Cuyahoga County Sin Tax

[The Oi]

I liked him. Seemed like he had some personality.

Another classic example of the religious right trying to stifle a liberal.

 

[Soda]

For those out there who do care, please vote YES on the Sin Tax continuation (Issue 7) today (May 6th).

Put simply, the City/County owns the stadiums.

While team owners do put their own money into the stadiums (i.e. FE Stadium scoreboards, batter's eye, new restaurants, etc.), the general upkeep is that of a property owner. Part of the agreement for a Sin Tax is an allowance of what types of repairs the sin tax funds are eligible to be used for. Tenants (Browns, Indians, Cavs) are responsible for proposing projects to use sin tax money on. These projects can go to things like HVAC, plumbing, ADA compliance, etc. The funds won't be approved (by Council) to go towards aesthetic enhancements; that falls on tenants if they so choose (the teams).

What proponents of ending the sin tax call for is either a sale of the stadiums (not happening anytime soon), or a tax on ticket sales. The tax on tickets is a horrible idea because it discourages people to buy tickets. A jump in prices is going to crush marketing initiatives for teams to sell tickets. IF there is something like a flood (i.e. Oakland) or new handicap ramps/elevators are necessary, these folks want the City/County to just foot the bill. Without Sin Tax money, this would directly affect the general fund(s) and, ultimately, hurt other essential services. The City/County cannot dump the properties and I'm sure they don't intend to rifle them off to the highest bidder so smokers and drinkers don't need to chip in.

Oh. This is all not to mention that the opponents of the Sin Tax are connected to big alcohol and big tobacco business.

 

[Deezus]

What proponents of ending the sin tax call for is either a sale of the stadiums (not happening anytime soon), or a tax on ticket sales. The tax on tickets is a horrible idea because it discourages people to buy tickets. A jump in prices is going to crush marketing initiatives for teams to sell tickets. IF there is something like a flood (i.e. Oakland) or new handicap ramps/elevators are necessary, these folks want the City/County to just foot the bill. Without Sin Tax money, this would directly affect the general fund(s) and, ultimately, hurt other essential services. The City/County cannot dump the properties and I'm sure they don't intend to rifle them off to the highest bidder so smokers and drinkers don't need to chip in.

First of all, I don't think this is about smokers and drinkers not chipping in. In my opinion, if we want to do a "sin tax", I say tax away! Just don't give the money as a subsidy to billionaire owners who make huge sums of money from the teams/stadiums. Instead, use a "sin tax" to help improve Cleveland's laughable public school system, improve infrastructure, or to treat those with substance abuse issues (the ones who will be most impacted by a sin tax in the first place.)

I don't think the ticket "facility fee" charge is necessarily a bad idea. First of all, to raise the same amount of money as the sin tax, its only $3.25 a ticket. Are you really telling me that $3.25 is going to change your mind about whether or not you're going to go to a pro sports game? The way I see it, this is better than the proposed sin tax, as it puts the onus on the owners (those who profit most) to maintain and improve the stadiums as needed. It also is a more "fair" tax, in that it impacts only those who enjoy games at the stadium whereas a sin tax impacts only Cuyahoga county residents who smoke or drink (even though smokers and drinkers from all over the region in Lorain, Medina, etc. counties enjoy the stadiums/games.)

Oh. This is all not to mention that the opponents of the Sin Tax are connected to big alcohol and big tobacco business.

I can't speak to any other Sin Tax opponents, but I personally know one of the leaders of the Coalition Against the Sin Tax, and I'm fairly certain he has absolutely nothing to do with big alcohol or big tobacco. He's a local guy, huge Browns fan, writes a blog dedicated to Cleveland sports (Cleveland Frowns).

Again, I don't even live in the Cleveland area anymore and have never lived in Cuyahoga county. I just genuinely love the city (and its teams) and don't want to see its citizens' tax money used to subsidize billionaire owners. The thinly veiled threats that the teams will somehow leave or that the city/county would ever sacrifice paying for essential services to foot the bill for stadium improvements are laughable. If a good alternative exists, why just give these people your money? At the very least, why now? From my understanding, the old sin tax isn't even up yet.

