Bucks to unveil $500 million stadium plan just north of BC

[ChicosBailBonds]

Love to hear how those poll questions were worded. Guessing probably a simple "do you support using tax dollars to pay for the new arena?"

Remember, even though sports fans are passionate and loud, not that many people are into sports....and that goes down further when it comes to financial support.

[Groin_pull]

With the way California is operated, they sure should have.  They should have protections built in for the taxpayer to understand the risks, which they didn't.  Certainly their overinflated revenue numbers were off, which is absolutely not surprising for a gov't entity.  They use the rosiest of rosy figures to sell this crap to the public, and then say oops later. 

You're still in California? I thought you were on your way to Texas. Seems more like your crowd.

[ChicosBailBonds]

You're still in California? I thought you were on your way to Texas. Seems more like your crowd.

With the new gig, still here for a little while longer.  Son is in high school, daughter not far away from starting.  We'll see.  Idaho is ultimate destination with property purchased and waiting to build, but that's a few years off.

Texas is also a very real short term possibility, though it might be where I go, family stays back and I commute home on weekends.  My dad had to do that a number of times with our family.  Not ideal, but we'll see.

[El Duderino]

I've only followed this arena issue in bits and pieces, so i have a hypothetical worst case scenario question.

Let's say the arena deal eventually falls through, the NBA buys back the Bucks, and the team is sold to investors in Seattle. So the Bradley Center then loses it's main tenant.

How does this impact Marquette, if it does at all?

I believe that i read somewhere that the Bradley Center would need around 100 million dollars in upgrades and maintenance to remain open and viable for another 10-15 years. If true, would losing the Bucks impact bringing in funds for those upgrades/maintenance costs and then in turn force a rise in the amount Marquette had to pay in rent going forward?

[Silkk the Shaka]

With the new gig, still here for a little while longer.  Son is in high school, daughter not far away from starting.  We'll see.  Idaho is ultimate destination with property purchased and waiting to build, but that's a few years off.

Texas is also a very real short term possibility, though it might be where I go, family stays back and I commute home on weekends.  My dad had to do that a number of times with our family.  Not ideal, but we'll see.

There's some land in Chile that might interest you

http://www.vice.com/read/atlas-mugged-922-v21n10

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

I've only followed this arena issue in bits and pieces, so i have a hypothetical worst case scenario question.

Let's say the arena deal eventually falls through, the NBA buys back the Bucks, and the team is sold to investors in Seattle. So the Bradley Center then loses it's main tenant.

How does this impact Marquette, if it does at all?

I believe that i read somewhere that the Bradley Center would need around 100 million dollars in upgrades and maintenance to remain open and viable for another 10-15 years. If true, would losing the Bucks impact bringing in funds for those upgrades/maintenance costs and then in turn force a rise in the amount Marquette had to pay in rent going forward?

The State is on the hook for the $100 million.  Not sure if that eventually trickles down to the tenants in the form of lease rates or not.

[brewcity77]

Remember, even though sports fans are passionate and loud, not that many people are into sports....and that goes down further when it comes to financial support.

What I'm more saying is these questions usually give no context to the uninformed. They won't talk about how keeping the Bucks will insure jobs stay in Milwaukee, how numerous multi-millionaire will continue to live in state, how jock tax dollars will continue to be collected to offset the cost, and how of the Bucks leave, the state will be on the hook for (conservatively) tens of millions of dollars over the next decade for BC maintenance.

I know the counter argument that money will be found elsewhere, but if the arena is built, there's no need to look elsewhere. All these benefits come built into the arena cost. Losing the Bucks would be a problem the state has to address at many levels. Keeping them avoids all those issues. But that context never goes into the polls.

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

Remember, even though sports fans are passionate and loud, not that many people are into sports....and that goes down further when it comes to financial support.

I'm sure you could find a fair number of people who don't care about art, history, the opera, the symphony, the theater, and business conventions yet tax dollars often go to support museums, concert halls, and convention centers.

Question framing is important too.  Let's poll people with this question: "Should city, county, and state government try to keep a Milwaukee business that generates over $10 million per year in tax revenue in state or let it go out of state?"

