Downtown Arena!

[Dave in Green]

Skip, I'd just as soon not have people on this forum who think they're above being questioned. I expect to be questioned every time I post on any forum. I'm not being hostile toward you. I'm just skeptical of something you claim to be a fact. It's common practice on any forum to ask for and expect to get clarification. I'm just politely asking you to provide additional information so that I can understand if we're talking about a fact or an assumption.

[lance99]

What the hell are you talking about?

People in Bath Montrose shop in N.Canton? No, they go to Crocker Park in Cuyahoga County. And last I heard Montrose isn't hurting for consumers at all. If it's been cited, then list the citation.

Again, if tax mattered, then Crocker Park and Beachwood would be flopping because they are in a county with a 1.25% higher tax rate with the addition of an alcohol tax for all their restaurants. The only person here trying to fill facts with hope is you sir. The naivety here is in your insistence that everyone leaves a county to save pennies. It doesn't happen. Do you know why Belden works, the honest reason, that accounts for all variables? Southern Summit County has the heaviest population, there are more shopping options and the highway access is more direct then going to Summit Mall, period. Has nothing to do with a .25% tax difference that a conservative think tank says "impacts shopping". You seem well educated. The least you can do is look where your information source is coming from before throwing stuff like that out there.

People shop where they have the most options or most convenience, cents to the dollar matters very little in shopping decisions.

Hold on,

If I am traveling that far to do anything, it is for a reason. Crocker Park does well because it is very, very far away on the West Side and you HAVE to make it a day trip from Akron. Beachwood Place does well because its direct competition(Randall Park Mall), closed.

Also, GP1, if you are going to use "Southern Summit County has the heaviest population," The first thing I ask is draw a line across 224, then look at census data on every community south. There is almost no way that can be possible.

Bottom line, if a Sin Tax is even on the table, all we have to do is look at what happened to the County north of us. I watched a couple of days ago the WEWS video on the Sin Tax. I don't want that.

Also, the one thing that noone seems to be talking about is the Civic. I promise you if they pecive this even be remotely a threat, the Akron Community Foundation(and they have serious weight) will jump in on this. If it ever get to that point, this whole ballot is D.O.A. in November.

[GoZips]

The topic of a potential new basketball arena came up at tonight's women's basketball banquet.

What I heard was that the planners of the proposed tax hike mishandled their target. That is, some

one blurted out new arena and the press ran with it. Facts are that the arena comprises about one

quarter to one third of the expected new revenue if the sales tax is passed.

The county (Summit) is not interested in building a new basketball arena for the University of Akron.

That was to be a "sweetener" to draw more favorable votes. Presenting the tax as "build a new arena"

was mishandled. Government; what do you expect?

The University is expecting to go it alone on a new arena should the tax fail. If that happens the

new arena will be built on campus near the current arena; most likely in the parking lots just East

of Rhodes Arena.

[LZIp]

I one paid attention to the finer details they would know only about 1/3 of the revenue from the sales tax increase would be going to the arena. 7 of 20 million annually is what I believe an article posted earlier in this thread said.

[Dave in Green]

LZip, you are absolutely correct. News reports correctly noted that only a fraction of the proposed tax would be used to finance the new arena and that Zips basketball would be only a small fraction of the arena's use. Those who interpreted it differently may not have paid attention to all the details in the story.

[wadszip]

Hold on,

If I am traveling that far to do anything, it is for a reason. Crocker Park does well because it is very, very far away on the West Side and you HAVE to make it a day trip from Akron. Beachwood Place does well because its direct competition(Randall Park Mall), closed.

Also, GP1, if you are going to use "Southern Summit County has the heaviest population," The first thing I ask is draw a line across 224, then look at census data on every community south. There is almost no way that can be possible.

Bottom line, if a Sin Tax is even on the table, all we have to do is look at what happened to the County north of us. I watched a couple of days ago the WEWS video on the Sin Tax. I don't want that.

