PDA

View Full Version : RTV 6 | Panel Passes CIB Bailout ; Colts Refuse (Post 56)



BillS
03-26-2009, 03:31 PM
Legislature looks at raising alcohol taxes to bail out CIB
By Mary Beth Schneider

Negotiations are under way in the legislature to bail out the financially struggling Capital Improvement Board, possibly by raising alcohol taxes.

<a href="http://www.indystar.com/article/20090326/NEWS05/90326030/-1/nletter07?source=nletter-news">http://www.indystar.com/article/20090326/NEWS05/90326030/-1/nletter07?source=nletter-news</a>


Looks like I picked a good year to <strike>give up</strike> <strike>cut back on</strike> pay more for drinking.

duke dynamite
03-26-2009, 03:35 PM
Hmm. Interesting.

idioteque
03-26-2009, 03:54 PM
Sounds good to me, at least from the outset.

duke dynamite
03-26-2009, 04:02 PM
I would rather have higher taxes imposed on tobacco than alcohol.

Either way, we need to get some money flowing.

Sorry if that was too risque for politics.

stevo
03-26-2009, 04:05 PM
Legislature looks at raising alcohol taxes to bail out CIB
By Mary Beth Schneider

Negotiations are under way in the legislature to bail out the financially struggling Capital Improvement Board, possibly by raising alcohol taxes.

<a href="http://www.indystar.com/article/20090326/NEWS05/90326030/-1/nletter07?source=nletter-news">http://www.indystar.com/article/20090326/NEWS05/90326030/-1/nletter07?source=nletter-news</a>


Looks like I picked a good year to <strike>give up</strike> <strike>cut back on</strike> pay more for drinking.

It will interesting if this brings back the debate on selling alcohol on Sundays?
Just recently I thought I heard there was a proposal, I could be wrong. To me it just makes sense to allow it. Im not a heavy drinker so this dosnt effect me probably, but in this economy we have Change our way of thinking to survive.

Smoothdave1
03-26-2009, 04:15 PM
Taxation was/is destined to occur. The CIB cannot obviously support themselves and needs an influx of revenue to continue moving forward and for sustainability. Given their current shortfall, as well as an additional expected shortfall once the Pacers re-negotiate their lease, there doesn't appear that they can survive without financial assistance.

I predict there will be an increase in the alcohol tax with proceeds going to the CIB as well as for other causes. This is a long session and a deal will be worked out in the next month, I hope.

Justin Tyme
03-26-2009, 06:34 PM
I would rather have higher taxes imposed on tobacco


Yesterday a carton of cigarettes at the grocery store was $47 dollars. 2 weeks ago they were $40 for the same carton of cigarettes. I stopped at my local station and asked what their price for the same carton was. Answer was $52 a carton. I asked what happened, and the explaination was that their supplier raised prices March 8 and that there would be another raise in the price of cigarettes April 1 from the State. "Sounds like you are getting your wish."

For the carton a week smoker it is going to be costing them $200- 250 a month for their habit. And to think I can remember when store bought cigarettes( Pall Mall, Chesterfields, Old Gold, Camels, Lucky Strikes, Marvels) were 2 bits or less a pack or rolling your own cigarettes from Prince Albert, and a 6 pack of beer was 8 bits.

Yeah, raise those alky and tobaccy taxes!

Bball
03-26-2009, 09:00 PM
The idiocy of the CIB is what precipitated this mess in the first place.

Now they want to raise more taxes to pay for their blunders?

How about the legislature legislate the CIB and the dodos that run it out
of existance. How about that for a bailout?

And while they're at it, how about they pass a law that says any government
official or politician who dare suggest anything other than lower taxes, eliminating
them altogether, or smaller government, be subject to immediate punishment
by guillotine.

They could do that... but then everything would have "user fees" instead....

The downtown Indy casino is coming to pay for the Colts and Pacers. It also fits in with the plan to make Indy even more convention friendly. That's my prediction. There will be sporadic opposition from this politician and that politician. New taxes and user fees will be proposed... some enacted... and then one day they'll say "This is the only way". And once it's reality they'll all race to get in line and proclaim they had a hand in bringing a downtown casino to Indy to further its status as an up and coming city.

That is unless the NCAA balks at a downtown casino and there's not enough money to make them change their mind....

You can't build sporting palaces and give away the spoils to someone else without finding a way to fund the expenses. And eventually, the well runs dry on putting your hands back in taxpayer pockets. The taxes become too repressive for the businesses to survive and more than taxpayers are willing to bear.

Step right up to the one-armed bandit... Completely voluntary.

Sure there are reasons to be opposed although I absolutely think arguing they increase crime is just a waste of time. I think a better argument is what harm it would do to existing Indiana casinos.

Sometime soon the tipping point will be reached.... Losing either team, or even risking won't be an option. Not in the current climate.

BillS
03-26-2009, 09:37 PM
You know, Georgia passed their Lottery based on a scholarship for any in-state student who had a B average or better getting free tuition and some book money (not room or board) for a state school.

I didn't buy a single lottery ticket, but I put one daughter through 4 years of school plus a son and another daughter through a year each for free.

By my calculations, that adds up to about $26,000 I "won" in the Georgia Lottery.

So go for it, Indiana. Do the same. W00t!

Dr. Goldfoot
03-26-2009, 10:49 PM
I doubt (but seriously support) a downtown casino. It would absolutely kill Anderson, West Baden and that one that opened last weekend in Shelbyville.

BillS
03-27-2009, 09:49 AM
I doubt (but seriously support) a downtown casino. It would absolutely kill Anderson, West Baden and that one that opened last weekend in Shelbyville.

Dunno that it would kill West Baden, which has historical context, architectural uniqueness, and other positive features to add to being a casino.

Heck, I don't gamble but I'm really hoping to score a weekend getaway there at some point.

duke dynamite
03-27-2009, 10:27 AM
Dunno that it would kill West Baden, which has historical context, architectural uniqueness, and other positive features to add to being a casino.

Heck, I don't gamble but I'm really hoping to score a weekend getaway there at some point.
It's reaaaallllly nice.

Let us know if/when you ever go down there. We'll show you around.

WetBob
03-27-2009, 10:34 AM
The downtown casino idea seems to have been around for years and but has obviously yet to come to fruition. I'd love to see it happen, I just question if it ever will, since it hasn't already.

I'll gladly go to a casino, play blackjack and drink on the house without the worry of any kind of alcohol tax increase.

Duke Dynamite...clearly you aren't a smoker if you want tobacco taxes to go up any more. Good lord, they are ridiculous right now as it is. It costs you an arm and a leg just to kill yourself now a days.

duke dynamite
03-27-2009, 10:42 AM
The downtown casino idea seems to have been around for years and but has obviously yet to come to fruition. I'd love to see it happen, I just question if it ever will, since it hasn't already.

I'll gladly go to a casino, play blackjack and drink on the house without the worry of any kind of alcohol tax increase.

Duke Dynamite...clearly you aren't a smoker if you want tobacco taxes to go up any more. Good lord, they are ridiculous right now as it is. It costs you an arm and a leg just to kill yourself now a days.
Anything to keep my streets and sidewalks clean and butt-free. I'm tired of it!

I'd rather not get into the many reasons why I hate smoking (the reasons are obvious), but I agree with the idea for a casino downtown. (I do not gamble, either.)

BillS
03-27-2009, 01:30 PM
Duke Dynamite...clearly you aren't a smoker if you want tobacco taxes to go up any more. Good lord, they are ridiculous right now as it is. It costs you an arm and a leg just to kill yourself now a days.

I suppose I could support getting money somewhere else if it makes it cheaper for you to kill yourself...

duke dynamite
03-27-2009, 01:39 PM
I suppose I could support getting money somewhere else if it makes it cheaper for you to kill yourself...

http://daniel-montero.conquenses.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/suicide-booth.jpg

Wu-Gambino
03-27-2009, 01:50 PM
The downtown casino idea seems to have been around for years and but has obviously yet to come to fruition. I'd love to see it happen, I just question if it ever will, since it hasn't already.

I'll gladly go to a casino, play blackjack and drink on the house without the worry of any kind of alcohol tax increase.

Duke Dynamite...clearly you aren't a smoker if you want tobacco taxes to go up any more. Good lord, they are ridiculous right now as it is. It costs you an arm and a leg just to kill yourself now a days.
If you think cigarettes are expensive here, go to New Jersey, Washington, or New York. Hell, don't even consider buying cigarettes in New York City:
http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/local&id=6057631
http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/rate/cigarett.html

Since86
03-27-2009, 02:56 PM
I doubt (but seriously support) a downtown casino. It would absolutely kill Anderson, West Baden and that one that opened last weekend in Shelbyville.

It wouldn't kill Anderson either, because of the horse races. They did quite well before the casino went in and will continue to do so because they offer something no one else does.

EDIT: Unless it's winter.

Smoothdave1
03-27-2009, 03:30 PM
I doubt you'll ever see a downtown casino. Both Hoosier Park and Indiana Live had to pay a huge amount to land the licenses from the Indiana Gaming Commission and are already talking about reducing those figures.

And yes, contrary to what people say, Hoosier Park and Indiana Live and even West Baden and some of the other casinos throughout Indiana would lobby heavily against a downtown Indy casino.

The CIB will likely be bailed out by the legislature with earmarks for the Pacers as well as other projects throughout Indiana.

stevo
03-27-2009, 03:46 PM
I doubt you'll ever see a downtown casino. Both Hoosier Park and Indiana Live had to pay a huge amount to land the licenses from the Indiana Gaming Commission and are already talking about reducing those figures.

And yes, contrary to what people say, Hoosier Park and Indiana Live and even West Baden and some of the other casinos throughout Indiana would lobby heavily against a downtown Indy casino.

The CIB will likely be bailed out by the legislature with earmarks for the Pacers as well as other projects throughout Indiana.

I agree 100%. Just look at Atlantic City. After I believe it was 1976 when they passed the law that allowed Casio's, The inner city thrived but the outskirts of the city became a slum. You are probably thinking, well Indianapolis is like this now. Well it would only get worse. Leave the gambling at the horse tracks. keep our city clean and free of the trash that would roll in if we built a casino downtown. . Just my :twocents:

Bball
03-27-2009, 03:51 PM
I doubt you'll ever see a downtown casino. Both Hoosier Park and Indiana Live had to pay a huge amount to land the licenses from the Indiana Gaming Commission and are already talking about reducing those figures.

