Its a little disingenuous to act like sports teams are the only businesses to subsidized by the government. Hilton is getting convention hotel built for them, geis receives incentive to develop 'the 9', individuals receive tax abatement for building a house in hough. 

 

Interesting analogies but those companies responded to RFP situations where there was competition for the subsidy & chance to make money with the asset, which is owned by the City.  The sports teams did not have to pitch against other competing uses for the right to use the land or stadiums. 

 

And the zero sum argument doesn't work to say "yeah but if Browns stadium wasn't there, the Warehouse district would collapse".  Well the warehouse district isn't doing so hot WITH Browns stadium and any other imaginable scenario would have another multi-use development on that property, would likely add as much or MORE draw than Browns stadium.  Ditto for the other arenas on Gateway

^ Id almost guarantee they'd just be parking lots, especially gateway

I don't agree with the thought process that, if only the stadiums weren't there, the land would be put to better use.  There is PLENTY of land to develop in and around downtown Cleveland which can be put to "better" and "more profitable" use.  I would love nothing more than to move Browns stadium to a different location and open up that space for future development.  However, I believe the life of the stadium is actually going to line up quite nicely with when the land is ripe for development due to actual demand.

^ Id almost guarantee they'd just be parking lots, especially gateway

 

Well if the City owned the land, then they could do whatever they want with it.  Highest & best use certainly isnt parking.

I was trying to look up stats on how the vote went down on the original 1990 sin tax, because I remember it failing in CLE as well, and I stumled upon this "Video Vault" from WEWS. 

 

I had forgotten how tense the vote had gotten, and I had forgotten some of the side issues around it, like would the Cavs leave an arena they owned in Richfield, for the Gateway arena

 

*Mike White's glasses are spectacular

 

http://www.newsnet5.com/news/news-archives/video-vault-wews-coverage-of-the-sin-tax-campaign-and-vote-in-1990

I was trying to look up stats on how the vote went down on the original 1990 sin tax, because I remember it failing in CLE as well, and I stumled upon this "Video Vault" from WEWS. 

 

I had forgotten how tense the vote had gotten, and I had forgotten some of the side issues around it, like would the Cavs leave an arena they owned in Richfield, for the Gateway arena

 

http://www.newsnet5.com/news/news-archives/video-vault-wews-coverage-of-the-sin-tax-campaign-and-vote-in-1990

 

I heard the overall countywide vote was actually closer in 1990 as well.    It was something like 52-48% then, compared to 60-40% today.

Any Guesses? 

 

Ed FitzGerald plans 'major announcement' Thursday regarding Cuyahoga County sin tax distribution

 

http://www.cleveland.com/cuyahoga-county/index.ssf/2014/06/ed_fitzgerald_plans_major_announcement_tomorrow_regarding_sin_tax_distribution.html#incart_river_default

Political grandstanding that takes the status quo and make it sound like a political breakthrough /"a hard bargain" made with teams, such as " All maintenance items under 50K are paid for by the tenants, and all capital exediatures larger will be approved on a case by case basis."

(Cynical me talking)

I think he is going to build the bridge from the mall, justified by the fact that it serves the stadium by creating direct pedestrian access.  Is that even possible?

^that would be cool

Any Guesses? 

 

 

 

http://www.cleveland.com/cuyahoga-county/index.ssf/2014/06/ed_fitzgerald_wants_to_tie_sin_tax_distribution_to_performance_of_browns_cavs_and_indians.html#incart_river_default

 

Cuyahoga County Executive Ed FitzGerald is expected on Thursday to propose tying distribution of 20 percent of the county's sin tax to on-the-field performance from Cleveland's professional sports teams, according to sources briefed on the plan.

 

The 20 percent -- estimated to be at least $2.6 million a year -- would be awarded to FirstEnergy Stadium, Progressive Field or Quicken Loans Arena based on the success of the teams using the facilities.

 

The sources did not know how the on-the-field-success of the teams would be judged. The other 80 percent of the money would be allocated to the stadiums in a process that would not take into account how well the Browns, Cavs and Indians play.

 

Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson has said the money should be split evenly between the three stadiums, a formula supported by the teams. Some county officials have pushed back against that idea, saying that each facility has different needs.

