Akron spending tax hike on police, not arena, because public has spoken (no, really)

If you’ve been wondering what’s up with Summit County, Ohio’s plans to raise sales taxes to build a $79 million basketball arena for the University of Akron, it is no longer considering raising sales taxes to, you know, do that thing.

Summit County officials plan to ask County Council to approve a measure that would prevent a proposed sales tax increase from funding a University of Akron arena.

Instead, at an Aug. 4 County Council meeting, these officials will ask Council to adopt resolutions that will eliminate funding for the arena and instead put the increase on the ballot for public safety, criminal justice and capital needs. The new resolutions would also limit the length of the tax to 10 years, rather than the previously proposed permanent tax.

“Since the adoption of the previous resolutions, the public has informed us that there is not sufficient support among the voters to pass a sales tax issue that includes the arena,” said Pry on July 31. “As a result, we feel it is best to remove the arena project from this issue and instead focus solely on the county’s public safety and capital needs.”

Read that again. While there’s no doubt some spin going on here, the upshot is that voters didn’t want their tax money spent on sports venues when it could be spent on police and infrastructure, and the county said: Okay, whatever you guys want. I think Ohio is still in America, but maybe I missed some news…


4 comments on “Akron spending tax hike on police, not arena, because public has spoken (no, really)

  1. Also, in the news lately has been Toledo’s water problems. It seems it was just a little over a year ago that the Ohio Governor funded the Toledo Mud Hens when maybe something should have been done to better protect Toledo’s water supply or maybe better fund Ohio’s gifted education for which they were threatening to cut some funds at the same time.

  2. http://www.ohiotownships.org/sites/default/files/weekly-7-8-13.pdf page 4, the July 2, 2013 entry mentions the issue in my previous comment.

  3. Sounds like they hope their constituents don’t know what the word fungable means.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

310,597 Spambots Blocked by Simple Comments

HTML tags are not allowed.