Cleveland Mayor Justin Bibb and the Cleveland city council are fighting over whether the council will get to rework Bibb’s settlement of the Browns stadium standoff, and I almost wrote about it yesterday but didn’t because 1) I slept late, 2) my regular computer is in the shop and it takes me forever to type anything on the old one, and 3) it didn’t seem like that big a deal, Bibb’s proposed payoff (described as $100 million but really more like $80 million in present value) may not be amazing but it’s whatever. Until this:
How did the entire Plain Dealer editorial board miss that the "$100 million deal" with the Browns obligates Cleveland to commit to funding an unspecified amount on infrastructure improvements to support the Brook Park stadium?
Hmm? Jimmy Haslam has asked for $70 million in state money for road improvements for the Brook Park stadium site — this on top of $600 million in state money for the stadium itself, and despite saying openly that he’ll keep the team in the state even if he doesn’t get it — but is he asking for city money too? I asked Bradbury, and he pointed me to this in the Browns’ press release about the Bibb agreement:
Parties to mutually support infrastructure plans related to road and air travel with respect to both the Brook Park stadium mixed-use project, the modernization of Cleveland-Hopkins International Airport, the development of the Cleveland lakefront, including the redevelopment of the Burke Lakefront Airport property.
I think that means that Haslam and Bibb will both “support” the infrastructure plans as in work together to get them approved by the state, not support them with actual cash. (While I could certainly see Haslam wanting city cash toward road improvements, it’s hard to see him offering to put his own money in.) So this probably isn’t a commitment of more city money. Though Bradbury certainly has a point that somebody in the media should ask Bibb to clarify this, something that reporters interviewing Bibb and other reporters doing the same and those writing explainers seem not to have done.
And either way, Bibb agreeing to team up with Haslam to lean on the state (and the council) to okay the Brook Park deal isn’t great. The council has say over city spending, so Haslam getting to give the city a payoff and then demanding how it be used (to rehab the waterfront where their current stadium stands) is a sucky precedent. As is the notion that an $80 million payoff can not only buy the city’s silence, it can buy its support of state highway spending when Clevelanders pay Ohio taxes, too.
The bigger problem here, though, is how this entire deal is being negotiated: The Haslams get to lock in each level of subsidy, then go for more, whereas the public is at best fighting to hold the line. Even if Cleveland getting $80 million in exchange for dropping its legal challenges turns out to be maybe an okay tradeoff, the Browns owners get to keep haggling for more subsidies as long as they want — Bibb revealed last week that team negotiators wanted any settlement contingent on getting Cuyahoga County to put money into the Brook Park stadium, and while the mayor successfully resisted that being a condition, the Haslams still plan on pushing for county money on top of state cash anyway.
The city council, at least, seems intent on closely examining Bibb’s proposed agreement, saying Monday night that it will subject the legislation to four separate committee votes. Here’s hoping that at least one of those committees will use its time to investigate the fine print.
In my experience, unstated promises with commitments to work together normally mean the public is paying, especially in regard to infrastructure. In this case, the obligation has not been spelled out explicitly, and it’s been casually mentioned in several stories using slightly different language. For example: “The city and the Haslams will also collaborate on a new road network designed to serve both the Brook Park stadium and the airport.” (https://apnews.com/article/browns-stadium-cleveland-brook-park-c8c4df24263a23aff368009eeb0cbf18) My guess is that a lot of City money will be going into that “new road network.” Haslam doesn’t like to spend any of the fortune he inherited, and he is still supposedly working on getting money out of the County.
These are excellent questions! Let me see if Bibb’s office is willing to answer them.
Here’s the actual legislative language:
“use best efforts to assist the Browns regarding their infrastructure plans related to road and air travel with respect to the Brook Park stadium mixed-use project”
https://signalcleveland.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/1325-2025-A-File-Ag-w-Browns-for-relocation-other-contracts.pdf
I just submitted a query to Bibb’s comms chief asking WTF “assist” means here, will report back if I hear anything.
No elected representative should ever allow such language in a contract. Throw a few events in the owner’s box and the next thing you know, the parking lot has been repaved and the Department of Transportation has added a new interchange and widened all the roads. And what “assist” means now may mean a very different thing a few years from now. For example, in Cobb a shared plan for traffic for Atlanta Braves games became the County was on the hook for all managing traffic for all stadium events, even though the development agreement clearly states it’s the responsibility of the team.
Is that money (the $70-80m) in addition to stadium demo costs?
I can easily see the demolition and remediation costs (which could include prep for new development or even a simple “rewilding” of the lakefront with some park and public use related infrastructure. I will pause here while everyone laughs…) winding up in the $30-40m range, even if that cost doesn’t include infrastructure for future development. Has anyone (from the Cleveland gov’t) made any reasonable estimates of what it will cost to remediate the site?
Secondly, whenever I read weasel language like “both parties will work towards/support” redevelopment of the present stadium site and Burke airport”, I find myself wondering if this means that the city has entered into a non competitive agreement with the Haslams (or plans to enter into one) that will give them effective control over the entire lakefront area in exchange for either a ridiculously low amount of money or no money at all but a promise to be great corporate citizens of Cleveland. Or Brook Park.
In simple terms, what are the legal obligations involved in “being mutually supportive” of these goals, either on the city or the Haslams?
It is probably not an accident that these details are murky at present.
It includes $30m in demolition costs, so Cleveland isn’t netting $80m by any means, correct. Though it would get a large parcel of land to sell or lease, if it’s any good at that.
Ohio law would require them to take the highest bid if the land were put up for sale, so they don’t have to be good at anything other than knowing the less than, greater than, equal to lessons from first grade math.
Assuming the Haslamberg dome is built, what taxing authority will be on the hook for upkeep, maintenance, and upgrades?
Today I think it is both Cuyahoga County with the county Sin Tax that doesn’t currently cover all of the contractual obligations of the arena, ballpark, and stadium. Not sure if the City of Cleveland covers.
Will the City of Brook Park cover the dome’s upkeep if they don’t get any SinTax funds?
Or is it too early to discuss the long-term costs of ownership?
The Sin Tax specifies that it supports facilities only in Cleveland. So I don’t know who would be on the hook unless it’s in the agreement. I still don’t get how Brook Park is able to borrow this money, given how small a tax base it has.
The soon to be Memphis Bowns are currently being trashed on purpose.
Go get em Ice!
WORSHIP The San Francisco 49ers!