This letter is in response to the articles covering the Sin Tax vote

occurring Tuesday, May 6, 2014.

 

This issue is the absurdity of absurdities. Let me get this straight: the purpose of the Sin Tax is to gouge those who purchase alcohol and cigarettes not because anyone is trying to discourage consumption but rather so the County can use that money to pay for sports stadiums that do not produce anything but a fleeting moment witnessing the passing of a football, the dribbling of a basketball and the throwing of a baseball so that such a minute tidbit of diversion can be enjoyed by all. The stupidity of this proposition is enough to make your head spin even though the spin doctors advocating passage of this nonsense are already doing a pretty good job of hypnotizing the voters to actually consider supporting it. At least the Robber Barons of the previous centuries provided something tangible such as oil, steel, railroads etcetera. These team owners do not even provide one tangible thing that could ever be considered with the term “value added.” Almost everyone discusses this “enterprise” as though it is the same thing as industry {which it is not}. The price of admission is essentially a voluntary tax paid by those who can afford it to pay those who don’t need it. If this isn’t a transfer of wealth I don’t know what is.

 

The real outrage here is the fact that taxes on alcohol and cigarettes will not be used to aid in the reduction of addiction {hence the reference to “sin”} but rather to stuff the pockets of all three teams who could easily afford to pay for the repairs themselves. The vote was rammed through the last time {under somewhat suspicious circumstances} and hear we go again. But this time...not so fast!!! We the voters of Cuyahoga County are going to fight the proponents on this one and we don't care if the teams up and go somewhere else {please see my views on entertainment below} because quite frankly there are simply more important things than sports and the unearned money that comes with it. Those in public office who are too stupid and lazy to find other ways to grow a major American city need to resign and leave their self-seeking political ambitions on the scrapheap of history. Don’t ever let it be said that this was time when the tide ran out on Cuyahoga County but rather was the time when the voters rose up to welcome the rising tide of change and rebuked this pathetic paradigm our previous elected leaders embraced. Let the battle be joined.

 

And now to the real underlying issue at hand:

 

One of the most disturbing facts about our capitalist nation is the misappropriation of funds directed to the salaries of entertainers.  Everyone should agree that the value an athlete, movie star, talk-show host, team-owner, etcetera brings to the average citizen is very small. Granted, they do offer a minuscule of diversion from our daily trials and tribulations as did the jesters in the king's court during the middle ages. But to allow these entertainers to horde such great amounts of wealth at the expense of more benevolent societal programs is unacceptable. They do not provide a product or a service so why are they rewarded as such?

 

Our society is also subjected to the "profound wisdom" of these people because it equates wealth with influence. Perhaps a solution to this problem and a alternative to defeated school levies, crumbling

infrastructures, as well as all the programs established to help feed, clothe and shelter those who cannot help themselves would be to tax this undeserved wealth. Entertainers could keep 1% of the gross earnings reaped from their endeavor and 99% could be deposited into the public coffers.

 

The old ideas of the redistribution of wealth have failed, and it is time to adapt to modern-day preferences. People put their money into entertainment above everything else; isn't it time to tap that wealth? Does anyone think this will reduce the quality of entertainment? It seems to me that when entertainers received less income, the quality was much higher.

 

You are welcome to discuss the sin tax, please use *this* thread for that discussion rather than create multiple threads. Thank you!

Leaving aside the myriad of ridiculous societal tangents included in this article, it misses one very basic point:  the city and county must pay for the upkeep of these buildings out of the general funds if the existing  “sin tax” is not renewed.  That’s a legal commitment, as well as a sensible one.  They own the buildings, and the prevention of degradation and blight is their duty as a landlord as well as the governing body.  If they must meet this obligation (which exists regardless of whether or not there are active tenants) using these funds, it takes away from basic services. 

 

The attempts by opponents to refight the battle they lost in the 1990s are shortsighted and potentially counterproductive.  This is not a discussion about budgeting the money to buy a new house and car.  This is about taking care of the old one.

