3 hours ago, TBideon said:

Also, folks, people, civilians of rational thought, no one is building hotels in Brookpark to support 9 or 10 games a year. Jimmy and Dee are not building a ballpark village, and even if they miraculously did, in no way would it warrant more hotels. It's not like Brookpark is going to be some kind of international, national or even local destination outside of 9 or 10 dreary Midwest winter days. A Marriott and Hyatt would be mighty lonely near the Travelodge and Amber's Cabaret.

 

 

Thank you!  Someone posted a photo of a stadium complex with 3 sports venues up thread and it's attendant "sports village" comprising what appeared to be 1 hotel and maybe 2-3 retail spaces.  Haslam is a nut if he thinks he's going to get enough events at 1 venue to support even that year round.

 

The parking thing makes sense, though.  He will have monopoly on parking, and a near monopoly on access, period.  If you want to go to a game you'll have to pay him whatever he wants for the ticket, and now whatever he wants for the parking.

The old Richfield Coliseum, built with NO tax dollars, had a monopoly on parking. Initially it was $2 for general parking and $3 for preferred parking.  I think general was up to $6 during it's final year.

 

Edited March 28, 20241 yr by LibertyBlvd

From 92.3's Anthony Lima:

If you’re wondering whether keeping the Browns downtown is a priority, Cleveland Mayor @JustinMBibb did NOT address the stadium situation in his hour-long State of the City address this afternoon.

43 minutes ago, KJP said:

From 92.3's Anthony Lima:

If you’re wondering whether keeping the Browns downtown is a priority, Cleveland Mayor @JustinMBibb did NOT address the stadium situation in his hour-long State of the City address this afternoon.

He's probably tired of the games Haslam is playing as well as the back and forth. 

Whelp, that's all folks

 

There's also no benefit to Bibb saying anything if they are in active negotiation.

 

 

2 hours ago, Whipjacka said:

redline serves way more people than the blue line does. there's real park and rides for people that don't live along the lines. 

Perhaps, but the stadium would be at the far western end of the redline.  So rather than all lines feeding to a central location, you'd be putting pressure on the very end of the line.  Good luck parking in one of those lots when the trains would be absolutely slammed coming from Windemere and Tower City.   The Browns would have to put some practice squad linemen on the platforms at West Park and Brook Park to do the "Toyko shove" into the trains. 

 

46 minutes ago, MyPhoneDead said:

He's probably tired of the games Haslam is playing as well as the back and forth. 

Bibb has no real experience so perhaps he's in over his head.

Edited March 28, 20241 yr by Oxford19

2 minutes ago, Cleburger said:

Perhaps, but the stadium would be at the far western end of the redline.  So rather than all lines feeding to a central location, you'd be putting pressure on the very end of the line.  Good luck parking in one of those lots when the trains would be absolutely slammed coming from Windemere and Tower City.   The Browns would have to put some practice squad linemen on the platforms at West Park and Brook Park to do the "Toyko shove" into the trains. 

 

Or, if RTA was run with a minimum of common sense, run extra trains for games.

When the Browns move to Brookpark adjacent to the Airport, Cleveland is just going to annex it. 
 

Brookpark knows they don’t have the means necessary to safely host potentially 10 Browns game a year nor any other special event that would occur inside the new state of the art dome. 
 

Brookpark knows they don’t have the logistics set by state law (for incident readiness of major events) lack the manpower in relation to Police, Fire, EMS, Traffic Controllers, Helicopter, Terrorist Threat Intelligence, etc. All of which is currently majority staffed by the city of Cleveland; and allows for these events to safely occur.
 

Brookpark can have the IX center back or an agreed upon percentage of the profit margin.
 

could be best case scenario, as  Cleveland keeps the browns stadium but the Haslams pay for the whole thing. 

5 minutes ago, ClevelandNative said:

When the Browns move to Brookpark adjacent to the Airport, Cleveland is just going to annex it. 
 

Brookpark knows they don’t have the means necessary to safely host potentially 10 Browns game a year nor any other special event that would occur inside the new state of the art dome. 
 

