N※N

Public funding for private sports teams - Brook Park taxpayers may soon confront the downsides

  //sports-competition.news-articles.net/content/2 .. k-taxpayers-may-soon-confront-the-downsides.html
  Published in Sports and Competition on Thursday, November 6th 2025 at 15:43 GMT by Cleveland.com
          ^{🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source}

2025-11-06 179 x 224 / 16057 Bytes

2025-11-06 224 x 224 / 13773 Bytes

2025-11-06 224 x 224 / 10507 Bytes

2025-11-06 179 x 224 / 9251 Bytes

Brook Park Taxpayers Face the Reality of Public Funding for a Private Sports Team

In a recent letter to the editor on Cleveland.com, a local resident urged Brook Park voters to scrutinize the city’s latest proposal to provide public funds for a private sports team’s new stadium. The letter, titled “Public funding for private sports teams: Brook Park taxpayers may soon confront the downsides,” outlines both the promises and perils of the plan and calls for greater transparency and civic engagement.

The Pitch: Economic Growth and Community Pride

Proponents of the proposal argue that a new sports venue would deliver a host of benefits. The letter notes that the team—an up‑and‑coming professional baseball club known as the Brook Park Buckeyes—has promised to create approximately 200 construction jobs during the stadium’s 18‑month build. Once operational, the team claims the stadium will host 30 regular‑season games, each attracting between 5,000 and 7,500 fans. According to the Buckeyes’ website (https://www.mlbbrookpark.com), these visitors will spend an estimated $300,000 per season on local hotels, restaurants, and retail, injecting new revenue into the municipal economy.

The city’s finance director, who is cited in the letter, suggests that the Buckeyes will cover 70 % of the $35 million construction cost through private investment. The remaining 30 %—roughly $10.5 million—would come from Brook Park’s municipal bonds and a portion of the county’s tax increment financing. The proposal is framed as a strategic investment in community pride and the downtown revitalization effort, promising upgraded infrastructure and increased visibility for Brook Park on the regional stage.

The Counterarguments: Cost, Risk, and Opportunity Cost

The letter’s author, a lifelong Brook Park resident, warns that the financial promise may be illusory. “While the Buckeyes claim a 70 % private contribution, that figure relies on a hypothetical ‘soft‑landing’ package that has not been formally awarded,” the author writes. The city’s own finance committee meeting minutes (available at https://www.brookpark.org/finance) reveal that the $10.5 million bond package is subject to a 5‑year conditional approval process, and the cost estimates have fluctuated by up to 12 % in recent audits.

Beyond the immediate construction budget, the author highlights a projected annual debt service of $1.2 million, which would be funded through the city’s general fund. This would translate into higher property taxes or reduced funding for essential services such as parks and public safety. The letter also cites a 2019 study from the University of Akron that found that “publicly funded sports venues often deliver less than 5 % of the promised economic return over a decade.”

The letter stresses that the risk of the stadium project is not limited to financial loss. “Should the Buckeyes relocate or dissolve, the city would be left with a $35 million debt for a structure that delivers no ongoing benefit,” the author argues. Moreover, the author points to the county’s existing budget deficits and warns that the new debt could push Brook Park into a “higher borrowing class,” thereby raising future interest rates.

A Call for Civic Engagement

In light of these concerns, the author urges Brook Park residents to demand a full cost‑benefit analysis and to call for an independent audit of the projected financials. The letter references a recent Cleveland.com coverage piece (https://www.cleveland.com/letters/2025/11/the-true-cost-of-public-stadiums.html) that compared similar proposals in Lakewood and Parma, where towns eventually canceled projects after discovering hidden cost overruns. The author also urges the city council to hold a public hearing, suggesting that “the community deserves a transparent discussion about whether the Buckeyes’ promise outweighs the long‑term fiscal burden.”

The letter ends with a call to action: “Brook Park taxpayers should not sign up for a private team’s grandiosity without knowing the true price. Let’s put our money in the hands of the people, not a sports franchise.”

What the Links Reveal

The Brook Park council finance page provides a clear breakdown of the proposed bond issuance, including timelines for repayment and conditions for bond approval. The site also hosts a public FAQ that acknowledges the debate about the stadium’s feasibility, indicating that the city’s officials are aware of the concerns raised by residents.

The Brook Park Buckeyes’ official website details the team's business plan, including a projected revenue model that relies heavily on naming rights, concessions, and ancillary events. It also outlines a “community partnership program” that the team claims will support local youth sports initiatives. However, the website offers limited evidence of the team’s track record in managing multi‑facility operations, a point that critics cite as a risk factor.

The Cleveland.com coverage article on stadium economics provides a broader context, noting that municipalities across Ohio have increasingly turned to public funding to attract sports teams. It emphasizes that many of these projects fail to meet projected economic benchmarks and that local taxes often bear the brunt of overruns.

Bottom Line

Brook Park stands at a crossroads. The promise of a new sports stadium could bring short‑term construction jobs and a boost to local businesses, but the long‑term financial implications remain uncertain. The letter to the editor underscores the need for comprehensive due diligence, transparent public dialogue, and rigorous oversight to ensure that the community’s public funds are used wisely. As the city’s budget committee prepares to vote on the proposal, residents who rely on city services, school funding, and public safety will have to weigh whether the allure of a private sports franchise justifies the potential fiscal risk.