'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

 

This -

 

Stadium project perform poorly relative to other development plans in terms of ROI.

 

Let's let the Sin Tax fail, adopt a facilities fee in Nov 2014 ... then we can talk about if/how we want to spend public funds more wisely on development projects that get us a better bang for our buck.

I disagree. This must pass.  The results from all of our teams prove that they are vital to the success of a Major League City.

 

Pass the tax, then work to make other changes.

I have to disagree with your disagreement. There are many significantly healthier cities with two, one, or even zero professional teams. Was Cleveland any worse off when the Cavs played in Richfield or the Browns left? Hell, wouldn't you say that things were a lot better for the city as a whole those years. More middle and working class families around; more middle class jobs and Fortune 500 companies those years, but only one or two teams playing downtown.

 

And I'm not saying the Cavs' and Browns' downtown absense was a good thing but rather there probably is no real connection to stadiums, teams and a healthy economy. So let them leave if they want to - whatever intangibles they're providing doesnt seem to be really doing all that much for Cleveland. If anything, you just see a lot more negativity.

 

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

That is the first I have heard of it. How big? I am sure that NFL fans paying $60/ticket could afford to pay another million/year in fees. It would cost about a dollar/ticket.

 

 

The Cavs currently charge a "facilities fee"  --- they have not clarified its purpose. It is charged for non-sports events.  It is fungible and simply extra $$ in their pocket.

 

 

In Keep Cleveland Strong's view, the fee is a "long standing industry norm" to help cover "specific operating costs incurred by the venue."

 

The money raised by the fee goes to the entity that manages the venue. That means the Cavs get the money for any event held at The Q. (I asked for the total amount of facility fees collected by the Cavs in 2013 but was told that figure was not readily available.)

 

 

Yes - the proposed facility fee to be extended from only "non-sports" events to all sporting events as well represents a cost moved from all the "sinners" to the people that attend the games.  I believe that it is a faired means of revenue generation than the sin tax.  It will also decrease the over tax burden for the County which could potential free up public funds for other future uses.

 

Yes - the proposed facility fee to be extended from only "non-sports" events to all sporting events as well represents a cost moved from all the "sinners" to the people that attend the games.  I believe that it is a faired means of revenue generation than the sin tax.  It will also decrease the over tax burden for the County which could potential free up public funds for other future uses.

 

If that's the case, the people that attend the games (and consequently pay for the stadiums) should be the only ones allowed to watch it on television. Bars and restaurants are no longer allowed to show the games on TV either.

 

Under your plan, my season tickets are paying for the stadium. Why do you get to benefit if I am spending all the money?

Yes - the proposed facility fee to be extended from only "non-sports" events to all sporting events as well represents a cost moved from all the "sinners" to the people that attend the games.  I believe that it is a faired means of revenue generation than the sin tax.  It will also decrease the over tax burden for the County which could potential free up public funds for other future uses.

 

If that's the case, the people that attend the games (and consequently pay for the stadiums) should be the only ones allowed to watch it on television. Bars and restaurants are no longer allowed to show the games on TV either.

 

 

 

No-- that logic is unsound.  The people watching on TV see advertisements.  That's how the teams get their $$ from TV viewing.  One could actually argue that it is reasonable for the teams to view the stadium as a "loss leader" for the television product... which is wildly profitable.

 

 

Under your plan, my season tickets are paying for the stadium.

 

On that point we agree.      (( ps - So are mine, btw.  I've been sharing a set of season tickets since the Browns came back))

 

What is the data?  How much does the tax collect per pack of cigarettes, per bottle of beer?

What is the data?  How much does the tax collect per pack of cigarettes, per bottle of beer?

1.9 cents on a can of beer, 1.5 cents per ounce of liquor, and 4.5 cents on a pack of cigarettes

 

 

The facilities fee of $3.25 per ticket would replace the same revenue without using public funds.  The hundreds of millions of dollars saved could either be pocketed by the citizenry (no new tax) or used for some other purpose ( support infrastructure, economic development, public health, education, etc).

What is the data?  How much does the tax collect per pack of cigarettes, per bottle of beer?

1.9 cents on a can of beer, 1.5 cents per ounce of liquor, and 4.5 cents on a pack of cigarettes

 

 

The facilities fee of $3.25 per ticket would replace the same revenue without using public funds.  The hundreds of millions of dollars saved could either be pocketed by the citizenry (no new tax) or used for some other purpose ( support infrastructure, economic development, public health, education, etc).

 

Being the devils (owners) advocate here--I would argue against this because it's impossible to predict revenue.  At least with the sin tax they can be assured that their minimums would be covered.  But what if the Indians attendance goes in the cellar again (not an unfathomable concept).  Suddenly they lose that $3.25 per ticket.  But no matter how tough times get in Cleveland, people will still be buying their cigarettes and beer.

 

What needs to happen is extend the sin tax, but put someone in charge of the books, and someone in charge of negotiating with the teams.  Make Dan Gilbert buy his own toilet paper and light bulbs. 

