CLEVELAND — The regional chamber of commerce is throwing its support behind Haslam Sports Group’s plan to build an enclosed stadium in Brook Park – a corporate endorsement that comes just as state lawmakers consider make-or-break funding for the project.
The Greater Cleveland Partnership’s executive committee voted this week to endorse the Brook Park plans. The move comes after months of closed-door discussions where the chamber has attempted to play the role of a mediator between Haslam Sports Group and city and county leaders who want the Browns to stay Downtown.
“While a downtown dome is ideal, financial and development constraints have been challenging; the Brook Park option is more practical to move forward,” GCP wrote in an announcement posted on its website Tuesday morning. “The additional events, and expected growth in live entertainment, are an economic opportunity for the entire region.”
GCP called the proposal for a $2.4 billion suburban stadium and about $1 billion of surrounding development a “transformative” play for the region.
Browns owners Jimmy and Dee Haslam are asking for $1.2 billion from taxpayers to help pay for the stadium. The General Assembly is weighing a plan to provide $600 million from state-issued bonds – debt the state would pay back, with interest, using tax dollars from the broader 176-acre Brook Park stadium district.
Cuyahoga County Executive Chris Ronayne has flatly rejected the Haslams’ request for another $600 million from county-issued bonds.
But Haslam Sports Group recently said it can move forward without the county, though the Browns still clearly want Ronayne's buy-in:
Meanwhile, the city of Brook Park is preparing to seek state transportation funding for road work around the site, an industrial property near Cleveland Hopkins International Airport.
The Haslams say they’ll put at least $1.2 billion into the new stadium, covering any cost overruns. They’ve also said the surrounding development, from hotels to apartments to retail, offices and parking, will be privately funded.
“The proposed private contribution for the stadium and the mixed-use development are significant and merit support from public partners,” GCP wrote Tuesday morning. “We strongly welcome and favor the state funding proposals for sports facilities, which combined with local support can enable partnerships comparable to similar projects across the country.”
GCP is speaking up as Ronayne and Cleveland Mayor Justin Bibb are urging lawmakers in Columbus to take another tack – providing $350 million toward a renovated stadium on the lakefront instead of $600 million for a new suburban project:
And the clock is ticking. The Browns are pushing to get funding for the Brook Park project included in the next state budget, which has to be signed by the end of June.
The Ohio House included the bond proposal in its version of the budget last month. Now the Senate is workshopping its version of the mammoth spending bill.
In an interview with News 5 this week, Brook Park Mayor Edward Orcutt reiterated that all eyes are on the state.
“The state and their budget is going to tell everything,” Orcutt said. “As long as that passes, this could be a reality. If it doesn’t pass, then we may have to go and do something else with that land.”
In its announcement, GCP didn’t say how many of its executive committee members voted to endorse the Brook Park project. The chamber said some members abstained from voting because of conflicts.
The executive committee is a subset of the chamber’s larger board of directors. Dee Haslam, the CEO of Haslam Sports Group, is an executive committee member.
In an emailed statement, the Browns thanked GCP's leaders for their support.
"We respect the questions and extensive dialogue we've had with our city's most important corporate leadership," wrote Dave Jenkins, Haslam Sports Group's chief operating officer. "It was apparent throughout this process that they were committed to truly putting in time, analysis and objective thought into their ultimate determination that the enclosed stadium in Brook Park can have can have the most transformative impact on our region. We are firmly committed to Cleveland and believe our investment in the enclosed stadium and mixed-use development is a generational opportunity for our region and will also serve as a catalyst to reimagine and develop our lakefront."
GCP also stressed that it supports Cleveland’s efforts to remake its lakefront, where the current stadium sits. The Browns’ lease on that city-owned stadium ends in early 2029, and the team is looking to move in time to start the 2029 NFL season in Brook Park.
Cleveland unveiled a new master plan for the lakefront last year and, working with the nonprofit North Coast Waterfront Development Corp. and other partners, has lined up $150 million in federal and state grants for major infrastructure projects.
That includes a planned land bridge between the lakefront and the center of Downtown and a makeover of the Shoreway into a slimmed-down, slowed-down boulevard as it cuts by the stadium:
“On the lakefront, a stadium move creates an opportunity for a larger, mixed-use development that supports a more vibrant downtown and activated waterfront,” GCP wrote in its announcement. “Once the stadium decision is settled, GCP asks the team, Cleveland and Brook Park and county to collaborate on accelerating the lakefront development.
The chamber also raised the prospect of “revenue-sharing” from the new Brook Park stadium, along with a “contribution” from the Browns to the city of Cleveland. GCP believes those sources could provide more than $150 million for lakefront development.
GCP said it’s also committed to working with the city and other partners to close Burke Lakefront Airport, opening up more lakefront land for eventual redevelopment.
“We do not take lightly that our positions diverge from some of our key partners,” the chamber wrote. “GCP urges all parties to collaborate on these transformational opportunities to have lasting impact on the city’s and region’s economy, civic identity and future growth.”
The city of Cleveland and Cuyahoga County reacted to GCP's announcement with dismay.
"The city of Cleveland is focused on delivering a world-class lakefront for Cleveland's residents, visitors and businesses," a City Hall spokewoman wrote in an email. "It's disappointing to see a small number of individuals from the regional chamber supporting the financial interests of the Haslams at the expense of Cleveland and taxpayers."
A Cuyahoga County spokeswoman echoed that.
"We are disappointed but not surprised to see the GCP executive committee voted to support a project proposed by Dee Haslam, one of their members," the county's statement reads. "This small subset of the GCP board does not speak for the business community in Northeast Ohio, especially the countless businesses that will be negatively impacted by this project."
Cleveland City Council leaders also lambasted GCP — and urged the group's executive board to reconsider it stance. In a written statement, council members accused the chamber of forgetting about what the "C" in its name stands for.
"The potential relocation of the Browns from our city's central business district represents more than just the loss of a football team; it threatens the economic vitality of our Downtown, the businesses that rely on game-day traffic and the very fabric of our community," Council President Blaine Griffin said in the statement. "The move pits city against city, damaging the trust and collaborative spirit many leaders claim they want for our. region. Working-class and middle-class people will struggle to enjoy a game day experience, and there is very little public benefit."
Councilman Kerry McCormack, who represents much of Downtown, called for a leadership change at GCP, which he described as an "increasingly irrelevant organization" that represents "the interests of only the ultra-wealthy."
Downtown Cleveland Inc., a nonprofit that represents property owners and advocates for the center city, also expressed dismay at GCP's decision.
Michael Deemer, the group's president and chief executive, said moving the stadium will shift jobs, tax dollars and energy away from Downtown -- and hurt lakefront development efforts.
"Here's the bottom line," he wrote in an emailed statement. "Building a new stadium in suburban Cleveland is a risky use of taxpayer dollars that undermines the public and private investment already transforming the city's core. Renovating the existing stadium isn't just viable — it's vital to the region's continued growth."
