The Toys Go Winding Down

James Causey, of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, is the latest to jump on the 'Milwaukee must build the Bucks a new basketball stadium or else' bandwagon. He opines, The clock is winding down for the Bucks.

Local taxpayers should not expect Kohl to foot the entire bill for a new or renovated facility. No owner will take on such a task. But, remember, taxpayers didn't pay for the Bradley Center. The facility was a $90 million gift from the late philanthropist Jane Bradley Pettit. And although everyone groaned about the stadium tax — that we all still pay — most of us are glad we have Miller Park.

"Everybody was bitching about the tax, but the stadium is pretty, so everything is OK." That's not a justification for spending millions of taxpayers' dollars.

Plus, most of the taxpayers probably never even go to a Brewers game. The majority of residents paying the stadium tax most likely never attend a game.

The Bucks averaged 15,035 people per home game last year. The five counties paying the stadium tax have a combined population (as of 2012) of 1,761,778. That's less than 1% of the five-county population per game attending a game. If we assume no person in the five-county area saw more than 1 game over the course of last season, based on last years attendance, that would still be less than 35% of the five-county population that went to a Bucks' game. [(15,035 * 41 home games)/1,761,778]

The Milwaukee Brewers' attendance in 2013 was the lowest its been since 2006. Miller Park is a lovely stadium...it should be, it was  built in 2001. The primary reason for increased attendance was not the new stadium, it was fielding a competitive team. Hence, the Brewers are back to their losing ways and less people are showing up.

In 2013, the Bucks had the 4th worst attendance and the 13th worst record. If the public must fund stadiums, can we at least have a clawback provision which assures that teams spend a certain amount on payroll? If they don't, they need to repay the subsidy. If we have to fork over cash to fund a private operation, we need some assurances that we'll be getting a competitive team (or at least a team trying to be competitive) for our investment.

Causey concedes stadiums are a low priority, "Milwaukee has a number of problems more pressing than a new sports arena. Our schools could use more funding, poverty is a very real problem and some of our roads and streets have so many potholes that you have to play dodge ball with your car. These issues will still exist with or without a new Bucks facility."

Or we could take the money to address those real problems instead of spending it on a sport stadium.

Yet, we really need this stadium?

For Further Reading:
Buck The System
Buck You
Big League Confusion
Stadium Swindle
More Bradley Center Bull
The Time Is Now?
Is There Anything A Stadium Can't Solve?
The Legalized Bribery That Is Sports Subsidization
It's A Scandal! It's A Outrage!
Bradley Center Boosters Keep Pounding That Drum
Overblown Bradley Center Impacts

Wisconsin Reading

Tax Plans For Wisconsin Go From Bad To Worse
Herb Kohl Says New Arena Will Benefit More Than Team
Ron Kind Hits Scott Walker On Job Creation
Rail Plan Advances For Milwaukee-Twin Cities Route
Scott Walker Cutting Medicaid To Fund Tax Cuts For The Rich
Special-Interest Items In Budget Plan
Wisconsin Lags Behind Neighbors In Clean Energy
Wealthy Earners Would Save Most In $444 Million Tax Cut
Tax Cut Success Hinges On A Revived State Economy

It's A Scandal! It's A Outrage!

Following up on some earlier thoughts about Milwaukee's (well, really the MMAC's) fascination with Oklahoma City (OKC) and their new basketball stadium, partially funded by a 1 percent sales tax.

An additional 1% on the sales tax to pay for infrastructure and other civic investments is a worthy idea, used by OKC to finance some of their new projects. (Taxpayers have already voted in favor of such a tax to support our parks.) But, is a basketball arena the first priority of such spending? Considering transportation, water, sewer, education, health care, and a host of other more immediate needs, is a sport venue the crucial link to fostering explosive growth?

What we have here is a self-interested cabal throwing everything they can think of at taxpayers hoping something finally persuades them into thinking that subsidizing a sport arena is a great investment (again).

Sports are fun, stadiums are economic catalysts, Herb Kohl is a good guy, we need the Bucks to be a "big league" city, etc. Now they're surveying the country, identifying the most recently completed basketball stadiums, and if that city or region is experiencing growth, abracadabra - the stadium is a defining element of that growth, and yet another reason why Milwaukee should get on this bandwagon.

OKC is growing ... and they just built a basketball stadium ... ergo, Milwaukee needs to get with the program if they want to experience growth. Nevermind our lack of an advanced rail system (when compared with other cities), shrinking bus routes, continual cuts to our parks, crumbling bridges and roads, declining schools, to name a few. For the majority of residents (businesses and individuals), these needs far outweigh a sport stadium.

For Further Reading: 
Are Basketball Arenas Catalysts Of Economic Development?
As Stadiums Vanish, Their Debt Lives On
Basket Case 
Buck The System 
Buck You 
City Lays Off Workers While Giving Millions To Pro Hockey Team
Economic Engine Or Albatross? 
Economic Of Sports Facilities & Their Communities
5 Cities Financing Pro Stadium Boondoggles
Growth Effects Of Sports Franchises, Stadia, And Arenas
Is There Anything A Stadium Can't Solve? 
NBA Arenas Lousy For Local Economies
Overblown Bradley Center Impacts 
Professional Sports As Catalysts For Metropolitan Economic Development
Selig Defends Taxpayer Subsidies For Stadiums
Should Cities Pay For Sports Facilities
Stadiums Don't Bolster Local Economies
Stadium Swindle
Will Herb Kohl Blackmail Milwaukee?

