In 1988 the Bradley Center was constructed, paid for by an $80M gift by the Jane Bradley-Petit in honor of her father, co-founder of Allen-Bradley. Currently home to the Milwaukee Bucks (NBA), Marquette Golden Eagles (NCAA), Milwaukee Admirals (IHL), and Milwaukee Iron (AF2).
Currently the Bradley Center is the 4th oldest arena used by an NBA team. This is soon to change when the New Jersey Nets move to Brooklyn in 2011. The other two older facilities are Madison Square Garden and a heavily remodeled Oracle Center in Oakland, CA.
The Bradley Center's facility problems come from three directions. First, the stadium was constructed with the hopes of obtaining an NHL team. This never came to fruition, but the layout and the sightlines of the stadium are designed for a much different event than for its current predominant use (basketball).
Second, The arena is now over twenty years old and faces substantial deferred maintenance issues, including a highly outdated scoreboard/sounds system and need for a new HVAC system.
Finally, the BC was designed at a time when it was generally thought that suburban, monolithic, single-use facilities would also work in urban settings (see Grand Avenue Mall). However, current development trends and consumer preferences call for mixed use development with additional room for retail, dining, business activity within the complex to not only enhance the experience before/after events, but to promote activity/revenue when the facility is not host to a big event.
The Bucks have threatened nearly every year for recent memory of leaving if concessions aren't made or improvements to the arena made. However, when push came to shove, the Bucks owner, Sen. Kohl, in 2003 pulled back from selling the team to a group of investors, including Michael Jordan, as he was committed to keeping the team in Wisconsin and it was widely speculated that the new ownership would move the team. However, that may have had more to do with his reelection campaign than desire to keep the team.
All of this leads to the question - Should the public of Milwaukee (or Wisconsin) pony up for improvements to, or replacement of, the Bradley Center. What if it can be guaranteed that without this public investment, the Bucks will be moved by a new owner within 5 years? - Herb Kohl is currently 74 and is up for reelection in 2012. He hasn't indicated one way or another regarding running for another term at the age of 77.
Many economists write against the claim of economic benefits provided to a city by the existence of professional sports, especially professional sports with publicly funded stadiums. Here are two examples:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv23n2/coates.pdf
http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp89.pdf
Furthermore, other studies have found that entertainment spending is a relatively inelastic amount, with a local population's entertainment dollars being spread out amongst the available entertainment venues. Therefore, spending on professional sports are generally dollars that are not spent on other amenities. While the case can be made that professional sports attract people from the whole region, the same can be said for the transfer of those dollars within the region as well.
This was one of the argument made by the Seattle Supersonics in their legal fight to break their lease in order to move to Oklahoma City.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nba/2004131860_sonics18m.html
Coates, in the articles above, also identifies a net negative impact between the presence of professional sports and local personal income. He attributes this to the fact that professional sports are highly vertical organizations in terms of compensation. Also, while a franchise may be located locally, many of the people at the top of the compensation (players, coaches, management, owners) may have little or no connection to the local area. Many do not even live in the local area. Therefore, the professional sports team becomes a conduit transferring wealth out of a region. Other more locally centered forms of entertainment have better economic multiplying effects for each dollar spent.
However, there is one harder to quantify benefit that professional sports franchises provide, a civic/local pride, status type benefit. Anyone who has been a part of a local team's championship/success understands that a local professional team can provide a type of common ground that brings a community together, and provides a positive image/positive community marketing to the country.
But what is this worth? Once again it is hard to quantify, but the question is whether it is worth the opportunity cost of the public portion of the financing of the team.
Which all brings us back to the Bradley Center and the Milwaukee Bucks. Recent events in this analysis include the Bradley Center board deciding against selling the naming rights.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/29583809.html
But the Governor included bonding authorization for up to $5M in his budget to put towards the estimated $23M in repairs/maintenance. So initial amounts of public financing are already in the works.
Finally, the Bradley Center owns considerable devlopable land. The Bradley Center sits on a 4 city block block, which includes an underutilized NE corner, a surface parking lot on the NW corner and a large parking structure on the West side, not to mention a large plaza area on the SW corner and plaza area on the East side. Bradley Center officials have hired a developer and consultant to create and pitch a development proposal to retail, restaurant, and hotel tenants for such a project.
http://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/stories/2009/01/19/story4.html
This type of a redevelopment of the Bradley Center would reconfigure the arena as part of a mixed use development that would offer the types of amenities that the current facility is lacking.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Wisconsin the "Tax Hell"
If you have spent any time living in Wisconsin, you undoubtedly will have heard the phrase that Wisconsin is a "Tax Hell." Now, I've often wondered just what this so called tax hell looked like, and what a "tax heaven" in a US state looks like.
Referencing taxfoundation.org, Wisconsin ranks 41st in terms of state/local tax burden (taxes paid as a % of income) at 10.2% of income. Of all 50 states, New Jersey ranks highest at 11.8%, while Alaska is the lowest at 6.4%. Removing the outliers, 46 states fall between 7% and 11.1%, with the national average being 9.7%
http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr163.pdf
Now that we have a few numbers to work from, Wisconsin ranks in the bottom quintile for tax burden. Is this "Tax Hell?" Even compared to other states Wisconsin is much closer to the national average (+.5%) than to the highest tax burden (-1.6%). Twenty-five states fall within +/- .5% of the national average. This means that a Wisconsin tax payer making $100k a year pays about $500 more in state and local taxes than an average tax payer nationwide. Does that .5% place the Wisconsin tax payer in Hell?