Also, the one thing that noone seems to be talking about is the Civic. I promise you if they pecive this even be remotely a threat, the Akron Community Foundation(and they have serious weight) will jump in on this. If it ever get to that point, this whole ballot is D.O.A. in November.

Crocker Park does well because it is located in a very affluent area and has high-end stores that can only be found in Northeast Ohio there (or Beachwood Place or Legacy Village). Simply, if you have the means to shop at the type of stores Crocker Park has, you aren't worried about a 1.25 percent difference in sales tax rate (or the gas money it costs to get there).

And back to Beachwood Place, not sure how anybody with a straight face could argue that even ONE of the reasons Beachwood Place does well is due to Randall Park closing. For one, Randall Park opened in 1976. Beachwood Place in 1978. Second, the two never competed with each other. Beachwood Place has always been a high-end mall. Randall Park, even in its glory days, was mid-tier. Plus, Beachwood Place still is doing well even though another high-end "mall" Legacy Village was built almost directly across the street from it in 2003. Beachwood Place and Legacy Village do well for the same reasons Crocker Park does well ... They are all located in highly populated areas that have some of the highest incomes in Northeast Ohio. Add in the stores they have (that others don't) then it also makes them regional draws.

And Lance, the rest of this isn't toward you, but just wanted to clear up some of this Belden Village talk.

1. Belden Village isn't drawing anybody who lives closer to Summit Mall (or Chapel Hill) there due to a lower tax rate. For one, Stark County just passed a 0.50 percent tax increase a couple of years ago (the money going toward 911 improvements, something this Summit tax also will go toward). Right now, it doesn't make financial sense for somebody who lives closer to Summit or Chapel Hill to go to Belden.

2. Belden is still going strong. But that again isn't due to tax rates. Rather, it has a great location advantage. It's the only major shopping area in Stark County, and located in the more affluent northern Stark County. Then add to that that some faster growing areas of Summit County are also close to it, is another boost. People from Green aren't bypassing Summit Mall or Chapel Hill due to a 0.25 percent tax difference, they are doing so due to proximity.

3. Proximity aside, Summit Mall does have some of the advantages the Crocker Park/Beachwood Place/Legacy Village have (though in a smaller scale). While generally speaking, when you're talking about mid-tier malls, it's about location (and drawing from people nearby regardless of tax rate since the differences are so miniscule, it doesn't make financial sense to travel a greater difference to save .25 percent). However, Summit Mall is probably the closest thing "Akron-Canton" has to a Crocker Park or Beachwood Place/Legacy Village. It has anything you could get at Belden Village (or anywhere else in the area), but has some stores, especially those on the higher end, that Belden doesn't. Its closest competition is SouthPark Mall in Strongsville. And even with that tax increase, Summit should be able to continue to compete with SouthPark (going by the anti-tax people) considering SouthPark is in Strongsville (Cuyahoga County, 8 percent) vs. Summit (7 percent).

4. My biggest pet peeve with people who are up in arms by this slight tax increase (even if you spend 10,000 a year solely in Summit County, it adds up to a whopping 25 a year) is that some people are acting like this is a tax just to tax, and there is nothing tangible in return. Guess what, there is a tangible result from the tax ... it's getting a needed arena to downtown Akron (and one that will benefit more than just UA basketball fans). You like WWE wrestling? Having an arena here probably means you won't have to drive to Cleveland or Pittsburgh (or even Youngstown) to see it. Same can be said about concerts, rodeos, monster truck pulls, rap/rock concerts, or a bunch of other opportunities. That should more than make up for that extra $25 you will pay ... Especially considering that $25 is really only $8, since only 1/3 or the money is going toward the arena.

[wadszip]

The topic of a potential new basketball arena came up at tonight's women's basketball banquet.

What I heard was that the planners of the proposed tax hike mishandled their target. That is, some

one blurted out new arena and the press ran with it. Facts are that the arena comprises about one

quarter to one third of the expected new revenue if the sales tax is passed.

The county (Summit) is not interested in building a new basketball arena for the University of Akron.

