All the soccer that's fit to print
Yesterday, the Portland City Council approved $60 million in public funds to help bring Major League Soccer to the city. Some notes on the financial deal from the AP:
The $60 million would go to renovating PGE Park to meet MLS specifications, and building a new ballpark for the Portland Beavers, the city's Triple-A baseball team.Merritt Paulson, son of former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, would pay $40 million for the franchise and contribute $12.5 million toward construction. He also pledged to raise $11.8 million from other sources.
Part of the package had involved using $15 million in tax revenue expected from an urban renewal district. On Wednesday the council took the district out of the deal.
Of course, that puts Paulson on the hook for millions more than his original proposal - and is less overall than he wanted.
The hearing lasted over six hours. Multnomah County Chair Ted Wheeler got a lot of attention, much of it positive, for his testimony. From the O:
"The people sitting in the back of this room really don't give a damn where the money comes from," he said. "With all due respect, I'm new to the job, but I wasn't born yesterday. Our constituents are one and the same."
As the AP noted, MLS was expected to name two expansion teams by Thursday, opening day for the upcoming season. Possible cities include Vancouver, Portland, Ottowa, and St. Louis. But now it looks like that decision may get delayed. From Soccer America:
If MLS is to approve the Portland expansion bid, it must either grant the franchise assuming the $15 million hole will be filled, or wait until discussions and negotiations complete the funding package. MLS spokesman Dan Courtemanche said last week the league might decide to name just one team for the 2011 season - presumably Vancouver - in the near future and wait on selecting a second.
Much commentary suggests that Vancouver is a lock, while Portland is in the #2 position. Meanwhile, St. Louis is working hard to edge out Portland:
The group bidding to bring a Major League Soccer expansion franchise to St. Louis received a boost on Wednesday when Anheuser-Busch said it would give the group the Soccer Park near Fenton as a site for a new stadium and lobby the league on St. Louis' behalf.The Soccer Park, formally known as Anheuser-Busch Center, gives Jeff Cooper and St. Louis Soccer United something it didn't have in its original bid — a stadium site closer to the team's primary fan base in west St. Louis County.
Having the involvement of Anheuser-Busch means more to the St. Louis effort than just having deep pockets.
In addition to giving the Soccer Park to St. Louis Soccer United, Anheuser-Busch has said it will use its corporate clout to press the league for a St. Louis team, though it is not expected to join Cooper's investment group. The brewery has been a sponsor of the league since its inception and is the only original sponsor left.
The Portland plan includes tearing down Memorial Coliseum and replacing it with a 9000-seat minor league baseball stadium for use by the Portland Beavers (also owned by Paulson). In surprise testimony, the Trail Blazers oppose that plan. From the Portland Tribune:
In the afternoon, Portland Tail Blazer senior vice president for business affairs J. Isaac seemed to surprise both Adam and Leonard by opposing the idea of building a AAA baseball stadium in the Rose Quarter area. He said such a stadium would threaten the future of the Blazers.According to Isaac, Blazer owner Paul Allen is working on plans to tap the funds to turn the Rose Quarter into a thriving entertainment district. Isaac said the stadium plan would undermine that effort by use all available public redevelopment funds to build a stadium on the same property where Allen is considering building restaurants, nightclubs and retail shops.
“This is our plan to break even,” Isaac said.
Finally, the Tribune reports that this is not the end of the story:
Adams characterized the plan as a conceptual framework that would allow Paulson to apply for the MLS franchise, but which will need to be finalized in coming months and resubmitted to the council before it was legally binding. He said that even if the MLS governing body grants Paulson the franchise, the council had many opportunities to back out of its part of the deal.Some witnesses compared that to leaving a bride at the altar. Others said the resolution would only authorize the city and Paulson to begin shopping for a wedding ring.
I'm still not sure how I feel about this plan - and I'd like to hear your thoughts. But I do have one request: Please avoid comments that could be easily summarized as "Soccer sucks!" or "Soccer rules!" It's unlikely that those sorts of comments are going to change anyone's mind. And besides, they're entirely beside the point. (I personally can't stand watching baseball, but I supported the major league baseball proposal.) Let's talk about the politics and policy of the financing deal, OK?
|
March 12, 2009 |
Kari Chisholm | Comments (167 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: CBurr | Mar 12, 2009 11:19:35 AM
And who is this Adam [sic] person?
seemed to surprise both Adam and Leonard by opposing the idea
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Mar 12, 2009 11:24:47 AM
I've been seeing many more errors at both the Trib and the O. I'm guessing that they've been laying off copy editors.
OK, back on topic...
Posted by: Garrett | Mar 12, 2009 11:24:53 AM
Paul Allen has has 20 years to develop the Rose Quarter. He deserves no place at this table now. They lied to Merritt Paulson, Randy Leonard and Sam Adams' faces about their level of support for this proposal.
The other thing to consider is that they're extending the deadline to let Vancouver and St. Louis get their business in order. Portland could be awarded a franchise this week and the other two are the ones with questions. Vancouver has stadium issues and need a permanent solution rather than the temporary solution they currently have.
Also the Anheuser-Busch help in St. Louis means bunk. It's a 6,000 seat stadium that can be upgraded to 10,000. Unless they jump on board financially with ownership their bid is dead.
