silicon Valley or whatever.
-
Does 150M change your mind at all instead of using the 300M number. It will be less than 300M, just with naming rights. Will the empirical evidence support a taxpayer ROI at 150.... I don't know that it will, but even without that proof/evidence, it is enough to change my mind on the subject.
Ya, I mean, 150m is certainly easier to swallow.
I'd have to see what the long term vision is.
Right now, all I know is that the Bucks want to make more money, or else they will leave. That's it.
I'd like to see what the overall vision is for the entire plan, and what the other options are.
-
Ya, I mean, 150m is certainly easier to swallow.
I'd have to see what the long term vision is.
Right now, all I know is that the Bucks want to make more money, or else they will leave. That's it.
I'd like to see what the overall vision is for the entire plan, and what the other options are.
Understandable. It will be interesting to see the plan. My assumption is that it won't be a complete white elephant and will be near the BC, and feature venues accessible to the street.
I think if the public number is less than 200M, it sounds a lot better as it should. For me, if 250M or more likely 300M is from investors and naming rights, it is kind of hard to turn down putting less than 200M into it (even without knowing if there is any positive ROI). If it is 300M plus, no way does this get done nor should it.
-
Some type of entertainment district expansion (Like KC's P&L but sooo much less douchey). Public transportation expansion. More walkable living areas to encourage more people to live downtown. I'm all for that. A city that stops investing in itself is a city that gets left behind. Sorry If I was harsh earlier, I was focusing on your desire to create/be the next Silicon Valley or whatever.
It's fine. I'm not necessarily into being the next silicon valley either. It could be production, or science, or automobiles, or helicopters. Whatever. Just something more forward thinking that "build an arena and some more bars!".
The problem with an entertainment district subsidized by taxpayers is really a zero-sum game. You're just taking entertainment dollars from other parts of the city and the state and giving them to the Bucks, or whatever goes next to the arena. Boom. Growth!... but it's not.
Now, you'll pick up some out-of-state visitors as well, which is good, but I don't know if the Bucks or a new entertainment district would attract enough out of towners that we (the taxpayers) need to subsidize it.
I've been to KC. It's cool. I'm not planning on going back. I hope they enjoyed the $200 I spent on hotel/food/beer. I had a blast, but it's not compelling enough for me to make a several visits and/or spend a bunch of money. It's cool for locals, but again, that's just moving money around, not really creating it.
I'm not sure that tax-payer subsidized entertainment district is the way to really help Milwaukee in the long run.
Oh, and as an example, the 3rd Ward in Milwaukee has experienced tremendous growth in the past 15-20 years. Certainly Milwaukee has subsidized some of that with some capital improvements and basic infrastructure (streets, sidewalks, etc.), but for the most part, that's a private, organic, rebirth of a neighborhood. They didn't need 200-300 million to get that going.
-
I've been to KC. It's cool. I'm not planning on going back. I hope they enjoyed the $200 I spent on hotel/food/beer. I had a blast, but it's not compelling enough for me to make a several visits and/or spend a bunch of money. It's cool for locals, but again, that's just moving money around, not really creating it.
I'm not sure that tax-payer subsidized entertainment district is the way to really help Milwaukee in the long run.
Oh, and as an example, the 3rd Ward in Milwaukee has experienced tremendous growth in the past 15-20 years. Certainly Milwaukee has subsidized some of that with some capital improvements and basic infrastructure (streets, sidewalks, etc.), but for the most part, that's a private, organic, rebirth of a neighborhood. They didn't need 200-300 million to get that going.
First off, why does it have to be out of state? The goal is to get people to open their wallet, which subsequently creates jobs for whatever is taking their money and so on and so on. This is how areas in DC have drastically transformed the past 15 years. I think the main goal should be to bring more people to live downtown so people are more invested int he area. Younger generations want to work closer to where they live, so it would bring jobs back downtown, which would bring lunch places downtown, which would bring bars and restaurants downtown, which would make it attractive for businesses to move downtown.
Sure manufacturing and production are different, but bringing a larger educated and skilled workforce to the middle of your city makes your city that much more compelling to future growth and new businesses.
Also, and it blows my freaking mind, but I can't tell you how many people from Iowa and Omaha I've meant that come down to P&L for a weekend (and apparently have done it multiple times!). I believe the Sprint Center is one of the most active arenas in the world (like Top 5 no joke) and because they have no permanent tenant they can guarantee any date for shows and tours making it easy for them to have something there nearly every night. But still, I. Don't. Get. It. Go to the Plaza, or Crossroads, or Westport, or Brookside, or Waldo, but P&L?....
