Coming at 12:01 am or thereabouts.....

 

This must be about Lake Haslem replacing the Ford plant.

58 minutes ago, Willo said:

Who is this mayor - does not come off well in this story.  No wonder Jimmy loves BP.

 

The Mayor shared that safety will be at the top of the list when building this massive complex. “The Cleveland Browns will still have that obligation to the stadium, the parking lot area. What we call inside the curb. Then, Brook Park will have our obligation with traffic control,” says Mayor Orcutt.

 

Honestly if you listen to his interviews he's been the most level headed throughout all of this. I can't fault him for the position jimmys idiocy has put him in. 

 

Haslam email preempts City, County at stadium debate
By Ken Prendergast / December 12, 2024

 

Yesterday morning, Cleveland Mayor Justin Bibb, Cuyahoga County Executive Chris Ronayne, Cuyahoga County Council President Pernel Jones Jr., Cleveland City Council President Blaine Griffin arrived at the monthly board meeting of the Greater Cleveland Partnership (GCP). There, they asked the 70-member board of the region’s corporate CEOs and presidents to side with them on where the Cleveland Browns should play their home games after 2028.

 

MORE:

https://neo-trans.blog/2024/12/12/haslam-email-preempts-city-county-at-stadium-debate/

9 hours ago, GISguy said:

 

Honestly if you listen to his interviews he's been the most level headed throughout all of this. I can't fault him for the position jimmys idiocy has put him in. 

We hope so as we never heard of him before the hyperlink above. He’s no Mayor Coyne (in his prime who always played hardball with Cleveland over the airport needs). Coming off uncertain in this teevee interview, while not ideal in a leader, is understandable as both sides have him by the short hairs.

Do I have this right?

 

stay downtown:

20-25 year lease

$600M upfront funding from taxpayers

$350-500M more in maintenance over course of lease

 

brook park

? Year lease commitment

$1.2B upfront from taxpayers

$? For roads and infrastructure 

$? For maintenance over initial lease or course of life

 

Still seems more cost effective to focus on renovation unless the team commits to the new dome for 50 years, which they won’t. Seems like in 20-30 years they’ll want a huge Reno or rebuild of that, too 
 

I do agree building on airport land injects a lot on uncertainty, although maybe with Trump in office they could blow through government obstacles. But I get why the team doesn’t want to invest time in that option. 
 

Edit: It also is unlikely the GCP board will vote to oppose their fellow board member Dee Haslam when a good chunk of the board members are affiliated with other pro sports teams in town or sponsors of the Browns. The best the city/county can expect is they don’t express an opinion but I wouldn’t be surprised if they vote to support eventually. The average voter doesn’t care what these folks say though so I’m not sure it matters but what will happen depends on how residents react when real numbers are released. 

Edited December 12, 2024Dec 12 by coneflower

6 hours ago, KJP said:

 

Haslam email preempts City, County at stadium debate
By Ken Prendergast / December 12, 2024

 

Yesterday morning, Cleveland Mayor Justin Bibb, Cuyahoga County Executive Chris Ronayne, Cuyahoga County Council President Pernel Jones Jr., Cleveland City Council President Blaine Griffin arrived at the monthly board meeting of the Greater Cleveland Partnership (GCP). There, they asked the 70-member board of the region’s corporate CEOs and presidents to side with them on where the Cleveland Browns should play their home games after 2028.

 

MORE:

https://neo-trans.blog/2024/12/12/haslam-email-preempts-city-county-at-stadium-debate/

Haslams ride dirty. They preempt the City/County presentation and hijack an expected vote, then Queen Dee gets a second bite at the apple in January?  I hope Bibb, Ronayne, Huang and others return the favor on that day and ask for a rebuttal meeting based on any new information or inconsistencies in their annoying PR blitzkrieg. We haven’t fully digested KJPs breaking news but we find it odd how anything to do with the lakefront is a flat no including not increasing their contribution above $1.2 billion- aren’t they going to do that anyway at BP? Why can’t that mysterious pool of money also apply downtown and…by the way, any stadium in any location is going to need upgrades just years just look around especially Jimmy’s idol Jerry Jones - who somehow got all NFL owners to upgrade his newer stadium for the World Cup for $350 million. NFL where is your contribution to the historic Cleveland franchise and long-suffering community or is that waiting behind curtain #1 until Jimmy’s political shakedown dance of the seven veils is complete.