Posted by: Chakita | Mar 12, 2009 11:32:18 AM
Soccer sucks. I can't believe we're spending money on soccer!!!
Posted by: angro | Mar 12, 2009 11:33:35 AM
"I've been seeing many more errors at both the Trib and the O. I'm guessing that they've been laying off copy editors"
Ottowa
wtf?
Posted by: paul | Mar 12, 2009 11:40:59 AM
I am glad to see that Ted Wheeler stood up to the City, and that the sham of urban renewal in this case was beaten back.
Essentially, Cmmr. Leonard's argument went this way:
- We have given you money in the past
- Urban renewal districts have been successful in the past
- Therefore, you are in no position to talk with us about any future urban renewal districts or even to ask that you be at the table when major decisions are being made that will impact the County.
With all due respect to Randy, it is this kind of Portland-centric, we are the center of the universe, and the rest of the region be damned attitude that sank the public buyout of PGE and may sink our regional water agreement (as other cities pull out of purchase agreements of Bull Run water).
If we are truly believe in regional development and partnerships, the City must bring stakeholders together and not try to bully through agreements.
Thanks to Ted Wheeler.
Posted by: paul | Mar 12, 2009 11:42:37 AM
sorry to double post, but I reviewed Kari's posting again. The City (or better, Randy and Sam and their staffs) did not talk to the PPS, the County, or even the Blazers? Who DID they talk to?
Posted by: Zaggy | Mar 12, 2009 11:47:46 AM
I respectively disagree about Vancouver being a lock for number 1, I think that is the Portland bid.
The Portland bid, which is due to be filed with MLS on the 16th per council documents, wasn't going to finalized even if the URD money was still included. MLS knew that district still had to be created and there was always a risk. We won't see the final deal until the 1st of September, and again MLS realized that. What they were looking for (and got) was a sign that Portland is indeed interested and willing to move into far more intense negotiations.
The Vancouver bid does indeed have deep pockets, but there is questions about the stadium. Right now they are proposing to play in BC place which is a very very large stadium, and it is unknown what the rental rate will be. The main owner up there, Greg Kerfoot, has been trying to build a privately owned stadium for years, and has been rebuked by the city and port of Vancouver, so there are worries there. Additionally, and perhaps most importantly, there is no TV deal with Canada right now, nor is there a major Canadian sponsor. The league doesn't gain much from a financial standpoint at the moment by expanding to Canada.
The St. Louis bid has problems with thier ownership group having deep enough pockets to sustain losses, which is the same reason they were passed over last time. The stadium is nice, but he won't have the money to upgrade it, and again the league wants owners that sustain losses if necessary.
For that reason, I think Portland will be announced the 19th (first game of the season, in Seattle), while giving the other ownership groups time to shore up thier bids/the league to continue to look for sponsors in Canada. If St. Louis strengthens the ownership group, they'll probably be announced in April/May, if not, it will be Vancouver.
Its also important to point out that the decision isn't made by the league office, but by the league's board of governors, which is made up of the original owners. These people want franchises/deals that make them money (since profits/losses are shared across the league), and Portland has the best ability to help these guys make more money.
Posted by: Bob Tiernan | Mar 12, 2009 11:49:40 AM
Good showing out there by progressives (and their mayor) to stop this corporate-welfare scam. And you'll re-elect all three creeps next time around while saying, "It's all Paulson's fault". What's the matter -- afraid to be on the same side as the Cascade Policy Institute? You have nothing to say about "corporate welfare" any longer.
Bob Tiernan
Mult Co
Posted by: Roger | Mar 12, 2009 11:52:57 AM
MLS is a perfect fit for Portland: It's a low outlay, build slowly business plan. The average ticket price is going to be half that of the Blazers, and if you're an Oregon-sized company contemplating a luxury box purchase, 25 or so soccer and PSU football games at PGE Park makes way more sense than 70 or so events at higher prices in the Rose Garden.
People greatly underestimate how much this will raise Portland's profile on an international basis.
Posted by: Garrett | Mar 12, 2009 12:01:28 PM
Good showing out there by progressives (and their mayor) to stop this corporate-welfare scam. And you'll re-elect all three creeps next time around while saying, "It's all Paulson's fault". What's the matter -- afraid to be on the same side as the Cascade Policy Institute? You have nothing to say about "corporate welfare" any longer.
The last person in the state I would take voting advice from is the chair of the Oregon Republican Party.
Posted by: Eric Parker | Mar 12, 2009 12:03:20 PM
What's done is done. Just live with it. If you don't like the outcome, find a lawyer. But since the majority who are against it can't afford a court date/lawyer to change what has happened, they are no threat to the outcome. If you are no threat, then you just need to keep quiet and live with it.
Posted by: Eric Berg | Mar 12, 2009 12:03:51 PM
I'm a Rose-City-'Til-I-Die Timbers Army Faithful since 2001. Naturally, I'm giddy about bringing MLS to Portland. I appreciate Paulson picking up some the tab and helping protecting the City financially. I've never thought a new urban renewal district was a good idea. And playing "Let's make a deal" a day and a half before playing "Let's vote on it" isn't how the City that Works should work. I preferred the Lents site, in part, to avoid the complications with Paul Allen, Inc. But as a whole, the deal is a good one.
