I support the Sin Tax -- most people react negatively to the 2nd word after decades of indoctrination by conservatives while ignoring the 1st word: sin... That is, it's voluntary.  If you dont like it, dont sin kick the drinking and smoking habits; your body as well as your wallet, will thank you for it Plus, even for the casual drinker like me (Ive never smoked), its only a penny on the dollar.  Surely it wont kill you, me or anybody else like cigarettes surely will!

 

Alcohol and tobacco aren't sins. Taxing a minority for taking part in a legal activity to fund a sports complex? What vices do you have that we can tax?

 

My opposition to 7 is based on the inequity in who pays. Instead of taxing something tangentially related, how about finding a revenue stream based on (A) who goes to the games/arena and (B) watches them on TV.

Why should people watching on TV have to pay for a stadium we're not using? If the advertising pays for the team and staff, we've already paid enough. If I'm watching on TV, it makes no difference at all to me what condition the stadium is in, or frankly whether they're even in a stadium. If the Cavs moved to the Y and the Browns to their practice field in Berea it wouldn't affect the game for those of us watching on TV.

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.

 

And they pay for those vices with higher health and auto insurance. How does the sin tax prevent any of those things anyway? The money is diverted to a sports complex -- not to insurance companies. People that drink and smoke are an easy target and it's pathetic that people would impose a tax on somebody else under the false pretense that it's a sin. "But they shouldn't be doing those things anyway... but secretly I hope they do so I can have my sports team."

Why should people watching on TV have to pay for a stadium we're not using? If the advertising pays for the team and staff, we've already paid enough. If I'm watching on TV, it makes no difference at all to me what condition the stadium is in, or frankly whether they're even in a stadium. If the Cavs moved to the Y and the Browns to their practice field in Berea it wouldn't affect the game for those of us watching on TV.

 

The sin tax paid for the stadiums in Cleveland. You would not be watching the Cleveland Indians without the sin tax. You would be watching the Reds or Pirates all summer. The sin tax affords you the luxury of sitting down in front of your TV and watching every Indians game. Not one cent of the TV revenue goes to Gateway to pay for the stadium debt service. Conflating the TV revenue (which goes into the owner's pockets, not the municipality's) with the sin tax makes the issue 7 proponents look selfish.

 

Everybody in the region should pay their fair share. Direct revenue from the stadium and TV subscriptions are the most straightforward.

^^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.

Do you two honestly think that if the voters defeat the extension vote, that they are going to turn around next election and institute a NEW sin tax directed towards other uses you deem more desirable? 

 

Not in the next election, no.

 

But we have already seen a high rate of support for the Cuyahoga Arts &Culture tax.    There could be easily be future support for a sintax for infrastructure, jobs, education, community health etc if Issue 7 is defeated.

 

It will be much much easier to suggest sin tax revenue streams for projects of real benefit to the community in future years if the current oligarch support sin-tax is defeated now.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

The county never designed the sin tax to be punitive. That is why it's such a small percent on each bottle/smoke sold. It does nothing to address any of your issues. It's a straw man to distract from the fact that we are taxing a minority that is easy to demonize.

^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

Alcohol and tobacco aren't sins.

 

Which is why I used "quotation marks."

Do you two honestly think that if the voters defeat the extension vote, that they are going to turn around next election and institute a NEW sin tax directed towards other uses you deem more desirable?  My guess is that if the sin tax is defeated here, you can forget about the sin tax in the future and any revenue it generates.  The costs, which are certainly not going anywhere, will simply shift to other sources.  I'm receptive to the argument that those costs should be more equitably shared by the teams themselves, but there is nothing preventing that discussion after the measure is passed.  What concerns me is the panic that might ensue if it is defeated, especially with the City of Cleveland's budget discussions and use of its general fund.  Defeating the issue now will inevitably cause some unwanted, short-term pain, even if you could argue that the long-term benefits are advantageous.

 

I respect your point.  My point is that it seems as though the discussion about how to use the Sin Tax is being quashed by the Civic and Business leaders of the community before it even truly begins.  If the tax were to fail at the polls, it is not the be-all, end-all.  The tax expires next year, which gives voters more than enough time to weigh other options.  If Civic leaders and their mouthpiece (PD) were to leverage a true discussion on the benefits of keeping a Sin Tax in place for things other than our sports stadiums, voters would have enough information to make a decision other than just keeping it as-is.  If keeping it as-is is the best case scenario after a true public dialogue and analysis against other uses for the tax actually happens, then so be it.

