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

 

Well then please see gottaplan's post on regressive taxation.

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. 

 

 

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.

Obviously many talking points coming out now that indicate what a bad deal this is for the tax payers.  The graphic on stadium rents above is apalling.  I'd like to see more data that ties stadium incomes (ticket prices, attendance, parking, concessions, etc) and rent together.

 

The other conclusion I keep coming back to is how much real revenue could be created if the City took the same real estate the stadiums are on and built office parks with high rises & garages, and used the subsidies they allot for stadium maintenance to attracting major tenants.  Think of the high paying jobs that could be lured to the area in terms of businesses like law, accounting, technology, marketing....  thousands of people would live here, buy homes, raise families.  Instead we have a few dozen sports players who rent mostly and pay taxes where they claim residence elsewhere

^^ I disagree. I am not inclined to vote against the sin tax, and reduce our income sources without a viable alternative proposal. Doesn't have to be implemented, but I want someone to come up with a plan that both sides could at least acknowledge as workable before I just pull the rug out from under the budget.

 

 

^^ I disagree. I am not inclined to vote against the sin tax, and reduce our income sources without a viable alternative proposal. Doesn't have to be implemented, but I want someone to come up with a plan that both sides could at least acknowledge as workable before I just pull the rug out from under the budget.

 

 

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.

 

The other conclusion I keep coming back to is how much real revenue could be created if the City took the same real estate the stadiums are on and built office parks with high rises & garages, and used the subsidies they allot for stadium maintenance to attracting major tenants.  Think of the high paying jobs that could be lured to the area in terms of businesses like law, accounting, technology, marketing....  thousands of people would live here, buy homes, raise families.  Instead we have a few dozen sports players who rent mostly and pay taxes where they claim residence elsewhere

 

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.

 

The other conclusion I keep coming back to is how much real revenue could be created if the City took the same real estate the stadiums are on and built office parks with high rises & garages, and used the subsidies they allot for stadium maintenance to attracting major tenants.  Think of the high paying jobs that could be lured to the area in terms of businesses like law, accounting, technology, marketing....  thousands of people would live here, buy homes, raise families.  Instead we have a few dozen sports players who rent mostly and pay taxes where they claim residence elsewhere

 

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.

 

The other conclusion I keep coming back to is how much real revenue could be created if the City took the same real estate the stadiums are on and built office parks with high rises & garages, and used the subsidies they allot for stadium maintenance to attracting major tenants.  Think of the high paying jobs that could be lured to the area in terms of businesses like law, accounting, technology, marketing....  thousands of people would live here, buy homes, raise families.  Instead we have a few dozen sports players who rent mostly and pay taxes where they claim residence elsewhere

 

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....

 

The other conclusion I keep coming back to is how much real revenue could be created if the City took the same real estate the stadiums are on and built office parks with high rises & garages, and used the subsidies they allot for stadium maintenance to attracting major tenants.  Think of the high paying jobs that could be lured to the area in terms of businesses like law, accounting, technology, marketing....  thousands of people would live here, buy homes, raise families.  Instead we have a few dozen sports players who rent mostly and pay taxes where they claim residence elsewhere

 

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. 

 

The other conclusion I keep coming back to is how much real revenue could be created if the City took the same real estate the stadiums are on and built office parks with high rises & garages, and used the subsidies they allot for stadium maintenance to attracting major tenants.  Think of the high paying jobs that could be lured to the area in terms of businesses like law, accounting, technology, marketing....  thousands of people would live here, buy homes, raise families.  Instead we have a few dozen sports players who rent mostly and pay taxes where they claim residence elsewhere

 

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 they needed to be built.  I wouldn't be all that upset if any of those teams went away.  Plenty of other cities doing just fine without pro baseball/basketball/football.  Austin & Columbus come to mind.  D1 College sports can be just as big of a draw for sports fans....

Austin and Columbus are both capitol cities with major universities with NCAA D1 teams.  Not sure I see the comparison to Cleveland, where we have none of those attributes.

^^ I disagree. I am not inclined to vote against the sin tax, and reduce our income sources without a viable alternative proposal. Doesn't have to be implemented, but I want someone to come up with a plan that both sides could at least acknowledge as workable before I just pull the rug out from under the budget.

