New Stadium Imminent?

[akmarq]

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.

[akmarq]

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.

[humanlung]

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.

[GGGG]

I don't think dropping a half a billion on a new arena is really an example of "forward thinking." 

[kmwtrucks]

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.

[humanlung]

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.

[humanlung]

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.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

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.

[GGGG]

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.

[akmarq]

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.

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.

[humanlung]

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.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

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?

[humanlung]

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?

[GGGG]

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." 

[Benny B]

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?

[humanlung]

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.

[Litehouse]

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.

[Marquette_g]

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.  

[humanlung]

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.

[humanlung]

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...

[GGGG]

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.

[Marquette_g]

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.

[Litehouse]

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.

[Benny B]

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.