12 hours ago, X said:

 

What part of the plan aren't you getting?  They know they have some nice highways, and they know they might need to expand some ramps or something.  And they are gonna need some traffic cops.  And financing- you bet they're gonna need some!

So you're saying there's concepts of a plan?

Shouldn't Dee have to recuse herself from all matters regarding the Browns stadium and only communicate to the GCP on any related matters through official channels as anyone else who is not a member of the board would have to do? I can't think of a clearer example of a conflict of interest and she is quite clearly abusing her position on the board for personal benefit. 

 

I would think the board would have bylaws defining and prohibiting conflicts of interest. If that is the case then GCP should take disciplinary action against Dee. 

1 hour ago, Luke_S said:

 

 

I would think the board would have bylaws defining and prohibiting conflicts of interest. If that is the case then GCP should take disciplinary action against Dee. 

Definitely.  May I suggest her punishment should be having to forego her cozy owner's box and require her to sit in the Dawg Pound at this Sunday's game against the Chiefs.  High temp. is going to be a toasty 42 degrees although a good chance she will be rained on so she should forego wearing her mink coat.

1 hour ago, Luke_S said:

Shouldn't Dee have to recuse herself from all matters regarding the Browns stadium and only communicate to the GCP on any related matters through official channels as anyone else who is not a member of the board would have to do? I can't think of a clearer example of a conflict of interest and she is quite clearly abusing her position on the board for personal benefit. 

 

I would think the board would have bylaws defining and prohibiting conflicts of interest. If that is the case then GCP should take disciplinary action against Dee. 

Exactly. Plus she is also on the board of the Columbus Partnership. Impressive group! We all remember the prior president of the Columbus Partnership Alex Fischer (BFFs with Haslams since Knoxville) who lobbied the Statehouse for money to move the Browns training camp to C-bus - with approval of Jimmy and Dee- but they all misjudged the blowback. Do you think they have forgot? I really don’t blame them much for wanting to be in C-bus given the pro-development mindset of the Columbus Partnership and the entire region for that matter- but there is something called integrity and honesty that we need to hold them to account for in Cleveland.

1 hour ago, Luke_S said:

Shouldn't Dee have to recuse herself from all matters regarding the Browns stadium and only communicate to the GCP on any related matters through official channels as anyone else who is not a member of the board would have to do? I can't think of a clearer example of a conflict of interest and she is quite clearly abusing her position on the board for personal benefit. 

 

I would think the board would have bylaws defining and prohibiting conflicts of interest. If that is the case then GCP should take disciplinary action against Dee. 

 

Unless I'm misunderstanding (possible) the GCP is basically the equivalent of a chamber of commerce and has no authority to make binding decisions.   In that case, conflict of interest would not necessarily apply.

It's time Bibb and Ronayne have a joint press conference and talk to Cleveland/Cuyahoga taxpayers openly. They need to be blunt: the Browns are leaving downtown Cleveland and these lawsuits, pleas for continued play in Browns stadium, and Burke fantasies are a waste of time and resources.

 

Both should lay out realistic financials - none of the bulls**t $1.2 billion subsidies either - and give Cleveland/Cuyahoga a binding referendum to decide if this privatized development should be subsidized.

 

If a majority are willing to pay, then we begin discussing loans and bonds and commit to subsidy and Brookpark. And if it goes the other direction, then the matter is closed, even with the threat of interstate relocation.

 

Whatever it takes to be DONE with this distraction.

18 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

 

Unless I'm misunderstanding (possible) the GCP is basically the equivalent of a chamber of commerce and has no authority to make binding decisions.   In that case, conflict of interest would not necessarily apply.

