New Stadium Imminent?

[akmarq]

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.

[drewm88]

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.

[Groin_pull]

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.

[BCHoopster]

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!

[Skatastrophy]

+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.

[ThatDude]

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

[ThatDude]

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

[4everwarriors]

So, this was just a lucrative face savin' measure for Herbie, hey?

[ThatDude]

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

[Let's Go Warriors]

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...

[Wojo'sMojo]

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.

[Anti-Dentite]

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.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

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.

[mu03eng]

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/

Even if the team is moved to Seattle, it's not a $550 mil valuation.  The team has to win to justify that valuation.

[mu03eng]

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

[akmarq]

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.

[GGGG]

+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.

[akmarq]

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.

[akmarq]

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.

[mu03eng]

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).

[mu_hilltopper]

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.)

[Let's Go Warriors]

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.

[GOO]

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/

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.

[akmarq]

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).

[akmarq]

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.