^ How? You can demand a facilities fee, but they're not contractually obligated to implement one. How do you compel the team owners to step up and pay? CAST's current proposal is a flawed plan, because as I and many others have said, that just shifts the burden from one public pocket to another. There's nothing in any of what CAST has proposed that tells me they've put any thought into how to legally compel the team owners to pick up what is currently the city's contractual share of the financial burden.

 

Truthfully, should the Sin Tax be voted down, the only immediate beneficiaries are those who sell alchohol and tobacco.

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

 

+1

 

Like any good team owner, they would just choose to select another city who is willing to maintain the stadium for them.  Like it or not, this is the modern sports business.

 

 

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.

 

The maintenance costs weren't an expected expense?

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

 

+1

 

Like any good team owner, they would just choose to select another city who is willing to maintain the stadium for them.  Like it or not, this is the modern sports business.

 

I don't think they can skip town so easily.  And if they could, how many cities have a pro-sports venue complete with parking & such, just sitting by, ready to open for business.  Not to mention the league would have to approve the move, etc etc

...And if they could, how many cities have a pro-sports venue complete with parking & such, just sitting by, ready to open for business. 

I'm sure there's others, but these came to mind pretty quickly as being capable of hosting a team with minimal investment.

Football - LA, San Antonio

Baseball -  Montreal, Vancouver

Basketball - Newark, Columbus, Seattle

...And if they could, how many cities have a pro-sports venue complete with parking & such, just sitting by, ready to open for business. 

I'm sure there's others, but these came to mind pretty quickly as being capable of hosting a team with minimal investment.

Football - LA, San Antonio

Baseball -  Montreal, Vancouver

Basketball - Newark, Columbus, Seattle

 

+ Kansas City to the basketball list.

If these teams are unwilling to renegotiate the contracts and instead continue to ignore economic realities while preaching about intangible benefits, then I say let the state/city/county impose enough draconian fees and taxes and fines on then to make up the difference.

 

Cleveland should pay hardball, and if the teams threaten to leave, then let them. I don't see Austin or Columbus suffering from a lack of professional teams

 

Loyalty goes both ways. Publicly funded new scoreboards is a slap to everyone's face. F-k them.

 

Austin and Columbus have something Cleveland doesn't have.

They have significant economic momentum unrelated to professional sports, and aren't burdened with nonsense maintenance costs

Pretty sure he was referring to OSU and UT, both of which have professional sized sporting events.  They both have major universities and are both state capitals.  Bad comparables, for sure

 

 

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.

 

The maintenance costs weren't an expected expense?

 

So by your rationale... even though the original sin tax was only scheduled for 20 years, opponents should have actually known that the tax was really meant to continue in perpetuity because of course the billionaire owners would continue to need more $$ and therefore should have proposed alternative funding measures expecting that the teams would want to renew the tax ad infinitum?

 

That's some twisty logic there.

^ How? You can demand a facilities fee, but they're not contractually obligated to implement one. How do you compel the team owners to step up and pay? CAST's current proposal is a flawed plan, because as I and many others have said, that just shifts the burden from one public pocket to another. There's nothing in any of what CAST has proposed that tells me they've put any thought into how to legally compel the team owners to pick up what is currently the city's contractual share of the financial burden.

 

The petition language allows the City of Cleveland to levy a fee on each ticket sold for sporting events at the venues.  It does not mandate that the teams institute the fee.

 

The purpose of this ordinance is:

a) To direct the City of Cleveland to impose a Facility Fee of $3.25 on the sale of each ticket for any professional sports event or other ticket-purchased event (excluding usage for non-profit corporations) and use to raise revenue on behalf of the City of Cleveland, Ohio to cover its obligations for the maintenance and capital repairs in excess of $500,000.00 per year or as otherwise negotiated in the current leases commencing July 1, 2015.

 

Here is the proposed ballot language:

 

Initiative ____. Shall the ordinance requiring the City of

 

Cleveland (1) to impose a Facilities Fee of $3.25 on each

 

ticket sold to events held at each of the three publicly

 

owned professional sports facilities located within the

 

city of Cleveland commencing July 1, 2015; (2) to

 

provide for penalties to any promoter or lessee operating

 

any of the sports facilities for imposing any Facility Fee

 

in addition to the proposed ordinance; (3) to repay a 15

 

year, $30 million obligation legislated from the General

 

Fund of the City to pay for the maintenance and capital

 

repairs of First Energy Stadium; and (4) to create a

 

committee to oversee the ordinance's implementation and

 

revenue distribution be adopted?

 

 

 

Here is the full language of the FairShare proposal:

 

Cleveland City Council

 

Resolution Submitting to the Electors an

 

Ordinance Ballot Petition Initiative.