-
It's fine. I'm not necessarily into being the next silicon valley either. It could be production, or science, or automobiles, or helicopters. Whatever. Just something more forward thinking that "build an arena and some more bars!".
The problem with an entertainment district subsidized by taxpayers is really a zero-sum game. You're just taking entertainment dollars from other parts of the city and the state and giving them to the Bucks, or whatever goes next to the arena. Boom. Growth!... but it's not.
Now, you'll pick up some out-of-state visitors as well, which is good, but I don't know if the Bucks or a new entertainment district would attract enough out of towners that we (the taxpayers) need to subsidize it.
I've been to KC. It's cool. I'm not planning on going back. I hope they enjoyed the $200 I spent on hotel/food/beer. I had a blast, but it's not compelling enough for me to make a several visits and/or spend a bunch of money. It's cool for locals, but again, that's just moving money around, not really creating it.
I'm not sure that tax-payer subsidized entertainment district is the way to really help Milwaukee in the long run.
Oh, and as an example, the 3rd Ward in Milwaukee has experienced tremendous growth in the past 15-20 years. Certainly Milwaukee has subsidized some of that with some capital improvements and basic infrastructure (streets, sidewalks, etc.), but for the most part, that's a private, organic, rebirth of a neighborhood. They didn't need 200-300 million to get that going.
Guns, it's been a long time but I think that there was a massive effort in the 1980s to get the Third Ward redeveloped. Back then, you could buy the entire building for the cost of a condo today. I might be wrong on this but there was a lot of support in terms of tax breaks and fast-track redevelopment stuff to get the ball rolling there. The last 15-20 years happened because Milwaukee stepped up 30 years ago.
-
Also, and it blows my freaking mind, but I can't tell you how many people from Iowa and Omaha I've meant that come down to P&L for a weekend (and apparently have done it multiple times!). I believe the Sprint Center is one of the most active arenas in the world (like Top 5 no joke) and because they have no permanent tenant they can guarantee any date for shows and tours making it easy for them to have something there nearly every night. But still, I. Don't. Get. It. Go to the Plaza, or Crossroads, or Westport, or Brookside, or Waldo, but P&L?....
Or even just camp out in front of Oklahoma Joe's.
-
What does the mayor of Milwaukee think about this situation?
No... you see, around here we use the teal colored font for sarcasm. Still, even without it that is pretty funny.
-
First off, why does it have to be out of state? The goal is to get people to open their wallet, which subsequently creates jobs for whatever is taking their money and so on and so on. This is how areas in DC have drastically transformed the past 15 years. I think the main goal should be to bring more people to live downtown so people are more invested int he area. Younger generations want to work closer to where they live, so it would bring jobs back downtown, which would bring lunch places downtown, which would bring bars and restaurants downtown, which would make it attractive for businesses to move downtown.
I'm in complete agreement with you, but I guess I just like approaching it from the opposite end.
Get a bunch of well educated, well paid people living and working around Milwaukee, and the entertainment stuff will develop itself.
I'm not sure building an arena is the way to get higher paid people living and working in Milwaukee.
As far as out-of-state, I'm just using that to illustrate "growth" vs "redistribution". I'm not sure that a publicly financed stadium creates growth, but rather just redistributes our entertainment dollars.
-
Guns, it's been a long time but I think that there was a massive effort in the 1980s to get the Third Ward redeveloped. Back then, you could buy the entire building for the cost of a condo today. I might be wrong on this but there was a lot of support in terms of tax breaks and fast-track redevelopment stuff to get the ball rolling there. The last 15-20 years happened because Milwaukee stepped up 30 years ago.
Good to know. I'd like to see how much $ was really involved. It obviously looks like a wise investment now.
When I came to MU in the late 90's, the 3rd ward was ok, but nothing compared to what it is now.
-
Now, you'll pick up some out-of-state visitors as well, which is good, but I don't know if the Bucks or a new entertainment district would attract enough out of towners that we (the taxpayers) need to subsidize it.
But you don't necessarily need to get them from out of state. Get visitors from Mequon, Brookfield, Waukesha, Madison, Sheboygan, Racine etc. If they spend their entertainment dollars downtown instead of elsewhere, it's good for Milwaukee.
-
No... you see, around here we use the teal colored font for sarcasm. Still, even without it that is pretty funny.