And yes, contrary to what people say, Hoosier Park and Indiana Live and even West Baden and some of the other casinos throughout Indiana would lobby heavily against a downtown Indy casino.

The CIB will likely be bailed out by the legislature with earmarks for the Pacers as well as other projects throughout Indiana.

The problem is: When do you hit the point of diminishing returns? If you tax too much you end up hurting the numbers at the businesses that you counted on for tax dollars. If you somehow hit the people directly you eventually take away the money that they would be able to put towards luxuries such as going to Pacer games, spending on concessions, etc.. Plus they quit visiting the establishments that are already taxed to pay for the stadiums. So now you have downtown businesses seeing diminished profits and your revenue stream is hurt even more. Taxing is not a bottomless pit that can continue to be mined.

If we're not already there, we're getting close.

At least the casino is 100% voluntary.

I do think the other casinos would be hurt. People who just want to have a little fun gambling are going to go to the nearest casino. Every new casino has to take away from the potential market each casino is drawing from.

French Lick has some huge impediments, not the least of which is the limited access route(s) there. It's not like they are a couple of miles off the interstate. The 'get-away' attraction is limited at best. For most people that is a once a year, if that, reason to head to French Lick.

Don't fool yourself into thinking French Lick is now hugely successful.

I'm sure the other casinos will balk at a DT casino. The compromises likely are "we don't build the DT casino but we tax you other casinos more for your exclusivity" or "We build the DT casino but we'll cut taxes or give you a piece of the pie of the downtown casino (in whatever way that could be made to work).

My prediction still stands that the DT casino is coming. The wheels are in motion. It might be a few years down the road.... but it's coming. I'm sure they've known it all along that it's a question of "when" not "if". I'm sure the plans are much more detailed than the public knows or most would even suspect.

I think it's just a shame they don't cut to the chase and get it over with rather than dragging it out for years waiting for the 'right' time, enacting some interim taxes that will be hard to get rid of, and continue these public financing arguments that will continue to get more contentious as the gravy train comes to an end.

Bball
03-27-2009, 04:15 PM
BTW... I'm not exactly 'for' the casino even though my post read that way. I just think it's a foregone conclusion that it's coming. As long as billionaire team owners aren't required to pay their own way and have the ability to (all but) require taxpayers to support their endeavors PLUS expect support at the ticket window too, financing will naturally funnel that way. There is a point of diminishing returns when it comes to taxing people and businesses and we're fast reaching it if not already well in the middle of it.

-Bball

Roaming Gnome
03-27-2009, 06:06 PM
Indystar.com
By: Mary Beth Schneider and Brendan O''Shaughnessy
http://www.indystar.com/article/20090327/LOCAL18/903270383/-1/ARCHIVE


March 27, 2009

Lawmakers: CIB fix will be 'shared pain'

Higher taxes, cash from Colts are options to overcome $20M shortfall

By Mary Beth Schneider and Brendan O'Shaughnessy
mary.beth.schneider@indystar.com

Solving the financial woes afflicting the Capital Improvement Board will be the responsibility of Marion County taxpayers, fans, visitors and Indianapolis' two largest sports teams.

That was the sentiment most clearly heard Thursday at the Statehouse, where lawmakers have been engaged in intense behind-closed-doors negotiations to find a way to bail out the agency that runs sports stadiums in Indianapolis.

Few specifics were available, but legislative leaders said many options were being discussed -- including requiring the Indianapolis Colts to pony up money, raising alcohol or hotel and restaurant taxes, and expanding special tax districts that already capture sales and income taxes for special purposes such as the arenas. Even raising parking meter fees has been floated.

Most likely, they said, is finding a way to tap a revenue stream that takes dollars from those who actually benefit from the facilities -- and doesn't tax people across the state to help out Marion County.

"Obviously, we're stuck trying to find an answer here. We're going to have to pass some legislation," said Senate President Pro Tempore David Long, R-Fort Wayne.

"My goal, and I think a lot of people's goal, is to try to make this pretty much a Marion County solution for the CIB. Whether that's possible or not remains to be seen."

The CIB is facing a $20 million shortfall this year, and that could grow next year if the Indiana Pacers, who are losing money, can't pay the team's $15 million share of the costs of Conseco Fieldhouse.

The lobbying at the Statehouse began weeks ago. On Wednesday, Herb Simon, co-owner of the Pacers, met with Gov. Mitch Daniels, though details of what they discussed were not available.

Sen. Luke Kenley, the Noblesville Republican who is working with Rep. Bill Crawford, D-Indianapolis, on the issue, said lawmakers would meet again next week with "all of the appropriate parties."

"It's probably going to be behind closed doors to get a feel about where we could go," he said.

A contribution from the Colts was at the top of the list for many lawmakers.

House Speaker B. Patrick Bauer, D-South Bend, said legislators wonder "why there is no contribution from the Colts to equal what the Pacers contribute."

The Colts negotiated what many now regard as a sweetheart deal for Lucas Oil Stadium, pocketing an estimated $41 million annually in new revenue above the $150 million a year the club had made at its old stadium, the RCA Dome.

Kenley said he's had a couple of meetings with Colts attorney Dan Emerson about the issue.

"Everybody wants to solve the problem. Nobody is very happy about giving up any revenues or finding revenues on their own part. It's going to be a shared pain," he said.

Colts owner Jim Irsay was unavailable for comment. Greg Schenkel, vice president of sports and entertainment for the Pacers, said the team is "not engaged in any active discussions (with lawmakers). We've been asked questions about our situation. This is not about the Pacers. It's about the CIB."

Lawmakers expressed frustration Thursday that Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard has not laid out a proposal for what is essentially a city problem.

Senate Minority Leader Vi Simpson, D-Ellettsville, said Ballard needs to "take a position on a solution before it's put out there for a vote."

Ballard declined an interview, instead issuing a statement that said: "We have been open and forthcoming with the legislature about the severity of our situation, and I appreciate the effort the legislators are making to help find a solution. I look forward to a continued and constructive dialogue with all stakeholders."

A month ago, Ballard said he would prefer a ticket or admissions tax that collects from the stadiums' users rather than a general tax such as food and beverage.

But he has said little publicly over the past few weeks about the ongoing negotiations with the legislature.

Additional Facts
What are the odds?
Food and beverage taxes: Bumping up Marion County's 2 percent food and beverage tax by 1 percentage point would bring in $18 million a year. This is one of the best options because it raises the most money. But opposition from taxpayer groups would be high. Odds: Still alive.

Hotel taxes: An increase of 1 percent in Marion County's 9 percent hotel/motel tax would drum up $4 million a year. The hotel industry is opposed to any increase, saying it would make it more difficult for Indianapolis to compete against other cities for convention business. Odds: On the table.

Raising admission taxes: Increasing Marion County's 6 percent admissions tax by 1 percentage point would bring in $1.5 million a year. Mayor Greg Ballard likes this idea, though the Indiana Pacers are especially loath to do this because it would make it harder for the team, already struggling with thin turnout, to draw crowds. Odds: Possible.

Concessions from the teams: The Indianapolis Colts now get a share of revenues generated during non-Colts events at Lucas Oil Stadium. Giving that up would mean $3.5 million for the Capital Improvement Board a year. The Pacers hope the CIB will assume $15 million a year in operating costs at Conseco Fieldhouse. As a compromise, the CIB might assume a portion of that amount. Odds: Uncertain.

Expanding taxing districts: Adding new hotels and other stadium-related businesses to a sales tax increment financing district in Downtown would generate $10 million a year. Odds: Possible.

Alcohol tax: Indiana's spirits, wine and beer taxes are on the low end, but lawmakers are more interested in solutions that affect Marion County alone, not the whole state. The taxes raise about $42 million a year, which is split between the state and local governments. Odds: Unlikely.


Alcohol taxes
Note: All amounts are per gallon.

In Indiana
» Spirits: $2.68.
» Table wine: 47 cents.
» Beer: 11.5 cents.

In neighboring states
» Illinois: $4.50 for spirits, 73 cents for wine, 18.5 cents for beer.
» Kentucky: $1.94 for spirits, 50 cents for wine, 10 cents for beer. (There's an extra 11 percent wholesale tax on alcohol.)
» Ohio: $8.73 for spirits, 32 cents for wine, 18 cents for beer. (State controls alcohol sales.)

Source: The Tax Foundation, data as of January

Roaming Gnome
04-01-2009, 08:20 PM
WTHR.com
By: Mary Milz
http://www.wthr.com/Global/story.asp?S=10112654&nav=menu188_2


Lawmakers Propose $45M Plan to Fund CIB, Pacers
Mary Milz/Eyewitness News

Indianapolis - State lawmakers have come up with a $45 million plan to keep the Pacers in Indianapolis and help the city's Capital Improvement Board solve its budget shortfall.

Sen. Luke Kenley, R - Noblesville said the plan calls for "contributions from all parties." He said that includes the Pacers, the Colts and their fans through a "ticket tax so people who game to the games can pay their share."

Kenley said the under the plan, the CIB will be asked to make further budget cuts (in addition to the $7.4 million already announced) and the city will be given the authority to raise hospitality taxes. He said raising the state alcohol tax is another possibility.

"It's being looked at along with lots of other things," he said. "There are no easy ways to do this, so who knows what the mix will be."

John Livengood, who heads the Indiana Restaurant Association said raising restaurant and hotel taxes would be "a terrible mistake" because Indianapolis "would have the highest hospitality taxes in the country and that's a bad way to lure people."

Livengood also criticized any attempt to raise alcohol taxes. He said 'historically it's been unpopular and secondly it doesn't raise a lot of money."

According to the Indiana Department of Revenue, state alcohol taxes were last increased in 1981. Last year, alcohol taxes generated nearly $44 million. The state shares part of the revenue with cities and towns.

Kenley stressed the legislation wasn't just about helping Indianapolis. New monies would also be provided for other parts of the state.

"We think the bill is a vehicle to help other communities do things," he said. "For instance, there's language in there for Fort Wayne to help with their convention center up."

Another part of the plan involves expanding the Professional Sports Development District. The district includes Lucas Oil Stadium, Conseco Fieldhouse, Victory Field and the convention center, with the income and sales taxes generated at those facilities helping to pay for them.

