Taxpayers, city and state should ‘just say no’ to undeserved Browns stadium guidance: Brent Larkin

CLEVELAND — Just say no:

* For any elected official with the audacity to argue that it would be a prudent use of tax dollars to pay for half of a $2.4 billion domed stadium for the Browns in suburban Brook Park.

* To anyone peddling the bald-faced lie that making such an investment would pay off in more than lasting economic benefits to the Greater Cleveland community. Apparently representatives of Browns owners Jimmy and Dee Haslam are already selling this lie to state legislators as part of a campaign to rip off taxpayers. Don’t believe them. It’s the same debunked scam used dozens of times across the country to justify massive taxpayer investments in stadiums and arenas.

* At the laughable suggestion that the Browns might leave town again unless we dig deep into the pockets of working Greater Clevelanders to prevent it. Only a fool would argue that this community doesn’t support its perennially underperforming football team — especially considering that Mayor Justin Bibb has already given the Browns more than $300 million to upgrade the existing stadium. Browns officials would like the public to pay about half of a $1 billion renovation if they choose to stay there.

Former top city official Ken Silliman understands the stadium and arena business as well or better than anyone in the city. He served five years on the Gateway board when Mike White was mayor and six years as president when Frank Jackson was mayor. Additionally, he is the author of a 2023 book titled “Cleveland Sports Facilities: A 35 Year History.”

“There’s nothing wrong with that stadium,” Silliman said of the 25-year-old Cleveland Browns stadium. “The city has been very diligent in making repairs. Does it still need a $300 million investment? Absolutely not.”

Renovating the existing stadium is apparently the Browns’ fallback position if they can’t convince state and local officials to pay the $1.2 billion buyout of the domed stadium. Unfortunately, the Browns have shown no interest in other possible Cleveland locations.

I’ve done some detailed calculations and determined with absolute certainty the odds of the Haslams getting the elected to give them what they want.

It is zero.

Greater Cleveland has dozens of needs that would deserve an investment from state government that are far more important than appeasing the Brown family. State officials are already signaling they won’t be able to give the Browns what the owners want. Imagine if state officials were irresponsible enough to give the Browns a $600 million bailout. Fairness would then dictate that they make similar investments in stadium and arena projects for the Cincinnati Bengals and Reds, the Columbus Blue Jackets, as well as the Guardians and Cavaliers.

In Cincinnati, Hamilton County commissioners are scrambling to spend $300 million renovating Paycor Stadium, home of the Bengals. The stadium was opened a year after the one in Cleveland.

The most read op-ed on cincinnati.com in the last week of April was an op-ed in which a reader argued against spending another dime on the stadium. “Bengals Stadium has long been an economic black hole, absorbing an enormous amount of the region’s prime riverfront real estate and generating very little return for the public,” wrote reader Christopher Wood on April 30.

“When you drive around endless potholes on our flagged roads and wonder why they haven’t been fixed, remember: The Bengals got theirs,” Wood added.

Elected officials in Cleveland, Cuyahoga County and Columbus should proceed with caution. The public pays great attention to this.

So did the Toledo Blade, which warned in a May 5 editorial that “state tax money should not be flowing to Cleveland and Cincinnati for stadiums when they are already overserved compared to the rest of Ohio and when the state has starve local governments. “Let them eat cake” lawmakers risk triggering a taxpayer revolt that drives them out of office.”

The only way for the Haslams to raise the public funds they want for a domed stadium would be a ballot issue asking voters to approve a massive tax increase. Having paid close attention to every local election since 1971, my educated guess is that he could get about 38% of voters to support such a tax.

Remember, in 1990, the Gateway ballot issue passed countywide with barely 52% of the vote. And the benefits from that move were undoubtedly enormous — bringing the Cavaliers to a new downtown arena from their home in the empty fields of Richfield. That voting issue brought more than 250 events a year to what was then Gund Arena and kept the Indians (81 meetings a year) in Cleveland.

For 25 years, the Browns’ loyal fan base has stuck with the franchise at times when no one would have accused them of leaving. Now Browns ownership has the audacity to ask them for even more. It’s offensive. It is wrong. It is a fraud.

Just say no.

Brent Larkin was the editorial director of The Plain Dealer from 1991 until his retirement in 2009.

To reach Brent Larkin: [email protected]

Do you have something to say about this topic?

* Send a letter to the editor, which will be considered for print publication.

* Email general questions, comments, or corrections to this opinion column to Elizabeth Sullivan, opinion director, at [email protected].