Umlauf Sculpture Garden & Museum
Is the Chronicle Blind?
RECEIVED Thu., July 8, 2010
Dear Editor,
Richard Whittaker's Formula One overview ["Austin at Very High Speed," News, July 9] has a glaring omission. Nowhere in the article does he reference the tens of millions that will pass from Texas taxpayers to Formula One's London-based owner and CEO Bernie Ecclestone. At first, state officials said that no taxpayer money would be dispensed. Then we learned about a state tax-incentive program known as the Major Events Trust Fund. The fund reimburses local governments for costs incurred in hosting large sporting events, like Super Bowls. It had previously been generated from sales tax receipts attributable to spending in the host community. However, it then came to light that in the last legislative session, $25 million was quietly moved from the General Revenue Fund into the Major Events Fund, and F1 was added to the list of eligible events. The next shoe dropped when we learned that F1 has a "sanctioning fee" that is typically – wait for it – $25 million. So it looks like we'll be paying that sanctioning fee, and state officials now characterize it as a taxpayer "investment" that will be paid back. If I can cleanly lay out these facts and this timeline in a letter to the editor, how is it they didn't make their way into the Chronicle's lengthy 3,000-word article on the subject? Is it somehow not germane in your journalistic eyes?
Richard Whittaker's Formula One overview ["Austin at Very High Speed," News, July 9] has a glaring omission. Nowhere in the article does he reference the tens of millions that will pass from Texas taxpayers to Formula One's London-based owner and CEO Bernie Ecclestone. At first, state officials said that no taxpayer money would be dispensed. Then we learned about a state tax-incentive program known as the Major Events Trust Fund. The fund reimburses local governments for costs incurred in hosting large sporting events, like Super Bowls. It had previously been generated from sales tax receipts attributable to spending in the host community. However, it then came to light that in the last legislative session, $25 million was quietly moved from the General Revenue Fund into the Major Events Fund, and F1 was added to the list of eligible events. The next shoe dropped when we learned that F1 has a "sanctioning fee" that is typically – wait for it – $25 million. So it looks like we'll be paying that sanctioning fee, and state officials now characterize it as a taxpayer "investment" that will be paid back. If I can cleanly lay out these facts and this timeline in a letter to the editor, how is it they didn't make their way into the Chronicle's lengthy 3,000-word article on the subject? Is it somehow not germane in your journalistic eyes?
Jackson Williams
[Richard Whittaker replies: The potential for tapping the Major Events Trust Fund was covered at length in the sidebar that accompanied the article (“High-Speed Facts: Formula One Straightaway”). The state's Major Events Fund is designed to assist local government with the costs required to host an event, such as policing and emergency services. (The legislation also allows the cash to be used to cover hosting and application fees, but that has never been done to date.) The cost to the state is then recouped out of sales taxes. As stated in the article, at this point this is all hypothetical: An application cannot be filed until a year before the event, meaning that the earliest the paperwork can be submitted is June 2011.]