STOP SUBSIDIZING BILLIONAIRE OWNERS. VOTE NO!

 

[calleger]

STOP SUBSIDIZING BILLIONAIRE OWNERS. VOTE NO!

But, a "NO" vote doesn't stop that.

 

[Soda]

Deezus, your pal forgot to mention that Phillip Morris USA is funding their campaign. If your friend is going to plead ignorance about who Phillip Morris, perhaps the sin tax shouldn't be the first priority.

http://www.cleveland.com/cuyahoga-c...o_on_same_side_in_sin_tax_debate_roundup.html

Since you "escaped" Cleveland (or however transplants put it), you obviously don't get the financial straits some fans are in. Your (preposterous, IMO) idea to tax fans $3.25 per ticket raises the cost of that ticket (in some cases) over 30%. Ya, it makes a difference. Taking a family to the game? Double the cost of parking. Not a viable alternative.

Your friend can also go to Geauga County for cigs and tobacco if he/she doesn't want to support the City/County supporting their properties.

Nobody wants to listen when it's been made perfectly clear that regardless of the sin-tax, the City/County is responsible for maintaining their properties. The sin-tax helps them do this without hurting the rest of the City's services.

Also, for the record, a levy for Cleveland schools passed LAST YEAR.

 

[7foot3]

The tax on tickets is a horrible idea because it discourages people to buy tickets. A jump in prices is going to crush marketing initiatives for teams to sell tickets.

A poor understanding of supply and demand. The teams already sell tickets at prices that maximize their revenue. Prices will not change based on what they get taxed, they will change based on how much the owners can get from the fanbase. A tax on tickets will come almost completely out of the owner's pockets, with any left over coming out of the users of the actual facility. An interesting concept, the users of the facility paying for it.

IF there is something like a flood (i.e. Oakland) or new handicap ramps/elevators are necessary, these folks want the City/County to just foot the bill.

Boogeyman, and odd considering your previous sentence spells out exactly how opponents to the sin tax want to raise money to help pay for those examples.

Without Sin Tax money, this would directly affect the general fund(s) and, ultimately, hurt other essential services.

More boogeymen. Again, you admit already that there is another way to raise money, and of course, there are many more alternatives to pay for stadium repairs. Very few, the Joes out there, are saying "screw it", most are trying to find better alternatives than just handing $1B (which is how much the city has given to these owners since 1990) to the richest people in town.

The City/County cannot dump the properties

Which shows just how bad the lease is for the city if the they couldn't sell them for even a pittance.

This is all not to mention that the opponents of the Sin Tax are connected to big alcohol and big tobacco business.

Again with the boogeymen. There are many opponents to the sin tax that aren't even remotely connected.

The fact that the advocates of the sin tax have to resort to so many boogeymen is a very troubling sign. Instead of economic studies on how improving these facilities brings back more to the city than is put in, we get threats that these teams might leave, threats that you'll have to pay more to go to a game, threats that roads won't be fixed or people will lose their jobs, and nebulous accusations about big tobacco taking over.


If the people of Cleveland want to give their money to the owners of these teams, then fine, that's their choice. But let's stop with the Pravdaesque bullshit, and actually understand the economic ramifications. The whole "Keep Cleveland Strong" motto is mindboggling, and would be hilarious if the truth wasn't so depressing about the loss of jobs, terrible schools and level of poverty in Cleveland.


Edit to add:

Nobody wants to listen when it's been made perfectly clear that regardless of the sin-tax, the City/County is responsible for maintaining their properties. The sin-tax helps them do this without hurting the rest of the City's services.

The only reason people don't listen to that is because they've been told it so many times over and over already. They get it. We got screwed in the deal, so tough break, we're going to remain screwed. What a defense of the sin tax.

Of course, The Indians and Cavs renegotiated their leases in 2004 when it was apparent just how one-sided they were, but somehow we're supposed to believe the leases are ironclad now.