Especially once the outliers are removed, Wisconsin is certainly on the high end of tax burden, but I would consider to be still within an average range.
In fact, while the Tax Foundation lists Wisconsin at 41st, other such rankings place Wisconsin in the 30's, which is even closer to "slightly above average" rather than "Tax Hell." the Tax Foundation's similar report regarding business tax bumps Wisconsin down to 38th.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/bp58.pdf
At what ranking does it shift from "Tax Hell" to "not enough of a difference to be blamed as a negative impact?"
Looking at a much less transparent report that ranks states based on various factors, but doesn't identify methodology or ranking definitions, CNBC.com ranked Wisconsin #15 for Transportation costs; #9 for Population Education; #22 for Cost of Living; and #25 for Quality of Life. All of those place Wisconsin in the top half of states on those measures.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/25501924
These are also important factors when evaluating a place to live or work. If Wisconsin's extra tax costs are returning to the state in the form of increased quality of life aspects, then higher taxes do not necessarily equal "Tax Hell." In a quick comparison to Alaska, with a very low tax burden (#1), but very high costs of living (#47). In one respect, the money that you save from lower tax burden is still taken out of your wallet in higher living costs and you are no better off individually.
So what makes Wisconsin a high tax state? The Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance undertook answering this question and published an informative report five years ago.
http://www.wistax.org/news_releases/2003/why%20high%20taxes.pdf
While the numbers may be a little different in 2009, the same basic aspects still hold true. Wisconsin was founded (generally by Germans and Scandinavians) on a tradition of having a bigger, more centralized government, than in other states. Having a larger, more involved government, inherently requires higher taxes.
Specifically this is seen in two areas of State spending - highway construction and education (both K-12 and College). Wisconsin spends above average amounts compared to the rest of the country on these two programs, while spending around the average on basically all other expenditures. According to Taxpayers' Alliance, these two programs account for over 70% of the difference in spending between Wisconsin and the national average.
However, it is interesting to note back to the CNBC rankings, that Transportation costs and Population Education were the two categories that Wisconsin ranked the highest in. I submit that this didn't happen by chance, but rather by Wisconsin's commitment to these two areas.
But this isn't the whole story. According to Taxpayers' Alliance, Wisconsin also collects its revenue differently than the national averages. Specifically, Wisconsin relies more upon income and property taxes, than fees and Federal Government assistance than most states.
I have addressed Federal Government assistance elsewhere(see Federal Government ROTing our Country), so I won't go into detail about it here. However, I feel that the fees are another form of culture decision that Wisconsin has made. I would attribute it to the "progressive" side in Wisconsin history, desiring to make the government funded in a more progressive manner, thereby limiting fee costs which are viewed as a form of regressive taxation.
So how does Wisconsin become less of a "Tax Hell?" The answer is relatively simple, spend less - although changes in state revenue collection - more Federal money would reduce the burden paid by the state's citizens. Higher permit/user fees would also reduce the income/property tax burden, but may also reduce the quality of life aspects by limiting access to the state's amenities.
If Wisconsin is shooting to be not a "Tax Hell," then it would seem logical to start by cutting those areas in which Wisconsin spends more than average - Transportation and Education. On the one hand, this also eliminates two factors that actually weigh in Wisconsin's favor in comparison to other places, do we want to eliminate things that make us stand out in an effort to be more mediocre on tax rate?
On the other hand, Wisconsin couldn't have picked two worse areas to make its mark. Wisconsin invests its money in transportation and education, increasing the rate at which its educated and mobile population leaves. If education is the number one factor in increasing the likelihood that someone will move out of their home state, then investing so much in education in Wisconsin is in some respects driving economic growth elsewhere. Top notch transportation systems allow those people to leave while being able to return to conveniently visit family and friends left behind.
To those ends, I think that Wisconsin can afford to decrease spending (or increase fees) on both of these areas. Rather, I am more in favor of reducing direct state support while increasing the fee that users pay for these services. Tuition at our state universities is insanely low, especially given the quality of the institutions. Similarly, Wisconsin's populace's loathing of tollways is something that they need to get over. These types of fees are now widely used, accurately allocate contribution based upon use, and allow for innovative infrastructure utilization such as congestion based pricing to improve the overall quality of the experience of the system.
I find it interesting that the two areas of spending that Wisconsin outpaces the nation are one traditionally "Democratic" pet - education; and one traditionally "Republican" pet - highway construction. Let's see some "bipartisanship" and reduce spending on both of these areas.
Tom Still of the Wisconsin Technology Counsel identifies the current budget crisis as an opportunity for Wisconsin to implement policies that address the current budget deficit as well as to improve Wisconsin's competitiveness once the current economic problems pass.
http://www.biztimes.com/blogs/milwaukee-....eas-for-ch ange
Some the suggestions Still presents, I would have to agree with.
Wisconsin does have way too many layers of government, between 72 counties, cities, townships, school districts. Some serious consolidation of governments would go a long way to reducing the cost of government in Wisconsin.
Eliminating the State Highway Patrol - ever since I had to change a flat tire on a narrow stretch of I-94 where I had to stand in the right hand lane to change the tire and the State Patrol refused to park a car behind me to warn traffic because "they saw no need to write me a ticket" - I have no support of the SHP. Their function can be adequately served by local law enforcement.
