Category: Cleveland Browns

Browns owners want $70m in state road upgrades on top of $600m in state stadium money

access_time personNeil deMause

The Cleveland Browns owners’ campaign for a new stadium in Brook Park has been a weird one, and not just because of the ever-changing funding scheme that ended up with the state raiding a pool of unclaimed private money it’s been holding. The order of operations has also been weird: First team owner Jimmy Haslam said that if he didn’t get state approval for $600 million in public money for a Brook Park stadium, he would just keep the team in Cleveland; then after getting the state money, he moved ahead with the Brook Park plans while still waiting to see if he could get another $600 million from the city and county.

And now, defying all the conventional wisdom about how savvy negotiators operate, he’s asking the state for $70.3 million for a pile of transit improvements for the Brook Park site, on top of the money he’s already received:

  • I-71 Northbound (NB) Exit Ramp Improvements
  • I-71 Southbound (SB) Exit Ramp Improvements
  • Snow Road/Ring Road Connector
  • SR-291 (Engle Road)
  • Ring Road Improvements
  • Pedestrian Bridge
  • GCRTA Transit Station

All of this is pretty standard operating procedure for stadium asks, but it does raise the question: Why should the state of Ohio pay for any of this if the Haslams say they’re building the stadium regardless? Sure, it will make it easier for fans to get to Browns games, but that’s really a Browns problem — if the Haslams want to build a stadium in a site without sufficient traffic and transit access, they can pay to improve it, Ohio has other budget matters to worry about.

The Ohio Department of Transportation is expected to decide by the end of the year whether to approve the $70.3 million expense, which would come out of $150 million that the agency has budgeted for construction projects next spring. (Other projects competing for the same money include one for rebuilding light-rail tracks between Downtown Cleveland and the eastern suburbs.) Browns officials and Brook Park Mayor Edward Orcutt said that because the stadium site was formerly an auto plant that employed 16,000 workers, the needed upgrades are “relatively modest”; nice attempt at anchoring there, need to remember to use that myself next time I’m asking for $70 million.

Share this post:

Friday roundup: D.C.NFL stadium comes with nine-figure Metro cost, Mets owner likely to win casino on city parking lots

access_time personNeil deMause

I had a nice talk yesterday with Chris Francis of Straight Arrow News (owned by the union-busting Joe Ricketts, sigh) about ballooning hidden public costs of sports stadiums and arenas, and the resulting article is up this morning. Key quote: “I think the team owners and the officials who work with them have realized that it sounds worse to give a check, a taxpayer check, to the team for the stadium than to say, okay, we’re not going to give you that, but we will give you money for infrastructure. We will give you tax breaks. We will give you a break on land costs.” We were talking about the Denver Broncos at the time, but really it goes for all modern sports subsidy deals: All the real costs come in the fine print.

Speaking of the fine print, let’s see what it holds this week:

  • When Washington, D.C. agreed to pay $1 billion in cash and $6 billion or so in future rent breaks to Commanders owner Josh Harris for a new stadium, did everyone forget to mention it would come with a major expansion of the Metro station near the stadium site and perhaps a new station nearby as well? That could cost “in the ballpark of hundreds of millions of dollars,” says councilmember Charles Allen, but “we cannot afford not to do it.” Remember when Allen was saying “D.C. has a responsibility to scrutinize the proposal & demand a better & fair deal” with a “billion-dollar industry”? Yeah, neither does he.
  • New York Mets owner Steve Cohen is set to be awarded a casino license for the city-owned Citi Field parking lots he controls, after it turned out the state senator opposing it was the most disliked woman in Albany. There’s no public money involved, only public land, and that was effectively given away when then-mayor Mike Bloomberg gave Cohen a 99-year lease on the property as part of his stadium deal, but if you want to be annoyed at a multibillionaire sports team owner getting his way over community opposition, don’t let me stop you.
  • The main opposition group to next month’s referendum on giving the San Antonio Spurs around $150 million worth of future tax money toward a new arena is splitting its recommendations, urging a no vote on Prop B (which would provide the arena money) but remaining neutral on Prop A, which would devote tax money to redoing the area around the old arena to attract more rodeo events. COPS/Metro wants to see the county’s money from hotel and rental car taxes spent on “a range of community projects” guided by a citizen committee; it’s not entirely clear what happens to the arena plans if Prop A passes and Prop B does not, but that’s looking like a possibility.
  • The Cleveland Browns owners have started moving dirt at their new stadium site even before figuring out how it will all be paid for. All the kids are doing it!
  • The Athletics have filed for $523 million worth of construction permits in Las Vegas; getting those still won’t guarantee that the vaporarmadillo comes to pass, but it’s edging closer to decision time.
  • Heywood Sanders has elaborated on why the $2.6 billion plan to expand the Los Angeles Convention Center in advance of the 2028 Olympics is a terrible idea, saying in a Q&A with Torched’s Alissa Walker that other similar centers are seeing attendance drop even when they expand, and are having to offer discounted rates to lure a dwindling number of events. Key quote from Walker: “[Bangs head on desk].”
  • The organizers of the New York Marathon claim that it and other running events add almost a billion dollars a year to the city economy; it doesn’t look like they even bothered to hired a consultant to write a report justifying the number, but Crain’s New York Business published it anyway, this is fine.
Share this post:

Friday roundup: Browns stadium gets airport okay, San Antonio mayor seeks cut of Spurs’ arena revenues

access_time personNeil deMause

First things first: The Ohio Department of Transportation changed course yesterday and granted a building permit to the Cleveland Browns‘ proposed stadium in Brook Park, one month after declaring it would not do so because the stadium would “impact the airspace of the Cleveland Hopkins International Airport.” What changed? An outside consultant hired by the department reported that “the proposed stadium would have no adverse effect on the safety and efficient use of the aeronautical environment,” so ODOT gave the go-ahead.

This leaves the Browns stadium facing only two lawsuits over whether the team’s move from Cleveland to Brook Park violates the state’s Modell Law (the state attorney general says nuh-uh), plus additional suits over whether it’s illegal for the state to use unclaimed property to fund the deal and whether negotiating a move violated the team’s lease, plus $600 million in proposed city and county spending that hasn’t yet been finalized. Details!

In other news this week:

  • San Antonio Mayor Gina Ortiz Jones says she thinks if the city is putting up money for a new Spurs arena, taxpayers should get a cut of naming rights, concessions, and parking revenues as well. Which, sure, it worked for the Minneapolis Metrodome, so well that the public ended up recouping its entire $68 million contruction cost over time. Admittedly, the Twins and Vikings hated this deal so much that they immediately started lobbying for new stadiums where they would keep all the revenues and eventually got them, but it’s nice to see some elected officials learn the lesson that so many sports team owners live by: You can’t get if you don’t ask.
  • USL Championship expansion team Buffalo Pro Soccer is still looking for a place to build a stadium so it can actually become an expansion team. “I think we could make the decision today if we chose to,” said team president Peter Marlette, “but we want to make sure we’re getting everything right and that we are considering every possible factor and whatever site we end up going with.” The team owners have said the stadium will be privately funded, but we’ve heard that before in other cities, let’s see how things look after any hidden costs like land subsidies or tax breaks are accounted for.
  • The libertarian Mackinac Center for Public Policy is suing to repeal Michigan state funding for stadiums for the minor-league Lansing Lugnuts and the Utica Unicorns, Eastside Diamond Hoppers, Westside Woolly Mammoths, Birmingham Bloomfield Beavers of the United Shore Professional Baseball League (which all share a stadium in Utica), on the grounds that “private or local” projects require a two-thirds vote of the state legislature, and these only got a simple majority. State court of claims judge Brock Swartzle said he’ll make a ruling on an injunction by the end of the year.
  • The Philadelphia Phillies want hotel tax money from Pinellas County to upgrade their spring training facility in Clearwater, more specifics to come when they’re good and ready.
  • The Athletics‘ stay in Sacramento may not be drawing many fans, but it’s apparently drawing enough to cut into attendance at Sacramento River Cats minor-league games, especially now that resale prices on A’s tickets are cheaper in many cases than River Cats prices.
  • Sports economists Dennis Coates (who organizes the annual sports economics conference in Baltimore County) and Brad Humphreys have had a research award named in their honor, here’s a nice article about them and it, see how many of the economists in the photo at top you can identify!
  • Columbus Fury pro volleyball team seeks $1 million in cash from the city of Columbus and Franklin County to keep playing in town next season, now I have officially seen everything.
Share this post:

Friday roundup: Browns airport standoff continues, Spurs threaten voters with mascot appearance

access_time personNeil deMause

Before we get to the news, a quick note for any site supporters who are still waiting on swag: I haven’t forgotten you, I just have to restock on mailers and stamps, which I have penciled in for tomorrow morning. Thanks for your patience, and I assure you that your fridge magnets will still be timeless when they do arrive. (Because nothing ever changes in the world of stadium schemes, ha ha ha! Ha! Ha.)

But first, here’s the week’s remaining sports subsidy news to entertain and/or depress you:

  • The Ohio Department of Transportation has extended indefinitely its September 1 deadline for the Cleveland Browns owners to appeal their verdict that a new Brook Park stadium can’t be allowed as currently designed because it would infringe on airspace for a neighboring airport. Cleveland airport director Bryant Francis isn’t backing down on his insistence that the current design is a no-go, however, saying, “The FAA confirmed that the proposed height would intrude into protected airspace surfaces by 58 feet,” while adding, “We remain open to collaborating with all parties to find solutions that allow for growth while protecting the airport and the region it serves.” This is hardly the biggest problem with the Browns stadium project — that might just have to do with the at least $600 million in public money it would get from state checks that people haven’t cashed — but in America sometimes bad ideas get rejected because they’re bad, and sometimes they get snail dartered into submission.
  • The Browns’ proposed move is also now facing a second lawsuit charging that it would violate the Modell Law, with the law’s author, former mayor and state senator Dennis Kucinich, adding on to the lawsuit previously filed by the city. It’s actually the third lawsuit over the law, since the Browns owners are also suing the city to block the enforcement of the law, plus the state legislature moved to retroactively make the law not apply to in-state moves back in June, this is going to send a whole bunch of lawyers’ kids through college.
  • The San Antonio Spurs owners are holding a rally tomorrow in support of their campaign to be gifted around $750 million in city and county money for a new arena, and the key guest will be their mascot, who I’m just assuming will threaten to come to your house if you don’t vote for the subsidy.
  • Louisiana is planning to spend $7 million to bring a LIV golf event to New Orleans next summer. To put New Orleans on the tourist map. After spending tax money this year on a U.S. Bowling Congress Tournament, an Ultimate Fighting Championship event, the 2026 Southeastern Conference Gymnastics Championship, and the U.S. Gymnastics National Championships. “In a just world, politicians would have to come up with some reality-based justification for their desire to blow public money on what are effectively sports-adjacent parties,” notes Pat Garofalo in Boondoggle, almost wistfully.
  • The Athletics have submitted a development agreement for their under-construction (?) Las Vegas stadium while securing a permit to pour $87 million worth of concrete to support the lower seating bowl, tipping Schroedinger’s armadillo about 3% more into the “mostly not dead” category.
  • The Baltimore Ravens‘ $489 million stadium renovation, mostly funded by the first of a potentially bottomless pool of state tax money, is providing the team owners with more than a dozen event spaces that they can rent out for business meetings and the like. Will taxpayers get a cut of these new windfall profits, given that they’re paying for the bulk of the cost of building the event spaces? You must be new around here, kid, I’ve got some bad news about this timeline…
Share this post:

Friday roundup: Browns still haggling over stadium permit, Fire stadium could include TIF-funded parking garage

access_time personNeil deMause

We’ve somehow ended up again at the last Friday in August, and if history is any guide, none of you are actually reading this, as you’re all headed out of town for the long weekend (as am I). So I could write about anything, really — maybe, okay, that’s too depressing. No, not that, either. How about we stay away from the current U.S. administration and … eeeagh! Fine, sports stadium news it is!

  • Cleveland Browns officials and representatives of the Ohio Department of Transportation are “in discussions” on the height of the Browns’ proposed stadium that ODOT ruled could interfere with flights into nearby Cleveland Hopkins International Airport, but “it remains unclear whether those talks could lead to a compromise,” reports Cleveland.com. The only wiggle room appears to be either digging the stadium lower into the ground (unlikely, since it’s already set to be 80 feet below ground level) or move it farther from the airport (maybe, though if you go too far you run into I-71). If they can’t negotiate an accommodation by Tuesday, the team’s owners can still file an appeal of ODOT’s ruling in state court.
  • Chicago Fire owner Joe Mansueto quietly removed a bunch of plans for a new park and transit and bike path improvements to accompany his proposed new soccer stadium, and advocates for parks, transit, and bike paths are steamed! The new plan also includes a parking garage that could potentially be funded by property taxes from the site (i.e., a TIF), which one steamed Chicagoan told Streetsblog Chicago may not be “even permissible under existing regulations.” Expect lots of shouting at the next Zoom meeting on the project’s transit plan, scheduled for September 9.
  • Wannabe Orlando MLB expansion team owner Jim Schnorf says he’s “confident we will be awarded a Major League franchise in the next decade,” citing the fact that Orlando is bigger than other prospective expansion markets (true) and that it has made more progress on stadium funding (not really so much true). Orlando is also very close to Tampa Bay, which already has the Rays (for now, at least), and MLB expansion looks to be on hold for now while the Rays and Athletics stadium situations get resolved so those team owners have lots of cities available to use as move threats, but “confidence” is nice!
  • Boston city councilor Julia Mejia and the Boston NAACP have proposed a scaled-back rebuild of White Stadium just for school sports that would cut the city’s costs to an estimated $64.6 million from the $100 million-$172 million it would cost for the city’s share of a stadium for the NWSL’s Boston Legacy F.C. That would leave Legacy without a stadium, which was originally the whole point of this exercise, but would also create possibly $100 million in savings that Mejia and the NAACP say should be put toward “unmet student needs” in public schools. Mejia tried to introduce this as a bill on Wednesday but the council ruled it out of order since it already voted for the NWSL stadium version; Mejia says she’ll find other ways to raise it.
  • Houston Astros owner Jim Crane is suing Harris County to keep being allowed to not pay property tax even though Harris County officials say they have no intention of trying to charge the Astros property tax. So long as nobody who owns a sports team has to pay property tax, that’s the important thing, no matter what those crazy judges in New Jersey think.
Share this post:

Browns stadium denied construction permit because Cleveland officials say it could interfere with air traffic

access_time personNeil deMause

The Cleveland Browns owners’ plan for a stadium in Brook Park already survived a battle between the legislature and governor over how $600 million in state money would be raised, and is still facing additional challenges including a potential class action suit over using unclaimed property funds, another city suit over the team violating its lease by negotiating a move, plus the fact that the plan relies on another $600 million in city and county money that hasn’t yet been identified. But on Friday, the Ohio Department of Transportation added a new, unexpected wrinkle when it denied the team’s request for a construction permit, because the stadium would be so tall that planes could crash into it:

“Although the structure was given clearance from the FAA, ODOT deferred to the Cleveland Airport System’s determination that the structure would impact the airspace of the Cleveland Hopkins International Airport,” ODOT explained in a statement released on Friday evening. “The deferral to local airport authorities is standard for all development proposals considered by ODOT that are over height but received clearance from the FAA.”

The Browns stadium being subject to a potential veto from the Cleveland Airport System, which is run by the city of Cleveland, whose officials very much do not want the Browns to move to Brook Park, would be quite the turn of events. Cleveland port control director Bryant Francis has apparently been raising objections with both ODOT and the FAA since March, and an ODOT spokesperson said yesterday that “If an airport has any objections to a permit due to safety concerns, it has generally been ODOT’s practice to deny the permit based on the airport’s concerns,” and then get the two sides to sit down and work out a compromise.

How serious is the crashy-planes thing, and is this just Cleveland Mayor Justin Bibb using every lever he can to stall the project? Browns execs certainly implied that it’s just a pretext, noting that the FAA had approved the stadium plans even though the building would exceed federal height standards, because it wouldn’t significantly interfere with flight paths. The last time something like this went to court, after Phoenix sued neighboring Tempe for a planned Arizona Coyotes arena development near its airport that it said would be too tall, the whole thing ended up moot when Tempe voters rejected the arena proposal at the ballot box, so that doesn’t tell us much in terms of legal precedent.

None of which may matter: Browns owner Jimmy Haslam can still file an appeal with ODOT by the end of the month, and if that fails he can still reduce the stadium in height (difficult, since it’s already going to have a field 80 feet below ground level) or move it farther away from the airport (possibly less difficult), so this isn’t necessarily a permanent roadblock. It is more gamesmanship, though, and could force Haslam to wait to open his new stadium until 2030, which would require extending their lease at their current stadium in Cleveland for a year, which could lead to even more gamesmanship. All’s fair in love and stadium leverage, so don’t expect any of these legal battles to calm down anytime soon.

Share this post:

Friday roundup: Bengals lease a mystery even to officials who voted for it, Congress and lobbyists pressure DC to okay Commanders’ $7B+ stadium deal

access_time personNeil deMause

How’s everyone doing out there? The news has been a lot lately, both the stadium shenanigans and the other non-stadium stuff, I get it, I’m as tempted as anyone to just shut off the outside world and watch Murderbot. Feel no obligation to read this week’s news roundup if you’re out of spoons, but do know that whenever you’re ready for it, it has some classic Rob Manfred garblequotes in it, those are kind of amusing at least:

Share this post:

Ohio really does plan to fund Browns and other stadiums by seizing billions in money it owes to private individuals

access_time personNeil deMause

Remember how the Ohio legislature proposed borrowing $600 million from the state’s unclaimed property fund to use on a new Cleveland Browns stadium and repaying it with money from an omni-TIF collecting all kinds of tax money from in and around the stadium, and then the bill passed and it was described as providing “$600 million for the proposed Cleveland Browns domed stadium in Brook Park using unclaimed funds,” and I said it wasn’t really because that was just where Ohio would be borrowing the money from temporarily? Well, about that:

The $600 million for a new Cleveland Browns stadium that the state is raiding from the state’s unclaimed property fund won’t be repaid to the fund, and the state will eventually seize any unclaimed funds held longer than 10 years….

Cleveland.com and The Plain Dealer initially reported that under the plan, first proposed by Senate Republicans, such tax revenue would be used to return the $600 million to the state’s unclaimed funds account, which includes private property from things like inactive bank accounts, old safe deposit box holdings, and uncashed checks and insurance policies.

But, in fact, money seized for the new Sports and Cultural Facility Fund will never be returned to the pot of unclaimed funds.

And beginning in 2036, any unclaimed funds that have been held by the state for 10 years will automatically be diverted to the new development fund for construction work on other sports stadiums and cultural facilities around Ohio.

That’s, uh, real different, Cleveland.com and The Plain Dealer! Under the final budget bill, the news sites report, stadium-related taxes will continue to flow into the state’s general fund as usual, meaning Ohio actually will be funding a new stadium for the Browns — and possibly new or upgraded buildings for the Cincinnati Bengals and Columbus Blue Jackets and who knows who else — by seizing money it’s been holding on behalf of people who left it in inactive bank accounts, old safe deposit box holdings, uncashed checks, or the like, and handing it over to sports team owners.

If you think that sounds of dubious legality, you’re not alone: Attorneys including former Ohio attorney general Marc Dann (never mind for the moment how he became former) have filed a class action suit on behalf of the owners of the unclaimed funds, saying “that’s private property that the state has decided to take for itself.” Previous to the new law, anyone with money in the accounts could claim it in perpetuity — instead, Ohio will now be able to seize anything left in the fund for ten years, and use it to pay off the sports stadiums.

States laying claim to unclaimed property after a set period of time is actually pretty common in other states, where it’s known as “escheatment,” (The word comes from an Old French term for inheritance, not from the word “cheat,” though I’m sure plenty of people will still make that connection.) Northern Kentucky University law professor Ken Katkin told WLWT that “there’s a lot of smoke here, but I think there’s no fire,” and said he expected the class action suit would face an uphill battle.

Even so, there’s another question here, which is what happens if enough people start filing claims for their unclaimed money that Ohio doesn’t have enough left to pay for its unending series of stadium projects? That’s pretty unlikely for just the Browns — the fund currently sits at a staggering $4.8 billion, and Browns owner Jimmy Haslam is only asking for $600 million of it — but if enough team owners eventually demand a cut, and publicity about the unclaimed property fund leads enough people to start reclaiming their money before the ten-year clock runs out, it could eventually be an issue.

