Comments

1
Got the same email (even though I haven't contacted him in months on his issue, running for re-election anyone?). Anyway here was my email response:

Dear Commissioner,

As you know I have followed this whole thing very closely. I think you would probably oppose this deal if it was 100% privately financed and sited on the moon but that is not why I am writing you.

There are three things I'm curious about

1) If the Lents Neighborhood Association and the Lents Urban Renewal Advisory Council support this use of their URD dollars will you then support it? My conversations in the community have indicated that there is more than enough affordable housing in Lents. Affordable housing is the least of their worries.

2) You seem to be including Walker Stadium as park land that is to be "taken away". That seems pretty disingenuous. The proposed Beavers Baseball stadium in Lents park will sit on the same footprint as Walker Stadium that is there now. Walker stadium is a dilapidated dump that is so old you can't use the stands anymore because of safety concerns. So the stadium will not take any parkland that isn't already a stadium now. It will remove one soccer field for parking that as someone who has played there on more that one occasion I can attest would be cheered by the soccer players of the greater metro area. That field is a disgrace and flat out dangerous. So dangerous in fact that last year after playing there for my men's team and losing two balls to the undercarriage of TriMet buses and one playter seriously hurt slipping on the sidewalk which is two feet from the sideline that both teams wrote our league comissioner and said we would never play there again. My team was scheduled to play this season at this same field and we took a forfeit instead.

I'm urging you to think about the possibilities for the Lents neighborhood of this site being a gathering place for the community. A community that needs a gathering space. The Beavers will rent the stadium 72 days a year bringing in folks from across the Metro area to spend money in the community. The other 293 days it is open for use for the people.

Ideas – 1)A Lents Farmers Market on the brick parking pavers. 2) Summer Music Festival series of some sort. 3) Beer/Food/Wine Fest 4) Friday family move nights at the stadium for free for Lents residents etc. The possibilities are endless. It seems to me we are really enhancing a park with a pretty shoddy reputation and not “taking away park land”.

I do believe that it will be crucial that this stadium is designed in such a way that those things I suggested above are available and it is accessible to the community. Think grass berm in the outfield where families can picnic. Pavers instead of asphalt for the parking. Fence ala PGE Park instead of a brick facade.

3) I've carefully looked at the projects that would be delayed by 2 to 3 years by using this URD money and as far as I can tell these are projects in name only. They only exist on paper. No private investor has stepped up to leverage the tax breaks and incentives the URD and PDC offers. Im curious if you can name one ACTUAL project that is ready to go that would be delayed by this proposal. I'm happy to be proven wrong on this.

In the end, I know none of this will change your mind. But I am curious as to the answers to these questions.

Thanks
2
That is a lengthy and annoying letter, Finnegan. I negated it with an email to Fish lauding his common sense and telling him to keep it up. So the score is 1-1. (Hey, that's more points than most Timbers games!)

Unfortunately for Commissioner Fish, logic and fiscal responsibility bounce right off of the natural force fields formed by Leonard's and Adams' egos.
3
I am tired of this meme that Walker Stadium is a dump and will be replaced by a brand new baseball stadium.

1. The grandstands of Walker Stadium are tiny! The entire footprint of this "stadium" is very small compared to the new proposed stadium, which includes parking and offices for the Beavers.

2. The baseball field inside the current "stadium" is open to the public 365 days a year. The dilapidated grand stands do not prevent anybody from using this field. The new baseball field will be fenced off and the public will not be allowed to use it. This is not a fair trade-off, and the argument that it is is very disingenuous and downright offensive.

3. How much do you think it costs to fix up the current grandstands? $1,000? $10,000? $100,000? Certainly not the $42 million plus $13-$29 million that Finnegan is justifying. Again, what an offensive argument! There is no reason to steal all this money from the Lents URA when we could merely fix up those grandstands, and voila, no more dilapidated grandstands.

There is no justification for taking away $42 million from the Lents URA, thus eradicating their affordable housing budget and small business development budget. There is no justification for taking away park land that costs $13-$29 million dollars to replace. Lents needs small business development so that local neighborhood businesses can employ local people. That will help the economy. The baseball stadium will not help the economy.
4
For what it's worth, I also received that email and sent this response:

"Commissioner Fish,

Thank you for the update and the outline of your concerns and position.

In addition to the concerns you outline below, I believe Council must recognize that acceptance of the Task Force Report in March came with "strings attached". Specifically, a number of explicit conditional commitments.

I believe the proposed deal being reported in the press is not conducive with the conditional commitments required by the Major League Soccer/Triple-A Baseball Task Force Report.

