Clevelanders hate Browns’ Brook Park stadium so much, they could reject sin tax renewal over it

The Cleveland Browns‘ $2.4 billion Brook Park stadium plan (public cost: $1.2 billion) may have picked up an endorsement from the Cleveland area’s chamber of commerce, but it turns out to be not nearly so popular with Clevelanders as a whole. A briefing memo from a consulting firm, unearthed by Signal Cleveland, reports that “a large majority of Cuyahoga County voters oppose the move of the Cleveland Browns to Brook Park,” and that voters would likely defeat any renewal and expansion of the county’s “sin tax” on alcohol and cigarettes if they thought the money might go toward a suburban dome.

This was kind of a weird poll question to ask, given that the Browns’ Brook Park plan doesn’t currently involve using the sin tax for construction — that would be covered by either siphoning off all state taxes related to the new stadium plus increased city and county taxes on tickets, parking, hotels, and rental cars (the state legislature’s plan) or increased sports gambling taxes (Gov. Mike DeWine’s plan). Rather, the sin tax, which was first created in the ’90s to help pay for a new Guardians stadium, is in need of reworking in order to cover the county’s maintenance costs at the Browns, Guardians, and Cavaliers home venues, which the county took on as part of the teams’ leases. The sin tax was last renewed in 2014 and doesn’t expire until 2034, but it’s currently not raising enough money to cover those maintenance costs — hence the talk about a new ballot measure, and the concern that a Browns move could doom any chances of passing one.

(Before you ask: The Browns’ lease expires in 2028, the Cavs’ in 2034, and the Guardians’ in 2036, and no, there’s nothing stopping the county from saying it’s not interested in agreeing to pay for upgrades in future leases. It keeps renewing them without trying to get out of that obligation, though, so don’t hold your breath.)

The memo from EMC Research recommends that “in order to maximize the chances of passing an increase to the sin tax, it will be important for policymakers to continue to focus the tax on repairs and maintenance for existing sports venues in Cleveland” — which translates as “don’t mention the new Browns stadium and hope people approve tax increases to funnel money to the billionaire owners of teams they actually like.” That may be easier said than done, though, as the Browns’ proposed move looks to poisoning lots of wells: Even that endorsement from the Greater Cleveland Partnership sparked a quick backlash, as the Cleveland city council called out the business group for threatening “the very fabric of our community.”

Back in the center ring, meanwhile, state legislative leaders are still biding their time with their Brook Park funding plan, while Gov. DeWine holds out the threat of a possible veto if his alternate proposal for throwing money at Browns owner Jimmy Haslam isn’t approved. The Ohio legislative session lasts until the end of June, and it sure looks like both sides are intent on continuing their staring contest until then. Meanwhile, state senate Democrats are proposing that the state skip paying for a stadium altogether and instead spend $600 million on education, school lunches, libraries, and food banks, but they’re the senate minority so nobody cares what they think, let’s never speak of them again.