However, I have to question if hundreds of part-time, minimum wage jobs is "public benefit" using $88 million in public funds. The City and Paulson made no commitment to living wage jobs at the stadiums. The City's Fair Wage Policy (at present Park employees such as ushers and ticket sellers earn about $10.80 and hour under it) needs to cover all workers, including concessionaires, merchandisers and other employees of subcontractors. The City also subsidizes many of Paulson's employees at a cost of $150,000 a year. The subsidy should end.
I want to stand and chant for the MLS Timbers and catch a fly ball at new stadium. But I want the worker who sells me beer, peanuts and Cracker Jack to earn a living wage.
Posted by: Zaggy | Mar 12, 2009 12:05:15 PM
BTW Leonard, Adams and Paulson had all met with the Blazers, there was even an Oregonian article just last week talking about how a AAA stadium could fit in with the entertainment district they were proposing. Yesterday's testimony by the Blazers came out of left field, and was in my mind, a shakedown by Allen. Leonard and Adams both asked where these comments were coming from, as they had been supportive previously.
Posted by: Anon | Mar 12, 2009 12:14:48 PM
Paul Allen has has 20 years to develop the Rose Quarter. He deserves no place at this table now.
So when Paul Allen invests millions of his own money to build the Rose Garden (more than can be said for Little Lord Paulson who wants the public to pay for his stadiums), he should get no say about what the city does on land adjacent to it?
It would be a true shame if these stadium plans the soccer boosters are shoving down the city's throat were to drive the Trailblazers up to Seattle. It's no secret that Paul Allen is a Seattle guy, and Seattle now lacks an NBA franchise. Needlessly pissing off Paul Allen seems pretty dumb at this point. While there is a soccer rocks v. soccer sucks debate going on, pretty much everyone is on the Rip City bandwagon.
Though I'm opposed to the public building sports stadiums for millionaires (and billionaires), I can see why Allen would be annoyed that the city gave him the cold shoulder a few years back when he asked for public support for the Rose Garden and now Randy and Sam are falling all over themselves to give Little Lord Paulson money.
Posted by: Steve Maurer | Mar 12, 2009 12:22:53 PM
If the city was drowning in money this might be possibly defensible. As Roger points out, there would be a non-zero economic benefit in raising Portland's profile internationally, although I think the economic benefit is very very close to zero, because the Chinese aren't going to root for an American league team.
But let's be clear about this: creating an "Urban Renewal District", which is another way of saying "Redirecting Away Tax Money Intended For Schools" to subsidize a private sports franchise that can't make the numbers work by itself, really calls into question the intelligence of the Portland City Commissioners. Because of this decision, there will be teachers laid off, class sizes increased, less early interventions for at-risk kids and families, all so that a handful of people can feel proud that "their" team won.
And please don't anybody try to pretend that any sports franchise boosts the local economy. It doesn't. Money that will be spent on MLS tickets would have been spent on something else otherwise. Like books, for instance, for a kid who got individual attention at school to help them read (but now won't). We also won't have to worry about quite as many Portland kids going off to college either, or any of the economic benefits that would have accrued from that.
Conservatives like to pretend government always harms the economy. Liberals know that only stupidly managed government harms the economy. Well, this is overwhelmingly stupid economic management. And I'm grateful I don't live in the city and have to put up with it.
Posted by: Zaggy | Mar 12, 2009 12:24:27 PM
Anon I have to disagree with your statement that Paulson isn't paying his share. In fact, along with the guarentees and cost overruns that he is covering, he is paying up to 30% of the total construction costs, PLUS $40 million to get the MLS team in the form of a franchise fee.
If you look at the total amount that Paulson could have to pay, it could very well be MORE than Allen did, despite his stadiums costing less than half of the Rose Garden.
The point Garrett was making is that Allen has dragged his feet for years doing anything else in the RQ, and after initially supporting the stadium, tried to submarine it.
I typically don't support public ownership of teams, but I'll be honest, the terms of this deal are pretty favorable to the city, the city is unwilling to sell PGE and the MC site, so this is probably the best option for everyone involved. I will also say that it has alot better chance of becoming a positive for the city than many deals other cities are passing right now (the new LA and Dallas stadiums are perfect examples, over $1 billion in public financing!).
Posted by: YoungOregonMoonbat | Mar 12, 2009 12:43:23 PM
We would better serve the greater Portland Community if those "urban renewal" dollars were used to help the impoverished in the Portland Metro Area.
This is another reverse Robin Hood example of using "urban renewal" dollars seems to be more for attracting middle and upper-middle class Yuppies.
Then again, progressives will counter that using monies intended for the poor to attract the "haves" will result in more tax payer dollars for the city to reinvest in curbing "urban blight."
If history has shown us anything, I don't think that will be the case.
Posted by: Torridjoe | Mar 12, 2009 12:48:38 PM
Since they put off the PGE URA funding, Council didn't approve $60mil, they approved $45mil. And contrary to a lot of reporting, they eliminated that funding from the agreement, but very much intend to revisit it when addressing the creation of it later this spring. It was a battle for another day anyway; why fight it now? Smart move by Adams and Leonard.
Wheeler lost his fight with Randy because his argument doesn't make any sense. He went on record saying the County approves of URAs and in fact most of the existing ones. So he believes in the long term benefit--but now is making a short-term whine about their funding issues--which itself doesn't make sense. The Goose Hollow Rep said the neighborhood is seeing no development and won't without the URA. So if the tax base in that area stays the same, the county will see exactly the same cut as they do now. And if it IS created, there's still no difference, because with TIF it's only the new value that's sequestered.
So over time, yes--eventually the pot of money for the county will remain stagnant rather than improving. But by the time that happens, the recession is likely to be over anyway--and in the long term, even Wheeler agrees the URAs are ultimately beneficial.
So no short term impact, no long term impact--just a medium term one. Why is that relevant in this decision?
The Blazer VP got busted by Randy too; he pointed out that their own drawings show the stadium on the Coliseum site, and according to Janik they're incorrect to say the deal poached money set out for them in the CC URA.
Posted by: The Chinuk | Mar 12, 2009 1:08:10 PM
Mr T.:
What's the matter -- afraid to be on the same side as the Cascade Policy Institute? You have nothing to say about "corporate welfare" any longer.
No. Even a busted clock is right twice a day, Bob.
PS: By that, I'm not talking about us, just so you know.
PPS: Just because we agree here doesn't mean we're on the same side as the CPI.
PPPS: Corporate cupidity for my tax dollars vs. open scorn for the poor who don't get the dignity of expecting an economic safety net for their tax money still p*sses me right off. So don't give yourself (and the "think" tankers at CPI) too much credit.
Posted by: Kurt Chapman | Mar 12, 2009 1:15:00 PM
The debate framed by Kari is about use of public funds, specifically URD moeny for this. No, raiding URD's for the flavor de jour government wish list should be stopped. Portland is only the most recent example of this excess. 2 years ago Medford did the same thing to allow Lithia Motors the ability to build a huge office tower downtown. Now fast forward to 2009 and no Lithia tower, perhaps no Lithia and an ongoing legacy of a failed Medford URD.
Zaggy has some good insight; but soccer is just like any other sport. Played by some, watched by some and not generally best at increasing employment and or inner city development.
MLS will agree to the Vancouver bid on opening day because their bid is better than Portland's. Vancouver is one leg of the old 3-legged PNW rivalry that goes back to the old NASL days. Accepting their bid also puts additional pressure on Portland to up the ante in the eyes of MLS. St. Louis has a huge fan base, but has never been able to sustain anything over indoor or USL status, so the pressure will be exerted by MLS to have Portland get their bid in order.
I'm glad Paulson wants to do the MLS deal. However, remember that the $40MM franchise purchase price is really his. If he chooses he can take that 440MM and the franchise and move it.
I had not thought about this deal encouraging Paul Allen to move the Blazers up to Seattle. That is an interesting twist to the plot.
Posted by: Kurt Chapman | Mar 12, 2009 1:15:10 PM
The debate framed by Kari is about use of public funds, specifically URD moeny for this. No, raiding URD's for the flavor de jour government wish list should be stopped. Portland is only the most recent example of this excess. 2 years ago Medford did the same thing to allow Lithia Motors the ability to build a huge office tower downtown. Now fast forward to 2009 and no Lithia tower, perhaps no Lithia and an ongoing legacy of a failed Medford URD.
Zaggy has some good insight; but soccer is just like any other sport. Played by some, watched by some and not generally best at increasing employment and or inner city development.
MLS will agree to the Vancouver bid on opening day because their bid is better than Portland's. Vancouver is one leg of the old 3-legged PNW rivalry that goes back to the old NASL days. Accepting their bid also puts additional pressure on Portland to up the ante in the eyes of MLS. St. Louis has a huge fan base, but has never been able to sustain anything over indoor or USL status, so the pressure will be exerted by MLS to have Portland get their bid in order.
I'm glad Paulson wants to do the MLS deal. However, remember that the $40MM franchise purchase price is really his. If he chooses he can take that 440MM and the franchise and move it.
I had not thought about this deal encouraging Paul Allen to move the Blazers up to Seattle. That is an interesting twist to the plot.
Posted by: Kurt Chapman | Mar 12, 2009 1:16:05 PM
The debate framed by Kari is about use of public funds, specifically URD moeny for this. No, raiding URD's for the flavor de jour government wish list should be stopped. Portland is only the most recent example of this excess. 2 years ago Medford did the same thing to allow Lithia Motors the ability to build a huge office tower downtown. Now fast forward to 2009 and no Lithia tower, perhaps no Lithia and an ongoing legacy of a failed Medford URD.
Zaggy has some good insight; but soccer is just like any other sport. Played by some, watched by some and not generally best at increasing employment and or inner city development.
MLS will agree to the Vancouver bid on opening day because their bid is better than Portland's. Vancouver is one leg of the old 3-legged PNW rivalry that goes back to the old NASL days. Accepting their bid also puts additional pressure on Portland to up the ante in the eyes of MLS. St. Louis has a huge fan base, but has never been able to sustain anything over indoor or USL status, so the pressure will be exerted by MLS to have Portland get their bid in order.
I'm glad Paulson wants to do the MLS deal. However, remember that the $40MM franchise purchase price is really his. If he chooses he can take that 440MM and the franchise and move it.
I had not thought about this deal encouraging Paul Allen to move the Blazers up to Seattle. That is an interesting twist to the plot.
Posted by: torridjoe | Mar 12, 2009 1:16:24 PM
"Since they put off the PGE URA funding, Council didn't approve $60mil, they approved $45mil."