[warriorchick]

The State is on the hook for the $100 million.  Not sure if that eventually trickles down to the tenants in the form of lease rates or not.

I don't know how long MU's lease is with the BC, but once it ends, the rates could be jacked up and there wouldn't be much Marquette could do about it.  It's not like they can take their business elsewhere.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I don't know how long MU's lease is with the BC, but once it ends, the rates could be jacked up and there wouldn't be much Marquette could do about it.  It's not like they can take their business elsewhere.

True, but the BC at that point would need MU just as badly.  Leverage on both sides.   MU could play at the MECCA if needed and the BC knows this.

I think this $100M claim is nonsense.  That's a number just to get people to say "well, we can spend $100M to refurbish the BC or X to build a brand new one."  I feel like some are making it sound like the BC is a house of cards and a strong gust of wind is going to knock it down any minute now.

I hope Milwaukee gets their new arena, but it should be done with private money IMO.

[brewcity77]

I think this $100M claim is nonsense.  That's a number just to get people to say "well, we can spend $100M to refurbish the BC or X to build a brand new one."  I feel like some are making it sound like the BC is a house of cards and a strong gust of wind is going to knock it down any minute now.

Whether it's $100M or $50M or $20M, it's still a significant chunk of change the state won't have to spend if they just get this built.

Just like the incoming jock tax money won't have to be replaced. Just like the 13 millionaire players' income tax money won't have to be replaced.

Building the arena solves more problems than it creates. Yes, it requires some state funding, but we all know that's how this will play. Wishing for otherwise in this case is pie in the sky.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I'm sure you could find a fair number of people who don't care about art, history, the opera, the symphony, the theater, and business conventions yet tax dollars often go to support museums, concert halls, and convention centers.

Question framing is important too.  Let's poll people with this question: "Should city, county, and state government try to keep a Milwaukee business that generates over $10 million per year in tax revenue in state or let it go out of state?"

Absolutely agree on paragraph 1.

Paragraph 2, of course framing is important....so is accuracy in those numbers...which have been disputed.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Whether it's $100M or $50M or $20M, it's still a significant chunk of change the state won't have to spend if they just get this built.

Just like the incoming jock tax money won't have to be replaced. Just like the 13 millionaire players' income tax money won't have to be replaced.

Building the arena solves more problems than it creates. Yes, it requires some state funding, but we all know that's how this will play. Wishing for otherwise in this case is pie in the sky.

All about tradeoffs.   Should the firefighters get a 3% raise or a 4% raise.  Should MPS receive $10M less in support.  Should a trolly car be built?   Etc, etc.   They (the Pols) will have to put the value on this, decide what is most important, figure out if it gets them re-elected or not, and make a decision.  Cities like Milwaukee IMO are always going to fall for this stuff and be held hostage because they feel like their prestige is impacted.  Doesn't matter that MPS is one of the worst public school systems in America, we have an NBA team and San Diego \ Seattle don't. 

It will get figured out, one way or the other...obviously.  The world will not end if an arena isn't built, the Bucks leave, nor will it end if the arena is built, but the rosy picture of economic prosperity with these projects often falls short or is completely off target.

Lots of other money in Wisconsin.  John Menard is worth $8.9B....build the arena and name it Menard's and we can "all save big money..and watch MU...at Menards"      Kohler is worth about $5.5B.  We can name it the Kohler Bowl and years when the Bucks stink the catchphrases write themselves.  Cargill, Hendricks, Johnson (about 4 of them) are all worth about $3b each in Wisconsin.  Sounds like a lawfirm they could create....Cargill, Hendricks, Johnson, Johnson, Johnson, Johnson....lots of fun potential there.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

All about tradeoffs.   Should the firefighters get a 3% raise or a 4% raise.  Should MPS receive $10M less in support.  Should a trolly car be built?   Etc, etc.   They (the Pols) will have to put the value on this, decide what is most important, figure out if it gets them re-elected or not, and make a decision.  Cities like Milwaukee IMO are always going to fall for this stuff and be held hostage because they feel like their prestige is impacted.  Doesn't matter that MPS is one of the worst public school systems in America, we have an NBA team and San Diego \ Seattle don't. 