 

What is the data?  How much does the tax collect per pack of cigarettes, per bottle of beer?

1.9 cents on a can of beer, 1.5 cents per ounce of liquor, and 4.5 cents on a pack of cigarettes

 

 

The facilities fee of $3.25 per ticket would replace the same revenue without using public funds.  The hundreds of millions of dollars saved could either be pocketed by the citizenry (no new tax) or used for some other purpose ( support infrastructure, economic development, public health, education, etc).

 

Being the devils (owners) advocate here--I would argue against this because it's impossible to predict revenue.  At least with the sin tax they can be assured that their minimums would be covered.  But what if the Indians attendance goes in the cellar again (not an unfathomable concept).  Suddenly they lose that $3.25 per ticket.  But no matter how tough times get in Cleveland, people will still be buying their cigarettes and beer.

 

What needs to happen is extend the sin tax, but put someone in charge of the books, and someone in charge of negotiating with the teams.  Make Dan Gilbert buy his own toilet paper and light bulbs. 

 

Being the devils advocate for the owners here and

 

I can appreciate the position but.... it is pure naivete to think that somehow *after* approving the sin tax the team owners come to the table and open the books with full transparency.

 

If you want that then defeat Issue 7 on May 6 and then force them to the table with those terms conditional as part of adopting whatever funding plan.  There is plenty of time -- all the way into 2015 -- to get that done after Issue 7 is defeated.

 

 

(( I still think the facilities fee is fairer and adequate but  I am just responding to your argument ))

Do you really think that facility fees won't drag down attendance to games? Increasing a bulk of tickets to Indians games by 15% is going to have a pretty significant impact.

 

And you do realize that $3.25 ticket fee is going to bear the brunt of the pain on the Indians, right? With 81 home games, the Indians feature 62% of all games and 56% of all tickets sold that the ticket fee would cover.

 

If your goal is to discourage people from going to sporting events downtown, or discourage them from spending money before/after sporting events, you are doing a good job by charging everyone an additional $3.25/ticket ($13/family of 4) to go to a game.

 

To put this ticket fee into perspective, to reach the $3.25 ticket fee, an individual would need to purchase:

73 packs of cigarettes

172 cans of beers

or 217 shots of liquor.

Attendence demand for professional sports tickets is actually relatively inelsatic.

 

http://econ.unt.edu/~jhauge/Teaching/Sports/monopoly_Coates_Humphreys_2007.pdf

 

Discussion and Conclusions:

 

The evidence here suggests that demand for attendance

at professional sporting events is quite inelastic with

respect to the ticket price.

 

 

 

{More research is needed but .... }

These estimated price elasticities would be of interest to

policy makers who are attempting to raise tax revenues by

taxing tickets and other game day goods to offset public

subsidies for stadium construction and operation.

 

It's not the price of the ticket that dumps demand.... it's the product on the field.

 

 

 

But -- just to entertain a "fall -off in demand" scenario.  Let's say attendance does drop slightly and the facility fee adopted in November 2014 begins to fall short on estimated revenue after a few years.  There's no reason that in say 2017 or 2018 other funding options could be reconsidered.

 

It is just critically important for the voters to realize that there is no urgency in passing Issue 7 in May 2014.  There is plenty of time work through other better, fairer, and well though out options.  There is no need for a knee-jerk Yes vote.  Vote No now and there is plenty of time later.

So a multi-bar owner - the tres arrogant Alan Glazen - is leading the charge to have products sold at bars not sin-taxed? No matter his feeling on the sin tax -  I really think he has a definite personal interest in seeing the tax go away...  How about he opens HIS books?

What is the data?  How much does the tax collect per pack of cigarettes, per bottle of beer?

1.9 cents on a can of beer, 1.5 cents per ounce of liquor, and 4.5 cents on a pack of cigarettes

 

 

The facilities fee of $3.25 per ticket would replace the same revenue without using public funds.  The hundreds of millions of dollars saved could either be pocketed by the citizenry (no new tax) or used for some other purpose ( support infrastructure, economic development, public health, education, etc).

 

Thank you. 

I don't smoke, but I do enjoy the drinking.

 

If the sin tax is repealed, does anyone think a $6 pack of smokes will now be $5.95

Or a $3.50 bud at a bar will be $3.48.

 

I understand a lot of the arguments against continuing the sin tax, and they have merit.

The one argument I feel has no merit is "think of the poor" because I don't think this particular tax is passed on to the costumer all that often.  (Not to mention it's a sin tax, not a food tax)

 

 

I also think, if they the powers that be were smart, they should have thrown in a sweetener.  Something like 10% of sin tax revenue would go to maintaining county rec centers, or something like that.

What is the data?  How much does the tax collect per pack of cigarettes, per bottle of beer?

1.9 cents on a can of beer, 1.5 cents per ounce of liquor, and 4.5 cents on a pack of cigarettes

 

 

The facilities fee of $3.25 per ticket would replace the same revenue without using public funds.  The hundreds of millions of dollars saved could either be pocketed by the citizenry (no new tax) or used for some other purpose ( support infrastructure, economic development, public health, education, etc).

