Chicago Fanatics Message Board :: View topic - City Financed Spring Training Facilities

Even my guy Frank C has to be able to see

The Cubs should just refuse to play the White Sox in Spring Training.

Sorry, but the Cubs MADE Spring Training popular in Arizona......

Aggravated Sox Fan Bob wrote:

Sorry, but the Cubs MADE Spring Training popular in Arizona......

If that is true why isn't the city willing to use public tax dollars in order to fund things?

If the Cubs were really so important you'd think that would be an easy thing to pass.

Why should a Sox fan who lives in Chicago who flies out to watch the White Sox pay a surcharge to build a stadium he'll never see? Where is his benefit with that?

If the Cubs decided to do a major renovation to Wrigley Field would you accept a $5 surcharge per game for your season tickets?

Let's say you have 4 tickets. 81 games. That would be an extra $1,620 that would give you absolutely no benefit since you aren't a Cubs fan. Would you still be blaming Jerry for not liking this?

When I go to AZ I pay a tax on my hotel stay, which is used to finance the White Sox facility. I went to see the Cubs, so why am I paying for the Sox facility? Where the money comes from and where it goes should be irrelevant to the discussion.

Reinsdorf has often used the defense for US cell it is financed by hotel taxes, which are mostly tourists, but this foregoes the state getting that revenue for stuff like Police? Constructions and other Bribes. There is always a cost, the question is where you want to assign it.

Overall, I am against teams getting public money in anyway to BUILD a facility. I am OK with Tax Breaks and Land given or leased for nominal dollars, but actual building and development should be the teams cost.

If you don't think that's a benefit, ask yourself this: Would the teams currently located in Tampa/St. Pete area love to have the Cubs move there for Spring Training? Of course they would - they draw a lot more fans to spring training. Simple as that. The more fans in the area during spring training = more $$$ for all the teams in the area.

If the Cubs are so vital to the whole league, which is a pretty arrogant stance in itself.

The "benefit" to other teams would be to keep the Cubs in AZ for spring training. Not saying I agree with the idea of charging an additional tax to build it (I don't), but to say there is "no benefit" to any of the other teams is slightly inaccurate.

If you don't think that's a benefit, ask yourself this: Would the teams currently located in Tampa/St. Pete area love to have the Cubs move there for Spring Training? Of course they would - they draw a lot more fans to spring training. Simple as that. The more fans in the area during spring training = more $$$ for all the teams in the area.

Boilermaker Rick wrote:

If the Cubs are so vital to the whole league, which is a pretty arrogant stance in itself.

Its true Rick.

rogers park bryan wrote:

Boilermaker Rick wrote:

If the Cubs are so vital to the whole league, which is a pretty arrogant stance in itself.

Its true Rick.

It is arrogant to use in your argument that your team is more important than any other team. .

Let's say I go crazy and decide to fly down to spring training this year to watch practice baseball. I go to 5 White Sox games. I pay $5 of this ticket surcharge. What does that $5 give me? Unlike a city or hotel tax, I get no benefit. It simply gives the Cubs $5 to build a stadium. The entire idea behind taxes is that you are getting some sort of benefit out of it.

But would say Brorders pay for that Library? No.

What if its true? Is it still arrogant?

I dont think so. I think the arizona league would be a lot worse off without the Cubs there.

Boilermaker Rick wrote:

This would be similar to saying "I don't go to the public library, I want my $ for the library tax back." Just because it is not a direct benefit to you doesn't mean there is not a benefit to far more people.

The fact that I can walk into the library free of charge and use it means that I am getting a benefit even if I choose not to use it. Just like if you never drive on I-55 you still have the option of using it.

I can't go to a Cubs game for free because of my $1 surcharge paid.

True, but your kid can't to go to school for free either, even though your taxes pay for it. But it's there, and it's stilll available for you to use if you choose. Just like the Cubs' facility is there for you, if you choose.

It's true that you can't go to college for free but in-state students are given a cheaper tuition cost because of the state money they receive. Therefore, there is at least some benefit.

Boilermaker Rick wrote:

It's true that you can't go to college for free but in-state students are given a cheaper tuition cost because of the state money they receive. Therefore, there is at least some benefit.

Who's talking about college?

I pay a tax for the cemeteries too. What kind of discount can I get on that when I die?

