I'm fairly certain that Gateway is just a non-profit formed by the County to do what the County would otherwise be obligated to do.  I think the City has some cost-sharing obligations, but ultimately it is a County complex

 

Here's some data on ticket price comparisons:

 

Indians are fourth cheapest - http://www.kshb.com/sports/baseball/mlb-average-ticket-price-fan-cost-index-for-all-30-baseball-teams

 

Cavs are middle of the pack - http://www.businessinsider.com/average-ticket-prices-for-all-30-teams-in-the-nba-sports-chart-of-the-day-2013-2

 

Browns are dead last - http://blog.tiqiq.com/2013/08/2013-nfl-tickets-team-team-average-prices/

 

I am not sure inhibiting future ticket price increases is the best thing for our standing as a professional sports city.

While tickets may be fairly cheap for Indians games, proposing on the scoreboard is not!

 

^^That info just shows how raising the ticket prices for the teams by $3.25 would NOT have a major impact on attendance, and pretty much debunks that argument IMO.

 

If the Indians raised ticket prices an extra $3.25, it puts their average at $22.84.  Still cheaper than most of the MLB, and still one of the cheapest in the Midwest:

 

Boston            $53.38 $336.99

N.Y. Yankees      $51.55  $324.30

Chicago Cubs      $44.55  $298.20 

Philadelphia      $37.42  $257.16

Toronto          $32.98  $254.21 

San Francisco    $30.09  $237.87 

Washington        $35.24  $236.46 

Chicago White Sox $26.05 #231.18

St. Louis        $33.11  $230.94

Miami            $29.27  $230.05

Houston          $30.09  $224.33

N.Y. Mets        $25.30  $223.70

Minnesota        $32.59  $221.36

MLB AVG          $27.73  $210.46

Detroit          $26.36  $207.42

L.A. Dodgers      $22.37  $204.95

Seattle          $28.45  $203.78 

Colorado          $23.65  $196.60 

L.A. Angels      $27.54  $196.16 

Texas            $22.54  $196.13

Oakland          $22.12  $180.48 

Milwaukee        $24.95  $176.80 

Kansas City      $19.83 $172.32 

Atlanta          $17.32  $170.78 

Baltimore        $23.89  $169.06 

Cincinnati        $21.35  $165.39

Pittsburgh        $17.21  $164.84 

Cleveland        $19.59  $157.36

Tampa Bay        $20.39  $155.54

San Diego        $15.99  $151.94

Arizona          $16.89  $151.55

 

For the Cavs, it puts them at $50.40, average.  Roughly in the top third of ticket prices in the NBA.  Still worth the price, IMO.

 

 

The Browns- a no brainer.  Raising the tickets by $3.25 STILL keeps them last in average price. 

 

Team

2013 Initial Average Price

Chicago Bears Tickets

$446

New England Patriots Tickets

$382

New York Giants Tickets

$334

Denver Broncos Tickets

$328

New Orleans Saints Tickets

$278

Dallas Cowboys Tickets

$274

Pittsburgh Steelers Tickets

$263

Green Bay Packers Tickets

$254

Seattle Seahawks Tickets

$253

Houston Texans Tickets

$251

San Francisco 49ers Tickets

$229

New York Jets Tickets

$228

Washington Redskins Tickets

$218

Philadelphia Eagles Tickets

$215

San Diego Chargers Tickets

$187

Baltimore Ravens Tickets

$185

Indianapolis Colts Tickets

$180

Tampa Bay Buccaneers Tickets

$161

Miami Dolphins Tickets

$159

Carolina Panthers Tickets

$154

Detroit Lions Tickets

$153

Atlanta Falcons Tickets

$150

Minnesota Vikings Tickets

$144

St. Louis Rams Tickets

$140

Cincinnati Bengals Tickets

$139

Buffalo Bills Tickets

$131

Oakland Raiders Tickets

$124

Arizona Cardinals Tickets

$119

Kansas City Chiefs Tickets

$115

Jacksonville Jaguars Tickets

$115

Tennessee Titans Tickets

$113

Cleveland Browns Tickets

$109

 

 

^^^Like I said, I don't think the admissions tax is good policy.  I don't like the sin tax much, but I doubt we're going to get anything better, so I'm fine with it. I just find some of the rejoinders to the anti- campaign to be a little weak.