 

Thank you. 

I don't smoke, but I do enjoy the drinking.

 

If the sin tax is repealed, does anyone think a $6 pack of smokes will now be $5.95

Or a $3.50 bud at a bar will be $3.48.

 

I understand a lot of the arguments against continuing the sin tax, and they have merit.

The one argument I feel has no merit is "think of the poor" because I don't think this particular tax is passed on to the costumer all that often.  (Not to mention it's a sin tax, not a food tax)

 

You can support sin taxes generally  ( as I do when the revenues are put to good public use)  and still oppose this sin tax.  It is simply a transfer of public funds into the hands of the wealthiest members of the community.

 

You can support sin taxes generally  ( as I do when the revenues are put to good public use)  and still oppose this sin tax.  It is simply a transfer of public funds into the hands of the wealthiest members of the community.

 

But if you take it away and replace it with a per-ticket tax, it will only move the sin tax money into a different sect of the wealthiest in the community (the restaurant and bar owners, grocery chains, and beer/liquor distributors).  It won't do anything more for those poor folks still paying that extra nickel for a pack of Kools.  And it will put game tickets even further out of reach of the lower earners in our community.  That to me is a lose-lose.

Why is the treasury of the City of Cleveland on the hook to pay for these sporting venues? It is because the billionaires who own those sports teams bought out or bullied the local politicians into giving them the facilities at the price of dirt. That is disgusting. They need the facility. They should pay adequate rent. I don't live in Cuyahoga County, but most of my coworkers do. I am bad mouthing that tax levy every chance I get.

No-- that logic is unsound.  The people watching on TV see advertisements.  That's how the teams get their $$ from TV viewing.  One could actually argue that it is reasonable for the teams to view the stadium as a "loss leader" for the television product... which is wildly profitable.

 

 

Under your plan, my season tickets are paying for the stadium.

 

On that point we agree.      (( ps - So are mine, btw.  I've been sharing a set of season tickets since the Browns came back))

 

The county doesn't see one cent from the TV revenue. How is the county going to generate enough revenue to pay for debt service and maintenance on the stadiums they own? And the multi county region gets to benefit from having a local sports team without paying one cent for it. That is asinine. The sin tax is flawed because it levies a tax on the vast minority. But it at least covers a larger group then just those going to games.

 

I don't like either the sin tax or your increased facilities fee idea. Everybody should pay. How about putting the games behind a pay wall. Put the televised games on a paid subscription service.

As I read more posts on this obviously volatile subject, it reminds me what a strange place America can be. 

 

Sports are just a microcosm of this sort of community-vs-community behavior that plagues our nation.  The factories of cities like Detroit, Cleveland, and Buffalo have been lured away to places like Alabama, Mississippi and Tennessee, through various tax schemes and the politics of those localities.  We are held hostage by our sports team owners, who always have the option of taking a better deal elsewhere, where the local community is willing to collectively get on their knees for the owners.  Plutocracy knows no shame.

 

From my world travels I would surmise that this behavior happens elsewhere in the modernized world, just not nearly to the degree that it happens here.  Can you imagine if another city in the UK offered to build a better stadium for Manchester United?  It would never even make it to the conversation, let alone close to reality! 

I wish there were non biased research into the investment communities put into sports facilities, and what the return on that investment is.  It seems like all the published stories start out with a conclusion, then backfill with data.

 

I'm pro stadia, pro sin tax, for the same reason I was pro convention center and pro casino*, I think the benefits outweigh the costs.  But, it's not a slam dunk, so I appreciate hearing the opposing view. 

 

I think this is one debate where all sides are pretty honest about where they stand and why.

 

 

(*casino: I'm still horrified on how the city let the casino bulldoze historic building for parking)

I wish there were non biased research into the investment communities put into sports facilities, and what the return on that investment is.  It seems like all the published stories start out with a conclusion, then backfill with data.

 

I'm pro stadia, pro sin tax, for the same reason I was pro convention center and pro casino*, I think the benefits outweigh the costs.  But, it's not a slam dunk, so I appreciate hearing the opposing view. 

 

I think this is one debate where all sides are pretty honest about where they stand and why.

 

Pretty much my take, with a few exceptions.  The people trying to revisit the original proposal are missing a huge point, this is a different discussion.  The buildings exist, are we going to take care of them?

 

How this will be paid for is a different question, but IMO alternatives should have been brought up long ago. 

I wish there were non biased research into the investment communities put into sports facilities, and what the return on that investment is.  It seems like all the published stories start out with a conclusion, then backfill with data.

 

 

There is a wealth of studies by non biased academics on the topic of economic impact of stadiums.  Cleveland State's own Michael Spicer, PhD has written articles and advised on the topic.