Brookpark knows they don’t have the logistics set by state law (for incident readiness of major events) lack the manpower in relation to Police, Fire, EMS, Traffic Controllers, Helicopter, Terrorist Threat Intelligence, etc. All of which is currently majority staffed by the city of Cleveland; and allows for these events to safely occur.
 

Brookpark can have the IX center back or an agreed upon percentage of the profit margin.
 

could be best case scenario, as  Cleveland keeps the browns stadium but the Haslams pay for the whole thing. 

 

What exactly does Brook Park get out of this deal? Why would they agree to this?

 

2 hours ago, KJP said:

From 92.3's Anthony Lima:

If you’re wondering whether keeping the Browns downtown is a priority, Cleveland Mayor @JustinMBibb did NOT address the stadium situation in his hour-long State of the City address this afternoon.

 

Not so fast. Sounds like this is far from over and negotiations are still under way to keep it downtown.

 

https://www.crainscleveland.com/sports-recreation/cleveland-mayor-justin-bibb-looks-keep-browns-downtown

Edited March 28, 20241 yr by TDi

7 minutes ago, ClevelandNative said:

When the Browns move to Brookpark adjacent to the Airport, Cleveland is just going to annex it. 
 

Brookpark knows they don’t have the means necessary to safely host potentially 10 Browns game a year nor any other special event that would occur inside the new state of the art dome. 
 

Brookpark knows they don’t have the logistics set by state law (for incident readiness of major events) lack the manpower in relation to Police, Fire, EMS, Traffic Controllers, Helicopter, Terrorist Threat Intelligence, etc. All of which is currently majority staffed by the city of Cleveland; and allows for these events to safely occur.
 

Brookpark can have the IX center back or an agreed upon percentage of the profit margin.
 

could be best case scenario, as  Cleveland keeps the browns stadium but the Haslams pay for the whole thing. 

Why would Cleveland even want it? The Brookpark dome and all the businesses and parking will be controlled by Haslam. Sucking the life from downtown businesses directly to Haslam. Then Cleveland has to support his dome with its resources?

 

 

I agree that Bibb might not have experience in dealing with an NFL owner who wants a dome for his NFL franchise - but I’m not sure there are many people that do.  
 

 And though sharing specifics in public  would be a no-go in a negotiation process - I still think it speaks volumes for Bibb to say nothing at all about the obvious elephant in the room in a state-of-the-city address. 
 

As Ken mentioned in one of his recent articles, it does seem like the tone of the process between the city and the Browns is more towards the adversarial than the cooperative.  
 

Someone had posted above, “just make a decision Haslams”.  Based on their actions (not words) it would seem they have.  
 

As I’ve processed the news and read most of the posts the last couple days, I’ve started to think that the Brook Park scenario may be the greatest net gain for Cleveland and the region. I don’t see another scenario where Northeast Ohio gains a world-class (meaning it does have a roof) stadium - the team doesn’t have to play in another city for 2-3 years - and the city’s downtown lakefront is completely opened for development - not restricted to a 9-10 day a year active-use reality. And I’m sure, a shiny new dome would land some great concerts and national events that Cleveland wouldn’t normally get. 
 

The questions I have are - who’s paying for the new doubly expensive dome and in what percentage?  Are the Haslams going to secure private sector investors and foot a significant portion of the bill themselves? 
How is the county and/or state contribution arrived at? 
 

My other big question is - what are the possibilities for the lakefront stadium site?  
Are there major constraints to new development there or could it become a whole new neighborhood that could transform the city of Cleveland’s look and feel downtown? 
 

And to all my friends/relatives that would always find cheaper parking somewhere  downtown and then hike down to the stadium - get ready to pay a lot more for parking - a parking pass for football games at MetLife is just about $50.  

29 minutes ago, LlamaLawyer said:

 

What exactly does Brook Park get out of this deal? Why would they agree to this?