 

I'm fairly certain that Gateway is just a non-profit formed by the County to do what the County would otherwise be obligated to do.  I think the City has some cost-sharing obligations, but ultimately it is a County complex

 

Unless it formally guarantees GEDC's liabilities, I doubt the county has any legal obligations under the leases. Pretty sure GEDC is a legally distinct, bankruptcy remote entity. It definitely gets audited separately and keeps separate books and records. As a matter of policy, the county is likely to assume the obligations if need be, so I agree it's fine to considerate a county facility, but a different administration could very well take a different position if it wanted to play hardball with the team owners.

 

I'm extremely annoyed they aren't more easily accessible copies of the amended Gateway lease. Would be great if the anti sin tax folks FOIAed it and put it on line.

 

ADDENDUM:

 

I don't know if there is a more accurate back-story, but it was the near-bankruptcy of Gateway in the early 200s, apparently, that led to the 2004 renegotiated Cavs/Indians leases which, according to the PD, are a lot less team friendly than the old ones.  http://www.cleveland.com/naymik/index.ssf/2014/05/see_what_the_cleveland_indians.html

How much does the sin tax cost the average person on an annual basis?

 

^^That info just shows how raising the ticket prices for the teams by $3.25 would NOT have a major impact on attendance, and pretty much debunks that argument IMO.

 

Just a minute there, Professor.  I agree that it would have little impact on attendance.  Exactly what I was asserting.  What we were debating is whether levying the additional facility fee (which is not a raise in ticket prices, technically speaking) would cause those "greedy, billionaire owners" to come back to the table and renegotiate their leases.  Putting aside the naivete of such an assumption, the only way you could make that argument is if the facilities fee was indeed going to affect their bottom line by causing a drop in attendance.

Not sure I follow how the current ticket prices prove anything. Doesn't an average ticket price of $47 for the Cavs suggest that the Cavs think increasing prices to $50 would reduce revenue?  I accept Hts's point that teams try, with some success, to hide the cost of fees or rely on the fact that dumb consumers don't factor them in, but it's simply not true that prices can always go up just a little bit more without hurting sales.  If anything, the low ticket prices in Cleveland suggest that a $3 fee is more likely to affect sales than in other places, because it's a proportionally bigger increase.

The bottom line, IMO, is that ticket prices have plenty of room to rise and attendance has much more to do with the quality of the product on the field than the ticket price.  Clevelanders would pay a premium to fill that stadium every week if the Browns were a perennial playoff team.  Even with their middle of the road status on price point and below average performance on the court, Cavs fans still turn out better than most other arenas around the NBA.  Baseball has some unrelated headwinds for a market like ours which has reached a frustration boiling point...... but I'm sure if you put the 1990's Indians back out on the field, the park would fill back up regardless of whether ticket prices were raised.

How much does the sin tax cost the average person on an annual basis?

 

 

^Costs the average person in which section of the socioeconomic ladder?  What about the person who is going through a rough patch in life?  Will people who drink or smoke who are poorer spend a larger percentage of their income than those with higher incomes?  Or should folks stand back self-righteously and say, "Well, it's their choice to drink or smoke anyways"?

 

Is there a fairer way to proportion the tax, or is the sin-tax the end-all, be-all?  How do other comparable cities fund their stadium maintenance?  Is there another way to do it which could end the sin-tax and potentially renew it for other pressing issues to the city and the county, including health/mental health related issues tied to smoking, drinking, and illegal drugs?

 

That's the heart of the issue, to me.  It's not just, "We should just renew it because it's the easiest way to guarantee funds for maintenance", when there's a potentially fairer, non-regressive way to fund stadium maintenance.  If that way is not raising the ticket prices at games by $3.25 or whatever arbitrary price, then great.  Let's find the way, instead of just going with the status quo when those funds could be used for other needs.

 

Again, don't tell me that Cleveland doesn't have other needs which could be addressed by $300 million over 20 years.  Don't tell that to one of the families living in one of maybe only four occupied houses on E. 117th and Union, who is surrounded by blight.  Don't tell that to the kid who has to walk past these derelict, vacant properties on their way to school, risking his or her own safety.  Don't tell that to the potential entrepreneur who could start a neighborhood business with capital which could be generated by a small percentage of a tax on alcohol, cigarettes, whatever... which could help struggling business corridors all over the county.  There's other needs which need to be addressed in this town, which I'm sure average folks are aware of. 

