A rendering of the Brook Park dome and Haslam-operated entertainment village HHS Architects" class="uk-display-block uk-position-relative uk-visible-toggle"> click to enlarge A rendering of the Brook Park dome and Haslam-operated entertainment village - HHS Architects
HHS Architects
A rendering of the Brook Park dome and Haslam-operated entertainment village
The Greater Cleveland Partnership's executive board earlier this week officially endorsed Jimmy and Dee Haslam's plan to move the Cleveland Browns to a new multi-billion dollar dome in Brook Park that would be largely subsidized by new public taxes and state bonds.
That the Northeast Ohio chamber of commerce would make such a decision isn't entirely shocking -- we are talking about C-suite executives and business owners, almost none of whom live in the city of Cleveland, and whose collective goal is to support their business-owning brethren in making money-- but the public support of a plan opposed both by Cleveland Mayor Justin Bibb and Cuyahoga County Executive Chris Ronayne made headlines and sent shockwaves through the region. (It's worth noting, of course, that Dee Haslam is a GCP board member.)
Citing independent but unreleased studies showing that a dome would bring in two to three times as many visitors, GCP once again turned their eyes to the shiniest and richest object in the room. Despite unclear funding and the Statehouse's non-partisan Ohio Legislative Service Commission's opinion that the Haslams' economic projections are "overly optimistic," the Greater Cleveland Partnership endorsed the dome plan.
Today, Bibb and Ronayne in a joint letter called that endorsement "an affront to any partnership we have had together."
"It has become apparent that GCP does not value its relationship with local leaders and is not acting in the best interests of the City of Cleveland, Cuyahoga County, or Northeast Ohio," the two wrote, adding that the city and county will immediately
"withdraw participation in Greater Cleveland Partnership’s Civic Vision, City Development Committee, and Air Services Task Force meetings."
Both the Mayor and County Executive have been vocal in their opposition to the Haslam plan, citing any number of cogent reasons -- departing from the city center, abandoning the lakefront plan, hurting hotels and businesses in downtown, jeopardizing taxpayer dollars, cannibalizing events from other city and county-funded venues.
"It is unclear whose interests GCP represents – but it is clear you do not represent the business owners in downtown Cleveland that stand to lose millions of dollars in revenue or the business owners across Cuyahoga County who would have to compete against a new publicly subsidized entertainment district in Brook Park," the letter continued. "It does not represent the City of Cleveland, Cuyahoga County, or the countless private businesses that have invested billions of dollars into a strong urban core for our region...There is no win-win for the City of Cleveland and Cuyahoga County if the Browns move to Brook Park, and no amount of money can account for the irreversible damage caused by the construction of an unneeded entertainment district that competes with downtown and suburban entertainment districts, strains the state’s finances, and drains tax revenue and visitors away from the economic center of our region."
The Haslams have been rallying support for the Brook Park plan from the business community for years, and GCP's endorsement was a big win as the governor and statehouse consider whether to hand over hundreds of millions of dollars in public money during the current budgeting process.
But, as Cleveland.com columnist Brent Larkin recently noted, however, there is little to no official support locally for the move. (Also of note, leaked results from a poll reported today found that, "Cuyahoga County voters would likely reject extending a tax on alcohol and cigarettes if a portion of the money is dedicated to building a dome stadium outside Cleveland.")
Bibb and Ronayne echoed that sentiment in today's letter.
"The focus of the GCP Executive Committee seems detached from local issues and their actions not only fail to address the needs and concerns of the region but run counter to GCP’s stated goals of strengthening downtown, the lakefront, Cleveland Hopkins International Airport, and the business climate of Northeast Ohio," they wrote. "The City and County are eager to continue engaging with the business community, but engagement with the Greater Cleveland Partnership is no longer a proper proxy for those business relationships. The City and County seek to work with partners who advocate for sound public policy and strong local collaboration. The actions of the GCP Executive Committee have shown GCP is not that partner."
The two called on the general members of GCP's board to re-examine the decision -- the letter notes they heard from some of them privately who voiced opposition to the endorsement -- in the face of an executive committee that "took the bait with a private vote of members whose attendance and vote count have not been made public."
Subscribe to Cleveland Scene newsletters.
Follow us: Apple News | Google News | NewsBreak | Reddit | Instagram | Facebook | Twitter | Or sign up for our RSS Feed