I understand what you're saying, but that seems like a different type of thing. Proposing a $1 tax in a county in AZ (maybe it's state tax?) to build a facility that can benefit everyone in that immediate area is different than MLB imposing a $1 surcharge to build the Yankees a stadium acrss the country.

A more accurate comparison in my mind would be what BigFan was referencing originally - I (as a Cub fan) helped pay for US Cellular field (and it's upgrades/renovations) through the State of Illinois. I have chosen to take advantage of that by attending games in the past, but there are many Cub fans who haven't/will not. And if the Sox would have moved to Tampa instead of getting the Cell, I'm not sure there would have been an adverse effect on the Cubs or their tax paying fans. But the tax $ was used, and therefore the team stayed and the option is available.

_________________

I think they should tax every person in that county or state. I think that's Jerry's thought too. The problem is that these fees are being charged on the largely out of state visitors who are going to games to watch a team other than the Cubs.

I'd have no problem if this is how the Cubs renovated Wrigley or if this is how they were funding the spring training stadium. It's pretty standard practice that happens everywhere. A surcharge on a bunch of other teams in order to fund it seems incredibly rare. You are a Cub fan who is also a Chicagoan or Illinoisian who saw an economic return on the White Sox staying. If you were a Cub fan who was also a New Yorker you wouldn't be paying for a stadium you'd never use and never see an economic return on.

I may be wrong, but it's my understanding that the issue here is that Jerry and the other owners don't think it's fair that fans attending their games will be charged a dollar so another team can have a new stadium. They want the locals to pay for it since they get the most benefit.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

Does spanky have 3 soliariums up in Kenilworth too?

_________________

So it's similar to the wife and I flying out of O'Hare, but we have to pay $1 each to pay for the 3rd edition of McCormick place? Or maybe the wife's cousin comes in from out of state to attend a Sox game, spends the night in a hotel downtown, and they have to pay $1 each to pay for the 4th edition of McCormick place?

_________________

Boiler seems to not like when he is told where his tax money is going. Thats all this is.

Just the City telling you they will have a FINITE TAX on the tickets to pay for this facility is bad?

It would be OK if it was a general tax to the ASTA and then the ASTA paid for the new facility? I guess thats OK then? Then they can go back every year for more money and more improvements.

_________________
"That's what the internet is for. Slandering others anonymously." Banky
“Been that way since one monkey looked at the sun and told the other monkey ‘He said for you to give me your fuckin’ share.’”

No. I want those who benefit from the services to pay for it. That would be the Cubs fans and the city/county/state. That would not be the Sox fans, or the Angels fans, or the other fans of teams that aren't there because of the Cubs.
Isn't that pretty much how all this stuff is handled?

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

Again, you're operating under the premise that these exhibitions, almost all of which are held in considerable proximity to one another, are 100% attended by the fans of the nominal "home team," unless you're suggesting that the stadium surcharge be selectively assessed based on ticketholders' headwear or something. Under your scenario, it would be equally unfair to expect Sox fans at HoHoKam to pay an extra buck toward a new Cubs facility.

_________________

I'd have no problem if they levied the $1 surcharge on Cubs games played both at home and on the road because of this specific reason. That would be fair because I can only assume that the Cubs bring a good share of fans. However, it makes no sense that the Angels-White Sox game has anything to do with Cubs attendance.

Also, it wouldn't be unfair to Sox fans to have to pay the charge at HoHoKam because they have shown that they are using the park and would likely do so later on.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

You could make a rickety (no pun intended) argument that Cubs fans, once in the valley for the week or whatever, may choose to take in various games as non-partisans. Surely it's not prevalent enough to go to war with this conjecture, but hey.

_________________

Gonna start threads about the Mariners, Rockies, Royals, and other teams bigfan??

_________________

Frank - this is all Jerry's doing right now. Today Bud took a stand against it.

But

Per Boilermaker Rick, he wants what he spends money on to go to what he likes?

last year I went to spring training, I paid some excessive hotel tax. That Tax was used to build the Sox new facility? Did I have a choice if I wanted to stay in a hotel? No.

could I have brought a sleeping bag? Yes.

Let's now say the Tax of $1 on each game was going to the ASTA, which in turn built the Sox facility and is now going to build the Cubs facility? Is this OK?

_________________
"That's what the internet is for. Slandering others anonymously." Banky
“Been that way since one monkey looked at the sun and told the other monkey ‘He said for you to give me your fuckin’ share.’”

"OFFICIAL SOURCES" Jerry Lobbying other owners to join him in this issue! Straight from my Sox source.

Even my Sox source says it is ridiculous that Jerry Reinsdorf is leading this fight. My guy hates the Cubs, he is all things White Sox but he recognizes this is Jerry being a baby and nothing more. Jerry just wants the Cubs to go the same route he did, which is through a bigger red tape parade to get their money.

And Maybe? Just maybe then, the Cubs dont get their new place, which my guy agrees with me is really what Jerry would like, even though he doesnt think Jerry would expect it to not happen, he can still make it harder for them.

From my first hand knowledge, Jerry is a great guy if you kiss the ring. That includes other owners bowing to him. if you choose not to, he will try and screw with you.

_________________
"That's what the internet is for. Slandering others anonymously." Banky
“Been that way since one monkey looked at the sun and told the other monkey ‘He said for you to give me your fuckin’ share.’”

_________________
Go Cubs!!!!

But isn't this the same as you paying property taxes to the school system and if you did not have children, you are not getting to use that?

Yes. It's seems the same to me.

_________________

So should people without kids stop paying for that? Tell me administrator.

You'll have to read back through the thread - I'm on the other side of the argument - I'm saying this tax is no different than any other. There is a "service/opportunity" provided with the tax, whether or not someone chooses to utilize it is up to the individual.

_________________

The Arizona legislature is trying to set up a TIF district that would raise funds for a new Cubs stadium and keep the Phoenix Coyotes from bolting because their new owners can't afford them without tax money. Interesting. Maybe if UNCLE JERRY had gotten the Yotes, he wouldn't have minded so much.

_________________

Exactly my point! This is about Jerry not getting his way and someone else getting what he wanted.

As a fan, I can even undertstand how someone like Boiler doesn't like his $1 tax on his ticket going to the Cubs facility, but Reinsdorf knows, Boiler should, it is a matter semantics as to where the money comes from if it is a TAX. If the $1 TAX on the tickets was for the ASTA, the same orgnaization that built Jerry his place, and then the ASTA builds the place? Is that OK?

In both Reinsdorf's case and the Cubs case, I dont think any money should come from the State or County. You want to give them free land, tax incentives, thats all fine, but not actual investment.

_________________
"That's what the internet is for. Slandering others anonymously." Banky
“Been that way since one monkey looked at the sun and told the other monkey ‘He said for you to give me your fuckin’ share.’”

Why shouldn't Reinsdorf oppose it? The Cubs are one of his business competitors and his business is being taxed to benefit them.

This is a dumb question, but why did they not simply do this? This seems to be an unprecedented thing in order to fund a stadium there. They should fund it exactly as they funded the new stadium for the White Sox. There has to be a reason why they went for an extra fee on tickets even though they didn't need to do this before.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!