Something very weird is going on in Wisconsin, where the Milwaukee Bucks plan was submitted to the legislature last week, just barely in time to be entered into budget talks, and since then … nothing. I mean, lots of public posturing and charts and stuff, but nothing in the way of hearings or actual motion on the bill, and the legislative session is supposed to wrap up on June 30. What’s the story, state senate budget committee chair Alberta Darling?
State Sen. Alberta Darling believes the proposed public-private funding deal is good for all of Wisconsin and remains optimistic that the deal will be approved, but said she’s not sure exactly how that’s going to happen.
“What’s the biggest obstacle right now?” [WISN 12 News reporter Kent] Wainscott asked.
“Well, it’s the issue of whether we should use public money,” Darling said.
A small detail!
Darling went on to hint that the holdup is still that some Senate Republicans don’t want to vote for the arena because it involves the government spending money, and are hoping Milwaukee Democrats will vote for it instead, but those folks won’t want to vote for the rest of the budget, so maybe the arena will have to be a separate bill. Possibly:
“I’m not saying which way we’ll go. I don’t think we’ve decided that. But it’s really important that we get ourselves together and go forward,” Darling said.
The joint budget committee is set to reconvene next Wednesday, at which point they will presumably consider a bill to get themselves together and go forward.
This is to replace a 27 year-old arena used by a team owned by hedge fund investors. I can’t believe anyone is actually considering using public funds to build them a new one.
Those quotes sound like they came directly from one of the DJ-3000’s three distinct variety of inane chatter. (Simpsons)
The original Tom: I have a 10 year-old Lexus that runs beautifully and that I love driving. In the early 80’s my dad had a Pontiac Fury that should have been returned to the dealer or sent to a junkyard within about a week of purchase.
The Bradley Center was a flawed building that probably should have been replaced after 7 years, not 27. At a Bucks game the season before last I was chatting with a friend who said that the first time she took a seat in the bowl she noticed that everything felt cramped and cheap.
I used to think that renovating the Bradley Center made sense, but it’s just a flawed design. It’s never going to have a majority of its seats face the court, it’s never going to have enough legroom, it’s never going to have an upper level free from railings and other obstructions. And the shape of the bowl is always going to cause audio problems. (The last major tour to come through was Bieber, and that was back when he had a clean rap sheet.)
Yes, the situation with tax money sucks. Nobody except the Bucks is demanding a new building, the Bucks owners are filthy rich, the Bucks may not actually have another city to move to if the arena doesn’t get built and the last thing the Milwaukee area needs right now is a greater tax burden. But the other side of the coin is that the new arena site has been a vacant eyesore for years, concerts have been staying away (possibly because Chicago is too close, but I think that the arena has a significant effect) and **the tax money is already being collected**. $203 million of the $250 million “public contribution” will come from bonds issued by the Wisconsin Center District. Even in a worst case scenario where the new arena doesn’t stimulate growth, the District will be able to re-route tax money that is used to prop up two redundant, outdated buildings (a 10,000 seat arena that the Bucks played in until 1988 and a 4,000 seat theater that almost never gets booked because Milwaukee has two 2,500 seat theaters that are better).
I do like your post, Tom, because it captures what the anti-arena people are all about: Haterism. You just don’t want someone else to get what they want. You aren’t saying, “this arena is a bad idea”. You are saying, “hedge fund investors should have to pay for it themselves.” It’s pure, naked haterism.
I am always open to learning new things and changing my opinion. (Case in point: my former opinion that a renovation is a better idea than replacing the Bradley Center.) If anyone has an argument why the MECCA and Milwaukee Theatre are more valuable than a new Bucks arena, or why developing the area north of the Bradley Center is a bad idea, or any other logical counter argument to the current arena plan, I’d be happy to hear it.
“$203 million of the $250 million ‘public contribution’ will come from bonds issued by the Wisconsin Center District.”
Not even close. Even if the District sells some of the other bonds as well, it’s at most $93 million in bonds that would come out of money currently going to the District. There’s no way to pay for a new Bucks arena just by tearing down the MECCA and Milwaukee Theatre and using the resulting savings.
Also, is “haterism” the new libertarian-conservative replacement term for “politics of envy”? It seems to serve the same purpose.
Neil,
All of those numbers are assuming that the District will continue to subsidize the MECCA and Theatre. Those buildings could be sold or razed if the numbers don’t pan out the way the pro-arena folks are hoping they will.
“Haterism” is my word for “smearing”. It’s where someone attacks the person rather than the argument.
Saying that the government shouldn’t be in the business of subsidizing billionaires isn’t attacking the person, though. You can disagree with it, but it’s as legitimate a policy perspective as “military/police and infrastructure are the only legitimate public expenses.”
