Cleveland City Council is still coming to terms with a $100 million Browns settlement that would see the team move to Brook Park and potentially compete with downtown for events.
Mayor Justin Bibb’s administration had asked council to approve the deal by Nov. 24, enabling the city to receive its first payment from the Browns in December. The deadline came and went.
After another hearing on the deal Monday, Council President Blaine Griffin asked fellow members to spend the next week researching it. He said that he would talk with his leadership team about whether it’s time to “pull the trigger” on the proposal.
If council doesn’t take up the settlement by its last regular meeting Dec. 1, it would have to hold a special meeting to vote on it before the end of the year. Otherwise, the decision would fall to the council that takes office in January, which will include at least two new members.
Griffin acknowledged the time crunch, saying he regretted that the deal was brought to council in the “24th hour.”
“Unfortunately we’re put in a position where we’re trying to fit 25 pounds of potatoes in a five-pound sack within a one-month term,” he said.
Under the deal, the Browns would pay to demolish the lakefront stadium, give the city $50 million in the coming years for lakefront development and spend another $20 million on other local projects.
An old Frank Jackson hand returns to City Hall
Witnesses at Monday’s hearing offered advice that at first blush sounded contradictory.
That advice was this: The NFL franchise’s move to a $2.4 billion roofed stadium in Brook Park will hurt downtown Cleveland by putting up competition for events and consumer spending. But at this point — after the state put up $600 million to help the team move — City Hall has no option left but to take the deal and wave goodbye.
Ken Silliman, who served as Mayor Frank Jackson’s chief of staff, was the first to offer that counsel. He started work in Cleveland’s law department 38 years ago and later helped Mayor Michael White’s administration negotiate the Browns’ late-1990s return.
“This Brook Park dome scheme is the single worst development deal for the city and the region in those 38 years, and nothing else is even close,” he said.
He referred to the city’s 2024 study, which said the team generated $30 million in economic impact in Cleveland and that a Brook Park development would compete with other venues.
Nevertheless, Silliman said he largely agreed with Mayor Justin Bibb on the settlement with the team. Cleveland’s lawsuit over the move might have delayed the Brook Park project, but wouldn’t have stopped it, he said.
“In my judgment, $100 million is a pretty fair outcome for the city given what leverage we had and what leverage we don’t have,” said Silliman, who has written a book about Cleveland’s stadium deals.
Michael Deemer, who leads Downtown Cleveland Inc., called the Browns’ move to the suburbs a “generational mistake” that saps capital away from downtown. While he said that he stood by that position, he argued that the settlement puts the city on better ground to move on. He paraphrased Ecclesiastes to make his point.
“To everything there’s a season: A time to mourn, a time to feel anger about the loss of tradition and a downtown anchor,” he said. “I believe this is a time to build, a time to move forward with purpose and clear vision.”
Some on council are spoiling for an alley fight
At least a few council members are not ready to take the deal. Council Member Michael Polensek said there should have been a coordinated effort among Downtown Cleveland Inc. and the Greater Cleveland Partnership to lobby state lawmakers against the Brook Park plans.
Council Member Kris Harsh compared the situation to being backed into an alley with only two options: die or take the deal. Council Member Brian Kazy said he didn’t see the settlement as helping “the streets of the City of Cleveland,” and that he’d tell Browns ownership to keep their money.
“I’m going to be one of those guys who die in the alley in this situation,” Kazy said.
Griffin, the council president, said that the settlement goes against City Hall’s decades-long effort to keep professional sports teams in the downtown core. But he suggested that the alternative was being left with an empty stadium that the city would have to pay to knock down.
“We do have to be responsible stewards of the taxpayers’ dollars,” he said, “and not just put up a Pyrrhic victory to say that we stood up against this big corporate juggernaut.”
