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

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

I get where you are coming from but I don't think you are going to get the answers you are looking for because they don't exist.  As a product manager I have to come up with a proposed project/strategy and develop a cost and revenue forecast that I then use to justify the project.  As the project moves forward the forecasts become more accurate but even by the time we launch the project the forecast could be way off.  We have to look at it from an experienced eye to say "yep, this seems the likely outcome lets keep going".

We can storyboard and forecast the bejezus out of the numbers but we aren't going to get past them being speculation, there are far too many pieces to know for sure.  So I look at the numbers we know, the numbers we think we know, and what I perceive are the market trends for and against this effort.  I come up with make this happen and it's a no brainer.  You have to reach your own conclusion.

The numbers and detail you are looking for exist within the planning team but you'll never see them because they only people that care or understand what it all is....us super nerds

Ya, I get it. Nothing is without risk. Not everything can be known in advance. We have to take what we know, and make some assumptions.

However, we have to be willing to do all of the analysis, case studies, etc. to really understand all of the risks and all of the benefits.

As a product manager, the tactics have to fit the strategy, not the other way around. You can't just budget 1million for direct mail, and not consider other possible tactics. Is direct mail going to deliver the best ROI?

I'm afraid people are getting locked in on it's "Bucks or nothing". If the strategy is overall growth and development for Milwaukee, we have to be willing to explore the idea that maybe the Bucks aren't the correct tactic. Maybe the return isn't worth it.

For me personally, I find it hard to trust anybody who only shows me the upside of this project (ohhh, shiny!). You and Brew have actually done a good job convincing me, because the expectations are realistic and we openly discuss the risks and challenges. Transparency.

(insert politician) telling me that losing the Bucks is going to cost us $XXXM per year just seems disingenuous.

They are using an emotional appeal (nobody likes to lose, and keeping the Bucks is a "win"), and hiding it behind an economic appeal "Look at the loss in revenue".

At the end of the day, if this gets done, there will be a big ribbon cutting ceremony, and when the neighborhood is packed, everybody will say "SEE!!! It worked!". I'm just not so sure it's that simple.

[mu03eng]

However, we have to be willing to do all of the analysis, case studies, etc. to really understand all of the risks and all of the benefits.


For me personally, I find it hard to trust anybody who only shows me the upside of this project (ohhh, shiny!). You and Brew have actually done a good job convincing me, because the expectations are realistic and we openly discuss the risks and challenges. Transparency.

(insert politician) telling me that losing the Bucks is going to cost us $XXXM per year just seems disingenuous.

 

I'm totally with you, and this stuff I left in your quote all exists but no politician is ever going to roll all of that out because like 1% of the people who she/he is talking to will actually get it. 

Our society isn't built on thoughtful, well informed debate and consensus building.....it's built on 12 second sound bites, LOUD NOISES, and angry faces.

All we can do is take what we know, give it a gut check, if that passes and we think the politicians in charge are smart enough to know a good vs bad deal then give it our blessing.

[brewcity77]

They are using an emotional appeal (nobody likes to lose, and keeping the Bucks is a "win"), and hiding it behind an economic appeal "Look at the loss in revenue".

At the end of the day, if this gets done, there will be a big ribbon cutting ceremony, and when the neighborhood is packed, everybody will say "SEE!!! It worked!". I'm just not so sure it's that simple.

Rather than looking it as keeping the Bucks is a win, I prefer to look at what we lose if they go. Not from a pride sense, or a "must have sports to be big market team" mindset, but more the tangibles.
.

• From the selfish point of view, Marquette loses the chance to play in a new arena.
• The state effectively loses whatever money they have to put into the BC. The figure is probably between $25M-$100M over the next 10-20 years exclusively from taxes and becomes a sunk cost.
• The state loses jock tax money. Current numbers are $6.5M/year or $130M/20 years. The expected NBA cap increases will likely raise those numbers to $10M/year and $200M/20 years.
• This chance of revitalizing downtown is lost. The current makeup of downtown is not attracting growth. Note I am not saying this would guarantee growth.
  