Is Wisconsin a "Tax Hell?" The real answer is does it really matter, as long as the actual rate doesn't place Wisconsin at too much of a disadvantage, but the additional funds allows Wisconsin to stand out in other areas. I guess that I am questioning the ROI that Wisconsin receives for its increased tax rate specifically to fund its above-average transportation and education systems.
Looking at each of these a little closer:
Transportation:
The Transportation Development Association of Wisconsin commissioned this study in 2003 that performed a cost/benefit analysis of investment in Wisconsin transportation.
Study:
http://www.tdawisconsin.org/data/publications/CambridgeComplete.pdf
TDA Info:
http://www.tdawisconsin.org/
"The primary goal of the Transportation Development Association of Wisconsin is to help Wisconsin expand its economy by building on the state’s transportation strengths and addressing its transportation weaknesses."
So while this certainly isn't what can be considered to be a study without its predetermined interests (but really what study isn't) - it does outline and identify the benefits of transportation investment. A distinction can be drawn between transportation investments that improve commerce in the state versus transportation investments that improve travel/leisure time. The gains in commerce come from elimination of choke points, while the travel/leisure benefits come secondarily. Basically commerce improves with increasing capacity at peak travel periods (ie rush hour) while that additional capacity may make traveling to grandma's (not peak travel) somewhat quicker, as pleasant as the visit might be, its not really improving our economy.
However, when it comes to cost saving and therefore reducing taxes, then it seems that transit infrastructure investment is stuck in an inefficient development model where the only solution to congestion is paving more lanes. This is analogous to building a bigger factory because you can't make any more product during first shift, rather than adding a second a third shift, and thereby using your infrastructure more efficiently.
For example, we will be spending $50M to create a western bypass of Waukesha.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/waukesha/44788327.html
How long will it take to see a return on this investment? Is this bypass going to help commerce in the State of Wisconsin? I don't know.
Wisconsin should implement toll roads. If only for the sole reason that it will enable the congestion based pricing that makes more efficient use of the existing highway infrastructure. I guess see a lot of state funds spent on investments that don't improve state commerce. On the other hand, more investments in Wisconsin's ports should be made.
http://milwaukee.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/stories/2009/05/11/daily48.html
Therefore, I guess that while transportation infrastructure is of vital importance to economic development, I think that the same or better level of transportation service can be achieved through more innovative and efficient investments.
Education:
I am going to focus on college education, which is only a fraction of the overall education spending in the State.
When it comes to subsidizing undergraduate (and graduate) tuition to state colleges, once again, I'm not sure that Wisconsin is getting the best ROI. For the just finishing academic year, UW ranks as second lowest for in state undergraduate tuition.
http://apa.wisc.edu/images/tables/BigTentuition.pdf
Northwestern isn't included because it is private, but is undoubtedly highest for undergraduate tuition (but out of state undergrad is probably competitive).
According to those numbers, UW charges $2500 per year less than average. In other terms, the average Big Ten tuition is 33% higher than UW's. Assuming that there are 36,000 undergrads, and 2/3 of these undergrads are in-state (complete speculation), UW requires $60M (24,000 undergrads X $2500) more tax money to operate with this in state tuition subsidy than the average Big Ten school. This only counts UW-Madison - the University of Wisconsin System has a total enrollment of 175,000.
http://www.wisconsin.edu/news/2009/r090316.htm
Of course, some of these enrollments are out of state or part time, and not all University System schools have the same type of subsidy as UW-Madison, but I think that some form of subsidy can be assumed. Along the same lines, UW's out of state tuition is 3rd lowest in the Big Ten and similarly is $2000 lower than the Big Ten average. This could go either way, in that a lower out of state tuition, may help in gaining more out of state undergrads, thereby increasing the tuition dollars for the same number of enrolled students.
As an aside, the large difference between in-state and out of state, creates an incentive for the state schools to adopt admission policies that favor increased enrollment by out of state students, thereby countering State initiatives to increase the education level of state residents.
Now, in-state tuition is a great benefit to in-state students, I myself benefited from in-state tuition and I can't deny the additional freedom that having a comparatively low student loan debt burden is. But once again, my low debt burden in theory makes me more mobile, and therefore more likely to move out of the state.
The attainment of higher education does increase your mobility away from where you grew up. The key is to make the state more attractive to highly educated people, the industries that employ them, and the entrepreneurial climate that allows business creation and growth.
In one quick example:
That same $60M subsidy to in-state undergraduates, could instead fund a lot of economic development. A $60M yearly angel investment fund for start-up companies would have much more impact on the state economy, making it a more attractive place for grads of higher education to work (UW or from out of state), thus giving UW grads an incentive to stay, as well as creating an incentive for an educated workforce to migrate into Wisconsin, the cheapest way to a highly educated populace.
Referencing taxfoundation.org, Wisconsin ranks 41st in terms of state/local tax burden (taxes paid as a % of income) at 10.2% of income. Of all 50 states, New Jersey ranks highest at 11.8%, while Alaska is the lowest at 6.4%. Removing the outliers, 46 states fall between 7% and 11.1%, with the national average being 9.7%
http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr163.pdf
Now that we have a few numbers to work from, Wisconsin ranks in the bottom quintile for tax burden. Is this "Tax Hell?" Even compared to other states Wisconsin is much closer to the national average (+.5%) than to the highest tax burden (-1.6%). Twenty-five states fall within +/- .5% of the national average. This means that a Wisconsin tax payer making $100k a year pays about $500 more in state and local taxes than an average tax payer nationwide. Does that .5% place the Wisconsin tax payer in Hell?
