Fritz seems to be nothing more than a do nothing Dr. No. If she had her way, nothing would get done in this city.

"I do have concerns about the cost, the sources of funds and the alternate uses for those funds," said Fritz.

-All of which was carefully explained by Steve Janik last week. You remember, you were reading the paper at the time.

"What else could we do with over $29million?"

-$29 million in limited use spectator funds. What else could we do?

"For over 100 years, Portland has had a professional sports facility that has supported baseball. The Beavers' season will end at the end of 2010, and that is sad."

-The Beavers didn't move into PGE Park until the 1950's, as has been well documented. Prior to that, it had been used for grayhound racing and athletics. Far be it for one lazy, ignorant transplant to correct another lazy, ignorant transplant about the actual history of the city, right?

"Soccer fans must recognize that their joy comes at significant cost to basketball, hockey, and soccer fans,"

-Amanda Fritz still hasn't realized that soccer fans are baseball, hockey and basketball fans. And what is that "significant cost"? Or is that too boring of a question to ask?

"The spectator fund would be in better shape if PGE Park sat empty for the next 20 years, than in developing a project that cannot possibly pay for itself,"

-Sensible. Let's have a fund that can never be utilized because we leave our stadiums empty. Now I know why she's considered to have such a keen financial mind.

But you know, well done to you for twice as many pull out quotes from the one dissenter than the four voting aye. JOURNALISM!

Great job, Daaaaave.

"I don't think it's appropriate to say taxpayer dollars are at risk when they're not funding this project," said City Commissioner Randy Leonard, responding to Fritz's remarks. "It's harmful to the public debate to make arguments that play into peoples' worst fears."

Translation, "It's harmful to the public debate to express an opinion contrary to my own."

Taxpayers dollars ARE AT RISK on this deal. We're in the process right now of taking out a $12 million line of credit with BofA that is backed by the full faith and credit of the general fund. This is a fact. It is in writing.

I'm sorry if that fact is inconvienent to Leonard or the Timbers Army, but it is an absolute fact. You should maybe do some follow up on it, Matt.

Kinda sad we have to wait another three long years until Fritz is out of office.

Good job by the others on Council. It was a no-brainer to anyone not wearing tin foil on their head, but still, well done.

If it's such a safe investment and such a sure bet why doesn't Paulson use private money to make the investment?

If it's such a total loss, why doesn't the City just sell PGE Park to Paulson?

I wish just one soccer supporter here had the balls or integrity to answer my point about the line of credit being secured by the general fund....

Everything in the Spectator Fund ultimately ends up being backed by the General Fund. Ooh, I'm just shivering with fear that the Spectator Fund is going to become exhausted and unable to be replenished.

@Blabby

Why don't you take it back to your blog or are you just mad nobody is commenting over there?

But Peter "I want my 2 inches" Apanel comments over there. Unfortunately, I no longer can. *cry*

I'll bite, Blabby. The LoC & full faith bit was the one part Fritz actually liked as it means the CoP will be less likely to require the issue of high interest zero coupon bonds after construction. The City's liability will be paid off years ahead of the previous schedule w/ significantly less interest paid. The payments will still come from the spectator fund. Pay attention. Or does this work against your narrative?

I'm outraged. $200 million dollars in state bonds for an arena, with no protection for taxpayers if revenue falls short of what's needed to pay off the bonds? A true sham. Thanks to Matt for his vigilant, honest and unbiased reporting on this risky venture.

I do find it interesting that Fritz's language creates some sort of dichotomy between Timbers fans (europhiliac/hipster/bougie/creative class/young/not really portlanders) with Blazers fans (old/stodgy/working class/"true" portlanders), specifically stating that "blazer fans" (the rest of us) are going to be paying for a project that only serves an elite few. While i disagree with Fritz' votes on occasion (specifically this one), I generally appreciate the watchdog role she's been playing on government. But this is absurd, and her use of populist language almost feels like she's waging some sort of cultural war by voting against it.

Rose City 'Til I Die! In five years, when the Timbers are routinely selling out the stadium in the warm days of summer and have become a significant civic institution in the city, we'll be happy we made such a minimal investment (check out what Vancouver's new team is asking for a stadium) for such a fantastic addition to our community.

Ahh...it would be so nice if we were having this discussion of how teachers in this city work without textbooks and basic supplies, not to mention WITH YEARS OF PAY CUTS FREEZES AND TWO YEARS WITHOUT A CONTRACT, class size in Oregon is the highest in the nation, college tuition continues to rise and makes higher education unaffordable for many....but ahhh...I'll say it non-stop: education does NOT MATTER IN OUR CULTURE. Instead, let's just spend money on sports, while we have a homeless problem that continues to grow, cuts in essential services....