 

By the Committee of the Petitioners; representing the petitioners in all matters relating to the petition or its circulation;

 

Alan B. Glazen, 10011 Cliff Dr., Cleveland, Ohio 44102

 

Claudia Young, 701 Lakeside Ave. W., Suite 1206 Cleveland, Ohio 44113

 

Ryan T. Eberly, 1734 W. 28th St. #205 Cleveland, 44113

 

Keith C. Humphrey, 15837 Norway Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44111

 

Larry Collins, 304 Overlook Park, Cleveland, Ohio 44110

 

Paulius Nasvytis, 701 Lakeside Ave. W., Suite 1206 Cleveland, Ohio 44113

 

Whereas, Chapter 7 of the Charter of the City of Cleveland, Ohio authorizes a Committee of Petitioners to circulate to the electors of the City of Cleveland, a petition to place an ordinance with full effect of law before the Clerk of the City Council containing no less than five thousand signatures of qualified electors.

 

Whereas, The Clerk of the City Council of Cleveland must accept such duly and lawfully signed petitions, being represented by no less than five electors who have chosen to make up the Committee of the Petitioners.

 

Whereas, The Clerk of the City Council of Cleveland must accept such signed petitions and the ordinance language submitted, examine them as allowed by Charter and endorse such petitions with a certificate result thereof.

 

Whereas, The City of Cleveland, and in some circumstances, in partnership with the County of Cuyahoga, have committed to provide maintenance and capital improvement funding by way of leases to the three publicly owned sports facilities whose partial funding comes from taxes on the sales of tobacco and alcohol in the County of Cuyahoga and the City of Cleveland’s General Fund.

 

Whereas, The Electors of the City of Cleveland desire to institute an ordinance for the funding for such leasehold maintenance and capital repairs and propose the following funding alternative by way of a citizen initiative petition; now therefore,

 

The Committee of the Petitioners does hereby submit this lawfully presented ordinance to:

 

1. Assess a $3.25 “Facility Fee” on every ticket sold to any event at any of the three publicly owned sports facilities located within the City of Cleveland, to wit; Progressive Field, home of the Cleveland Indians; Quicken Loans Arena home of the Cleveland Cavaliers, and FirstEnergy Stadium home of the Cleveland Browns to commence July 1, 2015;

 

2. Codify by law, penalties for the collection of Facility Fees by any and all business that use the City of Cleveland (or combined City / Cuyahoga County) aforementioned publically owned professional sports facilities;

 

3. Create a committee to oversee the ordinance's implementation and disbursement of revenue to the City of Cleveland General Fund and to the Gateway Board Economic Development Corporation from the Facility Fees on behalf of the financial commitments agreed to be way of leases from the City of Cleveland; and

 

4. Notify the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections of the Ballot Initiative to prepare for a vote at the General Election to be held on Tuesday, November 4, 2014; and directing the Clerk of Cleveland City Council to fix the date for submission of arguments, public hearings and to provide for Notice and Publication in accordance with law; now therefor,

 

Be it ordained by the Council of the City of Cleveland:

 

Section 1: TITLE

 

Cleveland Sports Facility Fee and Regulation Ordinance

 

Section 2: FINDINGS

 

The people of Cleveland, Ohio find as follows:

 

WHEREAS it is the goal of the people of Cleveland to initiate a fair funding method for the maintenance, upkeep and capital repairs of the municipally owned facility now known as FirstEnergy Stadium and for its pro-rata portion of the maintenance, upkeep and capital repairs for the co-owned facilities in partnership with the County of Cuyahoga, Ohio and with respect to the contracts already authorized to the Gateway Economic Development Corporation to maintain and repair the facilities known as: Quicken Loans Arena and Progressive Field; and

 

WHEREAS the current method of paying the City of Cleveland obligations to the lessees of these facilities places an undue and unfair burden upon City residents by imposing taxes on the consumption of alcohol and tobacco products; and

 

WHEREAS it has been reported by the facility lessees that over 50% of all attendees at Cleveland’s sports facilities reside outside Cuyahoga County; and

 

WHEREAS the poorest residents of the Northeast Ohio live within the boundaries of the City of Cleveland; and

 

WHEREAS imposing and regulating a Facility Fee on each ticket sold at any event at these three sports facilities is the most equitable method available for funding the maintenance, upkeep and capital repairs of the publicly-owned venues; and

 

WHEREAS in the face of the severe state fiscal cuts to the local government fund and the local budget crisis, the revenues from Facilities Fees would negate the need to cut City services which Cleveland City Council and the Mayor of Cleveland have publically stated will be required in order to maintain the lessor obligations previously negotiated; and

 

WHEREAS the sin taxes that currently fund the maintenance and capital repairs of these sports facilities have no guarantee to provide for the projected useful life of the facilities; and

 

WHEREAS it is the hope of the people of Cleveland that there be city law reform that will eliminate the problems and costs caused by a sin tax and cause legislation to be affected that charges the users and attendees of the sports facilities to pay for the use of the facilities;

 

THEREFORE the people of the City of Cleveland do hereby enact the following ordinance establishing the Sports Facility Fee and Regulation policy of the city.

 

Section 3: DEFINITION

 

"Facility Fee" - Means a "surcharge” not a tax as currently defined in Ohio Revised Code Section 715.013.

