Bucks New Arena

Which begs the obvious question.  Where do you live and how much did you pay in Wisconsin state income taxes last year?

The government could find better uses for the money?  How about some examples.

You could spend 500MM in Milwaukee County alone in education and it wouldn't fix their issues.  Fix the system first - whether it's healthcare, education, you name it.  Throwing money at it simply doesn't work. 

As for Green Bay - while it was funded by sales tax in Brown County do you think for a second only residents in that county benefit from the Packers?  There is a ton of money being spent by non-Brown Cohnty residents and we all benefit.

I just received an e-mail from my representative in the assembly with this interesting tidbit.

 

----------------------------------------------------

 

While the Governor claims his plan would generate $3 in benefits for every $1 spent, academic studies from economists have found that arenas and stadiums offer little economic benefit to the cities and states that pay for them. Recent experiences have shown that initial rosy projections are often overstated.

 

In Wisconsin, revenue shortages have required repeated extensions of a local sales tax to pay for Miller Park, the home of baseball’s Milwaukee Brewers. First set to expire in 2014, analysts last year said the tax will remain until 2020.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------

 

Sorry citizens of Milwaukee, you just got bent over and ****ed up the *** again.

The state spends 15.5k per mile on repairs and maintenance.  The U.S. average is 17.8k but Iowa and MN and Michigan are worse.

WI ranks 22nd out of 51 states in $$$ spent per pupil.  That's from a 2013 study.

The UW system took a 300MM hit but tuition increases are frozen for 2 years.

The DNR and Badger Care?  Sure you want to go there?  Badger Care is/was a complete debacle and if you live in WI I am not sure many people have good things to say about the DNR in terms of the value they provide.

One interesting Bucks tidbit

Since their inception into the NBA they have won 13 division titles.  Over that same period the Packers have won 12 division titles.  That's pretty interesting and I look forward tb the Bucks getting back to prominence and the Packers getting over the top this year

I love watching that schyt on ESPN.

Wonderful, along with your laundry list of separate, political issues. Why don't you start a thread on this in a more appropriate place? We can talk about Scott Walker. I'll see you over there. Like, never. 

 

But, let's go back to this issue, the arena. I've seen a lot of people throw this same argument around, questioning the real economic impact of keeping the team here by providing funding/financing. Yet, not one of them can explain the economic impact of the team leaving. No plans offered for that. No studies presented. It is just not even a consideration. 

 

I'm glad it passed. That expresses faith in what is a very positive investment, one that I believe Milwaukee will do well with, as will the state. 

 

As as for the Bucks, what a team they are assembling. More additions will be made, and I can see them easily surpassing 50 wins this year. Should be a fun season. 

       
       


Considering more than 60% of the jobs in the State of WI are municipal, state, or federal jobs, I think we have the public sector pretty well filled out. What theatre needs is business. Keeping existing business in WI is a good move.

Regarding WI's economic growth: http://legis.wisconsin.gov/ass...onomic%20Growth.aspx

Again, steps in the positive direction. If this means billionaires will drop their own cash, great! Until then, the state will have to invest.

60%?

http://www.maciverinstitute.co...ntage-of-total-jobs/

 

 http://www.wisconsinbudgetproj...anest-in-two-decades

 

Two links, one from each end of the political spectrum.

60% sounded awfully far fetched, for any scenario.  

60% of the posts in this thread were unnecessary.

 

First off,  the reason that argument is thrown out is because it's a legitimate, and still unanswered, question as there is no actual data that shows that the LEAD ARGUMENT from owners when they hold you hostage holds up to any level of scrutiny.

 

As for the economic impact if they leave...

 

Read this.

 

Here's a few selected quotes for you.

 

"A recent paper by Brad Humphreys and his West Virginia University colleague Adam Nowak looked at one of the more notorious recent NBA relocations—the Seattle Sonics' flight to Oklahoma City in 2008—and examined yet another marker of economic health: condo sale prices. According to their findings (which involve a lot of math with Greek letters, so tread at your own risk), after the Sonics left Key Arena, nearby property values around Key Arena rose faster than those farther from the now-NBA-free arena"

 

The "economic impact" was a positive for them actually in that case.  Here's more.  

 

"Humphreys, who is currently working on yet another paper looking for any sign of a surge in new restaurants and bars around sports venues (SPOILER: He couldn't find any), says he thinks it's time to conclude that losing a sports team has no economic costs for a city. "I keep trying to tick off all the boxes," he says: per-capita income, employment, economic activities during strikes, none have shown any measurable impact from sports teams' presence. "I don't think there's any support whatsoever to the claim that a city's economy is going to suffer when a team leaves.""

 

Here's another discussion about research.

 

"Pegging revitalization hopes on a sports arena may be a mistake, especially in cities with struggling economies or a struggling downtown: Adding a sports franchise won’t suffice to revive a struggling core on its own. "Basketball arenas," Propheter concludes "are not primary catalysts of economic development but are instead economic complements. The present research is generally consistent with the notion that professional sports are not the cause of development so much as they are the effect.""

