The Death Tax Deception
Kansas Shows Us What Could Happen If Republicans Win In 2016
NFL Gives Up Tax Breaks To Keep Its Secrets
NFL Voluntarily Ends Tax-Exempt Status
Why The NFL Decided To Start Paying Taxes
Oklahoma City Issues Statement On Legislative Proposal To Limits Cities' Authority To Regulate Oil & Gas Drilling
Most Baltimore Police Officers Live Outside The City
The Long, Painful And Repetitive History Of How Baltimore Became Baltimore
Police Killings Rise Slightly, Though Increased Focus May Suggest Otherwise
David Simon On Baltimore's Anguish
Showing posts with label Oklahoma City. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Oklahoma City. Show all posts
Sunday, May 10, 2015
Thursday, December 6, 2012
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?
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?
Monday, December 3, 2012
The Economic Trail Of Tears
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)