 

Your right EROCC, the cat is out of the bag.

 

I'm still voting NO, peeing in the wind.  I'll shower afterwards.

 

 

^I understand the impulse, but you understand that a "no" vote means spending less on police, economic development, parks, etc, right?

 

EDIT: and I could be wrong, but I think the ultimate liability without a sin tax renewal lies with the City of Cleveland (not the county), so a "no" vote specifically means shifting the liability away from county/regional smokers/drinkers and onto those who work/live in the City of Cleveland. It's still lousy to dump on smokers/drinkers like this, but I think the alternative is even worse.  The fairest way from the beginning would have been a regional (i.e., multi county) sales tax.

^I understand the impulse, but you understand that a "no" vote means spending less on police, economic development, parks, etc, right?

 

EDIT: and I could be wrong, but I think the ultimate liability without a sin tax renewal lies with the City of Cleveland (not the county), so a "no" vote specifically means shifting the liability away from county/regional smokers/drinkers and onto those who work/live in the City of Cleveland. It's still lousy to dump on smokers/drinkers like this, but I think the alternative is even worse.  The fairest way from the beginning would have been a regional (i.e., multi county) sales tax.

 

The County would have to take care of Jacobs Field and Gund Arena, the City Cleveland Browns Stadium*.  They are the owners.

 

*  I refuse to use corporate names unless those entities are paying me to do so and think media outlets should take a similar approach

^I understand the impulse, but you understand that a "no" vote means spending less on police, economic development, parks, etc, right?

 

EDIT: and I could be wrong, but I think the ultimate liability without a sin tax renewal lies with the City of Cleveland (not the county), so a "no" vote specifically means shifting the liability away from county/regional smokers/drinkers and onto those who work/live in the City of Cleveland. It's still lousy to dump on smokers/drinkers like this, but I think the alternative is even worse.  The fairest way from the beginning would have been a regional (i.e., multi county) sales tax.

 

The County would have to take care of Jacobs Field and Gund Arena, the City Cleveland Browns Stadium*.  They are the owners.

 

*  I refuse to use corporate names unless those entities are paying me to do so and think media outlets should take a similar approach

 

That's silly.  If you want to call them that, have at it, but to say media outlets should be paid to use those names is silly.  Where does it end?  Maybe the PD should call the Browns the Cleveland Dysfuntionals unless they are paid to call them the Browns.  Those corporate names are the official names of the facilities.

I understand the reasoning, but the Jacobs Brothers were a corporation; the Gund Brothers were a corporation; and the Cleveland Browns are a corporation!

 

 

^I understand the impulse, but you understand that a "no" vote means spending less on police, economic development, parks, etc, right?

 

EDIT: and I could be wrong, but I think the ultimate liability without a sin tax renewal lies with the City of Cleveland (not the county), so a "no" vote specifically means shifting the liability away from county/regional smokers/drinkers and onto those who work/live in the City of Cleveland. It's still lousy to dump on smokers/drinkers like this, but I think the alternative is even worse.  The fairest way from the beginning would have been a regional (i.e., multi county) sales tax.

 

The County would have to take care of Jacobs Field and Gund Arena, the City Cleveland Browns Stadium*.  They are the owners.

 

I'm not sure it's very clear with the Gateway facilities (which also means I take back my earlier edit). Technically, Gateway Economic Development Corporation is the owner, and it's not a county unit, so I don't think the county is obligated to stand behind it.  I've never been able to get my hands on a copy of the amended stadium and arena leases, so I don't know if there's any formal guarantee from any local government.  Most likely, if the sin tax fails, local leaders would have to choose between (a) letting GEDC reject the major capital upgrade requests from the teams and subjecting GEDC to litigation or worse, and (b) cobbling together a bailout, which would probably involve a combo of city, county, and private foundation dollars.

