Can’t say we’re surprised by this headline on a story by Karen Kasler at The Statehouse News Bureau:
“Legislative researchers say tax revenue estimates for new Browns stadium are ‘overly optimistic.”
Cue the lousy sitcom’s subdued laugh track.
The bipartisan office that reviews legislation for Ohio lawmakers says the tax revenue estimates provided by the owners of the Cleveland Browns for a new $3.4 billion domed stadium and development simply don’t add up.
“House Republicans approved in the budget $600 million in 30-year bonds for the project, which the Browns have claimed will raise $1.3 billion more than the billion dollars the state will need to pay back the bonds.”
As reporter Kasler notes, it’s the first publicly released analysis from a legislative or state office of tax revenue estimates for the project from the Haslam Sports Group, which owns the Browns.
“An attorney and senior economist with the Legislative Service Commission (LSC) the Legislative Budget Office (LBO) [note] in their analysis that they were unable to get the full report from the consulting firm Robert Charles Lesser & Co. The Haslam Sports Group used that to prepare a presentation to the House Arts, Athletics and Tourism Committee about the bond package,” which was approved by Ohio House Republicans a month ago.
The state researchers say they can’t verify the economic claims in the consultants’ report “because the source material and methodology were not documented in full detail. Nevertheless, the HSG projections implied an outcome that would outperform other similar developments previously studied in peer-reviewed academic literature.”
Allow us to translate: The adults in the room are more than intimating that the Browns’ consultant is juicing the numbers to make the inexcusable palatable.
State researchers also note that “most of the jobs” in the Browns’ grand new employment claims associated with the proposed new stadium in suburban Brook Park would be relocated jobs, not new ones, Kassler reports.
And then there’s the old fiddlin’ and faddlin’ routine:
“The LSC analysis also says jobs in businesses surrounding the development are likely based on ‘multiplier effects’ of secondary spending as a result of economic activity at the site. But the LSC analysis cautions:
“‘Academic literature on the employment of such methods documents frequent misuse of multiplier effects to inflate the reported economic impacts of sport stadiums. However, since the publicly available executive summary does not describe the methods used in detail, LBO is unable to critique the multiplier effects assumed in RCLC’s executive summary.’”
Oh, and one more dubious thing:
“The LSC analysis also says the bonds would not be general revenue bonds [and that] there’s no clear constitutional authorization for the bonds and the legality could be up to the courts to decide as there is a case from 1993 that could potentially apply,” though Ohio Treasurer Robert Sprague says he believes the bonds are constitutional, The Statehouse News Bureau reports.
As we have become wont to repeat, do remember all these subterfuges and machinations as new lease negotiations begin with the Pirates and Steelers over their use of PNC Park and Acrisure Stadium.
For as we’ve come to learn, over and over again, those in pursuit of public money to pad their pockets will stop at nothing to turn out the public’s pockets with nary batting an eye.
Colin McNickle is communications and marketing director at the Allegheny Institute for Public Policy (cmcnickle@alleghenyinstitute.org).