 

There's another answer for the stadium upkeep.  We have time to find it.   

Again, don't tell me that Cleveland doesn't have other needs which could be addressed by $300 million over 20 years.

 

If the sin tax fails, the city and county will have to pay for it lease obligations somehow, and that means less money for gov't services.

Again, don't tell me that Cleveland doesn't have other needs which could be addressed by $300 million over 20 years.

 

If the sin tax fails, the city and county will have to pay for it lease obligations somehow, and that means less money for gov't services.

 

I find that response somewhat  perplexing.

 

It does not follow that if Issue 7fails there will be less money for other services.

 

The reply wholly ignores the plan to find alternative funding sources. (Like the facilities fee).

 

In fact, with the stadium use of the sin tax removed, we could be freed up to use a different sin tax  some time in the future that might increase government services by funding public health, education, or infrastructure. 

 

 

^There is no rule that you are limited to one sin tax, or one type of sin tax, or that any given sin tax is capped at a certain level.  Propose whatever sin tax you want, going to whatever end.  Voters can decide on a case by case basis.  Of course, lofty sounding goals such as "public health, education, and infrastructure" are already funded through tax dollars and, frankly, taking this money and putting it into any of those categories would be helpful, but not much more than a tic-tac is to a whale.

 

There's another answer for the stadium upkeep.  We have time to find it.   

 

We've had decades.  It's not like this same debate did not take place when the original sin tax was passed.  This is what the voters chose as the preferred method.  Nobody...... again, NOBODY..... would assert it is the ONLY way.  Rather, it is the preferred way.  We had the debate then and we're having it now.  At any time during the tenure of the sin tax, any opponent could have proposed alternatives, including potential replacements during the first 20 years.  If you are still not happy next year, you can propose a change, or the year after that, or the year after that.  All the sin tax does is secure the funding.  It doesn't lock it in a way that the voters can't change their minds.  In fact, you might find a lot less resistance from City Hall and the other powers that be if you were to propose an alternative during the life of the tax instead of lobbying to compel an alternative by putting their backs against a wall.

Off to the polls I go.

 

I have been politicking and arguing and cajoling online, in live meetings, and in one-on-one conversations. 

 

Regardless of results I wanted to say that of all the forums in which I have participated the quality of the debate was the highest here.  On either side of the issue it is clear to me that the members of Urban Ohio are among the most informed of the electorate.

 

 

If I have swayed any of you to my position then get out and Vote NO on Issue 7 today!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And for those of you continue to support Issue 7  .... get out there and vote tomorrow!    ;)

I'm voting no for a number of reasons.  More than anything I think Pro-Issue 7 has run a slightly dishonest campaign.  I also hate the idea that the sin tax will be extended for 20 yrs. 

You're being far too kind. The job proclamations are borderline parody. Hell, it's like they're using the same boostering, nonsense rhetoric as Health Line reps, just with a few alterations.

 

East 4th and downtown living being a direct result of Gateway? Sure, why the hell not. Of course Tower City was losing high end retailers left and right during and after Gateway constriction. Makes me think if they take credit for the good, they should also take blame for the bad, regardless of logic.

 

And why do the stadiums need new scoreboards again? In what universe is that basic upkeep?

^ I completely agree regarding the scoreboards. And regardless of whether or not the sin tax is extended, this is something the city should be pushing back on...hard. Maintenance, upkeep, even certain upgrades may be within their obligations, but giant blingy scoreboards are over the top and serve no purpose but to fatten the owners' pockets. And quite frankly, I imagine them to be a distraction to the game itself. These requests should be submitted by the owners and scrutinized on an item by item basis. The City / County may approve some, but decline others.

 

The stadiums, as has been stated over and over on the ads, are owned by the public. So WE decide what upgrades are needed, not the owners.

The Jake could use a new scoreboard.  The Browns could use a whole new stadium.

 

Anytime there is an issue like this, the campaigns distort things.  We've certainly seen it from both sides on this issue..... although, as I've said before, I'm not sure if the distortions coming from the opposition are intentional or simply the result of ignorance.