• Many potential events will be lost. A new arena could attract a NBA All-Star game, NCAA Regional Final, and high profile concerts that may bypass the city if the BC is the main attraction.
• Another beer garden. I know, we already have some beer gardens, but you can never have enough beer gardens.
• Conservatively, 130 jobs will be lost. From front office staff to security to concessions, many workers rely on the Bucks for both full-time and part-time employment.

.
I realize there are other ways to supplant these things. Marquette could build an on-campus arena. The state could find new ways to implement taxes to offset the jock tax. A different project could come along and revitalize downtown. Other jobs could be found or created. And we could drink elsewhere.

However, if the Bucks stay, we don't have to find those other avenues. This project takes care of quite a few problems that could, and some that certainly would, pop up over the next couple decades. It's no panacea, but there are numerous definite, known positives that it will absolutely bring to the city and state, and it feels to me like letting the team go will ultimately create more problems that the city and state will need to find creative ways to solve.

And let's be honest...in Milwaukee and Wisconsin, finding creative solutions to problems isn't always our strong suit  :-\

[GOO]

Rather than looking it as keeping the Bucks is a win, I prefer to look at what we lose if they go. Not from a pride sense, or a "must have sports to be big market team" mindset, but more the tangibles.
.

• From the selfish point of view, Marquette loses the chance to play in a new arena.
• The state effectively loses whatever money they have to put into the BC. The figure is probably between $25M-$100M over the next 10-20 years exclusively from taxes and becomes a sunk cost.
• The state loses jock tax money. Current numbers are $6.5M/year or $130M/20 years. The expected NBA cap increases will likely raise those numbers to $10M/year and $200M/20 years.
• This chance of revitalizing downtown is lost. The current makeup of downtown is not attracting growth. Note I am not saying this would guarantee growth.
  
• Many potential events will be lost. A new arena could attract a NBA All-Star game, NCAA Regional Final, and high profile concerts that may bypass the city if the BC is the main attraction.
• Another beer garden. I know, we already have some beer gardens, but you can never have enough beer gardens.
  
• Conservatively, 130 jobs will be lost. From front office staff to security to concessions, many workers rely on the Bucks for both full-time and part-time employment.

.
I realize there are other ways to supplant these things. Marquette could build an on-campus arena. The state could find new ways to implement taxes to offset the jock tax. A different project could come along and revitalize downtown. Other jobs could be found or created. And we could drink elsewhere.

However, if the Bucks stay, we don't have to find those other avenues. This project takes care of quite a few problems that could, and some that certainly would, pop up over the next couple decades. It's no panacea, but there are numerous definite, known positives that it will absolutely bring to the city and state, and it feels to me like letting the team go will ultimately create more problems that the city and state will need to find creative ways to solve.

And let's be honest...in Milwaukee and Wisconsin, finding creative solutions to problems isn't always our strong suit 

A side note from someone who lives out of town but within driving distance.  On decent days, I'd be much more likely to drive into town for dinner and/or drinks if I knew there was a nice outdoor venue where I could be seated.  I don't want to drive in, on a nice day, and have to sit inside because there is a long wait to sit outside.  A large outdoor space, covered for somewhat poor weather, would be a really nice feature and a draw.  Obviously, not a reason to build an arena, but as a side note having a large outdoor covered or partially covered space with a lot of seating would be a nice plus for me.

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

1)  When I brought up the zoo, museums, etc. it was an analogy about quality of life.  When someone argues "The Bucks aren't a need" or "X% of people don't care about the NBA/sports" then I juxtapose zoos, art museums, etc. to say "Not everyone likes everything but having more options is better than fewer for a better overall quality of life."  And as someone who lives in Madison (and has lived in other parts of WI) what has drawn me to Milwaukee?  The Bucks, Brewers, Marquette basketball, the zoo, the art museum, and Summerfest.  None of those are "needs" but they draw in some out of town dollars when I stay at a hotel, go out to eat, and do some shopping.

2)  I actually perfectly understand Ammo's point about an NHL team but don't feel it is worth discussing.  It is unrealistic and only serves to distract from the actual discussion about the Bucks.  Might as well discuss whether unicorns should be permitted to run in the Kentucky Derby.

