Bucks New Arena

CA, you are right. There is little current data to support a lot of these arguments. The Marquette paper I posted a link for alluded to this as well. However, they do point to real success stories in all of the cities I mentioned who have done exactly what the arena bill is helping to propose.

 

The bigger picture is this:

 

"The shift in the purpose and shape of a city—from the need for physically exporting a good to organizing people and space to maximize productivity—has also affected how cities compete with each other. Traditionally, cities attempted to attract companies with low wage workers and low cost land and buildings because this increases profits. But as firms now focus on  productivity and creativity, they need to locate in places where there is a large pool of highly skilled workers. In this sense, firms are following the workers. So, cities must compete less on input costs (wages and land) and more on ways to attract large quantities of high skilled workers. 

 

Thus, the primary challenge for a mid-sized city like Milwaukee is to provide an amenity  package that can make it an attractive place to live for highly skilled workers. It competes directly in the regional labor pool of recent college and graduate school graduates with Chicago and Ilinois. Despite recent challenges in Chicago and Illinois (crime, public leader corruption, and fiscal/budgetary strain), the city continues to attract the types of firms that need a deep and talented workforce that benefits most from the agglomeration-driven productivity gains." See "Companies Say Goodbye to the Burbs: Young Talent Wants to Live in Chicago, Not Libertyville; Dilemma for Older Workers," By Lauren Weber Dec 4 2013, published in the Wall Street Journal"

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB...04579222442197428538

 

Go ahead and keep reading, pp 7-11 and beyond: http://www.scribd.com/doc/2671...ony-Pennington-Cross

 

There are all kinds of arguments about this, but few are taking into account the notion of attracting new businesses, new tax-paying residents, highly skilled workers, etc. through the amenities afforded by a city.

 

It is a bigger picture, and one you cannot deny. Lose your amenities and you lose your attractiveness as a destination place.

 

The state is not funding $450M in the proposed bill. I don't think that figure is correct. I believe it is $55 Million in financing to be paid back to the state with interest.

 

Also, just as far as myself is concerned, yeah, I am a huge fan of the Bucks. I'm also a huge fan of our City of Milwaukee and our State of Wisconsin. I am not taking any kind of political stand with regards to this, but I don't agree with the gutting of our public education and our UW system, which is/was a jewel of the state. But, that is a separate issue entirely. I also don't agree with much of the structure of the bill itself, but we do need to act if we are to keep the team here. There is a deadline contractually for the construction of a new arena in order for the Bucks to remain in Wisconsin.

 

To me, this is pretty simple. Keep the Bucks here by supporting the development, and reap some of the benefits along the way. The developers will make all kinds of money, so will the owners. But, I do believe the city and state will benefit through positive growth and these rather large investments in our state. I do wish things were structured more appropriately, and I believe there were some opportunistic liberties taken with the language of the bill, and that I do find troubling. Voting for this is advantageous nonetheless, for our city and state, in my opinion, in spite of that.

 

I'm not an expert and don't profess to be. Just a fan and a business owner in Milwaukee, looking to further positive growth here. Kill the bill, and I see more than the bill being killed. I see a wasteland next to what will be a useless Bradley Center. Is that what we want here? I also see an uphill struggle to attract new businesses, new residents, new cash streams for the city and the state. Is that what we want here?

 

The bill isn't perfect, but supporting it would be beneficial to both the city and the state in attracting new business and more opportunities on a grand scale, for decades. I believe voting it down puts us in a much deeper hole, one that it may take decades to crawl out of.

 

Long term, the development and growth in the area will be beneficial to many here in Wisconsin. That is my belief.

We obviously need to get a NBA team and it's new palace into every city in the USA.  High paying jobs, trendy businesses and free spending tourists will follow.

 

I know that is meant tongue in cheek, but the dynamics in play for cities to become or remain successful involve providing amenities to attract new business and residents. You can find that in the conclusion of the report here:

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2671...ony-Pennington-Cross

 

Do away with the amenities and you lose visitors, residents, patronage and growth. Believe me, Pikes Peak, there are cities lined up ready to take our Bucks away from Wisconsin, and they will pay double what Lasry and Edens paid.

 

And then what?

This is the actual proposal, which I'll link again.

 

Page 2 of their proposal shows:

Principal of $203M + Another $174M in interest.  Additionally there's $20M to pay off the Bradley Center than they will pay showed in the paragraph below that.  Their proposal shows $222.8M as the summary.  Without interest.  In addition to the above ~180M in tax breaks and Free land worth ~$25M

 

I'm not trying to be hippie screw sports guy.  I love sports.  But we're talking about 3 guys with a net worth ~$6B and it's the same **** in every city and every stadium hostage scenario.  An insanely rich guy holds the city hostage threatening to move, so that we given them things they can afford, that they and they alone will profit from, because we are so emotionally attached to sports and our sports teams.  And, we all bank on the hope of growth and development and jobs and it never really has shown itself to be demonstrably true.  