That was to be a "sweetener" to draw more favorable votes. Presenting the tax as "build a new arena"

was mishandled. Government; what do you expect?

The University is expecting to go it alone on a new arena should the tax fail. If that happens the

new arena will be built on campus near the current arena; most likely in the parking lots just East

of Rhodes Arena.

I admire your homerism, but this post is FOS. For one, if UA could go at this alone, it wouldn't have signed off on this agreement.

Also, nothing was "mishandled" by the media/government when this became public. After reading the initial Beacon article, it was very clear that this was more than an arena tax and that only a portion of the money raised would go toward that. It also broke down the university's obligations were, and exactly where this would go.

Let's face it, if UA wants a new arena anytime soon, this is THE plan. It's now about UA/city/county selling this plan to the public. The biggest thing will be selling that this isn't just some big, bad arena tax that 99 percent of people in Summit County won't benefit from.

[wadszip]

Ah, the illusion vs. reality argument. The reality is, these taxes are never enough to pay for what they say they are going to pay for so more taxes have to be levied in order to pay for the broken promise. Again, I'll restate, there is zero evidence that the construction of stadiums brings in enough revenue to pay for themselves. Numbers are reality and the reality is they don't.

The hookers on Prospect Avenue argument. Prostitution is the world oldest profession. The new stadiums didn't eliminate prostitution in Cleveland. They just moved it somewhere else. The girls are conducting business on another street.

The restaurant argument. There are a limited amount of people who want to go get drunk in Cleveland on the weekends. They will go somewhere. My guess is the drunks have moved to the stadium area and away from the flats because the Flats ain't what it used to be.

The downtown housing argument. This goes on in every city and is going on right now in Charlotte. Downtown housing attracts young people with limited income. As soon as they get older and meet someone they would like to marry and start a family with, they leave for the great white suburbs. The problem Cleveland has is their inability to keep this demographic because they really fill up the public bank accounts with their money. As sad as this sounds, there really is a limit to the number of nights a person can go out drinking.

Nobody ever asks about the rest of Cleveland though. My guess is it hasn't gotten any better and has probably gotten worse in the past few years. The City of Cleveland is like the person who owns what looks like a great house because the front of it looks nice, but when you look in the back yard, it is fully of rusted out cars and old tires. More money for stadiums is not what Cleveland needs.

Getting back to the Akron arena case. Until I moved away from Akron (I actually lived in the City), I had no idea how bad the tax burden was around NE Ohio. Specifically, Akron and Summit County in general. I now live in a suburb of Charlotte (in SC) and have a much more expensive home than when I lived in Akron and my taxes are lower at every level. All around us, new neighborhoods are being built with accompanying schools, wider roads and good public services. It's funny how a community like this can spend their tax money on things that matter. When the Charlotte Knights wanted to move uptown, they didn't panic and spend a fortune renovating their stadium, they waved goodbye, are in the process of demolishing the stadium and turning it into a transportation park that is already filled when construction is complete. The next part is going to sound like Cleveland. In Charlotte, the City is spending a fortune renovating Bank of America Stadium for an average team in a league that makes billions. The schools in Charlotte/Meck (there is a county school system in Charlotte) are becoming a disaster and communities like mine are seeing the relocation of families out of Charlotte to enjoy better schools and a less crippling tax burden. In the next 15 years, the population of my town is projected to triple. Uptown Charlotte is building one high rise apartment complex after another hoping they can fill them with people who want to go get drunk every night.

Keep taxing yourselves for the Browns, Cavs and Indians you idiots. Heap on a tax for Akron as well. I don't live there anymore, what do I care?

I wanted to let your post pass, but I can't help myself.

I'm glad you like Charlotte (or specifically South Carolina), but you have no clue to as what is going on in Cleveland. And in fact some of what you are touting as being drawing points to Charlotte, specifically leaving the city for the suburbs, and the rotting Charlotte Public Schools, sounds eerily similar to what got Cleveland into the mess it got itself into in the 70s-90s and is now digging itself out of. Keep supporting that type of setup.

Back to Cleveland, you are obviously clueless to what is going on there.

