The Jaws Of Victory
When I won election to the Portland City Council in late 2002, my residence in Southeast Portland’s Centennial neighborhood made me the first person from east of 39th Avenue ever elected to the Portland City Council…and by east of 39th Avenue, I mean 114 blocks east of 39th Avenue. Before that, I served in both the Oregon House and Senate as a representative of East Portland and wore out more than one pair of tennis shoes going door to door in its neighborhoods, listening to a chorus of citizens who feel like they have been riding in the back seat for generations while the downtowners get to drive the car.
Since my election to the City Council, I have been vigilant in my efforts to keep East Portland in the consciousness of the City. When the City Council proposed donating millions of dollars to Portland Public Schools in 2003, I successfully fought to include the “other” Portland school districts--David Douglas, Parkrose, Centennial and Reynolds--in the funding formula, rather than just Portland Public Schools. When Assurety Northwest had outgrown its headquarters in Gresham, then Commissioner Adams and I went to them and put together a package that brought their headquarters and good jobs into the Lents Town Center. I’ve recruited grocery stores for the Lents Town Center, I drove the effort to fund a new school in the David Douglas district using resources from downtown, and demanded that Lents be considered for the siting of a stadium when Major League Baseball was considering Portland as a location for the Expos franchise in 2003.
When the opportunity to bring Major League Soccer to Portland brought about the need to relocate the Portland Beavers, my first reaction was that Lents should be the location for the stadium. I believe that its accessibility to transit and the freeway system is unmatched in the city, and the relative economic impact of the stadium in Lents would be greater than anywhere else in Portland. Since the creation of the Lents Urban Renewal Area in 1998, Lents has been starving for a catalytic project that would set the stage for the kind of development that is contemplated by the plans and aspirations of the neighborhood. Since that time, the plan for Lents has been to attract mixed use development, an anchor grocery store like New Seasons, improve the infrastructure and revitalize the historic storefronts that were once home to vibrant neighborhood businesses.
Unfortunately, the results have not materialized in the neighborhood in the way we had hoped. Although everyone continues to agree that Lents is “just about ready” to realize its potential, the plan for pushing Lents the extra distance necessary to reach that potential is the same plan that has left Lents in a “just about ready” condition for the past 11 years. In short, that plan is a 5+ year schedule that proposes to continue the offer of subsidies for mixed use development and an anchor grocery store, and continue to hope that someone will take the PDC up on those offers. It is a thoughtful approach, but one that relies on a variety of forces outside of the control of the Lents neighborhood and the PDC.
The opportunity for Lents to become the home of the Portland Beavers may be a chance for the Lents neighborhood to find itself in a position of dictating the terms of its future, rather than being forced to take what it can get. The addition of the Beavers headquarters and 100+ jobs into Lents, along with the 3,000-5,000 people from outside of the neighborhood coming into Lents 72 times each year to spend their discretionary income would give Lents a competitive psychological and economic edge that no other neighborhood in the City could compete with. For a neighborhood that has clawed and scratched to shake the moniker “Felony Flats,” becoming the “Home of the Portland Beavers” would be a fitting mark of a new era.
The Lents neighborhood has brashly and correctly drawn attention to years of the downtown elite calling the shots in this City, often at their expense—or worse yet, without even considering them. With the push to put our City’s storied 100+ year old baseball franchise in Lents with a first class public stadium facility, the admonitions of the neighborhood have yielded the degree of attention and relevance that they have so famously fought for. Finally winning its turn in the driver’s seat, the question that the Lents community will grapple with in the coming weeks is: Did they really want what they were fighting for, or did they just want the fight?
|
May 24, 2009 |
Randy Leonard | Comments (98 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: LiberalIncarnate | May 24, 2009 10:51:17 PM
The idea of building a stadium in general, anywhere in a city is great... if the economy is good. However, what really pisses me off is all of the attention that this is getting when our unemployment is the second highest in the nation. 100 jobs? Really? That is it? You want people to spend their discretionary dollars when we are being laid off?
Nothing is that important that it cannot wait until our economy is better. If Portland is good enough for professional soccer today, it will surely be good enough for it tomorrow. If we have one person willing to foot most of the bill today, then we will have ten tomorrow.
I think that in your seat of privilege, not only on the council, but also being employed rather well, I might add, you have become blind to the real needs of this city right now.
Posted by: Steve | May 24, 2009 10:53:31 PM
Randy - Why don't you tell your BFF that Lents doesn't want to get rolled by downtown types like yourself and Merritt? Who knows maybe Merritt will get you another trip to NY and make you feel like an even bigger man.
You've said nothing at all about new jobs. Lents just kinda popped up when you couldn't shove Memorial Coliseum ballpark down peoples throats. So now in the best political gamesmanship possible lets go find a neighborhood without too much political power and jam it over there.
You saw the reception you got at the neighborhood meeting, are you tone-deaf?
'Lil Richie Rich can have the Beavers and Timbers play at Civic stadium without you blowing another $100M on his behalf.
Posted by: LT | May 24, 2009 11:17:32 PM
Randy, this whole thing has boondoggle written all over it. Bet you didn't count on the revolt of the architects and others over "let's tear down Memorial Coliseum before we have all the details worked out", did you?
This has not been just a Portland issue since HB 2531 was introduced. The Sunday Oregonian did a great job describing the choices facing those who vote on the state budget, but the state should also vote to allow bonds for stadium funding because pro sports have a great record of providing income for the surrounding community?
This whole thing is stupid. I hope you never run for anything outside of Portland because I would sure never vote for you---not the same judgement we saw in you as a legislator.
Do you really believe the Paulson family can't afford their own stadium? Are they playing Oregonians for suckers? Do you really think that if you went through with the plans and then something went sour that Merritt Paulson would stick around to deal with whatever happened? Or would it be Oregonians who would have to pick up the pieces? Or didn't you think that far ahead?
Do not forget that one of the reasons Jesse Ventura was elected Gov. of Minn. was that a stadium deal like this was being debated the year of that election. The 2 major candidates made "politician speak" answers to a debate question in a 3 way debate, while Ventura spoke of looking into the finances of the team that wanted the stadium and finding they could afford to pay for a stadium themselves.
Randy, the whole quote is "snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory". If people who believe the mayor's personal life is his business have gotten angry over this stadium issue, the recall campaign might be stronger than anyone expects. And did your supporters really put you into office to have the city subsidize pro sports with the details being so foggy?
Posted by: Dave Porter | May 24, 2009 11:32:01 PM
I do not think there will be any significant economic development in Lents from a baseball stadium / headquarters. This is not the catalytic project they need.
Posted by: Recall Randy | May 24, 2009 11:44:52 PM
Randy Leonard is either (a) in the pocket of a neo-con, or (b) BFF with a neo-con. And Blue Oregon is the catalyst by which Leonard attempts to coalesce and (at the same time) mislead the public. Fuck em both.
Randy - WHERE'S THE MONEY GOING TO COME FROM???????????????????????????????????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
(Jenuine - Go Fuck Yourself, neo-con lover.)
Posted by: Bob Tiernan | May 24, 2009 11:49:21 PM
Randy Leonard:
When I won election to the Portland City Council in late 2002, my residence in Southeast Portland’s Centennial neighborhood made me the first person from east of 39th Avenue ever elected to the Portland City Council.
Bob T:
Which reminds me.....I hope we get another chance to change the city council to have a mayor, and four commisioners each representing a quarter of the city's population.
Randy Leonard:
[I] demanded that Lents be considered for the siting of a stadium when Major League Baseball was considering Portland as a location for the Expos franchise in 2003.
Bob T:
Sheesh! I would have first demanded that the Expos owner(s) pay for their own stadium regardless of where it could be sited. Once you started playing politics with site locations, the corporate welfare would have been inevitable, as usual.
Randy Leonard:
When the opportunity to bring Major League Soccer to Portland brought about the need to relocate the Portland Beavers, my first reaction was that Lents should be the location for the stadium.
Bob T:
Your first reaction should have been to inform Mr. Paulson that he won't get a penny of taxpayer dollars or any kind of tax break privileges.
Randy Leonard:
Since the creation of the Lents Urban Renewal Area in 1998, Lents has been starving for a catalytic project.....Unfortunately, the results have not materialized in the neighborhood in the way we had hoped.
Bob T:
Wow, it's been ten years, and no one has learned anything yet from this flop. I can't believe most voters still buy into these URD scams over and over. So I guess your plan is to use lots of tax dollars to give to a millionaire in order make the Lents flop less of a flop. Great.
Bob Tiernan
Registered NA voter
Portland
Posted by: Richard | May 25, 2009 12:08:33 AM
How much subsidized mixed use development has to fail before Randy recognizes it?
And how many billions in Urban Renewal skimming from basic services will need to happen before Randy figures out where the money comes from?
Posted by: billy | May 25, 2009 4:14:05 AM
Other uses for 40 million:
$100,000 seed money grants to 400 businesses to employ a few thousand people.
$99,900 seed money per above and ONE one way ticket back to NY for the carpetbagger.
$10,000 grants to fix up all existing businesses' fronts and the rest to add sidewalks to area streets.
Money to fund a local police precinct to once and for all get rid of that nickname. Or maybe Randy likes being the commissioner from felony flats.
That this stadium even came up is a poser child example of everything that is wrong with the whole urban renewal model. This is just Randy's private slush fund!!
Posted by: Kurt Chapman | May 25, 2009 5:07:15 AM
Randy, keep up the great work for Portland city tax dollars waste and spending. Those of us in the rest of the state are thankful you are a Portland elected official. This Lents post is so self serving and exemplifies how Urban Renewal dollars are wasted nationally.
Posted by: Roy McAvoy | May 25, 2009 8:02:16 AM
Randy, interested to know if the comments here are more likely to change your thoughts on Lents or re-enforce your position.
Posted by: Douglas K | May 25, 2009 8:07:11 AM
Randy -
Even if there's merit to putting $40 million of urban renewal money into public facilities, a venue that will sit empty probably 250 nights per year doesn't seem like the best use of scarce funds. I'd rather see that money go into better streets and sidewalks, with a good make-over of Lents Park and maybe some new (wide, welcoming) pedestrian viaducts over I-205 to help reconnect the divided neighborhood.
The prospect of "3,000-5,000 people from outside of the neighborhood coming into Lents 72 times each year to spend their discretionary income" doesn't excite me much; those people will drive in, park, spend their money on baseball tickets and concessions inside the park, and leave. Or they'll come in on MAX, walk a block along Holgate to the stadium, spend their money, and walk back. Nobody is likely to spend money at any local business, since there aren't any bars or restaurants at the corner of 92nd and Holgate -- the only place where a prospective business might benefit from spill-over traffic. The Lents Park Grocery and Deli might get a little more walk-in business on game nights, and a few more people will fill up at the Arco station. That's about it.
Additionally, while I don't live in Lents, I'd probably be up in arms if someone tried to put a baseball stadium in the middle of my quiet residential neighborhood. 72 nights per year of noise and traffic and people taking up all the parking in front of my house, with no economic benefit. I don't see any kind of payoff for the neighborhood here.
And I still haven't seen any convincing reasons why PGE Park can't be upgraded to support both MLS and a minor league baseball team. That should be tens of millions of dollars less expensive than building a new ballpark, and would improve the value of an already existing public asset.
Posted by: Bite Me, Boggers! | May 25, 2009 8:20:06 AM
Randy, you read this blog enough to know that the facts will never trump the appearance. And once the left's version of conservative talk radio get a label...well, they listen just as much. You should know the BO mindset. 1/2 these posters never read your article. They saw your name and thought, "oh, goody. I get to say "Fireman Randy" and pasted their standard comment spam. And not just that Jack-off Bog; intelligent regulars like mp are just as guilty. Is anyone capable of addressing the facts of a proposal without the free personality analysis?
It also shows why BO tolerates an out and out environmental terrorist like "billy". He's just like the rest of the readership, when push comes to shove.
There are problems with the deal, but, of course, there will be no possibility to discuss them. We will have the "our city has a..." crowd shouting at the "fireman randy is proud of felony flats and his slushfund crowd", both making up whatever to support a position they already had LONG BEFORE you ever mentioned this deal.
Ironically, it is only transparency and access that has attracted the latter sentiments. You must be crap at benefiting from graft, as it leaves no trace! Enough is enough. You've made a career off of honesty. You need to extend that to the rest of city gov. I know its not particularly classy, but it is no longer enough to be personally honest. You must out the liars and manipulators in city gov, and refuse to compromise. Which is hard in a profession whose essential art is compromise.
Sam is a good example. You should have said publicly, not just thought about it personally, that Sam's lies and callous manipulation make you regret that he was elected, but, practicality demands a compromise. Short of that, you're going to lose people like me as well.
Another poster said that Portland gives progressivism a bad name, and you are the best example. The litmus test for real progressivism is precisely the reactions you see here. You're naive, you're a fraud, you're really in bed with the developers, it's the dumbest idea we've ever heard...you'll see every one of those statements trotted out every time anyone proposes a truly progressive idea.
Start by publicly saying that people that voted for Sam in the expectation that a progressive would not use the most cynical in-group strategies and callous personal self-interests to advance his agenda and cover his ass, have every right to stage a recall. You can still continue on, and say that you think there's more at stake, and you will not vote for the recall. Either that's what you really think, and all I'm saying is stop being real part-time, or the critics are right.
By the end of this year, people like me won't be wondering anymore. We've written off the Democratic Party in Oregon as totally subservient to the national Party, composed of self promoters that like the idea of progressive ideas. You're the only one on the city council that knows in his/her heart of hearts what is a lie. When Saltzman says some hack policy that is the opposite of what the constituents wanted is probably best, he has convinced himself of that. Sam has never had a job outside of politics. You've seen the battles anyone that knows a rationalization from their own mind has with the participation generation's chosen shambolic reps. If you choose to go along to get along, then we truly have no hope left.
These posters either mean not one word about the economy, or are too stupid to listen to. No one will consider reforming Information Technology, requiring public, open bids, for all projects, like any other expenditure. Instead private contractors are hired at exorbitant rates to right barely usable, poorly specified crap, under the direction of management that have no experience doing the work they supervise. Then that gets repeated at the county, metro, muni, the police bureau...the list is endless! That one step alone would cover 3x PER YEAR more than the stadium would cost.
And back to the canned spam...SURPRISE...they would say the exact same thing about my proposal as yours. That's what BO readership does with progressive ideas. Thanks for reaching out. Personally, I'm embarrassed by the volume of biters on this board! Just remember what the developmental psychologists tell us about biters. They lack the verbal and cognitive skills to express themselves in appropriate ways.
Posted by: The Libertarian Guy | May 25, 2009 8:55:42 AM
Randy if you really want to help improve the job situation just repeal some of the regulations and taxes that make it so difficult to start a business here in Portland. You don't have to spend other people's money.
Remove the barriers! No more welfare for the rich!
Posted by: Bill McDonald | May 25, 2009 9:16:36 AM
"Unfortunately, the results have not materialized in the neighborhood in the way we had hoped." --Randy Leonard.
Memo to my staff: We have now adopted this as our standard press release to apply to every project. For example, you would put a heading like, "South Waterfront" on the memo then run with the quote. This will streamline the apology process and allow me more time to focus on visions and stuff. Thank you. --Randy
P.S. To the person who put actual city work on my desk last week, we're watching you. That was not cool.
P.S.S. Do not refer to me being elected from east of 39th anymore. 39th is over. We're trying to be futuristic here, people.
Posted by: Steve | May 25, 2009 9:42:25 AM
" Is anyone capable of addressing the facts of a proposal without the free personality analysis? "
OK, for 100 jobs that move from downtown to Lents (maybe) we will pay a moving fee of $40M (minimum.) This is approx. $400K per job.
It was cheaper when we just took jobs from Gresham (like Assurety) and moved them to Lents.
I'd say instead of a pooly thought out plan (which this travelling sideshow has been), why not ask employers what it would take to move to Lents instead of building things and praying?
Posted by: Andrew Plambeck | May 25, 2009 9:43:20 AM
While bringing people to the neighborhood at night does create the class public safety solution in cities, I just don't know if this is the appropriate use of those urban renewal dollars.
I think we need to look again at Memorial Coliseum, not as a piece of history, but as a giant building in a valuable area that could make way for something that will make money.
Posted by: rlw | May 25, 2009 10:02:58 AM
Randy, it all sounds good. Stupid question here: WHO will shop at overpriced New Seasons? THIS is your anchor? Think again, think about who really lives there and try for a store/presence that will be there not just to look good, but also to be used. Indeed, that chain is so UNgreen, it boggles. Search the merchant-scape for an affordable company that does not damage the environment thru chi chi packaging to please the moneyed.
Lents has a twin poet team who made The New Yorker recently. You could aim for hip, affordable, ghetto-bohemian charm, Randy, and that way the people who really live there could STILL live there.
Posted by: t.a. barnhart | May 25, 2009 10:13:09 AM
i was hoping for one bit of actual info somewhere; nothing. i'd like to know about the plans that'll get pushed 3-5 years out, what they are, why they wouldn't get done right now anyway, etc. i'd like to see that the jobs for building the stadium are local jobs, local contractors. etc. i'm not knee-jerk on this; stadiums actually do work in some locations. they are jobs. i don't think Paulson puts enough into the pot, not by a long-shot, and he's likely to have a hissyfit, sell the Beavers (which, by rights, belong to the community and not an individual) and go elsewhere to get his massive welfare check.
but that doesn't mean the Lents stadium is not the right thing to do. we just need to see the numbers and the alternatives that will have to be put aside.
Posted by: Jamais Vu | May 25, 2009 10:16:43 AM
The only money ball park visitors might potentially spend in Lents will be on parking meters or city-owned garages.
Circuses are a failed economic model. They may still have their part to play in creating a vibrant city, but let's stop pretending the massive public funds they require give a reasonable or even competitive return.
I respect you, commissioner, but I fail to see how this deal or any ball park deal addresses any of our city's primary problems. I agree with those above who said if this is the best we can expect out of an Adams administration, you would be better served to join the effort to dump the mayor rather than to sign on to his flailing about for a legacy.
Posted by: Ted | May 25, 2009 10:19:43 AM
Randy, this is not a very good argument. I'd say it's downright disingenuine. I'm in Lents fairly often and to say that urban renewal there has made a significant impact is absurd. It's had some recovery, but only that which has been the economic osmossis of rising property values in closer areas like Woodstock and East Tabor. It begins a downward slope of social drift leading toward an area that is bound to the south by Mt. Scott, to the north by E. Burnside, and begins around 122nd, strectching to the outskirts of Gresham. In Portland, it's our slum. Every big city has one, even in highly socialized nations like Denmark and Switzerland. The crime rate, income, demographics, and drug problem there tell the story.
I think urban renewal there is needed and I think that IF all the conditions were right for MLB to come to Portland it should be accessed by MAX and 205, but I've seen no evidence or precedence that putting AAA there is going to be this catalyst to change the fortunes of the area. In fact, it could jeopardize the the area's stability as it sits on the brink of joining the Rose Slum to the east.
Why not show how tough you are and stand up to MLS and Paulson and demand a solution using the existing PGE Park. Cut under and/or build over SW 18th to create stands for the extra sideline of view, if necessary. Portland has already spent a lot of money on PGE Park and for less than $5M in upgrades, it could be used for both sports. Once PGE starts bursting at the seams with rabid soccer fans, then we can start discussing $80M renovations or new stadiums.
The reality here is that Paulson's buddies in City Hall want to curry favor with the billionaire, Wall Street and Washington insider class so they can turn pro someday. That's how democracy is done these days. This isn't in the best interest of Lents or Portland and, like the South Waterfront and Convention Center Hotel, a totally half-baked and deceptive financial analysis that is more propaganda than sound policy.
Posted by: Bob Tiernan | May 25, 2009 10:35:43 AM
Douglas K:
And I still haven't seen any convincing reasons why PGE Park can't be upgraded to support both MLS and a minor league baseball team.
Bob T:
I'd like to see those reasons as well -- I'm not entirely sure about what had previously been said about why, i.e. that the field shape won't do, and I'm guessing that portable seating along the east side of the soccer field (covering much of left field and some of center field) is not good enough (it must be permanent, at least until the next renovation after MLS flops and moves away).
Bob Tiernan
Portland
Posted by: Bob Tiernan | May 25, 2009 10:46:11 AM
Ted:
Why not show how tough you are and stand up to MLS and Paulson and demand a solution using the existing PGE Park.
Bob T:
There's no need to "stand up" to someone who can't get tax dollars without the politicians doing it for them. All a decent city commissioner needs to do is say, "raise your own money", and this can be done sitting down. Leonard and Sammy Whammy created this mess merely by being open to the idea of corporate welfare in the first place.
If this goes through, try to remember that it won't be Paulson who used force, but Leonard and Sammy (and Salzman). Which key voting bloc put them there? Will you sign the recall because of support of this stadium deal? Will you vote against Randy next time he runs for something?
Bob Tiernan
Portland
Posted by: Greg | May 25, 2009 12:22:40 PM
Douglas K:
And I still haven't seen any convincing reasons why PGE Park can't be upgraded to support both MLS and a minor league baseball team.
Bob T:
I'd like to see those reasons as well -- I'm not entirely sure about what had previously been said about why, i.e. that the field shape won't do, and I'm guessing that portable seating along the east side of the soccer field (covering much of left field and some of center field) is not good enough (it must be permanent, at least until the next renovation after MLS flops and moves away).
Greg:
MLS has said specifically that they will not allow Portland to play in a stadium that has a baseball diamond in the field of play. Moving the Beavers was part of the requirement to allow Portland into the league. PGE park as-is would be the WORST venue in MLS, and that is by a wide margin as well. Portland wanted a team, now they have to play by the rules MLS set to keep their team.
Posted by: Steve | May 25, 2009 12:28:33 PM
"Portland wanted a team"
No, Merritt Paulson, Randy, Sam and 200 Timbers fans wanted a team on any terms.
Posted by: eric cantona | May 25, 2009 12:43:54 PM
i've posted this on the mercury blog and want to post it here as well:
i would like to ask Randy a question in relation to this bit of his essay: "...the same plan that has left Lents in a “just about ready” condition for the past 11 years".
now i'm not trying to be dense or disingenuous, but has any developer or business or whatever in the last 11 years been offered anything close to the deal that Paulson is being offered? i'm guessing the answer is no, but i am honestly interested in understanding just what is on the table at this point.
if the answer is no, then Lents and the rest of the city need to rise up in protest over this. $40m in secured loans or whatever should go an awfully long way to creating opportunity in the area. a baseball stadium in no way will bring any long-term economic stimulus of note. that is not to say that i don't see some benefit to public expenditure towards professional sports for the area. i do believe they provide benefits to overall city image and marketability, as well as catering to sports-minded individual like myself.
but any development like this needs to be done entirely honestly and above-board. i just don't see that as happening right now.
Posted by: Douglas K. | May 25, 2009 12:59:26 PM
MLS has said specifically that they will not allow Portland to play in a stadium that has a baseball diamond in the field of play.
That doesn't count as a "good reason" to spend tens of millions of dollars of tax money. The "baseball diamond" in question would be the barely barely visible residue of field chalk put down for baseball. The faint outline of a baseball diamond won't confuse soccer players, and it probably won't even confuse most of the fans. It certainly won't affect the game in any way at all.
Frankly, if PGE Park can be affordably modified with retractable seating to accommodate both sports, and MLS wants to back out of a potentially lucrative market because of some barely visible lines on the field that don't affect play ... well, let them go. We'll still have the Timbers and still have soccer at PGE Park.
I see no reason to put up tens of millions of dollars of additional taxpayer money because MLS is offended by a little chalk. MLS needs Portland a hell of a lot more than Portland needs MLS. If they want access to our market and if they want us (the taxpayers) to provide the arena, they can do it on our terms, or go elsewhere.
Posted by: Miles | May 25, 2009 1:00:06 PM
Wow. This post has generated some absolutely vicious, and at the same time vacuous, responses. There are good reasons to be both for and against this particular public subsidy for a new baseball stadium, and it's too bad the BO community doesn't seem interested in having the debate.
What seems to be missed by most commenters is Randy's central thesis: Lents has an existing urban renewal area. The tax increment is already being drained from the general fund, so it is not a question of spending it on economic development vs. "core services". It MUST be spent on economic development. The question is whether you spend it on many smaller projects that may or may not materialize, or you spend it on a new AAA stadium.
Although the City Council makes the ultimate decision, if I were them I would put great weight on the wishes of the Lents community. The evidence so far is mixed. The opponents came out to last week's meeting, but the neighborhood leadership is generally in favor and an earlier survey showed moderate support. I think the City should conduct a postcard survey to every household in the URA and use the results to guide the ultimate decision. This is about their future, and really it's their money. Let them make the decision.
Posted by: Old Ducker | May 25, 2009 1:10:53 PM
Steve writes:
"'Portland wanted a team"
No, Merritt Paulson, Randy, Sam and 200 Timbers fans wanted a team on any terms.'"
I suspect this is right. I remember when the old Timbers were around in the 1970's and 200 is about the size of the crowds I recall. I would have expected more on the last game I attended since Mt. St. Helens was erupting in the background.
Posted by: rlw | May 25, 2009 1:12:11 PM
Ya know, I personally railed the media on their opinion lines and OPB too for all that stupid "SExxxxxxxx Ssssssssscandallllll" crap they ran on our mayer a while back.
At this point I'm just not sure why I bothered.
He seems to own a lot of shovels and is pulling them out to dig his way into an underground location, professionally.
Speaking of MLS and other ridiculous distractions.
Posted by: eric cantona | May 25, 2009 1:25:35 PM
Old Ducker: "200 is about the size of the crowds I recall"
wrong. i was there, too. but i actually went to the games, and the team averaged over 10k for nearly every one of it's seasons playing at civic stadium. a few years were well over that.
my belief is that the MLS is going to ultimately be successful, and that the Timbers will draw in excess of 20k per game in the MLS. i honestly think that it will be an economically viable enterprise and the city will be paid back every penny it's fronting Paulson.
I can't say the same for the beavers, however. they will always need public subsidy if they have to build a brand new stadium. is it worth it? i'm not sold. especially if it's at the detriment of the Lents neighborhood.
Posted by: Portland Lover | May 25, 2009 1:31:56 PM
PGE Park is perfectly fine as-is for soccer and baseball. How do we know this? Because the Beavers and the Timbers have been sharing PGE Park for the last 9 seasons without any issues.
I would like to hear an official statement made by Major League Soccer regarding the suitability of PGE Park as it is. Not a sound bite from an interview, but a literal official statement. I want to see this statement in writing -- signed, sealed, and delivered: "We are officially on record as saying that an MLS team cannot share with a baseball team under any circumstances. We will rescind the MLS expansion nomination for Portland if the Beavers are not kicked out of PGE Park."
Until there is an official statement made by the MLS, we should assume that it is just the preference of Merritt Paulson to operate two sports stadiums for his personal profit at the expense of the Portland taxpayer, including ripping $40 million from the Lents neighborhood that they could put to much better use.
Posted by: Portland Lover | May 25, 2009 2:02:17 PM
eric cantona, I believe Old Ducker is referring to the very small minority of Timbers fans that don't have the interests of the city they claim to love in mind, just the bank account of the Paulsons. Many Timbers fans such as myself are disgusted with the manner in which Merritt Paulson, Sam Adams, and Randy Leonard have conducted themselves since March. I don't want the Timbers legacy to be tarnished by these shenanigans.
Posted by: Jonathan Radmacher | May 25, 2009 3:10:47 PM
With Jack Bog as the first commenter on this post, it's no surprise that it's mainly a lot of vitriolic hacks that follow. There's a bona fide debate to be had, but I guess no in response to Randy's post. Perhaps there'd be a real debate if this had gone up on a weekday.
Posted by: LT | May 25, 2009 4:42:11 PM
Jonathan, I hope you don't mean this when you talk about vitriol.
>>Frankly, if PGE Park can be affordably modified with retractable seating to accommodate both sports, and MLS wants to back out of a potentially lucrative market because of some barely visible lines on the field that don't affect play ... well, let them go. We'll still have the Timbers and still have soccer at PGE Park.
I see no reason to put up tens of millions of dollars of additional taxpayer money because MLS is offended by a little chalk. MLS needs Portland a hell of a lot more than Portland needs MLS. If they want access to our market and if they want us (the taxpayers) to provide the arena, they can do it on our terms, or go elsewhere. <<
I happen to agree with Douglas K. Call me any name you want, I'm glad Memorial Coliseum was spared--until this came up I didn't realize being a fan of Skidmore, Owings and Merrill buildings (they also did the Labor and Industries bldg. on the Capitol Mall in Salem) was so controversial.
The introduction of HB 2531 (stadium bonds) made this a statewide issue.
Now if the above is not "real debate", I'd like to know what is.
Posted by: Garage Wine | May 25, 2009 7:03:47 PM
Randy Leonard says: "[T]he relative economic impact of the stadium in Lents would be greater than anywhere else in Portland."
Why is it, then, that folks in City Hall are saying that the City is sitting on a study that says that a Lents stadium would have no positive impact or a negative impact?
Posted by: Portland Lover | May 25, 2009 8:01:00 PM
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the stadium will have no positive economic impact for Lents. People will just buy hot dogs inside the stadium and then leave. They won't stick around to shop in any of the stores ... stores that don't exist anyways, and won't exist because the money from the URA that is earmarked for business development will be given away to Merritt Paulson.
On top of that, there have already been numerous studies done on the economic impact of sports stadiums. Most all come to the same conclusion. No positive economic impact. For there to be positive economic impact, there must be other factors at play to contribute to a perfect storm. A Stanford economist who has written a study about the economic impact of sports stadiums agrees: http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/BlogtownPDX/archives/2009/05/13/stanford-economist-refutes-stadium-benefits
Ultimately, what this whole thing comes down to is a corporate welfare at the expense of a poor neighborhood in dire need of real economic improvement. Lents needs small businesses and entrepreneurs, local people who will employ other local people. It doesn't need an out-of-town billionaire to steal their URA money to construct a fenced-off stadium on public park land (which, by the way, will also cost the city between $13 and $29 million to replace: http://blogs.wweek.com/news/2009/05/14/portland-parks-13-million-to-29-million-needed-to-replace-portions-of-lents-park/ The Parks Board is opposed to the stadium.
Posted by: Garrett | May 25, 2009 9:21:24 PM
Why does Lents have so much on the table for urban renewal? Well probably because no private investors want to act on it. Now there is one that does. Good on him.
It'd be nice to have a meeting of all the detractors to have their argument shredded.
Alas...leave it to Jack Bog's sycophants to always show up and post their BS.
Posted by: Portland Lover | May 25, 2009 9:57:26 PM
Merritt Paulson is investing no private money into the potential baseball stadium in Lents. He was going to put $12.5 million toward the Rose Quarter site if the city demolished Memorial Coliseum for him, but he took that money off the table for the Lents project because he doesn't feel that private investment is worth it for Lents.
Let's not get into what into what's good for Merritt Paulson, though. This is about what's good for Lents. That $42 million could go a long way toward a lot of projects to stimulate the local economy. What Lents really needs is small businesses. The baseball stadium is not going to help. All the studies prove that sports stadiums do not have positive economic impacts, and I am sure the specific study that the city is waiting for will prove it in this case, as well.
Furthermore, that $13 to $29 million for the park land replacement could go a long way for the city. Is it really worth $55 to $71 million to build a 8,000-seat baseball stadium in the middle of a residential neighborhood, while the neighborhood itself is in need of affordable housing and small business development?
I am a progressive, not a Jack Bog sycophant. I want the city's money spent for the citizens of Portland, not for a spoiled rich kid from New York who doesn't even live in Portland. The URA is meant for the people of Lents. Let's be truly progressive and turn the neighborhood around. The baseball stadium should be built with private money somewhere else.
Posted by: Pounder | May 25, 2009 9:57:34 PM
Moving bleachers AND covering the turf every week costs a lot of money. Having a surface with a baseball diamond on it... including seams which may have cost the Timbers a championship in 2007... is not professional. It does not help Portland get better players for MLS.
MLS sacrificed an opportunity for a publically funded stadium in the St. Louis area because they decided Portland was a better market. Essentially, if the city were to attempt dictate terms to MLS, the response will be pretty much automatic, never mind what any lawyer thinks they can win because there may not be a bylaw. Merritt Paulson never had to sell me on not sharing with baseball- it's been MLS fan mantra since it first got off the ground.
...then, with Vancouver taken by MLS, leaving nobody in USL-1 out west, and a baseball situation that has NEVER BEEN LONG-TERM profitable at PGE Park (resulting in the Beavers leaving that site TWICE), you're foolish to think Merritt Paulson is going to turn around and keep playing at PGE Park after the current lease terminates in 2010. Moreover, you're foolish to think that anyone else will want to buy into the situation there. That jeopardizes the current bonds paying off the 2000 PGE Park renovation. Then what?
Mind you, AAA ballparks aren't the perfect investment, but they have their value. Raley Field has helped chase away a drug and hooker trade that used to thrive around the West Sacramento spot where the stadium now stands, drawing record season average crowds. It's taken Dell Diamond 9 years, but there's some development AND proposals for further development in that land area (merely 23 miles away from downtown Austin, while being on pace to draw this year's best PCL crowds). The other good examples- Memphis, Oklahoma City, and this year's new ballpark in Columbus- show that the ballpark woven into an arena district or near-downtown entertainment area (like the Rose Quarter proposal) works quite well for the baseball component.
One thing Randy Leonard actually shorted... in this decade, new AAA parks in the same city have averaged an increase of 300,000 fans in a season over old ballpark attendance. The question is how much current overcounts for baseball in PGE Park factor into that. Of course, there's that chance Lents probably won't draw as well for its location... but if it works against the stereotype and the current reality in Lents, that might be all Lents needs.
Posted by: Nick | May 25, 2009 11:53:52 PM
Pounder -
You gave some examples of some nice stadiums. But if you talk to folks around the country, there's been little-to-no new development around every stadium except Oklahoma City, Memphis, Toledo and Durham — *all in downtown areas*. West Sacramento, nearly a decade after Raley Field opened, is *just now* seeing some proposals for development around the stadium. I talked to a city councilman from Round Rock last week who said all the ballpark's done for the neighborhood is fund an amateur sports complex, which is good for hotels and restaurants in town a few miles away, but doesn't do anything for the area in the immediate vicinity of the stadium. Rochester, Syracuse, Pawtucket, Salt Lake, Albuquerque, Tucson... the list goes on and on of new ballparks that have not sparked development around them.
Non-downtown stadia simply don't work for economic development at the Triple-A level.
As for the 300,000 number — yes, attendance for Triple-A teams increases by 1-2,000 a game for new stadia... but those numbers appear to settle over time after an initial spikes.
Posted by: JerryB | May 25, 2009 11:58:36 PM
Pounder, Merritt Paulson leaving doesn't jeopardize paying off the old bonds because he isn't paying anything on the old bonds. Taxpayers are paying the old bonds and any new bonds with the Merritt Paulson deals, which is why Portlanders don't want to continue the handouts for stadiums.
Posted by: Garrett | May 26, 2009 12:14:45 AM
Without trying to get in a fight with the so and so people that say they know everything at this point.
The MLS will not come here if the Beavers are not out of PGE Park. PGE Park has to be a soccer specific stadium (PSU football will remain because it will be a square field and this has been endorsed by PSU...also our various high school teams will still be able to use PGE for high school football). Don Garber (commissioner of MLS has blatantly said that the Beavers cannot remain at PGE and Portland will keep the MLS franchise) Anyone that says the Timbers and Beavers can share a park is an uninformed idiot. Judging by who is writing those arguments here I'm inclined to thing thats not so far from the cookie barrel anyway.
This argument that they can share long term is a lie. Yes they can share in the short term...i.e. the Beavers have a place to play and they have to share temporarily. There really isn't a reason to share though since both could be in their own homes by 2011. Also why would they want to look half assed in their first game? Considering what the first game of MLS looked like in Seattle I would imagine ESPN would be out here in full force for game 1 and Portland would be center stage. We would instantly have one of the best fanbases in MLS...you want to showcase that on ESPN with a half assed AAA stadium? Please...grow up...we'd be losing out on millions of dollars associated with opening day ...and yes with a soccer specific PGE Park MLS would most definitely have us on opening day most likely vs. Seattle. The media coverage alone would be worth millions to the city. The alternative would be a Kingdome clone in Vancouver BC.
The other argument is potholes and school funding.
You're going to hear that until times are good. People will say schools aren't funded enough and they have a pothole in front of their house and if things are bad you'll hear the same thing. Three years of me happily voting for and paying my Multnomah County income tax says that (in full disclosure I'm a single male with no children and no real inspiration for kids so I paid for, and voted for your rugrats to go to school because I think its important).
Merritt isn't trying to rob you. He has done nothing but try and present a fair deal to everyone. He came with one of the best deals a sports owner has ever come to a city with and several architects pissed and moaned about the memorial coliseum to the point enough detractors were able to convince people to wait for the Blazers to demolish the MC. Of course everyone will be happy to let the Blazers do what they will with the Rose Quarter. Try to stop that train friends. You'll find yourself looking down the smoking barrell of a 12 guage dealing with the Blazers wanting public funds.
My prediction...The Merritt deal will go through...mostly because its a good deal for the city. A year or three later the Blazers are going to decide they want to redevelop the Rose Quarter. It's going to cost 12X what putting a AAA stadium in the RQ would have cost. Everyone will be cool with it because Paul Allen will have found a loophole in his deal with the city to move the team to Seattle.
P.S. if you dont think Allen hasn't been working on moving the Blazers to Seattle you're shortsighted. It will happen the second its possible legally. If that ownership group in Seattle fails Allen will actively start working on every scenario of moving the team there in a second unless he gets every demand in Portland met. He'll probably get that because it would be political suicide to allow the Blazers to leave or actively campaign on letting them go.
Posted by: Portland Lover | May 26, 2009 12:33:06 AM
Garrett, if the Beavers leave PGE Park, the proposed renovations will not transform it much from how it looks right now. The renovations will just pretty up the insides and build an uncovered grandstand on the east side. If we keep the Beavers at PGE Park and use a portable grandstand on the east side, it will look exactly the same on TV.
Please point us to an official statement or document from the MLS stating that they will rescind our expansion spot if the Beavers are not kicked out of PGE Park. We are in the league now, they can't just kick us out. That would be a PR disaster for them, and they would become the laughing stock of the sports world. Therefore, we are in the driver's seat. Let's save a ton of money and keep the Beavers in PGE Park.
Posted by: YoungOregonMoonbat | May 26, 2009 1:08:16 AM
Election of Portland City Council Members via 4 precincts each equaling a quarter of the Portland's population is way overdue. Furthermore, make it so that the City Council Members have to reside in their precinct at least 180 days out of a year every year to run and retain their seat.
Make these blowhards accountable to voters in a precinct. This "city wide" bunk is just allowing individuals to get in their and run it like a little empire.
"Jaws of Victory." I am glad that you realize now that it has been defeated.
Portland City Council = we are going to shove it down your throat and force you to like it because we are currently not accountable to a precinct.
Posted by: Bill McDonald | May 26, 2009 3:28:10 AM
There's been a lot of comments about the dissenters here being knee-jerk haters of the deal, who didn't even read Randy's article. Jack Bog is mentioned and people who write on that site have been called his sycophants. Their opinion has been characterized as BS.
Well, I write comments on Jack's site so I'm going to respond with a question of my own. This one goes out to Garrett, Jonathan Radmacher, Bite Me, Boggers!, and Jenuine.
I read Randy's piece and I want to focus on his opinion that this baseball deal, "would give Lents a competitive psychological and economic edge that no other neighborhood in the City could compete with."
Do you believe that? Really? Or do you believe Randy is just shoveling the BS here himself?
Go ahead. Show us how smart you are. Make a stand. You've been quick to characterize our comments. How would you characterize Randy's analysis?
Oh, I get it. Maybe you were counting on us not reading the article. That must be it.
Well, I did and that little gem of genius is in it. According to Randy, no other neighborhood in this city will be able to compete with Lents after this deal. Is that BS or not? Go ahead. Put on those thinking caps and tell us what you think.
Now ask yourself if he's shoveling BS with that line, what else about this deal is BS?
Posted by: Kurt Chapman | May 26, 2009 5:01:44 AM
Perhaps an accurate comparison could be made to Louisville Slugger Field, home of the AAA Louisville River Bats. the stadium was constructed between 1998 and 200 in the older warehouse district of downtown Louisville between Butchertown and downtown. Completed for just under $28MM, the stadium seats about 13,000 and has the ubiquitous corporate boxes.
The team owners, Humana and Hillerich and Bradsby (makers of the Louisville Slugger) teamed with the city to construct the new stadium. I do not know if Urban Renewal funds were used, but the team pays around $850k/year in rent. The stadium was supposed to have retail and other shops incorporated. Now, 10 years later would be a good time to delve into how successful the stadium has been in providing an economic engine for redevelopment in the area.
If Randy Leonard is convinced the Beavers Stadium is a great idea for Lents, perhaps he could get us some data from the Louisville Slugger Stadium. A precurser to the current team, The Redbirds, set the AAA single season attendance record in 1983 of over 1,000,000 fans.
Posted by: Martin Burch | May 26, 2009 6:23:50 AM
Let me make it simple, Randy.
Push this stadium through, you're through in politics in Portland. It's a waste of city money, there's no history of stadiums rejuvenating the neighborhoods into which they are placed, and more to the point, there's no need for it at all right now. MLS is not going to generate much revenue for anyone except the team owners, and even then I doubt it will be enough to keep them here for more than a few years.
There's still time. Recant, tell the whole story of how this has become important, expose the power, influence, and lure of the wrecking ball crew, and you'll be a hero. Surely you're not a victim of the bright lights and lure of easy money this Paulson bunch is known for selling local politicians.
Otherwise, I hope they're paying you enough so you can have a quite comfortable, if notorious retirement into which you'll be forced.
Posted by: paulie | May 26, 2009 7:09:26 AM
This reminds me of the NASCAR track idea in Scappoose. Once the studies were done the idea was done.
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: Jack Bog | May 24, 2009 9:50:47 PM
How to sell giving $80 million away to a rich Lake Oswego Republican: make it look like you're helping the little guy in southeast Portland. Classic Fireman Randy.