Especially once the outliers are removed, Wisconsin is certainly on the high end of tax burden, but I would consider to be still within an average range.
In fact, while the Tax Foundation lists Wisconsin at 41st, other such rankings place Wisconsin in the 30's, which is even closer to "slightly above average" rather than "Tax Hell." the Tax Foundation's similar report regarding business tax bumps Wisconsin down to 38th.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/bp58.pdf
At what ranking does it shift from "Tax Hell" to "not enough of a difference to be blamed as a negative impact?"
Looking at a much less transparent report that ranks states based on various factors, but doesn't identify methodology or ranking definitions, CNBC.com ranked Wisconsin #15 for Transportation costs; #9 for Population Education; #22 for Cost of Living; and #25 for Quality of Life. All of those place Wisconsin in the top half of states on those measures.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/25501924
These are also important factors when evaluating a place to live or work. If Wisconsin's extra tax costs are returning to the state in the form of increased quality of life aspects, then higher taxes do not necessarily equal "Tax Hell." In a quick comparison to Alaska, with a very low tax burden (#1), but very high costs of living (#47). In one respect, the money that you save from lower tax burden is still taken out of your wallet in higher living costs and you are no better off individually.
So what makes Wisconsin a high tax state? The Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance undertook answering this question and published an informative report five years ago.
http://www.wistax.org/news_releases/2003/why%20high%20taxes.pdf
While the numbers may be a little different in 2009, the same basic aspects still hold true. Wisconsin was founded (generally by Germans and Scandinavians) on a tradition of having a bigger, more centralized government, than in other states. Having a larger, more involved government, inherently requires higher taxes.
Specifically this is seen in two areas of State spending - highway construction and education (both K-12 and College). Wisconsin spends above average amounts compared to the rest of the country on these two programs, while spending around the average on basically all other expenditures. According to Taxpayers' Alliance, these two programs account for over 70% of the difference in spending between Wisconsin and the national average.
However, it is interesting to note back to the CNBC rankings, that Transportation costs and Population Education were the two categories that Wisconsin ranked the highest in. I submit that this didn't happen by chance, but rather by Wisconsin's commitment to these two areas.
But this isn't the whole story. According to Taxpayers' Alliance, Wisconsin also collects its revenue differently than the national averages. Specifically, Wisconsin relies more upon income and property taxes, than fees and Federal Government assistance than most states.
I have addressed Federal Government assistance elsewhere(see Federal Government ROTing our Country), so I won't go into detail about it here. However, I feel that the fees are another form of culture decision that Wisconsin has made. I would attribute it to the "progressive" side in Wisconsin history, desiring to make the government funded in a more progressive manner, thereby limiting fee costs which are viewed as a form of regressive taxation.
So how does Wisconsin become less of a "Tax Hell?" The answer is relatively simple, spend less - although changes in state revenue collection - more Federal money would reduce the burden paid by the state's citizens. Higher permit/user fees would also reduce the income/property tax burden, but may also reduce the quality of life aspects by limiting access to the state's amenities.
If Wisconsin is shooting to be not a "Tax Hell," then it would seem logical to start by cutting those areas in which Wisconsin spends more than average - Transportation and Education. On the one hand, this also eliminates two factors that actually weigh in Wisconsin's favor in comparison to other places, do we want to eliminate things that make us stand out in an effort to be more mediocre on tax rate?
On the other hand, Wisconsin couldn't have picked two worse areas to make its mark. Wisconsin invests its money in transportation and education, increasing the rate at which its educated and mobile population leaves. If education is the number one factor in increasing the likelihood that someone will move out of their home state, then investing so much in education in Wisconsin is in some respects driving economic growth elsewhere. Top notch transportation systems allow those people to leave while being able to return to conveniently visit family and friends left behind.
To those ends, I think that Wisconsin can afford to decrease spending (or increase fees) on both of these areas. Rather, I am more in favor of reducing direct state support while increasing the fee that users pay for these services. Tuition at our state universities is insanely low, especially given the quality of the institutions. Similarly, Wisconsin's populace's loathing of tollways is something that they need to get over. These types of fees are now widely used, accurately allocate contribution based upon use, and allow for innovative infrastructure utilization such as congestion based pricing to improve the overall quality of the experience of the system.
I find it interesting that the two areas of spending that Wisconsin outpaces the nation are one traditionally "Democratic" pet - education; and one traditionally "Republican" pet - highway construction. Let's see some "bipartisanship" and reduce spending on both of these areas.
Tom Still of the Wisconsin Technology Counsel identifies the current budget crisis as an opportunity for Wisconsin to implement policies that address the current budget deficit as well as to improve Wisconsin's competitiveness once the current economic problems pass.
http://www.biztimes.com/blogs/milwaukee-....eas-for-ch ange
Some the suggestions Still presents, I would have to agree with.
Wisconsin does have way too many layers of government, between 72 counties, cities, townships, school districts. Some serious consolidation of governments would go a long way to reducing the cost of government in Wisconsin.
Eliminating the State Highway Patrol - ever since I had to change a flat tire on a narrow stretch of I-94 where I had to stand in the right hand lane to change the tire and the State Patrol refused to park a car behind me to warn traffic because "they saw no need to write me a ticket" - I have no support of the SHP. Their function can be adequately served by local law enforcement.