 

Exactly.  The whole idea that we have to defeat the sin tax before we discuss alternatives smells like "we have to pass the bill to find out what's in it".  If people were serious about changing things, this conversation should have started long ago. The costs were never going away.

Leaving aside all the tangible benefits are the perceived ones.  A city which does has never had major league sports  (or only has one team) may or may not be stigmatized if enough other things are going on. 

 

A city that had it, and lost it?  That’s a major black mark, a sign that a city is in decline.  The only one I can think of during the last fifty years is Hartford, unless we count defunct leagues like the ABA, WHA et al.

 

In any case, we’re not talking about new facilities here but about maintenance.

47 Million have been to Jacob's Field.  Anyone remember what it looked like around the area BEFORE Gateway?  How about E. 4th St?  There must be some way to measure the impact.

^^ I disagree. I am not inclined to vote against the sin tax, and reduce our income sources without a viable alternative proposal. Doesn't have to be implemented, but I want someone to come up with a plan that both sides could at least acknowledge as workable before I just pull the rug out from under the budget.

 

Exactly.  The whole idea that we have to defeat the sin tax before we discuss alternatives smells like "we have to pass the bill to find out what's in it".  If people were serious about changing things, this conversation should have started long ago. The costs were never going away.

 

The alternative is simple.  Renegotiate the leases so the city pays less for maintenance and/or charges more in rent

Great. I agree that we should do that. How do we get the team owners to the table? Is there a maturity coming up, or a clause in the contract that allows one side to unilarterally decide to renegotiate terms? I think the lease terms are sh!tty, but I'm pretty sure that the big 3 aren't willing to change the terms to something LESS favorable from their perspective without some kind of incentive.

 

Not passing the sin tax doesn't force their hand, because the city is still obligated to pay for some of these items. We're just putting a gun to our own head.

 

We should absolutely do whatever we can to address the lopsided nature of the lease. But we should also pass the sin tax. As Dergon indicated, if we can agree on a way to reduce the City's liability to the sports complexes, that money can still be used for something else.

 

Or, crazy thought, there's nothing to say that we have to KEEP collecting the sin tax if the stadium liabilities go away.

Anyone else getting the Keep Cleveland Strong e-mails? They suddenly started showing up in my inbox unsolicited. When you click on the "Why am I getting this" you are sent to a page that says -

 

You were subscribed to this list because:

 

You are receiving this email because you believe in keeping Cleveland strong. You can opt out of this mailing at any time.

 

Seems like they think every person who subscribes to team e-mails or has bought tickets should automatically support this. That tactic alone has me seriously considering voting no. I didn't buy tix to sign up for a political campaign.

 

Pretty much every conceivable sports/ticketing/casino has my yahoo account and I haven't seen  anything on it.

Anyone else getting the Keep Cleveland Strong e-mails? They suddenly started showing up in my inbox unsolicited. When you click on the "Why am I getting this" you are sent to a page that says -

 

You were subscribed to this list because:

 

You are receiving this email because you believe in keeping Cleveland strong. You can opt out of this mailing at any time.

 

Seems like they think every person who subscribes to team e-mails or has bought tickets should automatically support this. That tactic alone has me seriously considering voting no. I didn't buy tix to sign up for a political campaign.

 

 

Yup got the same email, tried unsubscribing & got the same.  If they didn't add everyone's names from the e-ticket list, my second guess was the local CDC gave them my email...?

Pacers, Indy strike 10-year deal

Updated: April 10, 2014, 10:11 PM ET

Associated Press

 

INDIANAPOLIS -- The Indianapolis Capital Improvement Board reportedly has struck a deal to pay about $160 million to the Indiana Pacers to keep the NBA franchise in the city.

 

...

 

The reports said the deal includes $33.5 million for upgrades to Bankers Life Fieldhouse and $10.8 million per year for operations. The Pacers would not be allowed to terminate the agreement because of operating losses. The city also gets the right of first refusal if 79-year-old team owner Herb Simon dies and his heirs put the team up for sale.

 

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/10764796/indianapolis-strikes-deal-keep-indiana-pacers-reports-say

 

 

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

 

 

Stay tuned for more.

 

 

INDIANAPOLIS -- The Indianapolis Capital Improvement Board reportedly has struck a deal to pay about $160 million to the Indiana Pacers to keep the NBA franchise in the city.

 

...

