On the week of April 7th the Ohio State House of Representatives passed a preliminary state budget by a vote of 55-15. One of the provisions in the state budget proposal was the $600 million dollar bond to the Cleveland Browns for the dome stadium project in the Cleveland suburb of Brookpark Ohio. A lot of opinions were made public regarding this issue for Northeast Ohio. Some opinions have been valid throughout this debate. But many people have been completely misinformed or uninformed on the issue of the next home for the Cleveland Browns.

Let’s start with the usual talking point of no taxpayer money should be used for a sports stadium. That is a valid opinion, but it is not relevant to this issue. This is because the entire project is 3.4 billion dollars. 2.4 billion is already privately funded. The $600 million in the proposed state budget is a low interest construction bond loan that is backed by $50 million of private money as collateral. In other words, the money will be paid back with interest. Another point of misinformation was that because of this project Ohio Schools lost $400 million in the state budget. That is categorically false. That was never true and the money that was going to the public schools in Ohio is being allocated to charter schools in Ohio. A separate issue and an outright lie to say otherwise in a public forum or publication. Also, it must be noted that funds from Cuyahoga County and Brookpark Ohio are being sought for $300 million dollars each. Cleveland Browns Owner Jimmy Haslam did publicly say that those funds can be done another way if the city and the county don’t offer the money to invest.  Another point that the dome stadium detractors don’t mention is what is the alternative to the dome in Brookpark?

Many times, people don’t give their opinions thorough thought. With the stadium issue in Cleveland there are two choices. One is to build the new stadium at different location. Two is to remodel the current stadium at the current location. And how would the current stadium at the current location remodeling be funded? That would be funded by a lot more taxpayer money than the current proposal in Brookpark. Also don’t forget that the current stadium is built on a landfill and on a 93-year-old foundation. Does it make sense to invest taxpayer money on outdoor football only stadium that is used 15 times a year? Or can public money be better invested on the lake front for the city of Cleveland and their residents?  As a writer and journalist, I have a professional obligation to give people the truth. And the truth is on the side of a new stadium for the Cleveland Browns and their fans.