Bucks Sold

[Coleman]

Very reasonable argument. But while we concentrate on talking about sports arenas and stadiums, public funding for private businesses is a common practice everywhere. And it happens all of the time.

I wonder why we look at it one way with a sports team and another with private business. If they are successful, the result is the same - more jobs, more tax income, adding to the tax base, etc.

Well said. Its no different than trying to offer tax breaks to a mining company upstate. Its public money going to a private business.

At least in this instance, its a private business that many, many Wisconsinites patronize and enjoy watching, and adds to the culture of the state.

[MU111]

Question, isn't $200 million enough to Gut the Bradley Center and redo that?

Unfortunately, I don't think it's really possible.  I know this has been discussed somewhere before, but the BC's configuration would make it extremely tricky to gut and retrofit.  Problems include a current configuration for hockey, fewer lower bowl seats than most NBA arenas, a very steeply graded upper bowl, and a small footprint relative to other arenas (500,000 sq ft versus an average of 750,000 sq ft).  If the footprint weren't expanded, reconfiguring the seating bowl would probably only be a shorter term fix, as you'd still be stuck with small concourses and limited food/beverage areas and other amenities.  At that point, it might make more sense to just build new, depending on how much it would actually cost to renovate.

I'll be curious to see what the MMAC report comes up with, later this year.

[akmarq]

Well said. Its no different than trying to offer tax breaks to a mining company upstate. Its public money going to a private business.

At least in this instance, its a private business that many, many Wisconsinites patronize and enjoy watching, and adds to the culture of the state.

My biggest gripe is that you can build cheaper spaces for businesses that hire more people. What's a new software office building cost? Certainly not 500-700 million. How many people do the Bucks employ vs. a medium-large tech firm?

I get that the Bucks also bring people to bars/restaurants, but to a more limited extent, so do other companies. If they built an 'Innovation Campus' down there instead, all those upper income young professionals would likely buy food, drinks, etc at businesses around their workplace. Heck, they might even move into the condo developments and become tax paying city residents.

It's not that there's 0 stimulus, it's that they're subsidizing a very inefficient industry.

[hairy worthen]

My biggest gripe is that you can build cheaper spaces for businesses that hire more people. What's a new software office building cost? Certainly not 500-700 million. How many people do the Bucks employ vs. a medium-large tech firm?

I get that the Bucks also bring people to bars/restaurants, but to a more limited extent, so do other companies. If they built an 'Innovation Campus' down there instead, all those upper income young professionals would likely buy food, drinks, etc at businesses around their workplace. Heck, they might even move into the condo developments and become tax paying city residents.

It's not that there's 0 stimulus, it's that they're subsidizing a very inefficient industry.

Agree, and money that people spend on Bucks games and entertainment is disposal income. If the Bucks leave, the income will be disposed of on something else.

However, there is the pride and perception of living in a big league city that goes along with having a professional sports team and a top notch facility. You could make the same argument about the arts, ballet, orchestra, but those are all things you want in a large metro area.

[akmarq]

However, there is the pride and perception of living in a big league city that goes along with having a professional sports team and a top notch facility. You could make the same argument about the arts, ballet, orchestra, but those are all things you want in a large metro area.

I'd buy this more if MKE didn't have about 100 things that would improve the city ahead of the Bucks. Like a functional school system. Or road w/o potholes, or viable public transit, or...

You get the point.

[hairy worthen]

I'd buy this more if MKE didn't have about 100 things that would improve the city ahead of the Bucks. Like a functional school system. Or road w/o potholes, or viable public transit, or...

You get the point.

Yes, but you could make a similar argument about every large city.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I'm sure Rhinelander and the rest of central WI would be in GREAT shape economically if it wasn't for Milwaukee down there producing the lion's share of economic activity in the state. They just need to be given a chance!

Despite that fact, public funding for these things is dumb. They'd be better off building attractive office space for modern companies to relocate here than subsidizing facilities that profit about 2% of the population. You can't just look at Miller Park and say "it's brought in $X in economic activity!" You have to consider what those funds might have returned to the city/state had they been put to a different use.

We can make that argument about many things.  It is all about perspective.  Yes, Milwaukee produces the lion's share of economic activity, it also produces the largest amount of dollar sucking from the state as well. It goes both ways.  Some people don't get too excited paying a lot of money to the state and having it benefit only certain parts.  I'm not saying they are right or wrong, I'm saying that's how people view.  Just as people get upset with federal dollars going out of their state and benefiting other states more than theirs.  It's a legitimate argument, it may not be correct or one may not agree with it, but since it is their tax dollars they have the right to make that argument.

