CLEVELAND, Ohio – Did Mayor Justin Bibb really cut the best deal he could with the Cleveland Browns? Would the city be better off gambling that the Brook Park stadium never gets built? And, even if the Browns do leave Cleveland, should the lakefront stadium really be demolished?
Those were some of the questions Cleveland City Council members peppered Bibb’s team with during a committee hearing Monday to go over details of the agreement Bibb reached with Browns owners Dee and Jimmy Haslam. The deal involves dropping all pending litigation against the team, and the team paying the city $70 million in addition to covering the stadium demolition costs estimated at $30 million.
Bibb did not appear at the meeting, but multiple cabinet members defended the agreement as the best under the circumstances, and one that would allow the city to move forward with financial help from the team for its vision of developing 50 acres on the lakefront.
Bibb is asking council to approve the agreement, clearing the way for the first $25 million payment from the Haslams as early as next month.
The meeting, jointly held between council’s Municipal Services and Properties Committee, the Development, Planning and Sustainability Committee and the Transportation and Mobility Committee, ended with the committees taking no action.
However, some members of the committees appeared skeptical of the deal.
“We collectively cannot continue to make bad decisions around this city,” said Councilman Michael Polensek, who has represented Collinwood since 1978, going back to before Brian Sipe’s Kardiac Kids.
Polensek cited a waterfront commuter train line to a parking lot that “nobody wants to ride,” the impending loss of the county jail and its hundreds of jobs to Garfield Heights, and plans to close schools that will “devastate our neighborhoods.”
“I see nothing before us that says anything about stabilizing our city, specifically the East side of the city,” Polensek said.
Chief of Staff Bradford Davey, under questioning by Councilman Brian Kazy, said it was a take it or leave it deal.
“I will still be a no vote here,” Kazy said. “I don’t know if this will pass through council or not.”
Officials said failure to approve the deal could leave the city saddled with the cost of tearing down the stadium, and without the $50 million in money for lakefront developments and $20 millions for other projects to be determined later.
But the discussion also delved into the idea of whether – even without the Browns as a tenant as early as 2029 – the stadium should be destroyed
“Once the stadium comes down, he (Jimmy Haslam) has no competition to Jimmy’s World out there” in Brook Park, Polensek said.
Thomas McNair, chief integrated development officer, said: “I would think that the adaptive reuse of a facility like that would be incredibly expensive. Somebody’s going to need that money to come from somewhere. And I can tell you right now, I don’t care if it’s an adaptive resuse of a stadium, an office building, an apartment building, they all look at us to start plugging those gaps.”
Separately, Jessica Trivisonno, senior advisor for major projects to the mayor, said a soccer facility was being discussed as a possibility as part of the lakefront redevelopment.
Councilman Richard Starr questioned why some other cities were able to secure more money from teams as part of stadium agreements.
“Every stadium deal is different,” Davey said. And in this case, he said Cleveland was securing money without the city being required to commit money of its own to a new stadium or development. “The only thing we are delivering is the Cleveland Browns not playing football downtown anymore.”
The Browns plan to move into their new Brook Park stadium in 2029. But if the new stadium isn’t in ready, the Browns could extend their lease by two years – one year at a time – for the 2029 and 2030 seasons.
The deal not only requires the city to drop its legal actions against the Browns, it also states that the city must use its “best efforts to seek the dismissal” of the taxpayer lawsuit former Mayor Dennis Kucinich filed in an attempt to block the team’s move from Cleveland.
Kucinich spoke during the public comment period at the end of Monday’s committee meeting.
“I say these are our Browns. We should not let them move,” Kucinich said. “And certainly, the city council being as street smart as many of you members are, certainly understands when there’s a hustle at work. Trying to push to get a decision by Dec. 1 to take $25 million - what’s the rush, to take $25 million or what?”
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.