Hts121

He'll get more than $1billion if he still controls the ability to sell it to the highest bidder. Ironically, the timing couldn't be any better given the resurgence of the franchise and relatively bright future. Hell.... somebody might even think about taking the team back to San Diego (doubt it) or on to Seattle (doubt it, but more likely than San Diego I suppose).

^I think it is a much more pressing matter for the City due to the awful, yet legally binding, lease it entered into involving the football stadium. On top of that, the stadium itself was a rush job and is probably more in need of maintenance, despite being built later and used less than the Gateway complex. The City's budget is also smaller with a lot less wiggle room for adjustments should the measure fail. You do if the 'political issue' has anything to do with choo-choos ;)

The league really had no choice and I honestly wish nothing but the worst for this POS. That said, I somewhat agree with Mark Cuban's initial assessment that it is a slippery slope issue.

^Where where? EDIT: Now my joke makes no cents ;)

^You're assuming that CCF and other hospitals look to fill their vacancies with local doctors first and only turn to the international candidates when their is a shortfall. That's not true. The Clinic would have no problem filling its staff with grads from US medical schools if it so chose. The areas I know that international doctors are needed due to shortages are in the family practices for rural communities. If it is indeed a national trend, it is one I want our region to be a part of. Of course, more quantify would be good too. There are countless things which would be "good too"...... but I was simply pointing out my preference of focusing on and emphasizing quality over quantity. Most of what you read completely ignores the former and bases all conclusions about overall area 'health' on the latter. As for refugees, we've had an influx of (I think they are) Burmese refugees in the "121" and I read some article a few months back about how well they are doing here.

^The constant focus on raw numbers (population, number of jobs, etc.) over the quality of the people and jobs. From the article.... The newcomers from abroad are especially appealing. Nearly half of Greater Cleveland's immigrants arrived with a college degree, the study found. Among degreed immigrants, 60 percent hold a master's or a doctorate degree. "That's phenomenal," Piiparinen said. "Even though we don't get quantity, the quality is world class."

I've been pounding that quality over quantity drum for years now :)

^I agree. It is very functional for the purposes of the county courts. I'd think an improvement would be to build a new Cleveland Municipal Court and put it in a separate building (or at least a separate, connected tower) from the Common Pleas Court. That would alleviate a LOT of the crowding.... especially in the security lines and elevators. Tearing it down seems like a massive waste of money which could be put to better uses. We already have a ton invested in that building/complex. Rumor has it that, when all was said and done, it cost the county more than what was paid to construct the Sears Tower in Chicago. ***I certainly wouldn't mind a multitude of aesthetic changes. The bathrooms need upgrading and the wall paneling in the courtrooms need to be redone (years ago, they removed the vertical lined wall which the jury faced due to nausea complaints, but left the other three walls the way they are).

I don't really know where to put this, but here is an interesting read on the convergence of Texas's booming population/economy and its small government philosophies. It is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain both. When you are a scarcely populated state (relatively speaking) with an abundance of natural resources, things can look quite grand (see North Dakota). But when your population booms, especially in sprawly faux-urban centers such as D-FW, Houston, SA, etc., the need for governmental investment often outpaces the increased revenue..... especially when you don't have a state income tax. I think traffic congestion and water supply issues are just the tip of the iceberg for Texas. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/boom-time-in-texas--jobs--traffic--water-worries-143250407.html

^I think that Fox 8 must be getting the same types of comments that we see on here sometimes. They probably just wanted to clarify that there is a city council member who stands against murder and other forms of violent crimes.

It looks better than I anticipated. I'm going to reserve final judgment until I get an up close in person

Wait... what? People thought that the sin tax was going to expire as the law was written for it to expire. There weren't any alternatives planned because there wasn't any future tax planed. The maintenance costs weren't an expected expense? So by your rationale... even though the original sin tax was only scheduled for 20 years, opponents should have actually known that the tax was really meant to continue in perpetuity because of course the billionaire owners would continue to need more $$ and therefore should have proposed alternative funding measures expecting that the teams would want to renew the tax ad infinitum? That's some twisty logic there. Not it's not.... if you took the time to ponder it. The Sin Tax is not a measure meant to alleviate any burden on the owners of these teams or give them any additional revenue. It is an elective choice by the voters about the source of money the City/County is obligated to pay. The voters decided that, for 20 years, it would be done through a sin tax. Now, the decision is whether to continue that funding source or, absent some agreeable alternative source, go to the default of securing the funds out of the general operating budgets. I also might be wrong, but I don't believe Jacobs or Gund were billionaires at the time of the original vote. E Rocc is right. Who in their right mind honestly did not believe that there would be an effort to extend the sin tax? Anybody? Bueller? If you felt that strongly about it, you should have been as proactive as its proponents in getting an alternative on the ballot.