Neil,
Sorry, I may have misunderstood your last argument.
The $93 million is the only amount that the District is on the hook for, if everything pans out.
The $55 million contribution “from the state” will almost certainly pan out because that is just a straight $4 million/year given from state to county. But if for whatever reason the state needs to cut expenditures or raise taxes, the state could have the District cover that $4 mil/yr.
The $55 million contribution “from county debt collections” is backstopped by the county, which essentially means that it’s backstopped by the District. If the state can’t collect those unpaid parking tickets and property taxes, then the state can deduct that from county aid. Again, though, it is almost certain that the money to cover any shortfalls would come from the District.
I believe what’s happening is that Milwaukee County Executive (which, in Milwaukee sort of means “Mayor+”) Chris Abele and his economic development director Teig Whaley-Smith (my former Bucks game buddy back when we went to Jackie Robinson Middle School) want to get rid of the MECCA and Theatre, but they don’t want to deal with the political fight that would entail at this time. I think that they are setting this deal up on shaky financial footing knowing that they’ll be able to sell the public on killing those two old buildings when the time is right.
As for the MECCA and Milwaukee Theatre, if they’re really such pointless money sucks, Milwaukee could always tear them down and spend the money on literally anything else other than the Bucks.
Neil,
Agreed on the point about subsidizing private businesses, to a point. And if Tom would’ve said, “we shouldn’t subsidize private businesses,” then I wouldn’t have reached for the H-word. But when someone brings up the Bucks’ owners’ wealth, it’s clear what they’re doing. They’re saying, “these guys are too rich to deserve a subsidy”. That’s haterism because it is picking at a person’s identity (wealth, race, gender, sexuality, mental illness, etc.) and saying that the person should be treated differently because of who they are.
Ben snuck in with that last post. I see your argument, but even if true, it comes down to “We’re wasting money on one arena, the only way to get it back is to waste it on another one.”
Neil,
Couldn’t agree more on tearing down the MECCA and Theatre and using the money for another purpose. (My personal recommendation would be “property tax relief”.) And, honestly, I’d be perfectly fine with that and I’ve advocated for it.
Unfortunately, tearing down the MECCA and Theatre without building a new arena is simply not a practical option. It would take a long, long time to change the political mood in Milwaukee to get to that point.
” You are saying, “hedge fund investors should have to pay for it themselves.” It’s pure, naked haterism.”
Or maybe he just meant “anybody who wants a new arena should pay for it themselves, especially in an industry awash in cash and where the owners are typified by wealthy hedge fund investors”? To say that “haterism” is at the core of “anti-arena people” is pure nonsense. Thinking “you really don’t need my help” is a long, long, long way from “picking at a person’s identity”.
Yeah.
It sucks that Milwaukee and Wisconsin struggle with revenues to provide basic services, and that the Bucks owners have more than enough resources to build their own arena but won’t spend them, and that tossing the owners a quarter billion dollars will do nothing but cause more problems for the vast majority of residents in the area.
But what about me?! Don’t you haters understand that limited government means that government must be limited to spending its precious resources on MY safety, MY well-being, MY sight lines, MY leg room, and assuring that MY seat properly conforms to the contours of MY *ss? And that government must allay MY anxiety over having to be forced to sit in a clearly inferior, non-Lexus-like atmosphere at the Bradley Center? What don’t you get?
I’ll explain it to you. It’s because…because…BECAUSE MY DAD’S PONTIAC, THAT WHY!
Higher education and human services? Those are for losers and “entrenched blowhards” (no hatin’ here, I assure you).
Haters.
I hate you.
^ correction – THAT’S WHY!
I hate corrections.
Ok Ben, good point. The wealth of the owners isn’t relevant. What is relevant is that this is a profitable business that can afford to pay its star employees tons of money; I don’t resent their tons of money, but I do resent that their workplaces are publicly finananced. I can’t speak to the inferiority of the Bucks stadium, but I can say that sports owners and the sports culture convinces fans that they need perfect stadiums because perfect stadium produce more revenue. I much prefer the run down college football stadium in Boulder than the generic NFL stadium in Denver because you are there to watch the game and the old stadium has more character, and a better atmosphere. Nonetheless, that is irrelevent, the relevant thing is that the Bucks basketball arena has little public benefit and should not be paid for with public money, especially as they already have one and especailly as the majority of the city are attending basketball games, and if more of them did that would not be a public good. Build courts and recreational facilities around the region, that would be a public good.
I am not a hater, Ben; but I do find the audcacity of billionares, or multi-millionares, to beg at the public coffers to build stadiums depressing, and their requests should be rejected.