It will get figured out, one way or the other...obviously.  The world will not end if an arena isn't built, the Bucks leave, nor will it end if the arena is built, but the rosy picture of economic prosperity with these projects often falls short or is completely off target.

Lots of other money in Wisconsin.  John Menard is worth $8.9B....build the arena and name it Menard's and we can "all save big money..and watch MU...at Menards"      Kohler is worth about $5.5B.  We can name it the Kohler Bowl and years when the Bucks stink the catchphrases write themselves.  Cargill, Hendricks, Johnson (about 4 of them) are all worth about $3b each in Wisconsin.  Sounds like a lawfirm they could create....Cargill, Hendricks, Johnson, Johnson, Johnson, Johnson....lots of fun potential there.

From a big picture perspective, if arenas and NBA franchises were such economic booms, you figure there would be billionaires lined up to build a new facilities and get rich on all of the surrounding property.

Just give the Bucks a few city blocks. They can do whatever they want on their own dime. Let them own all of it. They can build hotels, restaurants, pro-shop, bars, office space, condos, etc. They can do it all. The arena is going to be a HUGE draw.

Well, maybe not...

Obviously this is just anecdotal stuff, but we need to keep this in mind when we start getting told "This is going to be HUGE!". Well, if it's so huge, why isn't there a laundry list of billionaires trying to capitalize on the real estate?

Likely because it's not without it's risks, and there are no promises that this type of development will happen (even after the arena is built) and/or that it will be viable in the long run.

[brewcity77]

Here's the thing...this project benefits the state. If the state will reap benefits, why shouldn't they have some buy-in on the project? The state likely wants the jock tax money. The state likely wants the numerous multi-millionaire tax dollars. The state likely also wants a facility that will attract other events. The concerts and other events that require a modern facility to attract. So if the state is going to benefit from this, why shouldn't they have some buy-in?

By giving the state a buy-in, it also gives the state a say in the facility's use and future development going forward. That has value. No, it's not a token amount, but the overall value of having a team offers returns in terms of tax dollars and jobs created. Could you look for that elsewhere? Yes. But why bother when you already have a source identified?

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Here's the thing...this project benefits the state. If the state will reap benefits, why shouldn't they have some buy-in on the project? The state likely wants the jock tax money. The state likely wants the numerous multi-millionaire tax dollars. The state likely also wants a facility that will attract other events. The concerts and other events that require a modern facility to attract. So if the state is going to benefit from this, why shouldn't they have some buy-in?

By giving the state a buy-in, it also gives the state a say in the facility's use and future development going forward. That has value. No, it's not a token amount, but the overall value of having a team offers returns in terms of tax dollars and jobs created. Could you look for that elsewhere? Yes. But why bother when you already have a source identified?

You're not wrong, but how far are we going to take that logic?

Why doesn't the state pay for Kohl's new corporate facility? How about paying for Menards to move it's corp. headquarters to Milwaukee?

I'm not necessarily against trying to attract or retain large businesses (I know city/state governments do it everyday), but once you get on that merry-go-round, it's hard to get off. What is the litmus test we use for this kind of thing? AND, is the city just negotiating out of fear? We have to be comfortable saying "no thanks, that's not a good enough deal."

How about this:

Milwaukee donates the property to the Bucks (Park East, BC, the parking garage east of the BC etc.) The Bucks can build whatever they want, and it can be income and property tax free for the first 10 years. They can build and develop as quickly as possible and get rich for 10 years. At that point, they will have to pay the standard taxes. They cannot sell any of the properties in those years. They have to be involved in the development, and lease the spaces. After 10 years, they can sell whatever they want.

It incentivizes them to work quickly and aggressively on developing profitable businesses and properties. None of this slow-burn kind of development. If arenas are the economic driver, then let's see it in action. Build baby build.

[MuMark]

Why should somebody who lives in another state care if it is all private money or some sort of split?