 

Here's an interesting piece, contains other articles as well:

 

http://www.minnpost.com/community-voices/2011/02/dumb-and-dumber-folly-taxpayer-handouts-professional-sports

 

Same conclusion: a bad investment

Literally hundreds of other studies and books — by individuals such as long-time sports economists Arthur T. Johnson in "Minor League Baseball and Economic Development" (1995), Mark Rosentraub in "Major League Losers" (1997), Kenneth Shropshire in "The Sports Franchise Game" (1995), Roger Noll and Andrew Zimbalist in "Sports, Jobs, and Taxes" (1997), and Michael N. Danielson in "Home Team" (1997) — reach the same conclusion: Public support of professional and minor league sports is a bad investment.

 

In practically none of the cities these studies examined did new sports stadiums lead to any significant new private investment or provide for any significant economic benefits to the local economy besides the jobs generated by the initial capital construction of the stadiums. More important, the new stadiums generally were not even profitable or self-financing. Nor could cities point to rising land prices or economic development in the surrounding community. Even as tourist attractions, the stadiums either simply transferred sales from somewhere else or failed to demonstrate that the local hotels were filled as a result of the sports events.

 

Finally, in terms of the much-ballyhooed job production, outside of initial construction and the salaries for the players themselves, part-time, seasonal, and no-benefit beer and peanut sales jobs were the fare for what the billions of public dollars produced.

 

Those who are opposed to the sin tax keep saying how by not passing it we bring the team owners to the table to renegotiate. I have said upthread, and I'll say it again, that is incorrect. Pass the sin tax, don't pass the sin tax, either way the liability contractually lies with the city. If we don't pass a funding source, the teams don't suddenly have to start making these payments, the city just has to scramble to make up the difference. There's no incentive for the team owners to renegotiate, particularly when the intention is to make those leases less advantageous than they were previously. AND THE COST OF THE TAXED ITEMS DOES NOT GO DOWN, so what's the benefit?

 

Exert whatever pressure we feel is necessary to correct these horribly one sided lease agreements. I'm totally on board with that. Not passing the sin tax is not effective. It's the same if my kid holds his breath when he doesn't get his way. Ok, hold it until you pass out for all I care. Now you have a headache, and you're still not getting your way.

I wish there were non biased research into the investment communities put into sports facilities, and what the return on that investment is.  It seems like all the published stories start out with a conclusion, then backfill with data.

 

 

There is a wealth of studies by non biased academics on the topic of economic impact of stadiums.  Cleveland State's own Michael Spicer, PhD has written articles and advised on the topic.

 

Here's an interesting piece, contains other articles as well:

 

http://www.minnpost.com/community-voices/2011/02/dumb-and-dumber-folly-taxpayer-handouts-professional-sports

 

Same conclusion: a bad investment

Literally hundreds of other studies and books — by individuals such as long-time sports economists Arthur T. Johnson in "Minor League Baseball and Economic Development" (1995), Mark Rosentraub in "Major League Losers" (1997), Kenneth Shropshire in "The Sports Franchise Game" (1995), Roger Noll and Andrew Zimbalist in "Sports, Jobs, and Taxes" (1997), and Michael N. Danielson in "Home Team" (1997) — reach the same conclusion: Public support of professional and minor league sports is a bad investment.

 

In practically none of the cities these studies examined did new sports stadiums lead to any significant new private investment or provide for any significant economic benefits to the local economy besides the jobs generated by the initial capital construction of the stadiums. More important, the new stadiums generally were not even profitable or self-financing. Nor could cities point to rising land prices or economic development in the surrounding community. Even as tourist attractions, the stadiums either simply transferred sales from somewhere else or failed to demonstrate that the local hotels were filled as a result of the sports events.

 

Finally, in terms of the much-ballyhooed job production, outside of initial construction and the salaries for the players themselves, part-time, seasonal, and no-benefit beer and peanut sales jobs were the fare for what the billions of public dollars produced.

 

 

I think any study that does not take into account the ripple effects of economic impact on hotels and restaurants is fundamentally flawed.  I have worked in bars and restaurants near stadia, and game days (even football) was a significant percentage of annual revene.

However, the same can be said that one project is responsible for all economic activity (think Healthline). 

 

Again, if someone knows of a study where the author went in without a conclusion and did a dospationate review of revenue, I would love to read it (I'm a data nerd)

Those who are opposed to the sin tax keep saying how by not passing it we bring the team owners to the table to renegotiate. I have said upthread, and I'll say it again, that is incorrect. Pass the sin tax, don't pass the sin tax, either way the liability contractually lies with the city. If we don't pass a funding source, the teams don't suddenly have to start making these payments, the city just has to scramble to make up the difference. There's no incentive for the team owners to renegotiate, particularly when the intention is to make those leases less advantageous than they were previously. AND THE COST OF THE TAXED ITEMS DOES NOT GO DOWN, so what's the benefit?

 

Exert whatever pressure we feel is necessary to correct these horribly one sided lease agreements. I'm totally on board with that. Not passing the sin tax is not effective. It's the same if my kid holds his breath when he doesn't get his way. Ok, hold it until you pass out for all I care. Now you have a headache, and you're still not getting your way.

 

^^effective argument.  Agree 100%.