 

[Deezus]

RappSoda,

Your smugness on this issue is grating. I don't know if I'm reading what you're writing wrong, but its annoying to say the least... and your opinions are full of holes. Are you employed by one of the teams?

Deezus, your pal forgot to mention that Phillip Morris USA is funding their campaign. If your friend is going to plead ignorance about who Phillip Morris, perhaps the sin tax shouldn't be the first priority.

http://www.cleveland.com/cuyahoga-c...o_on_same_side_in_sin_tax_debate_roundup.html

No they are not. Did you even read the article you posted? It states that Phillip Morris funds a group called "Cuyahoga Citizens for Tobacco Rights". Its a common (and smart) business practice for big tobacco. Of course they don't want prices on their products to go up. They'll make less money... Just like our sports team owners don't want their ticket prices to go up (as has been proposed). They'll make less money. Its economics... ticket prices are still going to be mainly based on what consumers are willing to pay for them.

The person I referenced helped start the "Coalition Against the Sin Tax"... which, ironically, the same article you posted refers to as "grassroots". I can't speak to how much the Phillip Morris group's spending has been, but I can say that the Coalition Against the Sin Tax was extremely limited in its funding in comparison with the "Keep Cleveland Strong" bullshit that is funded by billionaires and airs a commercial during every break during every damn game.

Its especially funny to me that you want to essentially talk about the "morality" of the anti-sin tax funding, when the pro sin-tax movement is paid for by billionaires who have used the memories of Art Model moving the browns essentially as psychological leverage by alluding to the fact that our teams could leave if we don't pay up. Its even funnier when you consider that one of the billionaires in question can be classified as "big oil" and is currently under federal investigation for stealing from his customers.

Since you "escaped" Cleveland (or however transplants put it), you obviously don't get the financial straits some fans are in. Your (preposterous, IMO) idea to tax fans $3.25 per ticket raises the cost of that ticket (in some cases) over 30%. Ya, it makes a difference. Taking a family to the game? Double the cost of parking. Not a viable alternative.

$3.25 a ticket. For a family of 4, that is $13. I'd argue that if $13 is that taxing on your financial situation, you're irresponsible for taking your family to the game in the first place. It sucks that some people can't afford to take their families to the games, but it is what it is. In the big scheme of things, $260 million (not sure if thats the right number) taxpayer dollars are going to help those poor families much more by going into essential public services than they are by subsidizing billionaire sports team owners to keep ticket prices down.

Your friend can also go to Geauga County for cigs and tobacco if he/she doesn't want to support the City/County supporting their properties.

You're missing the entire point. Tax the shit out of alcohol and tobacco for all I care... Just use the proceeds for something more constructive.

Nobody wants to listen when it's been made perfectly clear that regardless of the sin-tax, the City/County is responsible for maintaining their properties. The sin-tax helps them do this without hurting the rest of the City's services.

Then make the charge on the tickets a city/county "tax". Same amount of revenue as the sin tax, same rules as far as appropriation of funds, just a different way of generating the money. ...And stop with the "without hurting the rest of the City's services" crap. The city would never prioritize stadium renovations over essential city services. In fact, if they used a sin tax to subsidize these services and added the tax to the ticket prices, we'd be helping even more.

Also, for the record, a levy for Cleveland schools passed LAST YEAR.

Well there you have it folks! The problems of Cleveland have been solved! Never mind the ridiculous poverty rate, crumbling infrastructure, and declining population... THEY PASSED THE SCHOOL LEVY! Finally, now the people of Cuyahoga County are free to give their tax money to billionaires!

 

[Pyro]

Can't wait to see the results.

 

[Soda]

Are you employed by one of the teams?



No they are not. Did you even read the article you posted? It states that Phillip Morris funds a group called "Cuyahoga Citizens for Tobacco Rights". Its a common (and smart) business practice for big tobacco. Of course they don't want prices on their products to go up. They'll make less money... Just like our sports team owners don't want their ticket prices to go up (as has been proposed). They'll make less money. Its economics... ticket prices are still going to be mainly based on what consumers are willing to pay for them.

