Who will really pay for MLS in PDX?
By Representative Nick Kahl (D-Rockwood).
In Jeffrey Jeremy Wright’s post, “Why progressives should support the MLS to PDX proposal,” he supposed that to challenge the use of urban renewal dollars in this instance is to challenge the validity of urban renewal itself. Well, I am offering a challenge. I am not against the idea of major league soccer in Portland, but against the way that the project will be funded. In other words, I challenge the way urban renewal is presently practiced. There is no doubt that some of these districts have been wildly successful, but successful for whom?
Portland is a city marked by gentrification and the flight of poverty to the city's outer core. Part of the flight has come to my district, 49. It is out of sight and out of mind and my neighbors are suffering.
Urban renewal can be an effective tool to address urban blight, as long as the public is presented with an accurate assessment of the trade-offs that are being made, relevant stakeholders are given a seat at the table and the most vulnerable members of these “blighted” communities are also benefited. The establishment of an urban renewal district in this area, an area that includes a MAX line, expensive condos and the Multnomah Athletic Club hardly constitutes “blight removal.” Perhaps as a result of statutory ambiguity and a lack of objective criteria, “blight” may truly be in the eyes of the beholder. However such a district would socialize private risk, subvert the legitimacy and intent of the urban renewal laws, and would effectively constitute Robin Hood-in-reverse.
Multnomah County is facing a budget shortfall of $45 million. This is after cutting their budgets over the last eight years. This latest shortfall will not be solved simply by belt tightening; this will result in the elimination of entire programs. Meanwhile, Multnomah County forgoes $20 million dollars every year in property tax revenues from urban renewal areas. These dollars could otherwise go to fund a SUN school at every school in the county, 42 School Based Health Clinics, or 1,100 treatment beds for the mentally ill. Because of these opportunity costs, Multnomah County should have a seat at the table with the City of Portland when discussing all areas of urban renewal. Urban renewal should not only address housing and infrastructure needs but also the social needs of the community itself as a mechanism of shared prosperity rather than a transfer of wealth.
Because of this, I am proposing legislation that will offer a seat at the table to Multnomah County. House Bill 2615 will do the following: Require county approval by counties with a population of at least 300,000 for the establishment of new urban renewal districts; allow urban renewal funds to be used for social services within the urban renewal area; and require an economic viability study for the proposed plan with and without the provision of social services. This proposed legislation was recently discussed in a Willamette Week article by Nigel Jaquiss entitled Curbin’ Renewal.
Again, I am not against major league soccer coming to Portland. I just don’t want soccer at the expense of my constituents and neighbors. These residents are some among many who will be denied the social services they need now more than ever as a result of foregone revenue used to fund the proposed stadium.
|
March 9, 2009 |
guest column | Comments (128 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Garrett | Mar 9, 2009 8:32:45 AM
So Nick you're a real smart cookie. You realize we're talking about funds that constitute about .5% of the yearly budget for the city of Portland? I'm just ripping off numbers here... we're talking about $25 million in URDs, which is $1.8 million per year. CofP's annual budget is $350 million. Portland Public Schools annual budget is $400 million.
Talking about this thing as a major threat to what Rep. Kahl want to solve is laughable.
Grow up Portland. Answer 1 question for me if you're against this. If you run Merritt Paulson out of town who will rent PGE park and pay off the bonds.
If we run him out now minor league soccer will die due to the closest competitor being 1000 miles away. Travel expenses make it impossible to survive. AAA baseball will leave because it isn't feasible by itself alone at PGE Park and there are plenty of cities like Tucson, AZ and Richmond, VA that have built AAA parks and would be more than willing to accept our AAA franchise. Think that's unbelievable? Remember 1993 or so when Joe Buzas moved the old Beavers to Salt Lake because they built a stadium? Then he proceeded to make money hand over fist until he died in 2003?
Posted by: Kurt Chapman | Mar 9, 2009 8:39:15 AM
Thank you representative Kahl. My only question is why you set HB 2615 at 300,000. It would appear to me that there are probably only 2-3 counties other than Multnomah in the state that would benefit from this reasonable oversite bill.
Urban Renewal Districts were a reasonable mechanism designed well over 30 years ago to deal with recognizable urban blight and crumbling infrastructure in cities. Unfortunately, that noble ideal has been replaced by many cities to fit their needs for whatever "felt good" at the time. Witness the failed Urban Renewal District in Medford:
Two or three years ago, the Medford City council unilaterally extended the life of their Urban Renewal District in order to pay for sewer and other infrastructure upgrades to the city. Why was this done? They did this for the sole purpose of facilitating a private Corporation, Lithia Motors. Lithia had land in downtown Medford as well as land outside the city boundary. They had plans at the time to build a seven story office complex and preferred to do this downtown.
The Medford Urban Renewal District was set to expre, but the city extended its life with the sole purpose of paying for the improvements so Lithia could build their private office building. This was done over the objections of many citizens and in the face of a rather dubious history of successful accomplishment.
Fast forward to 2008 and the meltdown of Lithia's net value as a result of the economic downturn. The company will not only NOT be building an office tower, but may well no longer be a separate private company. However, the extended life of Medford's Urban Renewal District continues on, takking tax revenue away from the county, schools and other entities.
Posted by: Eoghantodd | Mar 9, 2009 8:41:36 AM
I appreciate your thoughts, but scrapping soccer is not the way to go.
Posted by: Karol, editor | Mar 9, 2009 8:52:02 AM
@vic, Jeremy's name has been corrected.
Posted by: Garrett | Mar 9, 2009 8:52:44 AM
Also...just wanted to throw this out there. Rep. Kahl's idea to, "Require county approval by counties with a population of at least 300,000 for the establishment of new urban renewal districts; allow urban renewal funds to be used for social services within the urban renewal area; and require an economic viability study for the proposed plan with and without the provision of social services," is perhaps the dumbest thing I've ever read.
If we put those to vote we likely wouldn't have the Pearl District or South Waterfront. I can think of plenty of special interests that would have used exactly the same arguments against those URDs as this one.
Posted by: Nosliw | Mar 9, 2009 8:59:25 AM
Since when did progressives become so fiscally conservative. This is a plan that pays for itself with ALL THE RISK BEING ASSUMED BY A PRIVATE PARTY.
It might seem popular to pile on to an easy target like sports, but you are doing a disservice to Portland and Progressives by spreading misinformation.
I, and many other independent people have looked at the stopgaps and this works out to a great plan fur all of us - something that will generate revenue for the city and provide job with no real downside or risk.
It is so Bush Administration to see articles like this one towing the same line witout looking at the facts just because it plays well to the audience.
Maybe try being a real progressive.
Posted by: Evan Manvel | Mar 9, 2009 9:04:26 AM
There are five counties with populations over 300,000: Clackamas, Lane, Marion, Multnomah, and Washington.
Posted by: Paddy McGuire | Mar 9, 2009 9:07:14 AM
Hang on people. Has Paulson said anywhere that if we don't put up $80 million in bonds to renovate PGE (again) and build a baseball ballpark that he will leave town? Not bonding does not equal "running Paulson out of town."
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Mar 9, 2009 9:17:16 AM
While I'm generally sympathetic to the argument that private sports should not be funded by public dollars, there's a balance to be struck. MLS is a low-end sport and would be more broadly available to poor families than any other professional league. I guess I resist the argument that this is a zero sum, either/or situation.
Posted by: bradley | Mar 9, 2009 9:22:37 AM
Paddy,
MLS is a healthy and growing league and the expansion fee climbs with each successive expansion. Most recently it moved from 30 million to 40 million. Mr. Paulson is assuming all of the risk in this venture so how do you think he is going to view working with this city if they refuse his proposal which will likely end up costing him millions more IF we are ever lucky enough to be considered for MLS in the future? The time is now and as Jeremy indicated in his article this is a win, win, win for Portland. Vancouver is getting in folks and Seattle is already there so passing on this will go a long way in killing a sport that truly has the capacity to appeal to our very rich and diverse culture here in Portland.
Posted by: Frank | Mar 9, 2009 9:37:03 AM
Paddy McGuire "Hang on people. Has Paulson said anywhere that if we don't put up $80 million in bonds to renovate PGE (again) and build a baseball ballpark that he will leave town? Not bonding does not equal "running Paulson out of town."
Unfortunately, Not bonding PGE DOES equal "running Paulson out of town." Those are the on-the ground facts. When Vancouver moves to MLS (CBC is reporting Vancouver's bid will be approved) Portland is going to be left the only team in the USL-1 west of the Rockies....
http://www.uslsoccer.com/teams/index_E.html
The minor league soccer financial model doesn't work when the club has to pay the costs for cross-country plane flights for every single away match. A side effect of Seattle and Vancouver leaving the USL-1 for the MLS is that Portland isn't financially viable by itself west of the Rockies in the USL-1.
As a domino effect of the Portland Timbers being no longer financially viable alone west of the Rickies in the USL-1, The Beavers are no longer financially viable without the Timbers in PGE Park helping to pay part of the expenses.
The facts are Portland Timbers either move up to MLS or the dominoes start falling over triggering both the Timbers and Beavers leaving Portland, and the previous round of bonds that were issued for PGE Park has nobody to pay for them.
Posted by: Paddy McGuire | Mar 9, 2009 9:50:17 AM
Okay, so the market that Mr. Paulson has chosen to enter has changed. Welcome to 2009. I fail to see how not providing public bonding authority (and a guarantee from Portland taxpayer) is the same as "running him out of town."
In Jeremy's previous post, he boasted that MLS would create 300 permanent jobs, 200 of which would be full time. My BS alarm went off, but no one answered my question about whether there were really 200 more full time jobs in an MLS organization than in a USL organization. I ask again: How many people are currently employed by the Beavers/Timbers and how many will be employed by the Beavers/MLS Timbers?
Posted by: Goon | Mar 9, 2009 9:51:16 AM
Why should Portland jump on to a sinking ship? Financially, soccer is a loser in the US. Every attempt to make it pick up here, in Australia, Canada, and various places in Asia have been financial catastrophes. Just because it's a winner in Europe and South America doesn't mean it should be picked up six thousand miles away.
Saying that the sky is falling because Portland won't have a team in a sport that virtually nobody cares about for more than a thousand miles in every direction is absurd.
If we want to experiment with the most boring, jingositic, imperialist sport in the world, then we should do it when we have extra cash to throw in to a black hole.
Posted by: Garrett | Mar 9, 2009 9:58:05 AM
@Paddy McGuire
Hang on people. Has Paulson said anywhere that if we don't put up $80 million in bonds to renovate PGE (again) and build a baseball ballpark that he will leave town? Not bonding does not equal "running Paulson out of town.
Nope...I put two and two together. The Timbers would be alone in the Northwest in the USL. The nearest competitor will be Minnesota and Austin. Both are 1000+ miles away and travel expenses alone would kill the team. It might be too much for the league since most of the teams are on the east coast. Look at the map.
Second why would he keep the AAA team here? If you think PGE is such a great place to see a AAA game you've obviously not been drumming up a ton of people at the gate. PGE is a failure as a minor league baseball park. It's far too big and has none of the intimacy of the many AAA parks I've been to. Throw in the fact there are two cities with ready to go AAA parks in Richmond, VA and Tuscon, AZ with several others having funding ready to go...it doesn't take a genius to get the idea that the smart business move would be to either A: Move the team there yourself or B: Sell the team to someone that wants to move the team.
Posted by: Paddy McGuire | Mar 9, 2009 9:59:51 AM
And then who is on the hook for the bonds for the 2001 renovation of PGE?
Posted by: bradley | Mar 9, 2009 10:02:41 AM
Goon,
I would be curious to see some facts to back up your assertion that MLS is a sinking ship. Attendance figures have reached NBA and NHL levels. The league is doing well and has a more successful track record than the NBA in it's infancy. Portland joining the league with all of it's natural rivals will be another smart move by MLS. While I appreciate Paddy's comments that seemingly appear to be of genuine concern, it is clear that goon just plain hates soccer. Soccer is Portland's sport, that is why it is affectionately referred to as Soccer City USA.
Paddy, I can't answer your question about permanent jobs and I am hoping that Merritt Paulson addresses this when he presents his case to the city.
Posted by: Tom Civiletti | Mar 9, 2009 10:02:51 AM
I still can't understand why anyone would want to watch a soccer match in which one's child isn't playing.
Posted by: joel dan walls | Mar 9, 2009 10:05:05 AM
If we put those to vote we likely wouldn't have the Pearl District or South Waterfront.
I guess the memory hole has swallowed damn near everything about the South Waterfront fiasco. Remember how a bit part of the sales pitch for the SoWa was a fanciful vision of a high-tec biotech OHSU spinoff? Never materialized, follks, and not because of the recent economic downturn. Meanwhile OHSU was blackmailing the City for tax abatements and the aerial tram, threatening to take its toys and move elsewhere if the City didn't bend over.
While I'm generally sympathetic to the argument that private sports should not be funded by public dollars, there's a balance to be struck. MLS is a low-end sport and would be more broadly available to poor families than any other professional league. I guess I resist the argument that this is a zero sum, either/or situation.
That is a shockingly patronizing statement, Mr. Alworth. Throw a few crumbs--a "low-end sport"--to the working class, eh?
Frankly, I find it sort of pathetic when cities get their identities wrapped up with professional sports teams.
And should you all have forgotten, the City is presently embroiled in a lawsuit alleging misuse of urban-renewal district funds, in connection with Sten's scheme to create a so-called satellite urban-renewal district in outher SE Portland--satellite of the Pearl District--to build a school. Yep, schools are a worthy enterprise, but the mechanism is so questionable that the whole business has ended up in court.
Posted by: joel dan walls | Mar 9, 2009 10:05:59 AM
Sorry, I meant "big part of the sales pitch for the SoWa", not "bit part". :-)
Posted by: Tom Civiletti | Mar 9, 2009 10:10:40 AM
If Portland is "Soccer City USA", there should be no problem attracting sufficient private investment in the form of season ticket futures.
Posted by: Frank | Mar 9, 2009 10:13:43 AM
Goon "Saying that the sky is falling because Portland won't have a team in a sport that virtually nobody cares about for more than a thousand miles in every direction is absurd."
FAIL. Seattle has 22,000 new Sounders season ticket purchases worth of "nobody cares about in about soccer in 1000 miles." Vancouver is expected to average the same 20,000 fans Toronto FC has been averaging. LA Galaxy averaged 26,000. Chivas, LA's 2nd MLS club, averaged 15,000. San Jose 13,000.
The rest of your post was the long litany of personal preference statements indicating you probably want Portland to spend a whole lot more money on a significantly much more expensive baseball or football stadium.
Posted by: Torridjoe | Mar 9, 2009 10:18:28 AM
I don't get the repeated references to Richmond. They HAVE a AAA team, the R-Braves. It is a very popular franchise. I saw many of their games myself.
Posted by: Paddy McGuire | Mar 9, 2009 10:21:04 AM
If he does not receive the financing, Paulson said he would continue running his two minor league teams. He is not facing a crisis or city officials who do not want to negotiate with him.
“All I’m doing is presenting an opportunity,” he said. “It’s been embraced, but it doesn’t mean it will happen. I’m not holding a gun to anyone’s head.”
That does not sound to me like running Paulson out of town.
Posted by: Tom Civiletti | Mar 9, 2009 10:23:46 AM
Zag,
Just how does a lack of interest in soccer entail xenophobia? Perhaps "xenophobe" is your word-of-the-day, and you wanted to use it in a sentence. If so, you should take note that it is a noun, not an adjective.
Posted by: Frank | Mar 9, 2009 10:26:52 AM
Torrid Joe: Richmond Braves are moving to a suburb outside Atlanta when their lease in Richmond ends in 2010.
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20080115&content_id=2347023&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb
Posted by: bradley | Mar 9, 2009 10:29:53 AM
Paddy,
Mr. Pauslon has never given reason to not take him at his word and I am sure that if this deal does not go through he will try and make the best of it. Several on this board have tried to lay out the reality of life in the USL without Vancouver and Seattle. The USL is a minor league and it would no longer be geographically suited to Portland, as again has previously been discussed. Can Portland make it with it's closest rival in Texas? I don't know. The city has a choice to make and I agree with the Editorial Board of the Oregonian in that it should be an easy one.
Posted by: Goon | Mar 9, 2009 10:30:19 AM
Tom, because it has never worked in the US. The very fact that most people here consider soccer a little engine that could speaks volumes about its failure in the US. Soccer, as an industry, is a behemoth that makes the excesses of the MLB, NBA, and NFL look like a friendly game of tag. The fact that after decades and decades of one of the biggest industries in the world trying to ram its product down the throat of the US soccer has the reputation of being quaint or alternative is proof enough of its dismal failure here.
There's almost no reason to assume that this moment in soccer history is any different than any of the other countless times we've been assured that soccer is going to be the best thing ever next year. Or that this has happened in Canada, Australia, or Japan. Or, to turn it around, when I was living in Europe there was always an overly loud group of people that thought that American football was going to be picked up some day - but fortunately saner heads rolled their eyes at the idea.
If we want to experiment with something that has always failed when we have a bit of extra cash - fine. But doing so when we don't have any money is beyond absurd.
Posted by: Frank | Mar 9, 2009 10:40:08 AM
Paddy McGuire: "If he does not receive the financing, Paulson said he would continue running his two minor league teams."
Back then, nobody considered it very likely Vancouver would get an MLS franchise while Portland stayed in the USL-1.
Now that's exactly what's going to happen, and the Timbers are not financially viable as the only team west of the Rockies in the USL-1. If the Timbers aren't viable, the Beavers aren't viable by alone by themselves.
Posted by: Ms Mel Harmon | Mar 9, 2009 10:43:54 AM
The debate is not whether to bring MLS to Portland or not--Representative Kahl has stated he's not opposing the IDEA of bringing MLS in and I personally can see how a franchise here would be good for the city.
Rather, the issue is HOW this happens and HOW we go about paying for it---and trust me, WE the citizens will end up paying for part of it. URDs originally were supposed to help improve areas where people were otherwise not inclined to live or place businesses---the "blighted" areas of our state. They were not meant to be a piggybank we could break into in order to fund other city/county projects, even worthy ones like bringing MLS to Portland.
Also, if another URD is created so we can bring MLS to Portland, some Multnomah County revenue will be diverted at a time when the County is slashing the budgets of multiple departments. Not to mention the fact that the County Commissioners are not getting any say in this and they should if any Multnomah County revenue is being used. This isn't a decision just for the City Council, unless of course, the City of Portland wants to use only the money from it's own budget to fund this. This feels to much to me like "hey, we can't afford it any other way, let's call this an URD and then it'll work!". That wasn't and isn't the purpose of URDs.
We need to have a serious discussion about URDs in this state---the history of why they were created and how that usage has changed over the years. Are URDs still being used in the manner and purpose for which they were originally intended? I don't believe so and I think the change is not for the better. Today we claim we need an URD for PGE Park---what about tomorrow? What pet project that we can't fund in any other way will be placed under the URD umbrella? For everything that is put under this umbrella, something else gets shoved out of it.
Several people have mentioned above that Mr. Paulson could in the future simply declare bankruptcy and walk away, leaving the taxpayers with the bill--an option that is entirely unacceptable given the current economy.
Now, having written all of that, I'll confess that I have not read the entire legislation yet (and I can tell I'm not the only one in that boat here), but only the summary and what I've seen in the papers and here on BO. So, I'm off to read exactly what Representative Kahl is proposing and I encourage everyone to do the same. But on the face of it, I agree with Representative Kahl that this is not the way to fund this project coming to Portland.
Oh, and Garrett---above you wrote of the small percentage of funds that this project will use compared to the City of Portland and other budgets. If these were flush times, I might let that pass. But for every single dollar we allot right now---every single one---some program or department loses that dollar. And in a time when we are closing our courts, closing schools early, cutting public services--healthcare, law enforcement, projects to support our infrastructure? That's simply not acceptable to me. You say it's $1.8 million a year---I can think of many cut programs that could use that money. So, speaking in money terms, that's my two cents worth.
Posted by: Frank | Mar 9, 2009 10:46:28 AM
"Goon" We get it. You don't like soccer. You prefer another sport. You want to spend a whole heck of a lot more money on an NFL or MLB franchise/stadium.
What's the new Cowboys stadium going for now? A billion? Good luck with that.
Posted by: joel dan walls | Mar 9, 2009 11:19:34 AM
Pertinent discussion of the economics HERE.
Posted by: Bob Tiernan | Mar 9, 2009 11:28:39 AM
Garrett:
Grow up Portland. Answer 1 question for me if you're against this. If you run Merritt Paulson out of town who will rent PGE park and pay off the bonds.
Bob T:
Even if that's what he will do, then so what. To go along with yet another corporate welfare scheme because of emotional tugs is to encourage more and more of the same.
To engage in these deals just because "another city will do this if we don't" is, well, insanity.
Reform starts at home.
Bob Tiernan
Mult Co.
Posted by: Bob Tiernan | Mar 9, 2009 11:33:36 AM
Jeff Alworth:
While I'm generally sympathetic to the argument that private sports should not be funded by public dollars, there's a balance to be struck. MLS is a low-end sport and would be more broadly available to poor families than any other professional league. I guess I resist the argument that this is a zero sum, either/or situation.
Bob T:
And this is just the kind of reasoning the Paulsons of the world look for. "Gee, if I could get people to think that this is all about bringing a sport to Portland that appeals to poor people, I'll get to laugh all the way to the bank". Do I hear "Useful idiot" ?
Bob Tiernan
Mult Co.
Posted by: Bob Tiernan | Mar 9, 2009 11:36:58 AM
To Nick Kahl:
Urban Renewal is a dangerous tool for government to have unless its uses are restricted to actual blight (which gets redefined every day). What you really need to do is include in your proposed legislation a ban on using any Urban Renewal money on professional sports.
Bob Tiernan
Mult Co.
Posted by: Tom Civiletti | Mar 9, 2009 11:40:31 AM
But, Bob, Portland will always be perceived as a backwater until we have a major league kickball...I mean, soccer team.
Posted by: Scott in Damascus | Mar 9, 2009 11:47:08 AM
The Paulson family makes their money the old fashioned way - by using other people's money.
You go to the table at your own risk.
Posted by: George Anonymuncule Seldes | Mar 9, 2009 12:17:30 PM
Jackbog has a nice summary post that shreds all of the Paulson/Oregonian BS on financing of this boondoggle:
http://is.gd/mzJZ
Posted by: George Anonymuncule Seldes | Mar 9, 2009 12:19:43 PM
@ Garrett: You made a mistake -- the Oregonian's editorial was "Bend Over Like Portland."
Posted by: George Anonymuncule Seldes | Mar 9, 2009 12:33:49 PM
This whole thing really does make you shake your head in wonder at how well-oiled the corporate PR machine is ... when you have people arguing that the progressive position is to build a facility for a private corporate enterprise by risking money used for vital city public services (and by outright capturing the funds used for vital county public services).
Hat's off to Paulson and the Oregonian -- I guess black really is white and 2+2 really is 5.
(Meanwhile, back in real progressive reality, the support of a paper that relentlessly backed Gordon Smith and ran wildly biased coverage of him for more than 12 years should not be considered a plus for the soccer stadium.)
Posted by: Frank | Mar 9, 2009 12:44:04 PM
Tom Civiletti "But, Bob, Portland will always be perceived as a backwater until we have a major league kickball...I mean, soccer team."
But, Tom, you just might want to think about what audience you are speaking. Just exactly who here at Blue Oregon is this Rush Limbaugh impression of yours supposed to win over?
Posted by: Gail | Mar 9, 2009 12:51:32 PM
George Said:
'@ Garrett: You made a mistake -- the Oregonian's editorial was "Bend Over Like Portland."'
Wow, I am not a sports fan but to see so called progressives here spewing borderline homophobic comments (and just lame attempts at humor like above) that go along with the xenophobic comments and elietist 'soccer is for poor people' comments is just frightening.
It really starts to become clear to me from reading these comments that the small Anti-MLS voice uses a conservative leaning but bogus financial smoke screen as a shill for racist, bigoted, and otherwise discriminatory motivations to not want to pursue this project.
Some of what I have read in these comments from this group is truly disgusting and paranoid!
I am hoping (and suspecting) that people like Tom C. and Bob T are not even Oregonians because that is not the way we tend to do things here.
Posted by: Tom Civiletti | Mar 9, 2009 12:57:05 PM
Frank,
Wise use of public funds is the real issue here. My snide remarks are an aside, but do reflect my opinion of soccer. It's great exercise to play the game, but it's as exciting to watch as golf and bowling. Beyond finding out just how long an announcer can extend the enunciation of one syllable - a couple of times per match, if the viewer is lucky - I find nothing whatsoever engaging about the sport.
If I am a rare among Portlanders in my lack of enthusiasm for soccer, private investors for Paulson's team should be plentiful.
Posted by: Roger | Mar 9, 2009 12:58:00 PM
Bob: "What you really need to do is include in your proposed legislation a ban on using any Urban Renewal money on professional sports."
Really? You don't think a new stadium would be a godsend for the Lents district?
You've just disqualified yourself. Thanks for playing.
Posted by: Tom Civiletti | Mar 9, 2009 1:03:03 PM
Gail,
What is "not the way we tend to do things here"?
I would hope that such ambiguous ad hominem attacks as yours is not the way we do things here.
Posted by: Frank | Mar 9, 2009 1:27:38 PM
Tom,
I've tried to be reasonable with you, but we've done 8 straight years of snide remark, personal insult-filled public discourse. Been there. Done that. Got the T-shirt.
I have found the sports one plays as they are grow up has much to do with how one perceives excitement in sport. I played baseball, basketball, and soccer as I grew. I percieve long delays in football for very brief periods of excitement as monotonous. Friends of mine who didn't play baseball would rather get themselves scheduled to have dental work than attend a baseball game.
The difference between you and I, apparently, is that I'm fine with others feeling differently about or toward a subject than I do, and you are snide and insulting those who's experiences and tastes are different than your own.
Posted by: Tom Civiletti | Mar 9, 2009 1:41:00 PM
Frank,
How is my distaste for watching soccer insulting to you or anyone else? Are soccer fans so sensitive and lacking in self-esteem that they take criticism of the sport personally? It seems that you are "fine with others feeling differently about or toward a subject" than you as long as they don't express that different feeling. Am I missing something, or do you contradict yourself?
I played more soccer than I did basketball as a youth, but I much prefer watching basketball to watching soccer, so your observation is not universally true.
Posted by: Gail | Mar 9, 2009 1:47:09 PM
Tom C,
Now you are suggesting that I am attacking you? See, this is exactly my concern that there is some kind of paranoid fear driven, NIMBY like respose to this proposal.
No Tom, the soccer people (and the foreigners and gays for that matter) are not out to get you and steal your money!!
While you certainly have the right to say these things, I am still extremely disappointed and offended by your point of view and I will not apologize for hoping for more from Oregonians.
Just because you have the right to be a racist doesn't mean we should tolerate that on a progressive discussion board, so please take your hate speech elsewhere.
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: vic | Mar 9, 2009 8:32:32 AM
Stopped reading at the second word, when you got the name of the author of the post to which you were responding WRONG. Factual errors like that undermine your credibility irreparably.