 

I guess I'm softening my stance a bit the more I think about it.  The Cavs and Indians aren't significant flight risks in the foreseeable future because (unlike the NFL) there are few markets that can really support MLB/NBA teams. I'd be more inclined to have the county cull the expected capital projects at Gateway (do we really need HD score boards?) and propose a shorter or smaller sin tax extension. But I guess we're past that point now, and given the dumb obligations to First Energy, I  think I'd still rather see that liability at least effectively removed from the city's books. 

The sin tax is crappy deal that's getting pushed off on the lowest common denominator, smokers & drinkers.  It's really not even debatable anymore whether or not these stadiums are the best use of public resources, tons of studies out there indicate they are not.  So now we have the wealthy team owners (Dolans, Gilbert, Haslam) who have sweet deals that minimize their long term liability in terms of stadium maintenance and maximize their profits.  They've assembled a consortium of politicians who are throwing their support behind this sin tax because otherwise they have to raise taxes or cut spending on other programs.  The part that gets me is this is a 20 year tax.  That is really long.  An argument could be made that all 3 of those stadiums will be ready to be replaced by then, as they will be 35 yrs old...

It makes no sense. We allow for athletes to get paid ridiculous salaries because we make the owners pay literally nothing for their facilities. If every athlete was paid between $100k-500k a year (still a crazy amount of money), there would be plenty of money left over for the owners to pay all of the costs themselves.

sell the stadiums to the highest bidder and be done with the leases

sell the stadiums to the highest bidder and be done with the leases

 

Would be interesting but who would want it?

I'd be more inclined to have the county cull the expected capital projects at Gateway (do we really need HD score boards?) and propose a shorter or smaller sin tax extension. But I guess we're past that point now, and given the dumb obligations to First Energy, I  think I'd still rather see that liability at least effectively removed from the city's books. 

 

It's pretty clear to me that the reason the tax renewal was put on the ballot for this May was because the powers that be want a few more opportunities to pass it if it fails the first time around.  But since the tax doesn't expire for over a year past that vote, it's not actually that big of an emergency.  We've got time to work out a better deal that addresses concerns like this, despite how it's being presented by GCP and County Council.

 

The best use of a "no" vote in May is to bring all parties to the table and leverage a fair and well-defined deal for the taxpayers.  All this other talk about "fat-cat owners" and how broke we are as a community is a sideshow, because like it or not, that ship has sailed. 

^Makes sense.  I agree there's probably a better deal to be had.

 

It makes no sense. We allow for athletes to get paid ridiculous salaries because we make the owners pay literally nothing for their facilities. If every athlete was paid between $100k-500k a year (still a crazy amount of money), there would be plenty of money left over for the owners to pay all of the costs themselves.

 

I think this is the weakest argument, actually. Sure, some of the public subsidies find their way to player salaries, but just as much finds its way into owner pockets. The main reason why some players make so much is because they are the top performers (determined by arguably the most pure meritocracy out there) in an industry that's insanely popular and lucrative far beyond the subsidies.

 

The biggest reason we have so much public subsidy is because there's a fixed number of "major league" teams, and apparently a huge drop-off in fan enthusiasm if you move from a major league to a lower tier.  So metro areas and cities within them essentially bid against one-another for the prestige and quality of life benefits that major league sports provide.  It's true that the economic development benefits are exaggerated (and are effecitvely negative, probably), but I suspect that's mostly a red herring.  I think people really are willing to tax themselves for the prestige and QOL value, regardless of the economics.  Of course, that's at the expense of those who don't really care, but that's not so different from most public expenditures not funded entirely by user fees.

 

It would be swell if there would be some kind of durable inter-state non-proliferation treaty out there essentially banning public subsidies, but my guess is that the Indianas, North Carolina, Virginias, and Nevadas of the country would never sign on, ever hoping to lure more big teams to their cities. Which stinks for the rest of us.

It would be swell if there would be some kind of durable inter-state non-proliferation treaty out there essentially banning public subsidies, but my guess is that the Indianas, North Carolina, Virginias, and Nevadas of the country would never sign on, ever hoping to lure more big teams to their cities. Which stinks for the rest of us.

