With City Council’s efforts to suppress a referendum on the Q deal having failed, Dan Gilbert was finally faced with the prospect of a public vote on the proposed $100-million-plus subsidy to pay for discretionary renovations to Quicken Loans Arena. Rather than subject this project to scrutiny at the ballot, Gilbert decided to pick up his ball and go home.
Yesterday, Gilbert announced his “cancellation of [the Cavaliers’] participation in The Q Transformation Project” in a lengthy press release touting various hypothetical benefits of the renovations and blaming the sponsors of the referendum petition for killing the project. Leading elected officials—including Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson, Council President Kevin Kelley, Cuyahoga County Executive Armond Budish, and U.S. Congresswoman Marcia Fudge—dutifully followed up with their own statements variously lamenting the death of the project and issuing their own accusations against the petition sponsors. Notably missing from these statements was any criticism of Gilbert himself—a man with virtually limitless personal resources—for taking the position that these renovations won’t happen at all if he can’t get a public handout to pay for them.
The whole thing has made for a stunning display of contempt for the democratic process and the voting public, including the 20,000+ Clevelanders who signed the referendum petition. If this was really such a good deal for the public—contrary to the virtually unanimous opinion of academics who have studied stadium subsidies—why couldn’t these leaders make the case to the public and let them vote on it? If Gilbert really couldn’t afford to pay for this project without a public subsidy, why couldn’t he be transparent with his financial statements to prove to voters that this is the case? Why cast aspersions on people for merely suggesting there are better uses for public funds than this—such as to address the needs of Cleveland’s distressed neighborhoods and most vulnerable residents—and for insisting that, at very least, the public should get to decide at the ballot as Ohio’s Constitution guarantees?
The message from Gilbert is that whatever he believed the benefits of the Q renovations to be, they weren’t worth even trying to test at the ballot, or negotiate over with the petition’s sponsors. Nor were they worth paying for himself, or with the help of the deal’s many supporters in Cleveland’s corporate community. Whatever the supposed benefits of these renovations, they weren’t important enough to Gilbert and friends as their commitment to Hunger Games economics and their continued ability to hold the public hostage for subsidies that they apparently don’t need.
The message from the elected officials is similarly clear and bleak: They know better than the public, and they don’t see it as their job to let the public in on what they know. And why would they in a system where it’s effectively impossible for a politician to get elected without support from billionaires?
The death of this deal is, whatever else, a much-needed reason for hope that this broken system can be reformed. The death of this deal is, whatever else, a win for the public against public officials who tried to deny the public a vote. Whatever one’s opinion on the Q deal, everyone should be able to appreciate that.
And everyone should be able to understand that if Gilbert really had the public’s best interests at heart, he would have found a way to make the project happen in a way that would have been acceptable to voters.
Peter Pattakos is an attorney who represents the Q-deal petitioners and has legally represented Scene.
This article appears in Aug 23-29, 2017.
The same can be said about Dan Gilbert’s Phase Two Casino Project.
First and foremost, I want to thank everyone that stood up against the Q Deal and devoted hours, energy, and stress to fighting against it. It wasn’t too long ago that everyone in Cleveland thought everything was amazing as far as elected officials go. Then, the FBI rolled in, grabbed a whole bunch of stuff, and that bubble popped pretty quickly as Jimmy D and Frankie were hauled off to prison. The lesson here is you can’t trust politicians that are not held accountable, and just because they say things in public doesn’t mean the opposite isn’t happening in the background.
It wasn’t that long ago that the above happened, and I’ll be honest when I say its much too soon for me to trust a politician that goes behind closed doors, negotiates a deal, and then passionately supports that deal even when voters are skeptical and unpleasant regarding the deal. It just seems highly unusual for there to be so strong of support from a politician, especially for a deal that quite a few people strongly feel does not really have as many benefits as are claimed.
I know that we need to do something about the Q, it is 23 years old after all. But that doesn’t mean we need to rush rush rush some plan and do things hastily. The people care about the Q, the Cavs, and the city, and I find it hard to believe that we can’t find some kind of solution that works in terms of getting things renovated, but also doesn’t end up putting the city in a more difficult financial position. If public money is going to be used, the public should have a say in the planning process, and then should get the ultimate say at the ballot box regarding the issue. If you don’t like involving the public, don’t involve public funds.
Word.
Oh, no, so now we can’t host an All-Star Game? (It’ll still come here eventually—we hosted Finals, for chrissake.) What a joke. Never mind all the LBJ leaving talk, the trades, etc. The damn game is played on the court, inside, no one gives a rap about the exterior of the facility or what looks like. It isn’t dilapidated or an eyesore like old Municipal Stadium. And more dining options inside are meaningless, irrelevant. The city is teeming with great new and established eateries. Who needs them inside? Eat a dog or nachos or a burger, drink your beer and soda and watch the game and STFU! The game is the focal point, who cares about all the extra bullshit. “Fan experience”? Stop with that made-up concept. Remember the watch parties, the big screen outside, the team winning the championship last June? (On the road, mind you.) Remember the bomb-ass parade that attracted scores of people? Remember the players addressing the crowd, hoisting the trophy? Yeah, there’s your “fan experience,” the rest is just extraneous pablum.