 

Personally, I am PRO Sin Tax, but I'm more-so for the tax going towards other purposes or for there to at least be a true dialogue about WHERE the tax could go.  Though I do think the teams should pay their fair share (and an argument could be made for that), to me that's not the main point.  The point as far as I'm concerned should be:  If we are going to tax ourselves, there should be a public dialogue about what that tax could potentially go towards besides the status quo, especially if there are other options available for the upkeep of the properties.  And I don't think anyone could possibly say that this town is without other needs affecting ordinary folks every day, which could be affected by an extra $300 million over 20 years. 

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.

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.

 

For me the "cart before the horse" component of this is putting Issue 7 on the ballot more than a FULL YEAR before expiration.  The intent was to stifle an open dialogue about alternatives by forcing a short window of debate.

 

Don't buy the faux-urgency hype.    Issue 7 can be defeated in May and there is still a full year +  to go!

 

^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'm personally hoping that the tax is defeated just so that there can be a larger discussion of where the $300+ million over the next 20 years can go.  I mean DAMMIT- this town has other problems which could sure be taken on with that money.  Economic development isn't just bricks and mortar- without people supplying the jobs and businesses, there would be no bricks and mortar projects to begin with.  I would love to keep the tax, but redirect it to other projects.  How many demolitions could be covered with just a portion of an extra $12-$15 million a year?  How about a small business microenterprise loan fund paid for with a portion of those taxes?  That's where the discussion could go, IF the tax is defeated.  Of course, it seems as though the business community wants to keep it the way it is, as certain companies and organizations stand to benefit from the status quo. I just think we will be missing a good opportunity if the tax stays as-is.

 

this.  x1000

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.

 

I don't think I've seen a story regarding the potential of keeping a sin-tax AND using an alternative instead.  The editorials and opinions published in the PD have been either-or, for or against; not the possibility of having both a Sin Tax and an alternative to fund the stadiums at the same time in place concurrently.  That discussion hasn't happened, and looks like it won't before the election.

^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.

Though I'd be for that double whammy, that can't happen locally yet :-) . 

 

In your scenario, there's already been an additional tax proposed- and that was raising the ticket prices by $3-and-some-change.  It just wasn't an additional "Sin Tax".  I, for one, don't buy that folks will be dissuaded by having to pay an extra $3.00.  To me that's laughable, and literally a "cheap excuse" for not even considering an alternative.  The $3.00 increase doesn't even need to be the only alternative- it could be one of many if there was more time to discuss the issue.  Seriously, there's been plenty of for-and-against discussion, and $300 million definitely merits this discussion.  But a discussion on having both the alternative and the Sin Tax generating revenue for the stadiums and other potential economic development programs has not occurred, and I don't think it's been included at all. 

Though I'd be for that double whammy, that can't happen locally yet :-) . 

 

In your scenario, there's already been an additional tax proposed- and that was raising the ticket prices by $3-and-some-change.  It just wasn't an additional "Sin Tax".  I, for one, don't buy that folks will be dissuaded by having to pay an extra $3.00.  To me that's laughable, and literally a "cheap excuse" for not even considering an alternative.  The $3.00 increase doesn't even need to be the only alternative- it could be one of many if there was more time to discuss the issue.  Seriously, there's been plenty of for-and-against discussion, and $300 million definitely merits this discussion.  But a discussion on having both the alternative and the Sin Tax generating revenue for the stadiums and other potential economic development programs has not occurred, and I don't think it's been included at all. 

 

Saying we pass your facility fee tax idea and the Indians attendance drops to 3,000 per game, who is going to pay the upkeep?  There goes the City of Cleveland general fund.

 

 

It would be stratified across all three teams.

 

And, just like any other tax, it has projections that may exceed or may fall short of what is planned.

 

 

CAST has estimated a $3.25 facilities as a replacement for the estimates to be brought in by the sin tax.

 

Both revenue sources rely on projections.  Both may or may not have to be adjusted in the future.  Both may or may not exceed the needed revenue to adequately fund stadium maintenance and repair.

the Pro-Issue 7 folks have resorted to scare tactics.  Just saw a tv commercial that said if the issue doesn't pass, they'll have to cut vital services (cut to clip of police & fire rescuing old person)

 

This issue must be polling closer than expected.

the Pro-Issue 7 folks have resorted to scare tactics.  Just saw a tv commercial that said if the issue doesn't pass, they'll have to cut vital services (cut to clip of police & fire rescuing old person)

 

This issue must be polling closer than expected.

