Cleveland Browns' Relocation Plan to Brook Park Sparks Concern Among City Leaders and Fans

https://icaro.icaromediagroup.com/system/images/photos/16374454/original/open-uri20241017-18-f0b5vn?1729208577
ICARO Media Group
Politics
17/10/2024 23h35

### Cleveland Browns Plan Relocation to Brook Park, Sparking City Leaders' Concerns

The Cleveland Browns are set to relocate their stadium from the lakefront to Brook Park, near Cleveland Hopkins International Airport, owners Jimmy and Dee Haslam announced. The decision, which has been favored for several months, marks a significant shift away from the initially considered renovation of their current lakefront stadium.

Cleveland Mayor Justin Bibb revealed in a City Hall press conference his disappointment after meeting with the Haslams, where they communicated their decision to relocate. “Our vision for redeveloping the lakefront is becoming a reality, and more and more businesses are choosing to invest in our great city,” Bibb expressed. He lamented the Haslams' decision, stating it undermines the progress made toward integrating the Haslams Sports Group's objectives with the community's needs.

According to the Haslams, extensive planning and discussions led to the conclusion that a domed stadium would attract more large-scale events year-round, providing greater economic benefits compared to renovating the existing stadium, which only hosts around 10 events annually. The city's proposal to build a new stadium on the Cleveland Burke Lakefront Airport property was deemed "cost prohibitive and not feasible" by the Haslams, citing timing uncertainties concerning the airport’s closure.

The new domed stadium project in Brook Park is projected to cost approximately $2.4 billion, with funding arrangements that aim not to burden existing taxpayer resources. Instead, it will be a significant public-private investment, with more than $2 billion in private funding expected alongside public contributions. This partnership is anticipated to generate sufficient economic activity to cover public bond debts through future project and Browns-generated revenue.

Cuyahoga County Executive Chris Ronayne reiterated his standpoint that the Browns' stadium should remain downtown. However, he redirected the focus towards supporting the Guardians' game against the New York Yankees on Thursday afternoon. “Executive Ronayne has made his position clear: the Browns stadium should remain Downtown,” read his statement.

The Browns' strategic relocation to the 176-acre plot in Brook Park will be the centerpiece of a larger development project. The site is bordered by state Route 237, Snow Road, and Interstate 71, providing a prime location with strong infrastructure. Despite the Haslams' new stadium plans, the Cleveland City Council plans to enforce the “Modell Law” which could complicate the Browns' move if not properly addressed.

As the Browns’ lease with the city expires at the end of 2028, Mayor Bibb acknowledged that the city might have lost crucial time in exploring alternative sites within Cleveland due to the Haslams' shifting plans. Nevertheless, he expressed readiness to resume negotiations should the Brook Park project not materialize.

Fan reactions to the Browns' impending move varied. While some showed enthusiasm for the new stadium, others expressed disappointment about the team’s departure from downtown. The Browns have played at the current location since their founding in 1946, with the existing stadium opening in 1999.

The relocation buzz intensified when Browns COO Dave Jenkins addressed season ticket holders in a letter on August 7, detailing the team’s consideration and preference for the Brook Park site due to various logistical and economic advantages.

As the city grapples with the potential economic impact of the move, leadership remains committed to pursuing viable solutions that align with Cleveland’s long-term development goals. Mayor Bibb underscored the city's vigorous effort to support the Browns, pledging continued dialogue and negotiation to find a mutually beneficial resolution.

The views expressed in this article do not reflect the opinion of ICARO, or any of its affiliates.

Related