True but hold them to their stated Integrity value to act above reproach and openly . But their mission/vision/values reads as an insular group to first benefit themselves. 

 

..Our ALL IN Values

Our “All-In” values define the spirit of our organization and serve as a commitment to our members, partners and community.

 

We notice community is mentioned last in importance 

https://greatercle.com/our-purpose/

 

 

8 minutes ago, TBideon said:

It's time Bibb and Ronayne have a joint press conference and talk to Cleveland/Cuyahoga taxpayers openly. They need to be blunt: the Browns are leaving downtown Cleveland and these lawsuits, pleas for continued play in Browns stadium, and Burke fantasies are a waste of time and resources.

 

Both should lay out realistic financials - none of the bulls**t $1.2 billion subsidies either - and give Cleveland/Cuyahoga a binding referendum to decide if this privatized development should be subsidized.

 

If a majority are willing to pay, then we begin discussing loans and bonds and commit to subsidy and Brookpark. And if it goes the other direction, then the matter is closed, even with the threat of interstate relocation.

 

Whatever it takes to be DONE with this distraction.

What is the incentive for Bibb to make the case to Cleveland taxpayers that they should subsidize a stadium outside of the city?

the press needs to challenge the idea that the new stadium won't immediately have an upkeep and renovation cost. 

 

are we supposed to believe there won't be a 10 million dollar a year upkeep with a 100 million dollar ask in a decade?

7 minutes ago, TBideon said:

Both should lay out realistic financials - none of the bulls**t $1.2 billion subsidies either - and give Cleveland/Cuyahoga a binding referendum to decide if this privatized development should be subsidized.

 

If a majority are willing to pay, then we begin discussing loans and bonds and commit to subsidy and Brookpark. And if it goes the other direction, then the matter is closed, even with the threat of interstate relocation.

"To decide if this privatized development should be subsidized"  sound pretty open-ended to me.  On principle and at varying levels, we do it all the time. Such a proposition would probably win.  "Bread and circuses" have long held great voter appeal.

2 minutes ago, Whipjacka said:

the press needs to challenge the idea that the new stadium won't immediately have an upkeep and renovation cost. 

 

are we supposed to believe there won't be a 10 million dollar a year upkeep with a 100 million dollar ask in a decade?

Agreed. Media isn't even asking basic questions about the cost of needed infrastructure improvements/additions, stadium upkeep, funding sources, pushing for the renovated stadium plans, etc. Pretty pathetic effort in my opinion.

40 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

 

Unless I'm misunderstanding (possible) the GCP is basically the equivalent of a chamber of commerce and has no authority to make binding decisions.   In that case, conflict of interest would not necessarily apply.

 

If the decision of the GCP to back the city/county or Browns in the development decision had no import then Bibb and Ronayne wouldn't have made the effort to meet with the board, and Dee wouldn't have felt the need to preempt their presentation. 

 

As a public facing board that hopes to speak with some credibility on economic and development matters for Cleveland and the region I would think they would want to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. You may be right that their bylaws do not cover conflicts of interest, but in the matter of public perception, I think this conflict of interest very much matters. 

Edited December 12, 2024Dec 12 by Luke_S

12 minutes ago, MostlyThere14 said:

What is the incentive for Bibb to make the case to Cleveland taxpayers that they should subsidize a stadium outside of the city?

Bibb and Ronayne need to lay out the facts, really financials, and gauge what the public wants. We already know they don't want this albatross.

 

Maybe I'm wrong and Cleveland/County would be supportive, in which case we move forward and start determining subsidies and favorable contractual terms.  Or begin winding down and evaluating stadium costs going forward. Whatever it takes to end this saga.

 

Edited December 12, 2024Dec 12 by TBideon

3 hours ago, coneflower said:

Do I have this right?

 

brook park

? Year lease commitment

Happy for someone to jump in and just flat out answer this for me, but have the Haslams or the Browns or anyone specifically said how long they want the Brook Park lease to be?  All I remember them saying is the proposed 30 year lease for a renovation would outlive the life of the current stadium.