 

Section 4: PURPOSE

 

The purpose of this ordinance is:

 

a) To direct the City of Cleveland to impose a Facility Fee of $3.25 on the sale of each ticket for any professional sports event or other ticket-purchased event (excluding usage for non-profit corporations) and use to raise revenue on behalf of the City of Cleveland, Ohio to cover its obligations for the maintenance and capital repairs in excess of $500,000.00 per year or as otherwise negotiated in the current leases commencing July 1, 2015.

 

b) To direct the Mayor’s office of the City of Cleveland to impose, collect and distribute the revenues from the Sports Facility Fee on a yearly basis to; i) replace from the General Fund the previously legislated fifteen year, $30 million authorization to fund the repairs and maintenance of the facility known as FirstEnergy Stadium with funding from the

 

Sports Facility Fee, ii) use the yearly difference collected to pay its obligations to the Gateway Economic Development Corporation for the facilities known as Quicken Loan Arena and Progressive Field, iii) to pay any excess Facility Fees collected beyond Section 4(b)(i) and Section 4(b)(ii) to pay, on a yearly basis, directly to the debt bonds issued on behalf of the City of Cleveland and secured by the General Fund, effective immediately upon passage of this ordinance.

 

Section 5: REGULATION

 

The City of Cleveland shall establish a system to impose the Cleveland Sports Facility Fee and Regulation Ordinance as soon as possible under Ohio law. At that time, the Cleveland City Council shall promulgate regulations that include, but are not limited to, the following provisions consistent with Ohio law:

 

a) The assessment of $3.25 per ticket sold at each of the three professional sports facilities located in Cleveland, Ohio as a Facility Fee;

 

b) The city shall establish a system for collecting the Facility Fee from all lessees or promoters with regulations to assure good business practices, auditing and compliance; and

 

c) Organizations who hold a qualified IRS 501©(3) designation and who contract to use the facilities shall be exempted from the Facility Fee; and

 

d) Define and collect penalties assessed to any event promoter or lessee for imposing any type of Facility Fee beyond the Cleveland Sports Facility Fee and Regulation Ordinance referenced herein; and

 

e) Distribute the Facility Fees and penalties, if imposed, to the appropriate sources as defined in Section 4.

 

Section 6: OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE

 

A Cleveland Sports Facility Fee and Regulation Ordinance Oversight Committee shall be appointed to oversee the implementation of the Cleveland Sports Facility Fee and Regulation Ordinance. The Committee will comprise 11 members by way of the following:

 

3 - Cleveland City Council members appointed by the President of Cleveland City Council; and

 

2 - Cuyahoga County Council members appointed by the President of Cuyahoga County Council; and

 

1 - Community member appointed by the Mayor of Cleveland; and

 

3 - Community members appointed by the Committee of the Petitioners; and

 

1 - Representative of the City of Cleveland Law Department; and

 

1 - Representative of the Cleveland Finance Department.

 

Responsibilities of the Committee shall include:

 

a) Oversee the implementation of the Cleveland Sports Facility Fee and Regulation Ordinance;

 

b) Make recommendations to the Cleveland City Council regarding appropriate regulations, in accordance with Section 5 above;

 

d) Oversee the disbursement of revenues generated through the enacted Facility Fee to ensure that funds go to i) the General Fund to replace any obligations previously legislated on behalf of the maintenance and capital repairs for FirstEnergy Stadium, ii) to Gateway Economic Development Corporation to fund the pro-rata commitments required by lease obligations from the City of Cleveland for the maintenance and repairs of Quicken Loans Arena and Progressive Field, iii) to pay off the obligations made by previous legislation to pay the debt/bondholders for the construction of the facilities; and

 

e) Report annually to Cleveland City Council on the implementation of this ordinance.

 

Section 7: SEVERABILITY

 

If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person, entity or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the ordinance and the application of such provisions to other persons, entities or circumstances shall not be affected thereby, and be it,FURTHER RESOLVED: that the City Council of the City of Cleveland, Ohio does hereby request that the Board of Elections of Cuyahoga County order the consolidation of this Cleveland Municipal Ordinance number______, in the statewide general election of November 4, 2014 consistent with the provisions of state law; and,

 

FURTHER RESOLVED: that in accordance with Article XVIII of the Ohio Constitution and Chapter 7 of the City of Cleveland Charter, the Council Clerk shall fix and determine a date for submission of hearings for or against said proposed initiative and said date shall be published in accordance with state laws; and be it

 

FURTHER RESOLVED: that each ballot used at said Municipal Election shall have printed therein, in addition to any other matter required by law the following language:

 

Initiative: Yes: No:

 

Initiative ____. Shall the ordinance requiring the City of

 

Cleveland (1) to impose a Facilities Fee of $3.25 on each

 

ticket sold to events held at each of the three publicly

 

owned professional sports facilities located within the

 

city of Cleveland commencing July 1, 2015; (2) to

 

provide for penalties to any promoter or lessee operating

 

any of the sports facilities for imposing any Facility Fee

 

in addition to the proposed ordinance; (3) to repay a 15

 

year, $30 million obligation legislated from the General

 

Fund of the City to pay for the maintenance and capital

 

repairs of First Energy Stadium; and (4) to create a

 

committee to oversee the ordinance's implementation and

 

revenue distribution be adopted?