Kenley said he's briefed all the key players on the funding plan, including the Pacers, who expect to lose $30 million this year. The Pacers have asked the CIB to pick up the tab for running Conseco Fieldhouse, about $15 million a year.

Asked about the feedback he's received from the teams, Kenley said, "I think they're glad we're working on a solution but they may not be glad about the way we're laying it out."

Kenley will unveil further details about the plan during a committee hearing Thursday morning.

Roaming Gnome
04-01-2009, 08:26 PM
Something I also found interesting...

Howey Politics Indiana
By: Brian A Howey
http://www.howeypolitics.com/2009/04/01/cib-bailout-something-for-every-city/

CIB Bailout: Something for every city
INDIANAPOLIS - The next two Thursdays will go a long way toward shaping the final outcome of the Indiana General Assembly when it comes to the Capital Improvement Board bailout, the biennial budget, and perhaps even local government reform.
Senate Appropriations Chairman Luke Kenley has scheduled a briefing on a CIB solution at 5 p.m. today.
This Thursday, the Senate Appropriations Committe will hear HB1604, originally a hodgepodge of Allen and Vanderburgh county wants. Informed and reliable Senate sources tell HPI that it will be the vehicle for a CIB bailout that will not only benefit Indianapolis, “but every community in the state.” It is being driven by Senate President David Long and Sen. Kenley. The source said that everyone - the Pacers, Colts, CIB, Indianapolis - “all have to have skin in the game.” The source said that dealing with the Pacers has been much more “cordial” than dealing with the Colts.

***Please login to view the entire article.***

I don't subscribe to this news letter, so I couldn't open the whole article

Putnam
04-01-2009, 08:36 PM
Evidently the Indianapolis casino idea has been ruled out. It is amazing how quickly gambling has turned sour.


.

Roaming Gnome
04-01-2009, 08:40 PM
RTV 6
By Norman Cox?
http://www.theindychannel.com/news/19069449/detail.html

INDIANAPOLIS -- State lawmakers will soon be asked to double the tax on alcohol in an effort to help bail out the massive operating deficit of Indianapolis' professional sporting venues.

Doubling the wholesale tax on beer, wine and spirits would bring in $42 million a year, or just about enough to cover the worst-case cost of operating Lucas Oil Stadium, Conseco Fieldhouse, Victory Field and the Indiana Convention Center put forth by the Indianapolis Capital Improvement Board, 6News' Norman Cox reported.

However, under the plan that will be proposed to lawmakers, only about $8 million from the alcohol tax would go to shoring up the deficit. The rest would be split up by cities and towns around the state.

To cover the rest of the deficit, lawmakers will also be asked to raise local hotel and motel taxes, as well as the food and beverage tax, and impose higher fees on tickets to stadium events.

But many lawmakers from Marion County and surrounding areas said Wednesday that their constituents are skeptical about bailing out the CIB when the professional teams aren't committed to giving anything back.

"People in Morgan County, and in general in my representative district, are opposed to that because of the popular perception that we're helping millionaire athletes and millionaire team owners," said Rep. Ralph Foley, R-Martinsville.

Colts executives wouldn't comment on what they might pitch in or even if they've been asked.

But the head of the CIB told Cox Wednesday that the team had been asked to contribute, but had not responded.

"They haven't told me that they're participating yet, but I'm hopeful that they will," said CIB President Bob Grand.

The Senate Appropriations Committee will vote on the bailout measure Thursday. The wholesale alcohol tax has not been changed in 28 years.

------------------------------------------------

Why is the mainstream local media dancing around the Colts? Sounds like the dealing with the Colts in this whole thing has been "difficult".

Naptown_Seth
04-01-2009, 08:47 PM
Evidently the Indianapolis casino idea has been ruled out. It is amazing how quickly gambling has turned sour.


.Thank god. My dad lived in Charlotte and I saw the video casinos on holidays. It's sad.

I like to gamble personally and I live downtown and I want no part of this as a solution. Money doesn't come for free, someone must be losing it rather than buying a car, Pacers tix, a new water heater, whatever.

The state is already plenty deep in the gambling biz. Let's get the income from a process that's a bit more productive to the overall economy as well.


impose higher fees on tickets to stadium events.
What a novel idea. People using the arena end up paying for the arena. It's almost like capitalism or something. ;)

Bball
04-01-2009, 08:50 PM
Why is the mainstream local media dancing around the Colts? Sounds like the dealing with the Colts in this whole thing has been "difficult".

Do they mean originally, or ~now~? If it is now, it's probably because the Colts signed their deal in good faith (whether they couldn't keep from laughing or not) and now are being asked to renegotiate an already negotiated deal.

Also, I thought part of the Colt deal was that a ticket tax couldn't be again added to the tickets? Wasn't that in the deal or was that a gentlemen's agreement that has went sour? That could also be a sore point (if my memory is correct).

And, has anything really been decided that we didn't already know (or could have guessed)? Of course the CIB was going to get funds and of course the Pacers were going to get what they were asking for. It was always the 'how' that was the real question. It seems to me that they've stated the obvious ("We're going to fund these entities") but the 'how' is still very much in question and being debated.

Bball
04-01-2009, 08:57 PM
Thank god. My dad lived in Charlotte and I saw the video casinos on holidays. It's sad.

I like to gamble personally and I live downtown and I want no part of this as a solution. Money doesn't come for free, someone must be losing it rather than buying a car, Pacers tix, a new water heater, whatever.

The state is already plenty deep in the gambling biz. Let's get the income from a process that's a bit more productive to the overall economy as well.


I still say it's coming... Whether we want it or not. Get back with me in about 10 years or so and let's see where the conversation is at.

They will get to a point where they will say "We've done everything possible and it's still not enough. There's too much resistance to increased taxes and user fees... The casino is our last hope"

IMO it is the valve that our elected officials know is there and know at some point they know they will open it.

Roaming Gnome
04-01-2009, 09:06 PM
I think it is interesting that the big story is on "Indiana doubling the alcohol tax" to bail out the CIB, yet the CIB only gets about $8M of the money. In the end, I could see the Pacers and the CIB getting most of the blame "statewide" eventhough they are only getting less then a 1/5 of the money raised.

duke dynamite
04-01-2009, 11:50 PM
That break we got on our season ticket prices is only temporary, then.

:P

Roaming Gnome
04-02-2009, 12:10 AM
The last form of the Marion County ticket tax was absorbed by the Pacers. Who knows about this time. It will strait suck if it's a flat fee per ticket. Pacer STH's are going to take it up the keester about 45 times where the Colt STH only deals with it 10 times.

Seems fair. :pissed:

Edit:> The current Marion County ticket tax is currently based on a percentage (6%) of the total. Its speculated in past articles that the ticket tax would just be increased from the current percentage. The only talk of a flat fee was during the original lease negotiations of Lucas Oil Stadium. The $3 ticket tax was a deal breaker with the Colts.

duke dynamite
04-02-2009, 12:14 AM
Yep, God bless the Colts, but man...does the city realize that the Pacers could potentially play up to 50+ games in Indiana per year?

If they were to impose a tax on tickets, it would be a good idea if TPTB would work out a way to charge a flat fee, er, a single "administration fee" for the STH.

Hopefully they would reward the faithful, with a lower rate at least.

Bball
04-02-2009, 12:41 AM
The last form of the Marion County ticket tax was absorbed by the Pacers. Who knows about this time. It will strait suck if it's a flat fee per ticket. Pacer STH's are going to take it up the keester about 45 times where the Colt STH only deals with it 10 times.



I get your point but then look at how many more people are brought in per game at the Colts.

9 games at 70,000 = 630,000 ppl

41 games at 17,000 = 697,000 ppl

I'll let you guys argue how realistic those attendance numbers are for every home game during the regular season or to factor preseason games in.

A flat fee wouldn't allow either team to strongly argue the other is footing more of the bill.

-Bball

Roaming Gnome
04-02-2009, 12:56 AM
I get your point but then look at how many more people are brought in per game at the Colts.

9 games at 70,000 = 630,000 ppl

41 games at 17,000 = 697,000 ppl

I'll let you guys argue how realistic those attendance numbers are for every home game during the regular season or to factor preseason games in.


-Bball

Look at it this way:

You have 2 electricians, Lloyd and Eric. Eric has season tickets to the Pacers at a price of $900 a seat. Lloyd has season tickets to the Colts at $820 a seat . If Marion County had a flat fee of $3 per ticket for their tax. Lloyd would pay a total of $30 in tax while ol' Eric would pay a total of $135 in tax. Does that seem right?


A flat fee wouldn't allow either team to strongly argue the other is footing more of the bill.But, one team could argue who's customers are getting screwed the hardest leading to an overall loss of customers!

Bball
04-02-2009, 01:43 AM
Look at it this way:

You have 2 electricians, Lloyd and Eric. Eric has season tickets to the Pacers at a price of $900 a seat. Lloyd has season tickets to the Colts at $820 a seat . If Marion County had a flat fee of $3 per ticket for their tax. Lloyd would pay a total of $30 in tax while ol' Eric would pay a total of $135 in tax. Does that seem right?



First I need to know more about Lloyd and Eric. If they each run a 150' 10-4 SO extension cable, only to learn they ran it backwards (male plug on the wrong end) what would each do to correct the situation?


I digress... I don't know what seems right. I just wish the teams could support themselves straight up. Technically, doesn't it start sounding a bit bizzaro world to put a tax on tickets to turn around and put that tax money back into the operating costs of the teams and their stadiums instead of just raising the ticket prices and keeping government out of it?

Am I just that far 'out there' with my thinking on this?

Roaming Gnome
04-02-2009, 04:22 AM
First I need to know more about Lloyd and Eric. If they each run a 150' 10-4 SO extension cable, only to learn they ran it backwards (male plug on the wrong end) what would each do to correct the situation?


I digress... I don't know what seems right. I just wish the teams could support themselves straight up. Technically, doesn't it start sounding a bit bizzaro world to put a tax on tickets to turn around and put that tax money back into the operating costs of the teams and their stadiums instead of just raising the ticket prices and keeping government out of it?

Am I just that far 'out there' with my thinking on this?

What would require 150' of 10-4 SO cord? Anyway, putting the wrong cord cap on wouldn't the end of the world unless something got crossed... "Boom Baby"!