Is Wisconsin a "Tax Hell?" The real answer is does it really matter, as long as the actual rate doesn't place Wisconsin at too much of a disadvantage, but the additional funds allows Wisconsin to stand out in other areas. I guess that I am questioning the ROI that Wisconsin receives for its increased tax rate specifically to fund its above-average transportation and education systems.
Looking at each of these a little closer:
Transportation:
The Transportation Development Association of Wisconsin commissioned this study in 2003 that performed a cost/benefit analysis of investment in Wisconsin transportation.
Study:
http://www.tdawisconsin.org/data/publications/CambridgeComplete.pdf
TDA Info:
http://www.tdawisconsin.org/
"The primary goal of the Transportation Development Association of Wisconsin is to help Wisconsin expand its economy by building on the state’s transportation strengths and addressing its transportation weaknesses."
So while this certainly isn't what can be considered to be a study without its predetermined interests (but really what study isn't) - it does outline and identify the benefits of transportation investment. A distinction can be drawn between transportation investments that improve commerce in the state versus transportation investments that improve travel/leisure time. The gains in commerce come from elimination of choke points, while the travel/leisure benefits come secondarily. Basically commerce improves with increasing capacity at peak travel periods (ie rush hour) while that additional capacity may make traveling to grandma's (not peak travel) somewhat quicker, as pleasant as the visit might be, its not really improving our economy.
However, when it comes to cost saving and therefore reducing taxes, then it seems that transit infrastructure investment is stuck in an inefficient development model where the only solution to congestion is paving more lanes. This is analogous to building a bigger factory because you can't make any more product during first shift, rather than adding a second a third shift, and thereby using your infrastructure more efficiently.
For example, we will be spending $50M to create a western bypass of Waukesha.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/waukesha/44788327.html
How long will it take to see a return on this investment? Is this bypass going to help commerce in the State of Wisconsin? I don't know.
Wisconsin should implement toll roads. If only for the sole reason that it will enable the congestion based pricing that makes more efficient use of the existing highway infrastructure. I guess see a lot of state funds spent on investments that don't improve state commerce. On the other hand, more investments in Wisconsin's ports should be made.
http://milwaukee.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/stories/2009/05/11/daily48.html
Therefore, I guess that while transportation infrastructure is of vital importance to economic development, I think that the same or better level of transportation service can be achieved through more innovative and efficient investments.
Education:
I am going to focus on college education, which is only a fraction of the overall education spending in the State.
When it comes to subsidizing undergraduate (and graduate) tuition to state colleges, once again, I'm not sure that Wisconsin is getting the best ROI. For the just finishing academic year, UW ranks as second lowest for in state undergraduate tuition.
http://apa.wisc.edu/images/tables/BigTentuition.pdf
Northwestern isn't included because it is private, but is undoubtedly highest for undergraduate tuition (but out of state undergrad is probably competitive).
According to those numbers, UW charges $2500 per year less than average. In other terms, the average Big Ten tuition is 33% higher than UW's. Assuming that there are 36,000 undergrads, and 2/3 of these undergrads are in-state (complete speculation), UW requires $60M (24,000 undergrads X $2500) more tax money to operate with this in state tuition subsidy than the average Big Ten school. This only counts UW-Madison - the University of Wisconsin System has a total enrollment of 175,000.
http://www.wisconsin.edu/news/2009/r090316.htm
Of course, some of these enrollments are out of state or part time, and not all University System schools have the same type of subsidy as UW-Madison, but I think that some form of subsidy can be assumed. Along the same lines, UW's out of state tuition is 3rd lowest in the Big Ten and similarly is $2000 lower than the Big Ten average. This could go either way, in that a lower out of state tuition, may help in gaining more out of state undergrads, thereby increasing the tuition dollars for the same number of enrolled students.
As an aside, the large difference between in-state and out of state, creates an incentive for the state schools to adopt admission policies that favor increased enrollment by out of state students, thereby countering State initiatives to increase the education level of state residents.
Now, in-state tuition is a great benefit to in-state students, I myself benefited from in-state tuition and I can't deny the additional freedom that having a comparatively low student loan debt burden is. But once again, my low debt burden in theory makes me more mobile, and therefore more likely to move out of the state.
The attainment of higher education does increase your mobility away from where you grew up. The key is to make the state more attractive to highly educated people, the industries that employ them, and the entrepreneurial climate that allows business creation and growth.
In one quick example:
That same $60M subsidy to in-state undergraduates, could instead fund a lot of economic development. A $60M yearly angel investment fund for start-up companies would have much more impact on the state economy, making it a more attractive place for grads of higher education to work (UW or from out of state), thus giving UW grads an incentive to stay, as well as creating an incentive for an educated workforce to migrate into Wisconsin, the cheapest way to a highly educated populace.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Milwaukee River Central Park
A group called Milwaukee River Keepers has spearheaded efforts to formalize and protect the corridor of the Milwaukee River from North Avenue to Silver Spring Drive.
Here is their original Vision Paper, I think from 2007:
http://www.protectmilwaukeeriver.org/mrwg-vision.pdf
The River Keepers propose 7 specific goals for protecting the River.
1. Permanently protect existing natural areas along the Milwaukee River primary environmental corridor.
2. Protect the “viewshed” of the greenway
corridor so that persons enjoying the river
or engaging in activities will have a natural experience.
3. Establish building setbacks and design
guidelines for new multi-lot construction
within a buffer zone.
4. Establish enhanced guidelines to control
erosion and runoff entering the river.