 

FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Clerk of Cleveland City Council, the Cleveland City Council and the Mayor of the City of Cleveland are hereby authorized and directed to take any and all actions necessary under law to prepare for and conduct the November 4, 2014,

 

General Municipal Election and the City Council hereby authorizes and appropriates all money necessary for the Mayor and Council Clerk to prepare for and conduct the November 4, 2014 General Municipal Election consistent with law.

 

IN COUNCIL, CLEVELAND, OHIO,

 

PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

 

AYES: -

 

NOES: -

 

ABSENT: -

 

ABSTENTION: -

 

DATE: ________________

 

 

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.

 

The maintenance costs weren't an expected expense?

 

So by your rationale... even though the original sin tax was only scheduled for 20 years, opponents should have actually known that the tax was really meant to continue in perpetuity because of course the billionaire owners would continue to need more $$ and therefore should have proposed alternative funding measures expecting that the teams would want to renew the tax ad infinitum?

 

That's some twisty logic there.

 

Not it's not.... if you took the time to ponder it.  The Sin Tax is not a measure meant to alleviate any burden on the owners of these teams or give them any additional revenue.  It is an elective choice by the voters about the source of money the City/County is obligated to pay.  The voters decided that, for 20 years, it would be done through a sin tax.  Now, the decision is whether to continue that funding source or, absent some agreeable alternative source, go to the default of securing the funds out of the general operating budgets.

 

I also might be wrong, but I don't believe Jacobs or Gund were billionaires at the time of the original vote.

 

E Rocc is right.  Who in their right mind honestly did not believe that there would be an effort to extend the sin tax?  Anybody?  Bueller?  If you felt that strongly about it, you should have been as proactive as its proponents in getting an alternative on the ballot.

I don't know. I feel like you're not accomplishing your stated goal with this. The common theme about the Sin Tax is that it enriches the team owners at the expense of the poor. This doesn't alleviate that. The burden shifts to the ticket buyers, and is much more impactful on demand than the sin tax. Plus, I feel like it's heavily leaning on the Indians and the Cavs fans to the benefit of the Browns (who really started this whole nonsense with their giant scoreboard).

 

Would the City be able to pass this law specifically on the big three? We've talked in other threads about how you cannot legislate a punitive tax on a specific subset of the population (i.e. parking tax on downtown open air lots). How is this different? Would you have to apply this to all sporting venues? I honestly don't know the answer to this.

The city already has a ticket tax on venues over 100 people (I think its 100)

 

It originally was for all tickets sold in the city regardless of size, but they never enforced it on small music clubs.  When they did, it jammed up places like the Beachland ballroom.

http://www.ideastream.org/soi/entry/61494

 

A discussion re: Issue 7 on WCPN Sound of Ideas this morning  (Wednesday) at 9am.

 

The Sin Tax vote is almost here. Cuyahoga County residents can cast ballots on whether to extend the tax on cigarettes and alcohol to continue raising money for the city's pro sports venues. It's not a new tax and we get a big return, supporters argue. Vocal opponents say owners are getting a sweetheart deal and patrons should pay for any stadium repairs or upgrades through add-on ticket fees.

 

 

Mark Naymik, NEOMG reporter covering the Sin Tax

Peter Patakos, Cleveland attorney and blogger of Clevelandfrowns.com

Kevin Kelley, Cleveland City Council President

Roldo Bartimole, independent journalist and long-time opponent of the sin tax

Kent Whitley, Chairman of NAACP’s Political Action Committee 

 

Glad to see Roldo on the panel.  Go get 'em!

http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/22510

 

 

Our Biggest Welfare Clients: The Beggar Billionaires Three

 

by Roldo Bartimole

 

 

These owners all over the nation are squeezing downtrodden cities and their more and more impoverished citizens to pay their bills. With regressive taxes that hit hard on low income people.

 

How disgusting can you get?

 

What creeps they are. And the daily newspaper might as well be the press agent and advertising promoters of these slithering takers.

 

 

...

 

 

 

They want to be free to take from the public as if they are needy.

 

We must get them off our backs.

 

Billionaires Jimmy "Gimmie" Haslam and Dan "The Dice Man" Gilbert and billionaire family member Larry "Inept" Dolan are Cleveland's biggest moochers.

 

Their teams have been on the public dole for decades and they want more.

 

Shouldn't the Internal Revenue Service at least tax them on the hundreds of millions of dollars the taxpayers are required to hand to them?

 

It's a testimony to our bought and paid for politicians that they get what they want. And it's evidence to the simple truth that our news media are totally bought off.

 

 

We - and other cities - have got to get these private businesses off the public dole.

 

They are blackmailing ailing cities and it destroys the spirit they supposedly provide its citizens.

 

The challenge is to defeat this next subsidy on May 6, then insist that they pay their own way. Just as ordinary citizens do. You and me.

 

It's a matter of fairness and equality.

 

 

Hear hear!

 

^Where where?