If the rest of private business didn't ever put their hands out... I'd be on board with what you are saying. IMHO, there are reasons and rewards for taxpayers to support pro-sports just as there are reasons and rewards for taxpayers to support private business. Do those reasons and rewards outweigh the fact that they are taxpayer supported? That is often debated and I'm not going to get into specifics because frankly I really don't know. People a lot more knowledgeable then I can produce stats to support either side of this argument to the point that all I see is an answer with "fuzzy" math surrounding it.

Bball
04-02-2009, 04:40 AM
What would require 150' of 10-4 SO cord?

Something that needs something approaching 80% of 30A (per leg) and/or doesn't like too much voltage drop! :)



If the rest of private business didn't ever put their hands out... I'd be on board with what you are saying. IMHO, there are reasons and rewards for taxpayers to support pro-sports just as there are reasons and rewards for taxpayers to support private business. Do those reasons and rewards outweigh the fact that they are taxpayer supported? That is often debated and I'm not going to get into specifics because frankly I really don't know. People a lot more knowledgeable then I can produce stats to support either side of this argument to the point that all I see is an answer with "fuzzy" math surrounding it.

But why not just raise the ticket prices and let the Pacers apply that money directly towards their operating expenses? ...Instead of adding a tax on the tickets, adding a layer of paperwork, and funneling the collected tax money back to operating expenses? ...The same place the money would've gone anyway....

IOW- If seeing the ticket prices be higher was an option, why didn't the Pacers just do that instead to begin with? Is a 30.00 ticket more palpable with that including 3.00 of tax instead of a 30.00 ticket that doesn't have 3.00 of tax added in?

able
04-02-2009, 06:52 AM
I get your point but then look at how many more people are brought in per game at the Colts.

9 games at 70,000 = 630,000 ppl

41 games at 17,000 = 697,000 ppl

I'll let you guys argue how realistic those attendance numbers are for every home game during the regular season or to factor preseason games in.

A flat fee wouldn't allow either team to strongly argue the other is footing more of the bill.

-Bball


Tiny correction:

Lucas Oil Colts cap = 63000
CFH capacity = 18354

9 x 63000 = 567,000
45 x 18000 = 810,000

If you assume capacity at all time for one, do the same for both, Colts certainly have not always sold out

I will not add that the Colts also get money from for instance the NCAA or that the Pacers pay ticket tax which according to an agreement can not be put on Colts tickets.

Unclebuck
04-02-2009, 08:18 AM
Between the radio and people here at the airport all I have heard all day is what a bunch a thugs the Pacers are and why we don't want them.

I guess it is going to take a few more years for the past to be the past

duke dynamite
04-02-2009, 09:16 AM
Between the radio and people here at the airport all I have heard all day is what a bunch a thugs the Pacers are and why we don't want them.

I guess it is going to take a few more years for the past to be the past
I've heard it a few times down here still.

Just because you have an uneducated opinion doesn't mean you have to use it.

idioteque
04-02-2009, 09:41 AM
Between the radio and people here at the airport all I have heard all day is what a bunch a thugs the Pacers are and why we don't want them.

I guess it is going to take a few more years for the past to be the past

Probably, but it is getting better. Once Hoosiers have an opinion on something, it takes longer for the opinion to be dispelled than it would in other places. A good sign is that in Pacer beat articles people responding to them on the Star website actually are mostly discussing issues relevant to the team itself rather if the team is full of thugs are not.

But there are going to be some grouchy people that just don't like professional sports and will go under the guise of hating the Pacers to express that.

Putnam
04-02-2009, 10:13 AM
But there are going to be some grouchy people that just don't like professional sports and will go under the guise of hating the Pacers to express that.


This is true. I'd add, though, that not all who remain sour on the Pacers are "grouchy people that just don't like professional sports."

The disinterested general public formed a negative opinion of the Pacers a couple of years ago. They turned way from them and sought amusement elsewhere. Since then, the Pacers roster has been purged and is now a bunch of likeable guys who play hard and are a credit to the city and state.

But that message isn't getting through to those disintersted people. It's not that they deny that Roy and Brandon are great young kids. It's that they don't know anything about them. They aren't reading stories about the Pacers in the newspapers, aren't reading this forum, aren't going onto pacers.com, aren't listening to The Jim O'Brien Show.

Writing off the real haters is inevitable. But PC&E has a lot of work ahead of it to reestablish with those casual fans.


---

This proposed solution to the CIB shortfall deserves public support. The new money is all user taxes. The problem gets solved, and nobody is forced to pay anything extra.

BillS
04-02-2009, 10:30 AM
But that message isn't getting through to those disintersted people. It's not that they deny that Roy and Brandon are great young kids. It's that they don't know anything about them. They aren't reading stories about the Pacers in the newspapers, aren't reading this forum, aren't going onto pacers.com, aren't listening to The Jim O'Brien Show.

Writing off the real haters is inevitable. But PC&E has a lot of work ahead of it to reestablish with those casual fans.

I disagree that the message isn't getting through. I continue to emphasize that Pacer gear has returned to a prominent place in retail establishments, especially at places like the airport. These stores aren't doing it for the hype factor, they would only do it if such gear was a draw and was, in fact, selling again.

It may be that the message is getting through more slowly than we would like (or, better, more slowly than it would have if the team were winning). I also think that something that hits people's pocketbooks draws out the negative comments, and the most recent thing they can latch on is the "bunch of thugs" argument.

It is unfortunate that the renegotiation and the takeover of operations by the CIB - which I would bet was planned and expected by everyone when this agreement was originally put in place - coincides with the economic situation. However, imagine if this had been something that came up last season or the one before instead of this one. Hoooooooooo boy.

Jonathan
04-02-2009, 10:51 AM
That break we got on our season ticket prices is only temporary, then.

:P

If you are "locked" into a package can the Pacer's raise the price after the agreement?

Putnam
04-02-2009, 11:29 AM
Pacer gear has returned to a prominent place in retail establishments, especially at places like the airport. These stores aren't doing it for the hype factor, they would only do it if such gear was a draw and was, in fact, selling again.

I'm sure you are correct about jersey and cap sales, but I don't think it proves that the Pacers' reputation is restored.


Marketing the Pacers is a wheewj task. Thanks to Abel, we know that Conseco Fieldhouse holds 18,354 seats. Omitting exhibition games, that means 752,514 seat to sell for a season. (Of course selling out every game is unlikely, but the marketing department is there to aim for that.)

How many of those 752,514 seats are sold to a devout fan? I don't know the Pacers' season ticket sales, but the NBA league-wide sales for full-season tickets was 8,500 per team this year. That would get you 348,500 seats sold to Pacers season ticket holders, leaving 404,014 empty seats unless casual fans show up. Or, if Pacers season ticket sales was nearer the low-end of 5,800 per game, then only 237,800 seats are sold to season ticket holders and 514,714 remain empty.

Let's assume the latter. And let's assume that the typical casual fan will buy three tickets and attend two games. That would mean that the Pacers need to establish a buying relationship with 85,786 ticket-buying families or groups of casual fans in order to sell out.

I respect and admire the season ticket holders. (Especially the ones who leave their seats empty for me to poach during the second half). But the reality of marketing the Pacers is that season tickets and avid fans won't put the team in the black.

N.B. Utah sold nearly 14,000 season tickets this year, so other franchises succeed by focusing on season tickets.




Link for the 8,500 figure:

http://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/article/60465

BillS
04-02-2009, 11:55 AM
I'm sure you are correct about jersey and cap sales, but I don't think it proves that the Pacers' reputation is restored.

I never meant the reputation was restored, that is an ongoing process. I meant that the message is getting out. It isn't completely falling on deaf ears. The reputation is improving, it just isn't yet where we or the team would like to see it.

I am one of those who believes that support for the team doesn't just equal ticket sales. That's why just fixing the character of the players hasn't turned into huge increases in sales (it is hard to tell if the increase in actual tickets sold is due to the rep or the deals, but I suspect more of the latter than the former).

Fixing the character of the players has taken the stigma away from being a fan - necessary to lay groundwork for anything else that would be coming, plus necessary for not-insignificant merchandise income.

Winning translates more into actual tickets sold, particularly in this market, but that's a transformation that takes time and a little bit of good fortune. Meanwhile, you have to get people supporting the team even if it just means they start by going back to watching it on TV or listening on the radio or reading the articles in the paper.

Major Cold
04-02-2009, 12:02 PM
in order to dispel the reputation we are going to have to win while being good.

Putnam
04-02-2009, 12:50 PM
I never meant the reputation was restored, that is an ongoing process. I meant that the message is getting out. It isn't completely falling on deaf ears. The reputation is improving, it just isn't yet where we or the team would like to see it.

Okey doke. Thanks for explaining.

:highfive:

Since86
04-02-2009, 01:15 PM
Tiny correction:

Lucas Oil Colts cap = 63000
CFH capacity = 18354

9 x 63000 = 567,000
45 x 18000 = 810,000

If you assume capacity at all time for one, do the same for both, Colts certainly have not always sold out

I will not add that the Colts also get money from for instance the NCAA or that the Pacers pay ticket tax which according to an agreement can not be put on Colts tickets.

No, it's not a correction. The Colts have sold out every home game since the last game of the 1998 season, 81 games straight.

When was the last time the Pacers sold out? Hell, they're averaging less than 70% capacity right now.

If we're gonna talk numbers, let's actually talk numbers not hypotheticals.

EDIT: The correction that needs to be made is that the Colts, up until this year, were selling 56,000 tickets a game, not 63,000.

Bball
04-02-2009, 01:22 PM
No, it's not a correction. The Colts have sold out every home game since the last game of the 1998 season, 81 games straight.

When was the last time the Pacers sold out? Hell, they're averaging less than 70% capacity right now.

If we're gonna talk numbers, let's actually talk numbers not hypotheticals.

EDIT: The correction that needs to be made is that the Colts, up until this year, were selling 56,000 tickets a game, not 63,000.

His numbers also were based on 9 games for the Colts which would not include preseason games and 45 games for the Pacers which would have to include preaseason games, otherwise the number is 41. (Unless there was a typo and the math is correct. I didn't double check the math).

Since86
04-02-2009, 01:42 PM
That's not even getting into the cost of the tickets, which is extremely higher for football.

Using RG's hypothetical, Eric pays $21.91 per seat per game, whereas Lloyd pays $102.50 per seat per game.

He says paying $123 on tax for the ticket isn't fair for Eric, because Lloyd only pays $24, but Lloyd pays almost 5 times face value.

Neither are fair, IMHO.