I'm not trying to argue the benefit of the tax on each individual, my point was that there is simply a benefit. Whether an individual chooses to take advantage of that benefit is completely up to them.

Author:	bigfan [ Tue Feb 09, 2010 11:47 pm ]
Post subject:	City Financed Spring Training Facilities
Even my guy Frank C has to be able to see that the Sox got their place built by the State of Az and the City of Glendale via Taxes on basically everything to do with the new facility (Drinks, Hats, Shirts, Hotels) So why can't the Cubs? Here is the Sox deal on who paid for their place. Two-thirds of the funding for the complex, which ended up costing $100 million, came from the state-run Arizona Sports and Tourism Authority. The city of Glendale was responsible for the remaining one-third and expects to generate its funding with sales taxes and other revenues from the 500 acres that will be developed near the ballpark, which was simply referred to as Glendale Ballpark during most of its construction It's Ok for Uncle Jerry to come knocking for handouts on a continuing basis, but when someone else does it, that's a No no? Plus the tax is being levied right on top of his ticket prices, which means he isn't even paying for the facility, the fans who come to see the games are. Just like the fans that come and stay in hotels when seeing the Cubs pay a tax that goes into the ASTA fund to pay for The Sox facility. Little greed showing here.

Author:	RFDC [ Wed Feb 10, 2010 12:15 am ]
Post subject:	Re: City Financed Spring Training Facilities
bigfan wrote: Even my guy Frank C has to be able to see I wouldn't count on that one.

Author:	Aggravated Sox Fan Bob [ Wed Feb 10, 2010 7:54 am ]
Post subject:	Re: City Financed Spring Training Facilities
Reinsdorf has had his hands in the pockets of so many governmental agencies, it would not surprise me if the guy has a LINK CARD!!!!!

Author:	Aggravated Sox Fan Bob [ Wed Feb 10, 2010 7:56 am ]
Post subject:	Re: City Financed Spring Training Facilities
Reinsdorf left Tuscon in the lurch.....why doesn't this freak just shut his mouth and take a look at his horrible farm system....or just let Ozzie and Hawk Harrelson kiss his ass.

Author:	Brick [ Wed Feb 10, 2010 8:52 am ]
Post subject:	Re: City Financed Spring Training Facilities
As I said before, if the Yankees levied a $1 surcharge on every team in the league to pay for Yankee Stadium every other team would go nuts. Remember that Jerry isn't the only one who doesn't like this. What he is doing here is simply good business. What logical reason is there for White Sox fans to help pay for a stadium of another team? The city taxes are sold with the thought that there will be an economic benefit to the area. If I'm a guy with a mullet in Silver City, NM and I want to go see my Chicago White Sox and have to pay a ticket surcharge what benefit are you selling me? You have the right not to believe it but the reason cities pay for new stadiums is that the city believes that the total economic benefit outweighs the cost associated with it. If you can show me how a surcharge on a White Sox fan that doesn't even plan on attending the newly built stadium gains a benefit I'll believe this is just Jerry being evil.

Chicago Fanatics Message Board https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/

City Financed Spring Training Facilities https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=42757	Page 1 of 2

Author:	Frank Coztansa [ Wed Feb 10, 2010 9:25 am ]
Post subject:	Re: City Financed Spring Training Facilities
Jerry uses public money, yes. More power to him I guess. The Cubs wanted other MLB Teams to pay for thier facility, and I see no problem with owners telling them to take a hike. Jerry isn't the only one bitching about this, bigfan, but you're the only one bitching about Jerry.

Author:	Brick [ Wed Feb 10, 2010 10:03 am ]
Post subject:	Re: City Financed Spring Training Facilities
Aggravated Sox Fan Bob wrote: Sorry, but the Cubs MADE Spring Training popular in Arizona...... If that is true why isn't the city willing to use public tax dollars in order to fund things? If the Cubs were really so important you'd think that would be an easy thing to pass. Why should a Sox fan who lives in Chicago who flies out to watch the White Sox pay a surcharge to build a stadium he'll never see? Where is his benefit with that? If the Cubs decided to do a major renovation to Wrigley Field would you accept a $5 surcharge per game for your season tickets? Let's say you have 4 tickets. 81 games. That would be an extra $1,620 that would give you absolutely no benefit since you aren't a Cubs fan. Would you still be blaming Jerry for not liking this?

