More than 450 readers responded after I asked whether they would vote to quadruple Cuyahoga County’s sin tax on cigarettes and alcohol to help cover maintenance costs at Progressive Field, Rocket Arena and eventually the new football stadium.
The volume of responses was striking. So was the intensity.
Cleveland Mayor Justin Bibb has proposed creating a taxing district around the Gateway complex so that those who attend games and spend money nearby would shoulder the burden. The teams would contribute under that plan, though they have declined to sign off. As a fallback, Cuyahoga County Executive Chris Ronayne has suggested quadrupling the sin tax — a move that would require voter approval. Without either, maintenance costs would fall to the general fund.
Readers clearly are fed up with being asked to pay for these facilities. They are weary of the debate. They resent that public money subsidizes billionaire team owners. But the responses also show divisions over fairness, public health, regionalism and Cleveland’s future.
Here’s a breakdown of the responses.
“Let the billionaires pay”
The dominant theme was frustration — even outrage — that taxpayers are repeatedly asked to shoulder costs associated with professional sports teams.
“I would not support any increase in taxes to support the billionaires who own these teams. I don’t like the taxing district around the facilities, but that’s better than penalizing everyone in Cuyahoga County.”
Many readers questioned why owners refuse to contribute more.
“I think it is pitiful that the sports teams, whose owners are BILLIONAIRES, won’t pony up money to support the teams that keep them rolling in dough. Pathetic! All taxpayers should NOT have to continue to subsidize these greedy owners. If they won’t pay and support their own team, why should we all be stuck paying their maintenance and upkeep? Typical: keep the poor and middle class in their place and make them pay, even if they don’t have the money, or the inclination, to do so.”
Another reader wrote:
“No!!! The teams and those that attend the games should bear all the costs. I feel strongly that taxpayers should not be supplementing the teams, who make millions. Why should taxpayers give the billionaires that own the teams money? Yes I feel very strongly about this. If they refuse to pay, let them leave. I just do not see the economics on supplementing sports teams and their owners.”
.
User fees over sin taxes
A second major theme: if money must be raised, it should come from those who attend games, not from smokers and drinkers across the county.
“Let those who attend sports events pay for their venues either through sales tax or increasing the price of admission. Are there any other leisure activities we ask everyone to pay for? Those of us who attend concerts pay our share through ticket prices. Rock climbing, gym memberships, same. I’ve never understood why football, baseball, and basketball are somehow communal responsibilities.”
One reader laid out a business-minded approach:
“I can’t help but feel that who should pay for the maintenance of the stadium would come from the lease payments, a tax on the tickets, consider taking something from the vendors and even the parking lots and restaurants in the area. Forget having to pass sin taxes, or the methods that would tax us all. Get the money from the users of the property not the folks that just drive by wishing they could afford to go to events. It just seems like common business sense to me!!!”
A $5 ticket surcharge idea surfaced repeatedly. Others suggested concession taxes, merchandise fees or sports-betting taxes.
Regressive and unfair
Many objected specifically to the sin tax as regressive — a tax that falls hardest on lower-income residents.
“Absolutely not! It is a tax on mostly low income Clevelanders, many of whom cannot afford to attend sports events. It’s wildly inequitable.”
A smoker offered a pointed critique, referring to a cigarette tax that pays for the arts in Cuyahoga County as well as the stadium issue:
“Hell no. I’m a smoker. Every time I see an Arts & Culture credit that claims funding is supported by “the people of Cuyahoga County” I want to scream “No, that’s a lie! It’s ONLY paid for by smokers!” We don’t mind not smoking inside A&C-sponsored events or institutions, but in most cases we can’t even smoke outside them. So you take my money, then ban me from the things I’ve paid for. As I’ve said to Chris Ronayne many many times, the least they could do is be honest and say “Cuyahoga Arts & Culture is funded by the cigarette smokers of Cuyahoga County.”
Others warned that tobacco and alcohol consumption are declining, making the tax unstable long-term.
“It seems foolish to continue pursuing increases in the “sin tax”. As fewer and fewer people indulge in the “sins” taxed, it cannot provide the funds needed.”
Public health and pragmatism
A smaller group supported the increase, arguing that higher taxes could reduce harmful behaviors.
“We’ve known for decades cigarettes kill people. New evidence is proving alcohol does too. Both are nuisance vices that have negative externalities like second hand smoke and drunk driving. And they are also stubbornly hard for people to abandon for reasons of both culture and addiction… I have ZERO sympathy for the people who buy this stuff regularly paying a little more, especially since there’s significant overlap between those people and fans of all these teams. Put the tax on the ballot. I’ll vote yes. My partner says she would too.”
Another reader framed it more simply:
“Yes. Increasing taxes on cigarettes decreases the rate of smoking in teens.”
Some supporters acknowledged their position was easier because they do not smoke or drink.
Go regional
Many readers argued the burden should extend beyond Cuyahoga County, since fans come from across Northeast Ohio.
“I support it and also think it should be expanded to surrounding counties as many of the folks who attend games do not live in Cuyahoga – myself included.”
One reader wrote:
“7 county regional tax is the right solution as all residents in those counties benefit from the 3 teams. All should share the costs. Pretty simple, right?”
Others asked why Lake, Lorain, Geauga and Summit residents — who attend games and identify as Browns, Cavs and Guardians fans — should get to use the facilities without contributing to them.
The Browns complication
The potential new football stadium in Brook Park loomed large in the responses. The covered stadium that the Browns plan to build there would not get sin taxes for repairs for some years, as it would be a new stadium that doesn’t need extra money for maintenance yet. But the move to Brook Park has been controversial. Several people said their vote would depend on whether the Browns get any money.
“Not if it pays for the Brook Park Billionaire Bowl.”
“If the sin tax goes to Browns, NO.”
Weariness with the debate
Perhaps most telling was the fatigue.
“No. I have honestly voted for that several times in the past. But it is getting so old that these teams aren’t agreeing to help pay some of these costs. And we continue to go back to the sin tax over and over again. There needs to be a more sustainable option.”
That sentiment — exhaustion with repeated stadium funding fights — ran through the responses.