Putnam
04-02-2009, 02:02 PM
Neither are fair, IMHO.



Who says life is fair? Where is that written?


http://www.filmdope.com/Gallery/ActorsF/5480-15223.gif

Roaming Gnome
04-02-2009, 04:20 PM
That's not even getting into the cost of the tickets, which is extremely higher for football.

Using RG's hypothetical, Eric pays $21.91 per seat per game, whereas Lloyd pays $102.50 per seat per game.

He says paying $123 on tax for the ticket isn't fair for Eric, because Lloyd only pays $24, but Lloyd pays almost 5 times face value.

Neither are fair, IMHO.

Actually, Lloyd's tickets are lower bowl tickets at Lucas Oil where my tickets are balcony at Conseco. I didn't set it up as if the tickets were of the same value, just that one was a Colt season ticket holder and the other is a Pacer season ticket holder.

Really, this is all moot because the Marion County ticket tax is a percentage of the total. Looks like that percentage will go from 6 to 10%.

Roaming Gnome
04-02-2009, 04:38 PM
RTV6.com
http://www.theindychannel.com/money/19075697/detail.html
Panel OK's CIB bailout ; Colts refuse to commit cash
By Staff reports/Norman Cox

INDIANAPOLIS -- The Indianapolis Colts refused to make any promises to help financially with a $47 million bailout bill for the Capital Improvement Board that a Senate committee approved Thursday by a 10-2 vote.

Colts president Bill Polian appeared before the committee hearing the measure, which was unveiled on Wednesday.


The bailout bill, crafted by Sen. Luke Kenley, R-Noblesville, who chairs the Senate Appropriations Committee, would raise several taxes, including those on alcohol statewide, restaurant meals and hotel stays in Marion County and tickets to sporting events in Indianapolis.

The bill also assumes $5 million a year each in contributions from the Colts and Indiana Pacers.

Pacers Chief Operating Officer Rick Fuson was upbeat about the NBA franchise's part of the deal, possibly because the Pacers would be able to get out of their current $15 million commitment to operate Conseco Fieldhouse, 6News' Norman Cox reported.

The Colts made no promise to pay anything to operate the stadium they use for $250,000 rent and from which they get most of the revenue. Polian was congenial, but only promised to talk about what the team might consider.

"We look forward to working with you and your colleagues in the Legislature in taking a look at this problem and in sharing with you data and information that we will make available to you," he said.

Polian told reporters after the hearing that the Colts contributed $100 million to building Lucas Oil Stadium. That total was covered, in part, by the $48 million fee the city paid the team for breaking the lease early at the RCA Dome.

The bill would double the wholesale tax on beer, wine and spirits. Only about $8 million from the alcohol tax would go to shore up the operating budget deficit. The rest would be split up by cities and towns around the state.

The committee heard from numerous restaurant and bar owners who said the tax would hurt them with no compensating benefit.

"I don't have locations in downtown Indianapolism, mine are out in the doughnut and the outskirts. It does not benefit us to have the Indianapolis Colts play," said Outback Steak House franchise owner John Benjamin.

To cover the rest of the shortfall, lawmakers will also be asked to raise local hotel and motel taxes from 9 to 10 percent, boost the food and beverage tax a quarter of a percent and increase the tax on stadium and fieldhouse ticket from 6 to 10 percent.
Even Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard expressed fear that hiking several of the taxes could drive away the convention business they're designed to protect.
"I'm scared to death of taxing too much to kill the convention business," he said.

The bill now goes to the full Senate.

Pacers13Colts12
04-02-2009, 05:30 PM
How about they tax the suite holders? We would not be in this mess if it wasn't for everyone wanting more suites for the wine and cheese folks. RCA dome was completely fine, we had trouble selling it out until 2 years ago. Tax them!

Also, instead of a DOWNTOWN casino, tear down Busch stadium, build a casino there, close to the track, close to downtown yet far enough away from downtown. Maybe try to revitalize that area.

Roaming Gnome
04-02-2009, 08:28 PM
How about they tax the suite holders? We would not be in this mess if it wasn't for everyone wanting more suites for the wine and cheese folks. RCA dome was completely fine, we had trouble selling it out until 2 years ago. Tax them!

Also, instead of a DOWNTOWN casino, tear down Busch stadium, build a casino there, close to the track, close to downtown yet far enough away from downtown. Maybe try to revitalize that area.

Umm...They do get taxed.

stevo
04-02-2009, 08:31 PM
It will interesting if this brings back the debate on selling alcohol on Sundays?
Just recently I thought I heard there was a proposal, I could be wrong. To me it just makes sense to allow it. Im not a heavy drinker so this dosnt effect me probably, but in this economy we have Change our way of thinking to survive.

http://www.wishtv.com/dpp/news/business/Kroger_wants_Sunday_alcohol_ban_lifted_20090402

Looks like the issue is back on the front burner thanks to Kroger.
I completely agree with their argument. It just makes sense to
allow alcohol sales on the most grocer's 2nd busiest day.
Why add more tax when we can add 1 day of sales.

beast23
04-02-2009, 09:17 PM
Remember the law of motion: "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."

I think that Sunday liquor sales is just such an issue. Restaurants are totally against Sunday sales because they believe it will not only cut into their drink sales, but also cut into their food sales as well. Their thinking is that there are is a decent number of diners that are only ordering meals because they have come into the establishment for a couple of drinks.

I personally think that most folks are capable of planning ahead to cover their Sunday alcohol needs. I don't believe that taxes would be appreciably affected one way or the other if alcohol could be purchased on Sundays.

stevo
04-02-2009, 09:33 PM
I would agree if most people went out to eat as an excuse to drink. however I don't believe this to be true. People are going to go out to eat regardless. If the argument is less people will be going out to eat, then I disagree. If the argument is people wont buy alcohol with their dinner knowing they can just stop at the liqueur store on the way home, then I will agree somewhat with this. But if they don't buy at the restaurant, then they will just spend elsewhere. So in reality the state doesn't loose. I think this deserves consideration.

BlueNGold
04-02-2009, 10:00 PM
-

The bailout bill, crafted by Sen. Luke Kenley, R-Noblesville, who chairs the Senate Appropriations Committee, would raise several taxes, including those on alcohol statewide, restaurant meals and hotel stays in Marion County and tickets to sporting events in Indianapolis.


Nothing like increasing the cost of lodging when you are preparing to expand convention space. Brilliant move.

Oh, and I bet the Chicago "Beer" fans up in Lake County are going to enjoy footing the bill for the Colts' free ride. They don't even consider themselves Indiana residents. Fort Wayne does, but is very disconnected with Indy. I don't know about Evansville, Terre Haute and 90% of the rest of the state, but I doubt they want higher taxes either. Let's just say the fact the Colts play in Indy does next to nothing for these people from a financial standpoint.



"We look forward to working with you and your colleagues in the Legislature in taking a look at this problem and in sharing with you data and information that we will make available to you," he said.


Mr. Polian - a message for you. We don't want your data, we want your money.



Polian told reporters after the hearing that the Colts contributed $100 million to building Lucas Oil Stadium. That total was covered, in part, by the $48 million fee the city paid the team for breaking the lease early at the RCA Dome.


Nice.



The bill would double the wholesale tax on beer, wine and spirits. Only about $8 million from the alcohol tax would go to shore up the operating budget deficit. The rest would be split up by cities and towns around the state.


I bet Elkhart will appreciate the increased taxes to pay for millionaires to play a game. At 20% unemployment, their residents should have a lot of time to watch the games at Walmart this winter.



The committee heard from numerous restaurant and bar owners who said the tax would hurt them with no compensating benefit.

"I don't have locations in downtown Indianapolism, mine are out in the doughnut and the outskirts. It does not benefit us to have the Indianapolis Colts play," said Outback Steak House franchise owner John Benjamin.


No kidding John. Don't be too upset though. When Peyton Manning is gone in a few years, no one will benefit....and if the Colts don't play nicely right now, they may just pay for it about that time.



To cover the rest of the shortfall, lawmakers will also be asked to raise local hotel and motel taxes from 9 to 10 percent, boost the food and beverage tax a quarter of a percent and increase the tax on stadium and fieldhouse ticket from 6 to 10 percent.
Even Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard expressed fear that hiking several of the taxes could drive away the convention business they're designed to protect.
"I'm scared to death of taxing too much to kill the convention business," he said.



Well, at least the mayor gets it. Even if it doesn't kill the convention business, it will hurt it particularly in this economy.



The bill now goes to the full Senate.

To be passed by misguided and bought-off politicians. Oh, well. No big deal when other politicians are throwing around trillions.

Bball
04-02-2009, 10:12 PM
I would agree if most people went out to eat as an excuse to drink. however I don't believe this to be true. People are going to go out to eat regardless. If the argument is less people will be going out to eat, then I disagree. If the argument is people wont buy alcohol with their dinner knowing they can just stop at the liqueur store on the way home, then I will agree somewhat with this. But if they don't buy at the restaurant, then they will just spend elsewhere. So in reality the state doesn't loose. I think this deserves consideration.

Bars that sell food can sell booze on Sundays. So the argument is that people coming in to drink on a Sunday end up buying food while they are there. Those places are worried that the Sunday drinkers will no longer have a need to come to their place on a Sunday.

Beast23 is countering that by saying he thinks the majority of people now just buy their Sunday beer earlier in the week for Sunday and that most people in the bars on a Sunday are there for other reasons (Like the socializing for example). That's something that wouldn't change.

There's Saturday booze sales everywhere and bars and restaurants seem to do OK on Saturdays (which would seem to downplay worries about what would happen to Sundays).

NuffSaid
04-03-2009, 03:01 AM
I've been keeping my distance from this topic mainly because I'm not an IN resident and haven't lived in Indiana for years though I still have family there. I think the Indiana legislature is moving in the right direction with their proposal. If you're going to address the issue of generating revenue where everyone pays their "fair share" across the board there's no better way to do it that a tax on alcohol, food and lodging.

There has been lots of debate on whether or not the local Indy residences should be "on the hook" for picking up a portion of the tab for the operating cost on the Fieldhouse. Considering that it is in effect a "public building" in the sense that a large portion of the city's tax dollars went toward the construction of the facility in the first place, it only seems fitting to get the additional money from a tax base. I know this doesn't set well with so many people - fans and non-fans alike, business owners, etc, but the reality is unless some new funding stream is identified it's very likely that the Pacers would eventually leave and the city of Indianapolis would be stuck with a beautiful facility that quite possibly would go bankrupt.

