By Larry Durstin
On a number of issues, progressives are on a roll. The acceptance of gay marriage keeps rolling along at warp speed and the number of states in which medical marijuana is legal or just about to be legalized continues to mount.
Long at or near the top of priorities for liberals, the success of these two issues on the state levels seem to be signaling a sea change in a country that has been dominated by the agenda of cultural conservatives for the past 35 years.
However, on the economic level, progressives have a long way to go to make a dent in the financial disparity between the haves and have nots that has reached epidemic proportions. But with the consciousness-raising accomplished by the Occupy Wall Street movement of 2011-12, more attention is being paid to things like corporate welfare and tax inequities that grossly benefit those at the top and the devastating impact these practices have on the lives of the “other 98%.”
That’s why the efforts of those progressives opposing Issue 7 (which calls for the renewal of Cuyahoga County’s so-called sin tax) are so noteworthy. Called the Coalition Against the Sin Tax (C.A.S.T), this grassroots group was formed by Alan Glazen and Peter Pattakos and consists of a number of politically savvy local businessmen – like my old friend Ron Copfer – who care deeply about the city’s future and bring a progressive mentality to the table. They are urging Cuyahoga County voters to vote no on Issue 7 in the May 6 primary.
But C.A.S.T’s opposition is not based on a knee-jerk aversion to any and all taxes but is instead focused on how the general public ends up paying for sports facilities that benefit the billionaires who own Cleveland’s three major sports teams.
To that end, they have put forth an alternative to the sin tax in the form of a Facility Fee, which would be tacked onto the ticket prices for events at Progressive Field, the Q and First Energy Stadium. They are in the process of collecting the 5000 signatures needed for a ballot initiative to be placed on the November 2014 ballot for Cleveland voters only.
Of course, the bulk of opposition to Issue 7 will come from your garden-variety, government-loathing anti-taxers. In other words, along with the relative few who view this as a corporate-welfare issue, everyone from the Tea Partiers to the corner-bar loudmouths to the Cliven Bundy-type deadbeats of the world will be on hand to “vote their pocketbooks” and vent their spleens about how having a few pennies tacked on to booze and cigs will inevitably lead to the government breaking down the doors of family farmers.
And while the progressives at C.A.S.T. have garnered significant free-media attention and provided critical consciousness-raising regarding the financing of sports facilities, they have been unable to raise enough funds to mount an advertising blitz against Issue 7. However, coming to their rescue is the Coalition Against Unfair Taxes, a Republican-leaning group led by Earl Martin, a former GOP state rep who owns three delicatessens in Rocky River, Avon and Bay Village which sell beer, wine and cigarettes.
It appears that Martin is not concerned about giveaways to billionaires at the expense of the downtrodden but is worried about losing customers to nearby Lorain County, which has no sin tax. It also seems likely that his group is getting funds from the liquor and tobacco industries – the two substances most responsible for sickness, death and personal destruction in our society – who will do anything to insure the most profitable bottom line imaginable.
Arguably, the primary election next week provides an almost perfect storm for the defeat of Issue 7. There will be a low turnout where most of the energy is on the side of those who oppose (people do not turn out in droves to vote for tax renewals). Additionally, because of the educational efforts and creative proposals of C.A.S.T., a new group of committed younger progressives ideally could increase turnout enough to make the difference in a close race.
Unfortunately, the real work of bringing economic fairness to huge downtown development projects will begin after the election. Win or lose, the heavy lifting for genuine change will have to come from the relentless efforts of thoughtful progressives and will have to be accomplished without the financial aid and voter support of the self-absorbed anti-taxers or the alcohol/tobacco death merchants or the paranoid Ruby Ridgers.
Hopefully, C.A.S.T. is up to the task.
Larry Durstin is an independent journalist who has covered politics and sports for a variety of publications and websites over the past 20 years. He was the founding editor of the Cleveland Tab and an associate editor at the Cleveland Free Times. Durstin has won 12 Ohio Excellence in Journalism awards, including six first places in six different writing categories. He is the author of the novel The Morning After John Lennon Was Shot. LarryDurstinATyahoo.com
6 Responses to “DURSTIN: Issue 7 Tests Local Progressives’ Clout”
Roldo Bartimole
Those against the tax are not anti-government; they’re anti give-away
particularly to wealthy owners who should pay their own way.
It’s time to end the treatment of sports businesses as charitable cases not only
in Cleveland but in every city where needs are great and unmet and need the tax money
given to billionaire owners and millionaire ballplayers. It’s the question every seems to
be asking: Why this massive income inequality?
Roldo Bartimole
Anastasia Pantsios
Change the headline. The success or loss of this issue has little to do with the “clout” of progressives, since no significant number of progressives or any major progressive groups have even engaged the issue and, as you state, a majority of the people involved in the anti-sin tax campaign either have no particular political ties or they are anti-tax conservatives. If progressives aren’t involved in this fight (and they mostly aren’t), then it’s not a test of the influence. You might just as well say it’s a test of the clout of anti-government anti-taxers.
Larry Durstin
That’s the problem. It’s never Progressives responsibility for anything.
Allen Freeman
I agree with Anastasia that the headline here (and Larry’s attempt at a theorum) is nonsense. ‘Vote No on 7’ isn’t a Progressive or Conservative issue, Larry. It’s about who should pay for stadium maintenance. That doesn’t fall into a ‘platform’…
Bob Fritz
I agree with Anastasia and Allen. Keep your Marxist (or should I say “progressive”) political screed out of the issue. All you are doing is alienating voters who oppose Issue 7 for the right reasons and making them question whether they should support you. And drop this “Occupy” B.S. The great unwashed have nothing to do with taxes in Cleveland. They got kicked out of here two years ago after trying to blow up the bridge in Brecksville. We do not want to be associated with them.
Howard
This seems to be the most intelligent column yet on the sin-tax issue — even vaguely (and self-reflectively) alluding to the knee-jerk anti-tax, anti corporate mindless posturing displayed elsewhere on Cool Cleveland.
However, no one has yet explained to me any tangible benefit of undoing the funding that helps keep major league teams in Cleveland (and please stop the nonsense that Cleveland would do fine without them; as the earlier loss of the Browns proved, we couldn’t).
The vague promise of “sending a message” is even less tangible than the more specific message that Cleveland will still have to pay its contractually obligated share of stadium maintenance, and that the money the city will use will come from more painful sources than the few pennies we add to a glass of beer — a few pennies that will NOT go back into our pockets if the tax is rescinded.