While I am opposed to any public funding of a new sports arena in Milwaukee or elsewhere in Wisconsin, this proposal seems to be a rational.
My understanding is that current revenues from NBA players will not change. Only the increased revenues will be applied to the new arena. With inflation this could be a significant contribution over the next 10 years.
The alternative if the arena is not built and the Bucks leave town, then there would be no increase in revenues and probably a substantial decrease.
Exactly. Bigger government is not always worse. Most stadiums have a mix of private/public money in the project because it benefits you and me (taxpayers) to have a steady stream of income coming in for years to come.
In 1993 San Antonio passed an increase in sales tax to pay for the Alamodome. $186 Million. When funding was complete, the tax was revoked. Did we ever get an NFL team? Nope. But it satisfied the Spurs enough to stay in San Antonio. and it has more than paid for itself in just Alamo Bowl benefits. 40 to 50 million dollars spent here in SA each time the Alamo Bowl is played.
****
There are no increased revenues. It is a diversion of current tax revenues from the general fund.
****
The alternative if the arena is not built and the Bucks leave town, then there would be no increase in revenues and probably a substantial decrease.
****
Almost correct. If the NBA forces the Bucks to move in the future, there would be no NBA incomes to tax in Wisconsin the future.
The new billionaire hedge fund NY-based owners of the Bucks are claiming an inability or preference to not pay for a new Milwaukee arena themselves. If the construction of a new Milwaukee arena is not in process by 2017, the NBA can choose to buy the Bucks from the current owners for $50 million more than their 2014 purchase price.
It remains to be seen if some other city would be stupid enough to pay for a venue with the enhanced amenities desired by the NBA.
There is nothing wrong with the Bradley Center. The building is in good condition. It remains one of the best facilities for viewing hockey in the entire country. It has adequate site lines for basketball. It has nice luxury boxes which the Bradley Center already has difficulty selling.
The NBA wants to be provided with venues that have additional shopping and restaurant opportunities to generate greater income opportunities for their team owners.
Why should taxpayers be forced to pay for posh, pimped-out palaces for NBA owners who have a poor economic model for generating income? If the NBA owners want to generate income for themselves, pay for the improvements themselves!!!