Bucks New Arena

Infrastructure just appears because conservatwats built it themselves.  Why build economies of scale across the state for long term health when you can just dump it in a billionaires lap for nothing?

I hope that $250 million for an arena  fills your belly M C, and that food products grown in western WI can go someplace else.  We pay the same gas tax as the rest of WI but our roads are the ****tiest around the state. 

Western Wisconsin is vibrant- partly Twin Cities suburbia. In any event, I would hope that no one would suggest that pro basketball is more important than education or infrastructure. A buckled road or a collapsed bridged in Western WI is problematic at best. 90% of the people I know don't even know what the Bucks are- they surely know what bad roads are, all too well. 

People do realize that the road and education funding cuts in the budget will happen no matter what happens with the Bucks arena plan right?

It's not like a "no" vote magically turns those arena dollars into monies to be allocated toward other sources.  If you don't support the state budget plans that's fine but it's a different topic and a different issue.

I think the Bucks could do a better job of framing the financing issue because for 250MM there is a lot more at stake than people realize.  The economics of the NBA are drastically changing and that's not even being discussed.  Teams and owners and players will see a big time increase in revenues and that will have a secondary effect on rhe communities they reside in.

No one likes the process - or what appears to be a process- of billionaire owners seeking public funding handouts but it's the nature of the beast.  Letting this team walk "just because" is pure ignorance if you truly follow the dollars.  I would prefer to see some tweaks to the financing plan in how the debt payments are handled but in the end I can't see how this is bad for the city or the state.

quote:

It's not like a "no" vote magically turns those arena dollars into monies to be allocated toward other sources.  If you don't support the state budget plans that's fine but it's a different topic and a different issue.

Exactly. And again, the public contribution to the arena is an investment by the state/local governments. Would I prefer all billionaires pay for it themselves? Of course. But it's simply not the way businesses invest anymore. Every arena/stadium built today is subsidized. And you can bet on this- the Bucks move and the NBA is gone. The entire industry gone. The businesses that were supported by it gone. And replaced by what? There's no plan B.

Bringing up infrastructure and interjecting that in this conversation is typical WI farmer-fed Democrat short-sighted stupidity. Its the same stupidity employed That resulted in the loss of businesses state-wide over the past 3 decades. Prosperity? Tax the living crap out of it until it seeks a greener pasture elsewhere, get your farming subsidies and spend your Fridays at the local pub blaming the Governor for not doing enough. Been listening to that sh*t since I was a kid- it's moronic.

clearly you believe only people who adhere to your political beliefs are intelligent.  That is moronic.  Statements like that lead me to believe you are sitting at the poker table and cannot determine who the sucker is.  

 

Any more political statements like that will be nuked.  

 

 

Yeah...I can't wait until ammo reads that.

When you get into a fight with a skunk you end up smelling like one yourself.   

ammo, voting for the arena will help the state generate revenues to build new roads, in your area.

 

People aren't getting this. Clearly. Do away with the arena and you do away with millions in state tax revenues, and an investment in Wisconsin's largest city to keep it progressive and moving forward, generating state tax revenues exponentially for our future.

 

This isn't Milwaukee vs. the State of Wisconsin for God's sake! Milwaukee is a vital part of state tax revenues, yes, to build roads in your own communities too. Kill that and your roads/schools and more will slide for decades.

 

Your personal tax obligation will amount to less than a $2 cup of coffee.

 

Do you know how many jobs this arena and entertainment complex will generate? And, how many tax revenues this will provide to our State of Wisconsin?

 

Do you know the impact of hosting major sports championships on State tax revenues? The Final Four, the NBA Championship? People fly in from all different parts of the world to spend money in our state, and this arena will help to make those additional state tax revenues possible. Let the arena project die, and so do the jobs, the hotels, the restaurants and those revenues.

 

Here's a nice breakdown of what portion of the arena project the State of Wisconsin would help fund, a very small portion, yet the State will reap countless revenues for decades! This is essential to our continued growth, both for Milwaukee and Wisconsin:

 

We have people wanting to make a $250 million investment in our state, and there will be far more to follow. Our entire state should be embracing this, as it will help the entire State of Wisconsin. 

 

DON'T WE WANT PEOPLE SPENDING $$$$ IN OUR STATE? WAKE UP!!!! Its called "Business." Lose the arena and lose the business.