It isn't your money.

Thank goodness you weren't making the decision on Miller Park or the Brewers would be gone now.

[mu03eng]

You're not wrong, but how far are we going to take that logic?

Why doesn't the state pay for Kohl's new corporate facility? How about paying for Menards to move it's corp. headquarters to Milwaukee?

I'm not necessarily against trying to attract or retain large businesses (I know city/state governments do it everyday), but once you get on that merry-go-round, it's hard to get off. What is the litmus test we use for this kind of thing? AND, is the city just negotiating out of fear? We have to be comfortable saying "no thanks, that's not a good enough deal."

How about this:

Milwaukee donates the property to the Bucks (Park East, BC, the parking garage east of the BC etc.) The Bucks can build whatever they want, and it can be income and property tax free for the first 10 years. They can build and develop as quickly as possible and get rich for 10 years. At that point, they will have to pay the standard taxes. They cannot sell any of the properties in those years. They have to be involved in the development, and lease the spaces. After 10 years, they can sell whatever they want.

It incentivizes them to work quickly and aggressively on developing profitable businesses and properties. None of this slow-burn kind of development. If arenas are the economic driver, then let's see it in action. Build baby build.

A) you are describing a TIF district...that is a current funding option, just not one that is chosen in this case.
2) We aren't negotiating in a vacuum, teams have other places to go just like corporations do.  Its about attracting and retaining revenue streams.  We might have to pay some for revenue streams, we just have to hope leadership can come out on the positive end of that transaction
III)  I know where you are coming from, but I think you've really got to find a way to be pragmatic on this one.  I think you are looking at it in an idealistic way and that's great but it's never going to work that way.

Bottom line:  we have to determine if we want to pay a known amount to retain a known amount of revenue with the potential for additional revenue or if we want eliminate the known revenue but at a smaller cost footprint than if we did something.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

A) you are describing a TIF district...that is a current funding option, just not one that is chosen in this case.
2) We aren't negotiating in a vacuum, teams have other places to go just like corporations do.  Its about attracting and retaining revenue streams.  We might have to pay some for revenue streams, we just have to hope leadership can come out on the positive end of that transaction
III)  I know where you are coming from, but I think you've really got to find a way to be pragmatic on this one.  I think you are looking at it in an idealistic way and that's great but it's never going to work that way.

Bottom line:  we have to determine if we want to pay a known amount to retain a known amount of revenue with the potential for additional revenue or if we want eliminate the known revenue but at a smaller cost footprint than if we did something.

I'm just not sold that the NBA draws enough people to make it as impactful as everybody believes. Maybe I'm not doing a good enough job understanding how the television money and player salaries benefit the city/state.

As far as the TIF district, ya, I have to plead ignorance. I'm not aware of the intricacies of how this stuff gets negotiated. I'm just thinking from a high-level. If this is going to be such a boom, then let the owners take the risks, and let the owners profit. I'm totally fine with that. They will be far better at it than the city/state could ever be. Let the whole production be privatized. The city and state can make their money down the line.

[Pakuni]

I'm just not sold that the NBA draws enough people to make it as impactful as everybody believes. Maybe I'm not doing a good enough job understanding how the television money and player salaries benefit the city/state.

As far as the TIF district, ya, I have to plead ignorance. I'm not aware of the intricacies of how this stuff gets negotiated. I'm just thinking from a high-level. If this is going to be such a boom, then let the owners take the risks, and let the owners profit. I'm totally fine with that. They will be far better at it than the city/state could ever be. Let the whole production be privatized. The city and state can make their money down the line.

To your earlier point, as addressed by me03, cities, counties and states offer huge incentives through things like TIF districts, property tax rebates, sales tax rebates, etc., to attract and retain corporate entities. And, as with sports arenas, they usually lose money on the deal. Ultimately, most decide that the indirect benefits (employment, surrounding development, etc.), outweigh the direct costs.

As to your second point, it would be great if we could let the owners take all the risks. And in a non-competitive marketplace, that's what would happen.
The problem is, other cities want professional sports franchises. There are 30 NBA teams and > 30 cities that want to be NBA cities. And some of those other cities are very willing to take all or a share of the risks off the owners' hands.