All stadiums could use improvements, especially with other people's money. But unless they're falling apart - and I mean literally falling onto people's heads - then their repairs/replacements can wait. Somehow older stadiums have survived many decades without having to replace 10-20 year old scoreboards IN ECONOMICALLY DEPRESSED CITIES, no less

 

 

And I vaguely recall the excuse being there is a concern that certain parts won't be available in x number of years, hence the immediate need for new scoreboards. Well gee, couldn't that apply to every single mechanical structure that exists today and works well.

 

All stadiums could use improvements, especially with other people's money. But unless they're falling apart - and I mean literally falling onto people's heads - then their repairs/replacements can wait. Somehow older stadiums have survived many decades without having to replace 10-20 year old scoreboards IN ECONOMICALLY DEPRESSED CITIES, no less

 

 

And I vaguely recall the excuse being there is a concern that certain parts won't be available in x number of years, hence the immediate need for new scoreboards. Well gee, couldn't that apply to every single mechanical structure that exists today and works well.

 

 

The owners and the leagues have been trying to shorten the lifespan of stadiums dramatically over the last few years.

 

Agree... there has to be some strong citizen push back.  It's clear our politicians have already been rolled.  So we have to vote down the corporate welfare ourselves.

It's whatever the market will bear.  It's the cost of doing business, the cost of having major league teams.  If the city is prepared to lose that business to another city willing to pay, then so be it.  Sort of like the free agent market.  No team wants to pay someone already in the fold, but another team will.

^ I completely agree regarding the scoreboards. And regardless of whether or not the sin tax is extended, this is something the city should be pushing back on...hard. Maintenance, upkeep, even certain upgrades may be within their obligations, but giant blingy scoreboards are over the top and serve no purpose but to fatten the owners' pockets. And quite frankly, I imagine them to be a distraction to the game itself. These requests should be submitted by the owners and scrutinized on an item by item basis. The City / County may approve some, but decline others.

 

The stadiums, as has been stated over and over on the ads, are owned by the public. So WE decide what upgrades are needed, not the owners.

 

For Gateway, at least, day to day maintenance and upkeep are not within the landlord's obligations. Only major capital repairs costing over $500K.  I doubt any upgrades are contractually required, unlike at the football stadium (so we're told), but there may be murkiness on the edge if, for example, the current sound system is nearing the end of its useful life. And really, that's speculation based on reporting, because the leases aren't easily available.

 

I think the "negotiations" between the county and teams about which projects to fund have been ongoing for some time now. You can see a "Projected Preliminary Estimated Major Capital Repair List" [that name is a riot] for Progressive Field on page 42 of the ppt posted at the end of this piece: http://www.cleveland.com/naymik/index.ssf/2014/01/view_cleveland_indians_and_cav.html  Most of the stuff is boring mechanical projects (water heaters, plumbing fixtures, emergency power system, etc.), but there's also "replace obsolete scoreboard system."

 

I think there's a similar list for Q in the other presentation.

All stadiums could use improvements, especially with other people's money. But unless they're falling apart - and I mean literally falling onto people's heads - then their repairs/replacements can wait. Somehow older stadiums have survived many decades without having to replace 10-20 year old scoreboards IN ECONOMICALLY DEPRESSED CITIES, no less

 

I would much rather that the people of Pittsburgh (i.e. other people) pay for the repairs to OUR sports complexes, but that ain't gonna happen. 

 

Waiting until the stadiums are "literally" falling on people's heads?  Seriously?  That's just flat out stupidity.  Putting aside the massive liability concerns of your suggestion, preventative maintenance is almost always the more economically sound way of going about being a landlord, especially in ECONOMICALLY DEPRESSED CITIES.  If you properly maintain a building, it won't deteriorate to the point of needing to be replaced.  If anything, I would think that we would understand that on UO.

I voted yes this morning.

 

After hearing Trivassano voice his support for the anti-issue 7 camp it reaffirmed my feelings.  He is the classic entitled, suburban, "no new tax guy."  Doesn't want to pay taxes, yet wants everything that governments and communities build:  roads, stadiums...you name it--he doesn't want to pay for it. 

 

So vote it away and let the alcohol and cigarette distributors profit more, and put the burden on the City of Cleveland treasury.  After all, he doesn't live there--he only makes his living off their tenants and customers.

