New Arena Site and Financing Plan to be Unveiled by January

[Tugg Speedman]

Regardless of what Rocky wants, there are many, many cities out there with better potential for an NHL franchise than Milwaukee.
The league is very interested in Vegas. A second franchise in the Toronto area would be a cash cow. The Portland (Ore.) junior team does better attendance than the Admirals. Seattle, Quebec City and Kansas City also are more attractive options for a variety of reasons.
Sorry, Milwaukee.

Completely agree

[We R Final Four]

I agree, however the attendance of the Admirals is not indicative of attendance of a future NHL team. Just as the Beloit Snappers are not indicative of attendance of a MLB in Milwaukee. Same sport, cometely different animal.

[mu03eng]

The stadium is going to happen, too much cash has been "pledged" behind the scenes for it not to happen.  The only public financing is going to be the jock tax which makes far too much sense not to do.  From what I'm hearing MU will be involved in some fashion but it will not be explicitly stated in anyway.

I've been told by a couple of different people there are multiple sites in play and that's what is holding everything up as the land acquisition and potential remediation costs play a factor in the final price tag.  I believe the Journal location is still the prime candidate and the fact that the paper has gone pretty silent on the whole thing leads me to believe a deal is very close.

[GoldenWarrior11]

I agree, however the attendance of the Admirals is not indicative of attendance of a future NHL team. Just as the Beloit Snappers are not indicative of attendance of a MLB in Milwaukee. Same sport, cometely different animal.

Well, they are completely different cities...  

USC and UCLA have always averaged large collegiate crowds in the Los Angeles-area, whereas the Raiders and Rams (professional teams) couldn't draw squat - despite using the same venues.  In my limited experience with hockey and Milwaukee, the city just isn't a hockey town.  Football and basketball are the draws in the winter.

Ironically enough, it looks like the Rams are headed back to LA in the near future.

[jficke13]

The only public financing is going to be the jock tax which makes far too much sense not to do. 

The jock tax is some next level three card monty-ing of the taxpayers. No we're not using public funds, were just taxing those rich athletes (pay no attention to the fact that these taxes were already being paid and otherwise would contribute to the general state income tax receipts if not intercepted and given as favor to the stadium district).

[GGGG]

The jock tax is some next level three card monty-ing of the taxpayers. No we're not using public funds, were just taxing those rich athletes (pay no attention to the fact that these taxes were already being paid and otherwise would contribute to the general state income tax receipts if not intercepted and given as favor to the stadium district).

Right.  But a good chunk of that goes away if the Bucks leave.  So Wisconsin will be out either way.

[jficke13]

Well, they are completely different cities...  

USC and UCLA have always averaged large collegiate crowds in the Los Angeles-area, whereas the Raiders and Rams (professional teams) couldn't draw squat - despite using the same venues.  In my limited experience with hockey and Milwaukee, the city just isn't a hockey town.  Football and basketball are the draws in the winter.

Ironically enough, it looks like the Rams are headed back to LA in the near future.

I'm not sure Milwaukee is enough of a hockey town to support an NHL team, but using the Admirals attendance to draw that conclusion isn't a smoking gun.

[jficke13]

Right.  But a good chunk of that goes away if the Bucks leave.  So Wisconsin will be out either way.

I actually *want* to do some form of public financing for the stadium. I'd be happy with a nominal sales tax (i.e. the Miller Part tax), increases on hotel rooms and rental car taxes, and would even listen to other proposals. As long as we identify the new tax and apply it 100% exclusively to the stadium construction and upkeep, I'm listening.

I'm less enthused by misleading people with "jock" taxes and TIF districts and like.

[🏀]

Huh? The timberwolves don't even have a training facility and you think the Al isn't "big" enough for the bucks? Come on.

Come on? You use the Timberwolves as an example?

Big boys have nice facilities way bigger than the Al, and they don't share them with a bunch of collegiate sports.

Typical Milwaukee thinking.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/basketball/bulls/chi-bulls-west-side-practice-facility-20140912-story.html

[GGGG]

I actually *want* to do some form of public financing for the stadium. I'd be happy with a nominal sales tax (i.e. the Miller Part tax), increases on hotel rooms and rental car taxes, and would even listen to other proposals. As long as we identify the new tax and apply it 100% exclusively to the stadium construction and upkeep, I'm listening.

I'm less enthused by misleading people with "jock" taxes and TIF districts and like.

Who's misleading anyone?  Has anyone said that the jock taxes are free to the state?  Or TIF districts?  (Which are used all the time to spur economic development by the way.)

[GGGG]

Come on? You use the Timberwolves as an example?

Big boys have nice facilities way bigger than the Al, and they don't share them with a bunch of collegiate sports.

Typical Milwaukee thinking.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/basketball/bulls/chi-bulls-west-side-practice-facility-20140912-story.html

Exactly.  If the Bucks are going to do this, they are going to do it right.  They aren't training at the Al.

