Cleveland's professional sports teams have poured more than a million dollars into a fight they're hoping will end in victory on Tuesday. The end goal isn't a championship, though—it's a municipal tax extension.

While many voters will go to the polls Tuesday to vote in congressional primaries, Cleveland residents have another decision to make: whether to extend the city's notably regressive sin tax, which bumps up the price of cigarettes and alcoholic beverages by a few cents. If it passes, the sin tax extension will bring the amount of public money Cleveland has spent on the stadiums, which are publicly owned, up to $1.2 billion since 1990. (The city's mayor and council president have argued that the investment pays for itself, though such claims are often exaggerated.)

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014...rs-indians

Why in the hell was this posted here.

(05-06-2014 11:49 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  Why in the hell was this posted here.

Because it's a sports story and it involves cities that are seeking to get or retain sports teams.

and yet conservatives still don't understand the concept of "race to the bottom"

If the revenues related to having the sports teams don't cover what they are being asked to pay in stadium costs, it sounds like a no-brainer to me.

(05-06-2014 12:01 PM)john01992 Wrote:  and yet conservatives still don't understand the concept of "race to the bottom"

You are clueless.

Anyway, most "cons" on this board lean libertarian, and are opposed to these subsidies. Oddly enough, leftists in general are not necessarily opposed to all of this, as it occurs in far left big cities all the time.

(05-06-2014 12:04 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  If the revenues related to having the sports teams don't cover what they are being asked to pay in stadium costs, it sounds like a no-brainer to me.

Just ask Glendale, AZ.

(05-06-2014 12:07 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(05-06-2014 12:04 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  If the revenues related to having the sports teams don't cover what they are being asked to pay in stadium costs, it sounds like a no-brainer to me.

Just ask Glendale, AZ.

I don't know what happened in Glendale but I do know that Giants Stadium in the Meadowlands was torn down before it was fully paid for.

(05-06-2014 12:01 PM)john01992 Wrote:  and yet conservatives still don't understand the concept of "race to the bottom"

(05-06-2014 12:07 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(05-06-2014 12:04 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  If the revenues related to having the sports teams don't cover what they are being asked to pay in stadium costs, it sounds like a no-brainer to me.

Just ask Glendale, AZ.

This happened in our city which is very liberal and I was 100% against it.

I do not believe in corporate welfare in any way shape or form.