I wish there were non biased research into the investment communities put into sports facilities, and what the return on that investment is.  It seems like all the published stories start out with a conclusion, then backfill with data.

 

 

There is a wealth of studies by non biased academics on the topic of economic impact of stadiums.  Cleveland State's own Michael Spicer, PhD has written articles and advised on the topic.

 

Here's an interesting piece, contains other articles as well:

 

http://www.minnpost.com/community-voices/2011/02/dumb-and-dumber-folly-taxpayer-handouts-professional-sports

 

Same conclusion: a bad investment

Literally hundreds of other studies and books — by individuals such as long-time sports economists Arthur T. Johnson in "Minor League Baseball and Economic Development" (1995), Mark Rosentraub in "Major League Losers" (1997), Kenneth Shropshire in "The Sports Franchise Game" (1995), Roger Noll and Andrew Zimbalist in "Sports, Jobs, and Taxes" (1997), and Michael N. Danielson in "Home Team" (1997) — reach the same conclusion: Public support of professional and minor league sports is a bad investment.

 

In practically none of the cities these studies examined did new sports stadiums lead to any significant new private investment or provide for any significant economic benefits to the local economy besides the jobs generated by the initial capital construction of the stadiums. More important, the new stadiums generally were not even profitable or self-financing. Nor could cities point to rising land prices or economic development in the surrounding community. Even as tourist attractions, the stadiums either simply transferred sales from somewhere else or failed to demonstrate that the local hotels were filled as a result of the sports events.

 

Finally, in terms of the much-ballyhooed job production, outside of initial construction and the salaries for the players themselves, part-time, seasonal, and no-benefit beer and peanut sales jobs were the fare for what the billions of public dollars produced.

 

 

I think any study that does not take into account the ripple effects of economic impact on hotels and restaurants is fundamentally flawed.  I have worked in bars and restaurants near stadia, and game days (even football) was a significant percentage of annual revene.

However, the same can be said that one project is responsible for all economic activity (think Healthline). 

 

Again, if someone knows of a study where the author went in without a conclusion and did a dospationate review of revenue, I would love to read it (I'm a data nerd)

 

So maybe the bars & restaurants that see a boost on game days but are dead every other day (think Thirsty Parrot or Clevelander or Bob Golics) get repurposed as something else, or gain steady every day business from the development that goes in place of the stadiums and provides steady traffic every day of the year.  I can't see how that doesn't end up as a net gain.

So maybe the bars & restaurants that see a boost on game days but are dead every other day (think Thirsty Parrot or Clevelander or Bob Golics) get repurposed as something else, or gain steady every day business from the development that goes in place of the stadiums and provides steady traffic every day of the year.  I can't see how that doesn't end up as a net gain.

 

That's just a little too SIM City for me.  If a downtown office developer wanted to build a 100 story tower on Public Square but needed incentives to do it, all they would have to do is ask.  Somewhere our leaders would find some money or tax breaks for them.

 

The problem is there isn't demand for it in today's Cleveland.  Sure we can use a tax to build some new office development, but all it will be doing is shifting offices from one building to another, not bringing in outsiders.  At least the stadiums bring in Susie Suburbs and her kids to the Indians games (probably the only time she ventures in from Medina County, and has to be able to park in the Gateway garage or else she ain't coming!).

 

 

^so by that logic, the stadiums are the lowest common denominator for economic development, and the best bang for the buck?

 

Look at the real estate that is occupied by the Gateway stadiums & associated parking structures.  Massive.  Total game changer in attracting a major corporate headquarters to downtown Cleveland.

 

Look at the real estate that is occupied by Browns stadium on the lakefront.  Look at the recent RFP for mixed use development ringing the stadium & think what could actually be done on that property if the stadium and it's 10 days of use per year weren't such an obstacle.  Again, a huge blank slate with infinite opportunity

 

 

^so by that logic, the stadiums are the lowest common denominator for economic development, and the best bang for the buck?

 

Look at the real estate that is occupied by the Gateway stadiums & associated parking structures.  Massive.  Total game changer in attracting a major corporate headquarters to downtown Cleveland.

 

Look at the real estate that is occupied by Browns stadium on the lakefront.  Look at the recent RFP for mixed use development ringing the stadium & think what could actually be done on that property if the stadium and it's 10 days of use per year weren't such an obstacle.  Again, a huge blank slate with infinite opportunity

 

 

 

Look at the Flats East Bank.  How many years has it taken to get it to where it stands currently?  Open real estate does not make demand.  You can't build it and they will come....if that's true downtown Cleveland, and Cleveland in general, as ACRES of available real estate.

 

So are stadiums the lowest common denominator?  Maybe.  But their are a piece of the bigger economic puzzle.   

 

I repeat--that I am not with the sports team owners.  I feel a better deal needs to be cut.  I also laugh at the usual American waste of building taxpayer financed stadiums that over the last 20 years had to become single-sport (no more multi-use football/baseball facilities).    But that's today's world and Cleveland has done a good job in competing in it. 