1) Contrary to Commitment to Neighborhood Involvement in Urban Renewal Areas:

The proposed $42 million in funding from the Lents URA will result in a loss of affordable housing support that must be made up elsewhere to ensure "no net loss of affordable housing".

This expands the scope of the decision on stadium development beyond the purview of the Lents URA advisory committee. Other urban renewal area(s) will need to program money away from present economic development plans to make up for the resulting shortfall.

This outcome is not supported by the Commitment to Neighborhood Involvement in Urban Renewal Areas outlined by the Task Force in its report to the Council. Arguably, it also bends existing commitments and practices used for URA funding decisions: should a decision endorsed by citizens in one URA limit the flexibility for programming funds in other URAs?

2) Cost of Open Space Replacement Commitment Is Unknown:

The Task Force Report requires that "If open space land for public parks is used in this project, the project costs will include funds to purchase or develop and to maintain equivalent open space land for public use in the same area of the City."

Although the replacement cost for the lost parkland has been assumed as a $2 million expense, it has been reported that this expense may be as much as $29 million (Willamette Week, May 14, 2009). It seems that a definitive cost much be assessed before a cost-benefit for this proposal can be determined.

The potential for this expense to expand beyond the present $2 million budget underscores another critical conditional commitment made by the Task Force: protection of the general fund.

3) Ability to Maintain Commitment to Protect the General Fund is Unclear:

The city has made a conditional commitment that it will hold the general fund harmless as part of the MLS/AAA project.

It is unclear to me how any overrun in parkland replacement expenses or fulfilling existing affordable housing commitments will be remedied in a manner that protects the City's general fund.

Needless to say, violation of these conditional commitments in pursuit of a final financing agreement would set a dangerous precedent with regard to the Council's commitment to the public trust.

Moreover, it could be argued that the City does not have the legal authority to adopt a stadium development option that is not in full compliance with the explicit conditional commitments put forward by the Task Force and formally adopted by Council.

Given this, it is my hope that you and your colleagues assess any proposal with an appropriate level of due diligence."
5
He is the famed economist Blabby. He's an authority on the historical significance of Memorial Coliseum, the "treasure" that is Lents Park, and repeating whatever Jack Bogdanski tells him to repeat.

In all seriousness...Fish didn't exactly "hit back." This isn't anything he hasn't already said at least 4 or 5 times. Finnegan does bring up a few excellent points. Paul Walker stadium already exists there, its falling apart, and the soccer field affected is dangerous to play on.

I know it won't change your mind but it's a good thing to think about. We could not do anything but if we don't there are still two problems to deal with which will probably be forgotten. It's sort of like the Memorial Coliseum. You saved it...but now what are you going to do with it? It's still empty, its still falling apart.
6
Finnegan does not bring up a good point, but his point is worth thinking about in order to understand the level of spin he will stoop to in order to justify stealing the Lents URA money. It is a totally apples-to-oranges comparison. Walker Stadium is barely a "stadium". It is nothing compared to the new proposed stadium which will be closed off to the public so that a private business can sell hot dogs. It should not cost $42 million plus $13-$29 million to fix up the Walker grand stands. Only in Finnegan's (aka Jeremy Wright, the leader of the political action committee MLS2PDX) world does this make sense. Luckily for the citizens of Portland, none of the commissioners outside of Randy Leonard will fall for this type of retarded reasoning.
7
"There is no justification for taking away $42 million from the Lents URA, thus eradicating their affordable housing budget and small business development budget."

Ahh you hit a nail on the head. In 10 years since the URAs were created nobody has wanted to do anything with the Lents area and there isn't anyone out there right now wanting to have anything to do with Lents now.

1. They already have affordable housing. Its one of the more affordable places to live within the city limits. You can build a condo tower in the Pearl that has 30% affordable housing within it but no business investor in their right mind would build a nice condo tower in Lents because there would be nobody to rent or purchase the other 70% of condos.

2. Nobody wants to put a small business out there because Lents is not a destination location for anyone in the city and those that live there don't have a lot of money to spend in stores. Thus the small business owners have never tried to use the URA money because nobody wants to start a business likely to fail.
8
What offensive Portland Lover is you spouting off without even knowing the basic facts.

Portland Lover - do you live in Lents?

If not, do you agree that if the people of Lents want to spend their URD dollars in this manner it is their right as they know the community?

You wouldn't oppose them right cause then they would only be "stealing" from themselves?

And that $13-$29 million dollars to replace one soccer field is absolutely silly and a useless number. It's fabricated by Nick Fish to slap a talking point on this debate. And if you did any research you would know that the footprint of the proposed stadium is indeed the same as Walker stadium. Yes, as I point out in my letter, the proposal would take away one soccer field that is absolute garbage and flat out dangerous for parking.