 

The reports said the deal includes $33.5 million for upgrades to Bankers Life Fieldhouse and $10.8 million per year for operations. The Pacers would not be allowed to terminate the agreement because of operating losses. The city also gets the right of first refusal if 79-year-old team owner Herb Simon dies and his heirs put the team up for sale.

 

 

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.))

 

Indianapolis’ Capital Improvement Board (CIB) has determined that the costs of operating the new Lucas Oil Stadium are about $20 million more annually than the revenue it earns, and projections indicate that in 2010, the CIB will fall anywhere from $43 million to $47 million in the hole. Indy’s CIB (a.k.a. the sports board) manages and operates Indy’s professional sports stadiums – Lucas Oil Stadium, Conseco Fieldhouse, and Victory Field, plus the Indiana Convention Center.

 

The question is, whose responsibility is it to ante up for the CIB’s losses? On April 2, a state senate committee voted 10-2 in favor of House Bill 1604, introduced by Sen. Luke Kenley, R-Noblesville, which, if approved, would affect the Colts and the Pacers and result in several tax increases. The bill would require-

The Colts to make a $5 million contribution: Since they currently aren’t required to contribute, this would mean a $5 million increase in expenses for them.

 

The Pacers to make a $5 million contribution: Since they’re currently required to contribute $15 million, this would mean a $10 million decrease in expenses for them. The Pacers have lost money 9 of the past 10 seasons they’ve played in Conseco Fieldhouse.

 

The state’s alcohol tax to be doubled statewide: This would raise an additional $8 million in revenue for the CIB, and increase revenues for cities and towns outside Marion County as well, since only taxes incurred in Marion County would be earmarked for the CIB.

Marion County’s food and beverage tax to increase by .25% from 2% to 2.25%: This would result in $6 million in revenues.

 

Marion County’s hotel room tax to increase from 8 to 9%: Combined with Indiana’s current 7% sales tax, this would make the resulting hotel tax of 17% the highest in the nation, but would increase revenue by $4 million.

 

Tax on admissions to CIB-run venues to increase from 6 to 10%: This would bring in an additional $6 million.

 

The CIB to reduce its own expenditures by $10 million: This represents $4 million more than the CIB’s initially proposed cuts of $6 million.

Sales taxes from the new Marriott hotel next to the convention center to be dedicated to the CIB: This would generate about $6 million.

 

 

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!

 

 

 

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.

 

This facility fee seems no better than the sin tax.  All costs will be borne by those who attend the games, but the majority of the county residents who benefit by having these teams in their locale will pay nothing.  That's of course if you assume there is a benefit to the city/county for having the teams here.

An additional $3 fee per ticket is pretty steep for a baseball game. I don't know about Progressive, but at GABP in Cincy the cheapest ticket is often around $5. That would raise the price to $8 per ticket. I think the Browns could take a bigger per ticket fee than the Indians could.

 

This solution sounds like it was rushed and is just as bad as the sin tax in many ways.

 

Also, isn't the sin tax just a renewal of an existing tax? Prices wouldn't increase in Cuyahoga County at all, right?

^ That's correct. This is a renewal of an existing tax, not a new one.

 

I understand the desire to shift the burden from the public to the entities themselves, but this doesn't accomplish that. The public is still paying, just a different slice of the public.

 

Also the notion that this is a regressive tax is flawed. That presumes that 1) everyone is smoking and drinking the same amount and/or the same grade of alcohol / tobacco and 2) that this is a necessity that everyone has to buy, like food, or housing or clothing. The fact is, if you feel you're paying too much for booze or cigarrettes, you can stop buying them (I realize it's not as straighforward as that, but the option is there). Also, I'd make the argument that less wealthy people are probably buying less expensive versions of the 'sin' items, whereas wealthier people (who last I checked also smoke and drink in fairly copious amounts) are likely buying more expensive items, which are taxed proportionately.

 

All of this is moot, in my eyes, as it doesn't address the liability. That remains with the city. If you tax tickets, and find that demand is not nearly as inelastic as you are hoping, then there remains a funding shortfall which the city has to pick up. The sin tax is proven. We have 20 years proving its ability to generate revenue.

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.''

 

 

Not sure about the Indians and Browns, but the Q already charges facility fees on concerts and events.    I wonder who's pocket that is going into?

Is there data saying that most of the tax is absorbed by retailers?  Is there a difference in price for smokes and booze between Cuyahoga county and Lake county?

