The Cleveland Browns’ new stadium plan has an airspace problem. The suburban stadium slated for Brook Park, Ohio, was rejected by the Ohio Department of Transportation on Tuesday over concerns about air traffic at nearby Cleveland Hopkins International Airport.
Why did ODOT reject the stadium plan?
The $2.4 billion domed stadium design submitted by the Haslem Sports Group is expected to top out at a height of 221 feet above ground. That is 58 feet higher than the maximum allowed for that location, according to ODOT’s aviation office.
Download the SAN app today to stay up-to-date with Unbiased. Straight Facts™.
Point phone camera here
The Browns said they are “confused” by the ruling since the Federal Aviation Administration had already approved the stadium plan as long as there are red lights on the roof to guide pilots.
Team spokesman Peter John-Baptiste wrote in a statement to Front Office Sports, “We’ve already begun working collaboratively with ODOT to explain the stadium’s heights and the detailed work we’ve done more fully, which shows no safety or efficiency issues to the airport. We look forward to resolving this matter expeditiously and continuing our work to bring this transformative project to Northeast Ohio.”
Are the Browns set on building in Brook Park?
Team owners Dee and Jimmy Haslam told reporters on Tuesday, July 29, that they were 99.9% confident the stadium at Brook Park would go forward, despite several recently contentious meetings with the city of Cleveland and Cuyahoga County.
“We can’t be more confident,” Jimmy Haslam said. “Let me say these projects are really hard. Okay. And the state’s a hurdle. There’s other hurdles. You’ve got to work with DOT and rapid transit, you’ve got to get your financing, you’ve got to control costs. These are big, complicated projects.”
Who is against the move to Brook Park and why?
Cleveland Mayor Justin Bibb and other city officials are upset the team is planning to leave the lakefront downtown, but the two sides could not come to an agreement on how much money the city could provide to keep the team. The Haslams then took their financial request to the state legislature and were approved. Browns Chief Operating Officer David Jenkins said last month that everyone will benefit from the deal.
“Half of what we’re proposing comes from us plus the overrun,” Jenkins said. “So, $1.2 billion of private funding. The other half, we’ve asked [for] all along, has been $600 million from the state, which was granted on June 30th within the state’s budget. They’re calling that a performance grant. The key to that $600 million is we’re going to generate over $3 billion of tax revenues over the 30-year lease life of the lease.”
Why are these stadium deals common and controversial?
Straight Arrow News has covered several similar stadium deals recently, including the move by Major League Baseball’s Athletics to Las Vegas. The A’s will receive $380 million in state funds after breaking ground for their new ballpark in July.
Washington, D.C., will pitch in $1.1 billion in investments as part of a $4.4 billion deal to help the Washington Commanders move back to the city from suburban Maryland.
The Chicago Bears are over $500 million in debt to the city after renovating Soldier Field in 2003. They are hoping the Illinois state legislature approves a bill that would grant them a favorable property tax loophole for their Arlington Heights stadium project.
Stadium projects for the Tennessee Titans in Nashville and the Buffalo Bills in Orchard Park, New York, are well underway and are also receiving substantial state funding.
The Browns are appealing the permit denial by ODOT. They aim to break ground on their stadium project next year with the goal of opening for the 2028 season.
