Ohio Governor Mike DeWine has until the end of Monday to sign a sweeping $60 billion, two-year state operating budget.
Among the numerous policy provisions, one item has become particularly contentious: a $600 million allocation for a new Cleveland Browns stadium in suburban Brook Park, paid through the state’s $4.8 billion in unclaimed property funds. The route Dewine decides to go today is significant and has far-reaching fiscal and legal implications.
The Governor had three options to consider:
1. Sign the Budget as Is:
By signing the bill intact, DeWine would greenlight the stadium funding, expand the flat income tax system, slash regulatory oversight, and embed socially conservative mandates, such as defining on the record that “there are only two genders.”
2. Use Line‑Item Vetoes:
DeWine may selectively veto individual line items, potentially removing the stadium appropriation while preserving broader reforms. However, this could put him at odds with legislative Republicans and the Browns’ ownership, which has voiced appreciation for his previous support.
3. Conditional or Full Veto of the Stadium:
The governor could outright veto the $600 million allocation, either permanently or conditionally, pending legal resolution or alternative funding mechanisms like increased sports betting taxes, his proposal for longer-term, statewide sports funding.
Proponents, including billionaire Browns owner Jimmy Haslam and NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, emphasize the stadium’s economic potential. Goodell praised the move, noting that the facility would be a “Super Bowl material” venue likely to draw year-round events and downtown foot traffic.
Cuyahoga County is backing the project with $600 million in bonds. Meanwhile, Brook Park residents (e.g., local business owner Sam Clarke) see it as “good for my business, most of the people who go to the games are in the suburbs anyway.”
Opponents, including Democrats and conservative Republicans in Columbus and city leaders in Cleveland, say the plan skews heavily toward billionaire owners while undercutting statewide priorities like education, libraries, and Medicaid. They also have real concerns about whether the allocation of these funds is legal.
Rep. Tristan Rader warned, “Ohioans’ private property should not be taken without due process, and certainly not to subsidize billionaire developers. This isn’t economic development, it’s a constitutional red flag.”
County Executive Chris Ronayne expressed concern, “I don’t want to see our taxpayers get fleeced. The move away is counter to our strategy of keeping the downtown robust.”
Additional complaints focus on library and school funding cuts paired with flat tax changes that disproportionately favor the wealthy—an estimated 98% of tax savings flow to the top 20% of earners.
The budget draws $600 million from unclaimed state assets—dormant accounts, uncashed checks, etc. Democrats argue this misappropriates public assets without due process; they have threatened legal action, and some consider it unconstitutional.
Ohio’s “Modell Law” complicates moving a tax-funded enterprise without city approval. The Browns maintain that moving within Cuyahoga County circumvents the law, but Cleveland officials contend it still applies. A high-profile legal fight is already underway.
Citing research on public stadium financing, critics caution that taxpayers could pay nearly $1 billion over time once interest is factored in. The Browns have pledged a modest $50 million “prepaid rent,” but the economic benefit remains disputed.
Gov. DeWine must weigh political alliances with his party’s supermajority and the influential Cleveland Browns organization against constitutional concerns, Cleveland’s backlash, and broader fiscal priorities across the state. A full sign-off may please proponents but expose him to legal jeopardy and public criticism; a calculated veto could soften controversy but draw ire from Republican allies. It could steer the debate toward a nuanced compromise if he opts for selective vetoes or requests alternative funding like his sports‑bet tax proposal.
As the governor’s looming deadline has arrived, the state’s political and financial fabric hangs in the balance. The Browns stadium decision is more than a local issue; it tests Ohio’s fiscal policy, legal norms, and future priorities.