 

EDIT:  Now my joke makes no cents ;)

http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/22510

 

 

Our Biggest Welfare Clients: The Beggar Billionaires Three

 

by Roldo Bartimole

 

 

These owners all over the nation are squeezing downtrodden cities and their more and more impoverished citizens to pay their bills. With regressive taxes that hit hard on low income people.

 

How disgusting can you get?

 

What creeps they are. And the daily newspaper might as well be the press agent and advertising promoters of these slithering takers.

 

 

...

 

 

 

They want to be free to take from the public as if they are needy.

 

We must get them off our backs.

 

Billionaires Jimmy "Gimmie" Haslam and Dan "The Dice Man" Gilbert and billionaire family member Larry "Inept" Dolan are Cleveland's biggest moochers.

 

Their teams have been on the public dole for decades and they want more.

 

Shouldn't the Internal Revenue Service at least tax them on the hundreds of millions of dollars the taxpayers are required to hand to them?

 

It's a testimony to our bought and paid for politicians that they get what they want. And it's evidence to the simple truth that our news media are totally bought off.

 

 

We - and other cities - have got to get these private businesses off the public dole.

 

They are blackmailing ailing cities and it destroys the spirit they supposedly provide its citizens.

 

The challenge is to defeat this next subsidy on May 6, then insist that they pay their own way. Just as ordinary citizens do. You and me.

 

It's a matter of fairness and equality.

 

 

Here here!

 

 

How disgusting can

http://www.ideastream.org/soi/entry/61494

 

A discussion re: Issue 7 on WCPN Sound of Ideas this morning  (Wednesday) at 9am.

 

The Sin Tax vote is almost here. Cuyahoga County residents can cast ballots on whether to extend the tax on cigarettes and alcohol to continue raising money for the city's pro sports venues. It's not a new tax and we get a big return, supporters argue. Vocal opponents say owners are getting a sweetheart deal and patrons should pay for any stadium repairs or upgrades through add-on ticket fees.

 

 

Mark Naymik, NEOMG reporter covering the Sin Tax

Peter Patakos, Cleveland attorney and blogger of Clevelandfrowns.com

Kevin Kelley, Cleveland City Council President

Roldo Bartimole, independent journalist and long-time opponent of the sin tax

Kent Whitley, Chairman of NAACP’s Political Action Committee 

 

Glad to see Roldo on the panel.  Go get 'em!

 

He descended to "Damn kids!  Get off my lawn!" irrelevancy a long time ago.  I compared another activist to him awhile back and the response was split between grudging agreement and suggestion that I was being unfair....

I don't usually post in the political threads, but someone in my office raised an interesting question..... Would someone who doesn't live in Cleveland vote against the sin tax extension because they aren't impacted by cuts in Cleveland services if the city has to pay for stadium improvements? I said that Cuyahoga County is also on the hook for stadium improvements too. He asked "Why are Cleveland officials the only ones on the radio pushing for the sin tax?" Good questions.

^I think it is a much more pressing matter for the City due to the awful, yet legally binding, lease it entered into involving the football stadium.  On top of that, the stadium itself was a rush job and is probably more in need of maintenance, despite being built later and used less than the Gateway complex.  The City's budget is also smaller with a lot less wiggle room for adjustments should the measure fail.

 

I don't usually post in the political threads

 

You do if the 'political issue' has anything to do with choo-choos ;)

I don't usually post in the political threads, but someone in my office raised an interesting question..... Would someone who doesn't live in Cleveland vote against the sin tax extension because they aren't impacted by cuts in Cleveland services if the city has to pay for stadium improvements? I said that Cuyahoga County is also on the hook for stadium improvements too. He asked "Why are Cleveland officials the only ones on the radio pushing for the sin tax?" Good questions.

 

I asked a similar question a while back, but I don't think I got a clear answer.  Why would any citizen of Cleveland vote against the county tax measure if the burden would mostly fall on them to cover the cost if the tax measure fails? 

I don't usually post in the political threads, but someone in my office raised an interesting question..... Would someone who doesn't live in Cleveland vote against the sin tax extension because they aren't impacted by cuts in Cleveland services if the city has to pay for stadium improvements? I said that Cuyahoga County is also on the hook for stadium improvements too. He asked "Why are Cleveland officials the only ones on the radio pushing for the sin tax?" Good questions.

 

I asked a similar question a while back, but I don't think I got a clear answer.  Why would any citizen of Cleveland vote against the county tax measure if the burden would mostly fall on them to cover the cost if the tax measure fails? 

 

Because the plan after Issue 7 fails is not to let the burden fall on the citizens of Cleveland but instead to put in place a facilities fee, with the cost born by those attending games and the teams.

 

 

___

 

 

more national press:

 

 

Ralph Nader says Vote NO on Issue 7

 

http://nader.org/2014/05/01/stopping-clevelands-corporate-freeloaders/

http://www.cleveland.com/tipoff/index.ssf/2014/05/ralph_nader_weighs_in_on_cuyah.html

 

 

On May 6th, Cleveland taxpayers will go to the polls to vote on Issue 7. A no vote will prevent an increase in taxpayer money to the already subsidized, big league sports arenas. A yes vote will reaffirm taxpayer servitude to arrogant corporatists and their cruel, twisted mistreatment of that struggling city.