I see both sides of this dilemma: the city's residents and business owners don't want to be on the hook for a multi-billianaire's expenses, and the billianaire doesn't want to be on the hook for the majority operating cost of a facility his enterprise uses for essentially half a year. One easy solution would be to host more events at the Fieldhouse. But that's something that would take quite some time to do considering that those who do the leasing of the facility would have to find and negotiate new attractions; who knows how long that would take. The idea of raising ticket sales wouldn't fly, IMO, because as we all know the Pacers aren't filling the seats on a regular basis. Thus, increasing ticket sales (at least to Pacers games) would do more to turn fans away even more than draw them in. Besides, PS&E has already had all sorts of "bargain days" where ticket prices have been drastically reduced in an effort to win back fans. They can't afford to increase the price of tickets at this point when they're finally starting to see signs that the fans are coming back. An additional tax on ticket sales, however, wouldn't phase the purchaser much. Most people don't even factor in the sales tax on the items they buy anyway.

Consider this: You go to your local grocer to buy a can of soup, retail price, $1.39. Sales tax is $0.08 on the dollar (8%). Total sale: $1.47. Most people wouldn't bat an eye over that. Same would apply to the increased sales tax on ticket sales for all events at the Fieldhouse. A $40 ticket at 10% sales tax ($4) is nothing compared to what increasing ticket sales would "appear" to be. I think most fans can live with the "perception" that ticket prices would remain the same, but you'd pay alittle more in sales tax.

As to the food, alcohol and hotel/motel tax increase, again that shouldn't be that much of a problem as long as the tax isn't that outrageous! The issue here is tourism/conventions. From what I've read, the tax increase won't be so high where hotel/motel, restaurant chains or bars would lose business. Those who drink will still drink. Most families who attend Pacers/Colts games don't stay overnight anyway, and those who do would likely have planned their trip far in advance to where the increased hotel/motel tax wouldn't affect them; it's an "out-of-sight/out-of-mind" thing with most purchases anyway. As to those business travelers who attend business meetings/conventions, you don't really think they haven't planned such events well in advance either AND have negotiated room discount rates anyway? I work in state-government; believe me group discount rates are contracted out well in advance with hotel/motel chains. Most major business will recieve discounted room rates, some w/o sales tax. So, this argument isn't that big a hot-button issue as it's being made out to be.

To use the phrase "spread the wealth around", the tax on alcohol sales that is to be shared among all cities/municipalities throughout the state of IN is a good thing. Cities well outside of Indianapolis such as those up around Lake County or over to the East along the IN/OH stateline may complain about it at first, but once that first revenue check comes in from the state Internal Revenue Office for their share of liquor sales they'll change their minds quick. We have a similar measure here in AL w/cigarette sales. Everyone benefits; a classic win-win scenario.

There will be heartburn for some at first, but eventually people and businesses will accept it and move on - as long as the increase isn't too extreme and there isn't another tax increase for such a measure for a very long time. The Simons and CIB had better make it work! Regardless, fans and the city residence have to keep this one thing in mind: It's not an issue of the Pacers fanchise needing financial assistance to remain solvent; it's the operating expenses for maintaining the Fieldhouse that's in question. IMO, the sales tax avenue is the best way to go. The people may not like it - nobody likes paying higher taxes especially when it's for a business entity that's suppose to be able to afford to pay its own way, but in this case I'd say it's worth it to keep the Pacers in town. Contrary to popular belief, there is a lot of revenue generated by keeping your professional sports team in your town.

Sidenote: I really hope the CBA is renegotiated to allow for lower contract salaries and more revenue sharing. That would truly help solve alot of economic problems some NBA cities like Indianapolis are having in continuing to finance their team(s).

Bball
04-03-2009, 04:43 AM
I've been keeping my distance from this topic mainly because I'm not an IN resident and haven't lived in Indiana for years though I still have family there. I think the Indiana legislature is moving in the right direction with their proposal. If you're going to address the issue of generating revenue where everyone pays their "fair share" across the board there's no better way to do it that a tax on alcohol, food and lodging.

There has been lots of debate on whether or not the local Indy residences should be "on the hook" for picking up a portion of the tab for the operating cost on the Fieldhouse. Considering that it is in effect a "public building" in the sense that a large portion of the city's tax dollars went toward the construction of the facility in the first place, it only seems fitting to get the additional money from a tax base.

If the city got to share directly in the spoils of the building that it was paying to operate and had funded so much of its construction costs your argument would get more traction.





Consider this: You go to your local grocer to buy a can of soup, retail price, $1.39. Sales tax is $0.08 on the dollar (8%). Total sale: $1.47. Most people wouldn't bat an eye over that.

8% tax on a grocery item in Indiana? I will bat an eye at that!! Sales tax is 7% and we don't tax food items at the grocery store. ;)


---
On the larger point of raising taxes, at some point it's not the slight increase, it's the slight increase on top of the existing slight increases that create a problem.

You can't continue to artificially cause prices to go higher and higher without impacting the market. Either businesses are forced to eat some of the tax (by lowering prices) to remain competitive and/or maintain business (and they won't 'eat' anything without doing something to balance that... like smaller portions... cutting payroll... shorter hours.... etc)... or else they pass the tax wholly onto the consumer and hope their business can survive higher prices than they would otherwise be charging (and once again, if business slows look for firings, payroll reduction, shorter hours, etc.).

Taxes aren't 'free' money for the government.




Sidenote: I really hope the CBA is renegotiated

You and me both!

Erik
04-03-2009, 05:44 AM
STATEMENT FROM THE COLTS
By Colts.com


The Indianapolis Colts understand and are concerned about the current CIB funding shortfall as well as the financial difficulties faced by our friends at the Indiana Pacers. We understand all too well the current economic atmosphere has made operating in this climate very difficult as we have had to make cuts ourselves.

We know the work of the Indiana General Assembly is always difficult and solving problems like the shortfall facing the CIB will be made more difficult because of the current economic climate. The Indianapolis Colts will remain engaged with Senator Kenley and the leadership of all four of the House and



Senate caucuses in seeking to find an appropriate solution to this situation.

Nevertheless, the work can only be effective if people are dealing with accurate information. Thus, we feel it is critical that several misperceptions and inaccuracies about our contract with the CIB be dispelled.

Contrary to reports in today’s Indianapolis Star, the Indianapolis Colts have a significant financial investment of more than $100 million in the building of Lucas Oil Stadium, together with annual lease payments to the CIB of $250,000.00, and expense reimbursements to the CIB (which are currently in the neighborhood of $800,000 to $1,000,000 per year) throughout the life of our current contract with the City. We pay those substantial sums for the right to use Lucas Oil Stadium no more than 19 days a year. There are many other significant financial sacrifices and commitments the team has made and will continue to make as we try every season to field a championship caliber team worthy of our fans, while living within the means dictated by our smaller market. In short, contrary to the Star’s inaccurate report, we’ve already contributed a tremendous amount of money to the construction and operation of Lucas Oil Stadium and we’re contractually obligated to continue to do so for at least the next 26 years.

We remain optimistic that when all the facts and possible avenues to resolution are on the table, and considered in context, good people working together in good faith will be able to fashion a solution that’s fair and effective. We remain willing to continue our dialogue with the leaders of the General Assembly, within our own operational constraints and consistent with our principal commitment to field the best team possible—a team this City and this State can continue to be proud of both on and off the field.

http://www.colts.com/sub.cfm?page=article7&news_id=d2785ded-5e10-4028-8ebf-d01412a84f99

duke dynamite
04-03-2009, 09:27 AM
Wow. The Star becomes even less relevant to me each day now.

Major Cold
04-03-2009, 10:23 AM
Eat the Rich

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/BlkN6LzjTZo&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/BlkN6LzjTZo&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

NuffSaid
04-03-2009, 10:31 AM
If the city got to share directly in the spoils of the building that it was paying to operate and had funded so much of its construction costs your argument would get more traction.
I agree. Let me ask this: Does Indianapolis City Schools get free use of the Fieldhouse for high school graduations? What about high school basketball tournaments where the school system get the proceeds from concession sales? I'm asking because while I know such events do take place at the Fieldhouse, I don't know how the revenue is shared, if at all. Still, that's one way for the city to receive a "piece of the pie" so to speak. I'm sure there are other ways, as well. My advice: Contact your local government (city hall) and demand a townhall meeting on the matter. If enough of the city's residences are up in arms over what they view as being "over taxed" then maybe the city can begin to reap more of the benefits. Keep in mind, however, that the proposed food, alcohol and hotel/motel tax would provide an avenue of "revenue sharing". So, you'd better be on your game with that argument.


8% tax on a grocery item in Indiana? I will bat an eye at that!! Sales tax is 7% and we don't tax food items at the grocery store. ;)
Boy, do I know it! That's why cost of living in Indy remains relatively cheap - no sales tax on food at the grocers. We get away with that down here in BamaCountry because our property taxes are so low. It's a trade off I can certainly live with. :)


On the larger point of raising taxes, at some point it's not the slight increase, it's the slight increase on top of the existing slight increases that create a problem.

You can't continue to artificially cause prices to go higher and higher without impacting the market. Either businesses are forced to eat some of the tax (by lowering prices) to remain competitive and/or maintain business (and they won't 'eat' anything without doing something to balance that... like smaller portions... cutting payroll... shorter hours.... etc)... or else they pass the tax wholly onto the consumer and hope their business can survive higher prices than they would otherwise be charging (and once again, if business slows look for firings, payroll reduction, shorter hours, etc.).

Taxes aren't 'free' money for the government.
Hence, the reason I said the new tax as proposed can't be extreme nor should a new tax increase be proposed for quite some time. In this case, the people just won't stand for it. We tend to have long memories on certain issues - higher taxes to support someone else's blunderous expense is one of them. But again, I think in the case of retaining the Pacers franchise in Indianapolis, this tax proposal is a good one across the board. Just hope the Colts anti-up their fare share.

BillS
04-03-2009, 01:29 PM
To be passed by misguided and bought-off politicians. Oh, well. No big deal when other politicians are throwing around trillions.

Are you kidding? A tax increase where your local folks get revenue that you can blame 100% on someone else for causing the increase? Hell, gentlemen, sign me up to vote for that one.

