Council's Browns stadium vote exposes philosophical divide
Add Axios as your preferred source to
see more of our stories on Google.
Shortly before the FirstEnergy signage was removed. Photo: Sam Allard/Axios
Cleveland City Council's narrow rejection of $1.1 million in Browns stadium reimbursements has exposed a philosophical divide among members who otherwise agree on one thing: The city's decades-long financial relationship with the team has been a bad deal for taxpayers.
Why it matters: The recent 7-6 vote could put Cleveland on a collision course with the Haslam Sports Group.
- Team ownership maintains the city is contractually obligated to pay for repairs at the lakefront stadium, even as it's scheduled to be demolished once the Browns vamoose for Brook Park.
The intrigue: The Haslam Sports Group still expects Cleveland to pay — the city always has — meaning the legislation will likely be reintroduced once Council President Griffin shores up majority support.
The big picture: Council members who voted against reimbursement are taking a hard line against the Haslams, borne out of anger and resentment about the team's relocation.
- Those who supported payment warn that a legal fight could ultimately cost taxpayers even more than the repair bill itself.
What they're saying: Councilman Austin Davis, who supported reimbursement, acknowledged Cleveland's history of excessive stadium subsidies.
- But he said the city remains legally obligated to maintain the building and predicted the city would lose a legal battle with the Haslams.
- "We have to stop with the blank checks to sports teams," Davis wrote in his constituent newsletter. "But this isn't that fight."
Friction point: Griffin echoed the concern, chastising his colleagues for voting no.
- "I think that a lot of people are giving each other high fives right now," he told Signal Cleveland, "but when those bills start rolling in, I want us to also…make sure that we let everybody know why we're spending all of this money on all of these legal battles as well."
The other side: Councilman Tanmay Shah, who voted no, contends the Haslams effectively reneged on their agreement when they pursued a new suburban stadium.
- "If Jimmy wants to sue us in court, we'll see him in court," he said. "If he wants to be a good partner, we'll see him at the table."
Zoom in: Haslam Sports Group spokesperson Peter John-Baptiste tells Axios that the requested reimbursements cover essential repairs — things like concrete and joints, sanitary pipes and sewer pumps and electrical safety equipment — not luxuries.
- "This is not about upgrades or improvements. It is the basic work required to keep fans, players and staff safe in a city-owned stadium."