dergon darkhelm

If that's the case, the people that attend the games (and consequently pay for the stadiums) should be the only ones allowed to watch it on television. Bars and restaurants are no longer allowed to show the games on TV either. No-- that logic is unsound. The people watching on TV see advertisements. That's how the teams get their $$ from TV viewing. One could actually argue that it is reasonable for the teams to view the stadium as a "loss leader" for the television product... which is wildly profitable. On that point we agree. (( ps - So are mine, btw. I've been sharing a set of season tickets since the Browns came back))

That is the first I have heard of it. How big? I am sure that NFL fans paying $60/ticket could afford to pay another million/year in fees. It would cost about a dollar/ticket. The Cavs currently charge a "facilities fee" --- they have not clarified its purpose. It is charged for non-sports events. It is fungible and simply extra $$ in their pocket. Yes - the proposed facility fee to be extended from only "non-sports" events to all sporting events as well represents a cost moved from all the "sinners" to the people that attend the games. I believe that it is a faired means of revenue generation than the sin tax. It will also decrease the over tax burden for the County which could potential free up public funds for other future uses.

Take the same land, tax incentives & subsidies applied to the stadiums and build an office park at Gateway where the arenas are or mixed use development where Browns stadium is. Think about the long term jobs created, the income & real estate taxes generated... Think about attracting major corporations back to the city like Progressive Insurance or American Greetings or Eaton. Think about the spinoff development that would be created by the job centers of these developments.... the restaurants, shopping, apartments... so much more than what is generated by these stadiums that aren't even used half the year This - Stadium project perform poorly relative to other development plans in terms of ROI. Let's let the Sin Tax fail, adopt a facilities fee in Nov 2014 ... then we can talk about if/how we want to spend public funds more wisely on development projects that get us a better bang for our buck.

Well. I'm not opposed to the sin-tax on principle. I am just opposed to that public money going to support billionaires. (I see the facilities fee as a different beast entirely). We could keep the current sin-tax but direct it in a way that supports joe six pack and the county's poorest people instead. Smoking cessation money? Low income heath care support? Or maybe to real economic development projects that stabilize our population? There are so many better ways to use the public funds. Step one is to show the powers that be that we are awake and paying attention. Voting down Issue 7 will send that message.

From Belt Mag. Their editorial hits the fee vs sin tax right on the nose! http://beltmag.com/math-issue-7/

At the very least, this sin tax vote should generate a full disclosure of the accounting of these fees, expenses, & who's responsible for what. The more that comes out about rents & expenses, the worse this deal looks for the city Absolutely! I am becoming more and more convinced that there is "Government Sports Complex" that is simply perpetuating itself as opposed to actually bargaining with the teams and acting in the true fashion of what most of us would consider to be public/private partnership. If Issue 7 fails there will be a lot of gnashing of teeth over the following year. A bit of daylight and a lengthy open discussion will follow. That's a good thing!

Front Page PD - Finally a bit of balance from the Cleveland Media. http://plaindealer.oh.newsmemory.com/?token=21b519c293ba1629e42a3529b73f363e_aglazen%40me.com As to whether the fees will hurt the teams -- I personally feel that demand is likely rather inelastic but -- Peter Patakos states his reasonable response "''The teams cannot credibly say the market won't bear a change like this if we don't know what their profits are.''