 

Vote for the arena or lose my vote!

 

*Note: Milwaukee is not in Florida. Tax revenues generated in Milwaukee go to the State of Wisconsin.

       
       

Sure I have that opinion- not about others' intellect, but that the basis for his point was rooted in partisan talking points. Politics were brought into the discussion by ammo, not me. I merely responded to it.  I categorized it with a political party because it's simply true.

Ammo doesn't have a response to it for a reason- because he has none. Raising the topic of state budget and infrastructure in a discussion about whether the Bucks get public funding for an arena was political. You wanna nuke, you start there.

BTW, Upper Midwesterners should be proud that they engage and push back on these giveaways.  Just mention "sports" in some markets and all common sense goes out the damn window.   There's a reason why education and healthcare are generally stronger in certain areas, an engaged populace.  Scooter is working on that though.

Great insults from the right. Of course the money won't be returned to the budget if the arena doesn't pass- but the money was originally hi-jacked for that purpose, which is ridiculous. All we have done in this state in the last few years is subsidize corporations that promise jobs and trickle-down effects, but all they have done is tear down hills and pocket our money- at the cost of education, roads, parks, etc. I actually like the Bucks and would like for them to stay, but these wealthy owners (every pro sport and every state, I know) feel it is their absolute right to pay for but a portion of the arena that is built expressly for their interests, while citizens are forced to pick up whatever amount the owners don't feel the obligation to pay. Any benefit to the community, although welcome, is really of no concern to the owners. They only care about people as a tool to feed their wealth, which is, of course, what every corporation is designed to do. I am not here to call anyone stupid or say they "don't get it", I am just trying to convey the sense of entitlement that the Bucks' owners are showing is not likely to garner much support from many people in Wisconsin. 

Agreed. Who has the most to gain from a new stadium ?

players, coaches, owners, advertisers and networks

 

How many of those Big Gainers are represented on the list of entities paying for the new stadium ?

 

The public should be heavily involved in this debate

If for no other reason than if you don't have a seat at the table, it means you and your wallet are on the menu.

 

       
       


I actually agree with this in a way. Not at the expense of allowing businesses to go away, but there's a certain amount of chicken to be played, sure. Still leverage matters- and as I said before, there's no plan B. If there was one, we'd have heard about it.

In this case, it's take the $400M investment from the owners and build this thing, or leave that section of MKE as a ghost town with nothing. That's really the choice to make.

Politics was brought into this thread way before I posted. 

And if it truly has a revitalizing affect, then great.  Problem is a lot of these manufactured districts don't hold up to all the plans that are laid out and are often ghost towns around a shiny new arena, an arena where the lionshare of benefit goes to the team owner.   

 

Arena districts need to have elements of social engineering as well that actually make them sustainable beyond the arena instead of the proverbial throw away neighborhoods that they become.  Nobody wants to tear down the ****ty old venerable stadiums that are part of the culture yet they seem to serve the needs even though owners want more of that sweet sweet luxury box money.  

 

I don't deny that there are benefits, even on the social psyche of the city but let's not deny that it is still a subsidy to a owner group.  It's a bribe and a good chunk of the time a gamble.  Roads and education are boring, sports give us some short term happiness.

agree, and I feel this can be discussed in a civil manner.  

 

If it is not, it will be nuked.  

 

For example, typical WI farmer-fed Democrat short-sighted stupidity

 

Not civil

 

or intelligent

All I'll add to that is any farmer spending any significant time in the bar was the one going under.

I just think there should be more Xcel Energy Center deals.  An existing structure that with a big chunk of investment ($170 million in 2000) transformed and upgraded the already existing neighborhood and truly boosted St. Paul.  A perfect sized structure for the sports team it supports.  Before that, the old Civic Center's biggest event?  Minnesota state hockey tourney and handful of concerts.  

 

I will say the smartest thing the TC market did was moving the stadiums out of ****ing Bloomington and letting them build a supermall in Hyperburbia.  Definitely could've done a better job with the Dumpty dome, which surely helped existing downtown Minneapolis bar districts but didn't build much around it.  Huberts, WTF.

 

I don't doubt your figures  Trophies but tell me why can there be at least 3 proposals for a football stadium in L A that all seem to be moving forward with 100% private financing?  And it has to be a lot more expensive to build a 75,000 seat football stadium vs. a 20,000 seat basketball/multipurpose arena. 

ammo, just so you know, I have no political bend to my argument, at all. 