6 minutes ago, MostlyThere14 said:

Agreed. Media isn't even asking basic questions about the cost of needed infrastructure improvements/additions, stadium upkeep, funding sources, pushing for the renovated stadium plans, etc. Pretty pathetic effort in my opinion.

Sadly. media in this town is pretty pathetic and has been for quite a while. Except for Jarboe and @KJP.

With how unliked Haslam is amongst the other NFL owners, and all signs pointing to Bibb and Ronayne wanting to tell HSG to kick rocks, what actual leverage do they have? Sure, there would be some revenue loss for downtown in the short term. But personally, I'd take the bet that the city/county can activate that land to be productive in a much more efficient manner than what it is now.

 

Back to his unpopularity with the ownership groups, would they even let him move the Browns? Maybe they would be willing to use him as a guinea pig for Europe or Mexico City, but I'm not sure how they'd react to moving to Columbus.

 

Maybe I'm being an alarmist, but I'd anticipate Cleveland and Columbus breeding some real resentment if they fought over an NFL team. Much more than the usual sibling rivalry we have now.

 

Maybe I'm being an accelerationist, but that might be enough of a catalyst to begin the establishment of the Commonwealth of the Western Reserve. Only half joking 👀 

 

 

1 minute ago, TBideon said:

That's not all what I wrote. Bibb and Ronayne need to lay out the facts, really financials, and gauge what the public wants.

 

Maybe I'm wrong and Cleveland/County would be supportive, in which case we move forward and start determining subsidies and favorable contractual terms.  Or not. Whatever it takes to end this saga.

FWIW, judging by the comments on Facebook, Instagram, etc most of the public are definitely against moving to Brookpark.  

12 minutes ago, Whipjacka said:

the press needs to challenge the idea that the new stadium won't immediately have an upkeep and renovation cost. 

 

are we supposed to believe there won't be a 10 million dollar a year upkeep with a 100 million dollar ask in a decade?

Both Allegiant and SoFi stadiums have already had $10s of millions in upgrades and changes. 

 

Annual maintenance is significantly higher when you have a massive roof  as well. 

3 minutes ago, snakebite said:

Happy for someone to jump in and just flat out answer this for me, but have the Haslams or the Browns or anyone specifically said how long they want the Brook Park lease to be?  All I remember them saying is the proposed 30 year lease for a renovation would outlive the life of the current stadium.

 

Would there even be a lease?  Wouldn't the Haslams own the stadium and the land in Brook Park?

I think they're using the word "lease" to represent a guarantee the Browns would stay in Brookpark for 30 years.

3 minutes ago, acd said:

Would there even be a lease?  Wouldn't the Haslams own the stadium and the land in Brook Park?

 

In place of lease, you could say "length of engagement." I.E. the amount of time before they start asking for a major remodel or new building. Basically, how long before the team does this all over over again?

 

13 minutes ago, Luke_S said:

 

If the decision of the GCP to back the city/county or Browns in the development decision had no import then Bibb and Ronayne wouldn't have made the effort to meet with the board, and Dee wouldn't have felt the need to preempt their presentation. 

 

As a public facing board that hopes to speak with some credibility on economic and development matters for Cleveland and the region I would think they would want to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. You may be right that their bylaws do not cover conflicts of interest, but in the matter of public perception, I think this conflict of interest very much matters. 

 

On this I disagree. There is no way a board of business leaders is going to vote to tell another business leader on their own board that they can't decide where to locate themselves. These companies face the same decision all the time and they too accept incentives to locate here or there. The Haslams want a crazy amount of money compared to anything done before, but I find it very doubtful any business leader here is going to stick their neck out one way or the other on this.

 

I get why Bibb and Ronayne tried but I think it's a unlikely to go their way.

6 minutes ago, acd said:

 

Would there even be a lease?  Wouldn't the Haslams own the stadium and the land in Brook Park?