 

FitzGerald endorsed the sin tax, but kept a low profile during the sin tax campaign. He offered a heavily qualified statement of support in January shortly before council passed legislation -- which he later signed -- placing the extension on the May ballot.

 

"As flawed as the sin tax may be, at least the revenue from the sin tax is not where we are cutting human services to fund the upkeep of these stadiums," FitzGerald said at the time.

Oy vey, that's his big announcement? What a goofball.

I don't know if anyone is following this press conference, but Fitz is literally throwing away his career, certainly his chances for becoming governor. He is making a complete fool of himself

Who greenlights stupid populist ideas like this? Who are the democratic strategists, and can they possibly be this bad? Or is there some exceptional Nate Silver math that states ideas like this will produce more votes than they will lose? This strikes me as a 'In Weird News...' type of headline that will be roundly mocked by Deadspin, ESPN, and others, which is not what you want as part of a gubernatorial campaign.

 

In political campaigns, both sides have two narratives. Why Our Guy Is Good, and Why Your Guy Is Not Good. Here, and elsewhere, Ed Fitzgerald is writing his own counter-narrative for the Kasich campaign. I don't get it. Kasich, for all the things he's done to create opposition and resentment, has shown himself to be much better at politics - probably not a surprise given his experience.

 

I increasingly get the sense that Ed Fitzgerald has something in common with Josh Mandel - he's been recruited by his party to run for an important office because he kinda-sorta fits the profile, and damn his shortcomings and whether he can actually win. He's the best they could find, so he gets the nod. And things like this make that blindingly clear.

Kasich was effectively re-elected the day Obama was.  No one nominatable was going to beat him.

 

Fitzgerald's clutching at straws.

Why is this such a bad idea?

 

The biggest reason Cleveland and Cuyahoga County want professional sports downtown is that they bring in visitors (and therefore outside spending and tax revenue,) so why shouldn't the County encourage the teams to get butts in the seats?  Maybe tying a little money directly to attendance makes more sense, but attendance is related to performance to some extent (for the Cavs and Tribe at least.)

^Because by withholding money from "bad" teams, it winds up looking like our local government is giving tax money bonuses to sports owners for having good seasons.

 

I would rather have a sober negotiation for actual capital improvements

Also, it implies that the money distributed isn't really necessary or that the county is just awarding money to the team that has the better talent, rather than which structure needs repairs most.

Playing Devil's Advocate: Couldn't it be said that the performance based distribution is stopping the county from just subsidizing a team that doesn't push itself to be better? You could characterize the teams as "welfare queens" and then say they need to "work" to keep the checks flowing.

Also, it implies that the money distributed isn't really necessary or that the county is just awarding money to the team that has the better talent, rather than which structure needs repairs most.

 

There are actually a lot of people who think that.

 

I'm not saying this is the perfect solution, but I get where FitzGerald's coming from.  Actually, come to think of it, I believe it was County Council that first brought up the idea.  I think the Issue 7 opponents (i.e. CAST) were off-base with a lot stuff, and I got a ton of crap from my friends for criticizing them, but they did bring up more than a few good points.  I appreciate that Fitz is trying to get the most out of our investment in Gateway and CBS, and the facilities and tax were indeed sold to us as an investment.

ridiculous and political pandering.  The public owns these facilities and they should be maintained as needed.  I would only agree if the money was going to enhancements rather than regular maintenance.

Sports Owners Dip Into the Public’s Purse, Despite Their Billions in the Bank

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/22/sports/sports-owners-dip-into-the-publics-purse-despite-their-billions-in-the-bank.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0

John Oliver on his show Last Week Tonight did a long piece about this. Essentially we're all being held hostage by the major sports leagues.

John Oliver on his show Last Week Tonight did a long piece about this. Essentially we're all being held hostage by the major sports leagues.

 

It's a race to the bottom.  Tons of research out there too about what sort of deals different cities have negotiated with their sports team owners.  Huge discrepancy on what a city like Cleveland lays out vs what a city like San Francisco lays out in terms of tax abatements, rents, traffic control, etc.  Cleveland is desperately hanging on to these sports teams to try and maintain it's legitimacy as a major city

It was one of Oliver's better pieces. I say to hell with any team that blackmails a city to funding its stadium and associated perks. Minimal ancillary employment and subjective public morale do not come close to the hundreds of millions of dollars thrown away. It's like an anti-stimulus.