And here is the proposed alternative: A Facilities Fee, commonly added to many events, of $3.25 per ticket. This will generate revenue equal to the proposed sin tax. http://www.scribd.com/doc/217670133/Fair-Share-Facility-Fee-proposal-a-preferable-alternative-to-the-proposed-20-year-260-million-Sin-Tax-up-for-renewal-in-Cuyahoga-County-on-May-6-Vo [quoote]A PROPOSAL TO REPLACE THE EXPIRING SIN TAX WITH A PROVEN “FAIR SHARE” FACILITY FEE. Cuyahoga County residents are being asked by the owners of the three (3) major sports franchises, the Cleveland Browns, Cleveland Cavaliers and the Cleveland Indians, that use and operate the facilities, Progressive Field, Quicken Loans Arena and FirstEnergy Stadium, to extend a so called “Sin Tax” which was first passed in a referendum approved by Cuyahoga County residents first in 1990 for 15 years and again in 1995 for a 10 year extension to pay for new downtown stadiums for the Cavs, Indians, and Browns. There is much debate in our community about how fair it is to regressively tax Cuyahoga County residents, and especially City of Cleveland residents (amongst the poorest in our country), on terms that were established decades ago, to subsidize the three billionaire owners of the respective sports franchises who receive millions of dollars of profits from their operations annually. We hereby propose an alternative mechanism for funding the capital repairs and maintenance of these facilities. CAST proposes a FAIR SHARE FACILITY FEE (a surcharge) of $3.25 to be added to each ticket sold for all events held at Cleveland’s three professional sports facilities: FirstEnergy Stadium, Progressive Field, and Quicken Loans Arena. This amount will equal the yearly budgeted revenues of the “proposedSin Tax” extension (Issue 7). The owners of the Cleveland Cavaliers and Quicken Loans Arena have been routinely charging a $3.00 facility fee for all events put on by outside entities, including concerts, shows like Disney on Ice, monster trucks, comedy shows, the circus, other musical performances, and even sporting events such as the Mid-American Conference college basketball tournament, which features teams from mid-major schools such as Central Michigan and Northern Illinois Universities. Whatever they do with this income, Cavs and Arena officials have obviously proven to their satisfaction that, in fact, such a fee does not “drive away concerts and events” or customers, despite their public claims to the contrary. If a $3.25 facility fee were applied to all entertainment and sport activities at the three publicly owned venues, it would result in an equitable alternative to the Sin Tax extension request of the owners. It would remove the unfair burden that falls disproportionately on Cuyahoga residents and those who choose not to attend events at these facilities. Based on public reports by the teams themselves, approximately 4.14 million tickets are sold to events at the stadium, arena and baseball field in an average year. Using the same $3.00 per ticket facility fee which is the present practice of the Q, the total annual facility fee would be $12.4 million, extremely close to the $13.5 million annually that the proposed Sin Tax is expected to raise. Simple - A facilities, obviously already not dampening demand for the products that makes the cost of maintenance and repair be borne by those that use the facilities. Vote No on Issue 7 and then we can place this alternative means of funding our sports facilities on the ballot for 2015. This will truly keep cleveland strong.

And Indianapolis, a mid sized city also struggling to pay for basic safety services and road repairs now increases it's already wide budget deficit. http://indianapolis.about.com/od/indynewsandissues/a/IndyCIBSuffersBudgetDeficit.htm (( ps -- this article was written before the extra millions were added to subsidize the Pacers.)) Now for 2014 with the Pacer's deal CIB is going to be $40 million short on revenue....just for 2014. Oh yeah ... and the new pro soccer team wants &90 million in public funding next year. They gotta their beak wet too. Guess it's time to go back to the taxpayers!

Today, CAST ( Coalition Against the Sin Tax) will reveal "FairShare" the alternative funding plan to Issue 7. Stay tuned for more.

Yeah except there is PLENTY of available real estate within a high fly ball or a long field goal of either stadium. What needs to happen is that some of this money goes into a general economic development fund (think the Convention Center hotel) rather than directly into sports owners pockets. Yes! This is about ROI. We need to use our limited funds in the way that best aids growth and population stabilization. Stadium funding has been consistently shown to be a poor return on investment for public money. I disagree to a point. They needed to be built. What I have a problem with is a billionaire owner like Dan Gilbert giving the county an invoice rather than a rent check at the end of the year. Who signed these deals where the owners don't even have to supply their own light bulbs, etc? They are in federal prison now? So it's time to renegotiate the rent deals. And hire someone with expertise in these matters. Politicians make horrible negotiators, especially when they are starry-eyed gazing at pro athletes.... I don't think we really are disagreeing that much. (Although I could definitely think of things I would have rather done with the gateway money) But now where are we are -- The teams are now able to bear the majority of the cost for themselves. They are highly profitable private enterprises. The City of Cleveland/ County is struggling to provide basic services, stabilize population, educate its children, and attract jobs. The funds from the Sin-tax could go to many other better uses.

Yeah except there is PLENTY of available real estate within a high fly ball or a long field goal of either stadium. What needs to happen is that some of this money goes into a general economic development fund (think the Convention Center hotel) rather than directly into sports owners pockets. Yes! This is about ROI. We need to use our limited funds in the way that best aids growth and population stabilization. Stadium funding has been consistently shown to be a poor return on investment for public money.

That's what 2015 is for! There is still a year to work this out. We don't have to rush to "yes" on another sin tax when we have an entire to make a well-thought-out, fair plan.

Please continue to tilt! Alan Glazen, informal leader of one of the anti- sin tax groups just posted that "It's a Sin, Cleveland" and CAST will announce a formal alternative to the sin-tax at a press conference tomorrow April 11 AT 10:30 at the corner of Carnegie and Ontario. I would guess that it is either an additional "facilities fee" and/or a multi-county regional sales tax to be propsed at the State level. But Issue 7 has to go down to defeat before we even get the chance to discuss alternatives. ___ Separately -- supposed there is a Newsweek national article pending by a "Pulitzer prize winning author" which might help give some much needed press to the VOTE NO campaign.