 

That's true but at the end of the day, how upset would residents really be if civic leaders "opened the books" and said look, this is what we are paying for leasing, maintenance, police, lost costs on a facility that sits vacant 200+ days a year...  I think people would understand.

^That's a great question.  I suspect that even with total transparency the decision to levy taxes to lure the new Browns, for example, would have been fairly popular, because there was such a specific quid pro quo (taxes for new team), but I don't really know.  Definitely a lot harder when looking at existing teams for which the risk of flight is difficult to assess.

This is a great discussion to have when we talk about the next stadiums we may or may not build. But as we discussed in the browns stadium thread, we're already on the hook here. So, while a sin tax may seem like it's punitive to smokers and drinkers, the logic is that it's deriving income from something that doesn't provide a tremendous social benefit (aside from tax income). The alternative is what? I can tell you that I'm not going to be thrilled with an additional sales tax. Forget a property tax levy. Out of all of the options, the one that effects me the least is the sin tax.

^I'm not completely convinced the public is really contractually obligated to pony up for everything that a sin tax renewal is likely to fund, but without direct access to the leases and a better understanding of some of the fuzzy standards the Browns' lease was reported to contain, it's hard to know.  I guess I should have more faith in our public officials, but my impression from the reporting (mostly the reactions from the Cleveland City Council dissenters) was that the legal due diligence was fairly skimpy.

 

[Edited for typos]

It’s one of the ways cities and metro areas compete with one another.  Above and beyond the direct financial impact, there’s a good deal of value vis a vis perception, whether or not you are a “major league” market or not.  It can accelerate growth and prestige, so places like Salt Lake City, Austin, Portland, San Antonio, or even Raleigh-Durham would love to add that distinction in more than one sport.

 

I suspect it’s even worse if a metro area had it and loses it.  Cleveland would be perceived a lot more like Youngstown if that had taken place.  I would guess it would be a factor in accelerating decline. 

 

I’d be all in favor of selling the venues off if I knew they could get a good price for them, but the fact is they are worth much more to the city/county than they would be to any private entity, for the above reasons.

 

Though again, this is a twenty year old debate.  The current one is “do we take care of this resource we have?”.  This shouldn’t be a tough decision and the existing method is probably the least painful, in part because it does exist….

 

It's really easy to pretend that these sports teams only bring in direct returns that fail to cover the costs. I agree that they provide a lot of benefits that are overlooked and not able to be measured. This group (urban planners, and those who are urban-minded) tends to ignore the positive aspects that come from professional sports more than they should. Ask me for figures, and I don't have them. But these institutions are really important for cities. I can't imagine what the country's impression of Cincinnati would be if we didn't have the Bengals anymore. Same with Cleveland losing the Browns and Cavs.

Think of the real full time jobs that could be had if the same subsidies were applied to attract and build new office buildings in the same locations as these sports facilities ....

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

 

 

I could be wrong, but I think the ultimate liability without a sin tax renewal lies with the City of Cleveland (not the county), so a "no" vote specifically means shifting the liability away from county/regional smokers/drinkers and onto those who work/live in the City of Cleveland. It's still lousy to dump on smokers/drinkers like this, but I think the alternative is even worse.  The fairest way from the beginning would have been a regional (i.e., multi county) sales tax.

 

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.

It’s one of the ways cities and metro areas compete with one another.  Above and beyond the direct financial impact, there’s a good deal of value vis a vis perception, whether or not you are a “major league” market or not.  It can accelerate growth and prestige, so places like Salt Lake City, Austin, Portland, San Antonio, or even Raleigh-Durham would love to add that distinction in more than one sport.

 

I suspect it’s even worse if a metro area had it and loses it.  Cleveland would be perceived a lot more like Youngstown if that had taken place.  I would guess it would be a factor in accelerating decline. 

 

I’d be all in favor of selling the venues off if I knew they could get a good price for them, but the fact is they are worth much more to the city/county than they would be to any private entity, for the above reasons.