Author:	bigfan [ Wed Feb 10, 2010 10:57 am ]
Post subject:	Re: City Financed Spring Training Facilities
Boilermaker Rick wrote: Aggravated Sox Fan Bob wrote: Sorry, but the Cubs MADE Spring Training popular in Arizona...... If that is true why isn't the city willing to use public tax dollars in order to fund things? If the Cubs were really so important you'd think that would be an easy thing to pass. Why should a Sox fan who lives in Chicago who flies out to watch the White Sox pay a surcharge to build a stadium he'll never see? Where is his benefit with that? If the Cubs decided to do a major renovation to Wrigley Field would you accept a $5 surcharge per game for your season tickets? Let's say you have 4 tickets. 81 games. That would be an extra $1,620 that would give you absolutely no benefit since you aren't a Cubs fan. Would you still be blaming Jerry for not liking this? Boiler- first of all it is taxes on spring training games. Not regular season. You are using Reinsdorf's argument here, which is his "flim flam" defense. When I go to AZ I pay a tax on my hotel stay, which is used to finance the White Sox facility. I went to see the Cubs, so why am I paying for the Sox facility? Where the money comes from and where it goes should be irrelevant to the discussion. Reinsdorf has often used the defense for US cell it is financed by hotel taxes, which are mostly tourists, but this foregoes the state getting that revenue for stuff like Police? Constructions and other Bribes. There is always a cost, the question is where you want to assign it. Reinsdorf has a massive ego and does not like being second in anything. In this case he is secondary and has very little ground to stand on when he is one of the founding fathers of the "Let the State Build It" movement. What if all teams had a $1 tax on tickets that went to the same agency that built Reinsdorf his facility, would that be OK? Because that is exactly what he did., Overall, I am against teams getting public money in anyway to BUILD a facility. I am OK with Tax Breaks and Land given or leased for nominal dollars, but actual building and development should be the teams cost.

Author:	Frank Coztansa [ Wed Feb 10, 2010 11:13 am ]
Post subject:	Re: City Financed Spring Training Facilities
Public vs Private monies. I'm not saying one is right and one is wrong, but you don't see the difference here? Sales tax or hotel tax revenue vs. taking money directly out of the other teams' pockets to fund a Cubs stadium?

Author:	Brick [ Wed Feb 10, 2010 11:26 am ]
Post subject:	Re: City Financed Spring Training Facilities
bigfan wrote: When I go to AZ I pay a tax on my hotel stay, which is used to finance the White Sox facility. I went to see the Cubs, so why am I paying for the Sox facility? Where the money comes from and where it goes should be irrelevant to the discussion. That same tax is paying for the Cubs stadium, and the local roads, and the "Go to Arizona commercials". If you are using a hotel, and paying a hotel tax, you are getting whatever benefit there is from that. There is no benefit to a White Sox fan paying $1 extra on his ticket so the Cubs can get a new stadium. bigfan wrote: Reinsdorf has often used the defense for US cell it is financed by hotel taxes, which are mostly tourists, but this foregoes the state getting that revenue for stuff like Police? Constructions and other Bribes. There is always a cost, the question is where you want to assign it. Hotel taxes go for a lot of things. If it was a "White Sox new stadium" tax then it would be different. bigfan wrote: Overall, I am against teams getting public money in anyway to BUILD a facility. I am OK with Tax Breaks and Land given or leased for nominal dollars, but actual building and development should be the teams cost. That is true. However, I can't believe you don't see why a $1 charge to every White Sox ticket holder is them paying for something they'll get no benefit from. Hotels do benefit from hotel taxes, as do the patrons. Most of those fans don't care about the Cubs new stadium and most will probably never use it.

Author:	spanky [ Wed Feb 10, 2010 11:31 am ]
Post subject:	Re: City Financed Spring Training Facilities
The "benefit" to other teams would be to keep the Cubs in AZ for spring training. Not saying I agree with the idea of charging an additional tax to build it (I don't), but to say there is "no benefit" to any of the other teams is slightly inaccurate. If you don't think that's a benefit, ask yourself this: Would the teams currently located in Tampa/St. Pete area love to have the Cubs move there for Spring Training? Of course they would - they draw a lot more fans to spring training. Simple as that. The more fans in the area during spring training = more $$$ for all the teams in the area.