 

 

When I was growing up, tax dollars for public works were used for serious public services. Taxpayers paid to build schools, highways, bridges, libraries, health clinics, public transit and other community needs. Tax dollars were not given over to the mega-rich’s profitable athletic playpens. To even suggest tax money for private major league baseball parks would get you laughed or ridiculed out of town.

 

When big league sports mavens cannot avoid a public vote, they mislead the public with claims that building sports venues is a cost-effective way to produce jobs, but most economists know that building sports facilities is definitely not a cost-effective way to create jobs. Visit League of Fans for more information. And, when empty promises fail, the sports kings threaten to move their teams to another town.

 

When all that fails, the sports barons go for sin taxes and other micro-targeted tabs (such as parking tax, admissions tax, bed tax, video game tax, rental car tax, and property tax exemption), in addition to keeping high prices for tickets, food and parking to begin with.

 

This is the situation in Cleveland – a deindustrialized, unfairly poor metropolis, with the largest employer now being the Cleveland Clinic. The more affluent people can go to see the Cleveland Browns, the Cleveland Indians and the Cleveland Cavaliers – whose facilities are named for companies instead of being called “Taxpayers Stadium, Arena and Field.”

 

ny increased taxes – sin or otherwise – should be devoted to the necessities of the local community, not for entertainment.

 

Big-time sports bosses know that the trump card that enables them to continue with their freeloading ways as crony capitalists is to exploit the spectator joy that comes from being part of a local fan base. The subtext of these demands takes away that joy from those TV watching fans by relocating to another city willing to give away the store. It all reeks of greed, power and extortion.

 

Rest assured Clevelanders, the Browns, Indians and Cavaliers are going nowhere. They know how much of the “store” (over $1 billion since 1990) your politicians have already given them. The sports bosses like to call themselves capitalists. So let them behave like capitalists and invest their own money and no longer dare to turn your tax dollars into their profits. 

 

Well said, Ralph.  Almost good enough for me to forgive you for sinking Gore in 2000.

 

 

 

 

Either I really don't understand the issues or the opponents of Issue 7 are utterly confused or purposefully misleading.  The more this ramps up, the more apparent it is to me.  Of course, there always is the possibility (if not likely) that it is a combination of all three.

I think it's pretty simple.  Sin tax aside, tax money should not be used for the stadium maintenance.  Not when rents are so low, revenue from advertising/naming rights is not shared, etc

^But the stadiums are publicly owned, no?  Do we not customarily use tax money to maintain publicly owned facilities?  The leases are a separate issue.  I would be all for more favorable leases..... at least leases which are comparable to what other major cities (to be clear, I don't know that the Gateway lease is particularly bad...... but I know the CBS lease is awful) 

^But the stadiums are publicly owned, no?  Do we not customarily use tax money to maintain publicly owned facilities?  The leases are a separate issue.  I would be all for more favorable leases..... at least leases which are comparable to what other major cities (to be clear, I don't know that the Gateway lease is particularly bad...... but I know the CBS lease is awful) 

 

Yes.  BUt we only get to go back to the table on the leases if we put the smack down on Issue 7 next week. 

 

People seem to be taking a fatalistic  "it is what it is" stance as if once done in the 90's the current leases and funding arrangements must be continued in perpetuity.

 

That is not the case.  These teams and our elected officials can be brought to the table.  The sunlight of citizen awareness can disinfect the culture of abusing the peoples' purse and can force them to act in our best interest.     

 

But ONLY if Issue 7 fails on Tuesday.

 

 

What do the sports teams have to gain by going to the table.

Why would the teams renegotiate?  It's the city's obligation to pay for these "asset enhancements".

The sin tax is the way the city wants to pay for it.  If the tax is voted down, they will have to find another way to pay for it.

 

Based on that unknown source of funding, and the city's obligation to pay, this "sin tax" which is basically a luxury tax is the best way to go.

Realistically, no one knows what precisely will come out of the next negotiation.

 

They will probably eventually get to a middle-of-the-road deal. What I am posting about is what I consider to be the ideal.  perhaps the teams and the anti- sin tax groups could agree on a multicounty sales tax to defray some of the cost at a lower facilities fee.

 

but the teams (and our leaders) know that they will have to come up with an alternative solution should issue seven fail .Kevin Kelly might like to say that the money will come out of the general fund. But it is not going to. He knows that that is not realistic. The owners know that that is not realistic. That is just their scare tactic.  An alternative funding source will have to be secured.

Why would they negotiate?

 

Also, can you promise this "alternative funding source" will be a better bargain for Cleveland citizens than extending the sin tax?  If the sin tax is voted down, that source of revenue is gone.

Yes.  BUt we only get to go back to the table on the leases if we put the smack down on Issue 7 next week. 

