Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reporter Don Walker’s obsession with where to build a new Bucks arena is everlasting, but sometimes there’s actual news to be covered on the “Where do we put the arena that we don’t know how to pay for?” front. For example, this:
In an interview with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, interim Chancellor Mark Mone said building a new arena on the site would not just displace the men’s basketball program, but disrupt other university programming planned over the 10-year agreement to rebrand the arena.
“The larger reason for us to be there is really about more visibility and our brand image and making a statement,” Mone said. “We are not just the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee, but the University of Wisconsin for Milwaukee.
“We want this to be a win-win for the community. We just don’t want to be displaced.”
So, basically, UW-Milwaukee doesn’t want to be evicted from its old arena to make way for a new Bucks arena. Whether this will hold any sway with lawmakers deciding on where (and whether — please, let someone remember that it’s also whether) to build a new Bucks arena, who knows, but it’s another small fly in a very, very large pool of ointment.
The UWM thing is B.S. Frank Gimbel, who manages the taxing district that the Arena is under, basically gave UWM rights to the arena (which, combined with the convention center and Milwaukee Theater, receive ~$25M/yr in tourist taxes) less than a year ago so that he’d have political cover when trying to keep the Arena from being torn down.
A local arena opposition resident should call out both the writer Don Walker and paper for pressuring the residents to accept this fallacy of public arena for the Privately owned Bucks
“Fallacy”, huh?
What exactly about this is a fallacy? That the team will move if no new arena is built? That when NBA games happen, local bars & restaurants tend to generate economic activity that wouldn’t have happened otherwise? That localities that have offered economic incentives (low taxes, tax rebates, discounted property, etc.) to large private businesses have tended to grow and thrive over the last five decades or so, when compared to other localities of similar size and economic levels? Just curious which one.
Ben: All of those, yeah. Especially the last one.
I’ve been to Milwaukee several times and always had a great time–fun city with a great spirit. The Milwaukee Bucks did not seem to have a direct or indirect impact on the good time had.
Whatever you think about government subsidies, most people tend to believe there should be a measurable result. Spending that level of money on a basketball team that hasn’t excited many in 40 years so that there are a few more bars and restaurants (the first does not seem to be lacking in other parts of Milwaukee) doesn’t really pass any kind of cost-benefit analysis.
I’d say if you want to support a thriving nightlife scene, subsidizing college students would seem to have a bigger economic impact than blowing money on a new basketball arena.
C’mon, Neil. Even you have admitted that the substitution theory isn’t 100%.
Insert “some” before “local” in your earlier post, and I won’t debate it.
The “tend to” was intended to cover that.
Ben,
None of that matters. You want incentives that make sense, make incentives for farmers/loggers/miners. Those are the real sources of wealth, the people literally pulling money out of the ground.
A step above that you have businesses exporting goods and services overseas.
A basketball team, that is mostly just shuffling money around between different people in your area, not worth subsidizing at all. Communities racing to the bottom to steal business from each other is a path to the collapse of local quality of life. I cannot believe you think it is a good idea?
You seem to have a brain, think a bit. Or is your livelihood dependent on this type of boondoggle?
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” -Upton Sinclair
Too long for me to read that. Try a shorter version and I’ll respond.
The thing is, in Milwaukee, the Bucks do not drive restaurants and sports bars in the city. The Packers (and to a lesser extent the Brewers and Wisconsin) do. If the Bucks were to move tomorrow, the bar industry would keep on trucking. It may, without a better arena, impact touring acts, but again, we have Summerfest (which actually PAYS the city for its land use) that attracts big names and talent consistently throughout the summer months.
While I think the argument about attracting entertainment and tourist dollars through sports is oversold, even if you accept that at face value, it is clear that the Bucks are not the main attraction for those dollars and that sufficient reason to spend those dollars would continue apace regardless.