Author:	Brick [ Wed Feb 10, 2010 11:40 am ]
Post subject:	Re: City Financed Spring Training Facilities
spanky wrote: The "benefit" to other teams would be to keep the Cubs in AZ for spring training. Not saying I agree with the idea of charging an additional tax to build it (I don't), but to say there is "no benefit" to any of the other teams is slightly inaccurate. Let's say I go crazy and decide to fly down to spring training this year to watch practice baseball. I go to 5 White Sox games. I pay $5 of this ticket surcharge. What does that $5 give me? Unlike a city or hotel tax, I get no benefit. It simply gives the Cubs $5 to build a stadium. The entire idea behind taxes is that you are getting some sort of benefit out of it. You may not be getting all of that back but those taxes all fund things either directly(new stadium) or indirectly(road construction, more police) that are good for you. spanky wrote: If you don't think that's a benefit, ask yourself this: Would the teams currently located in Tampa/St. Pete area love to have the Cubs move there for Spring Training? Of course they would - they draw a lot more fans to spring training. Simple as that. The more fans in the area during spring training = more $$$ for all the teams in the area. Then why are many teams fighting it? If the Cubs are so vital to the whole league, which is a pretty arrogant stance in itself, then why wouldn't the city simply pay for it instead of charging the fans of other teams? If anything, charge it for all Cubs home and road games. There is no reason that when the Angels and White Sox play a game that every person who attends should give one dollar to a fund to build the Cubs a new arena. That just doesn't make sense.

Author:	rogers park bryan [ Wed Feb 10, 2010 11:42 am ]
Post subject:	Re: City Financed Spring Training Facilities
Boilermaker Rick wrote: If the Cubs are so vital to the whole league, which is a pretty arrogant stance in itself. Its true Rick. The cubs have a national fanbase. They draw more than any other team.

Author:	ChgoSportsFreak [ Wed Feb 10, 2010 11:43 am ]
Post subject:	Re: City Financed Spring Training Facilities
spanky wrote: The "benefit" to other teams would be to keep the Cubs in AZ for spring training. Not saying I agree with the idea of charging an additional tax to build it (I don't), but to say there is "no benefit" to any of the other teams is slightly inaccurate. If you don't think that's a benefit, ask yourself this: Would the teams currently located in Tampa/St. Pete area love to have the Cubs move there for Spring Training? Of course they would - they draw a lot more fans to spring training. Simple as that. The more fans in the area during spring training = more $$$ for all the teams in the area. Great post!

Page 1 of 2	All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	Brick [ Wed Feb 10, 2010 11:46 am ]
Post subject:	Re: City Financed Spring Training Facilities
rogers park bryan wrote: Boilermaker Rick wrote: If the Cubs are so vital to the whole league, which is a pretty arrogant stance in itself. Its true Rick. It is arrogant to use in your argument that your team is more important than any other team. It seems like people think this whole thing would shut down if the Cubs moved. My guess is the teams would be just fine. The city would be hurt more which is why they should fund it. I'm not arguing that it is true that the Cubs have the highest attendance. I'm sure that is true.

Author:	spanky [ Wed Feb 10, 2010 11:49 am ]
Post subject:	Re: City Financed Spring Training Facilities
Boilermaker Rick wrote: Let's say I go crazy and decide to fly down to spring training this year to watch practice baseball. I go to 5 White Sox games. I pay $5 of this ticket surcharge. What does that $5 give me? Unlike a city or hotel tax, I get no benefit. It simply gives the Cubs $5 to build a stadium. The entire idea behind taxes is that you are getting some sort of benefit out of it. This would be similar to saying "I don't go to the public library, I want my $ for the library tax back." Just because it is not a direct benefit to you doesn't mean there is not a benefit to far more people.

Author:	spanky [ Wed Feb 10, 2010 11:52 am ]
Post subject:	Re: City Financed Spring Training Facilities
Frank Coztansa wrote: But would say Brorders pay for that Library? No. Um, yes. If they are located within the taxed area.

Author:	Brick [ Wed Feb 10, 2010 11:55 am ]
Post subject:	Re: City Financed Spring Training Facilities
rogers park bryan wrote: What if its true? Is it still arrogant? It's true that the Cubs are an important part of the league. They probably are even #1 in attendance. I really don't know. That is a fact. rogers park bryan wrote: I dont think so. I think the arizona league would be a lot worse off without the Cubs there. I think the league would be just fine. It's not going to fold because the Cubs are gone. It's possible that they'd sell less tickets but I'm pretty sure that leagues can do pretty well without the Cubs. So while it's true that the Cubs do provide good value to the league, it is arrogant to think that the Cubs are so important to the league that they should be subsidized by the other teams in the league.

