Representatives of the Milwaukee Bucks, aides to Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, top state legislative leaders, and Milwaukee city and county leaders all got together yesterday to talk about how the heck to pay for a new $500 million arena that none of them actually want to pay for, and … well, it was a closed-door meeting, so nobody knows what was discussed. But according to all who were there, they had a great old time filling out the forms and playing with the pencils:
“It was a good give and take,” Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett said. “We’re pleased.”…
Barrett, [Milwaukee County Executive Chris] Abele, Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester), Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R-Juneau) and Bucks President Peter Feigin all described Wednesday’s talks as positive. …
“I look for as many ways to get to yes and rule out as few options as possible,” Abele told reporters after the meeting. “I want all the parties to be as happy as they can be. I want to get the Bucks here. And as everybody said, we want to be responsible to the tax dollars.”
“I think everyone in that room is operating in good faith,” Barrett said. “They all recognize that we have a responsibility to the taxpayers…and we all share the same goal, which is to make sure that we have the Bucks stay.”
Reading between the lines, then, everyone agreed that funding a Bucks arena was why they were in the room together, and managed not to accuse each other of promoting gun violence or anything. And will meet again today to see if anyone actually has any bright ideas for how to pay for the Bucks owners’ new toy. Whether you take that as a sign of progress or of back-room collusion probably depends on how happy you would be to see them adopt some Rube Goldberg financing device that would spend now, figure out how to pay for it later, because that sure seems like where this thing is headed.
I am starting to get optimistic about this arena getting built.
The state controls the Wisconsin Center District (WCD), which is the organization that levies the tourist tax (hotels, restaurants, etc.) in downtown Milwaukee. The tourist tax draws about $25 million/year, of which about $6-8 million/year is used to cover the money-losing operations of the MECCA Arena (Bucks’ arena that pre-dated the CURRENT arena), Milwaukee Theatre (scarcely used 4,000 seat theater that has lost almost all of its business to private venues in the area) and Wisconsin Center (occasionally used convention center). My old Jackie Robinson Middle School classmate (who used to attend Bucks games with me c. 1990) Teig Whaley-Smith — now the Director of the Department of Administrative Services for Milwaukee County — reportedly has been trying to get the WCD under the new Arena Authority, and I am hopeful that the result of this summit will be a deal to do so.
As best I can tell, if the MECCA Arena and Milwaukee Theatre are sold, given away or torn down, then the tourist tax would draw about $6-8 million/year more than needed. Neil can check my math if I’m wrong, but I believe that $6 million/year would pay off about $100 million in construction debt. That money, plus the owners’ contribution, plus some version of the “jock tax” (income taxes from Bucks employees being kicked back to pay off arena construction bonds) should be enough to get this thing built.
Utterly sickening. Taxpayers are going to be on the hook for a stupid arena that doesn’t need to be built & nobody has the balls to tell the Bucks “no”. Politicians suck.
Arthur Dent: “Why does it have to be built?”
Construction Foreman: “Mr. Dent, you’ve got to build bypasses…”
Did anyone get sent to the Group W Bench?
State Bucks Arena Plan Fleeces Milwaukee
http://urbanmilwaukee.com/2015/04/23/murphys-law-state-bucks-arena-plan-fleeces-milwaukee/
Ben,
I don’t think anyone doubts it will be built. The doubt is whether the complete fictions used to explain how it will be paid for will work. The fact that you and others accept the logic of the “jock tax” as something special and different than just “taxes” is the issue. It is a shame that our politicians will fold so easily on this but will fight on mass transit–spending that actually does bring value to city/state GDP and citizens’ lives.
If you believe the core function of state and city government is to give the public NBA basketball to watch, this plan succeeds, but there is rarely any analysis of cost benefit of spending tax money . In previous discussions, the high tax revenue of basketball players is used as a justification for public support of the NBA. Now that the tax revenue is going to support the basketball arena–what exactly is the benefit? A 41-41 team every 3-4 years?
GDub,
I put “jock tax” in quotes for a reason and I explained what it is. Did you read what I wrote, or just skim for pre-determined words and phrases, then figuratively copy-and-paste whatever talking point you’d previously decided on in response? If it’s the latter, then keep at it. The New York Times Op-Ed page is always looking for new “talent”.
The Jock Tax is a bunch of bullshit.
Well, that’s not very nice to say Ben.
What I would say is that Milwaukee can pay for the arena at dear cost to other city and county priorities. Saying you are “diverting” a certain type or sector of taxes to “pay for” something is a typical politician’s way of avoiding obvious implications.
So I wouldn’t even put it in quotes. It is more honest to say that taxes collected from a future Milwaukee arena will be used to pay for the arena instead of something else. And once that happens, a major justification for supporting the presence of sports teams–extra tax revenue–complete disappears, particularly since other “revenue streams” would be needed to pay the bills (and pay for costs previously associated with that money). Closing a couple buildings never pays off anything.
So I freely accept that you “explained” the jock tax, but also freely accept that you don’t allow or express the obvious implications of your policy choice.