 

They get the reward of a percentage of tax revenue without having to pay for outsourced logistics (which would be priced at a premium) 

 

ie money without the headache 

27 minutes ago, CLEmuppet said:

Why would Cleveland even want it? The Brookpark dome and all the businesses and parking will be controlled by Haslam. Sucking the life from downtown businesses directly to Haslam. Then Cleveland has to support his dome with its resources?

 

 

Controlled by Haslam, sure. Sucking life from Downtown matters a little less when it would still be going into the City of Cleveland. Same tax revenue 

 

Plus this creates more space for lakefront development 

1 hour ago, CleveFan said:

As I’ve processed the news and read most of the posts the last couple days, I’ve started to think that the Brook Park scenario may be the greatest net gain for Cleveland and the region. I don’t see another scenario where Northeast Ohio gains a world-class (meaning it does have a roof) stadium - the team doesn’t have to play in another city for 2-3 years - and the city’s downtown lakefront is completely opened for development - not restricted to a 9-10 day a year active-use reality. And I’m sure, a shiny new dome would land some great concerts and national events that Cleveland wouldn’t normally get. 
 

 

1 hour ago, CleveFan said:

My other big question is - what are the possibilities for the lakefront stadium site?  
Are there major constraints to new development there or could it become a whole new neighborhood that could transform the city of Cleveland’s look and feel downtown? 

 

Tend to agree with this. Would trade the stadium being downtown for opportunites to develope the lakefront. My fear is the stadium site would become a boondongle, sitting vacant without any movement for years (or decades).

 

Some others have indicated there are restrictions for development at the lakefront site since it's fill from dredging. Assuming it's not an engineering issue, not sure how such a restriction would be justifiable if someone fights it given this happens elsewhere on the Great Lakes. See Toronto, but even Buffalo & Erie have development on what appeears to be fill areas.

 

 

Edited March 28, 20241 yr by Rustbelter

Well with all of that revenue he is bound to get he's gonna need it for stadium upkeep since the Sin Tax won't transfer over to Brookpark. 

9 hours ago, KJP said:

Post office site appears too constrained to offer the amount of parking the Haslams want. I thought the land on the other side of the tracks could come into play and include a riverfront development, but either the Haslams didn't think of that or they did and found too many problems with it.

It's 2024 and the automobile continues to negatively impact for Cleveland Proper. Suburbanites and their F'n free parking

1 hour ago, ClevelandNative said:

Controlled by Haslam, sure. Sucking life from Downtown matters a little less when it would still be going into the City of Cleveland. Same tax revenue 

 

Plus this creates more space for lakefront development 

To me that seems like a desperate attempt for Jimmy’s scraps. Stadium deal tax revenue isn’t great to start. With all new construction I’m sure the stadium and mall would be abated. Then reintroduce a few hundred million in Cleveland taxpayer dollars? I don’t think the math would work out for Cleveland and I don’t want the risk. 
 

If Jimmy wants to move out and build a palace he can figure out the challenges. Get the state and region involved, contract security and other services. 
 

All these outside visitors coming to the Brookpark site for a major event will still mostly stay in Cleveland and see Cleveland attractions. They will just have the world class experience of an airport rental car, waiting in a herd for the rapid, or hanging out at the new Uber pickup. And for reasons like that I’m beginning to think the name Brookpark Browns is more fitting. 

51 minutes ago, AsDustinFoxWouldSay said:

It's 2024 and the automobile continues to negatively impact for Cleveland Proper. Suburbanites and their F'n free parking

 

What free parking?  This is being driven by Haslam wanting to control parking revenue, which there wouldn't be if there's free parking.  Get ready to pay through the wazoo for that parking.

Thinking through it again I will say it does say something that even with all these quotes about brook park and hyping it up as the best experience, the haslems still mentioned what they COULD do at the lakefront, if the fan experience was so much greater in brook park and the revenue would be so much higher why even still mention the lakefront 

Mayor Justin should wake up tomorrow and announce the the stadium site will be part of the new, expanded, land bridge/park. Jimmy and his new Brookpark friends can fast forward 1-2 years of “deciding” where to build/rebuild their new stadium, and get started tomorrow. 

