This morning, the grassroots group opposing Issue 7 — the renewal of the so-called sin tax to pay for maintenance and upgrades to Cleveland’s sports facilities — held a press conference across from Progressive Field to announce its alternative plan for raising the money it (and sin tax supporters) says the county is obligated to provide.
Local attorney Peter Pattakos, head of the Coalition Against the Sin Tax and bar & restaurant entrepreneur Alan Glazen talked to writers and TV crews about what they’ve dubbed “FairShare.”
They propose adding a $3.25 fee to each ticket to a sports event held in the three facilities — Progressive Field, Quicken Loans Arena, and Browns Stadium. They arrived at that amount by calculating how much sin tax renewal is expected to raise and equaling it. They say this fee would spread the burden more fairly over those who partake of professional sports in the region (60% of whom come from outside Cuyahoga County) instead of asking county residents to shoulder the entire burden, whether they are sports fans or not.
The proposal is simple and logical. The response from the “Keep Cleveland Strong” campaign advocating sin tax renewal is interesting for the vehemence with which it shoots down both FairShare and the idea of ANY alternatives.
KCS pushed out a press release summarily dismissing FairShare, saying, “Proposing to punish Cuyahoga County families and sports fans by imposing a new, large ticket tax to pay for major repairs at our three major league venues is terribly flawed on multiple fronts. They are proposing to make it even more difficult for Cuyahoga County families to attend sporting events.”
In fact, the fee is small compared to fees currently charged for many entertainment events, such as arena-sized concerts, whose tickets come loaded with a cornucopia of fees that can add as much as 20% to the base ticket price. The Q already adds a $3 “facilities fee” to tickets for events like the circus and Disney on Ice. It’s unclear where it goes or what it covers. A family that can afford the cost of tickets, as well as the overpriced refreshments sold at the facilities, won’t find it “more difficult” to attend sporting events because of a $3.25 fee. Many families have long been priced out of attending these events in these facilities their money built. And currently they pick up the whole tab, while FairShare would distribute it more equitably over the entire region.
County councilman Pernel Jones was quoted in the release saying, “By pricing families out of games, this would result in smaller crowds — which means less business for those businesses that depend upon fans. That puts jobs at risk.”
It’s hard to believe a $3.25 fee would result in smaller crowds. In fact, it’s having a product no one is interested in. For nearly six years from 1995 through 2001, the Indians sold out every home game, when fans believed they were real contenders. Cavs tickets sold like hotcakes when LeBron James ruled the roost.
Glazen has pointed out that a ticket to see Cher next month at the Q has a base price of $105.50, but costs the buyer $125.35 because of added fees. That additional $20 doesn’t deter fans from buying tickets to an artist they really want to see. Fans griped about Barbra Streisand’s ticket prices in the hundreds of dollars, but they shelled out for an artist they loved. Cleveland sports fans would shell out for winning teams, even if tickets came with the same fees concert tickets do.
The press release’s condescending dismissal of FairShare via a quote from county councilman Dan Brady is revealing. He called it “the latest in a steady stream of wobbly ideas this group has trotted out in a misguided attempt to replace the existing tax on cigarettes and alcohol.”
He continued, “These various ideas have been hatched and then publicly floated with apparently little thought, and none of them have stuck.”
Why Brady thinks it’s “misguided” to look at alternatives to a tax that is set to expire and that targets poorer citizens already unable to afford tickets is unclear. Instead, he goes on the attack with a stream of loaded words like “wobbly” and “misguided.” It’s impossible to say whether any of the alternatives has “stuck,” because no balanced and open public discussion has taken place and the May 6 vote hasn’t happened yet. It seems like that would be a great discussion to have — unless there are men behind the curtain who don’t want to have it.
Photos by Anastasia Pantsios. Glazen and Pattakos present their plan.
One Response to “Opponents of Issue 7 Sin Tax Renewal Propose “FairShare””
Ed
Great comment, totally agree but unfortunately the “fors” have much deeper pockets and backing as evidenced by the advertising campaign. I’m glad it doesn’t affect me:-)