Browns owners pull out all the LOLarguments in demanding $600m in stadium cash from Ohio

The Cleveland Browns owners the Haslam Sports Group sent their chief administrative officer and general counsel Ted Tywang to testify before the Ohio arts, athletics and tourism committee yesterday in favor of their $1.2 billion stadium subsidy demand ($600 million of it from the state, the rest from the city of Brook Park and Cuyahoga County), and it was everything you would expect it to be, and more. Tywang delivered all the greatest hits of the stadium playbook; let’s take them one at a time:

“This would be one of the largest economic development projects in Northeast Ohio History, and even in the state of Ohio.”

This is the glass-half-full way of saying our stadium will be very expensive. I can’t wait to hear Tywang explain why it would be a good idea for Ohio to build a space elevator.

“This idea of cash collateral doesn’t really exist in sports facility funding. This would be kind of the first time, as far as we know, that an upfront payment has been done,” Tywang said. “It is $38 million, which is the present value of $150 million at the back end of the lease.”

The $38 million figure refers to a “refundable deposit” that the Haslams would put in up front, which 1) isn’t really much of a sign of a firm commitment if it’s refundable, and 2) isn’t by any stretch of the imagination “the first time” that a team owner would put up the first chunk of cash for a stadium. As for “the present value of $150 million at the back end of the lease,” that seems to just be a way of making the number sound larger for anchoring purposes — sure, $38 million today would be worth $150 million after 30 years of 5% interest, but that doesn’t make it anything other than $38 million today.

“I would think about it not as, this $600 million could go somewhere else, because there’s going to be a return for the state, that $1.3 billion. Yes, it’s over time, but those can be used for other needs that the state deems appropriate.”

Here we have the argument that state taxpayers spending $600 million to move the Browns from one Ohio city to a neighboring one would somehow create a humongous increase in state tax revenues, which has already been shown to be the work of one LOLconsultant with a B.A. in architecture, asked and answered, moving on.

“There are no existing revenues that we’re taking. It’s not like we’re taking from a health and human services budget at the state or at the local level for our ask. It is only revenues that are generated by the project that wouldn’t exist but for this private investment.”

Casino Night Fallacy, everybody drink!

“We think in a market like Cleveland and Northeast Ohio that the project is only viable through a public-private partnership. So the $600 million is really critical.”

Translation: Either “this is a money-losing project without subsidies, the only reason we’re doing it is to get our hands on the state cash” or “we’re going to make money on this either way, but with an extra $600 million in subsidies we would turn $600 million more in profit,” further research needed.

Ranking member Dontavius Jarrells (D-Columbus), who described himself as “a recovering Browns fan”, asked if the project would just shift economic development from downtown Cleveland, not generate new activity. Tywang said the stadium is a game-changer.

“There’s so much else great that’s happening downtown that I think it’s frankly disrespectful when people imply that we’re going to cripple downtown when we leave,” Tywang said. “We want this to be complementary, not competitive.”

“It’s disrespectful to suggest that people can’t spend money in two places at the same time” is some next-level BS, props to Tywang for this one, give that guy a raise.

And what did Ohio legislators think of all this? News5 Cleveland asked some, and:

“It’s essentially escrowing money that would grow over time so that the Browns can kind of put their money where their mouth is,” [House Finance Chair Brian] Stewart told me.

There seems to be more of an appetite for this plan than the governor’s proposal, he added. Gov. Mike DeWine wants to double the sports betting tax, creating a fund for all professional sports teams to get money from in the future.

Senate Minority Leader Nickie Antonio (D-Lakewood) said the tax changes are the much better option.

“It would solve these kinds of issues so every couple of years we don’t have some sports franchise, entity coming to the legislature with their hand out saying ‘you have to give us some money so that we can stay in the community,'” she said.

Yes, funneling all the taxes paid in and around stadiums to the sports franchise owners would “solve” the problem of how to pay for an endless stream of new stadiums, but much in the same way that bank robberies could be solved by leaving the bank door unlocked. There are still a lot of hurdles before the Haslams’ plan can become reality — it will have to clear both houses of the legislature plus the city and county, and Cuyahoga County reps are in particular hopping mad at being asked to help fund moving the Browns out of Cleveland proper — but going just by vibes from yesterday’s hearing, the level of debate is not going to be pretty.