 

 

 

 

You won't hear me say this often (or likely ever again) but I welcome the support of the Tea Party types on the sin tax opposition.  Politics and strange bedfellows and all that. 

 

I am neither suburban, nor anti-tax, nor supportive of the cigarette and beverage industries.

 

I have supported sin taxes in the past when I felt that the money spent was a wise use of public funds.  I will support the sin tax again when the Cuyahoga arts and culture tax comes up for renewal.

 

I view my No vote as a strike not against taxation but against corporate welfare and the too-cozy "go along get along" approach of our civic leaders.

 

 

Trivassano is anti-issue 7? Maybe I should reconsider my position.

You won't hear me say this often (or likely ever again) but I welcome the support of the Tea Party types on the sin tax opposition.  Politics and strange bedfellows and all that. 

 

I am neither suburban, nor anti-tax, nor supportive of the cigarette and beverage industries.

 

I have supported sin taxes in the past when I felt that the money spent was a wise use of public funds.  I will support the sin tax again when the Cuyahoga arts and culture tax comes up for renewal.

 

I view my No vote as a strike not against taxation but against corporate welfare and the too-cozy "go along get along" approach of our civic leaders.

 

 

So it just comes down a definition of "wise use of public funds." 

 

If you look at the few open books in sports teams, these franchises generate a lot of revenue, but are not wildly profitable businesses (compared say to an Apple, McDonalds, etc).  Furthermore, these types of corporate welfare schemes are EVERYWHERE--not just in pro sports.  In fact, pro sports is peanuts when you start comparing to things like defense contracts and other forms of pork (how I'd love to own some stock in ODOT concrete!).

 

So at least the team generates tangible benefits in the community.  Lots of dollars trade hands.  Lots of people are employed, even in part time work on game days.  People that depend on those extra checks or tips. 

 

You can fund the arts all you want (I don't disagree and would gladly pay a few extra cents for a beer to do so on top of the stadium taxes).  Some of Cleveland's institutions are amongst the most well-endowed nationally.  So by giving to them once again it's the taxpayer giving to the rich, here in this oligarchy we call America.

 

 

 

 

Trivassano is anti-issue 7? Maybe I should reconsider my position.

 

He's pro "regionalization", though I think he is wrong about what the consequences would be.

Incredibly low turnout at the polls today in Cleveland.  I just voted at 6:30pm and the poll worker said they hadn't even cracked 100 ballots at her station.  Sheesh.

 

I'm predicting Issue 7 passes, about 60-40, maybe 70-30.  I'm sure the Cavs/Browns/indians made sure all their workers got out & voted

Incredibly low turnout at the polls today in Cleveland.  I just voted at 6:30pm and the poll worker said they hadn't even cracked 100 ballots at her station.  Sheesh.

 

I'm predicting Issue 7 passes, about 60-40, maybe 70-30.  I'm sure the Cavs/Browns/indians made sure all their workers got out & voted

 

U nailed that on the money! I voted for it and supported it from day one so I'm happy

I assumed it would pass, but my hope is that the opposition to the sin tax got enough attention at the city and county that they'll feel pressured to get better deals as the current lease agreements come up for renewals.

Glad it passed. 

 

For pennies on the dollar it makes it a lot more likely that CLE will keep all three of its teams...and possibly add the NHL down the road as the Southern cities continue to struggle mightily at the gate.

 

Right or wrong (and whether your'e a fan of sports or not) a lot of a city's national perception of being 'major league' quality is tied into having major league sports teams.

(Now as far as how good those teams actually are, I can't vouch for that!!!)

 

That's why urban meccas like Portland, Seattle and LA are angling to get teams that they either never had - or lost along the way.

 

 

Every time I've voted in Cleveland, usually in the afternoon, the polling place has been dead and barely had anyone vote. I imagine there are busy stations somewhere, and I recall tons of people doing early voting downtown in 2012, but the non-Presidential elections are just ignored and highly subject to interest group dominance.

 

Anyway, I'm not surprised it passed, I was never very enthusiastic about either option but I commend the opposition for drawing attention to the stupid subsidy system for increasingly expensive sports teams.

I'm glad it passed, but I would still encourage the opponents to put an alternative/replacement on the ballot at the next election.