I'm not sure how much influence The Plain Dealer/Cleveland.com has in influencing public discourse anymore, but it will be interesting to watch how the tone of the coverage changes. Some others have pointed out the sharp juxtaposition between the Cavs announcing a new facility days before the Browns announce they may decamp to Brook Park. That's definitely one narrative to follow. 

 

This could be another that shapes the narrative; with the understanding that the comparison only goes so far since the Haslams have stated their intention to remain in NEO. Regardless, the emotional appeal of this comparison could be pretty powerful. 

 

I should maybe be clear, I recognize the click baity-ness of this article and headline. I'm just saying even raising the comparison to Modell, if it sticks, could weaken the Haslam's position. To the extent they care what the public thinks... 

 

Haslams could buy Brook Park land for a stadium. Art Modell did the same thing 50 years ago

Mar. 29, 2024

By Lucas Daprile, cleveland.com

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio – As Cleveland Browns owners Jimmy and Dee Haslam eye the potential purchase of land outside the city limits for a stadium, many Clevelanders may be feeling a sense of déjà vu.

 

That’s because about 50 years ago, former Cleveland Browns owner Art Modell did the exact same thing.

 

...

 

While there are some key differences between Modell and the Haslams’ approaches, the similarities, at times, border on uncanny. We took a look through The Plain Dealer archives to see how this current situation stacks up against what was done in the ‘70s.

 

https://www.cleveland.com/news/2024/03/haslams-could-buy-brook-park-land-for-a-stadium-art-modell-did-the-same-thing-50-years-ago.html

Edited March 29, 20241 yr by Luke_S

23 hours ago, CleveFan said:

I agree that Bibb might not have experience in dealing with an NFL owner who wants a dome for his NFL franchise - but I’m not sure there are many people that do.  
 

 And though sharing specifics in public  would be a no-go in a negotiation process - I still think it speaks volumes for Bibb to say nothing at all about the obvious elephant in the room in a state-of-the-city address. 
 

As Ken mentioned in one of his recent articles, it does seem like the tone of the process between the city and the Browns is more towards the adversarial than the cooperative.  
 

Someone had posted above, “just make a decision Haslams”.  Based on their actions (not words) it would seem they have.  
 

As I’ve processed the news and read most of the posts the last couple days, I’ve started to think that the Brook Park scenario may be the greatest net gain for Cleveland and the region. I don’t see another scenario where Northeast Ohio gains a world-class (meaning it does have a roof) stadium - the team doesn’t have to play in another city for 2-3 years - and the city’s downtown lakefront is completely opened for development - not restricted to a 9-10 day a year active-use reality. And I’m sure, a shiny new dome would land some great concerts and national events that Cleveland wouldn’t normally get. 
 

The questions I have are - who’s paying for the new doubly expensive dome and in what percentage?  Are the Haslams going to secure private sector investors and foot a significant portion of the bill themselves? 
How is the county and/or state contribution arrived at? 
 

My other big question is - what are the possibilities for the lakefront stadium site?  
Are there major constraints to new development there or could it become a whole new neighborhood that could transform the city of Cleveland’s look and feel downtown? 
 

And to all my friends/relatives that would always find cheaper parking somewhere downtown and then hike down to the stadium - get ready to pay a lot more for parking - a parking pass for football games at MetLife is just about $50.  

Most people do not have experience in dealing with an NFL owner who wants a dome for his NFL franchise.  Most people are not, however, mayors of cities with NFL franchises who sold themselves as having the skills to run a city such as Cleveland and portrayed himself as a ''progressive'' despite having a thin resume coming into City Hall. Now Bibb has to take on billionaires and strike the best deal for Cleveland...or not. Although Bibb does do an uncanny Obama impersonation, we shall see if this sways the Haslams when it comes down to the nitty-gritty a/k/a $$.

 

Obviously, Bibb can't discuss negotiation specifics...there are any.  Given the timing of this story and the State of City, maybe Bibb couldn't work it in but to not mention it all is interesting, whether good or bad.

