I thought you had recused yourself from the story due to the fact your wife works for the company involved in the study. You still haven't put up any facts that your wife wasn't involved in said study and that you knew nothing about it.

Come on Matt. At least make an effort.

@ BlackedOut
Since you have one interest (and one interest only, which is making sure the MLS deal goes through), why don't you recuse yourself from commenting on this story? (Would that be because then you wouldn't get your weekly stipend from Paulson?)

@WTF Chuck

I love how you (and others) think anyone that is for MLS is paid by Merritt. It's funny.

I live in Lents. The folks I talk with are discourage that Lents Economic development funding will be going to a project with a net negative economic impact. Some folks are concerned about parking issues, a number of people have mentioned the number of drunks leaving the ball park when they have beer discount night, and some people are very upset that their property taxes will be going to subsidizes some millionaire's baseball team instead of improving the Lents community.

A few seasonal part-time minimum wage jobs selling beer and hot dogs or cleaning up after the games do not make up for the loses.

Can we all at least agree on the need for a geniune in-depth third-party study of the costs and benefits of this deal? It's just prudent.

Blackedout, you'd support that right? Since it would no doubt support your position, right?

The mayor's office says it ruled that out two weeks ago, because such a study would take up to a month.

In other words, it'd be half-way done by now.

But the mayor has also started, as of this Tuesday, telling people that this facility is not about economics. "It's about an amenity."

Sure, it's not about economics, any more.

Blabby - I take it then that you would support a genuine in-depth third-party study of the costs and benefits of the (much more expensive) transport bill the legislature passed yesterday then, which you support? Including the bit where they give no money to bike infrastructure, despite the fact that (due to reduced road damage and maintenance) supporting cycling is more cost effective than repairing roads for cars?

Yeah, I'm being a bit facetious, but my point is: there's so many people giving hypocritical opinions on the stadium issue it's ridiculous. Have a think about what your priorities are, state them, and stick to them. If your priorities are different from mine, that's fine, so long as people know where you're coming from.

Matt and the other Mercury staff's position - that funding sports is stupid but funding arts is acceptable - is hypocritical. Others on here (and especially on a couple of other sites) think that spending on transport infrastructure, to create short-term jobs, is perfect right now, but spending on other infrastructure like the stadium to create short-term jobs is wrong - that's hypocritical. And there's plenty of people who think all politicians are self-serving idiots with the exception of the ones who happen to agree with their point of view at the time - that's hypocritical.

It may not be as annoying as the Davis-style selective-quoting and selective-evidence-presenting, or as intensely irritating as people assuming all the evidence favoring their point of view is valid and all the evidence favoring the other point of view is invalid (PortlandLover / Finnegan, I'm looking at both of you...), but hypocrisy in opinions is the only thing that ensures that 100% of your statements should be ignored.

all i know is that i'm 100% in favor of keeping subsidized hypocrisy out of lents!

that, and that Stu just made my head hurt.

Stu - I would welcome a genuine in-depth third-party study of the costs and benefits of the (much more expensive) transport bill.

The economic benefits provided by a well-functioning road system dwarf the benefits of trains and bikes to such an extent it isn't really comparable. Economically, cars and bikes are not even playing on the same field. Not even the same sport.

Dear Stu

Spending money on infrastructure, such as roads used to transport goods, people and products, is necessary for our economy. If we let the roads go to hell we will see increased cost in travel time and vehicle maintenance. This will make goods and services more expensive.

Spending money on a ball park to subsidize a millionaire during economically challenging times might be considered a luxury.

The side that has been claiming the ball park is an economic investment might be considered hypocritical or just another Sam Adams lie.

Stu: "Including the bit where they give no money to bike infrastructure,"

Patently false. 1% of all road funds must be spent on bike infrastructure. That's been on the books for decades. Not increasing something does not equal cutting it.

Stu, what specifically is my hypocrisy?

I would rather that $42 million be spent on road projects or social services because I think they're more useful to the community than AAA baseball. Where is the hypocrisy?

The main problem with this deal is there has been no connection made between how successful AAA baseball is as a business (not very), and a public investment of $42 million. The reasoning seems to be "that's how much it will cost, so...."

Why don't we actually try to attach that $42 million figure to something concrete? The revenue the team generates perhaps. Maybe the jobs and income provided to people who work there.

There's been no credible effort to explain how $42 million and the Beavers go together. One gets the feeling that if the stadium was projected to cost $70 million, they'd be plowing ahead exactly as they are now. $100 million?