The person I referenced helped start the "Coalition Against the Sin Tax"... which, ironically, the same article you posted refers to as "grassroots". I can't speak to how much the Phillip Morris group's spending has been, but I can say that the Coalition Against the Sin Tax was extremely limited in its funding in comparison with the "Keep Cleveland Strong" bullshit that is funded by billionaires and airs a commercial during every break during every damn game.

Its especially funny to me that you want to essentially talk about the "morality" of the anti-sin tax funding, when the pro sin-tax movement is paid for by billionaires who have used the memories of Art Model moving the browns essentially as psychological leverage by alluding to the fact that our teams could leave if we don't pay up. Its even funnier when you consider that one of the billionaires in question can be classified as "big oil" and is currently under federal investigation for stealing from his customers.



$3.25 a ticket. For a family of 4, that is $13. I'd argue that if $13 is that taxing on your financial situation, you're irresponsible for taking your family to the game in the first place. It sucks that some people can't afford to take their families to the games, but it is what it is. In the big scheme of things, $260 million (not sure if thats the right number) taxpayer dollars are going to help those poor families much more by going into essential public services than they are by subsidizing billionaire sports team owners to keep ticket prices down.



Then make the charge on the tickets a city/county "tax". Same amount of revenue as the sin tax, same rules as far as appropriation of funds, just a different way of generating the money. ...And stop with the "without hurting the rest of the City's services" crap. The city would never prioritize stadium renovations over essential city services. In fact, if they used a sin tax to subsidize these services and added the tax to the ticket prices, we'd be helping even more.

First, I wish I had a job with a team. Unfortunately, I'm in the position to have stuff like this be in my daily routine.. The misinformation about who is paying for what, especially from publications that people believe, is aggravating and further pushes me to a "Yes" stand-point. Anger towards people who are rich is the ultimate motivation, which isn't even the point of the issue.

The City/County doesn't have the choice, really, to decide when they need to attend to the properties. Just like when a house has a violation, there are fines and penalties. The fines go to the entity who owns the property. What happens without sin-tax money is (and this is absolutely, 100% how it is) the general fund for all services gets tapped into (because you don't hold a reserve for required stadium repairs) and, thus, people get laid off, services get cut back, safety patrol decreases... With the sin-tax money there, no such budgeting must be done and it is done without dipping into the general fund. Not only that, though. Teams renting the stadium don't have access to this money whatsoever, really. They must first submit a proposal for the needed services, hire qualified sub-contractors (area small businesses, minority owned businesses, female owned businesses, etc.) that also must be approved. The different Council people from the City/County then determine if the proposed repairs match what was agreed upon under the sin-tax language.

It's like, people want nice things, but don't ask for them to pay a cent or two on getting fucked up. Wish I had the choice to make frequent users of healthcare pay for my premium.

Edit: Don't mean to sound so abrasive, but I've tried to explain the truth of it on more than a few occasions and all I get back is "the teams suck!", "sell the stadiums", and "make these billionaires pay for it". None of those things are relevant here.

 

[The Oi]

I'm totally on Rapp's side here. Deezy's best staying away from serious topics like this as he gets in over his head.

Right Rapp?

 

[CornerThree]

So I know it's been 4 pages of Joe writing dumb shit and me calling him a dildo, but this is essentially a RENEWAL of an existing tax? I don't see this being mentioned. In addition, even if this sin tax measure fails, are we that certain that prices on tobacco or alcohol would even fall? I'm betting not.

 

[7foot3]

Anger towards people who are rich is the ultimate motivation

No it's not, and it's absolutely insulting to make that statement.

What happens without sin-tax money is (and this is absolutely, 100% how it is) the general fund for all services gets tapped into (because you don't hold a reserve for required stadium repairs) and, thus, people get laid off, services get cut back, safety patrol decreases... With the sin-tax money there, no such budgeting must be done and it is done without dipping into the general fund

.

Or, you know, the city finds alternate ways to raise the money. Hopefully ways that better place the burden of maintaining the facilities on its primary users. No official who is dependent on winning a general election is going to throw up his hands and go "oh well, we don't have the money to provide services for the citizens whose votes I desperately need".