 

So, to summarize.

• Owners claim that building an arena brings all these benefits and development- yet there is no actual data or studies that prove this.
• Passionate fans claim that letting the team leave will severely impact that community - yet there is no actual data or studies that prove this and there is in fact at least one study that shows the team leaving was actually a benefit.

Wisconsin is paying $457M ($55 million in state bonds, $55 million from the county, $93 million diverted from the WCD, $20 million to pay off state debt on the Bradley Center, $54 million in city costs for garages and other infrastructure, and $180 million in city property tax breaks) towards a $500M arena.  An arena that 100% of the revenue will go to the 3 billionaire owners of the Milwaukee Bucks. I sincerely hope the Bucks win a title or something, because that's the only benefit that will be seen from this deal.    

If you had insomnia, this thread would be very valuable.

Agreed! Government should get out of the business of funding things...unless there is a sports team involved. Professional franchises are the only government funded project that can benefit the people of the state.

CAPackFan95,

 

Do you not see any problem with that data on property values near Key Arena? Of course property values will increase, as new developments are added. You are talking about Seattle, home to Amazon and Microsoft $$$$. Development there is oversaturated, and any new parcel that becomes available increases dramatically in value. Especially in the downtown area. Those new developments will automatically increase surrounding property values.

 

The writer you are sourcing is Neil deMause, author of "Field of Schemes." He has an agenda, no? Not to mention, Brad Humphreys, whom deMause cites, was the official Sonics economic expert when the City of Seattle took them to court in a 2007 lawsuit against the team. Didn't know that did you? HE was the team's witness declaring they had no economic impact on the city in order to get out of their lease. Think that was biased? Why does deMause fail to mention that, or something like this?:

Perhaps the lack of published reports in the ten years since publication of study attempting to measure hedonic effects may reflect the difficulty of measuring hedonic effects.  If the effect were clear, one would expect to see more reports quantifying the effect using various time periods and sports.

 

And, this:

Since the consensus of research is that sports teams and facilities do not alone bring significant economic development, attention has turned to their possible use as part of a broader effort, including as the core of an “arena district.” A paper on Detroit, based mostly on panels of development experts, concluded that “sport alone cannot revitalize the city, but the confluence of hospitality, mixed use planning and re-imaging of downtown areas may make an effective combination for incrementally heightening the likelihood of success.” http://urbanmilwaukee.com/2015...f-a-new-bucks-arena/

How about this, from someone who feels much the same as you are seeming to in your comments:

In Seattle, I supported Initiative 91, which said that the public would only invest in another sports arena if they received a fair rate of return.

 

There is some debate now about whether the current proposal for a new basketball arena, dependent on a $200 million city loan, meets that initiative’s objective. There has been a lawsuit filed and the court will decide.

 

The proposed deal may be constructed to meet its legal requirement, but I do not believe it meets its intent. In light of the negative impact that the proposed location may have on our manufacturing and marine industry, I was one of two votes against the arena deal.

 

Aside from the economic benefits an arena or stadium may provide is the joy it brings to many people who strongly identify with a local team. Sports do bring people together and make for another social tie that strengthens the overall urban community. For that reason I believe some public investment can be rationalized, although I do not believe the correct balance was reached in the current proposal.

 

The debate in Seattle has always been one of “should the public subsidize such ventures and if so, how much?” The answer depends on what the public gains from their investment. And that has come down to measuring benefits in both dollars and in the almost incalculable resulting cultural or social value.

 

I once spoke offhandedly to a Sports Illustrated writer and said that studies have shown that the loss of a professional team showed no measurable economic loss to a city. When asked by the reporter about cultural value, in a state of hubris, I said close to zero.

 

I have since confessed many times over for that stupid remark, but it lives on tongues of sport enthusiasts when pointing out that professional sport teams do contribute to the sense of community and joy people share in a city that has one. http://billmoyers.com/groupthi...-are-the-real-issue/

 

I maintain that much of what we are talking about is unquantifiable. I'm glad we kept our team, and who is to say what the impact of that decision will be 15 years in the future? I'm also very happy we are not these guys:

 

http://www.seattletimes.com/sp...-is-the-only-option/

Hey, if you think the best use of $457M of state money is to give it to a couple of billionaires because they produced a proposal like every other stadium plan with similar conclusions that failed to materialize every other time, but you think THIS time things are gonna be different, then I guess all I can say is that I continue to see more and more reasons to be happy I no longer live in Wisconsin.  

See, you are not vested here. That makes a bit of difference. Also, you are using language stating that I am wrong for supporting the new arena with all the warts in the terms of the bill, but the value of keeping a team to a city is, historically, intangible. Who is to say who is right or wrong in this, CAPackFan95? Courts have tried for years to determine this in litigation, and there are proven tangible values, and intangible values that cannot be quantified regarding sports teams and their host cities.