And Walker stadium is a dump and it is not open "to everyone" 365 days a year as you point out. The fact that you even state that makes it obvious to me that you have never been to that stadium or have used it. You have to reserve it and pay Portland Parks and Rec to use it. Leagues reserve it and pay a good penny to use it but any joe blow can't go hop the fence and start swinging away. AND the Beavers have already stated that the community and leagues that use Walker now will be able too use the new stadium. I think a written agreement to that fact should accompany any funding agreement.

On top of that the community would be able to actually use the stadium for events other than baseball rather than right now as it sits unused and unavailable.

Will the Baseball stadium create tons of small business development? I think so, but I can't state that as an unequivocal fact. And neither can you the other way. There are very few certainties in economic development.

I can point to what the remodel of PGE Park in 99-2001 did to help the businesses around Burnside and 18th. New bars and restaurants sprung up and replaced scary drug dens where you had to check phones and beepers at the door.

Every community and neighborhood is different. I just think this is a good gamble for Lents but it's their decision to make.

9
Here is an aerial view of the park (hint Matt and Sara maybe you should look at this, perhaps post on the site cause methinks you guys have never used the park either).

http://www.parkscanpdx.org/parks?parkId=23…

You can see Walker Stadium and the soccer field that is going to go away is the one right north of it that is also lined as a rugby field. You can see why folks hate playing on it due to its insane proximity to traffic (one guy on my team likened getting the ball after it went out of bounds to "frogger"). Everything else stays the same.
10
Finnegan,

Walker is available to the public 365 days of the year. Nothing you said contradicts that fact.

The new baseball stadium will not be available to the public as the Beavers will be using it and will operate it. Nothing you said contradicts that fact.

The people of Lents do not support giving $42 million from their URA to Merritt Paulson. Your desire to paint a different picture doesn't change this reality.

The neighbors at the most recent meeting were very angry at the proposal: http://blogs.wweek.com/news/2009/05/21/ran…

In the previous meeting also was full of opposing voices: http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/Blogto…

---

The "stadium scenario" budget for Lents includes a lot of zeros: in order to fund the $20-22 million each year for the stadium, Lents would have to reduce its current $8.7 million affordable budget housing to $0 and its business development budget to $0 as well.

"How can you say you're investing in anything when you're actually asking us to postpone $42 million in development here in Lents?" asked Powellhurst-Gilbert resident John Mulvey. "If you're really doing a favor for Lents, where's the new investment?"

Sia Sellu, who lives in the neighborhood and works on rehousing seniors for the NW Pilot Project, spoke up to defend the existing budget for affordable housing in Lents. "The seniors who are having to move out of their homes who thought they would be living in this neighborhood forever - I think it's really not okay to not to talk about the impact on those people."
11
Blackedout: "I know it won't change your mind but it's a good thing to think about."

Hmmm, like you and Finnegan are so willing to consider Fish's points and "think about" them. I get the sense that you're not thinking about his points at all.

Serious question for Blackedout and Finnegan:

This deal is budgeted to cost the city around $65 million overall, which you guys seem to find to be quite the bargain. So here is my question (again this is a real question - I'd love an answer):

When would you guys cry uncle? How much public money would be too much to bring MLS to town? $100 million? $200 million? Is there any amount of public money that would strike you as too much? If so, what would that threshold be for you?
12
Thank you for posting that picture, Finnegan.

Look at how tiny the grandstands are. Please explain why it should cost $42 million plus $13-$29 million to upgrade the grandstands.

Also, please don't continue with the lie that the new stadium will be the same size. That is ridiculous. The new stadium will be many orders of magnitude larger.

And just because you think the new stadium will spur small business development doesn't make it do. This report contradicts your "feelings": http://www.american.com/archive/2008/april… The Lents URA already has money earmarked for small business development. That budget should not be reduced to ZERO in order to subsidize Merritt Paulson's stadium.
13
So I take it Portland Lover,

a) You admit you don't live in Lents

b) You are using anectodal evidence of a highly biased reporting of 30 people at a Neighborhood meeting as evidence that Lents opposes this effort? Just wanted to get that straight.

c) Walker Stadium is only available for people who want to pay for it. It costs $53.08 per a hour to rent it. While not outrageous that is a cost that makes it unavailable to most folks who want to just bat a ball around in the park on a Sunday.

d) Despite your best efforts to paint it otherwise $42 million will not be going to "Merritt Paulson". It would go to the City of Portland to contract out to build Beavers Ballpark 100% owned by the City of Portland that will rent the facility 72 times a year to Meritt Paulson.