Ben, Just as beauty is in the eye of beholders, often so is usefulness. Despite all the panning of the MKE’s 65-year-old Arena, it is now well-loved, and used, by UWM, which has put a ring on it and shared its name (UWM Panther Arena). UWM even got all protective and fought off attempts to demean or destroy its beloved. I have no skin in that issue. I’m just glad to see a happy partnership, especially one between a university and an old building. I say, let them canoodle in peace, like any other pair. And I like that the U has a greater presence downtown.
As for the Milwaukee Theatre, I had great times there seeing Leonard Cohen and Garrison Keillor (not at once). We were in the cheaper seats and still had great visibility, accoustics, etc. Again, all in this beholder’s eyes. I would like to see the theater more used. I just learned that part of the WCD plan is to link it with the convention center & arena. I’m never sure why there’s so much “hating” on the WCD. they pay their bills and do repairs from earned income (taxes only go to construction debt).
The Bradley Center is the one leaching on taxpayers ($10M since 2006); finagling an annual subsidy from the City since 2013, being $20M in debt despite getting a fully donated venue. That’s all because the Bucks get totally unsustainable revenue shares from the BC. That’s nothing to do with envy of Bucks owners. It’s been going on for years–even with Herb Kohl, that charming low-key philanthropist who built up a deep well of goodwill, building on his family’s brand of noblesse oblige. Kohl seems cut from a different cloth from the new owners (I’ll refrain from any descriptors). As a former PR professional, my suggestion to Herb Kohl would be to consider further burnishing his legacy by upping his gift to a new arena. His profit was $532M. Not taking issue with that. But he could help to relieve some of the pressure on his beloved Milwaukee in this deal. I say that not just for our benefit, but for his. Of course, he recently announced a huge gift for education. I know that Herb Kohl already works to make Milwaukee better. Maybe he and his buddy Bud Selig could help bail out this arena deal. I’m absolutely serious. It’s a drag these arenas now cost so much, but Jane Bradley reportedly got a thrill from her legacy donating the full amount for the BC. Kohl might get as much of thrill from bringing it all full circle, and leaving a little more available for other public needs…
Whether or not to build arena or stadium always seems to me like a false choice. Why isn’t the question ever, if a city has $250 million tax dollars to invest, which would provide the greatest public good (including incremental tax revenue): pro sports arena, state-of- the-art teaching hospital, mass transit, tech incubator?
Re: “Haterism”
1) Say it out loud. Pronounce it. Imagine reading it in a speech. Come on.
2) If someone is asking for government funding that isn’t provided pursuant to a statute or the normal course of business, it becomes relevant whether they actually need the funding or not.
3) Repeat 1
“You don’t think a profitable private enterprise should have their facilities paid for with tax dollars? You speak the language of haterism!”
I think the problem is that sports fan arguments are based on a theory that nearly all people really do care about pro sports, so nearly all people should have to pay for them.
In reality, the tax expenditures go towards paying for and/or subsidizing luxury seating that benefit only a few. Everyone admits that there is nothing really structurally wrong with the Bradley Center or nearly any of these other arenas (seat orientation? really?). And I’d say the overall numbers would suggest the Bucks aren’t nearly as big of a deal to people in Wisconsin as fans want to believe (and if the argument is, “they come when they win,” that only reinforces it.).
It is easy to get all nihilistic and say that this is the same as orchestras or fire trucks or street festivals–but its hard to imagine the owner of an orchestra selling the group at a huge profit and moving on after a large public expenditure made the orchestra more valuable. It is justified and right to question any private owner’s plans for public expenditures, to include hedge fund managers.
“I think the problem is that sports fan arguments are based on a theory that nearly all people really do care about pro sports, so nearly all people should have to pay for them.”
I think it’s more about expectations – sports leagues and complicit government entities have created an environment where it’s just expected that cities/counties/states subsidize local sports teams. The saddest part is that it’s all completely unnecessary. Teams have money, teams need a place to play, they’ll find/build places to play. Stadiums and arenas might not be the palaces they are today, but that’s okay. And they might not be in the same places they are today. That’s okay, too. Let leagues decide where to place teams based on what the market will bear.
I’m probably still just drunk from last night. But, I lol’ed at that headline.
Hilarious.
Offer to build the stadiums for a 20% equity stake in the teams. That’ll get ownership’s hands out of the public coffers without the “hating”.
I will concede there probably is a certain civic value for a community to have a championship team. Could the amount of government subsidies be tied to winning a championship, or at least, making the play-offs? After all, that is how owners judge the coaches. Isn’t it fair that the taxpayers judge the owners the same way?