I am not as convinced as you are on this issue. I agree that the county is on the hook to maintain our facilities. I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is the very loose definition of "maintenance" that is being used to justify wants instead of needs. They're talking about bigger scoreboards at Progressive Field and other shit that would definitely be "nice," but is hardly my idea of "maintaining" the facility. Until the existing scoreboard needs extensive repairs, why look at replacing it? That is something that should be funded privately. As for your argument that the tobacco and liquor companies aren't going to lower their prices, I would agree - but you'll be taxed less on the purchase. If they wanted to increase their price to make it a zero-cent net change, the public would crucify them for that, and I think they would cave. But ultimately I have a bigger problem with renewing the County's bad idea on how to maintain the facilities. I wish the issue would have been a 5 option multiple choice for "how do you think maintenance on the sporting facilities should be funded?" Option 1 would have been "renew the sin tax." Options 2 through 5 should have been other alternative forms of funding. Making these things into a simple yes/no is just a way for political groups to divide people on an issue rather than proposing a better solution.