ShareThis Page
Dear Cleveland: Our condolences |

Dear Cleveland: Our condolences

| Thursday, July 23, 2015 8:55 p.m

Pittsburghers love trashing Cleveland. But they should have sympathy for North Coast taxpayers, and in surrounding Cuyahoga County, who are on a very long hook for hundreds of millions of dollars to improve professional sports facilities.

Taxpayers already had been tapped for $800 million for those structures. And as New York Times sports columnist Michael Powell notes, last year, the billionaire owners of the NBA’s Cavaliers, Major League Baseball’s Indians and the NFL’s Browns won voter approval for a “sin tax” on beer, liquor and cigarettes to fund $262 million in arena and stadium upgrades over 20 years. And they did so by spending $3 million while sin-tax opponents spent just $30,000.

In contrast, the $37.4 million project adding 3,000 seats and other upgrades at Heinz Field doesn’t involve public money. Not that the Steelers didn’t try. The taxpayer-funded Allegheny Regional Asset District is guaranteeing a $25 million bond. But the Steelers are increasing lease payments to the Sports & Exhibition Authority to pay it off and boost a repair fund. Fans also will kick in through a $1 ticket surcharge under a deal that spares local taxpayers for years to come. Unlike the Cleveland-area sin tax.

And with promises of stadiums and arenas fueling economic booms proving false time after time, taxpayers in Cleveland won’t see their sin-tax money changing their city’s stagnant job growth, reducing its near-37-percent poverty rate or helping its cash-strapped schools, either.

Categories: Editorials
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.