 

The lakefront isn't off the table so let's see where this goes.  I just don't want long-term stadium drama but do want a dome whether it's on the lakefront, Brook Park, the post office, or Davenport Bluffs. At least it's not going out to Medina or some other collar county.  Haslams could be doing a negotiating ploy with the Brook Park; time will tell.

 

I agree that Brook Park could very well work out for Cleveland and, as you state, for the region.  Cleveland is after all a part of a MSA, CSA, and region of close to 4.5 million people and the vast majority of Browns fans are from outside Cuyahoga County.  There will be some lost business downtown but many folks could easily stay downtown as well when in town for the game.  

 

Take the Red Line to the Brook Park Dome to avoid excess parking rates; currently $5.00 RT per person and RTA should have its new trains up-n-running by then.

 

This analysis from Steven Litt is pretty good and persuaded me on a few points. https://www.cleveland.com/news/2024/03/would-it-be-so-bad-if-browns-stadium-moved-from-cleveland-to-brook-park-commentary.html
 

Namely, the Browns moving doesn’t have to be a disaster for the city and the lakefront plan but the team needs to make a decision so the city can move forward on its plans. The comment the Haslams made about making a decision in 1 or 2 years is not cool. 

Could the Haslams be waiting it for a year or two hoping that there could be a new mayor in Cleveland?

1 hour ago, coneflower said:

This analysis from Steven Litt is pretty good and persuaded me on a few points. https://www.cleveland.com/news/2024/03/would-it-be-so-bad-if-browns-stadium-moved-from-cleveland-to-brook-park-commentary.html
 

Namely, the Browns moving doesn’t have to be a disaster for the city and the lakefront plan but the team needs to make a decision so the city can move forward on its plans. The comment the Haslams made about making a decision in 1 or 2 years is not cool. 

Great article! I think his comment about how the worst thing for the City may be for the Haslams to be indecisive. The city can make lemonade out of whatever the team decides, but only if they are able to plan accordingly. 

Could the city unilaterally decide that the Browns’ lease will not be renewed? Or do the Haslams have endless options on their lease?

I say Bibb gives the grifters an ultimatum. They want x dollars, they have to decide by y date. They want to decide by y + z months, then they get x - alpha dollars.

 

Enough is enough. 

It'

23 hours ago, TBideon said:

I say Bibb gives the grifters an ultimatum. They want x dollars, they have to decide by y date. They want to decide by y + z months, then they get x - alpha dollars.

 

Enough is enough. 

Great idea.  Whatever way this plays out, there's no loser here.  Downtown Cleveland is way beyond having its livelihood based on 8 or 9 NFL

 

Cut off any long-term drama ASAP yet it's always interesting when two (2) grifters go head-to-head.

5 hours ago, Oxford19 said:

It'

Great idea.  Whatever way this plays out, there's no loser here.  Downtown Cleveland is way beyond having its livelihood based on 8 or 9 NFL

 

Cut off any long-term drama ASAP yet it's always interesting when two (2) grifters go head-to-head.

I get that downtown’s livelihood isn’t based on 8 or 9 days.  A good part of it is based on the business its entertainment districts (E4th, Warehouse, FEB) get though. And most of this business comes from the burbs. If Haslam builds in Brook Park it’ll be competition, and not only for 8-9 days a year. 
 

Just on this holiday weekend it was interesting to hear my suburban family members discuss how it would be sad if the team leaves Cleveland.  I’m fine with Bibb holding firm on the numbers side but I’d appreciate if he’d push publicly that the Cleveland Browns should play in  the city. 

 

Edit: The more I think about this the more I think Bibb needs to reframe the options. We’ve seen the media report that Haslam will choose between renovating the current stadium or a new dome in Brook Park. Bibb should say the city would be happy to have a new dome. He should say if Jimmy can build one outside the city, he could build one here. 

 

 

 

Edited April 1, 20241 yr by CLEmuppet

3 hours ago, CLEmuppet said:

I get that downtown’s livelihood isn’t based on 8 or 9 days.  A good part of it is based on the business its entertainment districts (E4th, Warehouse, FEB) get though. And most of this business comes from the burbs. If Haslam builds in Brook Park it’ll be competition, and not only for 8-9 days a year. 
 

