Budget season is underway, and so far there’s been no reports of a proposal on the table from the Cleveland Browns, who want to build a new $2.4 billion domed stadium in a suburb of Cleveland. But the idea of state money or state-backed bonds going into that project has brought three Ohio research groups into a somewhat rare moment of unity.
Cleveland Browns owners Jimmy and Dee Haslam have said they’ll ask for $600 million from state and local governments toward the project. State lawmakers have initially been cool on the project, with Senate President Rob McColley (R-Napoleon) saying: “I’m not in favor of something that would just simply be a handout. There would have to be an ability to be paid back.”
Cleveland has offered $461 million for renovation of the existing stadium.
“We’ve taken a look at a lot of stadium proposals over the years, and we’ve never been supportive of any of them,” said Greg Lawson, a research fellow at conservative Buckeye Institute. “When you look at a lot of the literature that’s out there, the academic literature from a lot of economists, what they and almost invariably say is these don’t really end up with true benefits.”
And he added he’s worried that state involvement in the Browns stadium project would be the first of a waterfall of requests.
“You do something in Cleveland, what’s the next thing to happen? Because I’m assuming that at some point Cincinnati is going to want to add something, and you got the baseball teams that are going to ask for things,” Lawson said. “The cascading effect, especially when you set this precedent, is also something that I think people need to keep in mind.”
The Buckeye Institute and the progressive Policy Matters Ohio don’t agree on much. But on this, they do.
“Moving this outside of downtown for a project just to line the pockets of the Haslams is not really a great idea for the taxpayers to fund,” said Bailey Williams, a researcher focusing on tax policy with Policy Matters Ohio.
“You’re trying to hope for a lot of economic gains on the back or down the road. That’s really just an IOU to the taxpayers,” Williams said. “I don’t really trust that, and especially when we have other needs and issues that the state could be addressing.”
The conservative and influential Americans for Prosperity Ohio is also opposed.
“Stadium projects are great ideas,” said Donovan O’Neil, state director for Americans for Prosperity-Ohio. “Where the concern comes in, I think, we need to have a robust conversation around the taxpayer obligations here.”
“These are multi-million dollar businesses. The NFL is a large enterprise. The Browns franchise is a large enterprise,” O’Neil added. “We have a lot of concerns and a lot of hesitation about early conversations around taking money from the taxpayers in the state of Ohio and investing it in the new Browns Stadium.”
The Browns and the city of Cleveland are locked in a legal battle over the move to Brook Park. The city sued under the state law requiring teams playing in taxpayer-funded stadiums to get permission to move or give a six-month notice so a local investor or the city could buy the team. That’s the so-called “Modell Law”, named for former Browns owner Art Modell, who moved the Browns to Baltimore in 1995. The team has claimed the law is unconstitutional.