A nice article from Cool Cleveland: http://www.coolcleveland.com/blog/2014/04/issue-7-extending-the-sin-tax-the-good-the-bad-the-ugly/?fb_action_ids=10152384480535929&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_ref=facebook Re- The irony that the pro-7 campaign is named "Keep Cleveland Strong"

I wouldn't count union members amongst the poor. In terms of wage earners, they are doing better than most. And they stand to benefit from the work that happens around the venues. Additionally, income inequality is a very low ranking concern among the working the class. They are concerned about jobs and wages, but more as it relates to their own situation and how they support their family. In general, concern of issues of inequality, or which regressive taxation is one, don't being to rank highly in polls until you reach a higher level of affluence and educational attainment. Also, inequality concerns increase in cities with high costs of living as a stand-in for affordability. Cleveland doesn't have a big problem there. Overall it does not surprise me at all that local trade unions are supporting the Issue.

For those interested in seeing/ hearing a debate, The City Club will have a panel discussion on April 1 at noon. http://www.cityclub.org/Default.aspx?tabid=256&id=15837 The panel will be: Neil deMause, Editor, fieldofschemes.com Councilman Kevin Kelley, Council President, City of Cleveland Len Komoroski, CEO Cleveland Cavaliers and Quicken Loans Peter Pattakos, Representative, Coalition Against the Sin Tax

Sure. This is why we in Cleveland and other advocates for the wise use of public funds in other communities across the country have to bring the owners and the leagues back to the table to negotiate fairer leases with a fairer balance of private vs. public expense and a clearer definition of what is "necessary" repair and upkeep vs what is a publicly-funded cash machine for Ms. Haslam (is -- big scoreboard) . Defeat 7 now and bring them back to the table to negotiate the future. Many better ways. Maybe we could .... charge more rent? I'm no staunch anti-tax guy (I continue to support the other sin-tax for funding of Cuyahoga arts & culture (although I wish more money also went toward smoking cessation and public health too) ), but this tax represents the worst of the worst. It's a transfer of public funds from the poorest people into the hands of the 3 wealthiest people in the City. (( edit: I'm not a Russo supporter or anything. I just liked the graphic and lifted it from his FB page ))

That is the first I have heard of it. How big? I am sure that NFL fans paying $60/ticket could afford to pay another million/year in fees. It would cost about a dollar/ticket. I was at one of the No on 7 meetings and the discussion was that a $3/tckt fee would be a replacement for the sin tax revenue. I am not sure how data-driven that number was. I do agree with Boreas that any additional facilities fee is unlikely to be a primary or even major influence on ticket demand relative to the many other factors that effect purchase decisions. I am sure the teams would argue differently ( I would if I wwere them) but I still think an additional facilities fee would be more fair than the sin tax.

Just my speculation but ... Wouldn't they wait to rebuild until after the RR tacks were re-routed, the tunnel constructed, and the RR tracks replaced to their original location?

Nope. I am very sensitive to "garbage stink" too.

It's not going to happen by May 6 obviously, but as a long term political strategy, a number of cities and a coalition of the leaders and activists should indeed be looking to push the leagues to put up the $$ for supporting the infrastructure that brings them their revenue. The NFL is the most profitable league in the country, mostly on TV revenue. There is no reason to think that that stadiums somehow have to be profitable only based their own attendance revenue. The league could view them as a "loss leader", a necessary capital expense in order to let them put a quality TV product on the air so they can show us all an infinite number of bud light ads. But in order to move at all in that direction individual communities must first reject the open-ended "sure!, Whatever you want!" approach to public financing that has been the story of the last three decades. Cleveland is just one of a number of communities beginning to awaken to the fact that public financing to stadium is a poor use of public money and there are other options that simply require political and force to put into place.

I like the Multi-county tax better. I like a facilities fee per ticket even more. Let the cost be born be the people who attend events.

Remember all --- That a defeat on May 6 for Issue 7 does not mean that suddenly the teams leave or the general fund gets raided. There is another year to then sit down at the table and negotiate fair lease deals with the teams and to consider less regressive means to fund necessary repairs. But we shouldn't just roll over and say yes to whatever wishlist and open-ended public funding stream the billionaires throw at us. I'm voting NO on 7. Anyone who wants to join the discussion on facebood can check out It's A Sin, Cleveland: https://www.facebook.com/groups/antisin/ and/or Coalition Against the Sin Tax CAST: https://www.facebook.com/CoalitionAgainsttheSinTax