goozer

A city’s job is not to defend the law, but ‘to make it painful for the team to leave’. I had to type that vs quote your post just to believe what I read. So you are advocating the city flush taxpayer dollars down the toilet just to be a pain in the rear end? A public entity has no fiduciary responsibility to its residents who pay the tax dollars? One thing you are right on is I don’t have to like it. And I won’t. Wow. Just wow.

Thanks for reinforcing my point. If the "City probably won't win" why would you tie up city resources and taxpayer dollars for multiple years? JFC.

I don't think the Haslams: 1) trying to bring a world class facility to NEO, and 2) also trying to get a return on their (anywhere from $1.2B - $2.4B) private investment has to be mutually exclusive from one another. Both can be true and that is capitalism. Show me someone else who personally has invested north of $1B-$2B on a project anywhere in the state of Ohio? Those opportunities are once in a lifetime and you shouldn't dismiss that out of hand so easily. I wish public subsidies didn't have to be used for such facilities but it has become all too common in recent decades and if you want professional sports in your city then you need to figure out some semblance of a public/private partnership. Otherwise kiss the professional sports bye bye and some of you may be ok with that, to each their own. That said, those of us that are Browns fans and remember October, 1995, value the things that professional sports bring to this region. Despite the weekly torture! Finally until the details on the public financing side become available, I for one will keep an open mind. I'm curious to learn of the "innovative funding mechanisms" in lieu of more traditional subsidies born by the public as a whole. Frankly, I'm surprised no one has dug into how much the Browns are planning on raising through PSL's, Brookpark (and County) admissions tax, etc. We continue to hear a TIF district will be used in some form, but the PSL and tax on those who attend can easily raise a couple hundred million and frankly I don't see how anyone can argue with making those that pay to attend the events bear a portion of the public side share.

Two things. If you believe you have a chance to win, sure litigate. I for one, don't think they have a chance in you know where to prevail, but now we'll find out. Second, develop the lakefront properly with the right public support, leadership and foresight and you'll generate more revenue/property value/public access that will make the Browns move to Brook Park pale in comparison. Problem is this is Cleveland and even the best real estate in the state of Ohio can't be developed properly, or at all, over multiple generations. City and county leadership continuing to have no ability to drive development and failing to get out of its own way.

Smart move to cut through the grandstanding BS and get this moving via the courts. Let's get this over with one way or the other and I'm curious to see if the city truly throws good money after bad trying to litigate this.

People crapping on Haslam for making a $2.5B investment 1/2 a mile from Cleveland proper? Seriously? The city has been aware of the desire for a stadium for 7 years, so to not lay any blame at the public leadership is a big mistake, IMO. Clearly this whole topic has various shades of gray, but to compare Haslam to Model is completely misguided and unjust. To each there own. Downvote this all you want, but caling a spade a spade here.

Not trying to be confrontational at all but I don't think this is correct. In all reputable reporting that is out there, plus directly in the press conference the Haslams did while in WVa a few weeks back, they've committed 1/2 of the $2.4B stadium build and 100% of the ancillary development which has been reported as another $1.2B for a rough total of $2.4B of the $3.6B that they would fund, plus 100% of stadium construction overruns. 1) Whether or not the ancillary development would happen timely, or if at all, is a fair debate but I think its been pretty clear to the publice that the intent is not to seek public funds on the non-stadium build, nor should it be. 2) And certainly debate on the public 1/2 for the stadium is a very fair debate. 3) But I think it is also important to acknowledge that the Haslam family/group is willing to invest a significant part of their own funds to the total vision of Brookpark. Whether or not you agree with the location, or have a personal beef with HSG is absolutely fair, and to each their own, but its not often that we see the possibility of this type of private investment in NEO.

Blaine also floated the idea of being willing to listen to the idea of a land swap with Brook Park. Interesting timing in saying that over the airways.

That would be helpful in that it would create ancillary development opportunities for HSG although it doesn't solve the parking/accesibilty problem which is the large revenue generator in Brook Park and also does not address the fact that the team wants an indoor/dome facility. The city should be working its tail off to find 175 acres within the city limits but I suspect they (or the Haslams really) have tried to no avail which led to the 2 options quote last week.

Now that I think about all of the above, I remember seeing a massing proposal for NuCLEus that looked to the north and it showed 515 expanded/topped off. That kind of stuck out like a sore thumb and looked odd, but maybe not a coincidence afterall?

I'm failing to understand why people continue to say the above. Actually the Higbee property WAS put on the ballot (as a parcel option for the Cleveland casino), WAS voted on, and IS in the constitution. Gun to my head, I'm willing to bet (pun intended) that the riverfront property does EVENTUALLY get built - probably in more of a mixed used form then originally proposed. And why wouldn't that be a GOOD thing? Yea, it stinks that it is taking so long, but I'd rather it be done right than wrong. Gilbert gets one bite at the apple here and with recent proposals/rumors in this neighborhood (NuCLEus, Moreno, etc.) there should be visions of a nice transformation here in the next 5 years. But, in the interim we have a repurposing of a prime property that was becoming neglected and was at risk of becoming even more dormant. Plenty of examples of large, former department stores, particularly in the Midwest, that have become totally vacant or worse, demolished.

How much does the sin tax cost the average person on an annual basis?

Long time listener, first time caller and trust me when I say that I am just another Joe Citizen with no direct dog in this race. 1) Relative to the facilities fee being pushed above as an alternative solution. First, I believe there is already an 8% admissions tax levied against tickets purchased for all 3 venues being discussed here. This applies to Indians, Cavs, Browns tickets as well as musical and other acts that would "play" at any of these venues. This admissions tax is already at the high end of comparable venues throughout the Midwest and any new facilities fees born by the consumer would appear to further erode attendance at these events due to increase price points for entry, and also would seem to negatively attract the number and quality of alternative events that have to choose between coming to Cleveland or Detroit for an act as an example b/c their profits would be less here than somewhere else. 2) Can we put an end to the multi-county tax discussion? While logical on the surface, it is counter to state law and constitution and while "our legislators can always change the law", they have many larger fish to fry and this will never happen. Trust me on that. 3) Team owners will not come back to the table to renegotiate. They have no reason to. And that is simply because the expense obligations at hand here are obligations of the County within the lease (i.e. Public obligations) and are specifically earmarked as such. It will come out of the county's general fund long before Mr. Gilbert, Dolan or Haslam will take pittance upon the citizens of Cuyahgoa County. We can play the Whoa is Me card all we want about the rich owners getting richer and the poor citizens becoming poorer, but at the end of the day these are Publicly Owned Facilities with leases that ARE commensurate with what the markets are bearing in similar mid-markets with professional sports teams. I have friends that are much smarter than I am that know what they are talking about who insist that the Gateway leases actually are not bad compared to similar ones in the Midwest. The Browns may be another story, but considering what happened in September 1995, well, there really wasn't much time to put thought into terms when the overwhelming outcry from Cuyahoga County was just to make sure the team came back. Further, like it or not, admit it or not, accept it or not, but the Cavaliers and Indians HAVE spent significant dollars in maintaining their venues and in some cases on items that potentially are public responsibilties. Point being, I think people are being disingenuous in saying that the owners haven't done anything here. I'd like to think that this actually is a fair example of a true public/private partnership. I'm open to actual facts as to how the leases are bad, but the pure hyperbole and lack of details being provided drive me up the wall. Back to my perpetual hibernation.