Reader reaction has been intensely critical in the wake of the Ohio Senate’s proposal to use $600 million in unclaimed state funds to help finance a new stadium for the Cleveland Browns in Brook Park.
The proposed budget revision became a firestorm of discontent among subscribers to the From the Editor text account of Chris Quinn, editor of cleveland.com and The Plain Dealer. The response to his text about the deal to lend the Browns $600 million of state money for their $2.4 billion covered stadium illustrated deeper grievances about transparency, fairness, and political priorities in the Statehouse.
The Senate proposal would lend unclaimed funds — money legally held by the state but owed to citizens — to the Browns. Critics quickly pounced on the term “lend,” calling it a euphemism for a giveaway. The loan is to be paid back with state tax revenue from the stadium project, with the Browns also having to pay as much as $100 million to cover any shortfalls.
Adding fuel to the outrage is a clause that would dedicate one-third of an updated “sin tax” to Browns stadium maintenance, contingent on voter approval. Many say it’s a deal designed to fail with voters.
Nearly 300 people responded, many voicing outrage, questioning why the state is prioritizing a luxury sports venue while basic needs—education, housing, roads, and public safety—go unmet. Some labeled the scheme as “legal theft,” citing existing processes that direct unclaimed funds to nonprofits and community services. Diverting those dollars to a sports franchise, many said, is a betrayal of public trust.
The backlash highlights larger discontent with the Legislature’s broader behavior. Complaints poured in about other bills that remove local decision-making power, such as mandates on school pledges, classroom cell phone bans, and prohibition of local ranked-choice voting. Critics across the spectrum said these moves expose the hypocrisy of “small-government” rhetoric.
The Browns’ performance record and the Haslams’ business decisions added another layer of skepticism. Many readers pointed out that the current stadium is only 26 years old and that downtown Cleveland—bolstered by the Guardians and Cavaliers—stands to lose more than it gains by relocating the Browns. Some suggested the Haslams should fund their own development or sell the team outright.
The moral calculus also loomed large. Citizens objected to using so-called “sin tax” funds—revenue from alcohol, tobacco, and gambling—on sports entertainment rather than addiction recovery, public health, or helping families harmed by those very vices. “If we’re going to tax vice,” one reader said, “then let the money heal the damage, not gild stadium seats.”
The debate touches on deeper democratic issues as well. Many residents called for the public to vote directly on whether stadium funding should involve tax dollars or unclaimed funds. “Let the people decide,” was a recurring refrain, with others demanding audits, legal reviews, and deeper reporting into the connections between lawmakers and team owners.
Governor Mike DeWine’s role has not escaped notice. Some urged him to exercise his line-item veto authority to remove the stadium clause from the final budget. Others criticized his silence, asking whether campaign contributions or political convenience were influencing his decisions.
Underlying much of the public fury is a growing perception that Ohio’s legislative agenda has become untethered from the needs of average residents. From inadequate school funding to what many view as state overreach into local affairs, people feel voiceless and manipulated. The Browns stadium saga, in their view, has become a symbol of a broader, broken system.
Here are six of the most striking responses submitted:
“Wait a minute! Unclaimed funds belong to the people, not the greedy government. The state is custodian with fiduciary responsibility. To steal that money and gift it to billionaires is simply wrong.”
“Billionaires gorging themselves at the public money trough, with corrupt elected officials in their greedy pockets. Just disgusting. I personally will dedicate every ounce of my being and available resources and engage everyone I know to assure that the stupid, regressive, evil sin tax increase is soundly defeated. Enough is enough. 🤬”
“I absolutely resent the billionaire Haslams and the state government for expecting us to pay for their real estate development deal, let alone their lousy team. How much do they donate to the campaigns of the Governor and legislators who keep pushing this ridiculous money grab?”
“I can’t emphasize this point enough, if Haslam wants this project, he must pay for it 100%. Otherwise, if one tax or public dollar is used, it must go to the people for a vote. We have a 26-year-old stadium. Would anyone throw away their house after 26 years?”
“Despite all the protestations about not using public money to fund sports stadiums, these politicians will turn over every rock to find a way to do just that. They are such cowards and wimps. People might have some respect for them if they would just tell the truth from the start.”
“I think voters should be given an opportunity to decide if this is best use of unclaimed funds. Seems like home repair, affordable housing and fixing roads and bridges is more important. How about funding local housing trust funds based on unclaimed funds that came from each county. Do we need a new home for football or a roof over people’s heads and help with home repairs for seniors. What does this say about our priorities.”
Note: This story is an experiment for what could become a regular feature, a summary of comments I receive each day from readers who subscribe to texts I send each morning about questions we seek to answer and stories we have in the works. (Subscribe for free atwww.joinsubtext.com/chrisquinn) I used artificial intelligence to help put this together.