It's like, people want nice things, but don't ask for them to pay a cent or two

Strawman. Very few people are saying don't ask them to pay. They're saying let's find the best plan economically for the city.

I've tried to explain the truth of it on more than a few occasions and all I get back is "the teams suck!", "sell the stadiums", and "make these billionaires pay for it". None of those things are relevant here.

I haven't said any of those things. But I would say that if the city owns the stadium, the amount of profit the billionaires are able to pull out of using the stadium is absolutely relevant, and there's a reason they aren't sharing that info with anyone.

 

[Soda]

Or, you know, the city finds alternate ways to raise the money. Hopefully ways that better place the burden of maintaining the facilities on its primary users. No official who is dependent on winning a general election is going to throw up his hands and go "oh well, we don't have the money to provide services for the citizens whose votes I desperately need".

Most people are absolutely ok with paying an additional 3 cents on their alcohol and tobacco purchases. This way is perfect, IMO.

I haven't said any of those things. But I would say that if the city owns the stadium, the amount of profit the billionaires are able to pull out of using the stadium is absolutely relevant, and there's a reason they aren't sharing that info with anyone.

Reason being they're private entities. No need to open their books and you expecting them to would be fabricating a reason to be upset with them. Ask any private company to open their books so you can pick it apart and they'll tell you to piss off.

You may have an argument with the quality of the lease, but, again, this is not what is being voted on. The whole thing is how the City/County pays for required enhancements that they must foot the bill for. Ya, it'd be great if a team wants to sign a lease where the tenant is responsible for all expenditures on the property, including foundation, waterproofing, side-walks, etc. That's Candyland, though. I don't know if a single business, regardless of their margins, signs-up to pay for general responsibilities of the proprietor.

And to be clear, I think asking ticket purchasers to pay for this is clear free-loading. They want nice shit, but want someone else (or magic) to keep the nice shit nice over time.

 

[AZ_]

So I know it's been 4 pages of Joe writing dumb shit and me calling him a dildo, but this is essentially a RENEWAL of an existing tax? I don't see this being mentioned. In addition, even if this sin tax measure fails, are we that certain that prices on tobacco or alcohol would even fall? I'm betting not.

Yes this is an existing tax.

No it will not have much effect on what you, the consumer, pay for the products.

 

[7foot3]

Most people are absolutely ok with paying an additional 3 cents on their alcohol and tobacco purchases. This way is perfect, IMO.

Most people may be, but I completely fail to see how that way is "perfect". Perfect would be the primary beneficiaries, or at least users, of the facilities paying for them. I would like to see the county try to pass a sin tax to raise funds to fix infrastructure and that isn't given along with constant threats about the teams. It would be interesting to see the support that received.

Reason being they're private entities. No need to open their books and you expecting them to would be fabricating a reason to be upset with them. Ask any private company to open their books so you can pick it apart and they'll tell you to piss off.

Of course this is true, but the reason you don't get to see the info is because the owners are making money hand over fist. And I have serious issues with public funding going to entities that won't open their books. The teams aren't just getting tax money to upgrade their facilities, they're getting huge tax breaks, great deals on rent, and the ability to sell advertising space on public property tax-free. The owners are already getting fantastic deals.

You may have an argument with the quality of the lease, but, again, this is not what is being voted on.

Right. The "you're screwed, too bad" argument. At least you don't try to pretend that it's a good deal for the city. Which goes to show how important it is for the city to get the teams back at the bargaining table and try to rework the leases, which there already is precedent for. Instead of waiting for Gateway to go nearly bankrupt again before we renegotiate the leases, let's find a workable plan that may actually benefit both sides instead of the teams sucking the city dry.

And to be clear, I think asking ticket purchasers to pay for this is clear free-loading.

Huh? This makes zero sense. Who would be freeloading? Besides the owners of course.

They want nice shit, but want someone else (or magic) to keep the nice shit nice over time.

Who wants the nice shit? Primarily the owners, with the ticket purchasers secondarily. And you're absolutely right they want someone else (or magic) to keep the nice shit nice.