Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine on Thursday “again signaled disapproval” of an idea passed by the state House that would provide $600M via state bonds to help pay for a new, covered stadium for the Browns in Brook Park, according to Jake Zuckerman of the Cleveland PLAIN DEALER. DeWine said this is “clearly not the way to go.” Zuckerman wrote while DeWine “stopped short of any explicit veto threat,” his comments “add pressure to the politics around passing a state budget, which is somewhere short of halftime in the process.” DeWine specifically took issue with the interest payments associated with bond financing. He said that the total cost of the bonds “could reach nearly” $1B when you include interest. He reiterated his version of a stadium funding plan, which would “offer funds to any pro sports team in Ohio, and would pay for it by doubling the tax on sports betting companies” (Cleveland PLAIN DEALER, 4/10).
RELATED: Cuyahoga County exec raises concerns over Browns Brook Park stadium plans
HIDDEN COSTS: A recent episode of the “Today in Ohio” podcast featuring Cleveland PLAIN DEALER and cleveland.com journalists focused on the “brewing controversy” surrounding the stadium deal, with hosts “raising alarming questions about potential hidden costs that could dramatically inflate the cost to taxpayers.” The group discussed how “infrastructure improvements could add a staggering amount to the already eye-popping” $2.4B stadium plan, and they “expressed genuine concern that taxpayers could be blindsided by the additional costs, particularly given the location challenges of the proposed Brook Park site” (“Today in Ohio,” cleveland.com, 4/10).
POLLING THE PEOPLE: In Cleveland, Sabrina Eaton noted the plan for the state to help finance a new covered stadium in Brook Park was far “less appealing” to readers who subscribe to cleveland.com’s “From the Editor” Subtext service. Out of more than 200 text message responses to a Thursday morning query asking if the state should have any involvement in sports stadium funding, just a dozen said “yes.” The rest “were adamantly against it.” They said that the billionaire Haslam family “should pay for their own stadium” and “decried misplaced funding priorities at a time when the legislature is cutting back on money for public schools, libraries and food assistance for the hungry” (Cleveland PLAIN DEALER, 4/10).