[jficke13]

Who's misleading anyone?  Has anyone said that the jock taxes are free to the state?  Or TIF districts?  (Which are used all the time to spur economic development by the way.)

They are sold as ways to public finance projects without cost to the public. People see "oh no new taxes to me, hooray," and don't bother to realize that "well it costs tax money that would offset my overall burden and possibly would serve to lower the deficit and decrease the likelihood of future tax increases on me."

The "Jock" Tax and TIF districts would exist if they weren't inherently misleading to people.

[GGGG]

They are sold as ways to public finance projects without cost to the public. People see "oh no new taxes to me, hooray," and don't bother to realize that "well it costs tax money that would offset my overall burden and possibly would serve to lower the deficit and decrease the likelihood of future tax increases on me."

The "Jock" Tax and TIF districts would exist if they weren't inherently misleading to people.

Well, I would argue that they aren't misleading to the people.  People are just idiots.

I have argued all along that the economic benefits of a new arena will be heavily localized to near where the arena is built.  There will not be an overall benefit to the state.  That being said, I don't have a problem with the state subsidizing the building of a new arena.  I think it is perfectly appropriate to do so.

[mu03eng]

They are sold as ways to public finance projects without cost to the public. People see "oh no new taxes to me, hooray," and don't bother to realize that "well it costs tax money that would offset my overall burden and possibly would serve to lower the deficit and decrease the likelihood of future tax increases on me."

The "Jock" Tax and TIF districts would exist if they weren't inherently misleading to people.

OK, so you are fine with it just as long as the "people" understand what it is?  Seems a weird threshold to meet to me. 

Point is, it's tax revenue that goes away if the team moves and the team will move if a new stadium isn't built.  So either way it's "dead revenue" as far as the tax payers are concerned so why not use it to keep a team in town and at least receive marginal benefits for other things a new stadium brings.

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

OK, so you are fine with it just as long as the "people" understand what it is?  Seems a weird threshold to meet to me. 

Point is, it's tax revenue that goes away if the team moves and the team will move if a new stadium isn't built.  So either way it's "dead revenue" as far as the tax payers are concerned so why not use it to keep a team in town and at least receive marginal benefits for other things a new stadium brings.

Very well said.  The only thing you left out is that the "Jock Tax" revenue goes back into the general coffers once the State pays off their stadium debt/bond.  And with the NBA TV revenue set to nearly triple, the State will actually see an increase in "Jock Tax" revenue above the current annual figure of $10.7 million.

[mu03eng]

Very well said.  The only thing you left out is that the "Jock Tax" revenue goes back into the general coffers once the State pays off their stadium debt/bond.  And with the NBA TV revenue set to nearly triple, the State will actually see an increase in "Jock Tax" revenue above the current annual figure of $10.7 million.

You are correct.

For those that don't know the way the jock tax works is this:
-State essentially takes out a loan sufficient to fund the public portion of the finance
-The amount of financing is theoretically limited to the annual revenue generated by the "jock tax"
-The jock tax is taking all revenue generated by taxing income from, in this case, the NBA players who play in Milwaukee in a given year.  Keep in mind the players are only taxed on income generated in state, so the Bucks players are taxed for home games, but away games are taxed in the state played in.  Conversely, players from competitors pay taxes on income generated while playing in Milwaukee.  Think of it as taxing per game check.
-The revenue generated from this "tax" is then used to pay the principal and interest on the "loan" the state took out for the financing.
-Once the financing is paid off the revenue from the jock tax can be rerouted to the general coffers (I don't count on this typically that's why I left that out  )

[MUDPT]

Maybe Milwaukee should just buy the Bucks instead...

https://sports.vice.com/article/the-radical-case-for-cities-buying-sports-teams-not-sports-stadiums

[martyconlonontherun]

Maybe Milwaukee should just buy the Bucks instead...

https://sports.vice.com/article/the-radical-case-for-cities-buying-sports-teams-not-sports-stadiums

Maybe people shouldn't write about radical ideas if they are not possible. The NBA does not allow this (nor any major sports league including the NFL-Packers were grandfathered in) and the NBA would just buy back the team in 2017. There should really be some basic fact checking before acting smarter than everyone else.

So Milwaukee would pay fair value, be known as the city who decided to buy a franchise, lose it 2 years later and maybe gained $25 but lost all the TV revenue coming into the state? Sounds like a great idea? All while dragging this in court for 2 years...

[jficke13]

OK, so you are fine with it just as long as the "people" understand what it is?  Seems a weird threshold to meet to me. 

Point is, it's tax revenue that goes away if the team moves and the team will move if a new stadium isn't built.  So either way it's "dead revenue" as far as the tax payers are concerned so why not use it to keep a team in town and at least receive marginal benefits for other things a new stadium brings.

I guess I was inefficient in explaining my issues with TIF districts and the jock tax, only one of which are the fact that they are deceptive.

