Posted on 08/15/2015 9:07:50 AM PDT by conservativejoy
Walker = a not very bright lap dog. Nothing more.
ping
It was cheaper to keep the Bucks. It was a good decision based on the real factors involved:
—10+ million per year in taxes from players... which will inevitably go up as player contract increase.
—Fixed 15 million per year in maintenance of an unused facility
====”We’re still working on this estimate. We believe that if nothing is done, let’s just say nothing is done, the Bucks leave, where are we here. We estimate to just to be able to maintain for safety issues and basic maintenance, it will cost $100 million over the next 10 to 12 years,” Marotta said.==
state coffers would suffer the loss of an estimated $299 million in income tax collections over 20 years from the Bucks and visiting NBA players.
I think they did the same thing in Rochester ny
lemmee see...
walker and his team did the math..
not the new math, but real math..
and deterimined that this was a good deal for taxpayers..
the reporter and the lib socialist communist determined without anykind of proof whatsoever that...
walker is an a$$hole...
who do you believe???
the answer to this question will rip your very soul out...
who do you believe???
“Today, Wisconsin governor and presidential candidate Scott Walker signed a bill providing public financing for a new basketball arena in downtown Milwaukee. Walker has recently taken some heat on the campaign trail from fellow conservatives, who object to “taxpayer money” being used to finance arenas.
An ideological aversion to taxpayer money being used to finance sports arenas is fine, but the actual structure of the Milwaukee deal is far more complicated than its opponents are letting on. Just today, for instance, Michael Tanner writes that using “$250 million of Wisconsin taxpayers’ money” is “a quintessential example of crony capitalism,” citing the plan’s ties to a co-chair of Walker’s presidential campaign. I suppose six Democrats in the state senate and 17 in the state assembly who voted for the plan are concerned about rewarding Walker donors?
Rarely will one hear the actual details of the complicated plan, which have been woefully misrepresented in the national media so far. A large chunk of the arena will be paid for through a $2 per ticket user fee. Of the $2 per ticket fee, 50 cents will go to offset $80 million in bonds issued and paid for by the state. This portion of the fee is expected to provide around $500,000 per year toward paying off the bonds.
The rest of the bonds will be financed with state tax revenues, but there’s an important catch — the remaining $3.5 million per year the state will pay over the next two decades is more than offset by the annual income taxes the Milwaukee Bucks franchise pays the state. According to state records, the Bucks pay $6.5 million per year in state income taxes. Every NBA player who comes to Milwaukee to face the Bucks pays a portion of his income to Wisconsin. This isn’t expected revenue from future economic development — this is money already being paid to the state. Thus, “taxpayers” won’t be paying the state’s portion, the Bucks will be.
And with the NBA’s salary cap expected to explode next year, the Bucks’ contribution to the project will only increase. The Wisconsin Department of Revenue estimates conservatively that over the next 20 years, the Bucks franchise will add $300 million to the state’s coffers via income taxes. If the team were to leave the state — the threat that loomed over negotiations for a new arena — that money in the state budget would have to be made up somewhere. State taxpayers would likely feel the brunt of the shortfall in one way or another.
Another $80 million of the arena’s total costs will be financed by reducing the state’s annual aid to Milwaukee County. So rather than raising taxes to pay for the arena, the county’s contribution is being financed by a spending cut. And that cut will likely be offset by a plan to have the state take over the collection of funds owed by delinquent Milwaukee County taxpayers. Call it the “deadbeat tax.”
More aid will go to finance bonds issued by the local entertainment district, which will be partly paid for by a combination of the per ticket user fee and existing hotel-room, rental-car, and food-and-beverage taxes levied by the district.
The remaining $47 million will come from the creation of a “tax incremental financing district.” Such TIF districts are typically funded with revenues generated by the locality itself. In this case, the city’s contribution is a new parking structure.
It’s also worth pointing out that the Bucks’ current owners and their former owner are ponying up $250 million of their own money to pay for the arena — so it isn’t as if they aren’t also personally invested in the project. Scott Walker isn’t just handing them a gift.
If one is naturally inclined to oppose any kind of governmental involvement in the building of arenas, that’s fine, as long as equal scorn is heaped on less publicized building plans. Last year, the state approved an $82 million chemistry lab at the University of Wisconsin–La Crosse. That plan seems unlikely to make its way into any discussion of Scott Walker’s presidential campaign. Every politician who stays in office long enough will eventually vote for some sort of multi-million-dollar construction project. Many of those projects won’t have nearly the economic impact of a new downtown arena that keeps an NBA franchise in town.
It’s much easier to accuse Walker of spending “$250 million in taxpayer money” than it is to explain the plan’s complicated funding mechanisms. And those mechanisms are certainly fair game for people who object to any sort of governmental aid whatsoever for the construction of sports arenas. But the fact is that without the new arena, Wisconsin taxpayers would be far worse off — and the Bucks wouldn’t be around to pick up any part of the tab.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/422452/scott-walker-milwaukee-bucks-arena-deal
A lot of states don’t OWN their basketball venues.
Funds to build the Center were donated as a gift to the State of Wisconsin by philanthropists, Jane Bradley Pettit and Lloyd Pettit, in memory of Jane’s late father, Harry Lynde Bradley of the Allen-Bradley company.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMO_Harris_Bradley_Center
In Washington we had the Seattle King Dome. They had just finished putting a new and very expensive roof on it. It was a well used multipurpose facility that while I am sure it was a money loser was appropriate for the local climate and we went to numerous events there over the years.
The local professional sports teams decided they wanted a new stadium, but they each wanted one that was dedicated to their particular sport. So with a price tag of over a billion dollars they tore down the King Dome and replaced it with two new stadiums right next to each other. It was a colossal waste of tax payer dollars and a very good example of government waste and largesse to undeserving fat cats.
Shows you why a do-nothing Senator job is so much more easier than being a Governor.
Governor=Responsibility
Senator=None
After exhaustive studies have proven otherwise, from the article:
“If Scott Walker or any other politician wants to argue for a taxpayer stadium, he can point to civic pride, prestige, or other non-tangible benefits. But if he reads the stack of studies from every side of the political spectrum, he cannot in good conscience argue that it will create an economic benefit.”
He either believes this statement or he doesn't.
I don't like the implications of either possibility.
Cruz - 2016
If the Bucks had left leaving a $15+ million hole in yearly tax revenues Plus having to maintain an obsolete stadium at $ 10 million per year Walker would have been blamed for losing jobs and tax revenue.
Truth and nothing but the TRUTH!
Thanks.
All cities are extremely liberal. Even Mormon Salt Lake City, Utah voted for Omugabe.
In politics one size never fits all, and it's possible for a politician to respect that. The majority of city slickers want higher taxes and more government while country people want lower taxes and less government. An unbeatable politician is a Democrat to the city slickers and a Republican to everyone else. Here Walker is giving the city slicker Democrats what they want and making them pay for it. The state is only chipping in 1/3rd, with the city and their county taxpayers paying the rest.
The studies from the article are pretty persuasive , if you click on the link.
Why should taxpayers be forced to pay the extortion demands of sports teams?
Your usual bullshit post.
‘Exhaustive studies’ - all generalities not addressing the specific economics of this situation.
It was very clear that the NBA required a newer facility for the league or the team would be transferred.
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/10818521/nba-buy-milwaukee-bucks-no-arena-construction-2017
We know precisely what the payers pay in taxes, we know precisely what it would cost to maintain an empty Bradley center.
This decision gained support of the public based on the specific factors involved, including me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.