 

The same people (not saying you specifically trophies) that are perfectly fine with giving billionaire sports owners corporate welfare of every kind, go apoplectic at the thought of a single dollar going to the (myth/fake/made up) "welfare queen with the Cadillac"  Yet, Lasry/Edens/Dinan (and all sports owners) are actual welfare whores and those same people with nary a peep...

 

As I said, I don't live in Wisconsin anymore, so ultimately I don't have a dog in the fight.  In general I view our priorities as being completely out of whack and this situation of sports owners holding cities hostage is the most clear example of it.  I'm not confused, even if Milwaukee does do the unthinkable and says no, there will be multiple cities lined up immediately behind them to give these three welfare whores exactly what they want.  Doesn't mean I have to support it or that I won't point out the facts behind it...

If Milwaukee can make Lasry and Edens money, the franchise will stay in Milwaukee.  Lasry and Edens certainly want to make money, and from what I understand from Herb's sale, they either need to do it in Milwaukee or take the pittance from the NBA and try to bid themselves back in again later (for what I assume would be more money).  

 

People should be pushing back.  The current owners do not hold all the cards in this scenario.  

I totally get all of that CA. I know what you mean. To me, would I rather allow that, and keep this Bucks team here? Yes. Absolutely.

 

The alternative is losing a great team,  being stuck with a useless Bradley Center, and a giant gaping hole in what we have to offer as a city. There is a negative perception that would enter into play by Milwaukee forcing the Bucks to another city by failing to support a new arena. That negative perception will cost Milwaukee and Wisconsin far more than what is being proposed.

Losing a team I understand.  As a sports fan, I understand the emotional ties to a franchise.  

 

Perception is the argument I don't understand.  First of all, Milwaukee would not be "forcing" the Bucks to another city.  That is loaded language.  Secondly, are you saying that cities that lose a franchise drop in Q ratings somehow?  Some sense of inferiority occurs that gives cities a sense of shame?  This perception encourages other cities to make fun of the loser city?  

 

Full disclosure- I really do hope Milwaukee keeps the Bucks but I'm not one of the taxpayers footing the bill.  Just hoping that keeping them reflects the best deal for my taxpaying buddies in the area, Bucks fans or not.   

 

 

I believe, from a business standpoint it is so much more than that El-Ka-Bong.

Sustainability is the key word as far as perception goes, and along with that, the very real loss of a city's amenity.

As things stand, Milwaukee is a major league city. Lose the Bucks and those perceptions can shift, in a very real sense, towards the negative.

Why are other cities and investors willing to pay twice what our current investors have paid for the Bucks?

lower self esteem

 

Do the masses typically choose in favor of the collective good or do they choose what's good for them ?

It is an interesting question dude! I am opposed to almost everything about how this is being structured. I'm looking at what the loss of the team would be. How that would affect the city, the state? There are countless forces hoping we screw this up and don't make our deadline on the new arena. 

 

I am reasoning that the negative in the bill structure does not outweigh the good that keeping this team in Milwaukee will bring to our state.

No. Positive business growth.

 

People will come from all over the world to spend money in our state, by keeping the Bucks. There will be opportunities to host All-Star games, NBA Championships. Not to mention all of those who will just come here to catch a game or two, from other parts of the world. The NBA is a global, multi-billion dollar enterprise. And, it is growing.

 

We currently are a part of that. We've been on the downside in terms of ownership under Kohl and record, and have generally lost enthusiasm for the team. Only recently have we realized an upturn, under these new owners, in one year's time. Yet, people are seeming to be willing to let the entire legacy of our team flush down the drain, like it never existed.

 

I've been a fan since I was a little kid. My grandmother listened to games on her small radio, religiously. My grandfather shot hoops with me in the alley, pretending to be the Big O.

 

I hate how the bill has been manipulated, but I still feel we are better off approving it than rejecting it.