Possibly! I can't imagine they would assume the responsibilty and costs for all the subsequent maintenance and upgrades that are going to follow as well though. Thats going to be a rude upkeep cost with a roof included now.

1 minute ago, coneflower said:

On this I disagree. There is no way a board of business leaders is going to vote to tell another business leader on their own board that they can't decide where to locate themselves. These companies face the same decision all the time and they too accept incentives to locate here or there. The Haslams want a crazy amount of money compared to anything done before, but I find it very doubtful any business leader here is going to stick their neck out one way or the other on this.

 

I get why Bibb and Ronayne tried but I think it's a unlikely to go their way.

 

I'm not saying which side they should endorse, all I'm saying is Dee should remove herself from the decision and not leverage her position on the board to influence the decision in any way. Especially, as you say, because they likely do not want to set a precedent of dictating to one another where they should locate their operations. 

14 minutes ago, snakebite said:

Happy for someone to jump in and just flat out answer this for me, but have the Haslams or the Browns or anyone specifically said how long they want the Brook Park lease to be?  All I remember them saying is the proposed 30 year lease for a renovation would outlive the life of the current stadium.

 

Maybe it's my own failure to assume this, but I was under the assumption that the Haslams would own the Brook Park stadium. I assumed this because the Haslams' development arm Primacy Development LLC is the one buying the land for the stadium...

https://neo-trans.blog/2024/11/21/haslams-brook-park-berea-developments-progress/

24 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

Maybe it's my own failure to assume this, but I was under the assumption that the Haslams would own the Brook Park stadium. I assumed this because the Haslams' development arm Primacy Development LLC is the one buying the land for the stadium...

https://neo-trans.blog/2024/11/21/haslams-brook-park-berea-developments-progress/

Lots of questions. We thought it was a Haslam purchase of the land now we hear lease being thrown in? If there is a purchase or lease of the 176 acres? will it be bifurcated between the stadium and surrounding development?

 

reading the Sports Illustrated story on the lastest PR release we found this in that the two are considered separate 

 

…Unlike the stadium itself, which the Haslam Sports Group is seeking a 50-50 split of public and private money to fund, the development around the stadium that Lincoln will handle is expected to be funded privately…

 

Separating them obviously makes it easier to walk away from this and Berea at some point as the surrounding developments are nothing unusual in most markets and could survive to some extent and be traded among real estate investors over and over.

36 minutes ago, Willo said:

Lots of questions. We thought it was a Haslam purchase of the land now we hear lease being thrown in? If there is a purchase or lease of the 176 acres? will it be bifurcated between the stadium and surrounding development?

 

reading the Sports Illustrated story on the lastest PR release we found this in that the two are considered separate 

 

…Unlike the stadium itself, which the Haslam Sports Group is seeking a 50-50 split of public and private money to fund, the development around the stadium that Lincoln will handle is expected to be funded privately…

 

Separating them obviously makes it easier to walk away from this and Berea at some point as the surrounding developments are nothing unusual in most markets and could survive to some extent and be traded among real estate investors over and over.

My understanding is that Haslams will own all the land, but will lease out parcels surrounding the stadium for other developers to build on.  As owners of the stadium, the Haslams will be responsible (?) for its maintenance as well.  Brook Park and the state/county will have to manage the roadway/utility improvements needed to support the Haslam development.

 

That is a different situation than in Cleveland, where the city owns the land and the stadium and is responsible for maintenance. 

 

I would urge the city and county to wish the Haslams the best of luck (no city or county funding for a private organization's new construction project) and start planning for what to do with the existing stadium after the Browns depart at the end of 2028.  That area, redeveloped without a stadium (or a smaller domed stadium) could turn out to be a big win for Cleveland.

2 hours ago, TBideon said:

Whatever it takes to end this saga.

 

Your impatience is baffling. 