Im not being sarcastic. I dont live in milwaukee so I wouldnt know
I do know that the mayor of Sacramento(Kevin Johnson) was instrumental in keeping the Kings in town.
-
Guns, it's been a long time but I think that there was a massive effort in the 1980s to get the Third Ward redeveloped. Back then, you could buy the entire building for the cost of a condo today. I might be wrong on this but there was a lot of support in terms of tax breaks and fast-track redevelopment stuff to get the ball rolling there. The last 15-20 years happened because Milwaukee stepped up 30 years ago.
My question is what does Milwaukee get out of it? Adding a bunch of bars, restaurants usually means low wage, service related jobs, low paying, low tax income. That doesn't mean you don't do it, but often it isn't the gangbuster payoff that people are sold on. They hear things like "hundreds of jobs"...sounds great....what kind of jobs? Are 85% of them waiters, waitresses, cooks, bartenders, bus boys, etc?
To me, this is where the ROI comes into play. Qty is great, but what are the details.
-
Sorry. I took a chance that you were from the area.
The mayor of Milwaukee is an invisible man. He doesn't even offer opinions on things related to Milwaukee much less offer leadership on said topics. I honestly have no idea what he does that he would consider fulfilling his mayoral duties.
-
If Detroit can figure out a way to build the new Red Wings stadium (coming in 2016) I'm pretty confident that Milwaukee will get it worked out. The Wings stadium is going to be a 400 million dollar building with Ilitch paying for half of it. We're talking about a pretty similar situation here as far as private vs public funding.
Again, this is a poor comparison. I know Detroit is struggling, but it is still a much bigger market than Milwaukee and the support for the Wings is through the roof. There will always be money available for pro sports in Detroit.
My dad used to joke that 10,000 people would show up to watch two guys play checkers in Michigan if one of the players had Detroit on his shirt. That's why the Lions can continue to suck and still have no financial issues, blackouts, etc..
-
Sorry. I took a chance that you were from the area.
The mayor of Milwaukee is an invisible man. He doesn't even offer opinions on things related to Milwaukee much less offer leadership on said topics. I honestly have no idea what he does that he would consider fulfilling his mayoral duties.
The Mayor has a lot of power and his words or actions could go a looong way to making things happen. Basically, if he is not active in the pursuit to keeping the team in Milwaukee then theres no hope.
-
If Detroit can figure out a way to build the new Red Wings stadium (coming in 2016) I'm pretty confident that Milwaukee will get it worked out. The Wings stadium is going to be a 400 million dollar building with Ilitch paying for half of it. We're talking about a pretty similar situation here as far as private vs public funding.
Not quite this simple, at least according to this.
http://deadspin.com/detroit-scam-city-how-the-red-wings-took-hockeytown-fo-1534228789
-
My question is what does Milwaukee get out of it? Adding a bunch of bars, restaurants usually means low wage, service related jobs, low paying, low tax income. That doesn't mean you don't do it, but often it isn't the gangbuster payoff that people are sold on. They hear things like "hundreds of jobs"...sounds great....what kind of jobs? Are 85% of them waiters, waitresses, cooks, bartenders, bus boys, etc?
To me, this is where the ROI comes into play. Qty is great, but what are the details.
Are you serious?
Milwaukee gets tax revenues out of it. Converting an empty, decaying (and perhaps abandoned) warehouse into a condo building is a massive, sustainable increase in property tax revenue. Same thing goes for street level shops. Multiply this by all the buildings in the Third Ward that have been redeveloped. It's a HUGE number.
And who employs all those "low wage, service related" people like bartenders, servers, etc...? Business owners do. If successful, these owners are taxed and contribute substantially to the tax base.
-
Do you people understand how much business the Bucks/MU/Admirals drive to businesses downtown? I have friends who own a bar on Water Street and they count on those events. That business is not unique. Underestimating the ripple effect of letting the Bucks go would be a serious mistake that would definitely show up in a loss of tax revenue from businesses that see profitability go down/away.
So how much are the bars/restaurants willing to contribute to the new arena fund?
-
Are you serious?
Milwaukee gets tax revenues out of it. Converting an empty, decaying (and perhaps abandoned) warehouse into a condo building is a massive, sustainable increase in property tax revenue. Same thing goes for street level shops. Multiply this by all the buildings in the Third Ward that have been redeveloped. It's a HUGE number.