3)  My method of operation is to listen to the plan, analyze the plan, and draw a conclusion.  I like the Fitzgerald plan the best and the numbers works.  The state takes $150 million it has in what amounts to a savings account and repays that account over 20 years.  The total cost would be $213.44 million using Fitzgerald's numbers of 3.75% at 20 years.  I did the math using a mortgage calculator, then projecting out the monthly payment over a course of 20 years.  That's my number.  By the way, the additional $63.44 million would go to fund education which I'm sure they could use given the recent budget cuts to education.

The WI Legislative fiscal bureau is non-partisan.  They're basically a bunch of accountants and mathematicians that crunch numbers, provide them, and take no political positions on policy.  (To learn more visit http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lfb/Pages/default.aspx)  They provided the Bucks income tax number of $6.5 million.  Over 20 years, that is $130 million.  That assumes no growth.  Based on what I have read, I project that number could be north of $200 million.  And $200 million may even be conservative.  If my projection is right then the Bucks paid income taxes would generate most, if not all of the money needed to meet the states funding obligation.

There's also the reported $100 million that the State would need to invest in the Bradley Center to keep it viable.  If that number is high, I still feel confident based off of the income tax projections that the State will meet it's financial burden.  Am I making a leap of faith?  Maybe a small one.  Are my numbers off?  Tell me if they are wrong but I'm pretty confident in them.  So I draw my conclusion "It's a no brainer!" after exerting quite a bit of brain power.  I apologize if the use of hyperbole was lost on some of you.  Of course, there does seem to be a bit of a funding gap with the city still figuring things out.  So I'll only say the State funding is a no brainer but we need to see the final plan from the city.

4) The Bucks owners are the ones who presented a plan that included the additional $500 million in development.  Are they telling the truth or is it all a ruse to get a new stadium?  Well, either:

a) They're lying and after the stadium is approved they yell "Suckers!!!" and laugh over scotch and cigars.  Which leaves Milwaukee in almost the same situation presented in Murphy's hypotheticals anyways.  So the hypothetical development opportunities are still there.

b) They're telling the truth.  $750 million in private money is spent while the government spends $250 million.  In which case the city and state get $4 of spending power for every $1 they invest.  Anything after this initial $1 billion is just a bonus.

Now, I think it would be wise for the city of Milwaukee to spend $100 million because I see a $1 billion project all told.  Bang for your buck if you ask me.

[mu_hilltopper]

120 jobs lost?  Bucks as a $100m revenue company, lost?  PIKERS!

Try 1,200 jobs and $2 BILLION lost.  Today's front page:

http://www.jsonline.com/business/assurant-considering-sale-of-milwaukee-based-assurant-health-b99490422z1-301614251.html

Maybe we'd have a State/County/City bailout to keep them here if those 1200 knew how to dribble and entertain.

.. Mind you, I'm not suggesting that we would do that.  The market (and perhaps lack of industry acumen) has spoken, and Assurant needs to shuffle off.   

The point .. cities and states lose whales like this.  If that whale happens to be a sports team, pols run around with their hair on fire, meanwhile another business 10x the size and negative impact is closing its doors.

[Litehouse]

Now, I think it would be wise for the city of Milwaukee to spend $100 million because I see a $1 billion project all told.  Bang for your buck if you ask me.

But what counts toward the city's contribution?  The city and county are donating land and also giving up property tax revenue on the entire development, which the Bruce Murphy article estimated at $629 million over the next 30 years.  I suppose if they removed the property tax exemption, the city could say they're donating $629M, and then collect property taxes over the next 30 years to make it back.  I would argue the state really isn't contributing any money, they're just diverting money they would lose anyway if the Bucks leave.

[source?]

To address your first point, honestly, I have no idea. I'm not a city planner. I'm not involved in urban real-estate at all. I'm just trying to challenge some of the numbers that are thrown out there like they are absolutes. There is opportunity costs to making this deal. A bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush, so making the Bucks deal might be the best option. I have no idea how to calculate the true opportunity costs or potential of those properties. But, I don't want anybody to pretend that they don't exist. In might be theoretical at this point, but they do exist. Again, I'm just trying to find transparency. Murphy column was pretty slanted against. Some other articles are pretty biased towards the arena.

As far as the NHL, I don't think I'm making my point clearly.

It has been discussed by some people that the "Jock tax" will more than cover the investment. Plus, the income taxes of other employees related to the franchise (I'm not talking arena operations, I'm talking FRANCHISE operations.)