For one, yes, the "drunks" have moved away from the flats and went more toward the "stadium" area (I'm assuming you are referring to Progressive Field/Quicken Loans Arena). And you are really trying to argue that arenas don't bring in residual business? On top of that, while the flats isn't what is was, you do realize that it is currently in the middle of a $170 million dollar private-sector renovation? One that has brought in a 20-story office building, a 10-story hotel in phase 1 and is work is now being done on a residential/restaurant aspect in phase 2. ... And that private developer (Wolstein) is investing his money despite the fact the nearby Warehouse District and E. 4th (stadium) districts are thriving.

Second, all you have to do is a simple google search to realize that downtown Cleveland is "booming". Maybe not in terms of sprawl Sun Belt numbers, but it's the fastest growing in the Cleveland metro.... and that downtown growth has spilled over into neighborhoods like Ohio City, Tremont, Asiatown, Battery Park, etc. Then, even the second fastest growing area in the metro (University Circle) is within the city. ... And just yesterday, a private developer announced plans to break ground in the fall on a mixed-use 15-story apartment complex (to go along with another developers announcement of a 30-story residential tower, on top of Uptown phases I and II) that are drawing 1,000s to "inner-city, non-downtown" Cleveland. Other neighborhoods, on a smaller scale are seeing similar investments, and are clearly better than what they were 20-30 years ago.

Is all this development from the arenas/stadiums? That's debatable, but it's hard to argue that they didn't play any part in it. E. 4th and the Warehouse District weren't anything until the stadium/arenas were built. Those areas have also continued to thrive despite other entertainment options being built/renovated (boosted by higher-income residential units also being built/renovated). And that has also allowed areas near downtown to grow... even if not by pure population numbers (yet), but by increasing the "median income" in areas like Tremont, Ohio City and Asiatown.

Is Akron Cleveland? Nope. But does Akron have some of the same potential that we are seeing in some of these Cleveland neighborhoods? Yep. Cleveland's core growth has been around the areas of downtown (arenas/business district) and University Circle (hospitals/Case Western Reserve University). ... Akron has some of those same attractions in a smaller scale, but in a closer proximity than there is in Cleveland. At least in Akron the downtown/major college/major hospitals are all within a couple miles of each other.

[skip-zip]

The biggest thing will be selling that this isn't just some big, bad arena tax that 99 percent of people in Summit County won't benefit from.

But perception is reality, in this case. Many people WILL see this as a Zips Basketball facility, no matter how you frame it. We just have to hope that enough of them will not.

I said this earlier. Although we may be making some comparisons to the Cleveland sin tax issue, there is a huge difference. Cleveland was doing this to fund a new stadium for their Major League Baseball team. We're doing it for a college basketball team which most people in Summit County have never watched in their entire lives.

I'd bet that the criticism from the general public for building a new football stadium for Akron football, which was an absolute necessity based on the condition of the Rubber Bowl, will not remotely compare to the "need" we will be attempting to communicate to them regarding the replacement of a 30 year old basketball facility. And that was for a football stadium in which we never had to ask the public to pay for it.

[GP1]

@wadszip, I like your enthusiasm, but time will prove me correct because it always does in urban environments. Keep building the high rise apartments. There is one in uptown Charlotte that is 40 stories tall, completed five years ago and is less than 50% capacity. Cleveland Schools are broken beyond repair and young couples will continue to flee Cleveland once they decide to start families. Young families have been fleeing urban areas since the 1950s when the WWII generation settled the suburbs in Buicks (the Civil War generation settled the west in horse drawn wagons, on dirt trails while being attacked by native americans, but that's an entire other topic as to why the Civil War generation was actually The Greatest Generation..They just didn't have Tom Brokaw cheerleading for them.). That isn't going to change in Cleveland.