 

Now they're going with "Out of towners who are in the pockets of the tobacco industry"

 

Nice try... this is true grass roots good governance campaign work here.  The smear ain't gonna take.

http://www.cleveland.com/cuyahoga-county/index.ssf/2014/04/browns_cavs_indians_bankroll_pro-sin_tax_campaign_according_to_latest_campaign_finance_report.html

 

Shocked, I am ! Shocked!

 

Browns, Cavs, Indians bankroll pro-sin tax campaign, according to latest campaign finance report

 

The Browns, Cavs and Indians contributed about $333,000 each to Keep Cleveland Strong between Jan. 1 and March 15, according to a campaign finance report (PDF) filed Thursday. In April, the teams loaned another $200,000 to the effort, splitting the costs evenly.

 

The teams also helped out in a big way with goods and services for the campaign – the Cavs contributed $231,000 worth of free marketing and personnel, the Indians gave $297,000 worth of signs and audiovisual production and the Browns gave another $88,750 in free marketing.

 

The campaign outspent two opposition groups by a factor of 30, spending almost $1.3 million this year, much of which paid for TV/radio ads and political consulting. The group reported a cash balance on hand of about $120,000. 

 

I'd do the same thing if I were Jimmy Haslam.  Spend $300 to make a $300 million... that a great ROI!   

 

(( ps -- that's coming out of our pockets!))

 

 

Vote NO on Issue 7!

 

 

 

 

 

Sin tax-backers criticized the anti-tax group for not disclosing the financial details of the TV buy.

 

That's like Goliath asking David to show the receipt for where he bought his slingshot.

The money to maintain these facilities will come from taxpayers, either through fees, tax increment financing, or some other method.

 

Given the choices, I think extending the current sin tax is a good way to do it.

I'd do the same thing if I were Jimmy Haslam.  Spend $300 to make a $300 million... that a great ROI!

 

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

I'd do the same thing if I were Jimmy Haslam.  Spend $300 to make a $300 million... that a great ROI!

 

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

 

Here -- I'll let the article from BeltMag be more articulate than me.

 

When a political campaign junkie looks through campaign finance reports, it is the unusual you are looking for that the average novice doesn’t see. So at first glance at the report filed yesterday by the pro-sin tax organization, Keep Cleveland strong, I saw that the three teams – Browns, Indians and Cavaliers — contributed about $1 million between them when the campaign got rolling. They wrote out checks for about $333,000 each in January through mid-March.

 

That seems like a lot, and it is. But when you consider that the sin tax will bring in about $250-$300 million over the next 25 years for new scoreboards and other accoutrements the teams want, shelling out a little more than $300,000 for getting that kind of cash seems like a decent investment.   

 

 

http://beltmag.com/following-money/

 

 

 

 

As how the spending relates to Yes/No fight

 

But it was the smaller figure of $200,001 that caught my eye. In early April, the three teams ponied up $66,667 each for the campaign. And these were loans to the campaign, meaning they wanted that money back after the election. But more importantly, that call for cash one month before the election means things probably aren’t going so well for the Keep Cleveland Strong campaign.

The campaign report says they have already spent about $1.3 million on the campaign, in media ad buys and printing of fliers and paying off the various consultants, etc. And if you are winning, you don’t need to hit the big donors for more cash. It is an obvious sign that this is, at the very least, a very close race. And expect the Keep Cleveland Strong campaign to hit the teams up for more bucks. Because at this point, the report says they already spent more than $1.9 million and have only $119,000 left in the bank.

 

 

.....

 

What is quite apparent, is that the Keep Cleveland Strong campaign didn’t beat down the bushes with enthusiasm to raise money for this effort. They figured they could just put it on the ballot, pay some consultants, run a few ads, and have an easy victory. But it is very obvious that that arrogance wasn’t rooted in basic understanding of political campaigning. Namely, that when you ask the public for money, you ask nicely and don’t have as your main message “do it or else.” Because that doesn’t sit well with voters, and it is obvious that’s what is happening here.

 

 

^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. 