 

So we should be questioning our leaders on how the sin tax money is going to be spent, and how they are going to attract new jobs to the area that leads to the developments you're hoping for.  We have the sports teams.  We have the arts and culture.  We have higher education.  We have plenty of available, affordable housing.  We have world class health care.  We have a suitable airport that is under-capacity.  What we need is our 1950's jobs (or the modern version of them) back.  With that will come population, and new development.

^so by that logic, the stadiums are the lowest common denominator for economic development, and the best bang for the buck?

 

Look at the real estate that is occupied by the Gateway stadiums & associated parking structures.  Massive.  Total game changer in attracting a major corporate headquarters to downtown Cleveland.

 

Look at the real estate that is occupied by Browns stadium on the lakefront.  Look at the recent RFP for mixed use development ringing the stadium & think what could actually be done on that property if the stadium and it's 10 days of use per year weren't such an obstacle.  Again, a huge blank slate with infinite opportunity

 

 

 

Look at the Flats East Bank.  How many years has it taken to get it to where it stands currently?  Open real estate does not make demand.  You can't build it and they will come....if that's true downtown Cleveland, and Cleveland in general, as ACRES of available real estate.

 

 

Not in large parcels, right in downtown business district.  Good analogy on the Flats East Bank.  To be fair, they were ready to roll back in 2008 and got lambasted by the recession.  Had to go back to square 1 which cost them 3 years.

^so by that logic, the stadiums are the lowest common denominator for economic development, and the best bang for the buck?

 

Look at the real estate that is occupied by the Gateway stadiums & associated parking structures.  Massive.  Total game changer in attracting a major corporate headquarters to downtown Cleveland.

 

Look at the real estate that is occupied by Browns stadium on the lakefront.  Look at the recent RFP for mixed use development ringing the stadium & think what could actually be done on that property if the stadium and it's 10 days of use per year weren't such an obstacle.  Again, a huge blank slate with infinite opportunity

 

 

 

Look at the Flats East Bank.  How many years has it taken to get it to where it stands currently?  Open real estate does not make demand.  You can't build it and they will come....if that's true downtown Cleveland, and Cleveland in general, as ACRES of available real estate.

 

 

Not in large parcels, right in downtown business district.  Good analogy on the Flats East Bank.  To be fair, they were ready to roll back in 2008 and got lambasted by the recession.  Had to go back to square 1 which cost them 3 years.

 

Then compare our one little FEB development to a market like Dallas, which also lived through the recession.  At one point they had 2/3 of the cranes in North America there.  The skyline has changed more in the last 8 years than Cleveland has in the last 40.

Then compare our one little FEB development to a market like Dallas, which also lived through the recession.  At one point they had 2/3 of the cranes in North America there.  The skyline has changed more in the last 8 years than Cleveland has in the last 40.

 

I just spent a week in Dallas.  Their downtown is D.E.A.D.  More vacant and boarded up storefronts than I could count, and their office vacancy rate is somewhere around 25%.  I got kicked out of a bar at 10 pm because they were closing.  Except for the light rail lines running through the middle, downtown Cleveland blows it out of the water in a huge way.  If the "build it and they will come" approach doesn't even work in one of the most robust metro economies in the nation, why should we think that it would fare any better here? 

 

You could argue that Gateway is further proof of that, or that Gateway is part of the piecemeal approach that Cleveland has been using to successfully revitalize its downtown.  Either way, those arguments are rather academic at this point because like it or not, the facilities got built, and now we have to figure out how to pay for their upkeep.

Then compare our one little FEB development to a market like Dallas, which also lived through the recession.  At one point they had 2/3 of the cranes in North America there.  The skyline has changed more in the last 8 years than Cleveland has in the last 40.

 

I just spent a week in Dallas.  Their downtown is D.E.A.D.  More vacant and boarded up storefronts than I could count, and their office vacancy rate is somewhere around 25%.  I got kicked out of a bar at 10 pm because they were closing.  Except for the light rail lines running through the middle, downtown Cleveland blows it out of the water in a huge way.  If the "build it and they will come" approach doesn't even work in one of the most robust metro economies in the nation, why should we think that it would fare any better here? 

 

You could argue that Gateway is further proof of that, or that Gateway is part of the piecemeal approach that Cleveland has been using to successfully revitalize its downtown.  Either way, those arguments are rather academic at this point because like it or not, the facilities got built, and now we have to figure out how to pay for their upkeep.

 

You are correct about downtown Dallas, which has always been mainly commercial/office space.  I was thinking more of Uptown and Victory Park than downtown.  Downtown Dallas has seen spurts of residential creeping in as well, and will surely continue to grow as a 24 hour area as the surrounding neighborhoods do. 

http://www.cleveland.com/cuyahoga-county/index.ssf/2014/01/scoreboard_upgrades_will_appear_on_sin_tax_wish_list_for_cavs_indians_according_to_landlord.html#pd_a_7715335

 

Scoreboard upgrades will appear on 'sin tax' wish list for Cavs, Indians, according to landlord

 

“I could sugarcoat it, but I’m not going to. There are going to be scoreboard items on there too,” said Tim Offtermatt, the chairman of the board for the Gateway Economic Corporation, which is responsible for enforcing the lease for the two stadiums.