Is there data saying that most of the tax is absorbed by retailers?  Is there a difference in price for smokes and booze between Cuyahoga county and Lake county?

 

I've held this same opinion all along.  The only place it will matter is at the retail level.  At your local bar or restaurant, that $3 Bud will still remain $3.

Not sure about the Indians and Browns, but the Q already charges facility fees on concerts and events.    I wonder who's pocket that is going into?

 

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

Not sure about the Indians and Browns, but the Q already charges facility fees on concerts and events.    I wonder who's pocket that is going into?

 

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!

From Belt Mag.  Their editorial hits the fee vs sin tax right on the nose!

 

http://beltmag.com/math-issue-7/

 

DOING THE MATH ON ISSUE 7

 

Last week,  the Coalition Against the Sin Tax (CAST) held a press conference

to propose an alternative to the Cuyahoga County sin tax: a $3.25 facility fee

on tickets. Since 60 percent of  people who attend sporting events live outside

Cuyahoga County,  CAST argues their proposal is more equitable and less punishing to

Cuyahoga County residents, as upkeep for the stadiums would be paid only by

those who actually use the facilities.

 

 

 

....the Keep Cleveland Strong

press release outrageously claims a facility fee would “punish

families” and cause unemployment. District 8 County Cuyahoga Council

member Pernel Jones, Jr. said “By pricing families out of games, this

would result in smaller crowds — which means less business for those

businesses that depend upon fans. That puts jobs at risk.” County

Council President C. Ellen Connally added “it’s confusing that they

now want to enact a new, large tax that hits families the hardest.”

 

 

The Keep Cleveland Strong folks fail to grasp basic economics. They

think Cleveland is full of people who go to games and make make lots

of money and is a big-time market, not one of the five poorest cities

in the country. Those who can afford just one nose bleed ticket to one

game a year are the select few—if not the one percent, the ten percent,

maybe.

 

 

 

 

The logic of Keep Cleveland Strong is terminally flawed.

They state that families will not be able to afford Browns tickets if

pirces were raised $3.25. But the facts are that most already

can’t afford to go to games—because the tickets are already incredibly

expensive.

 

It’s like someone arguing that people will stop going to a

fancy steak place if the restaurant started charging $5 for a baked

potato ala carte. Truth is, most people don’t ever go to fancy steak

places because they can’t afford $50 steaks, not because they don’t

want to pay for the $5 baked potato. And those who can afford a $50

steak are unlikely to notice those five extra bucks.

 

Why is Keep Cleveland Strong trotting out this aggressive, arrogant

retort to a reasonable alternative to the sin tax? Maybe because the

polls show they are losing. When one side dismisses their opponent as

a generator of “wobbly ideas,” it usually means things aren’t looking

too good. You keep quiet when you are ahead, and you make noise when

you are behind. But this noise makes no sense, because they

are telling people they can choose to pay more for beer or more for

their sporting event tickets. That choice is easy for most people,

because they are able to buy one, but they can’t the other.

 

 

 

Once again to remind you, what they don't want you to know is they already tack "facility fees" on to the ticket price.  So adding a "facility fee" on to the ticket price to make up for the sin tax will only expose their current manipulation of the system and make them rework ticket prices.

 

On the other hand, and to borrow from the editorial writer's analogy, the poor guy at the end of the bar who cannot afford Browns tickets, or a steak dinner with the ala carte baked potato, will still pay the $2.50 for his Bud Lite.  The owner of the bar won't give him a break on the sin tax and give him his nickel back.  So he can't afford the game, or a steak, and still pays the same for his crap beer and smokes.  So the little guy loses no matter what, and the guys controlling the money in the country will still walk away richer. 

 

And life goes on....

 

 

 

Once again to remind you, what they don't want you to know is they already tack "facility fees" on to the ticket price.  So adding a "facility fee" on to the ticket price to make up for the sin tax will only expose their current manipulation of the system and make them rework ticket prices.

 

 

 

On the other hand, and to borrow from the editorial writer's analogy, the poor guy at the end of the bar who cannot afford Browns tickets, or a steak dinner with the ala carte baked potato, will still pay the $2.50 for his Bud Lite.  The owner of the bar won't give him a break on the sin tax and give him his nickel back. 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Angie Schmidt has weighed in the subject, I noticed it when it was tweeted by Aaron Renn

 

http://rustwire.com/2014/04/14/is-cleveland-strong/

 

 

Angie Schmidt has weighed in the subject, I noticed it when it was tweeted by Aaron Renn

 

http://rustwire.com/2014/04/14/is-cleveland-strong/

 

 

 

Nothing could have been more predictable than this article's content, tone and ommisions, except perhaps a piece by her obvious role model "RB".