It is scare tactic because there is more than a full year after the defeat of Issue 7 to secure alternative funding sources and to clarify to greater distinction what "necessary repair and maintenance" means.  IMHO is does not mean new scoreboards. 

 

Take issue with the quoted numbers if you like but the bottom line is unchanged.  Issue 7 asks the poorest citizens of Cleveland to pay for costs that should be born by the teams. 

 

If I could wave my magic wand and renegotiate the leases I would.  But I can't.

 

But what we can  do is find a fairer way to fund the responsibilities, clarify in greater detail what those responsibilities are, and force our civic leadership to be accountable to the public.    But we can only do those things after Issue 7 is defeated.

 

I have to say the more that the teams spend on advertising the less inclined I feel I am to vote for the sin tax.  It's just a psychological reaction I have to what appears to be a David vs. Goliath situation.  It also gives me the impression that this is a really sweet deal for the teams...

 

But I'll probably still vote for it.  I am turned off by the regressive nature of the tax, but this tax is a very minor expense to individuals in the county and I'm not convinced I'd like any of the alternative funding options any better.

...the City, NOT Haslam, is on the hook for if the measure fails.

 

Is this true?  The burden would fall on the city and not the county?  If that's the case than why would any resident of Cleveland vote against this countywide tax measure?  Why would I, as a resident of Cleveland, want to shift that burden from the entire county to just my city?  Doesn't make fiscal sense for me.

I have to say the more that the teams spend on advertising the less inclined I feel I am to vote for the sin tax.  It's just a psychological reaction I have to what appears to be a David vs. Goliath situation.  It also gives me the impression that this is a really sweet deal for the teams...

 

But I'll probably still vote for it.  I am turned off by the regressive nature of the tax, but this tax is a very minor expense to individuals in the county and I'm not convinced I'd like any of the alternative funding options any better.

 

Worst case scenario if 7 is defeated and no satisfactory funding measure is found and no amount of bargaining with the teams and cajoling our leadership to do their jobs and no amount of daylight resolves to opacity that is the use of the funds .......

 

Worst case scenario we defeat 7 and get nowhere .... and it just gets put back on the ballot for 2015.

 

But why not at least TRY for a year?!

^Would it have to be a special election if they put it back on the ballot in 2015? 

No.  There's already a primary for May 5, 2015.  Could go there easily if it had to.    (I don't want it to come to that.  I prefer a facilities fee or a multi-county sales tax but ......but it could.)

 

 

 

Don't but the faux-urgency!  If Issue 7 fails  on  May 6 not a single cop will lose his job the next day.  No fireman will fail to respond the day after that.  No services will be cut the next week.  Potholes will still be patched over the next Winter. 

The complication will be that the arts and culture tobacco excise tax is also up for renewal (I believe it was passed in November 2006, so funding collection would expire in 2016). The closer together these two levies get pushed, the more likely I think it is that the arts and culture levy might suffer as a result of taxpayer fatigue. None of which is to say that one should vote for or against either levy ... Just that an unintended consequence of seeing this levy get pushed a year could be a lot of financial anxiety for arts and culture organizations, community development corporations, etc. that receive funding from Cuyahoga Arts & Culture.

Also a lot of cops are working under the table for games and events.  They don't want to lose that money either, as for most of them it's a path to a decent middle-class existence.

 

 

so put that same money that the city is spending on policing games & events to added downtown & neighborhood policing.  Problem solved.  End result is safer communities

Don't but the faux-urgency!  If Issue 7 fails  on  May 6 not a single cop will lose his job the next day.  No fireman will fail to respond the day after that.  No services will be cut the next week.  Potholes will still be patched over the next Winter. 

 

But if the teams moved away some day and venues were closed,  lots of overtime would be lost....

 

 

That's a false assumption. 

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 

I am in favor of the sin tax, because the "preferable alternative" plan submitted by the people claiming to be the "voice of reason" is so bad that they are clearly a greater threat to the region than the sin tax and throwing money at the local corporate sports interests. These individuals are trying to set themselves up as the voice of the people, and that they should be listened to by people with actual power. A failure of the sin tax is now a legitimizing action for this group. Our elected officials will come to the conclusion that these are people speaking with our voice, and that they should take them seriously. The same people that think a flat tax on admissions is a reasonable and equitable idea to be not just considered over drinks, but submitted as a legitimate proposal.