Just on this holiday weekend it was interesting to hear my suburban family members discuss how it would be sad if the team leaves Cleveland.  I’m fine with Bibb holding firm on the numbers side but I’d appreciate if he’d push publicly that the Cleveland Browns should play in  the city. 
 

 

Right, so Bibb needs to take on the Haslams, get the dome in downtown, and eliminate any potential competition from Brook Park or anywhere else in the region.

 

Or, Bibb can hold firm on his numbers. Of course the Browns ''should'' play in Cleveland, that's not a high bar, and we're not even getting that out of Bibb.  If Brook Park will be too much competition for downtown CLE then Bibb needs to negotiate, something that's precluded when one holds firm with his numbers.  Bibb the ''progressive'' v. the billionaire Haslams; the latter will be blamed if they go to Brook Park in the end. 

 

''Leave Cleveland'' isn't quite accurate on this new stadium issue.  It's not like the Browns are moving out to Richfield and the Browns fans are by far from outside Cuyahoga County.  Brook Park is a smart option for the Browns, way better than Modell's 1972 Strongsville threat.  Things need to get decided on this sooner than later so things can get moving for 2028.

 

Lake Erie island stadium concept floated

By Ken Prendergast / April 1, 2024

 

Borrowing on the 1970s plan for a Lake Erie jetport, NEOtrans has learned that a $10 billion stadium concept considered for professional football in Cleveland could involve an off-shore site as well as its island gaining potential sovereign status and inclusion in a longstanding free trade program with the USA and potentially Canada.

 

MORE 

https://neo-trans.blog/2024/04/01/lake-erie-island-stadium-concept-floated/

 

1 hour ago, KJP said:

 

Lake Erie island stadium concept floated

By Ken Prendergast / April 1, 2024

 

Borrowing on the 1970s plan for a Lake Erie jetport, NEOtrans has learned that a $10 billion stadium concept considered for professional football in Cleveland could involve an off-shore site as well as its island gaining potential sovereign status and inclusion in a longstanding free trade program with the USA and potentially Canada.

 

MORE 

https://neo-trans.blog/2024/04/01/lake-erie-island-stadium-concept-floated/

 

 

Finally, someone is talking some sense!

1 hour ago, KJP said:

 

Lake Erie island stadium concept floated

By Ken Prendergast / April 1, 2024

 

Borrowing on the 1970s plan for a Lake Erie jetport, NEOtrans has learned that a $10 billion stadium concept considered for professional football in Cleveland could involve an off-shore site as well as its island gaining potential sovereign status and inclusion in a longstanding free trade program with the USA and potentially Canada.

 

MORE 

https://neo-trans.blog/2024/04/01/lake-erie-island-stadium-concept-floated/

 

I see what you did there!

 

3 minutes ago, nokoeeee said:

 

They couldn’t choose any other day than April first 

3 minutes ago, BoomerangCleRes said:

They couldn’t choose any other day than April first 

Probably following up on the rumored "stadium island."  

Can't even hear what this guy is saying.. I'm assuming I fell for a dumb april fools joke

Edited April 1, 20241 yr by GREGinPARMA

 better audio

6 hours ago, GREGinPARMA said:

Can't even hear what this guy is saying.. I'm assuming I fell for a dumb april fools joke

we all did...  that (press conference) was a joke...  I would also like to hear from the people who are complaining that the administration does not know what they are doing...  based on reality, what would be your suggestion?

Edited April 1, 20241 yr by lockdog

If this is a joke Crains is in on it. 