Pretty sure he was referring to OSU and UT, both of which have professional sized sporting events. They both have major universities and are both state capitals. Bad comparables, for sure

I highly doubt you could reliably poll an issue like this....... particularly when turnout is so unpredictable. Actually, cops working the games are often not off-duty, and never under the table. If the venue contracts with the City then cops are asked to volunteer for the assignment outside of their regular hours and are paid OT. The City then turns around and charges a flat rate for each cop over and above the OT rate for a command rank. Same goes for firefighters at the games. Those guys are generally from the Fire Prevention Bureau and I know for a fact the City charges the venue over and above the OT rate for a Fire Captain. The City takes that money and puts it into its general fund, even though the OT pay for those officers comes out of the police or fire departments' budgets. It's a neat trick to increase the general fund while still maintaining complaints about OT levels in the Divisions of Police and Fire. Point being, the City actually makes money by having its emergency responders to work these games and the administration gets political talking points to use against these same personnel who the too many citizens are all too eager to dislike If the venue does not contract with the City, 9/10 the contract is with a private security company, such as Tenable, and the cops are considered off-duty and paid through that contractor. It's not 'under the table'

No it's not. Whether you frame it as overtime being "lost" for our emergency responders or shortfalls in staffing necessary to maintain the status quo in city services, the end result is the same. It's a good play for the administration because it's customary opponents view it solely as the former...... overtime simply being a gift to those employees. The City won't hire new personnel, something which would be welcomed by the FOP, CPPA, IAFF, etc., because it prefers hiring existing personnel on overtime for a variety of reasons, mostly budgetary. So the administration cuts services which generate OT, such as public education events and safety training, in addition to imposing station closures and overall staffing level cuts. It's been done over and over again, and not exactly in the most rational manner when the City's hand is forced. It's an undeniable concern, not a false assumption

^That doesn't answer the question. The Sin Tax is going to "bring in" money (a) which won't go all to the Browns as it will be spread amongst the three teams; and (b) that the City, NOT Haslam, is on the hook for if the measure fails. So, again, where did you get your figures? As for city emergency response services being cut (mentioned upthread)..... this is a real concern, not a simply a scare tactic. One of the lower-hanging fruits whenever budgets need adjusting are overtime costs for police/fire/ems. When you cut overtime to those divisions, without hiring additional members, you run into issues with daily staffing. It's not that the fire truck is not going to show up at your burning house..... it's that (on any given day) it might only be manned by 3 firefighters as opposed to the 4 man squad the NFPA guidelines recommend.

Where do you get the figure that the measure failing is going to cost Jimmy Haslam $300mill?

Yikes....... http://www.upworthy.com/know-anyone-that-thinks-racial-profiling-is-exaggerated-watch-this-and-tell-me-when-your-jaw-drops-2

^I don't see why it precludes the discussion. The sin tax is only on alcohol and tobacco and there is no rule that it has to be capped at the levels needed to avoid these costs being shifted to the general funds of the County and City. You are free to propose an additional sin tax..... and it doesn't even have to be on alcohol and tobacco. You can impose a sin tax on gambling, fast food, coffee, strip clubs, whatever the voters want. Hell.... we could do a double whammy and legalize pot and use the tax revenue towards one of those more admirable ends.

^That doesn't make sense to me. This issue has been debated and discussed in the "short window" 10x more than the average school levy or any other local tax measure I can remember. There have been countless editorials written. Grassroots opposition has sprung up in relatively impressive force. Maybe you can find a local tax measure here on UO with more than 5 pages of discussion, but I would be surprised? And I don't get your cart/horse analogy at all. Are you suggesting that it should be put up for a vote after it has expired? Or are you suggesting that it is not a ripe issue until our backs are against the wall and the deadline is looming? Do you understand how government budgets and appropriations work? The reason it was put on the ballot this year is to (a) perhaps give them two cracks at getting it passed; and (b) allow the City and County to prepare for the possibility of a massive hit they are going to take in their budgets if it is not passed and give them time to contemplate some difficult decisions they will have to make to meet contractual obligations.

I don't know about you, but I've heard and read a TON of what I would consider true public dialogue on this issue. Anyone and everyone is welcome to offer alternatives to uses of funds accumulated through the sin tax, but the biggest hurdle IMO is the alternatives to the expenses the sin tax covers. Without first addressing those issues, I think you are going to be putting the cart before the horse in the eyes of most people who have looked at this issue beyond the surface.

^As opposed to using funds which are used to address those issues. I would agree that a direct tax to address those issues would be much more rational, although I'm not sure the drinkers and smokers would be too keen to find out how much that would have to be to fully alleviate the added societal burden they cause. I live by a simple rule that you never walk into an Indian restaurant and tell them to make sure your food is spicy....... it's a be careful what you ask for thing. As for the strawman accusation, I don't think you took the time to fully understand my points. It's not a strawman if I'm agreeing that this tax is targeting the low-hanging fruit

Considering the minimal amount of the sin tax, I really don't think it makes a difference. Most opponents (like Mendo, unlike you) oppose it on principal and most proponents would gladly slap on another tax if asked to do so. There's really not much in the middle.

^^The premiums might be higher, but the coverage is significantly lower. Too many DUIs and you aren't getting full coverage..... only liability. If you smoke, your health insurance is likely more limited. When coverage fails and you (or victims of yours) are taken to the ER, who do you think ends up paying? If you die prematurely, who takes care of your dependents? If you become disabled, who pays for your long-term care? I get the argument that they are using an easy target, but it is an easy target for a reason. No argument can be made the societal expenses of these vices are covered by passing those costs onto the people who have those vices. In other words, I have little sympathy for that argument.

But that minority disproportionately causes the general public to pay for the consequences of their legal activities when their livers fail or they develop cancer...... Not to mention car accidents.