 

Why is the flat tax proposal such an indictment on these individuals? Here are the numbers.

 

Attendance -

Browns 2013:                  569,939

Cavs 2013-14:                710,522

Indians 2013:              1,572,926

Source: ESPN.com Attendance Figures

 

Theoretical 2013 Flat Tax Revenues - (Attendance*$3.25)

Browns - $1,852,302

Cavs -    $2,309,197

Indians - $5,112,010

 

Remember that these are just the big 3 sports, and do not consider all of the other taxable ticketed events that regularly go on at Quicken Loans Arena.

 

Facility Initial Build Cost (In millions) - Total/Public Burden

First Energy Stadium:                                $309/216

Gateway Total:                                        $325/225

    Quicken Loans Arena:                          $152/73

    Progressive Field:                                $173/152

Source: http://kansascityfed.com/publicat/econrev/PDF/1q01rapp.pdf

 

Why does all of this matter? I am Joe Blow, I never go to the stadiums and just like to booze it up at my local dive, and smoke a pack on the patio, you say. CAST decided to bring in arguments of fair share, equity, reason, common sense. They want you to believe that they and their proposal are all of those things. If they were any of those things they would have a plan that actually exemplifies those values. Instead, they come to us with the same plan that did not make sense when the City initially went after all of the small music venues. The same plan we all decried as stupid and bad for business, because it does not fit to the nature of the businesses. A plan that favors the most profitable and least attended major league sport in the city. A plan that does not remotely try to equitably deal with the public burden that was born upon construction of the individual venues, nor their value to the city in bodies attracted.

 

Maybe all of that does not matter to you. However, when the expressed arguments are made so incompletely I end up feeling lied to, or that I am dealing with an unsophisticated party. But these people are not unsophisticated. One of them is a retired ad agency executive. One of them is a lawyer. One of them works for the Downtown Cleveland Alliance as a "Manager of Business Research & Communication." They say they just want to start the conversation, but we all know where the "If our counter proposal does not make sense we can just come up with a better one later" strategy hails from. I am not going to legitimize people that would bring that type of politics to the local level regardless of my affinity for their general argument. I was not pro sin tax at the start of this, but I am now, and will gladly pay some extra change when I buy my drinks. Particularly to avoid whatever going hand in hand with CAST to some unknown end just to further whatever their interest in removing the sin tax entails.

 

CAST had the burden of the challenger, and they have come up wanting and undeserving of my vote.

With those numbers, the total comes up to $185,470,180 over 20 years... without knowing how much attendance will fluctuate in the future.  However the same could be said about the Sin Tax in itself, as the public opinion has shifted on smoking and that will continue to decrease over the years (the tax which funds Cuyahoga Arts and Culture is funded by cigarette tax money and has decreased in the total amount  brought in because of less and less people smoking).

 

The projection of another $300 million coming in from the sin tax over the next 20 years could be wrong. It could be $50 million. Thats still $50 million which could go towards other pressing community needs when there could be an alternative to funding the stadiums. And we have a year to figure it out.

With those numbers, the total comes up to $185,470,180 over 20 years... without knowing how much attendance will fluctuate in the future.  However the same could be said about the Sin Tax in itself, as the public opinion has shifted on smoking and that will continue to decrease over the years (the tax which funds Cuyahoga Arts and Culture is funded by cigarette tax money and has decreased in the total amount  brought in because of less and less people smoking).

 

The projection of another $300 million coming in from the sin tax over the next 20 years could be wrong. It could be $50 million. Thats still $50 million which could go towards other pressing community needs when there could be an alternative to funding the stadiums. And we have a year to figure it out.

 

Not sure how you got to the $185 million there on the facility fee projection?  To me it looks more like $102 million. 

 

Suffice to say, I don't think any financial expert would dispute the fact that the sin tax is a must more reliable means of funding.  We have years of population decline and stagnation, but yet people still drink and smoke.  And those that do quit smoking probably make up for it elsewhere.  I'd make this a much safer bet than relying on attendance.

Not sure how exactly I feel about the stadium tax ... Can see pros and cons to it. But I don't think cigarette excise tax COULD just be diverted to another community purpose.