I just want to have an honest conversation about the real impact a new arena would have on Akron. There will be some positive, but not enough to cover the costs of maintaining the arena. The people in favor of it for these reasons should stop lying about it. There is too much evidence out there showing it is in fact not true (see NINE articles below, I could have linked to 100 of them). I would much rather prefer honesty because I want the new arena too. I don't care if it can ever pay for itself because the tax payers of Ohio are so stupid they will put another tax on themselves to pay for it. Since I don't live in Ohio, this doesn't impact me. I could respect the honesty of someone who argued, "I want a new arena. I know the finances are unsupportable and I don't care if it bankrupts the University, The City of Akron or Summit Count...or all three. I'm sick of sitting in the JAR and I want others to pay for my comfort."

Article 1

Article 2

Article 3

Article 4

Article 5

Article 6

Article 7

Article 8

Article 9

[Hilltopper]

@wadszip, I like your enthusiasm, but time will prove me correct because it always does in urban environments. Keep building the high rise apartments. There is one in uptown Charlotte that is 40 stories tall, completed five years ago and is less than 50% capacity. Cleveland Schools are broken beyond repair and young couples will continue to flee Cleveland once they decide to start families. Young families have been fleeing urban areas since the 1950s when the WWII generation settled the suburbs in Buicks (the Civil War generation settled the west in horse drawn wagons, on dirt trails while being attacked by native americans, but that's an entire other topic as to why the Civil War generation was actually The Greatest Generation..They just didn't have Tom Brokaw cheerleading for them.). That isn't going to change in Cleveland.

But you don't understand. It takes a village.....

[ziptrumpet87]

I'm OK with this tax. It's a quality of life expenditure that may not directly pay for itself just like the park system. There is a tax to support that as well. The new arena should bring in more entertainment opportunities for everyone in the area and will probably drive some downtown development and should help the existing establishments in the area.

[GP1]

I'm OK with this tax. It's a quality of life expenditure that may not directly pay for itself just like the park system. There is a tax to support that as well. The new arena should bring in more entertainment opportunities for everyone in the area and will probably drive some downtown development and should help the existing establishments in the area.

This is an absolutely fantastic argument in favor of the arena. Why don't more make it? Worse, who do so many flat out lie about the impact of an arena on a region? Thank you for your honesty ziptrumpet87!

[skip-zip]

I'm OK with this tax.

Here's the problem.

There's about 100 of us on this forum that will pay it to get the new arena.

But unfortunately, the other 500,000+ people out there are the ones who will decide if we get it.

[Spin]

But perception is reality, in this case. Many people WILL see this as a Zips Basketball facility, no matter how you frame it. We just have to hope that enough of them will not.

I said this earlier. Although we may be making some comparisons to the Cleveland sin tax issue, there is a huge difference. Cleveland was doing this to fund a new stadium for their Major League Baseball team. We're doing it for a college basketball team which most people in Summit County have never watched in their entire lives.

People got behind Canal Park, which wasn't for Major League Baseball.

[Dave in Green]

...1. Belden Village isn't drawing anybody who lives closer to Summit Mall (or Chapel Hill) there due to a lower tax rate. For one, Stark County just passed a 0.50 percent tax increase a couple of years ago (the money going toward 911 improvements, something this Summit tax also will go toward). Right now, it doesn't make financial sense for somebody who lives closer to Summit or Chapel Hill to go to Belden.

2. Belden is still going strong. But that again isn't due to tax rates. Rather, it has a great location advantage. It's the only major shopping area in Stark County, and located in the more affluent northern Stark County. Then add to that that some faster growing areas of Summit County are also close to it, is another boost. People from Green aren't bypassing Summit Mall or Chapel Hill due to a 0.25 percent tax difference, they are doing so due to proximity. ...

Thanks for addressing this. I had really hoped that Skip would answer some of the questions about his claims. I did a little research and found that Belden Village also benefits from shoppers from adjoining rural counties (Holmes, Tuscarawas, Carroll, Columbiana) which have no similar major shopping areas. But I couldn't find any data supporting the claim that Stark County's lower sales tax was a major driver of Belden Village's success.