5. Preserve and enhance native vegetation, fisheries and wildlife habitat along the river corridor.
6. Encourage land uses and activities that maintain a natural greenway corridor without altering present uses.
7. Create a Milwaukee River Central Park Trust Fund to finance land and water stewardship into the future.
As I live in the Cambridge Woods Neighborhood along the Milwaukee River, I have been following this as it develops. I have to admit that the proximity to the River, Cambridge Woods Park, and the Oak Leaf Bike Trail all contributed to the reasons why we chose our house. I agree that it is a tremendous asset and really combines provides something that distinguishes Milwaukee from many of its regional competitors in terms of quality of life.
I've written about the Milwaukee River previously under the "Estabrook Dam" Thread as well as here:
http://www.iofthenorth.com/2008/10/milwaukee-river.html
However, I have two problems with the efforts of Milwaukee River Keepers. The first one is #2 on their list above. They want to "protect the viewshed" from the river valley. This basically means zoning height restrictions on properties outside of the protected river area. I have two main issues with this, first the "viewshed" has no environmental purpose. It doesn't make the water cleaner, the trails better, the wildlife more diverse. It only restricts building heights on locations outside of the river corridor. Along with this, having spent a fair amount of time in this park area, there are very few locations, if any, where you can't see sign of development. Frankly, its part of what I think makes the area interesting. There are old dams, and dock pilings from when the river was used for swimming schools in the summer and ice harvesting in the winter. The major, now paved, recreation trails are on the old railroad beds that serviced these industries. Its a reflection of what makes this park an asset to Milwaukee, its location right in the middle of the built environment and is a testament to the rejuvinational powers of nature to transform former industrial land into a park that people want to once more use for recreation. To restrict building heights because they may be seen from the park is to deny the very location of the park itself.
Secondly, I get the overarching opinion from MRK that they want the area to be a public park, only to be enjoyed by those who already use it. Restrictions such as "viewshed" protection deny other people's ability to use the park in different ways than MRK members use the park. Some people can't enjoy a "natural" park due to health, age, mobility, whatever reasons, but that doesn't mean that they can't enjoy the view of said park. The MRK member view that is free of buildings is no more important than the ability of another to view the park from the outside.
In a built, city environment, height = density. If money and efforts are going to be expended to make the Milwaukee River Corridor the asset that it could be for the City, people need to be able to enjoy it, that means more people than currently use it. If you can't build densly around this developing asset, then the City will not see the return on its investment.
I recall a seeing a study from a few years ago with recommendations as to how the new park should be used and developed. Unfortunately, I cannot currently find a link. The conclusion of the study was that the only development in the park should be natural development. Another part of the study was opposed to formalizing the mountain bike path because "interest in this sport will continue to decline as the population ages and the younger generation continues its sedentary lifestyle" - that's not research, that's old hippies wanting the public to pay to keep a huge natural asset just as it is for their personal enjoyment, rather than leveraging it into something that can help drive population growth and economic development.
Additionally, MRK is against the development of more access points across the River and down to the river, including a marsupial bridge at Locust Street. Once again, MRK is using "protection of nature" as a sword to restrict people's access to this new public park. They cite crime, garbage, and safety as reasons for concern. But currently there is only one at-river crossing - Below North Ave. You can't even walk a loop around the park without climbing back out of the River Corridor, to cross at one of the major E-W streets.
Furthermore, if there is any group that could benefit from improved access to this park, it would be populations West of the River, that may not have access to other "natural" areas. I can hop in my car and drive to Northern Wisconsin, so can the MRK members, a lot of people in the city cannot.
For these reasons, I cannot fully support the efforts of Milwaukee River Keepers, because they are moving forward with a narrow view of what a park is in a way that will ultimately be harmful to the region, and my own neighborhood.
The Milwaukee City Counsel must vote on any zoning changes associated with the Milwaukee River Corridor in May 2009. This next month the City will make important decisions as to whether the natural asset of the Milwaukee River will be leveraged to improve the quality of life in the city and promote economic development, or whether we will just use public money so a few old people can enjoy their own huge park in the city.
I'm not alone locally in thinking that this is a problem.
http://urbanmilwaukee.com/2008/12/23/protecting-the-milwaukee-river-or-overreaching-zoning/
If you have an opinion regarding this, I suggest that you take the River Keeper Survey:
http://www.protectmilwaukeeriver.org/survey1.html
Feel free to send them comments too, although the survey says:
"If you agree... please weigh in."
Here is their original Vision Paper, I think from 2007:
http://www.protectmilwaukeeriver.org/mrwg-vision.pdf
The River Keepers propose 7 specific goals for protecting the River.
1. Permanently protect existing natural areas along the Milwaukee River primary environmental corridor.
2. Protect the “viewshed” of the greenway
corridor so that persons enjoying the river
or engaging in activities will have a natural experience.
3. Establish building setbacks and design
guidelines for new multi-lot construction
within a buffer zone.
4. Establish enhanced guidelines to control
erosion and runoff entering the river.
5. Preserve and enhance native vegetation, fisheries and wildlife habitat along the river corridor.
6. Encourage land uses and activities that maintain a natural greenway corridor without altering present uses.
7. Create a Milwaukee River Central Park Trust Fund to finance land and water stewardship into the future.
As I live in the Cambridge Woods Neighborhood along the Milwaukee River, I have been following this as it develops. I have to admit that the proximity to the River, Cambridge Woods Park, and the Oak Leaf Bike Trail all contributed to the reasons why we chose our house. I agree that it is a tremendous asset and really combines provides something that distinguishes Milwaukee from many of its regional competitors in terms of quality of life.
