RealGM

This thing will live or die with the State GOP and Walker. I believe that at the end of the day, the Milwaukee crew will figure out some way to local tax or divert a tax to create a giant "entertainment district" in the Park East. But that according the State law, even if the tax is local, the tax concept will need to be approved by the State.

The best way to attack a new building is to make it about more than just the Bucks, but Marquette, concerts, shows, hockey, etc. Keep the BC, the Bucks leave, Marquette builds their own building, Admirals leave because they can't sustain a building twice as big as they need, fewer shows come because the place is a dump.

Pretty simple domino effect, frankly. It's not, "Can the city survive without the Bucks?" It's "Can the city survive if the Bucks leave and take everything else with them?"

KeyRabbit wrote:

InsideOut wrote:I'm not missing the point...I just don't agree with it. I don't feel the bucks making extra money NOW helps them NOW. I think others feel that way as well. Would the extra money help if he had a new owner...yes, if he wasn't as dumb as Kohl. So my support is conditional and I think that is fair. Show me a guy that can build a winner and I'll give you my money. Until then I feel any money I give them will be wasted so I won't give it to them. I don't believe in throwing good money after bad. If an owner thinks that is unfair then I say tough. When you stink for like 23 of the past 25 years you have lost the ability to say trust me that I will put the money to good work.

You are, but it is not relevant to your analysis. You are saying that a team is only entitled to a new arena if they are good or have an owner that knows what to do with the money earned. I'm saying that you have no guarantee that your money won't be wasted anyway. So the focus should be on what a new arena could do for the city and the team in any case. Having said that, two decades of inconsistency and bad decisions will definitely skew people's opinions. I want the NBA in MKE, so I hope it's not skewed away from the real issues about what an arena could do.

I understand my money might be wasted anyway. Think of it like this. I won't give my money to the current Bucks because 25 years of history shows my money will be wasted. Now if we get a new owner and he blows the team up and collects top 5 picks I will feel my money now has less of a chance of being wasted so I'll pay up. Could it still be a waste, yup…but at least it won’t be a sure waste.

So now let’s focus on your other point of what a new arena could do for the city. I say it does next to nothing. Well it maybe gets a few curios fans the first year but that is it. As others have mentioned, they will watch a bad Brewers team because you can tailgate and hang out on a warm day. However, they aren't coming to see a bad Bucks team no matter where they play. You aren't tailgating at the Bucks game and you aren't getting a tan while relaxing on a warm day. All you are left with is watching an irrelevant team play an irrelevant game. Make the Bucks relevant and they'll show up at either a new arena or the old BC.

What do you see a new arena doing for Milwaukee if the Bucks continue to be irrelevant. What is the draw of the Bucks stinking in a new arena vs. stinking in the current BC? I've been coming to Milwaukee for close to 50 years and never one did I come because of a building. I came to watch a team.

In 2008 the city of Milwaukee voted "yes" to a referendum to add a 0.5% sales tax to go towards public transportation and the parks system. It was passed by several percentage points. Ultimately the state (for whatever reason) rejected it. The point is, I don't think the city of Milwaukee is against spending a few dollar bills a year to support something that is important to the city.

MickeyDavis wrote:IF there is a talk about a sales tax increase (such as for Miller Park) then it is a state issue as they will have to approve. If they want to limit it to Milwaukee County only they could go the referendum route as the Pack did but I don't think that will fly at all.

There is less than zero chance this tax would go further than Milwaukee county.

My mention of the cost of family attendance in my mind had nothing to do with tickets being too expensive. I was saying that the expense (whatever it is) is hard to accept if the chances are the evening will disappoint.

Right now our minimally-talented, highly-erratic team will more often than not leave most kids playing with their digital toys. Both wins and closely-contested games are fun -- but it seems the Bucks embarrass themselves more often than they do the first two.

That's why I think an improved Bucks team that is regularly expected to finish 4-to-7 in the playoffs can have a lot more entertainment value. That's not contending (and thus it's not enough longterm) but it is enough to slowly turn the battleship around.

Milwaukee will adopt and enjoy the Bucks, IMO, if the story is positive -- trending (if only gradually) upward.

It's slightly like the relative who is in and out of drug rehab. You start out being heartened by the constructive steps, but as in the case of the Bucks, if you see the continuous pattern of good/bad/good/bad/etc it's hard not to lose hope. To perhaps sever ties.

The Bucks have had so many failures, fueled by so many mistakes, that they have no legitimate right to ask for fan loyalty.

That can be changed. But not with words alone or Buckian baby steps.

paulpressey25 wrote:This thing will live or die with the State GOP and Walker. I believe that at the end of the day, the Milwaukee crew will figure out some way to local tax or divert a tax to create a giant "entertainment district" in the Park East. But that according the State law, even if the tax is local, the tax concept will need to be approved by the State.

