Thursday, June 4, 2015

I'm In Favor of the New Arena

I'm a conservative, especially with other people's money. I was in favor of Miller Park and I'm in favor of the new Bucks arena. I hope this won't get me kicked out of the conservative social circles.

My reasons are personal more than fiscal, which might make me a liberal or progressive. I'm old enough to remember when the Milwaukee Braves left for Atlanta. At the time I was a huge baseball fan, in fact you might have called me a fanatic.

There was a void during the non baseball years. Now maybe the void was in my mind, but I Iistened as people talked and you could hear it in their conversations. It left an impression on me. This void was not immediately filled by the 1970 Milwaukee Brewers. It took time for the city to embrace the new team and forget the pain of losing the Braves.

I think the same will happen if the Bucks leave. Think about this years NBA draft. We have UW standouts Frank Kaminsky and Sam Dekker, Hamilton High School and UCLA phenom Kevin Looney and J.P. Tokoto from Menomonee Falls High School and North Carolina. It's possible that two or three of these young stars could end up being a Milwaukee Buck and probable that all four will get to play in the new arena. That adds an added level of passion to something that often get nominal interest if any from people.

I'd imagine that the excitement level of area hoops players would drop quite a bit if there were no Milwaukee Bucks. Now the question arises should we invest $150 million to feed this dream scenario?

There are many needs in the state and Milwaukee and these funds could help. The problem with that line of thinking is that the money won't be in the cookie jar if it weren't used to keep the Bucks.

If the "it's cheaper to keep her" is true, this is a good investment.

7 comments:

Cindy K. said...

Well, my friend, you were bound to be wrong eventually. ;)

yoSAMite said...

I prefer the word "unique". At least you're still my friend.

Anonymous said...

uh... please think a little deeper about this. It's not really 'cheaper' at all, and the troubling lack of transparency should be a clue.

BTW, why was a true community ownership model - like the Packers - never on the table. Herbie could have easily suggested that. But he and his buddy Bud - "what steroids, I don't see any steroids" don't think that way

And how about including a morals clause in the agreement. You know, like if one of Bucks or the owners misbehaves, or the entire sport is compromised by scandal (REF. MLB, FIFA, NFL, so the NBA is due) taxpayers aren't being FORCED TO SUBSIDIZE REPUGNANT BEHAVIOR.

You really want to be at the beck and call of Jay Silver? Boy, you sure are giving a way alot of integrity to watch grown men bounce inflated pieces of rubber.

yoSAMite said...

I don't give nor sell any of my integrity. Nor do I watch much bouncing of the inflated pieces of rubber.

Linda LaFianza said...

FWIW, it is a far superior deal than the Bulls stadium and Comisky Park in Chicago. I like that the state's contribution is capped. That really keeps things under control.

Anonymous said...

Why don't we allow the hidden hand of the market decide whether the Bucks should stay in Milwaukee. If enough fans want to pay to see the games, the team will be profitable enough to stay. That's real conservatism.

yoSAMite said...

Thank you for the conservative educational moment Anonymous. I'm sure Adam Smith would be very proud of you.