More Bradley Center Bull

The Journal Sentinel has run yet another editorial pushing for a new basketball stadium. Yes, in the wake of a recession second only to the Great Depression, the thing we need most, right now, is a new sport stadium.

Even the Journal Sentinel's own Don Walker previously wondered how Bradley Center officials and boosters can have it both ways - the arena is uncompetitive and doesn't generate sufficient revenues, yet it is also is a huge economic driver for the region.

The editorial uses Miller Park as an example (to highlight the often repeated stadium subsidy threat), "Without a new Miller Park, the Brewers would not be in Milwaukee today. Now, with new ownership and a new stadium, the team brings in more than 3 million fans a year." The impressive sounding 3 million attendees (closer to 2.8 million, ranking 11th in MLB for 2012, down from 7th place in 2011) doesn't seem as impressive when you express it as 81 games with roughly 35,000 attendees per game (in a stadium that holds just under 42,000; a 17% vacancy rate).

And, so what? If the Brewers weren't in Milwaukee, we wouldn't have a baseball team. That's it. No baseball team - boo hoo! There isn't a single economic indicator the boosters can point to which shows Miller Park has had a positive economic effect on anything but the owners' and players' wallets.

Yet, without any evidence, without anything to back up the claim, the editorial gushes, "A new arena could spark economic development downtown, especially in the Park East corridor."

The editorial even eludes to the substitution effect (consumers spending at one place rather than another), "The Bucks need to have a plan in place to construct a new state-of-the-art facility by 2015 - a new arena that would be a year-round draw for downtown Milwaukee." The new stadium will end up being a draw from non-subsidized establishments, venues, and other entertainment options. Sure, more people may attend games for the first few years of the new stadium, but this will be due to the decreased patronage at other local establishments. It would be nice if the Journal would explain why we should be picking stadiums as winners over other restaurants, bars, and entertainment options.

The editorial went on to state, "[Herb] Kohl will not bear the entire cost of a new facility, and he shouldn't." A most perplexing line. The whole consideration of a new stadium is for the primary purpose of housing the Bucks basketball team - Herb Kohl's team! I would love for the Journal Sentinel to elaborate as to why the public needs to fund private enterprise. Just because the public is allowed to purchase tickets to an event at an establishment, that doesn't really make it a "public" facility (actually a state-owned building operated by a quasi-private board). [The discussion of whether or not to have a public arena - for concerts and collegiate sporting events is an entirely different discussion.]

Obviously unable to see the contradiction in their own thought, the Journal continues on, "Newer NBA facilities are self-sustaining and can make money even when the teams are not playing." If these are such sure-fire, game-changing, no-brainers, why does the public have to be involved at all? Yet another point where the logic of stadium subsidization falls apart.

They close with, "And so the clock is winding down on the Bucks. It's time for the city and business leaders to pull up and try a game-winning shot." Yes, when the evidence and data contradict your premise, simply use a hackneyed sports cliche to sell that sow's ear as if it were a silk purse.

Will Herb Kohl Blackmail Milwaukee?

Check out Bruce Murphy's expansive article on the Bradley Center stadium subsidization saga unfolding before our eyes.

For Further Reading:
Buck The System 
Is There Anything A Stadium Can't Solve?
Overblown Bradley Center Impacts
Stadium Swindle
The Time Is Now?

Buck The System

According to the Journal Sentinel, Business leaders begin effort to help Bucks, Bradley Center.

"Last week, a small group of influential business leaders and the MMAC began talking in earnest about a more modest campaign to provide support for the Bradley Center and its biggest and most important tenant, the Milwaukee Bucks."

The article informs, "The group is in the process of finding ways to encourage MMAC members to look for sponsorship opportunities at the Bradley Center or buying tickets or suites at Bucks' games." The cynical side of me thinks this is just PR talk and they're merely setting the stage for asking the public to help fund a new stadium or for Bradley Center improvements.

Ted Kellner, a Bradley Center board of directors member, equates (wrongly) that MMAC "help" directly led to the Brewers to their recent success. MMAC pushed for Miller Park, it was built, and the Brewers made the playoffs.

[Funny, but aren't the business folks the ones always claiming throwing money at something doesn't solve anything. When it comes to schools, poverty, etc., more money is a waste in their opinion. But, it seems, when it's public money financing their own private playgrounds (stadium, convention center, etc.), more money equals success.]

The major reasons for the Brewers' success is a great minor league system, good scouting, and Attanasio's $90 million payroll. If new stadiums were the answer, every city would be a winner. Since 2000, more than 30 teams have new stadiums. Yet, they're not all winners.

Herb Kohl, owner of the Bucks, is the third richest member of the senate and worth hundreds of millions of dollars. It really puzzles me that we subsidize millionaire sports team owners. They are millionaires and it's their business. Let them pay for it!