I also searched for anything related to laws being changed due to Stark County auto dealers having a sales tax advantage, but couldn't find anything on that. Ohio law is that sales tax on cars is paid according to the rate of the county where the car is registered, not where it's purchased. In any case, a .25% sales tax difference on a $30,000 car amounts to $75. Maybe Skip had some good points to make. But if he's not open to explaining his claims a little further, they will remain a mystery to me.

[skip-zip]

I also searched for anything related to laws being changed due to Stark County auto dealers having a sales tax advantage, but couldn't find anything on that. Ohio law is that sales tax on cars is paid according to the rate of the county where the car is registered, not where it's purchased.

What do you mean you didn't find anything? You just did !!

Or, are you still trying to figure out why retail sales taxes in Ohio are calculated at the point of purchase, except this one? Just because someone felt like making it that way? Do you know how expensive it must be for them to manage the payments of businesses that are collecting sales taxes for multiple jurisdictions, when every other vendor in the state is issuing their sales tax payments from their own county? Did they just decide to give themselves a self-inflicted headache?

It's not just Stark County, Dave. It's the entire state.

Again, people on here could really absorb a lot more information if they did a lot more listening, and a lot less arguing.

Seriously though, I'm trying to be kind, but you're clearly baiting me to continue the debate when you actually already found the answer, whether you know it or not. I'm not trying to be mean, but you have to admit that you were being incredibly foolish to think that people aren't crossing county lines to save money.

[Dave in Green]

Skip, thanks for finally confirming an unclear point that I was politely asking you to clarify. The problem with your thinking that this is an Ohio issue due to a county sales tax advantage is that most states in the country levy sales tax on vehicle purchases in the county of registration and not in the county of purchase. In other words, Ohio merely follows what is effectively the national standard.

This is why I ask questions when people on internet forums throw out "facts" that don't sound right to me. Many times these "facts" turn out to be incorrect assumptions, as this one did. Wherever you got your information was either not a good source or you just misinterpreted it.

[Balsy]

I think the points that are most important to address are: 1. The Perception of a tax, and 2. The impact it has on actual families (which is tied to #1).

I'm going to make a hypothetical presentation here with a few figures I researched to paint a general picture (so please don't cruify me DiG ...this is only a rough representation). Research conducted by a New York Broker estimated that the average American spends about 81.2% of their income on food, housing and other consumer products/services/expenses. After eliminating things that don't have sales tax levied on it (food for example) it puts the % around 49.2 on goods that have a sales tax. Assuming this is an accurate portrayal of what most Americans spend, I think it's also safe to assume that the majority of that is spent in the county in which they live.

The 2010 census estimates Summit County's average household income to be about $47,926. With 49.2% assumption above, that would put $23,579 per household income that sales tax would be applicable to. So the 0.0025 would be about $58.94 a year.

Now looking at it that way (as a Zips fan) I think it's a done deal, especially if that includes a few public service improvements as well. But I'm not sure people in Summit County would agree with me.

[LZIp]

^^ Assuming the number presented is gross income rather than net, the actual amount would be ~30-40% less. Even more in favor of the Zips.

[Dave in Green]

Balsy, nice work (and good followup, LZip). That's good ballpark math even if it isn't correct to the nearest dollar. That's exactly the kind of research needed to put things in perspective. The alarmists are too busy running around like a bunch of Chicken Littles screaming "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!" to actually do the math. According to the information released so far, only about a third of that would go toward the new arena.

[lance99]

And back to Beachwood Place, not sure how anybody with a straight face could argue that even ONE of the reasons Beachwood Place does well is due to Randall Park closing. For one, Randall Park opened in 1976. Beachwood Place in 1978. Second, the two never competed with each other. Beachwood Place has always been a high-end mall. Randall Park, even in its glory days, was mid-tier. Plus, Beachwood Place still is doing well even though another high-end "mall" Legacy Village was built almost directly across the street from it in 2003. Beachwood Place and Legacy Village do well for the same reasons Crocker Park does well ... They are all located in highly populated areas that have some of the highest incomes in Northeast Ohio. Add in the stores they have (that others don't) then it also makes them regional draws.