Put it up for a vote to the people. 

[mu_hilltopper]

Jimmy Mac has an interesting analysis here ..

http://jimmcilvaine.sportsblog.com/posts/653680/the_sale_of_the_milwaukee.html

[ChicosBailBonds]

Very reasonable argument. But while we concentrate on talking about sports arenas and stadiums, public funding for private businesses is a common practice everywhere. And it happens all of the time.

I wonder why we look at it one way with a sports team and another with private business. If they are successful, the result is the same - more jobs, more tax income, adding to the tax base, etc.

If I had to guess, it is because of racism


So you are ok with tax breaks for oil companies then, because more exploration, more jobs, more tax income.


The reason I think most people cringe at stadium deals vs private businesses is the nature of the business.  When people see a baseball stadium used for 81 games a year, maybe 3 concerts and a few other things, it bothers them.  When they see a football stadium being used for 10 Sundays a year, maybe a truck pull and a rugby tournament, at the cost of $800 million, it bothers them.  Private businesses are slugging it out 365 days a year and usually involve many more full time people (jobs), plus brain power (engineers, technicians, MBAs, etc) that are good to have in large quantities in your city, state, etc.  When one lives in a community and sees the local and\or state gov't having to put up $350M or whatever for a place where a bunch of guys play a game, wrong or right perception, it leaves a bad taste in the mouths of many when there are other ways that money could be spent.  Again, wrong or right, that's the perception many people have.  Then some of the guys on the team get into trouble, the team sucks, etc, etc, it doesn't help the cause.  So in my view, it is not an appropriate comparison because of the very real and\or perceived differences with sports vs day-to-day business.

Let the people decide.

[akmarq]

We can make that argument about many things.  It is all about perspective.  Yes, Milwaukee produces the lion's share of economic activity, it also produces the largest amount of dollar sucking from the state as well. It goes both ways.  Some people don't get too excited paying a lot of money to the state and having it benefit only certain parts.  I'm not saying they are right or wrong, I'm saying that's how people view.  Just as people get upset with federal dollars going out of their state and benefiting other states more than theirs.  It's a legitimate argument, it may not be correct or one may not agree with it, but since it is their tax dollars they have the right to make that argument.

Put it up for a vote to the people. 

I totally agree about putting it up for a vote - not that it's very likely to happen (I don't think it'd pass). The Super TIF is looking like the most probable outcome as it lets the MMAC lobby Walker/Madison directly for the funds rather than having to ask the people of the 5 county area:
http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/super-tif-one-option-for-possible-arena-financing-b99245096z1-255034951.html

Again, I think this is a dumb project, but that doesn't make the argument that directing development funds to MKE is harmful correct. People in north/central WI can think whatever they want, but if they think that letting MKE dry up and die is going to help them, they are wrong. MKE, despite its myriad social problems, is the future of the state. People aren't graduating and clamoring to move to Oshkosh or Neena - we need to invest in the business engine of the state.

[warriorchick]

However, there is the pride and perception of living in a big league city that goes along with having a professional sports team and a top notch facility.

Milwaukee already has a professional sports team in a top notch facility.

And they are in 11th place in average attendance so far this year, vs. dead last for the Bucks.

[akmarq]

If I had to guess, it is because of racism

This is also a really annoying, unnecessary thing to tack onto an otherwise well thought out and reasoned post. One of the few things more annoying than unsubstantiated claims of racism are unrelated complaints about complaints of racism. It trivializes a real issue just as much as 'playing the race card.'

[hairy worthen]

Milwaukee already has a professional sports team in a top notch facility.

And they are in 11th place in average attendance so far this year, vs. dead last for the Bucks.

and the Bucks had the worst record in the league and Miller Park holds less than many other stadiums. I guess I don't understand your point.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

Maybe the Bucks should play in Miller Park?

[warriorchick]

and the Bucks had the worst record in the league and Miller Park holds less than many other stadiums. I guess I don't understand your point.

My point is if the only reason to keep the Bucks is to have the prestige of having a major league sports team - we have it covered - by one that people actually turn out to see.

Personally, I'd rather see Milwaukee try to get an NHL team.  Is it a possibility now that Bill Wirtz is dead?  I think Rocky would actually think it is a great idea.