 

Check out this pp 140-141 on litigation between the NYJ v. City of NY: http://www.americankinesiology..._Anderson_Miller.pdf

 

My understanding is that it is not specifically the sports team that drives revenue, visitors, new corporate enterprises, new residents to a state, but as a part of a larger contingent and plan, working together, it can be very good for the state and the city.

 

Please don't put words in my mouth, or exaggerate terms. I'm merely a fan, and a business man here who sees value in retaining/supporting our NBA team in Milwaukee. I'm hoping this works for everyone. I believe 21 Senators voted in favor of this deal feeling much the same.

 

BTW, I agree with you more than you might think on a number of points. The thing is, I see positives to this that I firmly believe will outweigh the negatives. 

Now that it appears the arena funding plan is a "go" maybe I should pack my bags and move out of the state.   This place is going to hell on a handcart.   There goes the neighborhood

That's perfect. 

It's a slippery slope.  A few more dumb kids here, a few more there *BOOM* you're Florida with snow, or smow.

You don't have to mow smow.

I don't think I will be able to sleep tonight because 250MM I mean 500MM fully loaded can't be spent on the DNR instead

The dumbing down of WI continues.  Dare I say

'murica?

Can't post anymore

I'm off to Walmart to buy pink flamingo lawn furniture and load up on a years supply of slim jims

And smow - lots o smow

And the hits just keep on coming.

I love this place. I'm going to search out some vinyl, maybe try to find some cool 45's. 

Try these two:   

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cK5pl6W2CFE

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcAzR2QyPCI

Whipped Cream at the studio.  Stellar. Will be bringing that home today after work. 

 

My my wife & I live in a small condo. Remodeled it last year. Needed some kind of music, but nothing too big in terms of sound & space, and price. Found this bitchin' Nivico Delmonico console from the 60's completely refurbished with bluetooth, turntable and am/fm stereo, and it arrived last night. Whipped Cream. 

Cool 45's you say?

 

Citizens of Milwaukee, you just got screwed!

 

http://fox6now.com/2015/07/16/...ark-east-land-for-1/

Well, I'm shocked.

 

Real estate mogul Jon Hammes, who has donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to Republican candidates and causes, is a prominent member of the investor group that owns Milwaukee’s NBA team.

 

Last week CNN reported that he also will serve as the Walker campaign’s national finance co-chairman. Days after that appointment, Walker’s Republican allies in the Wisconsin state Senate backed the governor’s proposal to spend public funds on a new arena for the Bucks.

 

Hammes serves on the board of a conservative think tank called the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute that says “competitive free markets, limited government, private initiative and personal responsibility are essential to our democratic way of life.”

 

But under Walker’s proposal, the government would redistribute taxpayer money to a project benefiting Hammes and other Bucks investors.

 

Hammes’ financial interest in Walker’s arena subsidy package may not be limited to just his stake in the team. According to local news reports, his real estate firm also also bought parcels of downtown land near the location of the proposed new arena.

C-O-L-L-U-S-I-O-N

So a campaign contributor may benefit from legislation and government funding? I regret to inform you every company and every lobbyist of every elected official is guilty.

THEY ALL DO IT! All parties, all officials, all companies where the $$$ is in 9 figures or more.

Make it illegal. I'm right there with you. Until then, stop pretending it's just "them"...

Who was pretending it was "them"?

 

 

Yeah, I wasn't pretending it was just them!

 

I'll be brief as this is possibly politically charged, but just look at presidential administrations, as an example.  Finance?  Former Goldman-Sachs exec.  FDA?  A Big Pharma.  Agriculture?  Monsanto, of course.

 

Yup, MC, I am right with ya.

Pretty sure I don't need to explain.

if I thought there would not be another suitor for the Bucks with all sorts of public $$$ to give, I'd say stare them down, dont give in until they pay for every nut and bolt. But we live in the 21st century, and there are deals that have to be struck.

The above report would implicate a crime- but it's not. And the perception is laid out that it's one side over another. But it's both.

Like Trophies explained far better than I have- in the absense of a better way, you have to agree to things that at the core you may no agree with to get a greater good. I imagine such is the way in Politics- there are probably a lot of good folks in public office who agree to things they dislike to get things they feel are more important.

Perhaps we all do that in one way or another...

Not Bucks related but yet it is.....why does Ziggy need state/city help to build the new Dump? Why are the taxpayers asked to kick in when he just got a pretty nice check from Roger?  Add that 226 mil to his already full lockbox and it should be enough to keep John and Jane Doe out of it.

 

 

Political conspiracy - all Bucks related

Alert the media

This team is so poised to make a step and be a real contender yet some folks want to continue to whine about politics

Hillarious

Maybe we should all move out of the state and root for the Lakers

Fine. Let those who care about the Bucks pay for that privilege by coughing up increased ticket prices for games in the new arena. Why drag taxpayers into it? 

If this were the Packers instead of the Bucks would you feel the same way?  I really doubt it