News: City budget rides CP's roller coaster

http://www.pointbuzz.com/news.htm?id=986

I wonder what, if any, effect this might have on the announcement.

I think its great. The bed tax is collecting less since hotels (outside of CP) are finally lowering rates to fill up. And the admission price went down, so less tax there. How was this all not expected?

I have an idea. Raise the city tax it charges employees. Just kidding! Cedar Point is the first and only place a city tax was deducted off my check.

It seems like Sandusky politics says 'must be Cedar Points fault' when they are looking for money. I don't live in Sandusky but what are the property taxes like? Here, they have tripled over the last 6 years. I think Sandusky needs to realize that CP isn't the only place to find money when they need it. Personally all they need to do is fix up the waterfront downtown. A revamped downtown would provide jobs, taxes and lots of extra traffic.

Hey, that's too logical.

Seriously, Sandusky has to be one of the biggest money hungry cities ever. And 901liveson is absolutely correct, they need to stop looking at Cedar Point to bail them out.

One day CP will pull a SFMM and announce closure and Sandusky is going to be completely screwed.

Interesting, Does anyone know if Cedar Fair has a contract with the city. Most big corps have them for tax breaks and other garbage?
*** Edited 8/4/2006 1:04:46 PM UTC by 901liveson***

Wasn't Sandusky practically begging Cedar Fair to stay in town after the merger announcement? I bet they'd have far bigger issues if Cedar Point wasn't around. I know I wouldn't be flying from the Caribbean next week to visit Sandusky if CP wasn't there. :)

Did you guys read a different article? I don't see the city complaining or looking for more money. They had an expectation for a certain amount of money and the actual amount received is below that. How does that translate into, "let's dog Sandusky for being money hungry?" Widman didn't say, "we need to increase the admission's tax." He said, "we will have to review a lot of our budgets for next year." Isn't that the right thing to do?

What do you want? For them to repeal all tourism taxes in case Cedar Point closes someday? They have the world's largest amusement park in their backyard. Cedar Point pays their fair share, and then some, but let's not be foolish and think the city should have no level of dependence on the company.

*** Edited 8/4/2006 1:46:20 PM UTC by Walt***

It could be worse than it is....
Based on the Register article, I see here, with Cedar Point cutting the 1-day price by 11 percent ($45 in 2005 -vs- $40 in 2006), thus the admissions tax could be down by 11 percent, with the same amount of people through the gate.

Besides Cedar Point and its related facilities, what other businesses in Sandusky charge the admissions tax?

As far as hotel receipts... Cedar Point led the charge by dropping admission prices. How many of the hotels within a 25 mile radius of the park also dropped their rates by 11 percent? That's a hefty drop to make, in my opinion, but how many non CFLP hotels offered other incentives for people to stay overnight?

Many people are still hurting from the economy (stagnant wages, higher unemployment rates, and especially gas prices that have jumped nearly 250% within the last 2 years). Over the past couple years, people have come to the realization that the high gas prices are not just a "temporary" thing, and have made some cuts in the family budgets. In my opinion, those families that in the past, who, for example, made a two, or three-day weekend, are perhaps now making Cedar Point a one day trip (if any trip at all), and thus, are not staying overnight.

But at the same time, the city can't be dependent ONLY on Cedar Point either.

Your right Walt, no one is complaining in that article. But I believe that the article is a leak (plant) to start people talking. Yes it says in one line that things will be better, but the rest is negative. While I haven't tracked Sandusky's budget hearings forever, It seems all I've seem to read over the last couple years is Sandusky saying they need more money.

What city doesn't say that?

Good question DjD, I just know they just raise property and sales taxes where I'm from. But the county, state and federal budgets are always in the red.

On a different note, I've never had a city take money out of my payroll check before Sandusky. Is a city tax normal in say, Ohio?

I know that both Detroit and Grand Rapids do it. Grand Rapids is weird, if you live in the city and work out of it, you pay. If you work in the city, and live out of it, you pay (this actually makes sense). But my company, even though it has a GR mailing address, is not in GR, so I make sure I don't live in GR and don't pay any of the tax. Its really screwy over here.

I know that most localities around here in Ohio take city taxes. I believe in PA that every city takes taxes.

The only town in Ohio that i've lived and no taxes were taken out was Masury. If you saw the size of the town you'd understand why they don't bother taking them out, I think I was the only one with a high school education that lived there. And one of a handfull that actually had a job. ;)

Most of the property tax revenue goes to education. The city doesn't see any property tax unless there's a levy, as far as I know. I believe the sales tax is also county controlled. So those two things aren't really options. Most of Sandusky's revenue comes from the income tax collected from those who live and work in the city. djDaemon is right. Lots of cities are looking for more revenue. Sandusky only sticks out because of Cedar Point.

Some cities have giant amusement parks. Other cities have huge Ford factories. Really no different here.

John - I think you have it reversed. Living in a city, working outside the city, and paying taxes to the city you live in makes sense. Working in a city, but living outside the city, and paying taxes where you make is wrong.

I work in Cleveland and I am forced to give them 2% of my income. I have no right to vote for mayor or city council nor is my residence here. I live in North Ridgeville and pay 1% to the city on my income. But I live there and use city services, so I have no problem with that. They even give me a partial credit for the money that the city of Cleveland takes from me.

Yeah, the "you work here, so pay up" tax is crap. As John mentioned, that's how it works in Detroit, and like you, Walt, they have no right to vote on matters pertaining to how the city is managed. At the very least, they should get a partial vote, proportional to how much tax they pay versus how much residents pay.

I don't pay any city taxes. :)

I thought I remember reading a while ago that athletes paid taxes in the cities where the games are played. I know that towns are always clamoring for businessess because they get the some of the income taxes as well as the sales tax.

djDaemon said:
proportional to how much tax they pay versus how much residents pay.

Do they tax welfare?

Walt, your way makes more sense (now that I think about it).

Yes, I deal with the working in a town in which I do not live in, yet have to pay taxes there. It is very much a case of Taxation Without Representation in my mind.

I'm just upset that I don't get to vote againts Carty Finkbeiner.

*** Edited 8/4/2006 10:08:21 PM UTC by HappyGoLucky***