 

In the case of the arts and culture levy, the answer is no. For the arts and culture levy, it took state assembly action and a substantial revision of state code to first allow the formation of a totally new government entity, a "regional arts and culture district" (which can only operate in counties with populations of greater than 500,000 people, in Cuyahoga County AKA Cuyahoga Arts & Culture). They had to spell out how the board of the district would be selected (by county council / commissioners), what authority that district had, under what circumstances and to whom they could give grant funding and then VERY explicit language extending the ability of county government to put on the ballot a consideration of a levy of up to 30 cents per pack of cigarettes sold in the county toward financial support of the regional arts and culture district (http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/5743.021). That's why we call it dedicated arts and culture funding ... Voters of course don't have to support it, but if they do, it can't be steered toward something else ... This is special authority related to a Regional Arts and Culture District. Funding another government body with tobacco tax would require new approval by the state legislature and the governor and the voters (unless there's already approved taxing authority, and then it's just the voters :))

 

I'm not as familiar with the stadium tax on liquor and cigarettes, but it looks equally restrictive to me: http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/307.697 and http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/5743.323

 

If I'm reading it correctly (and there's a decent chance I'm not!), the county can't just redirect that levy "room" to another cause if voters don't support stadium support ... Not even to CAC, which already maxes out at 30 cents per pack of cigarette. We couldn't just ask voters to steer those funds toward health or libraries or something. Not unless we convinced two branches of Republican-heavy state government to expand taxing authority in the lead-up to a gubernatorial election. I think the more likely result of defeating the levy is the more obvious one ... drinkers and smokers would retain those funds instead of having them diverted to the stadiums.

CAST had the burden of the challenger, and they have come up wanting and undeserving of my vote.

 

Burden of the Challenger? For challenging a tax that was supposed to be temporary but now seems to be put on the flight path towards perpetuity.  No way.

 

The burden is on KCS to prove that the sin tax is a) necessary, b) the best use ofpublic funds, and c) administrated in an open manner.

 

 

KCS comes up "undeserving of my vote" on all 3.

 

Vote NO on Issue 7!

Got the chance to speak to some people close-in on the campaigns last night.  The rumor floating on "good authority" was that KCS has internal polling showing that the Vote NO camp is currently ahead by a couple of percentage points.

 

If that is true then expect this last week to be a full court press of KCS scare tactics, paid actors pretending to be "average joe", scare tactics, Team management pretending to be cops, scare tactics, stadium employees being forced to politic for their employer and... more scare tactics.

 

But do not be afraid, Cleveland.    Issue 7 will be defeated and it will work out much better than if it hadn't been.

I highly doubt you could reliably poll an issue like this....... particularly when turnout is so unpredictable.

 

Also a lot of cops are working under the table for games and events.  They don't want to lose that money either, as for most of them it's a path to a decent middle-class existence.

 

so put that same money that the city is spending on policing games & events to added downtown & neighborhood policing.  Problem solved.  End result is safer communities

 

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'

I highly doubt you could reliably poll an issue like this....... particularly when turnout is so unpredictable.

 

Also a lot of cops are working under the table for games and events.  They don't want to lose that money either, as for most of them it's a path to a decent middle-class existence.

 

so put that same money that the city is spending on policing games & events to added downtown & neighborhood policing.  Problem solved.  End result is safer communities

 

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'

 

Correct for the cops and firefighters working the events themselves, including traffic detail.  I misspoke when I said "under the table". 

 

The ones working bars, parking lot parties, etc for private events are not always above the table.

CAST had the burden of the challenger, and they have come up wanting and undeserving of my vote.

 

That would be my take if I still lived in Cuyahoga County, even though my brother's a semi-activist against the tax. 

 

Those talking about "alternatives" should have began that discussion long ago.  Right now, the options are to retain the existing tax, find a yet-to-be-determined alternate method, stick the city and county with the tab from the general funds, or let these expensive assets deteriorate. 

Or have the team owners step up and pay for the maintenance...

 

 

Those talking about "alternatives" should have began that discussion long ago. 

 

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.

 

  It was only when the civic leaders decided to push for a re-up on the Sin Tax ---  and to do it on a short schedule --  that CAST had to step up quickly.    The teams and civic leaders banded together with a plan to push this one through fast.  If they wanted a debate on funding they would have invited public commentary to consider options and alternatives over the last couple of years.  Or it could have on the general ballot for the November general election.

 

The burden should be been on our civic leaders.  They have failed us on this one.

Or have the team owners step up and pay for the maintenance...

 

+1