 

.... the scoreboard will likely be a focal point of public debate, if recent history is any indicator. Similar discussions late last year with Cleveland City Council – which ultimately resulted in $30 million in taxpayer money over 15 years being sent to FirstEnergy Field for improvements – largely revolved around improvements to the scoreboard, which critics saw as a costly aesthetic upgrade unwritten by taxpayers.

 

 

Yep. There are your "necessary repairs and maintenance".  #sarcasm

 

 

Vote NO on Issue 7. 

 

 

^so by that logic, the stadiums are the lowest common denominator for economic development, and the best bang for the buck?

 

Look at the real estate that is occupied by the Gateway stadiums & associated parking structures.  Massive.  Total game changer in attracting a major corporate headquarters to downtown Cleveland.

 

Look at the real estate that is occupied by Browns stadium on the lakefront.  Look at the recent RFP for mixed use development ringing the stadium & think what could actually be done on that property if the stadium and it's 10 days of use per year weren't such an obstacle.  Again, a huge blank slate with infinite opportunity

 

 

 

Look at the Flats East Bank.  How many years has it taken to get it to where it stands currently?  Open real estate does not make demand.  You can't build it and they will come....if that's true downtown Cleveland, and Cleveland in general, as ACRES of available real estate.

 

 

Not in large parcels, right in downtown business district.  Good analogy on the Flats East Bank.  To be fair, they were ready to roll back in 2008 and got lambasted by the recession.  Had to go back to square 1 which cost them 3 years.

 

Then compare our one little FEB development to a market like Dallas, which also lived through the recession.  At one point they had 2/3 of the cranes in North America there.  The skyline has changed more in the last 8 years than Cleveland has in the last 40.

I would bet Toronto had more cranes in the air at any one time than Dallas had at any one time in the last 30-40 years.  Leave it to Texans to come up with these wacky, unfounded stats.  I lived in Texas (Houston) for 3 years, until I realized that life is too short to live to live in Houston.

Perhaps I am misquoting that stat--it could be 2/3 of the cranes in the USA.  Your point about Toronto would be quite valid, followed closely by Vancouver.

 

None the less, this entire area has been constructed in the last 8 years:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Uptowndallasskyline.jpg

 

My point was things are moving a bit slower in Cleveland's economy.  And that is a stat that even Texans can back up.

 

The issue public financing of stadiums, and the bad deal it is for citizens getting national press! 

 

http://www.newsweek.com/2014/05/02/wealthy-sports-team-owners-want-taxbreaks-go-forever-248356.html

 

Wealthy Sports Team Owners Want Taxbreaks to Go on Forever

 

 

Every sporting event comes to an end, even if it requires extra innings or overtime. But the billionaire owners of pro sports teams now want the welfare they collect from taxpayers to go on forever.

 

A key test of this new page in their playbook comes in a May 6 vote in Cleveland, which the Census Bureau lists as the second-poorest large city in America. A ballot measure there and in surrounding Cuyahoga County would extend taxes first imposed in 1990 until 2035 to benefit the city’s three pro teams: the Browns (football), Cavaliers (basketball) and Indians (baseball). The taxes are small levies on alcoholic drinks and tobacco—everyone in the area who drinks beer, wine or hard liquor or uses tobacco pays, even if you never attend a game.

 

 

 

Something like that sports tariff is being levied all across America. The 132 major pro sports franchises have been collecting about $2 billion a year in subsidies, Field of Schemes author Neil deMause estimated for Congress in 2007. That money has mostly been used to cover 80 percent of the cost of new stadiums, but with their appetite for welfare whetted, team owners now want to keep the tax dollars forever flowing into their coffers. Pro franchises in Milwaukee; Miami; Cincinnati; Charlotte, N.C.;  Oakland, Calif.; St. Louis and many other cities are also seeking more public  dollars.

 

Every town has a different story, but the game is the same. Some teams want taxes imposed or extended. Others seek free rent for a stadium or arena, free upgrades of scoreboards—which cost up to $30 million—and other benefits.

 

In seeking more tax money to supplement their private gains, team owners have powerful allies. In Cleveland, these include virtually every elected city and county official, as well as the major business leaders and local news organizations. The Cleveland Plain Dealer has run numerous stories on the benefits of continuing the so-called sin taxes, and it has reported fawningly on studies (paid for by team owners) that purport to show the sports team tax is a boon to Cleveland.

 

.....

 

 

 

Team owners are counting on that blind loyalty to keep the tax dollars flowing into their pockets.

 

Vote NO on Issue 7!

 

 

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. 

 

Here is your better way -- it's official as of today! Kevin Kelly might like to say that he won't consider any alternative funding.... but he's going to have to.

 

 

 

 

The Coalition against the Sin Tax (C.A.S.T.)

Moves Forward with Alternative to Sin Tax, Introduces Plan for

November Ballot Initiative in the City of Cleveland.

