State agencies question Browns' stadium math
Two state offices have independently suggested that the Browns' tax revenue projections for a proposed Brook Park stadium are overstated.
Catch up quick: House Republicans passed the biennial state budget earlier this month, which included $600 million in state-backed bonds for the project.
Paying back those bonds could cost Ohio taxpayers nearly $1 billion, once interest is included, according to Gov. Mike DeWine.
Team owners Jimmy and Dee Haslam have argued that the stadium and surrounding new development will generate sufficient tax revenue to pay back the debt over the next 25 years.
Driving the news: The Ohio Legislative Services Commission (LSC), the bipartisan office that reviews statehouse legislation, and DeWine's Office of Budget and Management (OBM) both say the Haslams' math is too optimistic.
What they're saying: "The projected economic impact runs directly counter to decades of research and evidence about the cost and benefits of professional sports stadiums," writes OBM director Kim Murnieks in a memo first reported by Signal Statewide.
By the numbers: The Browns' projections are based on attracting 1.5 million more visitors annually to Brook Park than to the current lakefront stadium.
The LSC analysis, which was prepared at the request of state Sen. Nickie Antonio, notes that the Browns would have to sell out the 70,000-seat venue 21 times per year, in addition to 10 sold-out Browns games, to reach that figure.
None of the three nearby domed stadiums — in Minneapolis, Detroit and Indianapolis — had more than 12 events with 50,000+ attendance in 2023.
The other side: The Haslam Sports Group questioned the memos' assertions in a statement, saying that the team has addressed multiple questions with DeWine and other state officials directly.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
27 minutes ago
- Axios
Trump asks Congress to pull $9B in funding for NPR, PBS, foreign aid
President Trump formally asked Congress on Tuesday to rescind $9.4 billion in already approved funding for foreign aid and the Corporation of Public Broadcasting (CPB), which funds NPR and PBS. Why it matters: The rescissions package is an attempt to codify DOGE -driven cuts amid a wider push a wider push from the Trump administration to target traditional news organizations Republicans perceive as biased against them. NPR and PBS are suing the administration after Trump signed an executive order last month that directed CPB to "cease direct funding" for the two biggest public broadcasters in the U.S., which he called "biased." Details: Congressional Republican leaders in a Tuesday night joint statement confirmed they had received Trump's recessions request to revoke $8.3 billion in funding for foreign assistance and $1.1 billion from the CPB. "Now that this wasteful spending by the federal government has been identified by DOGE, quantified by the Administration, and sent to Congress, House Republicans will fulfill our mandate and continue codifying into law a more efficient federal government," per the statement that House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) posted on X. "This is exactly what the American people deserve," the statement added. "Next week, we will put the rescissions bill on the floor of the House and encourage all our Members to support this commonsense measure." What they're saying: NPR CEO Katherine Maher noted in a statement on the White House memorandum stating it was asking Congress to "claw back" funding that such a revocation would cause immediate budget shortfalls, with dire consequences. "This would result in cancellation of beloved local and national programming, a reduction in local news coverage and newsroom jobs, a severe curtailing (if not elimination) of public radio music stations who depend on CPB to negotiate music licenses, reduction in service areas for rural and remote communities, as well as forcing dozens of local stations to shutter operations," she said. "Rescission would irreparably harm communities across America who count on public media for 24/7 news, music, cultural and educational programming, and emergency alerting services." Representatives for PBS did not immediately respond to a request for comment Tuesday evening, but its CEO Paula Kerger previously told Axios she would "vigorously" defend the public broadcaster's board from any political interference. What we're watching: Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) is warning that she's concerned by cuts to AIDS relief in Africa in the rescissions package the White House sent to Congress.
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Beltrami County GOP set to meet June 9
Jun. 3—BEMIDJI — The Beltrami County GOP will hold its monthly meeting at 6:30 p.m. on Monday, June 9, at its office in the Paul Bunyan Mall, Suite 102, 1401 Paul Bunyan Drive NW. Coffee and conversation will start at 6 p.m. All interested Republicans are invited to attend. For more information about Republican activities and programs, visit or call (218) 760-1624.
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Hawley spars with legal professor over injunctions blocking Trump
Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) sparred with a legal professor during a Tuesday congressional hearing over nationwide injunctions issued by district court judges against President Trump's administration. Hawley, during the Senate Judiciary joint subcommittee hearing, presented a graph showing that the number of injunctions issued against Trump is far higher than other recent U.S. presidents. 'You don't think this is a little bit anomalous?' Hawley asked University of Pennsylvania Law School professor Kate Shaw. 'A very plausible explanation, senator, you have to consider is that he [Trump] is engaged in much more lawless activity than other presidents, right,' Shaw said. 'You must concede that as a possibility.' Hawley argued that nationwide injunctions, which judges have issued in recent months to temporarily halt or slow down the actions of the executive branch, had not been used before the 1960s and that 'suddenly Democrat judges decide we love the nationwide injunction, and then when Biden comes into office, no, no.' Shaw, a Supreme Court contributor for ABC News, noted that Republican-appointed justices have also imposed injunctions against the administration and added that the 1960s was 'where some scholars begin — sort of locate the beginning of this.' The professor, who worked in the Obama White House Counsel's Office, said that Mila Sohoni, 'who's another scholar of universal injunction, suggests 1913 is actually the first and others in the '20s.' 'The federal government was doing a lot less until 100 years ago,' Shaw said. 'There's many things that have changed in the last 100 or the last 50 years.' 'So as long as it is a Democrat president in office, then we should have no nationwide injunctions,' Hawley said during the exchange. 'If it's a Republican president, then this is absolutely fine, warranted and called for.' During Trump's second White House term, judges have ruled against the president's efforts regarding mass deportations, federal funding cuts, efforts to terminate federal workers and tariffs. Other GOP senators voiced their displeasure with the judges' rulings during the Tuesday hearing. Republicans in Congress introduced measures earlier this year that would curb nationwide injunctions, saying it would prevent jurists from overreaching, while Democrats have said that judges are just doing their jobs. The Missouri senator also asked, 'How can our system of law survive on those principles, professor?' 'I think a system in which there are no constraints on the president is a very dangerous system,' Shaw responded. Hawley fired back at Shaw, saying that it was not the argument she used when former President Biden occupied the Oval Office. 'You said it was a travesty for the principles of democracy, notions of judicial impartiality and the rule of law,' Hawley said. 'You also said when Joe Biden was president, you said the idea that anyone would foreign shop to get a judge who would issue a nationwide objection was just judges looking like politicians in robes, again, it threatened the underlying legal system. It was just trying to get the result they wanted. It was a travesty for the rule of law,' the GOP lawmaker added. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