I assumed it would pass, but my hope is that the opposition to the sin tax got enough attention at the city and county that they'll feel pressured to get better deals as the current lease agreements come up for renewals.

 

The only bargaining power we have is that we've already fought a major sports league and kept our name and colors.  So aside from the hassle an owner would go through, we are only as good as the scruples of the owner and the other deals on the table in other markets.

 

With this being said I think we do have horrible deals in place and something should be done to attempt to get them to pay something towards day to day upkeep.

^They DO pay a not insignificant amount towards day to day upkeep, whether voluntarily or through the leases.  As has been stated previously, the Browns' lease is a lot less favorable to the public.  But I would be surprised if the Indians/Cavs don't have leases that are at least comparable to those seen in other cities.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/naymik/index.ssf/2014/05/see_what_the_cleveland_indians.html

 

Also, it wasn't that much of a "fight" to keep the name and colors.  Baltimore wanted to start fresh and had no interest in the Brown and Orange.

^They DO pay a not insignificant amount towards day to day upkeep, whether voluntarily or through the leases.  As has been stated previously, the Browns' lease is a lot less favorable to the public.  But I would be surprised if the Indians/Cavs don't have leases that are at least comparable to those seen in other cities.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/naymik/index.ssf/2014/05/see_what_the_cleveland_indians.html

 

Also, it wasn't that much of a "fight" to keep the name and colors.  Baltimore wanted to start fresh and had no interest in the Brown and Orange.

 

I stand corrected Hts.  I thought they still had the original leases intact where the the Cavs and Indians were invoicing for things like light bulbs and toiletpaper, resulting in a negative rent payment.  Apparently this has been restructured :)

 

As far as the Browns names, I don't recall Modell just walking away from it.  There was a lot of money to be made from the colors and name, so legal action was indeed required.

 

 

 

 

I'm disappointed it passed, but not surprised.  The opponents were taking on Goliath in this- and the teams had plenty of money to spend.  Personally, I feel strongly in favor of a tax which benefits the community in a greater way than the tax recently passed.  I'll be doing homework and meeting with folks to create or join a coalition for a different tax with a wider impact.  This town has too many other problems to just sit around and wait for things to change.   

^The teams spent more than alcohol and tobacco interests, the main financial backers of the "grass-roots" opposition group.  I'd agree that this town has many other problems and I would encourage anyone with the will to find a way to address them.  IMO, putting equitable considerations aside, this measure took care (at least temporarily) of one of those problems. 

^They DO pay a not insignificant amount towards day to day upkeep, whether voluntarily or through the leases.  As has been stated previously, the Browns' lease is a lot less favorable to the public.  But I would be surprised if the Indians/Cavs don't have leases that are at least comparable to those seen in other cities.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/naymik/index.ssf/2014/05/see_what_the_cleveland_indians.html

 

Also, it wasn't that much of a "fight" to keep the name and colors.  Baltimore wanted to start fresh and had no interest in the Brown and Orange.

 

There was a lot of "Baltimore Browns" stuff making the rounds there during late 1995 and early 1996.

 

As I told my brother, who was an anti sin-tax activist, they lost as soon as the renewal was put forward before any alternatives.  Then the anti side started saying "we have to defeat it so we can discuss alternatives", a statement reminiscent of Pelosi's "we have to pass it to find out what's in it". 

You do know her quote was taken wildly and deliberately out of context there

^Context?  What's that?  (sarcasm)

^ It's an SMS message the Chicago Machine sends out to cover up Benghazi. BENGHAZI!! Never forget....until after the 2016 election.

 

Bringing the thread back, I have a question for Dergon. Are the CAST folks going to continue their efforts to 'recalibrate' the lease agreements, or was this a one issue push? I think the underlying argument regarding public subsidization of sports facilities is a sound one. While I didn't agree with eliminating the sin tax (for now), I am most definitely on board with continuing the discussion about how the facilities are managed.

A lot of good information arguing what COULD be done with more taxes on that land & the buildings built on it...

http://plainpress.wordpress.com/2014/05/02/promises-broken-property-taxes-promised-in-1990-could-have-been-a-game-changer-for-cleveland/

 

After I read it, I came away with a feeling that Cleveland is a second tier city, and rather than just admit it and make the most of our resources, the leaders are unwilling to acknowledge it and seem determined to hang on to the sports teams, even though pretty much everyone agrees they are a net-negative, which the city cannot afford.