Where is the line when a sane person says "But the Beavers AAA baseball team isn't worth $X million dollars?" For me it's quite a bit lower than $42 million.

GLV, not to mention the fact that roads ARE bike infrastructure.

Blabby - whether it's hypocrisy or not depends on why you support various things. I had assumed from your previous postings, possibly incorrectly, that part of the reason you support the road bill is that it will create jobs. That's certainly one of the main ways the legislature are selling it to us. Yet the stadium will also create very similar jobs; so to support one on that reasoning and not the other would be hypocrisy.

Also, if you support the roads bill because it will reduce the number of potholes / badly maintained roads, yet you oppose the stadium as being a luxury, then that's also hypocrisy. Having roads can be considered essential; having smooth roads is a luxury, it's nice but it's not necessary to transport goods or people. Some of the highway bill money is for things that would be classed as essential (like fixing the Sellwood Bridge), but much of it isn't. Paving a neighborhood street will benefit far fewer people than building a stadium...

Now, if the reason you support the roads bill is that your top priority is to be able to drive everywhere quicker, then that's not hypocrisy. I think it would be misguided (especially since increasing the bike funding will reduce congestion and future road maintenance and hence actually speed up commute-by-car times); but it wouldn't be hypocritical of you.

That's why I'm asking you to state your principles, not just your resultant opinions. Because then people can decide whether or not they agree with your principles, and decide whether your opinions are consistent with them (and with themselves), and judge them accordingly.


For example:
One of my principles is that in this economy, spending on luxuries without obvious and immediate economic benefits should be delayed / canceled. So I support renovating PGE Park for MLS, because it will make more money for the city (short and long term), and more short term jobs, than the status quo. But I oppose building a baseball stadium right now; I think it should either be delayed (and have a couple of Beaver-less years) or canceled altogether (and send them to Salem / Gresham or elsewhere). I also oppose spending vast amounts of money right now on the CRC, which I think should at very least have all work on it postponed a couple of years. And for the next year or two I oppose resurfacing roads just because they're a bit bumpy.

Stu, where to start?

"Also, if you support the roads bill because it will reduce the number of potholes / badly maintained roads, yet you oppose the stadium as being a luxury, then that's also hypocrisy"

Even you don't believe that one. You're just throwing crap at the wall....

"One of my principles is that in this economy, spending on luxuries without obvious and immediate economic benefits should be delayed / canceled."

After which you go on to say you support MLS, but not resurfacing roads. What is your definition of a "luxury" Stu.

You guys really have to get over this one:

"So I support renovating PGE Park for MLS, because it will make more money for the city (short and long term)"

The city will not make ANY money on renovating PGE park. The rent and ticket fees will not be sufficient to cover the debt. That debt will be subsidized by the Spectator's Fund (i.e. the Rose Garden, and the Blazers). PGE Park and MLS will never be a money maker for the city.

If you want to argue that MLS is cool enough for the community that we should subsidize it that's one thing, but the claim that it will make money for the City is bunk, and to claim that it isn't a luxury is in the "stop insulting our intelligence" category.

Totally agree with Stu. Well said.

At this point after reading Blabby's comments I'm even more convinced that Blabby may actually be Jack Bogdanski himself.

Blackedout, why don't you actually respond to my points instead?

How about my suggestion for a detailed third-party analysis of the cost and benefits? Do you support that? What harm could possibly come from having as many facts as possible?

I asked you the other day: how much public cost would be too much? Would you still support it if it were $75 million? $100 million?

You were unable answer that one either. Not holding my breath.

I'm waiting blackedout....

[Tumbleweeds roll by]

Perhaps Sam is finding himself on firmer footing, in the light of recent performance reviews and the fizzling of the recall campaign? Is he trying to pull the hand out of his ass?

It'll be interesting to see what happens if Kroger says there's no case.

Im just curious how Matt Davis one day says he is recusing himself and the next day writes about the very same thing he was recusing himself from. I'm also curious how you found out about the report in the first place. Perhaps a well placed source at EcoNW? Hmmmmmmmm.

My first choice was always the MC for the baseball stadium but we let a few angry architects derail that project. I have said all along that I will defer on this to the people of Lents. I have been very consistent on this point and appreciate that Randy, Sam and Dan are as well. This is their URD and their community. It really is up to them. I think this is a great deal for a area that hasn't seen and will not see an investment like this for a good while but it is their decision in the end.