 

Though again, this is a twenty year old debate.  The current one is “do we take care of this resource we have?”.  This shouldn’t be a tough decision and the existing method is probably the least painful, in part because it does exist….

 

 

Agreed 100%. 

 

While I'm not pro tax generally, if put to good use then why not.  It's not like saving that nickel on your pack of smokes is going to change your life. 

 

As an alternative, what if we the NFL lost its tax exempt status and was forced to kick in some of their money?

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.

 

That isn't fair either. In your example, you get the benefit of having a home team and watching it on TV on the backs of people going the games.

^Agreed.  Plus, the teams already set prices on the margin to maximize revenue.  Any increases in admissions taxes would primarily redirect revenue from the teams to the stadiums. There's nothing wrong with that, but it means it's not really a public subsidy, so no different than saying "pay for it yourself."

 

As an alternative, what if we the NFL lost its tax exempt status and was forced to kick in some of their money?

 

I don't think the NFL itself has very much money. The main cash flow is to the teams, which aren't tax-exempt.

http://www.sacknfltaxbreaks.org/the-issues.html

 

 

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.

 

it's really not that simple.  Tons of local businesses buy up groups of seats.  They pass the ticket costs on to customers

NFL tax exempt status is a red herring. They're only tax exempt because they are merely a conduit for revenues that go to the teams. It would be like taxing your stock broker for revenues on your account. Also, your broker is on Park Avenue in NYC, so you're not going to benefit from it anyway.

^Or like taxing the PGA on Tiger Woods' winnings.

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.

 

it's really not that simple.  Tons of local businesses buy up groups of seats.  They pass the ticket costs on to customers

 

I hate to tell you, but these facilities already have facility fees on the tickets.  I'm sure that goes to the general operating costs....

Its still a shame the city/county got $0 for the naming rights.

I hate to tell you, but these facilities already have facility fees on the tickets.  I'm sure that goes to the general operating costs....

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 understand the impulse, but you understand that a "no" vote means spending less on police, economic development, parks, etc, right?

 

EDIT: and I could be wrong, but I think the ultimate liability without a sin tax renewal lies with the City of Cleveland (not the county), so a "no" vote specifically means shifting the liability away from county/regional smokers/drinkers and onto those who work/live in the City of Cleveland. It's still lousy to dump on smokers/drinkers like this, but I think the alternative is even worse.  The fairest way from the beginning would have been a regional (i.e., multi county) sales tax.

 

The County would have to take care of Jacobs Field and Gund Arena, the City Cleveland Browns Stadium*.  They are the owners.

 

*  I refuse to use corporate names unless those entities are paying me to do so and think media outlets should take a similar approach

 

That's silly.  If you want to call them that, have at it, but to say media outlets should be paid to use those names is silly.  Where does it end?  Maybe the PD should call the Browns the Cleveland Dysfuntionals unless they are paid to call them the Browns.  Those corporate names are the official names of the facilities.

 

If people don't use them, the companies paying all this money out (WTF does a monopoly utility need to spend $100 million on something like this?) look dumb and the idiotic practice begins to go away. 

 

In Denver, the local media took this approach until the company that bought the "rights" kept having interns in the marketing department badger them. 

I hate to tell you, but these facilities already have facility fees on the tickets.  I'm sure that goes to the general operating costs....

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.

 

 

It varies by the event and is included in your ticket price.  $2-$5 is typical. 

I hate to tell you, but these facilities already have facility fees on the tickets.  I'm sure that goes to the general operating costs....

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.

Reality is that the sin tax may not even be enough for the maintenance & upgrades required to keep the stadiums looking good.  The amount of upkeep they require will grow significantly in the next 10 yrs as they all reach the 30 year old mark. 

Ironic that all the trade unions have gathered together to support this sin tax.  The sin tax is regressively paid for by the poor & uneducated, and benefits the wealthiest 1%. 