 

^I came away with the stench of BS

Pee in the wind anyone?

 

Sure we could charge them property taxes.  But Cleveland students already get some of the highest spending per student in the ENTIRE STATE.  Another $8 million is not going to make a significant difference.    Certainly not enough to make a large scale migration back in from the suburbs--that is going to take years to undo the damage done in the 60's & 70's.

 

And yes, we're going to keep our sports teams for the foreseeable future.  Good news as a major city we want major league teams, as well as their spin off investments (especially when they win--fingers crossed).

 

What would be ideal is to bring all of these things together.  So instead of investing our time in fighting over the scraps of what's left here, we should all invest our energy into moving forward.  And the only way to save Cleveland is to stop the population loss and make this an attractive place for young people and immigrants.  Jobs jobs jobs.....and I believe we need to start from the bottom with manufacturing again.

 

^Not sure if I follow your logic.  If it's really "jobs jobs jobs," shouldn't you support cutting off the gravy train for sports teams and spending that money instead on more efficient job generation?

^Not sure if I follow your logic.  If it's really "jobs jobs jobs," shouldn't you support cutting off the gravy train for sports teams and spending that money instead on more efficient job generation?

 

No the sports teams are one component of a major market I believe is worth saving.  It was one of the holes that needed plugged.

 

I'd be fine with paying another 3 cents on my beer to fund a jobs creation package, but IMO letting the government do this directly is way less efficient than the sports teams.  The politicians all jump in and carve up the money so they all end up with some "neighborhood job center," rather than building one big factory.

Bringing the thread back, I have a question for Dergon. Are the CAST folks going to continue their efforts to 'recalibrate' the lease agreements, or was this a one issue push? I think the underlying argument regarding public subsidization of sports facilities is a sound one. While I didn't agree with eliminating the sin tax (for now), I am most definitely on board with continuing the discussion about how the facilities are managed.

 

 

There's some regrouping going on.      People want to find something to a) continue to rally around and b) get a "win" to prevent getting demoralized.

 

It turns out the Sin Tax was actually voted down ..... if you only count the City of Cleveland. (failed by 235 votes)

 

There is the thought about going small with the facilities fees.... maybe target only the Browns separate from the Indians and Cavs and have the resolution be a city tax and not a county-wide measure. 

 

Haslam is the more easily villified of the owners, the Browns have the highest ticket prices and probably the most inelastic demand due to the few games. 

 

If we could get that one passed it would set a nice precedent for future funding issues.

 

But all is in its infancy now.  Mostly licking wounds and trying to keep people engaged for now.

Its a little disingenuous to act like sports teams are the only businesses to subsidized by the government. Hilton is getting convention hotel built for them, geis receives incentive to develop 'the 9', individuals receive tax abatement for building a house in hough.  These subsidies are okay because it makes the area stronger.  I don't think e4th would have been as successful if the county didn't build gateway and lower Euclid would't be as strong without e4th. the warehouse district brings in tons of money from the browns.

Its a little disingenuous to act like sports teams are the only businesses to subsidized by the government. Hilton is getting convention hotel built for them, geis receives incentive to develop 'the 9', individuals receive tax abatement for building a house in hough.  These subsidies are okay because it makes the area stronger.  I don't think e4th would have been as successful if the county didn't build gateway and lower Euclid would't be as strong without e4th. the warehouse district brings in tons of money from the browns.

 

Agree 100% Mr Whip.  The American oligarchy is alive and well.  It's happening in Cleveland, and throughout the USA courtesy of tax deals, loopholes and leverages given to companies to do business locally.  And after years of funneling money into a corporation and that gravy goes away, so does the corporation, off to another locale willing to ante up to lure them there.  So as far as the sin tax goes, at least we are funding this indirectly without going straight into the general fund.

 

I feel this is one area where Europe has an advantage up on us, where it isn't as easy across international lines to engage in these kinds of ransom demands for tax benefits.  It's not like 1,000 employees from France would up and move to Germany, like many Detroit workers have done to chase auto factories into the southern states.  And even if they could, the respective governments would not allow it to happen.