 

Here are some recent figures on the economic impact of simply hosting the NBA Playoffs:

 

"Profits in city limits
$1.5 billion is the Miami Heat’s arena’s total economic impact on Miami-Dade county, according to a team-commissioned study
$90 million, approximately, is the profit surplus the Miami Heat generated in their last three years of playoffs runs 
$15 million is how much economic activity was generated in Miami-Dade county during the 2013 NBA Finals
$6.4 million in taxes are given annually to the Miami Heat’s American Airline Arena by Miami-Dade county, according to the Miami Herald
$257,134.12 is how much Miami-Dade county received back from the Miami Heat in 2013, the first time ever since they struck a profit-share deal 14 years ago
$20 million is how much the City of San Antonio pocketed during their team’s 2013 Finals run
$3-4 million a night is how much the Greater San Antonio Chamber of Commerce estimates hotels, restaurants and bars will make during each home Finals game this year
20 per cent is how much downtown San Antonio hotel bookings have gone up since the Spurs made the finals last year, according to WFAA Channel 8" http://ballnroll.com/PowerMoney?post=1195

 

Check this out: http://gnosports.com/nba-star-...ion-economic-impact/

 

An All-Star game generated $5 million in tax revenues for the state... one game. That is almost as much as Waukesha County shares with the state in one year.

 

http://www.nba.com/pelicans/ne...en-greater-projected

 

$60.4 million in direct spending, $45.7 million in secondary spending (strip clubs).

 

 

One game!  $5M to the state in tax revenues!!! Equates to nearly 1 full year's worth of shared tax revenues from one of the largest, wealthiest counties in our state. I know you people have vision. C'mon my friends! Time's wasting.

 

VOTE FOR THE ARENA!

On the bright side, I sure am glad who owns our Beloved Packers!!!

Just sayin Lasry and Co. also have a lot to lose if this falls through, so they should be squeezed to get the people a better deal.  

concur on the squeezing

There should be lots and lots of squeezing; really more like kneading than squeezing

Owners need to feel the full force of the public's knuckles on their tender spots

Dear Owners: Share the pain or share the gain

Ya gotta give in on one end of this deal... or the other

Gotcha. Yeah, I agree the deal could be better for us. Kohl could pop more too! Also agree they have an awful lot to lose. This deal for them is much bigger than just the Bucks and the arena. Milwaukee is ripe for development, and not over saturated. Perfect.

It really boils down to one issue as I see it.  If the Senate votes this down they how will they ensure to recoup lost revenues from the team moving?   Not one politician has responded to that question. It's all semantics around debt financing but there is a very real cost to the team leaving - and it's not just tied to lost tax revenues from the team or from the useless Bradley Center related costs.

I don't think anyone thinks the financing plan is perfect.  It's not.   But the fact remains we have a lot more to lose than gain with a "no" vote.

As for the owners not having leverage, well, that's like your opinion man.  They get 25MM from the league as a minimum to buy the team back.  That's net profit. Not bad for a 1 year investment.  Or they could pay a relocation cost to Seattle for let's say 300MM - and have the team come in with a valuation of 1 billion or more.  For a team they paid 550 million for.  Bill Simmons is on record saying a Seattle team is probably valued closer to 1.6 billion but who is counting?

The Clippers - let's not forget - that was a 2 billion sale.  The Kings?  What were they 800MM without a stadium deal? 

Then you have the new TV deal that provides a 180 percent return to teams in the next year or two.  That's serious funny money.

Why wouldn't the Bucks want to be part of the money grab and have the city and state reap some of those benefits?

Please answer me this Trophies and/or Tschmack,  what happens if the arena bill passes, the thing gets built but the Bucks continue to lose, the fans don't turn out, the team loses money,  and the billionaires decide to move the team anyway?  What happens then?  Do they have to pay off all the debt incurred by the State?  

I never said they didn't have leverage.  

 

So, not really my opinion, man. 

Like that's never been said before at X4. :-)

How much revenue are we talking about here? Can you point to that data?

If the arena deal goes through I don't see why the owners would want to move ammo. If they did they have ro pay a relocation fee which as I understand it is pretty sizable.

You can only "squeeze" or make references to "holding cards" based on your leverage.

The NBA holds all the cards - and so do the owners, Milwaukee included.  If the arena deal isn't passed and the league buys them back Lasry and Edens still come out ahead.  If they end up in Seattle or Vegas and another group buys the team for let's say 1 billion- the other 29 owners benefit big time because they get a cut of the sale.

Milwaukee and WI is the only loser in those scenarios.   Somebody and some city will pony up huge bucks for a team.  You want leverage?  It ain't Joe Q Public in this case.

 

So if the owners keep losing money year after year in Milwaukee they still will never leave town?  How did these guys get to be billionaires?  I think I know the answer to this already. 

Omg CA. I was referring to the Senators. I give up.

 

Tschmack lit this up better than I could. ammo, the Bucks will do just fine. I believe in the structure of this team, quite a lot. Finally. The leadership is solid. 

I believed in the PAckers for 30 years too.  If the Bucks take that long it will be time for another new arena. 