A vote would have been a wasteful and futile effort. Middletown v. Ferguson, 25 Ohio St. 3d 71 (1986). Regardless, the economics of the project would need to account for the cost and time necessary as a hedge to educate the voters (as opposed to three public bodies and elected executives) and counter the disinformation from out-of-city, out-of-county and out-of-state operatives using this issue to advance their own self-interests by holding the project hostage to create a slush fund for themselves.
The attempt to get the City to “negotiate over [the benefits] with the petition’s sponsors” (mimicking the GCC’s expressed desire in its recent op-ed to “negotiate”) lays it bare. The petition’s sponsors, the GCC, the SEIU or their lawyers are not legitimate. They failed to present any concrete alternatives even worth negotiating. How does negotiating with a self-selected special interest group serve to further the direct democracy espoused here anyway?
Our elected city and county officers with the authority to negotiate this project did their job. The terms were disclosed, written into law and voted on publicly. The Supreme Court said the charter (not the constitution) allows for a referendum here. The merits of the deal could have won at the ballot, but the vote was not legally significant (under the constitution, not the charter). The economics did not include an issue campaign or lengthy court battle, and negotiations are not part of a voter referendum. Now, the project is dead.
In the end, the opponents succeeded in promoting themselves and increasing their brand familiarity. Whether that familiarity is net favorable or unfavorable will bear itself out.
Those selfish voters. Imagine, demanding that our busy elected officials waste their valuable time trying to educate neanderthals on why this deal was so great! I mean, really, is it too much to ask as an elected official to be left alone so you never have to talk or listen to anyone you represent and you can just vote the way you personally want? Heck, elected officials are so stressed about money for their reelection funds nowadays. Let’s encourage big corporations and the employees of those corporations to give big amounts, like tens of thousands of dollars to our elected officials. I’m sure this will not cause any problems, no elected official in Cleveland ever has been accused of corruption. True story.
Does anyone else consider it a tad…quaint…that the unraveling of this deal is being blamed on “outside agitators” seeking to enbarrass Hizzonor Mayor Frank Jackson?…Not that it’s not possible; many, many Clevelanders know that standing up to The Oligarchs (which means doing anything other than pledging eternal fealty to The Next Deal, Whatever It Is) has not been a viable career path for well over a decade…But responsible reporters who’ve covered the issue exhaustively saw no evidence of said alleged outside agitation (at least not since union organizers and later civil rights activists were tarred as such by the forebears of the current generation of Men Behind The Curtain)…Besides, it IS equally reasonable to attribute the issue’s defeat to some energized activists who have grown tired of bending over for the culture of casual corruption which has distinguished The Cleveland Way for the better part of two decades…Nothin’ against the Cavs…Nothin’ against the Q, even…PLENTY against rent-seeking “civic leaders” whose rejoinder to observations of corruption is that nobody broke any laws…Arguably the most egregious corruption is engaged in by guys in real nice suits with thousand dollar an hour lawyers, plenty of cash, and a cadre of elected officials who’ll do whatever monkey dance their funders call for…especially after they’ve been absolved of any other civic responsibility by being assured that they’re not breaking any laws…THAT’S what we aspire to for our elected officials?…That their actions not specifically violate any laws?…
One of the most disturbing facts about our capitalist nation is the misappropriation of funds directed to the salaries of entertainers. Everyone should agree that the value an athlete, movie star, talk-show host, team-owner, etc. brings to the average citizen is very small. Granted, they do offer a minuscule of diversion from our daily trials and tribulations, as did the jesters in the king’s court during the middle ages. But to allow these entertainers to horde such great amounts of wealth at the expense of more benevolent societal programs is unacceptable.
Our society is also subjected to the “profound wisdom” of these people because it equates wealth with influence. Perhaps a solution to this problem and an alternative to defeated school levies and crumbling infrastructures, as well as all the programs established to help feed, clothe and shelter those who cannot help themselves, would be to tax this undeserved wealth. Entertainers could keep 1 percent of the gross earnings reaped from their endeavor and 99 percent could be deposited into the public coffers.
As Congress considers limiting the amount of pay given to Corporate Executives they should decide instead to raise the taxes on these Banksters and the so-called entertainment industry.
The old ideas of the redistribution of wealth have failed, and it is time to adapt to modern-day preferences. Does anyone think this will reduce the quality of entertainment? It seems to me that when entertainers received less income, the quality was much higher.