 

https://www.crainscleveland.com/sports-recreation/cleveland-councilman-brian-kazy-wants-browns-stay-city

Councilman Brian Kazy is introducing an ordinance set to go before Cleveland city council members on Monday which will address “the future of the municipally owned, taxpayer-funded” Cleveland Browns Stadium. https://fox8.com/news/live-what-will-happen-to-cleveland-browns-stadium/

On 3/29/2024 at 5:45 PM, Oxford19 said:

Most people do not have experience in dealing with an NFL owner who wants a dome for his NFL franchise.  Most people are not, however, mayors of cities with NFL franchises who sold themselves as having the skills to run a city such as Cleveland and portrayed himself as a ''progressive'' despite having a thin resume coming into City Hall. Now Bibb has to take on billionaires and strike the best deal for Cleveland...or not. Although Bibb does do an uncanny Obama impersonation, we shall see if this sways the Haslams when it comes down to the nitty-gritty a/k/a $$.

 

 

16 hours ago, Oxford19 said:

Of course the Browns ''should'' play in Cleveland, that's not a high bar, and we're not even getting that out of Bibb. 

 

...Pugu?

I feel like we really can't judge what is mostly a closed-door process until it concludes.

 

Seems to me like the big problem is that Cleveland can't sell (or give) the reclaimed land to Jimmy Haslam so that Jimmy could actually own the whole stadium and (at least part of) village area. I understand that is due to state law.

 

Well (not saying this is actually happening, but) what if Jimmy Haslam and Mayor Bibb are actually on the same page but they have to make a record of the dispute because the goal is to get a special piece of legislation passed in Columbus that would allow the lakefront land to be sold (or just given) to Jimmy Haslam? Seems to me like that would be a very smart idea and best case scenario. City just gives the stadium and about half the land north of it to Jimmy H along with an 80-90% property tax exemption. Jimmy H gets what he wants; City is now free from stadium expenses while maintaining all the same revenue and potentially even getting some additional property taxes. Win-win.

 

I mean surely, if the state house can pass bills targeted at getting a new interchange in Brunswick, they should be able to pass a bill to keep the Cleveland Browns in Cleveland. This seems like the simplest fix that makes everyone happy. Am I missing something major here?

8 minutes ago, LlamaLawyer said:

I feel like we really can't judge what is mostly a closed-door process until it concludes.

 

Seems to me like the big problem is that Cleveland can't sell (or give) the reclaimed land to Jimmy Haslam so that Jimmy could actually own the whole stadium and (at least part of) village area. I understand that is due to state law.

 

Well (not saying this is actually happening, but) what if Jimmy Haslam and Mayor Bibb are actually on the same page but they have to make a record of the dispute because the goal is to get a special piece of legislation passed in Columbus that would allow the lakefront land to be sold (or just given) to Jimmy Haslam? Seems to me like that would be a very smart idea and best case scenario. City just gives the stadium and about half the land north of it to Jimmy H along with an 80-90% property tax exemption. Jimmy H gets what he wants; City is now free from stadium expenses while maintaining all the same revenue and potentially even getting some additional property taxes. Win-win.

 

I mean surely, if the state house can pass bills targeted at getting a new interchange in Brunswick, they should be able to pass a bill to keep the Cleveland Browns in Cleveland. This seems like the simplest fix that makes everyone happy. Am I missing something major here?

Good thought, but the part that conflicts with your idea is Bibb/the city going back to the public to redesign the lakefront vision, instead of taking the Haslams one. This matters, because the City's proposal is significantly more park focused and less development focused. As a result, even if the Haslams owned it, it wouldn't generate nearly as much revenue for them. 

 

They could also be orchestrating this drama with the goal of moving the Browns to Brook Park. Realistically the City can't let that happen without a fight. 

6 minutes ago, LlamaLawyer said:

This seems like the simplest fix that makes everyone happy. Am I missing something major here?

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.

10 minutes ago, Ethan said:

Good thought, but the part that conflicts with your idea is Bibb/the city going back to the public to redesign the lakefront vision, instead of taking the Haslams one. This matters, because the City's proposal is significantly more park focused and less development focused.  

I prefer the city's park focused proposal.  Haslam's and Bedrock's proposals are development focused and IMO it is unlikely both can happen.

28 minutes ago, LibertyBlvd said:

Haslam's and Bedrock's proposals are development focused and IMO it is unlikely both can happen.

Well one has started already