I respectfully disagree.

I peosonally know people that live in that area(N. Randall, Maple Hts, Ecuid). that did not have a choice but to go to Beachwood/Legacy because of Randall closing and refused to shop at Southgate(a godzilla sizes stip plaza).

Like I said eariler, Crocker does well because of the location, not because of the demo there. I used to go to Gameworks all the time and it took me over an hour to get there, so I would have to make it a day trip. Beachwood does have the income, but it is a huge regional draw(like you stated) because there is not a lot of options on the East Side of Cleveland for malls.

Belden does well because the only other mall in that area is Canton Center, and I am not even sure if they are still open.

[Dave in Green]

... And More: Many years ago the laws were changed about buying cars, whereby you paid the sales tax rate where you lived, rather than where the dealership was located. Why? Because people were traveling to buy cars in another county where the sales tax rate saved them a few bucks, and it was creating a competitive advantage. ...

Skip, I owe you an apology. After looking back over this thread I realize I totally missed this earlier post where you explained the car tax in detail. I understand now why I couldn't make sense of your later references to it. Mea culpa. I give you credit for making a really good point about small differences in sales tax making a more significant difference in vehicle purchases than smaller items.

Applying logic to your good observation, purchasing a big ticket item like an automobile is one transaction where it might be considered reasonable to at least a few customers to travel to the next county to save on sales tax. As I pointed out previously, a .25% difference in sales tax works out to a $75 difference on a $30,000 vehicle. Spending $5 worth of gas to drive to a dealership in the next county might appeal to a small percentage of people looking to save $75 (-$5 in gas) for a $30,000 car.

Now, applying similar logic, spending $5 on gas to travel to the next county to buy something like a $1,000 big screen TV produces a different set of economics. In that case you'd be paying $5 for fuel to save $2.50 in sales tax on the TV for a net loss of $2.50. That would definitely not qualify as a smart TV.

Take it down to the $100 level -- $100 worth of clothing, groceries, etc. -- and it gets worse. Your $5 worth of gas and the extra time to drive there gets you 25 cents in sales tax savings for a net loss of $4.75.

So simple logic tells us that the only folks who are driving from the west side of Akron down to Belden Village to save money on a $100 purchase or even a $1,000 purchase are the ones who failed math. They're spending more on gas than they're saving in sales taxes.

[K92]

To quote my late grandfather: "My ass is tired".

[skip-zip]

Skip, thanks for finally confirming an unclear point that I was politely asking you to clarify. The problem with your thinking that this is an Ohio issue due to a county sales tax advantage is that most states in the country levy sales tax on vehicle purchases in the county of registration and not in the county of purchase. In other words, Ohio merely follows what is effectively the national standard.

This is why I ask questions when people on internet forums throw out "facts" that don't sound right to me. Many times these "facts" turn out to be incorrect assumptions, as this one did. Wherever you got your information was either not a good source or you just misinterpreted it.

Dave,

It's not WHAT the law is that you're not paying attention to. It's WHY.

You fail to think about why it's like that. Why is THAT tax for THAT type of business collected by the retailer, and managed by the state in a manner completely different than the rest of the sales taxes, when it's an absolute nightmare for them to collect it and for the State to track it this way? Think about it.

I'll call a dealership and put you on the phone so you stop baiting me to debate with you.

You also made me go pull this explanation of why this law is so similar nationwide:

Most of the time it is based on where the buyer lives. The logic behind that is so that people do not go outside of where they live just to avoid paying a certain amount of sales tax on a large purchase.

Actually, to elaborate further, I learned that some states require dealerships to charge the sales tax on which county's rate is HIGHER, between the resident's county, or the dealership's county. But in Ohio, it's strictly county of residence.

How exactly do want me to misinterpret that? I've owned businesses that have to collect sales tax. I know just a little bit about these things. And it's no picnic, even when you can collect the same rate all the time.

I know this is a forum where people like to come to argue, but please, learn to sometimes trust someone else's knowledge instead of obsessively challenging it.