 

We need ticket subsidies so these economic life rafts can flourish.

Great news if true.  Now is the time to start planning for the next new state of the art arena.  30 yrs will go by fast.  I hope they need a bigger trophy case in the next one.

Mardi Gras was happening at the same time as the basketball game.  How they can figure that 117,256 were in the city just because of the All-Star game is a really good question.

 

 

Very interesting that Lena Taylor is the one who is spilling the news of a senate deal being done.  The poverty rate of families with childern under 18 in her district stands at a pretty staggering 33.3%.  The people in her district need new representation if she is a "yes" vote.

 

Of course I could be proven wrong.  There is always a chance that Wes Edens, Marc Lasry and Jamie Dinan ride in on their white horses and give all those people good paying jobs (in this district I would classify a good paying job as paying a minimum of $12 an hour).  I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

I'm not confused.  I think that its telling that public - that this will impact for more than Senators, good or bad - don't get a say in this.  

 

 

 

The whole point, and the mechanism in place, is to call your Senator, express your wishes to him or her as your representative in this vote. I provided a link to that list of phone numbers.

 

BTW, PackerJoe, 23.3% of children in Green Bay are living below the poverty line. What is your point? Arenas/stadiums are the cause of poverty? Or, they should somehow fix poverty? A Senator who has poverty in his or her district should not be allowed to vote for a project that may bring more revenue to the state?

 

Estimates are for an additional 2,000+ permanent jobs for projects related to passage of the arena bill. Are you saying you want Edens, Lasry and Dinan to provide everyone living below the poverty line with a job? They can only provide so many.

 

The bigger point is, are the Bucks good for the state of Wisconsin? Are they a public good? They have been deemed officially as such. Will their staying in Milwaukee be beneficial to the city and to Wisconsin in general? I believe the answer to that is "yes."

 

Some of these arguments against are leading down entirely different pathways that belong in a political forum, because they are separate from the arena bill. As much as I may agree. Have to say that I appreciate the different viewpoints expressed here, and the forthright energy given to this subject, no matter which side of the debate. Pretty good stuff.

Ki$$a$$... 😜

Too funny, Music City. 

 

I am serious though. I'm an artist. I paint contemporary abstract works for a living. Pretty much sell luxury items. Trying to make other works to accommodate all price ranges. Many of my customers are visitors from other cities, and belong to a different economic stratosphere. I despise the opportunistic language that was introduced into the bill, unnecessarily, and with great risk to the interests of keeping the franchise here. I can relate on some levels to both sides of the argument, though.

 

Being an artist, it is a rough go, and I align myself with more liberal views, indeed. Here, though, I align myself more with my sole proprietor mentality of getting things done. You know how legislators can completely derail projects. Sometimes it is purely grandstanding opportunities. Sometimes there is real prudence. Others, downright, underhanded greed to get their own. Sometimes it is pure partisanship. Sometimes compromises must be made to get things done. I thought it was essential to get this deal done, in spite of some of the crap we've been bashing around (and I do see those points as having great merit: big money v. taxpayers, the leveraging, the threats, playing on public fears). To me, those are trade offs, as much as I don't like them, and the positives still tip scales in favor of keeping them over the possibility of losing them, to me.

 

I hope they get the deal done. The City of Milwaukee will be in for one hell of a makeover, and it has been in the midst of one for years. Now, the ****s about to get real. I'm hopeful. Not to mention, if they stay here, we will be a part of what is expected to be an economic boon in terms of NBA profits. The projections are unprecedented. It should be interesting to see how the true global nature of the NBA, and having a team in our state affects the greater community. I know the development in a dead area of the city will prove beneficial.

 

Add to that, this team looks like the best we have fielded since the Nellie years.

On the court, this team has a shot. A lot of things have to happen, but there's a genuine reason to be excited about this team.

The starters are long, athletic, and only just becoming as good as they can be- even Monroe. All are 25 and younger.

There's solid G depth in Mayo, Vasquez, and Bayless. There's a developing veteran 4/5 in Henson (rumors are getting strong he's about to extend his deal as well)... Plus Vaughn and O'Bryant and Inglis developing Fs.

And you have Kidd and his staff. Developing, innovative, seem to have the ability to force opposing coaches into tough choices, and they're developing ting players to boot.

All need to prove last year wasn't as good as it gets. Need to shoot better, need to continue to play Fear the Deer D. They're so young, need to coach better, teach them to win. Teach them how to be champions.

If the tweet is true, MKE is going to like the investment. This team should be really, really good.

Looks like it passed 21-10!!! Huge investment in our city & state. 

That the government could find better uses for the money rather than hand it to billionaires.