 

 

April 23, 2014, Cleveland, Ohio - On Thursday, April 24th at 10:30AM, members of

C.A.S.T. will formally introduce the next step in the implementation of a preferable

alternative to the Sin Tax put forward by proponents of Issue 7. A Committee of the

Petitioners, as allowed under Chapter 7 of the Charter of the City of Cleveland will

introduce a ballot issue initiative on behalf of the electors of the City of Cleveland on

the steps of Cleveland City Hall, 501 Lakeside Avenue.

 

C.A.S.T. will introduce a detailed plan to collect the required 5,000 signatures and

submit the ordinance to the Clerk of Cleveland City Council for a citizen’s initiative

to be placed on the ballot in the November 4th 2014 General Election.

 

Alan Glazen a retired business leader, Cleveland resident and member of the

Coalition against the Sin Tax, said, “It’s unfortunate that both Mayor Frank Jackson

as well as Council President Kevin Kelley forget that our city government has a

home-rule charter that allows for a ballot initiative by citizens to introduce their

own legislation.” He continued, “We intend to ask the voters if a fair-share Facility

Fee instead of a regressive and unfair Sin Tax should be applied to each ticket to a

for-profit game, concert or other event at Quicken Loans Arena, First Energy

Stadium and Progressive Field.”

 

Mr. Glazen and other representatives of C.A.S.T. will be available to answer detailed

questions from the media regarding this ballot initiative. A copy of the proposed

ballot initiative and ordinance language will be available for distribution. 

I would sign that ballot initiative as a Cleveland resident

I would sign that ballot initiative as a Cleveland resident

 

I will be sure to let everyone know where they can have that opportunity...... but it only comes into play after Issue 7 is defeated.

I'm thinking this is going to pass with relative ease.  Just a guess.  Are there any polls?  There's a lot of noise in opposition, but I don't think that will equate to actual opposition at the polls.

I'm thinking this is going to pass with relative ease.  Just a guess.  Are there any polls?  There's a lot of noise in opposition, but I don't think that will equate to actual opposition at the polls.

 

There seems to be plenty of Pro-7 advertising to counter any no voices. 

 

I for one will vote for it--I just don't believe the alternative methods of funding proposed will stand up to the long-term test of time.

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.

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.

 

+1

 

There is an opportunity cost to re-upping the sin tax. That's money we can no longer appropriate to more worthy projects.

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.

But if the bill is defeated, wouldn't the money just come from general fund. I mean, we owe what we owe.

 

And if we renege or try to renegotiate the contract, won't there be potentially millions in litigation fees and other ancillary costs. The teams have a lot of leverage; the city has virtually none.

 

No one likes this bill, but you really have to pick your battles.

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 don’t like it, don’t “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 (I’ve never smoked), it’s only a penny on the dollar.  Surely it won’t kill you, me or anybody else – like cigarettes surely will!

 

As for the (old/tired) benefits vs. burdens:  there’s always going to be argument about giving public money to wealthy team owners and what we, as a community, actually derive from it—this is especially true in a financially struggling blue-collar city like Cleveland.  The initial project that was the genesis of the Sin Tax, Gateway, was great.  We revived a dead/decaying area of prostitution, drugs and rubbish into a thriving area of downtown.  New hotels and upscale apts are all over Gateway now in addition to the sports crowds.  Built a premier tourist attraction modern baseball park (although the Indians’ worst-in-the-majors attendance is showing local fans don’t seem to care about it despite now having a championship manager and the first playoff team in 7 years) while also luring in the Cavs’ home arena from the Summit County hinterlands 25 miles away… Browns stadium, on the other hand, pisses people off (including me; a Browns lover and diehard sports fan).  Our non-sin tax money built a hulking bowl, (foolishly) open-air stadium that’s used about 10-12 times each year while simultaneously burdening/blocking prime lakefront RE… (Gateway always will have the advantage over the Browns since both the Cavs and Indians have 41 and 81 home dates, respectively as opposed to the Browns’ 8, while the Q with its warm/cozy enclosure can host many other things, like NCAA basketball regionals, concerts … and even something called the Lake Erie Monsters.

 

But here’s the point: we can argue for days, years if you want; sure you hate the concept of paying hard-earned taxpayer $$ for wealthy ownership and maybe your definition of civic “benefits” is different from mine.  But the fact is, that’s Life in Big City America… If these owners don’t get what they want in being coddled by us here, they’re going to take their act to another city and get it, there … just like the late Art Modell and many others like him have done … And whether you’re an ardent sports fan our not, I think there is little disagreement as to how devastated we as a community were after Art pulled our beloved Brownies out of the city… And the ripple effect is still felt as the current team has been nothing but a frustrating bust since “the Browns”  “returned.”

 

But once again, this is a SIN TAX.  If you don’t like it, put down the cigs and the booze and there will be no burden on your shoulders… so my advice: pass the damn thing!

 

^Yeah! What he said!

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 don’t like it, don’t “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 (I’ve never smoked), it’s only a penny on the dollar.  Surely it won’t 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.

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.