Gov. Mike DeWine ramps up involvement in the Browns stadium fight

Jeremy Pelzer - Cleveland.com - Dec. 12, 2024

 

"DeWine told reporters Wednesday that he’s “in a fact-gathering process at this point.” Lt. Gov. Jon Husted told cleveland.com/The Plain Dealer that the governor wants to get both sides on the same page about a stadium deal. ... The governor said he’s scheduled to meet with Bibb on Friday during a two-day visit to Cleveland this week. DeWine met last week with Browns owners Jimmy and Dee Haslam, according to spokesman Dan Tierney."

28 minutes ago, NorthShore647 said:

Gov. Mike DeWine ramps up involvement in the Browns stadium fight

Jeremy Pelzer - Cleveland.com - Dec. 12, 2024

 

"DeWine told reporters Wednesday that he’s “in a fact-gathering process at this point.” Lt. Gov. Jon Husted told cleveland.com/The Plain Dealer that the governor wants to get both sides on the same page about a stadium deal. ... The governor said he’s scheduled to meet with Bibb on Friday during a two-day visit to Cleveland this week. DeWine met last week with Browns owners Jimmy and Dee Haslam, according to spokesman Dan Tierney."

Let’s hope Governor DeWine ‘s “fact-checking” includes other sources such as UO and not just FACTCHECK.RNC and what Jimmy and Dee tell him over breakfast at their Bratenahl estate during his 2 day visit to Cleveland.

RTA talks (a little) about brookpark stadium transportation..

 

https://www-cleveland19-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.cleveland19.com/2024/12/12/how-greater-cleveland-rta-plans-getting-fans-brook-park-dome/?amp_gsa=1&amp_js_v=a9&outputType=amp&usqp=mq331AQGsAEggAID#amp_tf=From %1%24s&aoh=17340519998999&csi=0&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cleveland19.com%2F2024%2F12%2F12%2Fhow-greater-cleveland-rta-plans-getting-fans-brook-park-dome%2F

15 minutes ago, lockdog said:

RTA talks (a little) about brookpark stadium transportation..

 

https://www-cleveland19-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.cleveland19.com/2024/12/12/how-greater-cleveland-rta-plans-getting-fans-brook-park-dome/?amp_gsa=1&amp_js_v=a9&outputType=amp&usqp=mq331AQGsAEggAID#amp_tf=From %1%24s&aoh=17340519998999&csi=0&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cleveland19.com%2F2024%2F12%2F12%2Fhow-greater-cleveland-rta-plans-getting-fans-brook-park-dome%2F

how about RTA talk about how to get people to University Circle and the Cleveland Clinic by rail 365 times a year instead to Brookpark 10 times a year,

I was at that media event at RTA today. I was surprised to learn there is no plan for an infill station between Brookpark and the airport stations for the proposed stadium. RTA GM Birdsong said the walking distance from the Brookpark station to the proposed stadium is about the same as from Tower City to the existing Browns stadium. But it looks longer to me and certainly less hospitable. 

 

Since this is a football team, here is a mock deal for moving the team where everybody gets something but nobody gets everything:

 

State and county commit to contribute $800M to new stadium with county paying $500M and state $300M. Haslams and their investors pick up the rest. 

 

State picks up cost of infrastructure around the stadium (highways/roads)

 

State provides funding to Cleveland for improvements to Hopkins airport to speed up renovations to better coincide with new stadium 

 

Haslams provide Cleveland funding to demolish the current stadium 

 

Haslams, Dewine, new US senators commit to helping Cleveland advocate for resources from Trump administration to advance lakefront plan. 

 

Edited December 13, 2024Dec 13 by coneflower

1 hour ago, KJP said:

I was at that media event at RTA today. I was surprised to learn there is no plan for an infill station between Brookpark and the airport stations for the proposed stadium. RTA GM Birdsong said the walking distance from the Brookpark station to the proposed stadium is about the same as from Tower City to the existing Browns stadium. But it looks longer to me and certainly less hospitable. 

 

 

Same distance as the crow flies, about a half mile or so depending on exactly where the new stadium will be located.  But transit passengers aren't crows, so they will have to walk over to and south along Engle, and then back onto the property.  That will be over a mile, again depending exactly where the stadium goes.  The Downtown walk comes out to about .7 miles.