 

I do like how she makes a point of considering "Cleveland" to only be the city itself:  unless it's convenient to bring East Cleveland into the discussion.

On the other hand, and to borrow from the editorial writer's analogy, the poor guy at the end of the bar who cannot afford Browns tickets, or a steak dinner with the ala carte baked potato, will still pay the $2.50 for his Bud Lite.  The owner of the bar won't give him a break on the sin tax and give him his nickel back.  So he can't afford the game, or a steak, and still pays the same for his crap beer and smokes.  So the little guy loses no matter what, and the guys controlling the money in the country will still walk away richer. 

True, but would you rather that nickel go to the bar owner or the sports team owner? Which is more likely to spend that nickel in Cleveland?

On the other hand, and to borrow from the editorial writer's analogy, the poor guy at the end of the bar who cannot afford Browns tickets, or a steak dinner with the ala carte baked potato, will still pay the $2.50 for his Bud Lite.  The owner of the bar won't give him a break on the sin tax and give him his nickel back.  So he can't afford the game, or a steak, and still pays the same for his crap beer and smokes.  So the little guy loses no matter what, and the guys controlling the money in the country will still walk away richer. 

True, but would you rather that nickel go to the bar owner or the sports team owner? Which is more likely to spend that nickel in Cleveland?

 

If the sports team owner pulls out how many more people does he employ than the bar owner?    Consider the payroll taxes on just the Browns alone....

On the other hand, and to borrow from the editorial writer's analogy, the poor guy at the end of the bar who cannot afford Browns tickets, or a steak dinner with the ala carte baked potato, will still pay the $2.50 for his Bud Lite.  The owner of the bar won't give him a break on the sin tax and give him his nickel back.  So he can't afford the game, or a steak, and still pays the same for his crap beer and smokes.  So the little guy loses no matter what, and the guys controlling the money in the country will still walk away richer. 

True, but would you rather that nickel go to the bar owner or the sports team owner? Which is more likely to spend that nickel in Cleveland?

 

If the sports team owner pulls out how many more people does he employ than the bar owner?    Consider the payroll taxes on just the Browns alone....

If the Browns moved again, would everyone currently spending $50+ per ticket (not to mention food, t-shirts, etc) suddenly decide to just put their cash in a big pile at the 50 yard line at First Energy stadium and have a bonfire? I'd wager they'd spend that money on other entertainment options in the area, thus having no significant negative effect on either payroll taxes or the local economy.

On the other hand, and to borrow from the editorial writer's analogy, the poor guy at the end of the bar who cannot afford Browns tickets, or a steak dinner with the ala carte baked potato, will still pay the $2.50 for his Bud Lite.  The owner of the bar won't give him a break on the sin tax and give him his nickel back.  So he can't afford the game, or a steak, and still pays the same for his crap beer and smokes.  So the little guy loses no matter what, and the guys controlling the money in the country will still walk away richer. 

True, but would you rather that nickel go to the bar owner or the sports team owner? Which is more likely to spend that nickel in Cleveland?

 

If the sports team owner pulls out how many more people does he employ than the bar owner?    Consider the payroll taxes on just the Browns alone....

If the Browns moved again, would everyone currently spending $50+ per ticket (not to mention food, t-shirts, etc) suddenly decide to just put their cash in a big pile at the 50 yard line at First Energy stadium and have a bonfire? I'd wager they'd spend that money on other entertainment options in the area, thus having no significant negative effect on either payroll taxes or the local economy.

 

While your assertion is probably true to a degree, it would be hard to add up data to support it.    My guess is there would be a net loss because I personally know plenty of Browns fans who reside outside the county and ONLY venture into Cleveland 10 days a year (more if there are playoff games).  Beyond that they have no interest in attending any other events, eating at the restaurants, etc.  A vast majority of them are anti-Cleveland.  I'm sure you know a few of these types....