And who employs all those "low wage, service related" people like bartenders, servers, etc...? Business owners do. If successful, these owners are taxed and contribute substantially to the tax base.
Most bar owners (many of who bartend), bartenders, and servers pay pennies on the dollar of taxes they should pay.
Straight cash homey.
-
Most bar owners (many of who bartend), bartenders, and servers pay pennies on the dollar of taxes they should pay.
Straight cash homey.
Ok, cuz...you base your statement on what data and analysis?
-
Ok, cuz...you base your statement on what data and analysis?
I have done my share of work in the service industry, and I can tell you that no one I have ever met reports all of their tips for taxes. You have to report the tips that are on a credit card, but cash tips -- forget it.
Bars are notorious for not reporting all of the income. When I was in public accounting, one of our clients was one of the popular bars on Marquette's campus. It was common knowledge in our office that the bar had two cash register, but only recorded the receipts from one of them on their books.
-
Are you serious?
Milwaukee gets tax revenues out of it. Converting an empty, decaying (and perhaps abandoned) warehouse into a condo building is a massive, sustainable increase in property tax revenue. Same thing goes for street level shops. Multiply this by all the buildings in the Third Ward that have been redeveloped. It's a HUGE number.
And who employs all those "low wage, service related" people like bartenders, servers, etc...? Business owners do. If successful, these owners are taxed and contribute substantially to the tax base.
Right, but have the buildings in the 3rd ward been redeveloped because of a new basketball arena, or because there was demand? Surely the city helped the thrid ward, but was it 300million worth of help?
There are a lot of high end restaurants opening in Walker's Point. Is that because the city is building an arena, or because there is simply demand for that kind of dining?
The eastside has seen a TON of condo development in the past 10 years. Is that because of the Bucks arena, or because of the demand for housing in that neighborhood?
I'm all for the city incentiving/assisting with development, but I'm not sure 300m for a basketball arena is worth it. If they can get the taxpayer cost down, then it might be worth it for the city.
I guess we'll see.
As a resident, I'm not really on board with "Get it done". I'm on board with "Show me how this works".
-
Ok, cuz...you base your statement on what data and analysis?
Common sense.
Go ask any bartender or server if they report 100% of tips to the IRS. You will get laughed at.
-
I have done my share of work in the service industry, and I can tell you that no one I have ever met reports all of their tips for taxes. You have to report the tips that are on a credit card, but cash tips -- forget it.
Bars are notorious for not reporting all of the income. When I was in public accounting, one of our clients was one of the popular bars on Marquette's campus. It was common knowledge in our office that the bar had two cash register, but only recorded the receipts from one of them on their books.
Tips I know. He was talking about owners, SOME of whom bartend (although these tips are nothing in the grand scheme of things).
-
But you don't necessarily need to get them from out of state. Get visitors from Mequon, Brookfield, Waukesha, Madison, Sheboygan, Racine etc. If they spend their entertainment dollars downtown instead of elsewhere, it's good for Milwaukee.
You're right, but if the city is going to spend $300million, we better hope they are getting more than $ from the surrounding metro and Sheyboygan.
I'm not sure attracting suburbanites to downtown is really a big enough economic lift to justify the cost of a new "entertainment district". We're going to need some out of state money... that's where you can really find some economic growth vs redistribution of Wisconsin entertainment dollars.
-
My question is what does Milwaukee get out of it? Adding a bunch of bars, restaurants usually means low wage, service related jobs, low paying, low tax income. That doesn't mean you don't do it, but often it isn't the gangbuster payoff that people are sold on. They hear things like "hundreds of jobs"...sounds great....what kind of jobs? Are 85% of them waiters, waitresses, cooks, bartenders, bus boys, etc?
To me, this is where the ROI comes into play. Qty is great, but what are the details.
Guns, I was responding to this post - where Chicos questioned what Milwaukee got out of giving breaks for the redevelopment of the Third Ward. It had nothing to do with a new arena. Maybe I misread the intent of his post but I thought he was talking about that.
And...I am done with this thread. The sad fact is that thanks to MPS, Milwaukee is the least educated city/town in the entire state. There is also a sense of entitlement that is almost breathtaking. These two things will make it almost impossible to get a deal of this size done.
As I have said many times, the track record of stupid decisions surpasses good decisions by a wide margin when it comes to development programs in this area. I have little doubt history will repeat itself.
Good luck to all.
-
How is Golden State building a new 18,000 seat arena? How is that being funded?
-
How is Golden State building a new 18,000 seat arena? How is that being funded?
http://bit.ly/Ptysl0
-
Tips I know. He was talking about owners, SOME of whom bartend (although these tips are nothing in the grand scheme of things).
Um, read the second paragraph of my post.
-
Um, read the second paragraph of my post.
I'll second Chick's second paragraph. I wasn't in public accounting, but I can tell you first hand that I could name a half dozen bars where I saw the cash drawer simply left open during busy periods, i.e. not every transaction was being "rung up" (i.e. recorded). Of course, this will likely be claimed as a matter of convenience regardless of whether those open-drawer revenues were being claimed.
Most of these are mom-and-pop shops, but one was actually corporate-owned. The former never surprised me, the latter most certainly did.
-
Regardless of what is being reported for wages and tips or not, I can't imagine that there is a great ROI on the city spending 300million in order to keep a bunch of bars and restaurants in business for the next 25 years.
IF Milwaukee does move forward with building a new facility, it needs to be apart of a bigger plan to attract more economic growth (ie REAL careers, REAL development, REAL $ coming from outside the city and outside the state).
Building a new arena and getting a bunch of remodeled bars and restaurants isn't going to generate enough impact (in my mind). You've got to sell a lot of Miller Lites and burgers to get to 300m in tax revenue.
-
You're right, but if the city is going to spend $300million, we better hope they are getting more than $ from the surrounding metro and Sheyboygan.
I'm not sure attracting suburbanites to downtown is really a big enough economic lift to justify the cost of a new "entertainment district". We're going to need some out of state money... that's where you can really find some economic growth vs redistribution of Wisconsin entertainment dollars.
Guns, I agree with your sentiments on this matter. The sports fan in me wants a new arena but the urban planner in me thinks $300 million in taxpayer funding is a raw deal for metro residents. I was originally gung ho about a new arena, but have realized that we need to get much more private money to make this thing work.
The economic impact of new stadiums is next to nothing, at best. Numerous studies have shown that building new stadiums does not increase per capita income of the metro area in question, redistributes entertainment spending from other establishments to the surrounding stadium's area, and don't really even generate significant spending from outsiders. Obviously, there are opportunity costs to building a new arena, as well, as taxpayer money could be instead used for rebuilding infrastructure, schools, or whatever else.
It's ridiculous too when officials are complaining about the BC being old and worn out. Well, yeah, every stadium has O&M costs. A new one would have plenty, as well. If the NBA weren't proclaiming that the Bucks would be gone by 2017 without a new arena, would officials be more interested in repairs to the BC? A repair project of $40 million is a lot more to stomach than $500 million. Actually, they still would want the new arena- more money to line the owners' pockets. You don't see English Premier League clubs threatening to leave if they don't get now stadiums. In fact, it is incredibly hard to build new there, because most aren't funded by much taxpayer money.
Rant over.
-
The bottom line here is that unless the Bucks can figure out how to make Milwaukee a destination for a much more substantial number fans outside the metro area that they currently do, then there won't be anywhere near enough marginal tax revenue to ever justify a new arena.
Therefore, the pro-arena crowd needs to abandon this argument and start fighting on another merit point.
-
Once again, you won't have to pay for a new arena. So don't sweat it. Too many forces are at work to make sure it doesn't happen.
Ladies and gentlemen, your Seattle Bucks.....
Don't forget that the public arena funding we are discussing now is the same thing that caused the Sonics to leave Seattle. Taxpayers in Seattle sunk a bunch of money into renovating the Key Arena, and team ownership demanded public funding for a new facility only a few years later. What makes you think that they are going to be receptive to public financing this time around?
-
You don't see English Premier League clubs threatening to leave if they don't get now stadiums. In fact, it is incredibly hard to build new there, because most aren't funded by much taxpayer money.
This is maybe the worst comparison of the thread. EPL teams can't threaten to move because they are in (a) an absolutely saturated market where cities as small as 90,000 have professional teams and most major cities have multiple teams, (b) the most popular sport by far in that country (a position basketball can't even come close to claiming), and (c) the shells of massive soccer stadiums are easier to alter than replace. Dare I add one more "apples to oranges" statement to the thread?
-
Fine. I'll give you that one, but it doesn't negate the rest of my argument.
-
Fine. I'll give you that one, but it doesn't negate the rest of my argument.
Agreed. I am pro getting a new arena, but there are definitely reasonable arguments to either position.