If somebody makes that argument, I have to challenge that thinking and ask why we shouldn't try to get an NHL franchise as well? Certainly the jock tax and franchise employees will cover the cost to attract a franchise, right? Give an NHL franchise $150M to move as sign a long term lease.

As far as the franchise's ultimate success or failure, I don't care. That's not my point. My point is that if we believe that jock tax and income tax from franchise employees is more than enough to make this deal attractive, then we attempt to land an NHL franchise as well.

An NHL franchise is not going to be worth double to the city, but as I said, I'm talking about specific taxes, not theoretical economic impact.

Just once I would like you to take an argument to its logical conclusion. One time. You have a whole lot of "oh, well x is also a possibility but I don't know, I'm not an expert, you figure it out." Which leaves me thinking "hey, thanks for the complete lack of insight. Glad I wasted that time." Your NHL point is incredibly stupid for the following reasons.

(1) We don't have the population base to support a team. A team that doesn't have the income doesn't pay the player salaries and therefore doesn't generate the income taxes. The tv audience isn't there, the sheer population of people buying tickets and merchandise aren't there. We are not New York City.

(2) Splitting the attendance, even as high as 14,000 each, is an atrocious number. They will cannibalize each other. Over saturation kills markets. With that kind of attendance both teams would be gone eventually. Probably within 10 years. No tax revenue after that.

(3) There are infinitely better options for teams wanting to move. Those have been stated already so I won't beat that horse to death.

(4) Even if we somehow managed to get both NBA and NHL to schedule around each other and stay for the long haul, Marquette is the loser as we are now priority number 3 at the new arena.


Here are some additional benefits that people seem to always leave out.
(1) Property taxes: most players own a house in the area.
(2) Sales tax: merchandise, tickets, etc.
(3) Whatever the players spend/buy while in town.
(4) Charity: the Bucks players and franchise donate tons of money and hours to charity every year.


In conclusion
(1) Focus on what we can support and control, and at this point that is the Bucks.
(2) A new arena doesn't turn us into Manhattan, but it does preserve a valuable resource.
(3) For the love of God please stop hurting my brain with undeveloped, pie-in-the-sky arguments.

[source?]

2)  I actually perfectly understand Ammo's point about an NHL team but don't feel it is worth discussing.  It is unrealistic and only serves to distract from the actual discussion about the Bucks.  Might as well discuss whether unicorns should be permitted to run in the Kentucky Derby.

I'm going to have to take a firm stance against unicorns in the Kentucky Derby, based on safety alone. Close quarters, pointy objects, high speeds. Seems like an accident waiting to happen.

[MuMark]

http://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/news/2015/04/29/wisconsin-gov-scott-walker-will-attend-arena.html?ana=tw

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Just once I would like you to take an argument to its logical conclusion. One time. You have a whole lot of "oh, well x is also a possibility but I don't know, I'm not an expert, you figure it out." Which leaves me thinking "hey, thanks for the complete lack of insight. Glad I wasted that time." Your NHL point is incredibly stupid for the following reasons.

(1) We don't have the population base to support a team. A team that doesn't have the income doesn't pay the player salaries and therefore doesn't generate the income taxes. The tv audience isn't there, the sheer population of people buying tickets and merchandise aren't there. We are not New York City.

(2) Splitting the attendance, even as high as 14,000 each, is an atrocious number. They will cannibalize each other. Over saturation kills markets. With that kind of attendance both teams would be gone eventually. Probably within 10 years. No tax revenue after that.

(3) There are infinitely better options for teams wanting to move. Those have been stated already so I won't beat that horse to death.

(4) Even if we somehow managed to get both NBA and NHL to schedule around each other and stay for the long haul, Marquette is the loser as we are now priority number 3 at the new arena.


Here are some additional benefits that people seem to always leave out.
(1) Property taxes: most players own a house in the area.
(2) Sales tax: merchandise, tickets, etc.
(3) Whatever the players spend/buy while in town.
(4) Charity: the Bucks players and franchise donate tons of money and hours to charity every year.


In conclusion
(1) Focus on what we can support and control, and at this point that is the Bucks.
(2) A new arena doesn't turn us into Manhattan, but it does preserve a valuable resource.
(3) For the love of God please stop hurting my brain with undeveloped, pie-in-the-sky arguments.