[ChicosBailBonds]

It's not that there's 0 stimulus, it's that they're subsidizing a very inefficient industry.

DING DING DING

It ultimately comes down to who has a big wiener game.  Cities feel like their city will fall off the map if they lose a team.  Just like Los Angeles and Seattle no longer exist...they fell off the map.

[Hards Alumni]

DING DING DING

It ultimately comes down to who has a big wiener game.  Cities feel like their city will fall off the map if they lose a team.  Just like Los Angeles and Seattle no longer exist...they fell off the map.

Yet both continually fight to get teams back to their cities.  New arenas/stadiums in each city for no team!

My point is if the only reason to keep the Bucks is to have the prestige of having a major league sports team - we have it covered - by one that people actually turn out to see.

Personally, I'd rather see Milwaukee try to get an NHL team.  Is it a possibility now that Bill Wirtz is dead?  I think Rocky would actually think it is a great idea.

That is a terrible parallel.  MKE fans will show up when the team is winning.  Right now the Brewers are winning, and the Bucks aren't.  If the Bucks are in first place and there is a good product on the court people will show up.

[akmarq]

All arguments that depend on 'if the team gets good people will show up!' are inherently flawed. It's a sports team. Quality is volatile in every league and if the only way to make the civic investment pay off is to win championships you're advocating one hell of a risky investment. Risk is generally rewarded with the promise of higher return, but the return on successful sports teams still hasn't been overwhelming when you consider the tremendous expense these projects incur.

If you want to support this stadium you need to be able to honestly say yes to the following:
1. I'm okay with a regressive tax that will force those LEAST likely to use the arena to bear a higher marginal burden of financing it (sales tax)
2. I'm okay with subsidizing a monopoly industry that has shown little regard for the cities it uses for its teams
3. I'm okay with a highly risky investment strategy and forcing people to participate whether they agree or not
4. I realize that in 15 years (well before the life the stadium) we're going to have to do this again
5. I cannot think of uses for that money that would be more productive/stimulative to the region.

If you say 'yes' to all those then fine, support the arena. If you don't agree then take a good long think about why you support keeping a team here beyond 'I like having the Bucks around.'

[warriorchick]

MKE fans will show up when the team is winning. 

And when exactly will that be? They have only had one season above .500 in the last decade.  They've only made it past the first round of the playoffs once in the last 25 years.

[Hards Alumni]

And when exactly will that be? They have only had one season above .500 in the last decade.  They've only made it past the first round of the playoffs once in the last 25 years.

Go check the record of the Packers in the 70s and 80s... and the Brewers in the 90s-00s.

I'm fine with people saying that they don't want the Bucks around, but the argument that they haven't been good, and will never be good so MKE should dump them does not hold water.

The prospects for the Bucks to bounce back are high.

[warriorchick]

Go check the record of the Packers in the 70s and 80s... and the Brewers in the 90s-00s.

I'm fine with people saying that they don't want the Bucks around, but the argument that they haven't been good, and will never be good so MKE should dump them does not hold water.

The prospects for the Bucks to bounce back are high.

Packers still sold out.  And didn't use any taxpayer money.  Brewers have had their ups and downs, but they have never been in the basement in attendance like the Bucks.  Given that they are in the smallest MLB market, that's not too shabby.

[Sir Lawrence]

Chick, Packers have used taxpayer money.  .05% sales tax in Brown County to help pay the renovations in 2001. 

[warriorchick]

Chick, Packers have used taxpayer money.  .05% sales tax in Brown County to help pay the renovations in 2001. 

I stand corrected.  But since 99.9% of Brown County residents are Packer fans, I am sure it wasn't very controversial.

[Spotcheck Billy]

The Brewers didn't have much success until Selig sold them and Miller Park was built. Prior to Attanasio buying the Brewers their payroll was near the bottom of the league and the product reflected that. The Brewers don't have to win a championship to fill the seats, they've shown just being competitive will sell tickets, I'm for giving the Bucks the same benefit of the doubt.

[Coleman]

The Brewers didn't have much success until Selig sold them and Miller Park was built. Prior to Attanasio buying the Brewers their payroll was near the bottom of the league and the product reflected that. The Brewers don't have to win a championship to fill the seats, they've shown just being competitive will sell tickets, I'm for giving the Bucks the same benefit of the doubt.

+1