Roaming Gnome
04-03-2009, 01:36 PM
I think it is rather interesting that the Colts are touting that $100M figure considering the city gave them $52M of that money to break the lease with the RCA Dome. Let me get this strait... The Colts get paid to move into a brand new stadium. Irsay gets 50% of the gate from all events that are held at the stadium (Marching Bands, Monster Trucks, HS Football, NCAA) as per the ridiculous lease the city got bent over for. Then gonna ***** about having to give something back.

Doesn't sound like The Star isn't misrepresenting the facts to me!!!
Sorry Jimmy, I know that you're team is currently the "can do no wrong", media darlings...But, that will only last so long as your team is winning at a .750 clip.

Honestly, doubling the alcohol tax is a drop in the bucket. I really don't care for the fact that the alcohol tax is being considered as a CIB bailout statewide. From the way I understand it, alcohol tax collected in Lake County stays in Lake County, alcohol tax collected in Allen County stays in Allen County. Alcohol tax collected in Marion County goes to the CIB. The raise in the alcohol tax is only going to generate $8M of the $42M deficit. Again, a drop in the bucket. To me it sounds like the alcohol tax is the "wool over the eyes" part of the trick. The other $34M dollars ($24M if the teams chip in) has to come from other less then desirable means.

Bball
04-03-2009, 01:56 PM
The raise in the alcohol tax is only going to generate $8M of the $42M deficit. Again, a drop in the bucket. To me it sounds like the alcohol tax is the "wool over the eyes" part of the trick. The other $34M dollars ($24M if the teams chip in) has to come from other less then desirable means.

Anyone who wants to give away any drops out of their money bucket please PM me. I will be more than willing to take a few drops off your hands. ;)

My slight issue here is if raising the alcohol tax, why suddenly raise it MORE than needed for the stated reason of raising it? If they want to get 8 mil for the CIB from the alcohol tax then only raise it enough to get 8 mil. If 8 mil is a shortfall of what they need, then why 'share' the alcohol tax money around the state?

If the excuse is it's "only fair" to share it... then why not share it all instead of keeping 8mil for the CIB? Wouldn't that be more 'fair'?

-Bball

BillS
04-03-2009, 03:48 PM
If the excuse is it's "only fair" to share it... then why not share it all instead of keeping 8mil for the CIB? Wouldn't that be more 'fair'?

The 8 mil is Marion County's share, which will go to the CIB as their choice of what to do with it.

Roaming Gnome
04-03-2009, 04:17 PM
Anyone who wants to give away any drops out of their money bucket please PM me. I will be more than willing to take a few drops off your hands. ;)

My slight issue here is if raising the alcohol tax, why suddenly raise it MORE than needed for the stated reason of raising it? If they want to get 8 mil for the CIB from the alcohol tax then only raise it enough to get 8 mil. If 8 mil is a shortfall of what they need, then why 'share' the alcohol tax money around the state?

If the excuse is it's "only fair" to share it... then why not share it all instead of keeping 8mil for the CIB? Wouldn't that be more 'fair'?

-Bball
I'm actually in agreement with you. I personally think this whole thing kinda stinks of "bait and switch". They bill the statewide alcohol tax as a bailout for the CIB, yet only 1 county's alcohol tax goes to the CIB while the other 91 Indiana counties goes to who knows where in their respective counties.


Oh, and I bet the Chicago "Beer" fans up in Lake County are going to enjoy footing the bill for the Colts' free ride. They don't even consider themselves Indiana residents. Fort Wayne does, but is very disconnected with Indy. I don't know about Evansville, Terre Haute and 90% of the rest of the state, but I doubt they want higher taxes either. Let's just say the fact the Colts play in Indy does next to nothing for these people from a financial standpoint.

That is what I fear with how this "piece" of legislation is being sold. In actuality, Lake County and Allen County alcohol tax would stay in Lake and Allen County, but branding this tax as a CIB bailout will bring this incorrect reaction.

stevo
04-03-2009, 04:20 PM
This plan is no win situation. If we don't do anything, pro sports in Indy could be in trouble. It we do pass this we risk not selling tickets and we risk the average joe deciding not to go to school here or live here because our government and economy is in the tank (Though Indiana is not alone with these problems) This pretty much just adds fuel to the fire that Indy is pretty unstable and we could also lose some of the big events that we normally host.
Again I will state that there has to be other options brought to the table. I just voted NO to the survey email from State Sen. Patricia L. Miller regarding raising alcohol taxes. I want to see other options. This is a knee jerked reaction and I believe if they spend more time on this issue, something else can be worked out. No more taxes. It is hard enough to justify driving your car for things that are not super important.
This is not a tourism state by far, but that doesn't mean the city of Indianapolis can not come up with more ways to bring people in from out of town. I hate to say this because I live in Indy, but we are a two trick pony town. We have the Brickyard 400 and the NCAA. (500? lol ) The colts and Pacers do not draw large out of state crowds.

Just remember, once the taxes go up, they are not going to bring them back down out of the goodness of their heart because Indy's economy gets better.


sorry to vent, but I just cringe anytime I hear the words "more taxes"

Justin Tyme
04-03-2009, 05:36 PM
I'm actually in agreement with you. I personally think this whole thing kinda stinks of "bait and switch". They bill the statewide alcohol tax as a bailout for the CIB, yet only 1 county's alcohol tax goes to the CIB while the other 91 Indiana counties goes to who knows where in their respective counties.



That is what I fear with how this "piece" of legislation is being sold. In actuality, Lake County and Allen County alcohol tax would stay in Lake and Allen County, but branding this tax as a CIB bailout will bring this incorrect reaction.


State legislators from most of the counties aren't going to vote for a bailout of the created CIB mistake( Colts/Lucas Oil Stadium) if their counties aren't getting part of the pie back. You have to give them something back for their support. You rub my back I'll rub yours.

Why not just raise the tax in Indy/Marion county to pay for Bart's give away to Irsay? Indy/Marion county is responsible for the problems they created not the other 91 counties so let them pay for it. Let's not make Indy/Marion county accountable for their stupity, but let the rest of Indiana fix Indianapolis/Marion county's problem by enacting a state wide tax raise on alcohol. I'm sure that IPS couldn't use the 8mil the CIB will get, nor would the Indiana legislature raise the alcohol tax for education in Indiana. Heavens no, just raise it for millionaire/billionaire sports owners hobbies. Where was the Indiana legislature back when the Pacers needed help when the previous owner was having money problems?

SycamoreKen
04-03-2009, 06:16 PM
This plan is no win situation. If we don't do anything, pro sports in Indy could be in trouble. It we do pass this we risk not selling tickets and we risk the average joe deciding not to go to school here or live here because our government and economy is in the tank (Though Indiana is not alone with these problems) This pretty much just adds fuel to the fire that Indy is pretty unstable and we could also lose some of the big events that we normally host.
Again I will state that there has to be other options brought to the table. I just voted NO to the survey email from State Sen. Patricia L. Miller regarding raising alcohol taxes. I want to see other options. This is a knee jerked reaction and I believe if they spend more time on this issue, something else can be worked out. No more taxes. It is hard enough to justify driving your car for things that are not super important.
This is not a tourism state by far, but that doesn't mean the city of Indianapolis can not come up with more ways to bring people in from out of town. I hate to say this because I live in Indy, but we are a two trick pony town. We have the Brickyard 400 and the NCAA. (500? lol ) The colts and Pacers do not draw large out of state crowds.

Just remember, once the taxes go up, they are not going to bring them back down out of the goodness of their heart because Indy's economy gets better.


sorry to vent, but I just cringe anytime I hear the words "more taxes"


I cringe when the taxes being pushed are ones that will be paid the most by those that can least afford to pay them. What segments of society do the most drinking, smoking, and gambling? Low-middle class to poor people. You don't even links to studys to know this is true. Just visit your corner convienence store or race tracks. The vast majority of these people cannot come close to affording to step into the two arenas unless they are working there, so why should they bear the brunt of the tax increase? Maybe its time to pass a tax on bread and milk to even out the playing field if taxes are going to be sought to cover another's folly.

One solution would be to make the viewers at home help foot the bill by putting every game on a pay per view basis nation wide. The Spurs used to do it locally before they won their first title when they were in the dome.

I would be willing to buy a few games a year to see the Pacers since I can't afford the league pass. If the Colts, Pacers, and other teams had that stream available to cover expenses such as these it wold be more fair that sticking the bill to others that don't care about the teams.

BlueNGold
04-03-2009, 07:28 PM
That is what I fear with how this "piece" of legislation is being sold. In actuality, Lake County and Allen County alcohol tax would stay in Lake and Allen County, but branding this tax as a CIB bailout will bring this incorrect reaction.

I think you're probably right. However, the justification for increased taxes is to pay for things in central Indiana, not in Lake County and elsewhere in the state. Financial mismanagement (or corruption) at the CIB in their efforts to "better" the city of Indianapolis should not penalize Lake County, Evansville, Fort Wayne, etc.

Country Boy
04-03-2009, 09:11 PM
State legislators from most of the counties aren't going to vote for a bailout of the created CIB mistake( Colts/Lucas Oil Stadium) if their counties aren't getting part of the pie back. You have to give them something back for their support. You rub my back I'll rub yours.

Why not just raise the tax in Indy/Marion county to pay for proBart's give away to Irsay? Indy/Marion county is responsible for the blems they created not the other 91 counties so let them pay for it. Let's not make Indy/Marion county accountable for their stupity, but let the rest of Indiana fix Indianapolis/Marion county's problem by enacting a state wide tax raise on alcohol. I'm sure that IPS couldn't use the 8mil the CIB will get, nor would the Indiana legislature raise the alcohol tax for education in Indiana. Heavens no, just raise it for millionaire/billionaire sports owners hobbies. Where was the Indiana legislature back when the Pacers needed help when the previous owner was having money problems?



Might want to recheck your facts, it was Mitchy boy that took the construction of the Lucas stadium away from Peterson and the city of Indianapolis. So it is Mitch's problem and he is AWOL just as he always is when it comes to cleaning up his mess.

Roaming Gnome
04-03-2009, 10:46 PM
Might want to recheck your facts, it was Mitchy boy that took the construction of the Lucas stadium away from Peterson and the city of Indianapolis. So it is Mitch's problem and he is AWOL just as he always is when it comes to cleaning up his mess.