Why does Northwestern Mutual get a TIF district and a "Financier" tax to pay for its new building? Why doesn't GE Healtchare get a TIF district and an "MRI" tax to pay for improvements to its facilities? Both companies have a huge positive economic impact on the city, state, and region. Both would LOVE it if they could capture all of the tax revenue generated by their business activity and use it to exclusively better their circumstances.

I was under the (obviously mistaken) impression that we pay taxes to improve the society generally. The Jock Tax and TIF districts are thinly-veiled corruption for well-connected developers.

Somebody noted that the benefit of the stadium is likely to be mostly localized around the area it is built, plus some spillover for people who can access the facility as fans (e.g. the 5-county area). Why spread the tax burden to people in Vilas County who may or may not even know that there is a professional basketball team in Milwaukee? The Miller Park sales tax worked and built a very nice stadium. The only reason that's not on the table is because it cost politicians their jobs and politicians number 1 priority is keeping their jobs.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

I guess I was inefficient in explaining my issues with TIF districts and the jock tax, only one of which are the fact that they are deceptive.

Why does Northwestern Mutual get a TIF district and a "Financier" tax to pay for its new building? Why doesn't GE Healtchare get a TIF district and an "MRI" tax to pay for improvements to its facilities? Both companies have a huge positive economic impact on the city, state, and region. Both would LOVE it if they could capture all of the tax revenue generated by their business activity and use it to exclusively better their circumstances.

I was under the (obviously mistaken) impression that we pay taxes to improve the society generally. The Jock Tax and TIF districts are thinly-veiled corruption for well-connected developers.

Somebody noted that the benefit of the stadium is likely to be mostly localized around the area it is built, plus some spillover for people who can access the facility as fans (e.g. the 5-county area). Why spread the tax burden to people in Vilas County who may or may not even know that there is a professional basketball team in Milwaukee? The Miller Park sales tax worked and built a very nice stadium. The only reason that's not on the table is because it cost politicians their jobs and politicians number 1 priority is keeping their jobs.

I agree with you.

I'm not big on slippery slope style arguments, but if we are going to simply give back the tax revenue that a business makes, where do we stop with that?

I mean, maybe it's actually a good idea. Build Google a world class facility and don't charge them for it? Could a city/state really create opportunities by attracting such business partners with free facilities?  It doesn't seem like it would work, but somebody with an econ degree would have to help me out.

[jficke13]

I agree with you.

I'm not big on slippery slope style arguments, but if we are going to simply give back the tax revenue that a business makes, where do we stop with that?

I mean, maybe it's actually a good idea. Build Google a world class facility and don't charge them for it? Could a city/state really create opportunities by attracting such business partners with free facilities?  It doesn't seem like it would work, but somebody with an econ degree would have to help me out.

I guess what I said does boil down to a slippery slope argument, but it was more intended to point out the intellectual incongruity behind financing the stadium with one set of preferential tax treatment but not other business concerns with similarly large economic value to the community.

Secondly, that's the argument: Attract business X by spending Y on a stadium. Hope the impact of business X being around creates tax revenue that's greater than Y. The Deadspin Office of Stadium Opposition beats the drum that never works out in favor for the community building the stadium.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

I guess what I said does boil down to a slippery slope argument, but it was more intended to point out the intellectual incongruity behind financing the stadium with one set of preferential tax treatment but not other business concerns with similarly large economic value to the community.

Secondly, that's the argument: Attract business X by spending Y on a stadium. Hope the impact of business X being around creates tax revenue that's greater than Y. The Deadspin Office of Stadium Opposition beats the drum that never works out in favor for the community building the stadium.

If we examine how much revenue the BC has actually created, I think we can make a case that it hasn't been as much as people think.

I LOVE the idea of a privately funded arena with some tax breaks and incentives. But, I'm not really interested in the city funding a building with the hope that it somehow produces revenue for everybody else in the city.

[GGGG]

I guess what I said does boil down to a slippery slope argument, but it was more intended to point out the intellectual incongruity behind financing the stadium with one set of preferential tax treatment but not other business concerns with similarly large economic value to the community.

Secondly, that's the argument: Attract business X by spending Y on a stadium. Hope the impact of business X being around creates tax revenue that's greater than Y. The Deadspin Office of Stadium Opposition beats the drum that never works out in favor for the community building the stadium.

As I said earlier, the State of Wisconsin could simply decide that it wants to keep the NBA around.  To me, that is justification enough for why the Bucks get preferential treatment versus other businesses with similar economic value to the community.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

As I said earlier, the State of Wisconsin could simply decide that it wants to keep the NBA around.  To me, that is justification enough for why the Bucks get preferential treatment versus other businesses with similar economic value to the community.

I'm actually okay with that, but I guess we need to define "preferential treatment" and how much it actually costs.

[GGGG]

I'm actually okay with that, but I guess we need to define "preferential treatment" and how much it actually costs.

Yep.  Agreed.  I just think when we use straight, objective measurements to determine the economic benefit of professional sports, we engage in a lot of poor economics.  But sports are more than that.  They are also subjective and emotional, and lend something to the community that can't always be measured.