8 hours ago, NorthShore647 said:

Gov. Mike DeWine ramps up involvement in the Browns stadium fight

Jeremy Pelzer - Cleveland.com - Dec. 12, 2024

 

"DeWine told reporters Wednesday that he’s “in a fact-gathering process at this point.” Lt. Gov. Jon Husted told cleveland.com/The Plain Dealer that the governor wants to get both sides on the same page about a stadium deal. ... The governor said he’s scheduled to meet with Bibb on Friday during a two-day visit to Cleveland this week. DeWine met last week with Browns owners Jimmy and Dee Haslam, according to spokesman Dan Tierney."

Vivek cannot become gov fast enough. Dewine will happily hand over taxpayer dollars to this madness!

So, I read all of the above messages and amazing article by Ken. A few thoughts:

 

- From an engineering perspective yes, the Burke spread design makes complete sense, as does the cost. 

- That being said, the infrastructure costs will be immense for the Brook Park site, which does sit on a brownfield and may encounter its own unique challenges. This is not “clean land” by any means.

- The less spread out Burke Site eliminates the need for so much infrastructure and horizontal development work, which can balloon costs. 

- There’s millions of dollars of infrastructure money going into the riverfront (metro park, land bridge, etc) already - city of Cleveland needs to argue that is a contribution to the Burke site and pledge to NOT provide any money for infrastructure in BP. 

- I have yet to see a comprehensive traffic study on how game day will impact Hopkins. This is critical infrastructure set to undergo its own renovation and capacity increase. Is adding 1,000s of football cars going to have a positive impact on residents missing their flights? Will this lead to more people arriving early to the airport, resulting in increased capacity and, a greater budget (further pushing costs inadvertently onto taxpayers)? (This is part of the reason I believe we haven’t seen any sort of plan for the airport - they are waiting on more concrete information about this potential development)

- Why can the city not go ahead and decline funding for the BP location and provide funding for Burke. Let’s say new stadium at BP costs $2.5MM, and BP costs $3.5MM. City has already come up with $600MM, with just $400MM left they can make the difference up for BP. This would exclude the millions of infrastructure projects in the works that HSG won’t be responsible for. They can also market improved rents from surrounding mixed use development due to the location off the river and in downtown (construction costs for these buildings will relatively be the same). 

4 hours ago, X said:

 

Same distance as the crow flies, about a half mile or so depending on exactly where the new stadium will be located.  But transit passengers aren't crows, so they will have to walk over to and south along Engle, and then back onto the property.  That will be over a mile, again depending exactly where the stadium goes.  The Downtown walk comes out to about .7 miles.

And that’s from Tower City; it’s obviously way less when the Waterfront Line is running.

8 hours ago, KJP said:

I was at that media event at RTA today. I was surprised to learn there is no plan for an infill station between Brookpark and the airport stations for the proposed stadium. RTA GM Birdsong said the walking distance from the Brookpark station to the proposed stadium is about the same as from Tower City to the existing Browns stadium. But it looks longer to me and certainly less hospitable. 

 

Why on earth would they build an infill station for a stadium that will be used 10-15 times a year? There is zero reason for RTA to put money into any rail extensions that do not immediately start generating big ridership (e.g. Clinic extension over Euclid Ave, which would be great). They are not in a position to “spur future ToD” when there is so much low hanging fruit for immediate improvement elsewhere. Even if this stupid waste of money gets built in Brook Park, I’d rather RTA add a Red Line infill station at Fulton or West 44. 

7 hours ago, columbus17 said:

Vivek cannot become gov fast enough. Dewine will happily hand over taxpayer dollars to this madness!