...but hey, let's go borrow more money so everyone can cheer at a soccer game---like the post says: IF THIS WAS SUCH A GREAT DEAL, why isn't Paulson doing it himself?

Where are the tea party baggers when you need them!!! No "socialized" health care, but "socialized sports"???

You go, Amanda Fritz, keep asking tough questions, because a majority of people in this city are not jumping on this train....

This deal has absolutely zero impact on school funding or "essential" services. Even dishonest reporters like Davis and Beth Slovic have admitted as much. Welcome to the debate 16 months ago.

We need jobs. Not beer seller jobs but real, living wage, long term jobs. Using the city's $$ to build a MLS venue instead of investing it in our city's people and small business is just so wrong. Wounder how many of the Timbers Army are unemployed? Wounder how many would prefer a living wage job to season tickets to the the Timbers?

I wounder many things...

Maybe the city will lend me some money so I can buy a new computer with a better spell check.

Computers can't fix stupid. They only enable you to share it with us all.

I can appreciate a watchdog that understands how the city functions and how it is structured. I don't appreciate a watchdog that is ignorant and stupid to the fact on basic financial functions of the city she is supposed to help run. There was a young kid who understood the spectator fund better than Fritz at one of the meetings. She is an example of how not to run a city by being completely clueless about the every function of the city council.

"WITH YEARS OF PAY CUTS FREEZES AND TWO YEARS WITHOUT A CONTRACT"

The spectator facility fund money, which is paying for this, can't be used for teacher wages. It can only be used on the city's spectator facilities. But hey why bother with actually knowing what you're screaming about, Anon? I can suggest several street corners where you can stand and scream, "but the children and the potholes," all day long.

Spectator fund vs teachers, let me explain it to you in one sentence:

They could easily pass a tax on stadiums in the town and give the money to the schools, if they told people it wasn't going to raise ticket prices because they were going to lower the required payments into the spectators fund.

> If it's such a safe investment and such a sure bet why doesn't Paulson use private
> money to make the investment?

He is. He is buying the team and renting the stadium. What, you expect a tenant to remodel the city's stadium for free out of the goodness of his heart? If so can you contact me about renting my house?

> We need jobs. Not beer seller jobs but real, living wage, long term jobs. Using the
> city's $$ to build a MLS venue instead of investing it in our city's people and small
> business is just so wrong. ... Wounder how many would prefer a living wage job to
> season tickets to the the Timbers?

There is so much stupid in that paragraph, let me pretend you have a point and try to respond. 1) The city is subsidizing a living wage so those beer-sellers are pretty good jobs. 2) Improvements to a city-owned facility is pretty much the definition of investing in our city. 3) All the folks that buy season tix will be helping create new jobs for all the folks that work at PGE Park, the sports clinic and the soccer team.

@Jack Acid: "Kinda sad we have to wait another three long years until Fritz is out of office."

I feel the same way about Randy! And I'm super excited to pay even more money to watch a blazers game, so it will help pay for a stadium I'll never go to again. YIPPY!

Awesome idea! I'm sure the $2 million/year raised would be all the money the schools need and then assuming you had enough currently in the reserves to pay off bond issuances we could still watch PGE Park, the Rose Garden and the Memorial Coliseum suffer from a lack of basic maintenance projects which also come out of the fund.

Have you considered running for public office? You appear to have that sharp eye for financial detail that Fritz has.

Matthew, let me explain it in one sentence: You don't make any sense.

yeahThatsRight, you need to provide a link with information about increased contributions that will be required from the Blazers org under this plan. Can't just make stuff up that's Matt's job.

"And I'm super excited to pay even more money to watch a blazers game"

There is already a 6% tax on Blazer games that goes to the spectator facility fund. The only way the Blazers ticket price is going to go up is when Paul Allen and the Vulcans jack up the price when the Blazers are competing year in and out to be in the championship.

@Matthew D

You could do what you propose - contribute less to the spectator facility fund and shift some of that to the schools. Unfortunately it would be the nail in the coffin as far as the Blazers are concerned when their lease is up in 2025. Considering Paul Allen's health these days I don't know that we can count on him being a happy camper in 15 years and paying for another arena out of his own pocket.

When reading commentary on court opinions for my education and now job, I've always found it amusing to read an article or a post that focuses most of the attention on what one or two dissenters write out of the nine actual jurists writing the majority (controlling) opinion. Not always true in 5-4 decisions, maybe not in 6-3 decisions, but 7-2 or 8-1 cases are almost always in line with this theory. A professor of mine once pointed out that it was usually most interesting to read these kinds of dissents because, when you're dealing with a lone jurist left jousting at windmills, the gloves come off and the dissenters are not really burdened by logic or reason anymore -- that's where the fireworks and excitement were.