 

This is one area where either I am misinformed or the opposition is just talking out of their arses.  Dealing with negotiations regularly, I have no idea how you come to this conclusion.  Those "billionaire owners" the opponents' talking points like to highlight have no more incentive to "go back to the table on the leases" based on the outcome of this vote.  If anything, a defeat of Issue 7 will have the EXACT OPPOSITE effect by compelling the owners to dig their feet in on the favorable leases they already have and give us LESS negotiating power when the leases are set to expire.

Why would they negotiate?

 

they negotiate because the potential of a deal that is very bad for them coming out of a citizen ballot initiative is quite high.

 

If I am a team owner and I'm looking on Wednesday, May 7 at a failed issue seven and thinking that come November I am going to be having to have a facilities fee to make up the entirety of that revenue, I am going to start wanting a moderate solution.

 

I would be thinking that getting to the table with the civic leaders, now forced to do their job more assertively by the citizenry, is a better option than simply letting a facilities fee go to the ballot without negotiation.

^The owners are going to pay the facilities fee?

The facilities fee would be added to the price of each ticket. Although levied by the city, the owners rightly view that as putting downward pressure on their pricing power. I believe they would consider to have an alternative such as a multicounty tax, a smaller fee, or clarified leases and advertisement revenue sources all as better alternatives to that.

 

The possibility that the full facilities fee goes on to the ballot November 2014 if something else is not successfully negotiated is what puts the leverage behind our civic leaders while at the negotiating table.

Long time listener, first time caller and trust me when I say that I am just another Joe Citizen with no direct dog in this race. 

 

1) Relative to the facilities fee being pushed above as an alternative solution.  First, I believe there is already an 8% admissions tax levied against tickets purchased for all 3 venues being discussed here.  This applies to Indians, Cavs, Browns tickets as well as musical and other acts that would "play" at any of these venues.  This admissions tax is already at the high end of comparable venues throughout the Midwest and any new facilities fees born by the consumer would appear to further erode attendance at these events due to increase price points for entry, and also would seem to negatively attract the number and quality of alternative events that have to choose between coming to Cleveland or Detroit for an act as an example b/c their profits would be less here than somewhere else.

 

2) Can we put an end to the multi-county tax discussion?  While logical on the surface, it is counter to state law and constitution and while "our legislators can always change the law", they have many larger fish to fry and this will never happen.  Trust me on that.

 

3) Team owners will not come back to the table to renegotiate.  They have no reason to.  And that is simply because the expense obligations at hand here are obligations of the County within the lease (i.e. Public obligations) and are specifically earmarked as such.  It will come out of the county's general fund long before Mr. Gilbert, Dolan or Haslam will take pittance upon the citizens of Cuyahgoa County.  We can play the Whoa is Me card all we want about the rich owners getting richer and the poor citizens becoming poorer, but at the end of the day these are Publicly Owned Facilities with leases that ARE commensurate with what the markets are bearing in similar mid-markets with professional sports teams.  I have friends that are much smarter than I am that know what they are talking about who insist that the Gateway leases actually are not bad compared to similar ones in the Midwest.  The Browns may be another story, but considering what happened in September 1995, well,  there really wasn't much time to put thought into terms when the overwhelming outcry from Cuyahoga County was just to make sure the team came back.  Further, like it or not, admit it or not, accept it or not, but the Cavaliers and Indians HAVE spent significant dollars in maintaining their venues and in some cases on items that potentially are public responsibilties.  Point being, I think people are being disingenuous in saying that the owners haven't done anything here.  I'd like to think that this actually is a fair example of a true public/private partnership.

 

I'm open to actual facts as to how the leases are bad, but the pure hyperbole and lack of details being provided drive me up the wall.

 

Back to my perpetual hibernation.

 

 

Why would they negotiate?

 

they negotiate because the potential of a deal that is very bad for them coming out of a citizen ballot initiative is quite high.

 

If I am a team owner and I'm looking on Wednesday, May 7 at a failed issue seven and thinking that come November I am going to be having to have a facilities fee to make up the entirety of that revenue, I am going to start wanting a moderate solution.

 

I would be thinking that getting to the table with the civic leaders, now forced to do their job more assertively by the citizenry, is a better option than simply letting a facilities fee go to the ballot without negotiation.

 

They have no reason to negotiate.  The city is obligated to it's lease agreements.  If the city wants to renegotiate, we will also be renegotiating against all the other markets around North America that would love to have a pro sports franchise. 

 

I actually think your logic is flawed.  If the voters approve the sin tax, then the owners have reason enough to not seek sweeter deals elsewhere, and as a community we can maintain our facilities and lean on the owners to ante up their fair share.

 

 

^^ Well said Goozer.

 

 

^^^

 

It's a luxury tax to maintain our premier event spaces.

 

Period.

I'm with goozer.

 

The other point I haven't seen mentioned here:  Let's say the sin tax is not renewed.  And the $0.05 fee per beer or pack of smokes or whatever the exact amount is is no longer being accrued to the city as a reveunue source.  Well there's 0% chance the $3.00 beer you buy at a bar is now going to cost $2.95.  Or the $8.99 six pack is now going to cost $8.69.  You'll still be paying the same amount for your beer or your pack of cigarettes and now you'll also be paying  fees somewhere else - either in ticker prices, sales tax on other goods, or whatever the "alternative funding" ends up being.

