CLEVELAND — The Cleveland Browns are doubling down on their case that their future is in Brook Park - and ramping up their fight against a state law designed to make it harder for pro sports teams to pull up stakes.
On Tuesday, the Browns asked a federal court judge for permission to file an updated lawsuit against the city of Cleveland over the Modell law.
That law requires the owners of pro sports teams that play in taxpayer-supported facilities to do one of two things before leaving: Negotiate an exit with their host city. Or give that city at least six months' notice - and a chance for local investors to buy the team.
The Browns are asking a federal judge to rule that the Modell law is unconstitutional - and that it doesn't apply to the Browns and their plan to move to a new suburban stadium in 2029 after their lease ends at city-owned Huntington Bank Field in Downtown Cleveland.
"Our actions in court are intended to ensure that the city's irresponsible and baseless attempt to apply the Modell Law to the Browns does not slow our momentum to build a world-class stadium right here in Northeast Ohio for the Browns, our fans and the entire region," Ted Tywang, the chief administrative officer and general counsel for Haslam Sports Group, said in a written statement Tuesday.
The Browns filed their federal lawsuit against the city in October after city officials said they were preparing to invoke the Modell law. The city filed its own lawsuit in January, seeking to enforce the law and have the litigation moved to state court instead. Both cases are in the early stages.
"The Modell law is clear: if you take taxpayer money to fund your stadium, you have obligations to the community that made that investment possible," Mark Griffin, the city's law director, said in a news release in January. "The Haslam (Sports) Group's circumvention of these requirements not only undermines the trust of Cleveland's residents but also violates a law designed to protect all Ohioans."
RELATED:'You can't take the money and run.' City of Cleveland sues the Browns over Modell law
The city hasn't responded yet to Tuesday's court filing or an open letter to fans that the Browns posted on social media.
Dave Jenkins, the team's chief operating officer, wrote that the Brook Park proposal - a $2.4 billion stadium surrounded by roughly $1 billion worth of development - is "the most viable, long-term solution."
The Browns are asking taxpayers to foot half of the bill - $1.2 billion - for the stadium. Tywang made the team's first public pitch to legislators in Columbus last week, asking the state to issue $600 million in bonds to help pay for the project.
RELATED: Browns reveal more details about Brook Park plans in a pitch to state lawmakers
"The heart of this commitment would be a new, enclosed NFL stadium and mixed-use development to be built in Brook Park, Ohio without impacting any existing taxpayer revenue streams and relieving Cleveland of any stadium-related taxpayer expenses," the team said Tuesday.
In its letter to fans Tuesday, the team pointed out that the Brook Park development site - 176 acres near Cleveland Hopkins International Airport - is less than a mile outside of Cleveland city limits. The team said the city of Cleveland is "misguiding Clevelanders by inaccurately conflating the Brook Park project with Art Modell breaking a lease and moving a team to an entirely different state."
The General Assembly passed that law after former Browns owner Art Modell moved the team to Baltimore in the 1990s. The law was invoked as part of a battle to keep the Columbus Crew soccer team, but it has never been fully tested.
RELATED: The Modell law was used before; what a Columbus battle tells us about the Browns