 

I agree completely with your sentiment, too, and others in this regard. They should, and could finance the whole thing themselves. 

 

However, it doesn't work that way. There needs to be a buy-in from the community in order to receive the investment, and receive gains over the years in tax revenues. Doesn't matter that they are billionaires, they are businessmen all the same. 

 

Plenty of other states are dying to give them a deal. That is no joke. If we screw this up, they will take our business, and WE, Wisconsin, will lose. 

 

My concern is:

 

1. This ridiculous posture of Milwaukee vs. the rest of the state. That kind of sentiment is so misguided. Yes, Milwaukee may be the state's largest city, but it is indeed a very historic, important part of the state. A jewel of Wisconsin. One that for over 100 years has helped to finance projects throughout the rest of Wisconsin through tax revenues generated there. 

 

2. Voting against a new arena is very short sighted. 

 

The NBA is a global, multi-billion dollar enterprise. The revenues will climb exponentially in the next few decades, and there are only 22 states in this country lucky enough to have a stake in this business. 

 

Voting the arena down forces good business out of our state. That makes zero sense to me. 

 

I'll add, my own business is in the heart of downtown. Killing that project may kill me. I depend on business from people living here and visiting here. If the arena is voted down, our city will become far less attractive to new prospective residents and visitors. 

 

And, the amount of $ we are talking about is so trivial. Do I like the structuring in the bill? No. But, it won't be a detriment to anyone, really. A little more than $1.00 per resident? 

 

The detriment would be in losing the business. I'm only hoping other Wisconsinites will see this and join me. We are all Wisconsinites. Call your senator and ask them to vote FOR the arena, and new business in our state!!!

 

Senators should not politicize this. A dangerous game they are playing. If we don't approve this, the entire state loses. 

 

Vote for the arena or lose my vote!

I get what you are saying Hank but the X was built for a paltry 170MM and if my memory is correct the city essentially wrote off the remaining debt a few years ago and issued bonds to cover it.

Thought TCF Bank Stadium was pretty good for the state as well but the total cost was only 300MM and the U picked up half those costs

I just don't think most people in WI care about the Bucks - it's really as simple as that.  It's a shame really.  I grew up on the Bucks - when most other WI sports teams sucked.  Then again I am originally from Milwaukee so maybe I am jaded.  Either way,  I think the politicians need to put their heads together and make this happen.

If I am not mistaken the U is you and me....

 

I'm not comparing Xcel and the Bucks arena, apples and oranges.  Just merely stating it was a good move and nice example of building into the already existing community instead of pitching these all in one stadium district deals.

 

I was huge on the Bucks until the NBA lost it's shine for me but I do think it would be a shame to lose the team.  I grew up in what's damn near the burbs of the Twin Cities now but my brother and I would road trip to Milwaukee to watch the Brewers or Bucks.  Point being if the market can bear it and the desire is there a deal or team will materialize.  

The Staples Center and proposed football stadium are being privately financed because California has the 8th largest economy in the world. Wisconsin is 20th in the U.S.

I think the reason they can privately fund and WI cannot is clear.

Interesting points on both sides.  There will never be any agreement on the numbers.  Each side has its own numbers, same as always.

 

Happy to pay higher taxes for education and infrastructure.  Too bad politicians have no interest in long term investments and most voters would rather have lower taxes instead.

 

Personally, I'd pay higher taxes to keep the Bucks in Milwaukee.  Been a Bucks fan all my life and am now a Milwaukee resident, so I'm biased (although I'd feel the same way if I still lived in a small town in Southwest Wisconsin).  I feel that the city and state are fortunate that the new owners want to invest in the city and the city/county/state should have skin in the game.  They're businessmen and will pay as little as they can while still getting it done.  Maybe they'll pay more if they have to, only one way to find out.  Anyway, it's no different than all of the corporate welfare that's been going on for decades on the city/state/national level.  As far as I can tell, not enough people are fired up about the issue to change it.  Plenty of examples much more egregious than what's going on here.

 

As much as I disagree with Walker on everything he has done, I would like to see him have some success on this issue.  His desire to put the liberal unions and academics in their place will be there either way and has nothing to do with the Bucks.

