The Business Journal of Milwaukee recently ran a handful of articles regarding a revival in Milwaukee, an new arena being a part of that, and Oklahoma City (OKC) possibly being a roadmap for the whole process.
Oklahoma City has recently developed a river walk, completed a large hotel development, and built a stadium to attract an NBA team (the OKC Thunder). I guess we're supposed to imagine Milwaukee doesn't already have these, or that duplicating similar venues will lead to greater growth?
Or, maybe we can turn back the clock and reverse our history. Milwaukee is an older city (1846) than Oklahoma City (1889). Newer cities, like developing countries, are experiencing higher rates of growth than older cities. Add in the warmer climate and the heavy influence of Big Energy (mostly oil & natural gas) and you pretty much have to whole story behind OKC's growth. It's not because of some magical development plan based on the public funneling more money to private projects.
Oklahoma City actually has a larger share of its workforce employed by the government - 15.1% versus 13.2% in Milwaukee. Should Milwaukee expand government? I'd love to see the MMAC recommend that.
20.8% of Oklahoma City residents have no health insurance coverage, in Milwaukee, it's 15.6%. For that 5 or so percent of the population in OKC with no health care coverage, would they claim a better quality of life?
The rental vacancy rate on OKC 8.1%, in Milwaukee 3.5%. Median home value in OKC $131,100, in Milwaukee $133,800. Median rent in OKC $720, in Milwaukee $753. It appears the value (and occupancy) of the built infrastructure is holding it's own compared with OKC.
The article relies on quotes from Greg Marcus, CEO of Marcus Corporation, for the inside story on Oklahoma City. He developed a hotel there, so he knows. Marcus claims Kohl's Corporation may have moved to downtown Milwaukee if the quality of life had been better. Couldn't this excuse (quality of life), to some degree, plausibly be used every time one location is chosen over another? And, by doing what? What does he recommend that Milwaukee, imitating OKC, do to improve the quality of life?
Marcus elaborated, "If you don't invest in your product, you don't get customers. You need to have a product that is so compelling and invest in infrastructure."
Yet, these same omnipotent business leaders also don't want to have to pay the taxes that pay for improvements in infrastructure.
None of this means there isn't anything to learn from OKC. But sound economic development isn't just latching on to the latest rising star and reciting their most recent achievements as a best practices guide.
Showing posts with label MMAC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label MMAC. Show all posts
Monday, December 3, 2012
Saturday, November 3, 2012
Bradley Center Boosters Keep Pounding That Drum
Sheehy Plans Task Force To Study New Arena
Don Walker begins the article stating, "By mid-2014, the community needs to have a good idea of what role the private and public sectors will play in the construction of a new, multipurpose arena in Milwaukee."
We hear tales about the omnipotent private sector and free market...so efficient, so perfect.
Simultaneously, we're also told how the government is wasteful, full of slackers, and just can't do anything right.
Yet (for some reason) the inefficient, know-nothing government needs to play a major role in the planning and funding of private sector activities.
Enter sport stadiums. These privately controlled initiatives are (supposedly) such game changers, job creators, catalysts, no-brainers. [They're not.] But, again, for some unexplainable reason, the inept public sector needs to invest heavily and absorb most of the risk.
Living wages, universal health care, pensions, unemployment insurance, Medicare, Social Security - that's just a bunch of welfare for moochers. But corporate welfare - such as the public sector picking up most of the tab to build teams new stadiums - is just good policy?
The question should be - why is the public sector involved, at all, in the financing of these private sector playgrounds? If Herb Kohl and the Bucks want a new stadium, go ahead and build one. But the public shouldn't have to shoulder most of the cost.
Where does such a corporate welfare policy end? This misguided corporate welfare is why we now must pay blackmail money to Harley-Davidson and Mercury Marine when they threaten to take jobs away.
If the public is now responsible for the cost of building private businesses, shouldn't the public have a greater say in the operation - the pay scales, the retirement plans, the health care options, the environmental footprint, etc.? If the public sector is a necessary partner in construction, financing, and maintaining the viability of a business, shouldn't they have a representative voice in the organization making sure the public is getting back a fair return on their investment?
For Further Reading:
Basket Case
Buck The System
Buck You
Economic Engine Or Albatross?
Is There Anything A Stadium Can't Solve?
Overblown Bradley Center Impacts
Stadium Swindle
Will Herb Kohl Blackmail Milwaukee?
Don Walker begins the article stating, "By mid-2014, the community needs to have a good idea of what role the private and public sectors will play in the construction of a new, multipurpose arena in Milwaukee."
We hear tales about the omnipotent private sector and free market...so efficient, so perfect.
Simultaneously, we're also told how the government is wasteful, full of slackers, and just can't do anything right.
Yet (for some reason) the inefficient, know-nothing government needs to play a major role in the planning and funding of private sector activities.
Enter sport stadiums. These privately controlled initiatives are (supposedly) such game changers, job creators, catalysts, no-brainers. [They're not.] But, again, for some unexplainable reason, the inept public sector needs to invest heavily and absorb most of the risk.
Living wages, universal health care, pensions, unemployment insurance, Medicare, Social Security - that's just a bunch of welfare for moochers. But corporate welfare - such as the public sector picking up most of the tab to build teams new stadiums - is just good policy?
The question should be - why is the public sector involved, at all, in the financing of these private sector playgrounds? If Herb Kohl and the Bucks want a new stadium, go ahead and build one. But the public shouldn't have to shoulder most of the cost.
Where does such a corporate welfare policy end? This misguided corporate welfare is why we now must pay blackmail money to Harley-Davidson and Mercury Marine when they threaten to take jobs away.
If the public is now responsible for the cost of building private businesses, shouldn't the public have a greater say in the operation - the pay scales, the retirement plans, the health care options, the environmental footprint, etc.? If the public sector is a necessary partner in construction, financing, and maintaining the viability of a business, shouldn't they have a representative voice in the organization making sure the public is getting back a fair return on their investment?
For Further Reading:
Basket Case
Buck The System
Buck You
Economic Engine Or Albatross?
Is There Anything A Stadium Can't Solve?
Overblown Bradley Center Impacts
Stadium Swindle
Will Herb Kohl Blackmail Milwaukee?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)