I've written about the Milwaukee River previously under the "Estabrook Dam" Thread as well as here:
http://www.iofthenorth.com/2008/10/milwaukee-river.html
However, I have two problems with the efforts of Milwaukee River Keepers. The first one is #2 on their list above. They want to "protect the viewshed" from the river valley. This basically means zoning height restrictions on properties outside of the protected river area. I have two main issues with this, first the "viewshed" has no environmental purpose. It doesn't make the water cleaner, the trails better, the wildlife more diverse. It only restricts building heights on locations outside of the river corridor. Along with this, having spent a fair amount of time in this park area, there are very few locations, if any, where you can't see sign of development. Frankly, its part of what I think makes the area interesting. There are old dams, and dock pilings from when the river was used for swimming schools in the summer and ice harvesting in the winter. The major, now paved, recreation trails are on the old railroad beds that serviced these industries. Its a reflection of what makes this park an asset to Milwaukee, its location right in the middle of the built environment and is a testament to the rejuvinational powers of nature to transform former industrial land into a park that people want to once more use for recreation. To restrict building heights because they may be seen from the park is to deny the very location of the park itself.
Secondly, I get the overarching opinion from MRK that they want the area to be a public park, only to be enjoyed by those who already use it. Restrictions such as "viewshed" protection deny other people's ability to use the park in different ways than MRK members use the park. Some people can't enjoy a "natural" park due to health, age, mobility, whatever reasons, but that doesn't mean that they can't enjoy the view of said park. The MRK member view that is free of buildings is no more important than the ability of another to view the park from the outside.
In a built, city environment, height = density. If money and efforts are going to be expended to make the Milwaukee River Corridor the asset that it could be for the City, people need to be able to enjoy it, that means more people than currently use it. If you can't build densly around this developing asset, then the City will not see the return on its investment.
I recall a seeing a study from a few years ago with recommendations as to how the new park should be used and developed. Unfortunately, I cannot currently find a link. The conclusion of the study was that the only development in the park should be natural development. Another part of the study was opposed to formalizing the mountain bike path because "interest in this sport will continue to decline as the population ages and the younger generation continues its sedentary lifestyle" - that's not research, that's old hippies wanting the public to pay to keep a huge natural asset just as it is for their personal enjoyment, rather than leveraging it into something that can help drive population growth and economic development.
Additionally, MRK is against the development of more access points across the River and down to the river, including a marsupial bridge at Locust Street. Once again, MRK is using "protection of nature" as a sword to restrict people's access to this new public park. They cite crime, garbage, and safety as reasons for concern. But currently there is only one at-river crossing - Below North Ave. You can't even walk a loop around the park without climbing back out of the River Corridor, to cross at one of the major E-W streets.
Furthermore, if there is any group that could benefit from improved access to this park, it would be populations West of the River, that may not have access to other "natural" areas. I can hop in my car and drive to Northern Wisconsin, so can the MRK members, a lot of people in the city cannot.
For these reasons, I cannot fully support the efforts of Milwaukee River Keepers, because they are moving forward with a narrow view of what a park is in a way that will ultimately be harmful to the region, and my own neighborhood.
The Milwaukee City Counsel must vote on any zoning changes associated with the Milwaukee River Corridor in May 2009. This next month the City will make important decisions as to whether the natural asset of the Milwaukee River will be leveraged to improve the quality of life in the city and promote economic development, or whether we will just use public money so a few old people can enjoy their own huge park in the city.
I'm not alone locally in thinking that this is a problem.
http://urbanmilwaukee.com/2008/12/23/protecting-the-milwaukee-river-or-overreaching-zoning/
If you have an opinion regarding this, I suggest that you take the River Keeper Survey:
http://www.protectmilwaukeeriver.org/survey1.html
Feel free to send them comments too, although the survey says:
"If you agree... please weigh in."
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Paul Ryan's "Alternative Budget"
Rep. Paul Ryan (R - Wis.) is the ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee. He has introduced his "alternative" budget in competition to the one requested by the President. Now this budget (along with the president's) doesn't have much meaning as the actual budget is generally hammered out through the appropriations bills that will be passed over the coming year.
His WSJ op ed from introducing the budget is here:
The GOP's Alternative Budget: President Obama offers us the option of European big government
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123854083982575457.html
A summary of the proposed budget is here:
http://www.house.gov/budget_republicans/press/2007/pr20090401_gopbudget.pdf
A brief review of Rep. Ryan's plan includes the following main points
1) Capping spending to a set % of GDP (specifically 18.3% - which I think comes from some study that found this to be an optimal balance for economic development)
2) Reforming Social Security/Medicare
3)Increasing Domestic Oil, NG, and Coal production, but earmarking the funds from those leases for research and building of wind, nuclear, and other non-fossil fuel energy
4) Simplifying the Tax code to have three brackets 0% (personal and standard deductions) <$15,000, 10% <$50,000, everything else %25. (double for married) Reducing the corporate tax rate from 35% to 25%.
A lot of this is a watered down version of Ryan's "Roadmap for America" that he put out a year ago.
http://www.house.gov/budget_republicans/....ntirereport.pdf
Frankly, the "Roadmap" was much more interesting proposing things such as eliminating the income tax completely in favor of a European style VAT.
-But I suppose that wouldn't have meshed well with his WSJ subtitle.