 

The schism between the big cities and the rest of the state (and country) has been around since I was a kid and isn't going away, only going to get worse.   Different priorities, different politics.  I can totally understand someone from Superior not wanting the Bucks stadium to receive any public support, makes perfect sense to me.  

This has nothing to do with state economies.  The Bucks owners can afford to build the whole thing themselves.  They just don't want to. 

 

The more I think about this issue, I don't know why the State didn't buy the Bucks when  Herb wanted to sell.  If a new arena and keeping the Bucks in Milwaukee is such a great money maker the State should have just bought them.  Soon I would be paying no taxes at all. 

A bit of levity on this issue.

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...5b4e4b0a47ac15cc774?

Am I ever late to this party!

 

I am conflicted on this.  My conflict, if I am honest with myself, at a high level is the tension between reason and emotion.

 

My reason tells me it is hard (and I think my emotion finds it hard to say impossible instead) to justify charging individuals for an expense that is not theirs.  My emotion wants the Bucks in Milwaukee.

 

I am thoughtful of the documentary The Corporation which does a fine job of demonstrating that by far the dominant behavior of corporations is sociopathic as well as how we really are a corporate oligarchy.  If an individual kills someone, his life is effectively over, but if Monsanto were to be found killing thousands, there is still no way the government will pull the plug and revoke its corporate charter.

 

Then again, I am sure the owners of the Bucks really do love the people - so much so that were they to have to foot the bill for their own expense (product), they'd bail out on them in a heartbeat.

I think, levity withstanding, this issue is a bit too important to brush aside.

 

As things stand, if the arena is voted down, many people will be losing jobs/income, and the state will be losing future revenues, because the Bucks will move to another state that will gladly welcome them and help them to finance a new arena.

 

There is a lot of good to be learned from this report by Marquette University on the subject: http://www.scribd.com/doc/2671...ony-Pennington-Cross

 

See pages 9-10.

 

Baltimore, Cleveland, Detroit, Washington DC, Kansas City, Columbus, Memphis and Oklahoma City all benefited from the exact kind of entertainment venue that Milwaukee is trying to establish.

 

Non-construction employment in this area of new amenities alone is estimated at more than 2,000 additional, permanent jobs.

 

"In conclusion, the Arena District redevelopment plan provides an opportunity to develop underutilized land that has been an eyesore for a decade and to provide an important and valued amenity that helps Milwaukee compete for a creative workforce to attract future companies to the region."

 

The growth for state tax revenues will increase exponentially over time for the State of Wisconsin, with passage of the arena bill. That all goes away should it fail.

 

Underlying a lot of the support for a public subsidy for the Bucks arena is a fear of what losing an NBA team would do to Milwaukee’s self-image. Remember when the Braves left? Some of you might... (Between 1968-69, 20 Chicago White Sox games were played in County Stadium after the Braves left in 1966 - a favor to the City of Milwaukee. Our Braves had never had a losing season in Milwaukee. Ever. Needless to say, we were devastated.)

 

The planned facilities and estimated increase in property values will result in a $200 million increase in tax revenue collections, enough to pay off the proposed public portion of the arena in a little over 1 year.

 

Millionaires and Billionaires own sports teams. Yes. But, we all benefit from those teams by virtue of their being located in Wisconsin. Please, don't let this important vote take away one of our teams. Call your Senator, and tell them you want them to vote FOR the ARENA.

 

------------- 

In 2005 and 2007, Seattle, voted against public financing support of a new arena for the Sonics, and lost their team in 2008 to Oklahoma City. By 2012, they voted FOR a new arena, and the public financing portion of $200 Million in the hopes they could lure the Sacramento Kings. It is 2015, and Seattle remains without an NBA team.

 

Senators, DON'T MAKE SEATTLE'S SAME MISTAKE! Vote for the arena or lose my vote.

That last bit is a pithy argument, don't you think? I mean that, phaedrus, with respect.

 

All of this fuss is over the State kicking in $4 Million per year in financing for 20 years, a total of $55 Million, less than 20% of the project costs - which would be paid back, with interest!

 

Language of the sales contract states that if we do not provide an arena, the sale to Lasry & Edens (who along with Kohl are kicking in half of the costs) becomes null & void. The Bucks then become foreclosed upon, and the NBA assumes ownership of the team, and the rights to sell it to anyone they wish.

 

Milwaukee is asking for a small amount of assistance from the State to close the deal. If we lose this team, we will lose a lot more.

