Was Brendan Finn the one who sent you the screenshot of Saltzman's inbox?

For clarification: I took that photograph in Saltzman's office on Friday morning.

that is exceedingly creepy , creep.

For double clarification: I had permission.

From the constituents that email him?

For triple clarification: Commissioners' inboxes are public record.

Legal? Sure. Ethically questionable? Yup. Par for the course in the merc news office? For sure.

Well, our last great public-private partnership was supposed to create 30,000 high paying jobs in the biotech industry. All we had to do was rob our schools, city services and public safety of a few hundred million and prosperity would arrive.

Guess what. No jobs.

That's the beauty of urban renewal. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer and the taxpayers get screwed.

Dave Dave Dave...

You care about poor people now? This coming from a guy who complained about raising the minimum wage because he thought the price of his Big Mac would double?

FAIL.

Single combat... with chainsaws!

lol @ Mr Lister

Well Finnigan, my courageous anonymous friend, if you'd read what I really wrote about the minimum wage you would realize that I was concerned about the impact of the increased minimum wage on worker's buying power and the replacement of minimum wage jobs with automation.

Evidently you have great courage in your convictions, to post as "Finnegan". Personally, I've never had an opinion that I was afraid to put my real name on.

Rather than go back to what I wrote about a different subject, how about you rebut my stance that the public was hoodwinked on the South Waterfront... that the promise was jobs and there are now none. I guess it's easier to attack me personally, anonymously (coward), because you can not assert that the South Waterfront has created any jobs, as promised.

oh, and Matt, trying to justify sharing that pic with all those robot spam email people's names?: There's LOTS of things that are public record, and if you want a race to the bottom...

We have Merritt Paulson to thank for bringing this to a head.

http://www.leg.state.or.us/09reg/measpdf/h…

House Bill 2615

"Requires majority approval by county governing body of urban renewal plan proposed, substantially
amended or extended in area by city of 300,000 within county boundaries."

Reduced city council access to URD cash for giveaways to millionaires.

Still no response from Finnegan on Dave Lister's comments. I'll be surprised if Finnegan can assemble a compelling argument - considering that none of the MLS supporters can.

Seriously, MLS fans: you have yet to demonstrate this is a good investment. Maybe the reason some of us nay-sayers are so negative is because you can't rise to the challenge, and respond only by
a.) insulting us personally
b.) parroting the perspectives of vested interests

When you're asked a real question, like how we're really going to get jobs out of it, you all clam up.

No because verbal jousting with people like you Dignified is not worth our time.

What you term "parroting perspectives of vested interests" is actually us stating the facts of the situation.

It has been repeated about 400 gazillion times how many jobs would be created. That information is easily available yet you choose to keep asking the same question over and over and ignore the facts so yes, at that point we are going to start making fun of you.

And Dave - false equivalency between this and the Waterfront Project. Factors of 10 in differences in size and scope.

@Finnegan:
As I keep pointing out, those numbers don't hold water. They didn't the first time, and they didn't the four-hundrend-gazillioneth time. That's exactly my point when I said that supporters just parrot the figures from vested interests - in other words, I have yet to see a single impartial example of an independent study that confirms even just the job angle - not to mention the solubility of the whole package.

You can't produce this information, which is why you "are going to start making fun of me" and telling me that the figures have been supported. OK - where?

Since you can't answer the question, I ran a search on UMI Dissertations to find any monograph that supports governments paying for stadiums. Out of a selection of ten, I found one. All the others were either inconclusive, or concluded that publicly financed stadiums are a bad idea. Some of the dissertations that jumped out:

http://design.asu.edu/apa/proceedings99/CH…

and this:
http://www.brookings.edu/articles/1997/sum…

and this:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv23…

Let's also not forget what happened in Washington DC:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/o…

...and other cities as well. Maybe you want to dismiss me because you feel threatened by what I have to say? Even if you don't like HOW I say it, at least I'm bringing something to the party. All I see you bringing is hot air.

And, you haven't responded to Dave Lister yet - not substantially, anyway.

Finnegan will never get the hang of it. He's had a few good Republicant fincancial wizards tell him it's so, do it is. NEVER mind the figures on the spreadsheets show it ain't so Joe, he just can't see it. 85 million without cost over runs, can we say tram, a big tax disparity between what the Pearl district pays in taxes as opposed to right across the river, and Portland cutting basic human services, and teh net benefits to the city unproven at best, it has to be good. After all, it's SPORTS.

@Dale Hardway

hahahah. Wait. hahhahahahahaha...no come one...hahahhahhaha

You moron. If you half knew who Finnegan was you'd probably crap yourself. He probably championed 99% of the causes you shat yourself about while posting a comment on a blog. He was the guy making it happen. You're such a tool.

More details:

http://commissionerleonard.typepad.com/com…

"Paulson Personally Guarantees Revenues: Merritt Paulson agrees to personally guarantee the revenues necessary to support the $31 million in debt on the two facilites, which protects the City's General Fund from any liability in the deal. That means that in the event of a failure of one of the franchises or any shortfall in revenues, Mr. Paulson will be responsible to pay the necessary rents and other projected revenues to the City anyway.

Paulson Cash Contribution: Merritt Paulson will pay approximately $40 million to purchase the MLS franchise and he agrees to pay $12.5 million into the stadium construction.

Other non-City resource: Another $11 million would come from a variety of sources that are being pursued by Mr. Paulson (Player income taxes, tax exempt bond authority, additional surcharge etc.) but if he is unsuccessful, he will be responsible to cover this amount of the stadium costs.

Cost Overruns: The City's liability for cost overruns are limited to $2.5 million. Merritt Paulson will be responsible for any amount above that."

Finnegan, you just got pwned by Dave Lister, my friend.

Who gives a shit?

Pwned.