 

On the other hand, we could sit down and figure out the payroll taxes generated by the Browns and their employees, the other 10 NFL teams that play games in Cleveland and pay taxes here.    We could figure out the additional hotel revenue generated on game days.  We can figure the additional landing fees when there are 25 jets parked at BKL on game day.  And so on....

 

I am on your side in pushing back on the sports owners and making them ante up a fairer share.  But the reality of sports financing today is there are any given number of markets dying for a pro franchise, and all ready to drop their pants and give the owners what they want.  That puts the owners in a pretty strong negotiating position. 

 

So my question to the anti-sin tax people is:  should we be fighting the sin tax, or should we be fighting how the money is spent and accounted for?

I can't stand when people argue that sports teams provide no benefit to the community.

'll say it again.  Almost 50 million people at the Jake in 20 years, the general area around gateway, E. 4th, E. 9th, the area was a mess before.  How can anyone say that the improvement might have happened without the sports teams.

True, but would you rather that nickel go to the bar owner or the sports team owner? Which is more likely to spend that nickel in Cleveland?

 

This relates to a question that I've been ruminating over myself.  What percent of alcohol and cigarette sales are made in small, locally-owned establishments, and what percent are made at non-local chains?  I don't mind giving that nickel to the little guy (since I assume they basically eat the tax right now,) but in the case of Circle K, Giant Eagle and the like, aren't we just giving a different set of billionaires a break?

 

I would bet the vast majority of cigarette sales are made at chain locations, but I'm not sure about alcohol.  I'd just be curious to see that information.

^My assumption is that the big chains are more likely to pass the savings on to the consumer since their whole advantage is in low pricing whereas the local bar or convenience store down the street will be more likely to pocket it as a way of increasing profits without consumers noticing the price change.

^My assumption is that the big chains are more likely to pass the savings on to the consumer since their whole advantage is in low pricing whereas the local bar or convenience store down the street will be more likely to pocket it as a way of increasing profits without consumers noticing the price change.

 

I wouldn't bet on that assumption.  Especially when it comes to something like smokes, that people are addicted to and will buy no matter what. 

 

I don't like assumptions at all.  That's why I feel our best bet is to keep the sin tax, and use it as a negotiating tool with the owners to cut ourselves a better deal.  The old regime is gone.  Dimora and co gave away the house.  Now it's time to retool the numbers, and have a solid plan for the 21st century, one that doesn't include Dan Gilbert sending the taxpayers and invoice for some light bulbs and toilet paper.

'll say it again.  Almost 50 million people at the Jake in 20 years, the general area around gateway, E. 4th, E. 9th, the area was a mess before.  How can anyone say that the improvement might have happened without the sports teams.

 

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

'll say it again.  Almost 50 million people at the Jake in 20 years, the general area around gateway, E. 4th, E. 9th, the area was a mess before.  How can anyone say that the improvement might have happened without the sports teams.

 

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

 

You give those kind of taxpayer funded incentives to a privately held firm like American Greetings and I'm sure everyone from the Tea Party to the ACLU would find fault.  The difference here is the arenas and stadiums are deemed public use.  Anyone can buy a ticket.  Anyone can choose to attend an event.  Whether or not they can afford to is a different story, but the buildings themselves are not being furnished for a private company. 

 

Build the buildings on the land the city owns already.  Own the buildings as well, same way we do with the stadiums.  Offer tax incentives to lure corporate headquarters to sign long term leases.  It's not that unheard of.  The city owns parking garages.  County Commissioners bought a couple buildings.

'll say it again.  Almost 50 million people at the Jake in 20 years, the general area around gateway, E. 4th, E. 9th, the area was a mess before.  How can anyone say that the improvement might have happened without the sports teams.

 

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

 

Say you move 9,900 full-time, high paying, corporate jobs from the suburbs into downtown with that money (total employed by Progressive in Mayfield Village). They spend 240 days/year at work. Over 20 years, that totals 47,520,000 visits to downtown. Compared to 50,000,000 previously stated (not sure where that number comes from, but guessing it is justified), the stadiums seem like a good deal to me. You're giving more downtown exposure through downtown sports complexes than through moving a large corporate headquarters into downtown. And that whole scenario is assuming that Progressive (or some other major corporation) has any interest in relocating. Perhaps the city would see more money in the budget through employees paying income taxes.

 

I'm not saying that all stadium deals are positive for cities, but to pretend that sports do nothing for a city is not founded on any reasonable argument.