 

Honestly, I can't believe the fate of this team is put in the hands of our Senators, over such a minuscule amount. Seems a foolish risk to take, with so much at stake in terms of potential loss.

 

Milwaukee County provided $300 million in shared revenues to the State of Wisconsin last year alone (the next highest contributing counties, Racine, Brown and Dane come in contributing 10% of that or less, each in shared revenues with the state). The outlying areas of the state benefit from that $300 million in shared revenues, immensely. Why wouldn't the outlying areas of our state want to help its largest city, Milwaukee, further these contributions with a vote FOR the ARENA?

 

Voting against the arena hurts both Milwaukee and the State of Wisconsin.

 

This is a far more simple matter than many are making it out to be.

 

Please call your Senator. Help the city and our state by asking them to VOTE FOR THE ARENA!

Trophies,

 

PackerJoe's analysis sure caused me to think the expense is a lot higher.

 

On the subject of total cost, I am out of my league.

Of course its far more than the narrative.

 

$55M in bonds paid out of state funds

$55M in from uncollected property taxes

$93M diverted from Wi Center District

$20M to pay off Bradley Center Debt

$234M in tax breaks and city funds

 

Other interesting parts

 

The team owners would buy the Bradley Center (that’s good!) for an undisclosed sum (that’s probably bad!) and pay to demolish it (good!) then get the land that it’s on to develop as they so choose and collect all revenues from the arena and the adjacent entertainment space and have all the property taxes from the nearby development kicked back to help pay for arena costs (bad).

       
       

Then you're blind. In LA, you can generate local investors and forego the public contribution. Who else in MKE can invest in that kind of a project for MKE? From the owner's perspective, they aren't going to foot the bill if they don't have to. In CA there's a lot more local investment money to tap into.

So yeah, the money in your state's economy kinda impacts the owner's demand for public financing.

It is really interesting, to say the least. I'm not advocating for anything other than not losing a pretty great, historic franchise here in Milwaukee.

 

These guys will make out, no question, and I don't begrudge them of that opportunity. There is give and take, and that is what makes deals work. And this one will work for both sides.

 

All the fuss is really over a small figure, comparatively. The City of Milwaukee and the District itself, is putting up the majority of the funding that remains after Lasry, Edens and Kohl. I'm glad they agreed to keep the team here. Now, we as citizens of this state and this city have to do our part to make it work.

 

The fact that these people find Milwaukee a good prospective investment is encouraging for the businesses here, and for the future of the city and state as a destination point. It also helps the prestige of the city and state on the national scale, making it more attractive to others who wish to invest here, move their companies here, etc.

 

Others will invest here as a result. That = growth. Exactly what we want in this state.

To me, those are all pluses, and help to designate the Bucks franchise (which it has been officially) as a "public good."

 

My fears are in losing that. It can take decades to recover from such a loss. The squabbling over a relatively small sum requested for state financing, which will be paid back to the state with interest, seems ludicrous, and VERY SHORT SIGHTED. The Bucks staying here in Milwaukee is so vital to our city and state that it really should not be politicized.

 

This is such an important, unique opportunity for Milwaukee and the state of Wisconsin.

 

Here is a list with your State Senator's phone number. Give them a call and tell them you would like them to support the new arena bill:

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.g...5/legislators/senate

Emotional pleas?   Seriously?  Follow the ****ing dollars. 

Have you seen what NBA franchises are worth?  This isn't your 1984 NBA.  The league is in a valuation mode that's pretty damn incredible and they don't have some dumbass like Goodell in charge screwing things up.

Lasry and Edens know how to make money.  They know this is a good investment.  That is until these meathead politicians get involved and potentially **** things up.

If it's not in Milwaukee it will be elsewhere and when you look at the actual dollars of public funding the proposal is not out of whack.  And please - save the 1940 argument of "poor us outside of the Milwaukee area" - they stand to benefit the most!!!

By the way Dave Hansen can kiss my ass

Education be damned!!!  To hell with the Bucks!!  Boo!!!

Too bad nothing will change with education funding even if the Bucks bail.  Truly stupid logic but thanks for playing

John Oliver weighs in on new stadiums - and the Bucks make the video starting at 9:24 and again at the end

 

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/e...-for-sports-stadiums

 

 

Can't wait to see this data!