I'm trying to be honest. I don't have all of the answers. I don't bring up counterpoints to be annoying. I bring them up because I think they get missed or buried when people say: "Oh, but it's good for the community!"

You want my hot sports take? Fine.

This is my visceral reaction to this whole thing:

The Bucks can f-ing leave. Bye.

The NBA business model apparently requires that the public give them A LOT of money just so they will do business here. We can call it an "investment", but the reality is, it's a f-ing gift. It's not even corporate welfare. It's just a gift. Here. Take this. Please stay.

If the Bucks need more money, raise ticket prices.

Furthermore, if this "investment opportunity" was so great, there would be investors lining up to get in on it. We wouldn't need state money. Hasn't really happened. Why? Because it's a losing proposition. There are numerous studies out there that illustrate that public funded arenas rarely (if ever) make the economic impact that politicians and everybody claims. Is Milwaukee the magical market that's going to make it work? Not likely.

If the goal is a healthy and vibrant downtown community, then we have to look at all of the tactics. AND, we need to be prepared to take a hit for the long-term good. Let them walk. It'll hurt. But, we'll be better in the long run. We can't fall in love with a specific tactic, and miss the big picture. Bad idea.

For the record, I live, work and pay income and property taxes in Milwaukee.

AND

GET OFF MY LAWN.

[mu03eng]

I'm trying to be honest. I don't have all of the answers. I don't bring up counterpoints to be annoying. I bring them up because I think they get missed or buried when people say: "Oh, but it's good for the community!"

You want my hot sports take? Fine.

This is my visceral reaction to this whole thing:

The Bucks can f-ing leave. Bye.

The NBA business model apparently requires that the public give them A LOT of money just so they will do business here. We can call it an "investment", but the reality is, it's a f-ing gift. It's not even corporate welfare. It's just a gift. Here. Take this. Please stay.

If the Bucks need more money, raise ticket prices.

Furthermore, if this "investment opportunity" was so great, there would be investors lining up to get in on it. We wouldn't need state money. Hasn't really happened. Why? Because it's a losing proposition. There are numerous studies out there that illustrate that public funded arenas rarely (if ever) make the economic impact that politicians and everybody claims. Is Milwaukee the magical market that's going to make it work? Not likely.

If the goal is a healthy and vibrant downtown community, then we have to look at all of the tactics. AND, we need to be prepared to take a hit for the long-term good. Let them walk. It'll hurt. But, we'll be better in the long run. We can't fall in love with a specific tactic, and miss the big picture. Bad idea.

For the record, I live, work and pay income and property taxes in Milwaukee.

AND

GET OFF MY LAWN.

What's an alternative tactic to the Bucks that you could propose that has the same level of documentation you are expecting the stadium build to show?  In that alternative tactic is it defined within the "knowns" that we will achieve at least the same revenue and costs targets as the knowns of the arena build?

[hairy worthen]

120 jobs lost?  Bucks as a $100m revenue company, lost?  PIKERS!

Try 1,200 jobs and $2 BILLION lost.  Today's front page:

http://www.jsonline.com/business/assurant-considering-sale-of-milwaukee-based-assurant-health-b99490422z1-301614251.html

Maybe we'd have a State/County/City bailout to keep them here if those 1200 knew how to dribble and entertain.

.. Mind you, I'm not suggesting that we would do that.  The market (and perhaps lack of industry acumen) has spoken, and Assurant needs to shuffle off.   

The point .. cities and states lose whales like this.  If that whale happens to be a sports team, pols run around with their hair on fire, meanwhile another business 10x the size and negative impact is closing its doors.

You are comparing apples to oranges. I bet 99% of the population doesn’t know that Assurant is in Milwaukee. It’s never been an economic thing for me. It’s a quality of life and pride thing and losing the Bucks would be a large intangible loss for the city. In the narrow view in terms of only economics you and Canned Goods have a point, but it is much more than that.

