Written by Leyah Jackson
Thursday, June 20th, economic experts came together for a panel discussion to discuss the possibility of a domed Cleveland Browns stadium. On many occasions, the City of Cleveland and the State of Ohio have been asked to subsidize, or provide public money, to sports facilities. This money comes from a sin tax on cigarettes, beer, and wine. Browns owners Dee and Jimmy Haslam have recently requested approximately $2 million for a domed Cleveland Browns stadium on the Lakefront. Should these demands not be met, there is the threat of the Browns being moved to Brook Park.
The Haslams have said that a dome stadium will create new economic activity, boost employment, and increase tax revenues. However, the economic experts on Thursday’s panel refuted these claims saying that no evidence of such gains have been seen in the past. According to West Virginia University Professor Brad Humphreys, “Professional sports don’t increase money, they just move it around.” Experts on Thursday’s panel found that there is no evidence of sports stadiums bringing in additional revenue to cities. Furthermore, the experts argued that dome stadiums are not as useful as one may think and sit empty for a large chunk of the year. Should Cleveland build a dome stadium, we are guaranteed to host a Superbowl in the future, however we would be in competition with the other 8 U.S cities that have domed stadiums.
Whilst some find the possibility of the Browns being moved to Brook Park plausible, the experts were doubtful. Members of Thursday’s audience proposed that Brook Park, which is just 15 miles from Downtown Cleveland, is a viable option for the Haslams. A Brook Park stadium has a lot to offer: more seats, privacy for higher-paying patrons, etc.
Cleveland has lost the Browns before. In 1996, the Cleveland Browns were moved to Baltimore due to unfavorable lease conditions. However, today’s conversation has different components. In the 1990s, when these same talks of investment into the Browns stadium rolled around, the stadium was deteriorating and in need of many renovations, and at the time of negotiations the stadium lease would be up in 3 years.
Today, the Browns stadium is in good condition. It is not obsolete and has been functioning well. Also, the stadium lease does not end for another 4 years. The experts suspected that due to these differences the move is not guaranteed to happen. However, they do believe that it’s possible that Mayor Justin Bibb will “cave” and agree to Haslam’s terms in hopes that they don’t move the Browns to Brook Park. With this we are set to either have a dome stadium on the lakefront or a rebuilt stadium in Brook Park. Either way, it will be up for legislators to decide when the final proposal reaches their desks; and for voters to vote on.
So, should we dome it?
Leyah Jackson is a rising high school senior participating in the Clenagers program, our journalism training internship experience.