They - meaning the Haslams and DeWine and their Statehouse polticos who probably have all on speed dial to whip votes in a minute (such as assistance again by Alex Fischer who is close to all Haslams since Knoxville days and then again with the Crew MSL and Browns Training Camp to C-Bus issues while head of Columbus Partneship and on OSU Board with the powerful Wexners)  - know they need to rush this now as they will not get a penny from the Trump world with DOGE on deck.  While Jimmy and Dee did cut checks to Vance for his Senate race they do not seem to be MAGA at all but firmly in the Bush/Cheney/McConnell orbit.  We read they were #1 among NFL owners in political donations - mostly to RNC swamp creatures - so they seem to misread the tea leaves (again - pattern?) by not backing up their bets with MAGA and DNC donations.

Edited December 13, 2024Dec 13 by Willo

9 hours ago, coneflower said:

Since this is a football team, here is a mock deal for moving the team where everybody gets something but nobody gets everything:

 

State and county commit to contribute $800M to new stadium with county paying $500M and state $300M. Haslams and their investors pick up the rest. 

 

State picks up cost of infrastructure around the stadium (highways/roads)

 

State provides funding to Cleveland for improvements to Hopkins airport to speed up renovations to better coincide with new stadium 

 

No offense, but it sounds like you want the taxpayers to bend over backwards in cold hard cash for very soft "commitments" with no guarantees whatsoever.  This is a terrible framework.  The county has much more pressing concerns. In my personal opinion, they shouldn't get a penny from the county if they decamp to Brookpark, but even if there is some sort of public component, $500 million is stratospherically too much from Cuyahoga County.

1 hour ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

Why on earth would they build an infill station for a stadium that will be used 10-15 times a year? There is zero reason for RTA to put money into any rail extensions that do not immediately start generating big ridership (e.g. Clinic extension over Euclid Ave, which would be great). They are not in a position to “spur future ToD” when there is so much low hanging fruit for immediate improvement elsewhere. Even if this stupid waste of money gets built in Brook Park, I’d rather RTA add a Red Line infill station at Fulton or West 44. 

 

So would I. Emotion aside, much of the conversation here has assumed there would be an infill station. And there was a question posed at RTA's PR-fest yesterday about a stadium station.

 

Guess what -- everything that is happening with this stadium situation is going to happen regardless of how we feel about it. I know it will affect us, but you and I have zero say in it (or, perhaps more accurately, 0.00000001 percent say in it).

31 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

So would I. Emotion aside, much of the conversation here has assumed there would be an infill station. And there was a question posed at RTA's PR-fest yesterday about a stadium station.

 

Guess what -- everything that is happening with this stadium situation is going to happen regardless of how we feel about it. I know it will affect us, but you and I have zero say in it (or, perhaps more accurately, 0.00000001 percent say in it).

Fair enough. I’d love to get a chance to vote against this stadium. That would bump my say in it up to one out of 565,000 (last election voter turnout).

2 hours ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

Why on earth would they build an infill station for a stadium that will be used 10-15 times a year? There is zero reason for RTA to put money into any rail extensions that do not immediately start generating big ridership (e.g. Clinic extension over Euclid Ave, which would be great). They are not in a position to “spur future ToD” when there is so much low hanging fruit for immediate improvement elsewhere. Even if this stupid waste of money gets built in Brook Park, I’d rather RTA add a Red Line infill station at Fulton or West 44. 

Fair, but I think the original assumption, at least on this forum, would be that the mixed use district would be located near the new infill stop, thus justifying both of their existences. Ideally these would both also be near a new Amtrak stop, and a pedestrian bridge overpass to the airport. Perhaps overly optimistic on our part, but those three things would have more than justified an RTA stop. 

 

For that matter, if 3C+D happens, we might want a local transit stop to service the station anyway, so it could have been considered pre work in the hopes of that landing. 

 

To be honest, the massing for the proposed mixed use district have been wildly disappointing to say the least. I'm now hoping that part just doesn't happen. Keep public investment to a minimum, and don't pull business from downtown. Weirdly Cleveland would perhaps be better served if this domed stadium is mostly a flop. It would free up Lakefront land without pulling other non-football events from downtown. If the mixed use district doesn't happen, a good portion of the football restaurant traffic may still end up going downtown. 

 

That's not to say it still couldn't be done well, but I've seen nothing to this point to suggest that will be the case.