Forget about the team’s success or lack of success, the Bucks have been a big part of the city for a long time and their loss would be huge. How would you feel if you lived in Milwaukee and  MU Basketball moved to Seattle? You would be against it and it would suck and it’s no different for Bucks fans. (Be good for Keefe though)

[kmwtrucks]

The studies everybody talks about are when its 100% funded. do any of the studies show when its 40% funded but the Government?    Also has anybody done a study on a city in a Med size market that has lost 1 of the Big 3 teams and how it effects the City? (it needs to be in the Big Revenue sports era) Losing the browns set downtown Cleveland back.  Seattle is a much bigger city and has 2 other major sports brands.  Also the bucks rev is going to go up 30% in the next 2 years which means player's salaries are going to jump 15% in 2 years.  

Bottom line is Milwaukee downtown will become a dump with no possibility of development if the bucks leave.  You will not get major Rev generating concerts etc.  The bradley center will start losing 10-15 million per year when you factor Renovations, Cost and Revenues.

So for 200 million you keep a company that generates 200 million in Rev and has 100 million in salary and will also get 15-20 other major events each year using the stadium.  That alone pays for it self and you are not losing 15 million at the Bradley center.  And that is if no redevelopment happens any redevelopment would be gravy on the top.   Name me one city that would not jump at the chance to have a NBA, MLB, NFL, NHL team move to them if they only had to come up with 40% of the stadium cost?

don't look at it as a cost for them to stay what would you pay for a team to come?  Most cities pay 100% MKE is only having to pay 40%.  

[MU111]

Bottom line is Milwaukee downtown will become a dump with no possibility of development if the bucks leave. 

I'm not trying to divert the topic of this thread, but this statement is just not accurate.

[mu03eng]

You are comparing apples to oranges. I bet 99% of the population doesn’t know that Assurant is in Milwaukee. It’s never been an economic thing for me. It’s a quality of life and pride thing and losing the Bucks would be a large intangible loss for the city. In the narrow view in terms of only economics you and Canned Goods have a point, but it is much more than that.

Forget about the team’s success or lack of success, the Bucks have been a big part of the city for a long time and their loss would be huge. How would you feel if you lived in Milwaukee and  MU Basketball moved to Seattle? You would be against it and it would suck and it’s no different for Bucks fans. (Be good for Keefe though)

Besides Assurant's issue isn't a new facility that will drive traffic to their offices.....it's that the market totally changed for them with the implementation of the ACA and they can no longer do business profitably. 

If Assurant needed a new office to stay in business and would drive traffic to nearby areas as well....depending on the fundamentals Brew and I pull together, I'd be likely to support such a thing.

[mu03eng]

I'm not trying to divert the topic of this thread, but this statement is just not accurate.

It's not inaccurate either.  It's opinion.  If the Bucks leave we know what happens on the budget ledger from a cost and revenue standpoint.  What is unclear is what happens after the Bucks leave to the businesses that remain.  Obviously the BC stays in place and there will be some concerts and Admirals and Marquette games.  Is that enough to sustain the business currently in place?  If not, some of those businesses go away which could further erode the value in investing downtown.....it becomes a thermal runaway type of situtation.

Not saying that does happen, but a lot of people want to poo poo the cost benefit analysis of keeping the Bucks here without addressing the even large unknowns of what happens to the area if the Bucks do leave.

[kmwtrucks]

Dump may have been a strong word but you need people spending Money that they think they can get a return on.  So you think that if the Bucks leave and the old BC stays that Dowtown MKE is going to be a booming downtown with tons of outside development coming in and funding it.  Development money IE new high rise buildings, both commercial and Res New stores New resturants. ETC.  All of this money comes from outside of MKE.  What investment group with deep pockets is going to pick that kind of cash when they can spend there money on any city?  They might do it if the City state throws a ton of money at them. (HA)

If you were a billionaire where would you spend your money developing when we have nothing to develop around?  

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

Ammo, it sounds like you are a fiscal conservative that will not support any public funding for a sports team.  You cannot be swayed by any argument for using public funds no matter what the numbers say.  If that's the case just come out and say it.        Don't hide behind weak arguments like "We need to look at all options", "I don't trust politicians", "We should look at an NHL team if the NBA is so great", and "Hey I don't know what all the options are."  You pretend you can be swayed or convinced if the plan is good enough but you really can't.