It will be interesting to see if any of these ideas take hold, and become parts of a new Republican fiscal policy.
Ryan's budget plan is an extension of the recently released "Republican Road to Recovery" plan.
http://www.gop.gov/solutions/budget/road-to-recovery-final
This budget plan has received a fair amount of criticism and even comparisons to "underpants gnomes" for its lack of explanation of how these goals will be accomplished.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underpants_gnomes
http://business.theatlantic.com/2009/04/paul_ryans_crazy_budget_graph.php
I can never figure out why people resort to hyperbole or misinformation to make their points. If the situation is as bad as you claim it to be, then just use the actual numbers that you know. Its looking more like Ryan has cost himself some credibility by making his projections out 60 years.
Now to be fair to Ryan, I think that his basis for the "Democratic Budgets*" is projected escalation of Social Security and Medicare spending. These are real potential costs and something that must be corrected, but the graph is really a reflection of the pending problems with our Social Security/Medicare system rather than a reflection of specific budget decisions by D's or R's.
Personally, I like the proposed cap to spending tied to GDP. If the budget process involved defining specific number and dividing that number amongst each budgetary concern, it would be more understandable to the public and a more straightforward debate. Rather, each budget is [seemingly] negotiated in a vacuum, and it doesn't really matter if you trim a billion from the education bill if you add an extra billion to the ag bill, rather divide up the baby upfront and determine what can be done with it later.
I'm not really with Ryan on his Energy policy proposal. I'm all for increasing domestic oil production if it is economically feasible, I'm not for selling oil leases that aren't going to be tapped for decades at a loss just to get them sold. Furthermore, "Energy Independence" is one of the worst public policy tag lines of the last decade (along with "brain drain"). Rather, as a matter of national security we need to keep buying cheap oil from the Middle East and buying up Chavez's sour reserves.
Others have picked up on the wider implications of increased US Spending as a % of GDP.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs....pportunity.aspx
Ouch. That hurts coming from a Canadian.
But serves once again as a reminder that nothing requires the US to stay on top of the heap, and if we don't take action to resolve our budget problems, more and more countries will gain a competitive advantage.
His WSJ op ed from introducing the budget is here:
The GOP's Alternative Budget: President Obama offers us the option of European big government
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123854083982575457.html
A summary of the proposed budget is here:
http://www.house.gov/budget_republicans/press/2007/pr20090401_gopbudget.pdf
A brief review of Rep. Ryan's plan includes the following main points
1) Capping spending to a set % of GDP (specifically 18.3% - which I think comes from some study that found this to be an optimal balance for economic development)
2) Reforming Social Security/Medicare
3)Increasing Domestic Oil, NG, and Coal production, but earmarking the funds from those leases for research and building of wind, nuclear, and other non-fossil fuel energy
4) Simplifying the Tax code to have three brackets 0% (personal and standard deductions) <$15,000, 10% <$50,000, everything else %25. (double for married) Reducing the corporate tax rate from 35% to 25%.
A lot of this is a watered down version of Ryan's "Roadmap for America" that he put out a year ago.
http://www.house.gov/budget_republicans/....ntirereport.pdf
Frankly, the "Roadmap" was much more interesting proposing things such as eliminating the income tax completely in favor of a European style VAT.
-But I suppose that wouldn't have meshed well with his WSJ subtitle.
It will be interesting to see if any of these ideas take hold, and become parts of a new Republican fiscal policy.
Ryan's budget plan is an extension of the recently released "Republican Road to Recovery" plan.
http://www.gop.gov/solutions/budget/road-to-recovery-final
This budget plan has received a fair amount of criticism and even comparisons to "underpants gnomes" for its lack of explanation of how these goals will be accomplished.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underpants_gnomes
http://business.theatlantic.com/2009/04/paul_ryans_crazy_budget_graph.php
I can never figure out why people resort to hyperbole or misinformation to make their points. If the situation is as bad as you claim it to be, then just use the actual numbers that you know. Its looking more like Ryan has cost himself some credibility by making his projections out 60 years.
Now to be fair to Ryan, I think that his basis for the "Democratic Budgets*" is projected escalation of Social Security and Medicare spending. These are real potential costs and something that must be corrected, but the graph is really a reflection of the pending problems with our Social Security/Medicare system rather than a reflection of specific budget decisions by D's or R's.
Personally, I like the proposed cap to spending tied to GDP. If the budget process involved defining specific number and dividing that number amongst each budgetary concern, it would be more understandable to the public and a more straightforward debate. Rather, each budget is [seemingly] negotiated in a vacuum, and it doesn't really matter if you trim a billion from the education bill if you add an extra billion to the ag bill, rather divide up the baby upfront and determine what can be done with it later.
I'm not really with Ryan on his Energy policy proposal. I'm all for increasing domestic oil production if it is economically feasible, I'm not for selling oil leases that aren't going to be tapped for decades at a loss just to get them sold. Furthermore, "Energy Independence" is one of the worst public policy tag lines of the last decade (along with "brain drain"). Rather, as a matter of national security we need to keep buying cheap oil from the Middle East and buying up Chavez's sour reserves.
Others have picked up on the wider implications of increased US Spending as a % of GDP.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs....pportunity.aspx
Ouch. That hurts coming from a Canadian.
But serves once again as a reminder that nothing requires the US to stay on top of the heap, and if we don't take action to resolve our budget problems, more and more countries will gain a competitive advantage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