[mu03eng]

I'm just not sold that the NBA draws enough people to make it as impactful as everybody believes. Maybe I'm not doing a good enough job understanding how the television money and player salaries benefit the city/state.

As far as the TIF district, ya, I have to plead ignorance. I'm not aware of the intricacies of how this stuff gets negotiated. I'm just thinking from a high-level. If this is going to be such a boom, then let the owners take the risks, and let the owners profit. I'm totally fine with that. They will be far better at it than the city/state could ever be. Let the whole production be privatized. The city and state can make their money down the line.

At this point, Brew and I aren't even talking about a huge boom to revenue....we are talking about protecting the known revenue vs the alternative of no revenue.  In our heads (correct me if I'm wrong Brew) the knowns justify the effort right now...anything that actually happens that they forecasted is gravy.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

At this point, Brew and I aren't even talking about a huge boom to revenue....we are talking about protecting the known revenue vs the alternative of no revenue.  In our heads (correct me if I'm wrong Brew) the knowns justify the effort right now...anything that actually happens that they forecasted is gravy.

That's fair. I don't mean to put the "HUGE BOOM" terminology on your guys. That's more just a cliche I'm using to describe stadium proponents. You guys have been thoughtful and reasonable with your views and opinions.

I'm not necessarily against the plan, I'm just against the blanket belief that this HAS to get done. I'm also against the idea that we should all gladly handover out taxpayer $ because this is going to generate so much residual income for the state/city. We have a case study of an existing building that didn't really do that. So, I'm skeptical that adding a bunch of new amenities and a beer garden are somehow going to make this "worth it" for the city.

[brewcity77]

I'm just not sold that the NBA draws enough people to make it as impactful as everybody believes. Maybe I'm not doing a good enough job understanding how the television money and player salaries benefit the city/state.

I think the key here is not to think of it strictly as a NBA franchise. The Bucks are a company that employs over 100 people. There is full-time and part-time personnel, jobs that would disappear without the franchise. Further, they bring in additional tax revenue through the jock tax. In 2014, that was $6.5 million. Even without the expected NBA salary cap jumps in the next few years, that means in the next 20 years, the jock tax as is would bring in $130 million back to state coffers.

Most likely, the salary cap increase will vastly increase the value of the jock tax, but at current salaries, that will pay for 59% of the proposed bonds. This is all money that will completely go away if the Bucks leave.

I don't know what the Bradley Center maintenance will cost over the next 20 years. However when you factor in the jock tax as is, you are talking about spending at most $90 million in state funds to get this done. High estimates say the BC will require $100 million in maintenance. If that's true, it will be cheaper for the state to help build the arena than it will to let the Bucks go.

I am guessing those estimates are high, but even if it's only $25 million (would be at least that) the state would have to pay for that themselves, and you are still getting a new arena built for $65 million in state funds while retaining a business that draws people downtown and employs over 100 people.

If the arena revitalizes downtown, if the jock tax goes up so the facility essentially pays for itself, if the Bucks are successful and give a sense of state and civic pride, those are all potential benefits, but in terms of actual, tangible, known benefits, I really think those values offset the cost to the state. Anything above that is just icing on the cake.

[WarhawkWarrior]

More than sad that we have a feckless Mayor who is on the sideline and not leading the charge.  The State is trying to find ways to help but he continues to chuck apples at them.  This project would be a gem of development, keeps MKE in the big leagues and employs a bunch of people short and long term.  Looking forward to Mayor Clark.

[kmwtrucks]

If the CITY county and ST let a NBA team walk because they do not want to pay 150-200 Mill on a New stadium When the old one is going to cost them 10 Mil a year in upgrades and the they are going to lose 10 mil in Income tax revenue and probably another 10 mil in rents Tax's and fee's a year just on the venue let alone all the surrounding commerce then the people in charge have no clue what they are doing and what is good for the State,City,county.   Just the above is 30 Mil per year over 10 years that 300 mil?