 

Furthermore, let's assume you are somehow clever enough to force "billionaire owners" to pay for maintenance on a building they don't own, they will most certainly find ways to recoup those costs from the consumer in some way shape or fashion.

 

Visit a stadium where the public doesn't fund maintenence (go visit the once grand Skydome as an example) and you'll quickly realize not supporting this yields a result you probably don't want.

.

I agree on the cost of beer, but not cigarettes.  The price per pack would drop given how many stores seek to sell them at minimum allowable prices to drive traffic.  Gas, lottery tickets and cigarettes are all priced to pull the customer into the store, not to make a profit.  I'm not sure about liquor.  You certainly won't see a drop in the price of a shot at your local watering hole, but there might be a decrease at the state run liquor stores.  It also seems to me that liquor is taxed disproportionately higher than the other two under the current sin tax model

Furthermore, let's assume you are somehow clever enough to force "billionaire owners" to pay for maintenance on a building they don't own, they will most certainly find ways to recoup those costs from the consumer in some way shape or fashion.

 

Visit a stadium where the public doesn't fund maintenence (go visit the once grand Skydome as an example) and you'll quickly realize not supporting this yields a result you probably don't want.

 

I'm pretty sure the Cavs and Indians already pay for maintenance under the current amended Gateway lease.  The landlord obligation would be for major capital projects, like new higher-tech scoreboards, in keeping with the improvements to First Energy.  Not sure how much that matters, but just to keep the record straight.

 

And whether or not they can pass on additional costs is a complicated empirical question, but I'm skeptical they really could.  The teams are already pricing things on the margin to maximize revenue. If they thought they could increase prices without hurting their bottom line, they would already be doing so. It would be one thing if all prices were going up (like a general sales tax hike, which would affect substitute goods too), but not the case here.

 

Same goes for a higher admissions tax. Most of the true cost of the increase would likely be born by the teams, who would have to factor the tax into their price setting.  If they thought they could increase prices by $3 and increase revenue (i.e., pass it all on), they'd already have done it. But nobody can predict the exact incidence of a new tax very well, so the actual effective split between the team and the fans is hard to know.

^Idk about the Indians and Cavs, but I believe the Browns are already near the bottom of the barrel in ticket prices.  Of course, ticket prices are just one part of the equation in factoring the total cost of attending a game.  I suspect profits are maximized through those other costs.  I'd be shocked if a facilities fees caused an equalizing drop in the face value of the ticket.  Nor do I think a facilities fee would deter any plans to increase ticket prices.  The ticket price would still be advertised and compared with those of other cities' sports venues based on its face value prior to taxes or added fees.  That is all the owners care about. 

^I don't know about the Browns or Cavs, but I know the Indians have among the most advanced, evidence-based marketing team in baseball, and likely in major sports. They're experimenting now with variable pricing, they calibrate their promotions very carefully, and have experimented with lowering other costs, like beer.  If these folks thought they could just suck $3 more per customer by raising prices, they wouldn't be waiting for a new admissions tax to do it.

 

And it's not that I'd expect face values to drop by an exact corresponding amount in year one--I'm talking about the incidence of the tax over the long haul.

 

I'm also not arguing this means it's a good policy. Our political leaders have already decided they don't want to play chicken with the teams.  If a new admissions tax did come into play, I would expect the city/county to find ways to off-set through other arrangements.

I just see a difference, in terms of fan reaction and ticket sales, between the owners raising ticket prices and the public imposing a facilities fee that would be added onto, not incorporated into, the ticket price.  I just can't imagine saying - "man, I was going to buy that $100 ticket to go to the Browns game, not to mention the addition $20-$50 on food/beverages, but not if I have to pay that extra $3 facility fee."  The fans won't fault or punish the owners for a facilities fee and ticket sales won't drop.  When you compare how much a ticket is to a Browns game, you are going to compare the $100 ticket, not the added expenses/fees.

The city owns FirstEnergy Stadium and is responsible for the maintenance costs.

 

The Q and Progressive Field are owned by the Gateway Economic Development Corporation.

 

So if the Sin Tax failed, Gateway Economic Development Corporation would be responsible for finding the funds correct? Are they funded at the county level? If so, all of the burden wouldn't directly go to Cleveland.

^I don't know if Gateway is formally backstopped by the county or city, but if it were facing bankruptcy (again), due to unfunded lease obligations, there would almost surely be a negotiation between the city, county, and teams to shore it up. This happened early on when construction cost over-runs doomed the original Gateway financing plan.  Not sure how widely known it is, but Gateway was essentially bailed out by the county and local foundations early on.

 

^^I don't disagree with you entirely- I'm sure at least some of the cost would end up sticking with the ticket buyers.  Companies routinely rely on the mechanism you describe to try to mislead customers (especially wireless providers).  The teams already do this too, with the bogus ticketmaster charges, much of which ends up getting paid back to the teams.  I just think the total price also matters to consumers, so really will inhibit future price increases.  The incidence of taxes is notoriously hard to estimate or measure, so we're not going to settle it here.