Thanks CB... Bart's way to pay for the Luc was probably the most realistic way to handle it, but it was just too unpopular. (downtown casino) Anyway, the proponents (Luke Kinley) that wanted a "regional tax plan" for the stadium had an agenda (slot machines) to protect in Shelbyville.

Justin Tyme
04-04-2009, 09:48 AM
[QUOTE=Country Boy;870302]Might want to recheck your facts, it was Mitchy boy that took the construction of the Lucas stadium away from Peterson and the city of Indianapolis. So it is Mitch's problem and he is AWOL just as he always is when it comes to cleaning up his mess.[/QUOTBart


Peterson was the mayor, and he was in favor of the building of the new stadium. He didn't resist or complain about the building of the stadium. He was all in favor of it.

The issue doesn't change for it is a Marion county problem. It's not my problem, nor anyone else's problem that doesn't live in Marion county. Let Marion county take care of "their problem" instead of whining and crying about needing help to fix the blunder of the CIB! No one else created this problem, but Indianapolis/Marion county. The "rest" of the state of INDIANA doesn't revolve around Indianapolis/Marion county's wishes or problems.

Roaming Gnome
04-04-2009, 01:06 PM
Peterson was the mayor, and he was in favor of the building of the new stadium. He didn't resist or complain about the building of the stadium. He was all in favor of it.

The issue doesn't change for it is a Marion county problem. It's not my problem, nor anyone else's problem that doesn't live in Marion county. Let Marion county take care of "their problem" instead of whining and crying about needing help to fix the blunder of the CIB! No one else created this problem, but Indianapolis/Marion county. The "rest" of the state of INDIANA doesn't revolve around Indianapolis/Marion county's wishes or problems.


For the most part, the solution that was offered is a Marion County solution. Granted, not a very good one, yet a solution none the less. The alcohol tax raised in Marion County goes to the CIB. I can't help it the other 91 counties want to latch on to this to generate revenue in their communities. The increase in Food & Beverage and Hotels just affects Marion County. The increase in the Ticket tax affects the users of the facilities.

I don't understand your beef considering it is a Marion County solution?

By the way, you can put the tar and feathers down.... They ran Bart out on a rail, remember?

Justin Tyme
04-04-2009, 05:01 PM
By the way, you can put the tar and feathers down.... They ran Bart out on a rail, remember?


Not being a Marion county resident, I try not to pay attention to what goes on in Marion county politics... I have more important things in life to do.... like PD.:D

If it wasn't for Indianapolis/Marion county/CIB blunder, the possible future increase in alcohol tax wouldn't be. Their blunder will affect EVERY citizen in Indiana who purchases alcohol no matter what the other 91 counties do with their share. Another bailout by the people for mismanagement by others who won't accept accountability for their actions.

I'm keeping my bibbs, tar, and feathers handy in case Bird picks up O'Brien's option.

Roaming Gnome
04-04-2009, 06:25 PM
Not being a Marion county resident, I try not to pay attention to what goes on in Marion county politics... I have more important things in life to do.... like PD.:D

If it wasn't for Indianapolis/Marion county/CIB blunder, the possible future increase in alcohol tax wouldn't be. Their blunder will affect EVERY citizen in Indiana who purchases alcohol no matter what the other 91 counties do with their share. Another bailout by the people for mismanagement by others who won't accept accountability for their actions.

I'm keeping my bibbs, tar, and feathers handy in case Bird picks up O'Brien's option.

JT, I'm not so sure about that. Considering when, not if.... they cap Indiana property tax at 1% of a property's value. Every county and municipality in the state will be looking for new ways to recover the revenue lost. The increase in the alcohol tax has always been that vehicle. The only change is Marion county's share going to the CIB instead of the county's general fund.

The CIB excuse just came up before they decided to spin the wheel and pick an excuss to raise the alcohol tax. CIB or not, the alcohol tax was going to increase to cover the loss in property tax revenue.

Justin Tyme
04-05-2009, 07:53 AM
The CIB excuse just came up before they decided to spin the wheel and pick an excuss to raise the alcohol tax. CIB or not, the alcohol tax was going to increase to cover the loss in property tax revenue.


You can't guarantee that would happen.

I'm from a county that has 48% of it's residents havinge "NO income!" This is a rural county of small towns with little light industry. A living is made through farming, businesses, and professionals. There are no jobs to be had, and it's one of the biggest meth producing counties in Indiana. People do what they have to do in times of need to survive. I'm old school, and don't believe in this... period, but unfortunately it's a fact of life. Raising the alcohol tax so Indianapolis/Marion county/CIB can take care of their blunder from lack foresight rubs across the grain with me. It hurts those who can least afford it while taking care of wealthy sports hobby owners. Yes, I know the CIB only gets Marion county alcohol tax, but the rest of the state is being affected as well by this tax increase.

My issue with this is it's a Indianapolis/Marion county problem so let them take care of it internally and not expect the state of Indiana to bail them out. If the CIB was making a nice tiddy profit off the rental of Lucas and Conseco would they be campaigning to share it? We both know the answer is NO. Same with wealthy owners of sports franchises, if they were making money you think they'd be campaigning to share it with Indianapolis/Marion county? Yeah, I can just see Jimmy doing that!

RWB
04-06-2009, 10:01 AM
Interesting article related to the mess going on. Mentions the frustration of asking for more money and yet paying Tinsley. Also don't forget to check out some of the story comments as well (Pacers paid for Indy Star vacation trip?).



http://thescore.ibj.com/content/?s=colts&searchbutton=go%21

Unclebuck
04-06-2009, 10:57 AM
Interesting article related to the mess going on. Mentions the frustration of asking for more money and yet paying Tinsley. Also don't forget to check out some of the story comments as well (Pacers paid for Indy Star vacation trip?).



http://thescore.ibj.com/content/?s=colts&searchbutton=go%21

I don't see how you can equate high salaries in the NBA and NFL to what is going on with the CIB.

count55
04-06-2009, 11:12 AM
I don't see how you can equate high salaries in the NBA and NFL to what is going on with the CIB.

The column was kind of ponderous and unfocused, but I think he was picking at the fact that (a) there is (in his, and others' opinion) a fair amount of waste in the salary structure for professional sports, with Tinsley being the poster child, and (b) the decision makers in the city and the state have a profound lack of understanding of the nature of the "business venture" to which they've largely committed both the city and the state to for at least the useful life of Conseco and Lucas.

They aren't the only ones.

Country Boy
04-06-2009, 12:26 PM
I don't see how you can equate high salaries in the NBA and NFL to what is going on with the CIB.

Huh? So are you saying that the high salaries of these pro teams have no affect on the problems of the CIB?

Unclebuck
04-07-2009, 09:34 AM
Huh? So are you saying that the high salaries of these pro teams have no affect on the problems of the CIB?

correct

Country Boy
04-07-2009, 10:58 AM
correct

I don't agree UB, if the operating costs for the Pacers was less(lower player salaries), then they would not need the CIB to bail them out of the operating costs of Conseco. A major overhaul of the economics of pro sports is coming soon, get ready.

Unclebuck
04-07-2009, 11:21 AM
I don't agree UB, if the operating costs for the Pacers was less(lower player salaries), then they would not need the CIB to bail them out of the operating costs of Conseco. A major overhaul of the economics of pro sports is coming soon, get ready.

OK, but to what end. If the Pacers lowered their payroll to the lowest allowable figure (set by CBA) then sure perhaps you could argue that they wouldn't need help from the CIB - but if the Pacers did that they would be a bad team and the fans would know they aren't even trying to win - so attendance, TV ratings, radio ratings would drop even further and then the Pacers would need even more help from the CIB.

My overall point is there are two separate issues - or at least there should be two separate issues - the costs of operating Conseco and the costs to run the Pacers. Cost to run the Pacers is IMO none of the CIB's business. costs of running Conseco is CIB's business

Putnam
04-07-2009, 11:41 AM
A major overhaul of the economics of pro sports is coming soon, get ready.


If the Pacers lowered their payroll . . . they would be a bad team

This supposes the Pacers operating on the cheap but all the other NBA teams paying top dollar according to the old structure. That is, as UncleBuck says, a recipe for disaster.

But I think Country Boy is saying that the pay scale for pro athletes will be racheted down altogether. That is pretty evidently true for the NBA. It is less certain for other sports.

If the whole NBA pay scale were reduced by, say, 15%, would that cause many of the players to quit basktball and go to work in other jobs? I don't think so. But such a reduction would certainly help the Pacers' bottom line.


.

Country Boy
04-07-2009, 12:17 PM
This supposes the Pacers operating on the cheap but all the other NBA teams paying top dollar according to the old structure. That is, as UncleBuck says, a recipe for disaster.

But I think Country Boy is saying that the pay scale for pro athletes will be racheted down altogether. That is pretty evidently true for the NBA. It is less certain for other sports.

If the whole NBA pay scale were reduced by, say, 15%, would that cause many of the players to quit basktball and go to work in other jobs? I don't think so. But such a reduction would certainly help the Pacers' bottom line.


.

Thanks Putman.

Country Boy
04-07-2009, 12:21 PM
OK, but to what end. If the Pacers lowered their payroll to the lowest allowable figure (set by CBA) then sure perhaps you could argue that they wouldn't need help from the CIB - but if the Pacers did that they would be a bad team and the fans would know they aren't even trying to win - so attendance, TV ratings, radio ratings would drop even further and then the Pacers would need even more help from the CIB.

My overall point is there are two separate issues - or at least there should be two separate issues - the costs of operating Conseco and the costs to run the Pacers. Cost to run the Pacers is IMO none of the CIB's business. costs of running Conseco is CIB's business

In theory you are correct, however I don't believe that the Pacers can be operated in a vacuum and that is where the CIB comes into the picture. One cannot successfuly succeed without the other and therefor cannot be separated as you think they should be.

RWB
04-08-2009, 07:33 AM
If the whole NBA pay scale were reduced by, say, 15%, would that cause many of the players to quit basktball and go to work in other jobs? I don't think so.


I don't know, remember the movie Major League?

[the Indians General Manager calls minor league coach Lou Brown at Tire World to offer him a position with the Indians]

Charlie Donovan: How would you like to manage the Indians this year?

Lou Brown: Gee, I don't know...

Charlie Donovan: What do you mean, you don't know? This is your chance to manage in the big leagues.

Lou Brown: Let me get back to you, will ya, Charlie? I got a guy on the other line asking about some white walls :dance: