Cuyahoga County Executive Chris Ronayne has opposed the Browns’ move out of Cleveland and now is taking a hard line against a countywide sin-tax vote to double stadium-maintenance proceeds that would require that a third goes to the Browns. Ronayne argues the doubling is insufficient and that the state legislation authorizing it is flawed in other ways, including:
-Not allowing the sin tax to be used for other pro teams seeking to locate in Cleveland, including a soccer stadium.
-Big-footing the county’s ability to determine itself which sports stadiums qualify for public sin tax money.
State authorization means a sin-tax vote on the doubling could be taken at any time. But at least two on County Council — Democrat Sunny Simon of South Euclid and Republican Michael Gallagher of Strongsville — are pressing for a sin-tax vote now, and if enough of their colleagues agree, might be able to overrule Ronayne. The danger of an immediate vote, however, is that local opposition to the Browns’ move to Brook Park might hurt the sin tax ballot issue, given what could be seen as its Browns-sharing poison pill.
So how does our Editorial Board Roundtable view this county sin-tax standoff?
Leila Atassi, manager public interest and advocacy:
Ronayne’s not wrong: The law is sloppy. If we’re forced to cut in the Browns, then any future pro team calling this county home should get a fair shot at sin tax dollars, too. And the county — not the Statehouse — should control how much we raise, so we’re not raiding the general fund down the line.
Ted Diadiun, columnist:
The county is obliged to maintain and improve the football, baseball and basketball venues, whether the sin tax revenues are enough to support the expense or not. Ronayne took a principled stand against the Browns’ move out of Cleveland. He might not like the ultimate decision, but he lost. Maintaining a dog-in-the-manger attitude in opposing efforts to increase sin tax revenues smacks of petulance, not principled leadership, to the detriment of the taxpayers.
Thomas Suddes, editorial writer:
The county executive is well within his rights (and is acting in taxpayers’ interests) to get in the way of the Browns’ move to Brook Park and the team’s consequent departure from Cleveland’s Huntington Bank Field fronting on Lake Erie. Given Cuyahoga County’s (indeed, Northeast Ohio’s) crushing human-service needs, the diversion of public resources, however packaged, for an enormously profitable private investment should embarrass anyone who supports such a plan.
Eric Foster, columnist:
The problems that Ronayne points out with the new sin tax law are correct. The increase will not cover the cost of repairs. The county should have control over how the funds are used. Money should not be set aside for repairs at a brand-new Browns arena. Still, the Cavs and Guardians facilities will need repairs. And soon. Can the county (and taxpayers) afford to leave money on the table?
Lisa Garvin, editorial board member:
I give Ronayne a lot of credit for sticking to his guns, even as everyone else has rolled over for the Haslams. The poison pill in the ballot issue guaranteeing the Browns a cut of the sin tax is outrageous. I’m far more interested in seeing the Haslams deliver on a promise to help fund lakefront redevelopment, and they should foot the bill for demolishing their current home.
Victor Ruiz, editorial board member:
I commend County Executive Ronayne for prioritizing the interests of the entire county, not just a few. There are too many unknowns here, including how the Browns’ Brook Park development will be sustained over time. Additionally, is this truly what we need? Aren’t there more pressing issues? The Browns and the city of Brook Park decided to build something new, so let them pay it.
Mary Cay Doherty, editorial board member:
The sin tax feels icky. Society disparages “sinners” while profiting from their sins. The tax also disproportionately affects lower-income citizens who, ironically, may be priced out of stadium events. Ideally, the county would design and seek state approval for a strictly earmarked stadium maintenance tax that raises revenue from event attendees. Meanwhile, the region should celebrate as the Haslam family’s vision and tenacity turns stadium dreams into reality.
Elizabeth Sullivan, opinion director:
Root problem here: Instead of serving the needs of Ohio’s second-largest city and county, state lawmakers chose to kowtow to a deep-pocketed team owner, stepping all over Cleveland’s and Cuyahoga County’s rights and interests in the process.
Have something to say about this topic?
*Send a letter to the editor, which will be considered for print publication.
* Email general questions about our editorial board or comments or corrections on this Editorial Board Roundtable to Elizabeth Sullivan, director of opinion, atesullivan@cleveland.com
If you purchase a product or register for an account through a link on our site, we may receive compensation. By using this site, you consent to our User Agreement and agree that your clicks, interactions, and personal information may be collected, recorded, and/or stored by us and social media and other third-party partners in accordance with our Privacy Policy.