Author:	Brick [ Wed Feb 10, 2010 11:58 am ]
Post subject:	Re: City Financed Spring Training Facilities
spanky wrote: Boilermaker Rick wrote: Let's say I go crazy and decide to fly down to spring training this year to watch practice baseball. I go to 5 White Sox games. I pay $5 of this ticket surcharge. What does that $5 give me? Unlike a city or hotel tax, I get no benefit. It simply gives the Cubs $5 to build a stadium. The entire idea behind taxes is that you are getting some sort of benefit out of it. This would be similar to saying "I don't go to the public library, I want my $ for the library tax back." Just because it is not a direct benefit to you doesn't mean there is not a benefit to far more people. The fact that I can walk into the library free of charge and use it means that I am getting a benefit even if I choose not to use it. Just like if you never drive on I-55 you still have the option of using it. I can't go to a Cubs game for free because of my $1 surcharge paid.

Author:	spanky [ Wed Feb 10, 2010 12:03 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: City Financed Spring Training Facilities
Boilermaker Rick wrote: The fact that I can walk into the library free of charge and use it means that I am getting a benefit even if I choose not to use it. Just like if you never drive on I-55 you still have the option of using it. I can't go to a Cubs game for free because of my $1 surcharge paid. True, but your kid can't to go to school for free either, even though your taxes pay for it. But it's there, and it's stilll available for you to use if you choose. Just like the Cubs' facility is there for you, if you choose.

Author:	Brick [ Wed Feb 10, 2010 12:07 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: City Financed Spring Training Facilities
spanky wrote: True, but your kid can't to go to school for free either, even though your taxes pay for it. But it's there, and it's stilll available for you to use if you choose. Just like the Cubs' facility is there for you, if you choose. It's true that you can't go to college for free but in-state students are given a cheaper tuition cost because of the state money they receive. Therefore, there is at least some benefit. If the $1 surcharge came with a 25 cents off coupon for the Cubs game then I would be all for it.

Author:	spanky [ Wed Feb 10, 2010 12:08 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: City Financed Spring Training Facilities
Boilermaker Rick wrote: It's true that you can't go to college for free but in-state students are given a cheaper tuition cost because of the state money they receive. Therefore, there is at least some benefit. Who's talking about college? I pay a tax for the cemeteries too. What kind of discount can I get on that when I die?

Author:	Brick [ Wed Feb 10, 2010 12:13 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: City Financed Spring Training Facilities
spanky wrote: Boilermaker Rick wrote: It's true that you can't go to college for free but in-state students are given a cheaper tuition cost because of the state money they receive. Therefore, there is at least some benefit. Who's talking about college? I pay a tax for the cemeteries too. What kind of discount can I get on that when I die? I thought you meant college, because I don't remember my parents ever getting billed for high school. I would guess that the cemetery tax goes into the maintenance and upkeep in order to keep property values higher. This would be similar to how the residents of the city get a benefit from building a new stadium even if they aren't fans of that team or sport.

Author:	spanky [ Wed Feb 10, 2010 12:17 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: City Financed Spring Training Facilities
From Kinderagrten up through 12th grade, there are registration fees, book fees, etc. I'm not trying to argue the benefit of the tax on each individual, my point was that there is simply a benefit. Whether an individual chooses to take advantage of that benefit is completely up to them.

Author:	Brick [ Wed Feb 10, 2010 12:23 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: City Financed Spring Training Facilities
spanky wrote: I'm not trying to argue the benefit of the tax on each individual, my point was that there is simply a benefit. Whether an individual chooses to take advantage of that benefit is completely up to them. Ok. Fair enough. Let's then go back to the original question. If the New York Yankees proposed a $1 surcharge on every MLB ticket sold at every MLB stadium would you support it? The person paying the surcharge would have the option of taking advantage of the benefit of the new stadium so they would be getting a benefit. It would be my opinion that the building of the new Yankee Stadium did me not benefit as a White Sox fan and there is no reason why I should be used to subsidize the building of it.