Is that a good use of Lents URD? I think it is but in the end it is not up to me. That is up to the Lents people to decide (not you, not the Mercury, not Pearl district living Matt Davis) and I will wait to see the result of the Lents URAC.

Your inflammatory, pseudo populist language unencumbered by the facts is not helpful to the people of Lents or for anyone else for that matter.
14
BlackedOut – please tell me if in the last 11 years that anyone was offered the SAME TERMS as Paulson is getting. i honestly don’t know the answer but suspect that he’s getting a very sweet deal. nobody seems willing or able to answer this question, and i simply don’t have the time to find out for myself.

also, your point #1 above belies your lack of understanding of affordable housing goals, and how URA money is used. it's not necessarily 30% of a single project . it's 30% of the available funds. a project could be 100% affordable housing, all of which would go to meeting the 30% goal.

additionally, there's a large chunk of available funds for economic development that would get eaten up by the new stadium as proposed. that's the kind of stimulus that helps areas like lents to become a 'destination location' as you put it.

Finnegan - you're absolutely correct about that field being a piece of shit. played there many times myself. but to use that as justification for replacing it with a parking lot really is a stretch.

additionally, as note by a few others above, the new stadium (for 7-9 THOUSAND people) will be significantly larger than the current footprint of walker stadium.

and no, i don't live in lents. i live in montavilla. fuck you if you think that means i can't comment on a development of this nature in my city.
15
Finnegan,

I am not using anecdotal evidence. The two meetings actually happened, and the attendees were opposed. I provided two articles that show this to be the case. However, you cited anecdotal evidence in your letter to Nick Fish: "My conversations in the community have indicated that there is more than enough affordable housing in Lents." Are you trying to tell the citizens of Portland that your supposed conversation trump the records of two public meetings?

Walker Stadium is available to the public 365 days a year. Once again, nothing you stated contradicts this fact. The new baseball stadium will not be available to the public 365 days a year as the Beavers will play there and will operate the stadium. I think the citizens of Portland are more than capable of doing the math here.

It is not "psuedo populist" to point out that this is a bad deal for the citizens of Portland. My language is well-encumbered with facts. It is your sad attempts at spin-doctoring which lack facts. I find it hilarious that you even posted that picture of Walker Stadium in hopes of justifying your assertion that the new baseball stadium will be the same size, and that the current grand stands necessitate $42 million plus $13-$29 million worth of upgrades.
16
If it is a real question Blabby I'll answer it:

As a Portland taxpayer my threshold would be when the numbers got too big for the whole venture to succeed. Ive been around this issue for a long time and I point to the original PFE deal as an example of the project not being grounded in reality. They predicted 12,000 a game for the USL Timbers that any of us fans could tell you was absurd. They also were incompetent businessmen who were not part of our community.

Merritt Paulson has proven to be an honest actor since he bought the teams 3 years ago. He caught up on all the past bills and negotiated to get the payments to the City back on track. He hired professional people and turned both clubs around. In short he has earned the trust that he is going to make this whole thing work because his track record to date is very impressive. He strikes me as the opposite of a Paul Allen to be honest.

His numbers for MLS are incredibly modest. He is predicting 15K average a year. I predict we destroy that number.

I also am very comfortable with the bonded money right now because he is backing it with his family's private wealth, not his LLC.

So there is no magic number where I get uncomfortable. I get uncomfortable if general funds are being used and I get really uncomfortable if the amount of money being bonded got so big that no amount of success in the stands could offset them. I think we are really far from that number right now.
17
Crap, this wailing back and forth is annoying. Look, I don't live in Lents, but I do live in Portland. And I can say that this idea of building a stadium in Lents in fucking dumb . . . on just about every level. The only reason it's on the table is to serve as a Randy Leonard vanity project. And since our mayor is neutered (though not literally, obviously) and under Leonard's thumb, it's lasted this long.

Who builds a multi-million dollar Triple A stadium in a blighted section of a city, far removed from downtown? Even if you believe in the dubious "studies" that purport to show the economic benefits of new stadiums, you have to admit that those projects are based on a non-Lentsesque model.

I like baseball, I like soccer and I am not totally opposed to some public subsidies for these things. But building a stadium in Lents? Well that's complete bullshit.
18
BTW - i want to point out that i'm in favor of providing some form of subsidy to build a new stadium for the beavers. lents is, and always will be, a stupid place for it. there are stil other pieces of publically owned land around the city that could be used for this.

i've brought up the expo center before (county land). looking recently at google maps, there is a piece of land adjacent to PIR (city owned) that is used (i think) for overflow parking. it's more than large enough for a stadium and parking. is right next to a new MAX stop and an I-5 interchange. parking could be shared with PIR, and the expo center could provide the rest. and if you're dead set on using URA funding, i almost certain that it's in the interstate URA.

easy.
19
Finnegan,

You don't even know the facts about the man you shill for, nor the team you claim to love so much. Merritt Paulson bought the Timbers 2 years ago in May 2007, not three years ago as you claimed:

http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=2060110…

---

At 6-foot-4 (1.93 meters), Merritt Paulson looks like an ex-jock eager to stay involved. To the contrary, he was short until his senior year in high school and spent most of his time playing tennis and skiing at his grandparents’ chalet in Keystone, Colorado.

“I was a very late bloomer,” Paulson said.

He studied English at Hamilton College in Clinton, New York, before earning an MBA at Harvard. He managed HBO’s on- demand service at Time Warner Inc., then went to work in marketing at the National Basketball Association. He started hunting for a franchise in 2004. Three years later, he bought the Beavers and the Timbers, Portland’s minor league soccer team, and moved his family from New York.

---

Here is the press release from the Timbers web site: http://www.portlandtimbers.com/newsroom/pr…
20
Portland Lover,

1) I don't think you understand the definition of anectodal evidence. A few people speaking up at a meeting is hardly conclusive evidence one way or another. I was AT those meetings. Were you? And the picture was alot more complication than Mirk and Davis in their campaign would like to report. When a straw poll was taken of hands in the room at the last meeting (after 20 or 30 people left) and about 40% were opposed 30% for and the other 30% undecided. Thats not conclusive one way or another. Plus there was no filter for being a member of Lents. I saw one Parks board member raise his hand and I know that guy lives in NW PDX.

2) Do you guys understand the difference between foot print and size? The new stadium will occupy the same footprint as Walker. Of course the stands will go higher and there will be stands all the way around the field (or a picnic zone in the outfield) but its the SAME ACREAGE. Jeebus

Cantona:

I think if you took a poll of soccer players in the region they would be overjoyed for that field to be turned into a parking lot. I know of one guy with a broken leg from the sidewalk on the northside that would lead that charge

The size of the stadium in terms of seating is a little misleading - think 5000 seater and a 2000 seat picnic/grass berm in the outfield.

As for not being able to comment. Of course, comment away but in this case this is URD money that belongs to the folks of Lents. I'm passionate about this project but I've kept my mouth shut at both meetings I have attended because it's not my neighborhood association.
21
MLS timbers in refurbished civic stadium will draw an average of 20k easy. on that i will agree. i also, in general terms, believe that Paulson is operating on the level, and that the soccer portion of this deal is good for the city.

a URA funded baseball stadium in lents is fucking stupid.
22
Finnegan, your claim was that the Walker Stadium grandstands are falling apart, therefore the city is justified in spending $42 million plus $13-$29 million to upgrade Walker Stadium into a new stadium for the Beavers. I countered this claim by stating that the new stadium will be orders of magnitude larger than the current stadium, which you now openly agree with after much hand-wringing. It appears that getting unfiltered facts to come out of your mouth is like pulling teeth.
23
Cantona,

Take your argument up with the Architects and Matt Davis and Sarah Mirk who led an asinine campaign to "save" the Memorial Coliseum and in the process all they did was turn it over to Paul Allen to turn it into a giant fucking Applebees.
24
Finnegan - i've worked in design/construction in this city for 20 years, and i've read and heard enough about this stadium proposal to tell you that it will eat up at least TWICE the land that is currently used for walker stadium. then you need to throw in parking and circulation. more land is eaten up. lots!

my point about the field is that, yes, it sucks now. but there are many ways to repair it and make it safer for paople playing on it, that don't require $42m of public financing.

time to make dinner...
25
OK, one last comment then i need to fire up the barbeque.

count me amongst those rallying to save the MC. that was another monumentally fucking stupid idea. and the fight is far from over. i wont bore everyone with my reasons here, said it too many times already.

my previous point stands - there are other sites in the city that bear looking at beyond what has been discussed already.
26
PortlandLover. You said:

"The grandstands of Walker Stadium are tiny! The entire footprint of this "stadium" is very small compared to the new proposed stadium, which includes parking and offices for the Beavers."

I countered with the simple statement that the footprint of the new stadium and the footprint of Walker would be the same. AND they would take a p.o.s soccer field to the north for parking. Aka at the meeting last Weds I attended they said the offices are gone.

Perhaps we have a different definition of footprint. I define it as the current acreage taken up by the grandstand, field and fence around it (aka where the public can't stroll in).

But whatever, you seem like the type that sees black helicopters and thinks flouride is a mechanism to drug the populace so I suspect everything is a nefarious plot to you.
27
Finnegan, a bit of economics: there is no scenario under which this deal makes economic sense. If it did make economic sense, he wouldn't be asking the city for $65 million.

He would be going to investors and saying "look how you will be paid back if you invest $65 million!"

Of course, he can't make that claim, because those millions are simply being sunk into the project by the public. The rent and what not from the sports teams will NOT be paying back this debt.

His backing of the bonded money means nothing unless the city defaults on the debt, a highly unlikely scenario. If we don't default on it, then we're paying for it, and he doesn't have to back crap.

Finally, that's not even what his gauarantee says. Would you guys please PLEASE go back and read the terms of the deal. He's gauranteeing to continue to make rent payments for some amount of time. Those rent payments, while nice, would NOT COVER THE CITY'S DEBT. What he's gaurantee would go towards paying some of that debt, but it would not cover it.

You guys really have to get clear on this: this is not some business deal in which the city is going to make back $65 million with profits. This is Paulson asking the taxpayer to sink that money into facilities for his private businesses. The rent will NOT pay back this amount of debt, anymore than the Timbers and Beavers are currently paying back the debt on the last PGE remodel. We're paying the vast majority of that. Not ticket prices and fees.
28
Hah, black helicopters. I don't see a nefarious plot. Rather I see (and know this from first-hand experience with the Timbers Army) a bunch of bumbling drunk duddards attempting to appear intelligent in public while defending a bad deal for the public. This deal is bad for the citizens of Portland, including Lents. The Lents neighborhood is opposed, three commissioners are opposed, the Parks Board is opposed, economists who study these types of stadium deals are opposed ... the list goes on. I don't want this debacle to be associated with the Portland Timbers. It is an embarrassment and will forever tarnish our reputation. We can make the MLS work for us in better ways that don't hurt the city. One option is the continue to use PGE Park for both the Timbers and Beavers, as we have done successfully for the last 9 seasons. I also believe we need a new owner who understands and cares about Portland.
29
"This is Paulson asking the taxpayer to sink that money into facilities for his private businesses. The rent will NOT pay back this amount of debt, anymore than the Timbers and Beavers are currently paying back the debt on the last PGE remodel. We're paying the vast majority of that. Not ticket prices and fees."

Blabby that is simply not true. Call up Dave Lodgson from the city and ask him if a single cent of general fund dollars have ever gone to pay on PGE? Even in the darkest days of 03 on that deal the taxpayers were protected.

And your right rent alone doesn't cover it but the payment from the spectators facilities fund does. And how does it do that? Ticket taxes, car rental taxes, parking revenue from Rose Garden. If you rent a car, go to a game and park then you can count yourself as "we are paying" but otherwise you are dead wrong on that.

Also you are right - Merritt agreed to guarantee bond payments for 25 years. Why 25 years? Well that is the time estimated to pay back these loans. You have a 30 year mortgage. Guess why it is called a 30 year mortgage.

As for the memo of "pay for it himself with investors!". Merritt doesn't own PGE Park. He cant get investment in a property he doesn't own. If the city were willing to share a portion of ownership in that property you bet your ass he would have investors lined up but the city aint selling so there is nothing to invest in.

Again with the RQ and Lents - the city isnt selling that land therefore there is nothing for him to invest in other than just handing the Portland City council cash to invest in the building (like he did with the RQ) as an incentive to approve a deal.
30
Finnegan, the Paulsons are perfectly capable of purchasing private land and building a stadium with private money. Just because the city won't sell PGE Park to them does not preclude them of this option.
31
Portland lover I am willing to put up my experience, education and knowledge of this and many other public policy issues to yours and I will guarantee you that you don't hold a candle.

As for your various other "facts" about opposition - keep on believing those things. Please do.

And if you think that the Beavers and Timbers have been "successful in PGE Park" for the past 9 years than you have once again displayed your ignorance of everything related to this issue and I shall now ignore your comments here on out.

Can't argue with crazy and stupid. I can deal with one or the other.
32
And then what Portland Lover? The Beavers and Timbers leave PGE Park and.......guess what? The Portland Taxpayers are on the hook for a stadium that is completely empty and has monthly payments to be made on it.

What would we do with a giant empty stadium in downtown Portland?

Okay, really. Read up and learn on this issue before you comment.
33
The Timbers are profitable at PGE Park under the current circumstances. That is a fact.

You are also playing the fear card. "What if the Timbers and Beavers move?" If they do, it is because the Paulsons were bad and spiteful owners. They are making a profit right now. There is no reason to move the teams.
34
Can you even remember your last comment?

You were the one who brought up the idea that Paulson could build a private stadium and leave PGE Park.

And the Beavers are not profitable at PGE and the Timbers have only become profitable under Paulson and if they stayed in the USL would be the only team on the West Coast in 2011 thus incurring a huge financial burden.
35
"Merritt agreed to guarantee bond payments for 25 years"

No he hasn't. He has not agreed to "guarantee bonds." That is just mistaken. You don't know what you're talking about.
36
FYI Finnegan - this is from Don Mazziotti:

"Based on preliminary studies, we think the total footprint of the facility, including parking, is about 14 acres out of a 38-acre park. The current stadium uses about 5 acres. We think 30-40 mature trees will be lost, but they will be replaced as possible."

comments?
37
Jeremy Wright is driving back to Clackamas, at the moment, but will be right back to irate spouting, presently.
38
The Timbers are profitable right now at PGE Park.

The Paulsons are also fully capable of purchasing private land and building their own stadium.

How are these two statements contradictory? There are merely factual statements.

Right now, the only west coast team we have in the USL with us is Vancouver. We play them once in Vancouver. That's it. Are you trying to tell us that if somehow we remained in the USL, that the loss of that one bus trip to Vancouver will bankrupt the Timbers?

You are playing the fear card, trying to scare soccer fans. The Timbers are in no danger of going bankrupt, and we are already in the MLS anyways. We have tons of leverage. We don't need to kick the Beavers out of PGE Park. It's as simple as that.

If the Timbers left town, it would be because the Paulsons were spiteful, plain and simple. They are currently profitable, they have leverage with the MLS, and even if they stayed in the USL they would still be profitable. There is no reason to leave town, and there is no reason to kick the Beavers out of PGE Park. There is also no reason why the Paulsons can't purchase private land and build their own stadium if they find the current situation at PGE Park unworkable for whatever fabricated reason.

I am very unhappy with the Paulsons as our owners. I feel they are trying to pull the wool over our eyes and use soccer fans as tools to force this plan through. It sickens me. Timbers fans should not be used as tools by these people. They have only owned the team for two years, yet many of us fans have been around since 1975. Who are they to come into town and try to hoodwink us? I will have none of it. We need a better owner. Please, someone local step up and buy the Timbers from these goons.
40
a) I live in Portland and have for 16 years what about you?

b) Cantona - when did you get that quote? I am going on what they said to us at the neighborhood association meeting the other night. They were asked three times and they said that the footprint of the stadium would match the footprint of Walker. Plus the rugby/soccer field for parking. Leonard also said they cut the planned parking spaces from 1000 to 200 and the original Beavers offices have gone away as well. Thats all what they said at the meeting.

c) Portland Lover you are so not a Timbers fan. Don't even try to fool anyone. I'll start with an easy one - who missed the last PK against Atlanta in the 2007 playoffs? No google for you. Real fan knows that off the top of their head. Fan since 1976. Hah!
41
Finnegan:

http://blogs.wweek.com/news/2009/05/18/gre…

i've lived here for 45 years, does that mean i win something?
42
Cantona - I was responding to the attack higher up about me heading back to Clackamas. Not you. They can say whatever you want about me but don't be saying I live in fracking Clackamas.

It appears that the project scope is shrinking or at least its footprint is getting smaller. See my comments above about the meeting versus this article.
43
Finnegan - i can only deal with what's in front of me. i've seen or heard nothing about the project shrinking, but that's good news. let's get it down to $15m or so. that'd be really sweet. but i'll believe it when i see it.

tell me this: did you read my idea regarding building the stadium at the overflow parking are at PIR? does this not make more sense than lents?
44
"parking AREA'. oops.
45
OK...so I drove out to Lents today to check it out. Charles Walker Stadium does not have free access to the public as Portland Lover says. In fact I took a picture of the sign strapped to the fence that says so. You can get access through permit, but I assume there is a fee associated. It so happens I have a good friend who rents out parks for a living so I'll find out what the prices are for us of Walker Stadium then. Today there was an all-star game going on for some 15 year olds. I'm sure they have no trouble hitting the 348 foot right field homers or maybe a 360 foot blast to center field. There are no bathrooms available at the field that flush. The lady who was working concessions said she didn't remember the last time she saw the bathrooms open. There were two Honey Buckets. They did not smell like honey and the stuff smeared on the walls of one of them definitely wasn't honey.

The soccer fiend Finnegan talks about is awful. It's not level by any means and it is noticably higher on one end than the other, the ground is so full of holes it would be rough not to sprain an ankle when you're running. The side of the field is roughly 8 feet from the street on 2 sides of the field. He's not kidding either...it's a busy intersection. The grass is dead or dying in many parts of the field. The two other soccer fields that won't be affected are trashed as well. One has set goal posts that are about the quality of PVC pipe set into the ground with concrete. I shook it and I thought the top was going to come off. The other field is a travesty. It only has grass on about 65% of the field.

The rest of the park that wouldn't be affected was pretty nice although a little underused for 5:30pm on a really nice day. It's in walking distance of the New Copper Penny if anyone is in the mood for rubbing elbows with the neighbors. I imagine the Beavers would do a lot to improve the rest of the park as well. Those soccer fields need a hell of a lot of help. The ruts and holes in all of them were bad. It was uncomfortable for me to walk around on them in tennis shoes. I can't imagine cleats would be much better.

Since it's pretty obvious most of you haven't bothered to go out to Lents Park to see this "treasure" here are the pictures I took.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/38810939@N04/…
46
Finnegan, was it Lawrence Olum?

BlackedOut, the public currently has access to Walker Stadium 365 days a year. That is a fact. Nice attempt there at spinning what I said. Anyone is free to get a permit. If the new baseball stadium is built, the Beavers will play there and operate the stadium.

I think it's funny that you drove to Lents Park thinking you were going to refute something I never said by taking a few pictures. Thank you for this picture, though: http://www.flickr.com/photos/38810939@N04/… It shows the dilapidated grandstand that Finnegan keeps referring to. Does it cost $42 million plus $13-$29 million to repair that grandstand? I don't think so.
47
The public can rent Walker Stadium yes. The Parks can decide who uses the park and at what cost. Since the city will own any baseball stadium at Lents Park and would be the landlord I'm sure something could be worked out to let the kiddies play some games at the park much like what is going on with PGE now. When I lived in Salt Lake they had a program where they would do that with Franklin Covey field.

Also...I didn't drive to Lents to refute anything. I drove there to get an idea of what was going to be eliminated or changed and to see the conditions of the park first hand. I saw a park that needs a lot of work. I imagine having the Beavers there would allow for them to help out a lot in the other areas of the park that need a lot of work. Nothing will go to fix Lents Park if this doesn't happen. Nobody could be naive enough to think that killing this deal is going to turn Lents into the "treasure" Nick Fish thinks it is.
48
BlackedOut, we are supposed to trust your "assurance" that something can be worked out "to let the kiddies play some games" at the stadium? What arrogance. Those "kiddies" should be a higher priority than the Paulsons. The Beavers will take up 72 summer dates on top of whatever special events the Paulsons will use the stadium for to generate more personal profit, such as concerts. How many more summer days will remain for the public? Do the math.

It is disingenuous to continue to suggest that this new baseball stadium that will be built for the Beavers will somehow be a public stadium akin to what currently sits in Lents Park.

Walker Stadium is barely a "stadium". Your own pictures prove it. The dilapidated grandstands can easily be replaced by the bleachers that flank it. There is no need to build an entirely new stadium at the cost of $42 million plus $13-$29 million, a stadium that will be closed off from the public at least for most of the summer, and likely will not be as available to the public on the rest of the days as it is now. The "kiddies" don't need a fancy boutique stadium. They merely need an upgraded Walker Stadium.

Why will nothing go to fix Lents Park if Paulson's plan doesn't happen? Is there a law in place right now that prevents the city from spending any money on Lents Park unless Paulson gets his stadium? No. Rather than spending $13-$29 million from the general fund to replace the stolen park land, why don't we spend a fraction of that to fix the Walker Stadium grandstand and call it good?
49
Blackedout drives out to Lents park, shockingly concludes it's a dump, and announces that its ready for redevelopment.

Nice to see you have as much regard for the people who actually live there as Randy does.
50
Bad idea. Not only will it change a community park forever, it will change the neighborhoods for the worse.

Traffic,and crowds will turn our quiet neighborhoods into kaos. Take is somewhere else..

what lents needs is for the City Council to step up policing and help us clean up our neighborhood..not bury us under a baseball stadium.

51
If anyone has had any luck with any of these companies, could you please post it for the ones that cannot find one to work with you. We've almost lost once and just got a second chance that want last long so I need to get something done now, so if anyone knows the right number to call, i am sure a lot of people that hasn't found them would appreciate it but check out http://obamamortgage2009.blogspot.com or obamamortgage2009.blogspot.com


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.