For now, though, Ohio legislators look to have found a way to funnel billions of dollars of public money to private sports team owners without breaking the state budget, by taking the money from an escrow account where it was holding it on behalf of private individuals. Even if courts end up ruling that’s just legal escheatment, it’s money the state could have used for literally anything else — but sports team owners were shouting the loudest, so they’re the ones who end up getting the benefit of all those uncashed checks.

Share this post:

Friday roundup: Commanders warn DC council “Don’t make Trump come in there,” plus Blue Jackets could join the line for Ohio subsidies

access_time personNeil deMause

Okay, that’s done, Friday roundup, let’s get to it:

Share this post:

Friday roundup: If not for John Fisher schadenfreude, we wouldn’t have any freude at all

access_time personNeil deMause

Hello, Canadians, and Americans who couldn’t find a way to get out of town for the holiday weekend! This Friday roundup is handcrafted especially for you!

I wish the news were better, but we have to go with what we’ve got:

  • The latest bad news from Sacramento: So few people want to go to A’s games that tickets are selling for a fraction of what they were at the start of the season, leaving season ticket holders with a massive case of buyers’ remorse: “It is really rough,” one told SF Gate. “I’ve given away a bunch of them. I’ve given them to friends. The other day, I set a record: I sold $90 seats for 12 bucks. So, it’s kind of pretty bad.” At least worries that season ticket holders will miss out on playoff games if they’re not playing in Sacramento are probably moot: The A’s can’t see a playoff spot with a telescope right now, and that’s even before they trade their best pitcher because he keeps complaining about how much their stadium sucks.
  • Speaking of the A’s, I got quoted a lot in this Guardian article on their LOLgroundbreaking in Las Vegas, check it out if you enjoy John Fisher schadenfreude. Economist J.C. Bradbury is also cited as speculating that the A’s could end up in Salt Lake City or elsewhere next season, which he rushed to clarify doesn’t mean he thinks SLC is a long-term solution either (“too small,” yup, checks out).
  • Philadelphia Eagles owner Jeffrey Lurie needs to make a decision on whether to build a new stadium to replace their 22-year-old one, says CBS Sports, because “the clock is ticking due to the lease expiring in seven years” and no no no no that is not how leases work, you can renew them, I just can’t even. Lurie hasn’t actually said anything about wanting a new stadium beyond being asked if he’d like a roof on one and saying he’s “torn,” but rest assured that the sports media is going to keep up the pressure for one regardless.
  • The Niagara Reporter took a look at Niagara Falls Mayor Robert Restaino’s plans to build a $200 million hockey arena and determined that to meet its revenue projections it would have to attract a junior league hockey team (as yet uncertain), host 60 concerts a year (typical similarly sized venues average 12 to 20), and host 60 youth tournaments a year, which the Reporter deems “impossible” — and even then still would fall short of meeting the city’s $13 million a year in debt service.
  • “Pioneer League’s Northern Colorado Owlz fold after playing start of season in Colorado Springs following being evicted from their Windsor stadium for ‘health and safety’ reasons and are replaced by new Colorado Springs team with all of the same Owlz players and staff” is quite the story, if only for all the interesting questions it raises about when a sports franchise is no longer the same sports franchise. Also Colorado Springs already had a Pioneer League team, and they’re called the Rocky Mountain Vibes? So very many questions.
  • In case you needed more reason to block the Daily Mail from your news feeds after it was banned as a source by Wikipedia for being unreliable, this article (Wayback link, they don’t deserve the traffic) headlined “NFL team finally given green light to build new $600 million stadium” when it’s a $2.4 billion stadium and the Cleveland Browns owners still want another $600 million to go with the $600 million in state money they just got should be the icing on the cake.
  • How are subsidies going in the non-sports world, you ask? Well, California just raised its tax credit for film and TV production from $330 million a year to $750 million, meaning 35% of all filming costs in the state will now be covered by taxpayers. This has worked out extraordinarily poorly for states in the past, and stories of wasteful tax expenditures continue to pile up, but elected officials keep on insisting it’s necessary to keep economic activity from leaving the state, sound familiar?
Share this post: