News Mar 5, 2009 at 2:33 pm

Comments

1
This issue is shining a bright light on the NIMBYs and other forces who conspire to hold back a true progressive attitude in the city of Portland. In her responses, which have been received as both patronising and inaccurate, Amanda has shown herself as all too keen to cling to soundbites and mawkish feel-good cheap shots rather than sit down and have a debate over the city in which we live. Very poor form from the councilwoman.
2
"the gender equity of construction jobs and of MLS executives, coaches, and administrative staff"

She sets a high bar. With requirements like that I wonder if she's going to accomplish anything at all in her tenure, or just take a bunch of goofy impractical stands.

Anywho, I think that supporters of this have a lot more proving to do. "Soccer is neat, and I really like it" is not a good argument for an $85 million expenditure.

That table of MLS income is interesting. I notice a certain trend in the right column. Hmmmm.

3
Dave Lister, a former rival of Fritz's for a council seat, has weighed in on the issue in the Oregonian today.

http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ss…

Lister writes...

"Our huge public investment to build a state-of-the-art convention center turned out to be another white elephant, a money-loser since it opened. Now we're being told that all we have to do to fix it is to use more public money to build a convention center hotel. But few are really buying it."

He also mentions "the failure of the South Waterfront and the aerial tram."

And concludes:

"Based on such history, does anyone really believe this investment of municipal bonds in soccer and minor league baseball will provide the promised return?"
4
I'm curious how Fritz and others plan on continuing to fun our schools and our social services when jobs continue to disappear from Oregon. We have the 5th highest unemployment rate in the country and one of the slowest growing economies. A project like this will instantly employ decent salary construction jobs and the Paulsons have agreed to the Fare-wage initiative to create an additional 300 long term jobs. Where do these people think that the money comes from to fund schools and Social reforms? It's tax dollars. And if no one is working, there is no tax dollars. Here is a plan with very little City resources that will instantly put hundreds of people to work and those people will pay the taxes that fund the schools. Any one who doesn't see this is a complete moron.
5
"All of these "concerns" could have been addressed and dealt with if she chose to be a part of the process."

Merritt Paulson would pay for his own stadiums if Amanda Fritz had agreed to meet him? Who knew.

Meetings are nice, but if Merritt Paulson can't communicate in writing then he should hire someone who can.
6
Dave Lister once argued that raising Oregon's minimum wage once cost his sandwich price to more than double. I don't listen to anything that twit has to say.

I think this just highlights a worry I've had about Fritz from day one. I don't think she understands how to work in a city government. Her lack of experience in government was her appeal but also a HUGE failing. The list she provides (even if I didn't support this thing) couldn't be met by anyone. Blabby correctly points out her issues of gender equality. We're talking about a sports league and construction workers. While MLS did receive a B+ as far as hiring practices among women (the highest in professional sports) that's not good enough for her. Throw in construction...forget about it.

With the standards she sets I sincerely doubt she'll be an effective commissioner. She'll most likely bog down the council in procedure, meetings, hearings and anything else she can think of.
7
Jerry: "Here is a plan with very little City resources"

I'm speechless.
8
Blabby Said: "Meetings are nice, but if Merritt Paulson can't communicate in writing then he should hire someone who can."

I think you're missing the point. He tried to communicate in writing. He tried to meet with her. Jeremy did both as well. She refused to listen to anyone else about this proposal which is a big indicator of how she works. Thinking you're right all the time and not listening to anyone else was exactly how our former President George Bush ran things. Do you think that is an effective method?
9
I am concerned that more and more Fritz is reminding me of Sarah Palin. Not very informed but very opinionated, and truly striving to remain that way.

Oh, BTW, I'm female. I decided I just had to contribute to the gender equity of these responses.
10
Ahh Smiley, back again huh? Peddling the same old crap on a different day. Either contribute constructively or go away.

Matt, if you looked at the economic projections of the entire report that were included with that table you will find that Paulson isn't expecting to make any money for the first 5 years. Doesn't change the fact that the bond payments are covered.

The vast majority of businesses expect to lose money in the first 5 years as they recoup start up costs and invest heavily in marketing etc. Again, that doesn't matter as long as they have the sufficient capital and have built that into their business plan.

And Matt - quoting Dave Lister is even worse than using Jack Bog as a source. That is the same guy who was against increasing the minimum wage because he was worried about the cost of his Big Mac going up. No lie, look it up. And his piece is riddled with errors. Chief among them he states: "The first PGE Park renovation, intended to revitalize Triple-A baseball, became a financial disaster that bankrupted the "private" component of that partnership and left us to pay off the bonds.".

Actually no general fund revenue was ever diverted to satisfy bond payments. When Paulson bought the teams he also paid the back rent on the stadium to the city.

List is just another do-nothing, anti-government Lars Larson heel.
11
Garrett: I didn't make that statement about writing.

Girl says: "Not very informed but very opinionated, and truly striving to remain that way."

You just decribed 2/3 of Portland.

MLS supporters: Can any of you point me towards a spreadsheet or brief memo that details how this deal will be paid for? Or anything that explains what Paulson's "guarantee" is? I just think its strange that the hard details of this thing are still so mysterious.



12
Well the best I can do is is the documents from the Task Force final report.

http://blog.oregonlive.com/tailgate_impact…

The biggest sticking point right now is not the PGE Park/MLS side of things. The $39 mill in bonds and the plan for a SSS to pay it back all pencil out.

The sticking point is the Beavers stadium - where? and how do you pay for it? there is (depending who you ask) somewhere between $15 million and $40 million funding gap on building the stadium and what I understand is that there is significant discussion about additional private investment to cover that.

What that looks like is anyones guess - it's why they are still negotiating.
13
I've never understood why opponents of this bid fixate to such an extent on operating losses.

Here's a real genuine question for the amateur reporters to answer: When's the last season the Blazers turned a profit on operating expenses? I mean Jesus, the biggest margin in the black for any MLS team is half of what Paul Allen paid Stevie Franchise to just go away.

If there was some direct corollary between turning an immediate profit on a team and it's long-term success, then why has demand for franchises increased (as expansion fees have equally increased) instead of decreased over this last decade?

Toronto, profit or not, has turned a $10 million dollar expansion ante into a franchise worth $40+ million.


As for Fritz, Amanda has not bothered during this entire process to ever educate herself or reach out to any interested groups to get input. She is against the idea of funding sports in any context, she will always be able to tapdance her way into an excuse to vote no. And it's not her fault, she billed herself as a micromanaging contrarian who couldn't see the forest for the trees.
14
Excuse me, that should read "margin in the red", not black.
15
Regardless of personal pro/con views on this issue, if Fritz were truly interested in "governing," perhaps she would've been better served actually sitting down and discussing her list of concerns with Paulson himself, rather than ignore dialogue with the party involved and simply spout her list in a letter to the media instead.

One-term commish behavior.
16
Dave, I think the problem is that the entire league has operating losses and we're specifically concerned with their ability to pay back millions in loans.
17
One should note that the Galaxy had Beckham. Hence the revenue.
18
@Blabby

Sorry to mix you up with Smiley above. I'm brainfried today. I think the league revenue issues will be changing quite a bit over the next few years. A few of those teams that lose money are moving into their own stadiums so they won't have to be paying NFL stadium rental fees. You'll add 20,000+ seat sell outs in Seattle where one of the owners already owns the stadium etc...

If you can't accept that the league is headed in a positive direction I guess I understand your skepticism. However since Paulson has said flat out several times his family is on the hook for the money if this doesn't work out like he's envisioning it...
20
Where is this guarantee Garrett? What are the specific conditions that would trigger the guarantee and what exactly would Merritt Paulson pay?
21
Having met and also having dealt with Amanda, I must say I support her stance here. She is one of the straightest- shooting councils members I have met. And, yes, these dollar figures I see scare me. Forty million here, two hundred milion there, sixteen million elsewhere really start to add up. If it is such a good deal, let me make a suggestion. All those who want this soccer team to come to town, put up your houses and condos for collateral. After all, it will pay for itself. Think about it, you too can be part owner of a major league soccer team. I'm sure it will be like a lot of other investments you have made, rock solid. Or, have you forgotten, you have heard that song before. In the meantime, think about what that forty some million dollars could fund in city programming that would REALLY make a difference in the quality of life for everyone in this city. GO AMANDA.
22
Smiley,
Merritt has spoke of it several times. You can listen to the podcast on 95.5 where he first spoke of it and the OPB broadcast that he was on which is also available via podcast. I'm also positive it is part of the back room negotiation going on between Merritt and the city council.

Dale, Amanda is an ideologue and not a politician. If this is how she chooses to use her 4 elected years then fine. She will be on the outside looking in and essentially nothing. I don't want a commissioner that refuses to sit down and listen to both sides because she's already decided that she doesn't like something without hearing both sides. That's not how government should be run. It's something that we all watched in the Bush years and I think we're all sick of on both sides of the aisle. Her refusal to meet with either Merritt or Jeremy proves that she really just doesn't care what either of them have to say because she already made up her mind before she had the full picture. That's quintessential Bush policy. I'm over it and I'm ready for a change. I don't care if she sits on my side of the aisle most of the time.
23
Garrett, you miss the point. It's all about the money. How many boondoggles has the city compromised itself into already that cost more than they said it would? hint, can we say tram? when is enough enough?
24
Dale,
The Tram was stupid. Everyone knows that. This has had at the very least two independent studies that uphold the numbers. On top of that there is an owner who is guaranteeing everything will be paid. He said that both on an interview with 95.5 and on OPBs Think Out Loud program.

Still Dale...you like many others refuse to answer one question. Merritt is currently the one paying back the original $30 million in bonds on PGE and is the guy paying rent. I don't see him staying here if this doesn't go through. He's paying the $30 million in bonds that P.F.E. created and he doesn't have to. He's also paying for the operating costs of PGE that run about $3 million a year. So who is going to use that park if he doesn't Dale?

25
The city of Portland is paying off the bonds Garrett. Merritt Paulson's $900,000 per year lease payment and the roughly $150,000 per year ticket tax just covers some of the operating costs of PGE Park.

If Merritt Paulson's terms are "buy me a some new stadiums or else I quit" that doesn't show much of a commitment to Portland.
26
@Smiley
"Previous owners defaulted on payments to the city when revenue projections proved optimistic, and now Paulson is repaying part of that debt."

http://www.portlandonline.com/Leonard/inde…

The rest is covered through hotel tax and rental car tax. That's how it's done most everywhere.

And Smiley...you don't understand. He wouldn't walk away like that. What he would be doing is making a smart business decision. The Timbers are not feasible after 2010 due to the closest other team in the USL being 1000 miles away. Travel costs would put them over the edge. AAA baseball is not feasible in AAA park without the other income from the soccer team. In the event the soccer team folds Merritt would probably have to either move the AAA baseball team to one of several cities who built stadiums to attract a AAA team or sell the team to someone in one of those cities.

So Smiley...if Merritt leaves who rents the park and pays the bonds? Answer the freaking question instead of saying Merritt is trying to cheat us...because he isn't.
27
Garrett, The Portland Visitor Fund pays the bonds. The Oregonian article is just shilling for Merritt Paulson, and it's wrong.
28
Funny you should ask that , Garrett. First, the total cost is eighty-five million, when you throw in the other park, or did you forget there are two parks involved. Second, the citizens of Portland are on the hook for the bonds, with NO ownership of the team. If Paulson leaves and takes the team with him, say Seattle Sonics, where does that leave us? Another 85 mil in debt, that's where. I still say if it such a good idea, Those who want the team finance the whole project. That way we have NO risk to the taxpayers. And again, their own spreadsheet shows it doesn't pencil out.
29
Sport related economic development schemes rarely turn out to be what the consultants assert they will. Just don't do it. www.youtube.com/luddite333
30
There are two GIANT problems with the proposal.
1. It uses Tax Increment Financing in the form of Urban Renewal. This isn't a loan or free money but are bonds that must be paid off within 30 years. With a whole bunch of new and existing Urban Renewal Areas that are still in debt, and some of them very questionable, such as South Waterfront, the City is hemorrhaging money while there are also limits on how much TIF can be used in the city overall. Spending TIF on a sports stadium lessens the chance that it can be spent on things like affordable housing, street improvements, etc.

TIF also works like this: a portion of it on the tax rolls is skimmed from what would normally be both school funding and County funding, instead putting it back into that URA. In a County and School District facing budget cuts and a crises, this is simply irresponsible.

2. Finally, Public Investment in sports almost never pays off and never ends up paying for itself. A). More part time, minimum wage jobs with no benefits are created than other types putting further burden on public welfare, public health and other public services used by the working poor. Sure, some construction jobs will be created, and that is a good thing but that's short term thinking, not long term. B) Secondly, as many have pointed out, the stadium itself is tax exempt. So, in essence, the City will never see important property tax revenues from it, although it will use a whole bunch of resources and place further burden on the streets, sewers, etc. around it and will require extra public safety resources during games. Remember, streets and sewers and safety are paid for by taxes. C) Those sports teams, stadiums, et al end up not generating tax revenue and end up remaining as public subsidies. Remember, this is money that could be used for other public needs such as the crumbling Sellwood Bridge. This has been proven over and over and over again in just about every City in the U.S. and as Matt points out above, is especially true for MLS. Dale Hardway also makes excellent points to the risks of public investment but private ownership. It's a no win gain for Portland with huge expenses and huge risks.

It's not NIMBYism to demand that the City of Portland, especially during an economic crises, be fiscally responsible.

Now is not the time to use public money to pay for major league soccer, even though I am a tried and true soccer fan myself. I will fight this proposal with everything I have because it is convoluted and bad for the City.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.