Ironic that all the trade unions have gathered together to support this sin tax.  The sin tax is regressively paid for by the poor & uneducated, and benefits the wealthiest 1%. 

 

Of course they did, the money is to be spent for building repairs and maintenance....

Very interesting discussion here.  I'm starting to tilt more strongly in the direction of believing that there's a better way to fund stadium maintenance/improvements than the Sin Tax. 

Reality is that the sin tax may not even be enough for the maintenance & upgrades required to keep the stadiums looking good.  The amount of upkeep they require will grow significantly in the next 10 yrs as they all reach the 30 year old mark. 

 

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.

 

 

Very interesting discussion here.  I'm starting to tilt more strongly in the direction of believing that there's a better way to fund stadium maintenance/improvements than the Sin Tax. 

 

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 ))

 

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

Ironic that all the trade unions have gathered together to support this sin tax.  The sin tax is regressively paid for by the poor & uneducated, and benefits the wealthiest 1%. 

 

Of course they did, the money is to be spent for building repairs and maintenance....

 

I think they have a "bigger picture" rationale for supporting the sin tax.  But I do agree with you two that consumption taxes disproportionately affect the poor and benefit the wealthy.

 

I am voting yes for the practical reasons stated above.  Another practical consideration is that tobacco and alchohol taxes are going to increase (or at least restored to the same levels they are with the sin tax) regardless of whether we direct those funds to stadiums repairs or to the general fund.  It's low hanging fruit which is easy to pass off to the voters.... especially considering the future medical costs caused by those products which all too often gets passed on to the general population.  Either way, whether a sin tax is used to earmark the funds or whether the obligations need to come out of the general fund in the happenstance the sin tax is rejected, the money will get where it is inevitably heading. 

Very interesting discussion here.  I'm starting to tilt more strongly in the direction of believing that there's a better way to fund stadium maintenance/improvements than the Sin Tax. 

Ironic that all the trade unions have gathered together to support this sin tax.  The sin tax is regressively paid for by the poor & uneducated, and benefits the wealthiest 1%. 

 

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.

Very interesting discussion here.  I'm starting to tilt more strongly in the direction of believing that there's a better way to fund stadium maintenance/improvements than the Sin Tax. 

Ironic that all the trade unions have gathered together to support this sin tax.  The sin tax is regressively paid for by the poor & uneducated, and benefits the wealthiest 1%. 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

I wouldn't count union members amongst the poor.  In terms of wage earners, they are doing better than most.

 

Yeah.  That's kind of the point

vote no

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" 

 

The strength of a city or region resides in its citizens and their well-being. A “strong” city sees population growth, job growth, income growth, and an increase in education levels, as well as declines in poverty, unemployment, crime, addiction, illness, illiteracy, and foreclosure.

 

If Cleveland WAS “strong” — and by the measures above, it’s not — how would having professional sports teams keep it that way? (Some of the country’s most flourishing cities had or have no major league professional sports teams or only one or two, while dying Detroit has four). And if it’s not “strong “ how would professional sports teams contribute to improving the measures above?  And what is the cost of these teams in proportion to the return i.e. the impact on the measures above?

 

The new tax is expected to raise in the vicinity of $260 million over the next 15 years. (An exact figure can’t be pinned down because it’s tied to the amount of alcohol and cigarette purchases, which changes over time).

 

It’s not “free” money, or a trivial amount that nobody will feel, and hey — it’s not a “new” tax, say the proponents, which is true. But unless more population and more jobs come to the area, it’s taken away from someplace else. Is that someplace else more valuable and more productive in improving quality of life measures, creating jobs, and recycling money through the local economy?

 

Appealing to the area’s fictional strength and to such unquantifiable entities as “civic pride” to extract more wealth from the region doesn’t answer these critical dollars-and-cents questions. Claiming we must at all costs keep “our” teams — which aren’t “ours” in any meaningful way since we have no control over their activities and virtually all the profits go elsewhere — seems to be an appeal to desperation and weakness, rather than strength.