You have not once made a counter argument about why the funding numbers don't work or presented what other alternatives Milwaukee has.  But I know, you read some studies that public funding doesn't spur economic development.  Most of us are well  aware of these studies. Yet when we concede that extra development is just gravy, you are still against.  You deflect with asinine arguments about the NHL and other hypothetical development plans but you bring not a single, viable alternative plan forward.  Yet your convinced something better exists, you just don't know what. That would be like me leaving my wife because, you know, maybe I could land Jessica Alba.

Just come clean and stop the charade so we can stop wasting time "debating" with you.

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

Besides Assurant's issue isn't a new facility that will drive traffic to their offices.....it's that the market totally changed for them with the implementation of the ACA and they can no longer do business profitably. 

If Assurant needed a new office to stay in business and would drive traffic to nearby areas as well....depending on the fundamentals Brew and I pull together, I'd be likely to support such a thing.

+1

[mu03eng]

That would be like me leaving my wife because, you know, maybe I could land Jessica Alba.

Wait, is she available?????

[DienerTime34]

What's it going to cost the state to maintain the BC vs. what will it cost them to build a new arena?

If the Bucks leave Milwaukee because of all the surrounding areas not buying into the idea ... all these suburbanites realize they need to be a suburb of SOMETHING, right?

[Litehouse]

http://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/news/2015/04/29/wisconsin-gov-scott-walker-will-attend-arena.html?ana=tw

Walker has too much riding on this and won't let it fall apart at this stage.  If he can't get some backwoods state legislators to approve this, there's no way he'll survive in the presidential race.  Now he can announce they have a deal and show up at the game tonight as the savior.  Perfect opportunity for him to get some great publicity.

[GGGG]

Wait, is she available?????

You have a thing for Headband's wife?

[MU111]

It's not inaccurate either.  It's opinion.  If the Bucks leave we know what happens on the budget ledger from a cost and revenue standpoint.  What is unclear is what happens after the Bucks leave to the businesses that remain.  Obviously the BC stays in place and there will be some concerts and Admirals and Marquette games.  Is that enough to sustain the business currently in place?  If not, some of those businesses go away which could further erode the value in investing downtown.....it becomes a thermal runaway type of situtation.

Not saying that does happen, but a lot of people want to poo poo the cost benefit analysis of keeping the Bucks here without addressing the even large unknowns of what happens to the area if the Bucks do leave.

I want the Bucks to stay.  I grew up on the team in the dark early '90s of the franchise.  I just want a good deal for taxpayers and I hope we get more details soon on financing so we can better assess (e.g., Will the City/County have to pay a larger share than proposed, versus the State share, despite the fact that they're already offering land and infrastructure.  Will the jock tax actually help fund this or not?  Will it be enough to pay down the bonds?  Will the Board of Commissions of Public Lands make the loan, and if so, how will they do so when they have never funded a project this size?  How long until the bonds would be paid off/what is the actual total cost with interest?)  If we get good answers to those questions that make sense, then yes, let's do this.  We're just not getting any of those questions answered but I guess that's how that goes for most things of this nature.

I'm not trying to understate the economic risk of losing the Bucks.  Yes, we'd lose a major league team and the intangible benefits that come with it.  Yes, we might lose a restaurant or two in the Old World Third area if they left.  What I'm trying to argue is that we're not going to lose major companies and we're not going to have new development in the downtown cease if the Bucks leave.  We have a lot of current and proposed development and renovations in the downtown area that have nothing to do with the fact that we have (or might not have) the Bucks.  Here's a sample:
-Continued Pabst Brewery redevelopment (including Frederick Lofts - new building)
-Northwestern Mutual tower
-Kimpton hotel in the Third Ward
-Dohmen office space
-Blue Cross Blue Shield renovation (office to apartments)
-Posner building upper floors renovation to apartments
-River House development (apartments)
-North End Phase III (apartments)
-Walkers Landing (apartments)
-Avenir Apartments
-Mackie Building renovation and new development (mixed use)
-700 E Michigan renovation (apartments)
-833 E Michigan (Irgens office tower)
-Couture residential tower (40+ story proposed)
-700 E Kilbourn (35+ story proposed residential)
-Mandel tower on Prospect (20+ story proposed residential)
-Rumored JCI 50+ story office tower on Michigan

Milwaukee's chugging along and will continue to do so regardless of the outcome.