Great, benevolent plan. But let's analyze what this means from a real economic standpoint:
$15/hour wage floor: this means higher overhead, which means the price of admission, concessions, merchandise, etc. will rise. It also means a mental shift in hiring standards. $15/hour is competitive and working for an NBA team is an attractive option. What you will likely see is workers who previously worked for $10 - 20/hour competing for (and winning) the jobs, as opposed to the ideal scenario of qualified workers currently toiling at $7.50/hour suddenly doubling their salary.
Bottom Line: It is highly unlikely that this wage floor will end up benefiting the people that it is intended to benefit. Furthermore, it will increase prices and further impact impoverished or low-wage people by increasing the prices of their hobby. Could it work perfectly for a few poor people? Absolutely! If that's the goal, then fine. But I assume the goal is broader, and thus, will likely miss the mark.
EDIT: Raising the minimum wage also indirectly impacts current families, because a 30% increase in wage can cause a family to lose 90% of government benefits. Sad but true, many people take government benefits because it is easier and more lucrative. Government is incentive to lower minimum wage because it buts the onus on businesses to spend the money on these people. It is not a strictly beneficial prerogative.
Hiring from minority neighborhoods: So are they currently not hiring from these neighborhoods? Intentionally? This is a platitude at best and seems like an inadvertent admission of guilt. They need to be finding qualified labor regardless of neighborhoods. But if they really care about minorities, they need to prove, statistically, that they are making a difference. Statistically, minority neighborhoods are lower income. Statistically, lower income neighborhoods are less educated. Statistically, less educated neighborhoods house people who qualify for fewer jobs. It's a vicious cycle, so how do you break it? Not by parading around your plans to hire from those neighborhoods because, whats the real plan there? There are no actionable milestones or goals, and they aren't going to go door to door. THey are going to say it is their goal, which will buy them time, and then continue to behave as they always do. What they COULD do, is start programs for at-risk children to aid in their learning (book smarts) and education (knowledge of what is out there if they apply themselves). They can do educational workshops for out-of-work adults, empowerment workshops for women, temporary work programs for the homeless, and vice vice vice versa.
**Bottom Line: Until they prove that they really care, this is just a platitude that gives us warm fuzzy feelings while simultaneously capitulating to the vocal, condescending to the less fortunate, and maintaining the status quo. **
Unions: Say what you will about unions, but they take a big cut of your "better wages" as a union due, cast a safety net over only the most senior and conforming members, and leave the new or original thinking-guys hung out to dry. Union leaders are not perfect and can (will?) often make decisions that are best for him as opposed to best for the workers. Will you get higher wages, more security, and better wages? Usually. But from the rest of this analysis, I think the Bucks are merely placating the people by telling them what they want to hear.
Bottom Line: Call me cynical, but until actual strides are made to benefit the impoverished, SPECIFICALLY IN WAYS THAT HAVEN'T BEEN TRIED OVER AND OVER AND OVER WITHOUT SUCCESS, then none of this really matters, ever if it feels like a great plan. Do I hope it works? Every time. Do I think it will? I've been burned before.
Source: First-gen college student and grad, make my living analyzing business and economy every single day.