Let me correct myself here--the original outlay wasn't $60 mil in the first place, it was $64.5mil...$31mil from the spectator fund, $18.5 from CC URA, $15 from PGE URA. So the current agreement agrees to bond $49.5mil.
Posted by: torridjoe | Mar 12, 2009 1:16:33 PM
"Since they put off the PGE URA funding, Council didn't approve $60mil, they approved $45mil."
Let me correct myself here--the original outlay wasn't $60 mil in the first place, it was $64.5mil...$31mil from the spectator fund, $18.5 from CC URA, $15 from PGE URA. So the current agreement agrees to bond $49.5mil.
Posted by: Kevin | Mar 12, 2009 1:22:35 PM
I'm not sure that I agree with all of Zaggy's reasoning about Vancouver not being a lock for number 1 - specifically with respect to sponsorship/TV deal.
I suspect that MLS would be a much easier sell to Canadians than to us Yanks down here. Primarily because so many of them have dual-citizenship with soccer/football crazy countries like England and Scotland.
Back when I was living in France (mid-80's) a Canadian buddy with the quaint name of Alastair Macvarish - who grew up in B.C. before the family moved to Ontario -went on a brief trip to England and Scotland for a couple weeks and came back with dual Canadian-Scottish citizenship. He told me that it was very common and that he knew lots of 1st and 2nd generation Canadians with similar dual citizenship.
Posted by: Kevin | Mar 12, 2009 1:22:35 PM
I'm not sure that I agree with all of Zaggy's reasoning about Vancouver not being a lock for number 1 - specifically with respect to sponsorship/TV deal.
I suspect that MLS would be a much easier sell to Canadians than to us Yanks down here. Primarily because so many of them have dual-citizenship with soccer/football crazy countries like England and Scotland.
Back when I was living in France (mid-80's) a Canadian buddy with the quaint name of Alastair Macvarish - who grew up in B.C. before the family moved to Ontario -went on a brief trip to England and Scotland for a couple weeks and came back with dual Canadian-Scottish citizenship. He told me that it was very common and that he knew lots of 1st and 2nd generation Canadians with similar dual citizenship.
Posted by: torridjoe | Mar 12, 2009 1:22:42 PM
"Portland is only the most recent example of this excess. 2 years ago Medford did the same thing to allow Lithia Motors the ability to build a huge office tower downtown."
Not the same thing as in this case--that's a private facility. Portland will own both stadia (as it already does PGE, of course).
On "increasing employment"--600 stimulus construction jobs in the next 24 month sounds like exactly what the City (and nation) desperately needs. It's probably the single most useful part of the whole plan.
A big problem with Vancouver is that they must fill their roster with mostly Canadians, same as Toronto. And Toronto's having a tough time, because Canadian men's players suck. (The women are excellent, actually). That may impact the team.
Posted by: Garrett | Mar 12, 2009 1:29:35 PM
more than can be said for Little Lord Paulson who wants the public to pay for his stadiums
I love how you can tell its a sycophant for failed journalist Jack Bogdanski right away.
drive the Trailblazers up to Seattle. It's no secret that Paul Allen is a Seattle guy, and Seattle now lacks an NBA franchise.
Won't happen. Paul Allen signed a 30 year, "exclusive site agreement," with the city that doesn't expire until 2023 and prohibits Allen or any other future owner from moving the team. Plenty of experts examined that when Allen was shaky about selling the team a few years ago and they said it was airtight. Seattle also needs a new stadium. I don't think Key Arena could be, "remodeled," again.
Furthermore I don't believe a word J.E. Isaacs said in that meeting yesterday. The Blazers had their 60th straight sellout last night, one of the lower payrolls in the league (Raef's contract is covered by insurance), and they say they're bleeding money? They're either lying or posturing.
All Allen wants to do is build a strip mall around the Rose Garden. Go look at his plans. Strip mall.
Posted by: Dilly | Mar 12, 2009 1:30:17 PM
With the 5th worst unemployment in the nation, and the resultant increases in poverty rates and city/county budget deficits, this seems like a very risky proposition.
Thousands of city staff hours (and thousands of dollars in consulting/attorney fees) will be diverted to advancing this agreement to the next stage. Every dollar spent on this proposal between now and then is coming out of the general fund: if Paulson walks between now and the time his "personal guarantee" is signed, Portland is out everything they've spent.
Add to that the probability that Mayor Adams will be subjected to a recall vote, the $15 million funding gap, and the report that MLS may delay their decision, and you can imagine a variety of circumstances that would result in paralysis.
If Mayor Adams is recalled prior to the formal deal authorization from the City Council, then any greenlighting of the Peregrine LLC deal may be delayed until the results of the special election (and possible runoff) are known and the new Mayor has weighed in with the tie-breaking vote.
Posted by: torridjoe | Mar 12, 2009 1:39:14 PM
"
If Mayor Adams is recalled prior to the formal deal authorization from the City Council,"
Not currently possible. The terms must be finalized by September 1. The recall vote, if any, couldn't take place before November.
Why is "personal guarantee" in quotes, exactly?
Posted by: Frank | Mar 12, 2009 1:41:21 PM
YoungOregonMoonbat "We would better serve the greater Portland Community if those "urban renewal" dollars were used to help the impoverished in the Portland Metro Area."
Moonbat...2 Timbers threads ago you said you were proud to be a bigot, and not afraid of being called a racist or a bigot.
-------
Posted by: YoungOregonMoonbat | Mar 8, 2009 10:53:28 PM
I have thought of 1 benefit for MLS in Portland, OR:
1. On the day MLS plays, US Immigration and Customes Enforcement (ICE) will know where the largest concentration of illegal aliens will be on that given day.
If I was an ICE officer with a single police cruiser, I would be rounding up 3 per every half an hour, sending them down to the Central Precinct for processing, rinse and repeat.
I am all for MLS so long as it means putting lawbreakers in the same place at the same time.
Line 'em up, round 'em up, and send them home baby! LOL
http://www.blueoregon.com/2009/03/why-progressives-should-support-the-mls-to-pdx-proposal/comments/page/3/#comments
--------
Posted by: YoungOregonMoonbat | Mar 9, 2009 8:27:24 PM
Frank,
I see that, and I stand by what I said. Apparently, Jeff Alworth is backing up that statement by saying that soccer is a "low end sport." Good, make it low end enough so they all come. LOL.
Unlike you and many others, I am not afraid to be called a racist or xenophobe. I admit I do have my prejudices.
You want to continue your little progressive gangbang here or will you show some nuts and come verbally joust over at Jack Bog's Blog where I and many others will roast your pile of unsubstantiated dung?
I can do it either way, but I pick my fights son.
http://www.blueoregon.com/2009/03/by-representative-nick-kahl-d---in-jeffrey-wrights-post-why-progressives-should-support-the-mls-to-pdx-proposal-h/comments/page/2/#comments
Pardon moi if I feel your concern toward the "impoverished" is less than genuine, moonbat.
Posted by: Frank | Mar 12, 2009 1:41:21 PM
YoungOregonMoonbat "We would better serve the greater Portland Community if those "urban renewal" dollars were used to help the impoverished in the Portland Metro Area."
Moonbat...2 Timbers threads ago you said you were proud to be a bigot, and not afraid of being called a racist or a bigot.
-------
Posted by: YoungOregonMoonbat | Mar 8, 2009 10:53:28 PM
I have thought of 1 benefit for MLS in Portland, OR:
1. On the day MLS plays, US Immigration and Customes Enforcement (ICE) will know where the largest concentration of illegal aliens will be on that given day.
If I was an ICE officer with a single police cruiser, I would be rounding up 3 per every half an hour, sending them down to the Central Precinct for processing, rinse and repeat.
I am all for MLS so long as it means putting lawbreakers in the same place at the same time.
Line 'em up, round 'em up, and send them home baby! LOL
http://www.blueoregon.com/2009/03/why-progressives-should-support-the-mls-to-pdx-proposal/comments/page/3/#comments
--------
Posted by: YoungOregonMoonbat | Mar 9, 2009 8:27:24 PM
Frank,
I see that, and I stand by what I said. Apparently, Jeff Alworth is backing up that statement by saying that soccer is a "low end sport." Good, make it low end enough so they all come. LOL.
Unlike you and many others, I am not afraid to be called a racist or xenophobe. I admit I do have my prejudices.
You want to continue your little progressive gangbang here or will you show some nuts and come verbally joust over at Jack Bog's Blog where I and many others will roast your pile of unsubstantiated dung?
I can do it either way, but I pick my fights son.
http://www.blueoregon.com/2009/03/by-representative-nick-kahl-d---in-jeffrey-wrights-post-why-progressives-should-support-the-mls-to-pdx-proposal-h/comments/page/2/#comments
Pardon moi if I feel your concern toward the "impoverished" is less than genuine, moonbat.
Posted by: Tony Fuentes | Mar 12, 2009 1:47:05 PM
Although I am a soccer fan, I don't support this deal. My opposition to this plan is not based on emotion or some other personal issue; I just see this as a poor investment.
As is the case in every debate on public investment in professional sports facilities, the estimates of positive economic impact are primarily developed by private firms and or policy advocates in support of a decision to invest significant public capital.
However, the academic review (i.e. objective review) of these claims is consistently clear: the presence of a new or renovated stadium has no measurable impact on personal income and local development. For example, consider the following literature review on the subject by Professor Dennis Coates - University of Maryland - and Brad R. Humphreys - University of Alberta:
http://www.umbc.edu/economics/wpapers/wp_03_103.pdf
I recognize that one of the key arguments in favor of a public subsidy for the MLS and AAA stadia is the potential for job creation. However, we cannot make this type of decision in an economic vacuum - other opportunities for the investment and other needs for the capital need to be considered in the decision.
The City only has so much capital to invest in the local economy and only so much borrowing power. The request for this project is significant - $31 million in city backed loans and $18.5 million in direct investment.
First of all, the effect of city back loans should not be ignored in this equation, despite the assurances of Mr. Paulson to pay back the city.
An analogy would be that you loan your credit card to a trusted friend. The friend may well pay you back in time but while his charge is on your card that is less credit available to you to use for any variety of your needs.
As for the $18.5 million, the question should not be limited to this deal alone but the opportunity cost associated with these funds. For instance, the City's draft Economic Development Strategy identifies a number of target industries - wind and solar power, software engineering, etc...
The real question is should we invest $18.5 million of public funds in sports facilities or in developing other local economic sectors? or even investing in our small business sector (which comprises 90 percent of local jobs)? or in other public infrastructure or services? and so on...
In addition to "is this the best use for these funds?", the question of risk is relevant.
Given that the average Timbers game in 2008 drew less than half the capacity of the present PGE Park (128 thousand fans at 15 homes games in a park with 19,500 seats - approx. 43 percent attendance), estimates of tickets sales, attendance and the like appear optimistic.
But what about "Putting Portland on the Map"?
There is a value to civic pride and the like. I don't deny that. But given the current economy, public investment should be targeting areas with real economic development potential and borrowing capacity should be reserved as much as possible just in case we need it to address our most basic needs as we move through this period of low tax revenues.
So that is my take on the policy issue, as for the politics...I pass....
All the best,
Tony Fuentes
Posted by: John Mulvey | Mar 12, 2009 1:52:11 PM
Couple thoughts:
1) Lents got hosed. Again.
I personally am happy they're off the table, only because I think the City would have seen Lents' urban renewal dollars as a deep pocket they could pick for what is essentially a citywide benefit. I also very much doubt the job and collateral economic development projections.
Having said that, though, the folks in Lents who worked for this deal were thrown under the bus once they outlived their usefulness to Merritt and Randy. And sadly, that's been all too typical.
2) This Deal is providing some useful impetus for a reexamination of urban renewal.
The issues around urban renewal are getting a ton more attention because of this deal, and it's good that the way urban renewal hurts other spending is being talked about. Nick Kahl's bill is surely getting a lot more attention because of the soccer/baseball deal.
I hope that as this conversation unfolds, it can shed the baggage of soccer/baseball. That is to say, I'd hate for the passions involved in the Paulson deal to put pro-MSL people in the "defend urban renewal" camp and anti-MSL people in the reform camp. The urban renewal issues are so much bigger for this community and shouldn't be put in that box.
3) In the dialogue surrounding this deal, truth took a beating. Exhibit A: Don Maziotti publicly stated that the "majority" of the 300 new nonconstruction jobs will pay "in the $45,000 to 60,000 per year range." I hope he's right, but something tells me he's not. What process is in place to judge the accuracy of this and other claims made about this deal two, three, ten years from now? Probably none, and that's unfortunate.
4) I'm very put off by Randy Leonard's sanctimonious lecturing of nearly everybody about urban renewal. Not to mention his veiled threat to withhold resources from the County.
Whatever dollars the City "gave" to the County in the past should have been given to improve the quality of life in this community. The same should be true in the future. But apparently there's the added issue in the mix now: whether Randy's ego has been scratched properly.
5) I was agnostic on Ted Wheeler before. After yesterday, I'll knock on 1000 doors for him next time out.
-John
Posted by: Anon | Mar 12, 2009 1:57:06 PM
Zaggy,
Including the $40 million franchise fee in the money Little Lord Paulson will pay column is a little silly, unless you're willing to consider the $70 million Paul Allen paid in 1988 to buy the Blazers (which comes to $127 million in 2009 dollars). Allen also paid $46 million outright for the Rose Garden construction ($69 million in 2009 dollars), and he privately financed another $155 million ($231 million in 2009 dollars). There is no way Paulson's share will come anywhere near those levels of private financing for the stadium by total dollar value or percentage of total costs.
I also remain skeptical about how much risk Paulson will really be taking on regarding cost overruns. Given that no binding agreements have been drafted, I don't think we should give him too much credit yet, especially since there are mad PR games still being played. Talk is cheap; show me a binding contract. The trouble is that I don't particularly expect Randy or Same to drive a hard bargain for the city in negotiations.
Garrett,
If you're accusing me of being a Jack Bogdanski fan, guilty as charged. Jack is a much needed gadfly to the insane fiscal irresponsible corporate welfare that passes for "progressive" by City of Portland leaders. Sam and Randy in particular never met a boondoggle they didn't love despite the city consistently neglecting basic services. Opposition to the aerial tram looks pretty prescient in hindsight. At any rate, he's a leading expert on tax law and actually understands how public finance works, which is more than can be said for most of the "rose-city-til-I-die" wannabe hooligan set. "I really like football and chanting and getting drunk at games" does not constitute a persuasive argument for the expenditure of public funds.
Posted by: torridjoe | Mar 12, 2009 2:06:45 PM
"The City only has so much capital to invest in the local economy and only so much borrowing power. The request for this project is significant - $31 million in city backed loans and $18.5 million in direct investment."
It isn't $31mil in loans; those are also bonds, to be repaid from the spectator fund, which projects to be fine (Not least of which because of the surcharge Paulson agreed to). The $18.5 in bonds comes from the CC URA, which apparently has a $26m surplus, and plenty of room. And no one's going to put a solar energy plant in the Rose Quarter. The credit card analogy doesn't work, because the City can purchase more bonds even while those are outstanding.
And the empirical research on teams that went from USL to MLS showed a doubling or tripling of attendance, so the projections are backed with reasonable data IMO. I was impressed that they event projected a sizeable dip in revenues after the first season, only coming back up in about year 5.
If you're interested in stimulative public investment, there's nothing on the table in Portland that I know of right now that can bring this many jobs right away..
Posted by: Kurt Chapman | Mar 12, 2009 2:07:45 PM
Torrid Joe, we can finally agree - Canada produces some pretty darn good woman soccer players.
Posted by: torridjoe | Mar 12, 2009 2:13:47 PM
"There is no way Paulson's share will come anywhere near those levels of private financing for the stadium by total dollar value or percentage of total costs."
Why would it? Portland doesn't own the Rose Garden. They will own these stadia. Private financers tend to be more amenable to putting money into property they actually own.
Bogdanski is a cancer. He gets his facts wrong routinely, and reacts ad hominem when the errors are pointed out. He runs an echo chamber of half-informed neo-populist bullshit, irrespective of any actual factual information that may interfere with his rant. And there's no such thing as a positive gadfly, unless you find "annoyance" positive. Gadflies are real--horseflies for instance. Never heard anyone praise God for horseflies.
Posted by: Scott in Damascus | Mar 12, 2009 2:19:05 PM
I also remain skeptical about how much risk Paulson will really be taking on regarding cost overruns.
I hope Paulson is willing to take a lot of risk. Currently only 3 teams in the league make a profit.
And not much of one at that.
Posted by: Anon | Mar 12, 2009 2:38:37 PM
Scott,
The 3 profitable teams are located in LA, Dallas, and Toronto, metro areas which are between 3 and 6 times as populous as greater Portland and which also have way more major corporations headquartered there (sponsorship dollars / luxury box sales).
Posted by: vic | Mar 12, 2009 2:39:33 PM
Isn't there some bridge that's about to collapse, that we should fix first?
Oh screw it! Let's play soccer...?
Posted by: Anon | Mar 12, 2009 2:45:28 PM
hHe runs an echo chamber of half-informed neo-populist bullshit
Um, he's a Stanford JD who is a leading expert on tax law, and he knows his shit when it comes to public finance and tax increment financing; that's for sure. If that's half-informed, I'll take that half. Now no one would ever accuse Blue Oregon of being an echo chamber...
And there's no such thing as a positive gadfly, unless you find "annoyance" positive.
Your anti-gadfly position shows utter contempt for the western philosophical tradition and open public debate. You sir are a philistine.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Mar 12, 2009 2:46:46 PM
Garrett, the Bob Tiernan who comments here is NOT the chairman of the Oregon GOP. He's a libertarian from Gresham. And has been particpating here for a long time.
Posted by: Garrett | Mar 12, 2009 3:02:20 PM
Jack is a much needed unwanted gadfly bilge spewer to the insane fiscal irresponsible corporate welfare guys at city council who see a good business deal when it smacks them in the face and that passes for "progressive" leadership by City of Portland leaders
I fixed your post for you.
"I really like football and chanting and getting drunk at games"
We're in America and we call it soccer here thanks and you don't know how much I do or don't drink while at a game.
Believe me I read the proposal in and out, which is more than I can say for Jack and the rest of his talking point repeating sycophants, and I see a deal with minimal risk and high reward. Most people that bothered to read the proposal see the same thing too. Jack Bogdanski would spit on a deal to fund a center for recovering cocaine addicts if it cost public money. His sycophants have little to no place in a progressive city.
Posted by: Dave Porter | Mar 12, 2009 3:12:28 PM
I see Portland's best economic future as being an international city that attracts the best and the brightest from all over the world to work from here selling to the world (in the next few decades 80% of global economic growth will be in emerging markets. If we want a vibrant economy here, those are the folks we need to sell to). Soccer is the international sport. So having an MLS soccer team here would help attract and keep skilled knowledge workers from all over the globe.
But that doesn't mean we make a bad deal.
Posted by: paul | Mar 12, 2009 3:23:03 PM
TJ
I think you are badly misrepresenting Wheeler's position, but no matter. The public perceptions, at least as represented by every media outlet covering the hearings, are that Leonard came off like a bully and Wheeler came out smelling like a rose.
I'll repeat what I said before: just because past URAs were successful does not automatically mean that the County should lay down before every new URA proposal, particularly one as half-baked as this one.
AND your claim on Goose Hollow is utterly misleading. Under a URA, *all* future increases in property taxes go to the URA. The only way your claim could be true is if property taxes, absent the URA, remained absolutely flat.
Posted by: John Mulvey | Mar 12, 2009 3:27:00 PM
I thought this thread was about "politics and policy" and NOT yet another public pissing match?
Name-calling, debating whether we should love or hate Jack Bogdanski, bland statements that ones opponents don't know anything... Why don't you people just have a big rumble in some schoolyard?
Posted by: torridjoe | Mar 12, 2009 3:27:04 PM
"I hope Paulson is willing to take a lot of risk. Currently only 3 teams in the league make a profit.
And not much of one at that."
Annual operating profit is mostly irrelevant to sports owners. You'll notice that the MLB Commissioner makes his living poormouthing the yearly balance sheets of his teams. What he doesn't tell you is that that's not where the money is. The money is in buying and selling franchises, and reaping expansion fees. On those scores, MLB thrives.
Which is also true of MLS--as noted, the owners are now enjoying double the return on expansion as just a couple years ago, and their franchises continue to increase in resale value. That's the true measure of a league's health.
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: Evan Manvel | Mar 12, 2009 11:07:45 AM
I wonder: what exactly is the mascot of a Portland Tail Blazer? [typo in the Trib's article]