They will not do anything without a referendum, this will be a city of Milwaukee thing or at most Milwaukee county....I don't believe they will succeed including Milwaukee county. I do not believe Oklahoma City or Orlando had their Gov. involved in the process......I know California's Gov. is not involved in the Sacramento plans either.

In this economy, tax dollars going to build an arena mainly thought to be for the Bucks has almost zero percent of actually happening. Hell, the referendum to fix up Lambeau Field years ago and before the economy took a dump barely passed, and that's for the beloved Packers.

Not only would the public as a whole be against tax dollars going for a new arena, i can't envision politicians sticking their necks out for something a near lock to be unpopular. Even if Kohl sold the team to someone local, i don't see there being an appetite among politicians to fight for a new arena during these bad economic times. It would be toxic politically.

MickeyDavis wrote:http://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/news/2012/11/30/slideshow-what-oklahoma-city-built.html

Bumping this up. I can't read the article but as the slideshow shows, there is a LOT that a tax CAN do for a downtown revitalization, and an arena is only a piece of the big picture. While there is a Bucks component, there is also a "let's have pride in our city" component.

Would we want to push for this now, or wait 30 years to do a revitalization and try to lure back the businesses that by then will have left?

Bumping this back up because there are a ton of interviews on 620 about this.

Tim Sheehy

http://media2.620wtmj.com/WAN/113012_sheehy.mp3

Alderman Mike Murphy

http://media2.620wtmj.com/WAN/113012_murphy.mp3

OKC Mayor Mick Cornett

http://media2.620wtmj.com/WAN/113012_cornett.mp3

From Milwaukee Theater abortion fame Frank Gimbel

http://media2.620wtmj.com/WAN/113012_gimbel.mp3

Saw on twitter that Chris Abele was on discussing this today as well but they haven't posted the interview yet. I haven't listened to any of these yet either so if you ask for what was said I won't say anything or I could lie to you and make something up.

Thanks for the links:

Sheehy:
Leaders are going to Oklahoma City and have made several visits
OKC is a vision for a community that was built around assets not yet in place
Milwaukee has some assets in place but they require improvements, need to help with public museums as well as multi-purpose arena
What do we want Milwaukee to look like in 2020?
Time is of the essence
Ultimately a community decision

Murphy:
OKC approved its tax by referendum
An advisory referendum for tax in Milwaukee would be unfavorable
Estimates 86% of people would oppose tax based on Milwaukee Business Journal informal poll
He explicitly mentions a facility for the Bucks ONLY
Tax dollars in the state are too limited
Gave an example of Sacramento, the other side of the spectrum from OKC, where they lost necessary jobs like police, and because of that, the citizens didn't approve an arena tax referendum
There may be other options, like funding development with foreign investments

Cornett:
Tax was initially opposed in OKC, but now nobody would admit to voting against it because of the improvements/pride
Quality of life is biggest economic driver; says EVERYTHING changed with tax initiative
Taxes go away after certain amount of time, so they continually renew via vote
Every city needs to invest in itself
Life in OKC 20 years ago was worse than Milwaukee is now
Milwaukee still has a lot going for it, but OKC has lots of momentum in terms of development
OKC used to model itself after Milwaukee, now perhaps vise versa

Gimbel:
Wisconsin Center District has taxing authority that covers food/beverage, hotels, rental cars
This gains $25mil in revenue annually
Private sector can't do it alone, public would be needed for arena development
New or expanded convention center should be part of any proposal

I think these articles are selling Milwaukee a little short by comparing us to Oklahoma City. This isn't to belittle OKC (it's a great up and coming American city) but downtown Milwaukee is leagues ahead of what downtown OKC was before the improvements. We simply need a new basketball arena, a convention center expansion, something to be done with Grand Ave, and the economy to improve. People here forget how much downtown Milwaukee has improved in the past 10 years.

Abele interview

http://media2.620wtmj.com/WAN/120312_abele.mp3

Shinyhubcaps wrote:Thanks for the links:


Gimbel:
New or expanded convention center should be part of any proposal

No f'n way. Keep GImbel's paws out of any financing plan. Yes some WCD money should be used but first get rid of Gimbel. He should have no part on any of this.

I suggest everyone listen to the Abele interview.

Can we also build Kevin Durant? Missing one minor piece to this puzzle...

What's going on with Barrett's trolley project? I will predict if that thing actually gets the green light, it will be the nail in the coffin for the Bucks. No way there's enough money for a new stadium if that trolley soaks up what little tax money is available.

Deadspin graphic on stadium financing trends

http://deadspin.com/5964116/animated-infographic-watch-as-americas-stadiums-pile-up-on-the-backs-of-taxpayers