But the real honest writing -- the one forged by the fire of actual intellect and critical analysis -- was almost always contained in the majority opinion. It might not be as exciting, and it might not make the greatest headlines, and it might actually cause you to *think* in order to understand what is being said, but the majority opinion is where you would find the true depth and discussion of the issue. Where you can turn to in order to truly understand the issue.

So when I saw that this "journalist" (stifled laughter) failed to actually capture the end result of today's vote in his headline (!), and spent the large majority of his time focusing on the lone dissenter's opinion in a five-person vote, I had to laugh. You really can't much more intellectually bankrupt or analytically dishonest than that. It does make for an exciting headline, and the quotes are better, guaranteed! Good work, fine sir! Another day's work done.

(I almost wish I hadn't given this little secret away. I'm guessing a lightbulb just went on over this "journalist's" (laughter) head -- "Aha! A shortcut! Just write what the dissent or minority voter says, and the piece writes itself! That's gold right there.")

"In the mean time I hope every Timbers fan will hug a Blazers fan, because those are the people who will really pay for this."

I guess I need to go hug myself, because I am a fan of both.

Or wait, am I the only one who follows more than one sport?

The two things wrong with my idea apparently are:

The amount of money that could be spent on education from the spectators fund is too small to actually fix the schools, so therefor we shouldn't even try. (Do you use the same logic in your personal life: I shouldn't give money to Mercy Corps because there are a lot of people in Hati that need supplies and I can't contribute that much?)

Contributing less to the spectators fund is somehow different than raiding the fund to pay for pet projects.

Fascinating.

@curds and gravy:

This is the Portland Mercury. We report on Portland issues. Also, I don't report on the activities of my wife. That would be, er, well. It would be a conflict of interest, don't you think?

Still: If Merritt Paulson were willing to write a $100million check, like Phil Knight did, then I might be a little more inclined to support his idea. But Phil Knight isn't related to Satan. So there's also THAT difference.

Yes, charitable organizations and single purpose funds created from revenues generated from activities those funds would pay into are largely identical, you got me there. You seem to lack the reading comprehension to understand you'd try to fix something with a patch that wouldn't nearly be large enough while robbing the funds from a source which keeps City owned buildings in good working order. This is called "counterproductive".

So, since this is your plan, how much does the Spectator Fund take in per year? How much would you propose to divert into the schools? What impact would this have on the Fund's ability to pay down existing bond issuances? If your scheme bankrupted the Fund, wouldn't this transfer debt repayment and maintenance onto to General Fund, something tough fiscal hawks like yourself purport to want to avoid?

Or were you just talking out of your ass?

And with that, and with all feelings of cordial cheer to Blabby, Peter Apanel, Davis, and Davis's favorite toady Matthew, I'm off to an MLS celebration party where Merritt and I shall be lighting up our Cuban cigars with $100 bills and laughing about how Paulson putting $10 million of his own money into a facility he's only renting is the greatest debacle in Portland since ever. SINCE EVER.

@Timbers Militia

Hi, bright. God bored while BigSoccer was down?

"The atmosphere at a Timbers game is the best fun I've had in this city for $11... These people are fun... And better still, none of it is choreographed. It all has the spontaneous feel of, I don't know, civic pride? ... The next game is on Saturday night. You should probably give some thought to being there."

Gotta get me one of them beer selling jobs so I can buy me a house. What is that - 27 games a year - four hours of selling time a game - that is one hell of a living wage job! Does it have health insurance too?

@Da3ave: I've got a single purpose fund in my own life: Beer money. Yet I still manage to divert money out of it to pay the occasional phone bill. You seem to have the phone company confused with the beer supplier, when that isn't important at all, what is important is my personal budget. That is what we are talking about here: City revenue, earmarked or not, is still city revenue. That is the point, it can (and should,) be moved around to where it does the greatest good.

If you can tell me how we can keep the Colosseum from falling down/bankrupting the city/whatever else you are yammering about by REMODELING PGE PARK SO THAT IT SUPPORTS A DIFFERENT SPORT, let me know, but it certainly doesn't seem like it would be any worse for that building/the fund/etc than just giving the money to the schools.

And you are right, the schools need more than this money to be truly fixed, but a few (or few million) dollars does help the schools a little, a concept that many organizations are founded upon. Here is one: http://www.thinkschools.org/
(Come to think of it, I saw quite a few elected officials at last year's fundraising dinner. Sam Adams was in the audience and the butt of many of the jokes and there were half a dozen state reps in the audience. Robert Liberty was on stage. And Sho Dozono was sitting at my table. Huh, all those people seem to be confused about how to help schools too.)

"The atmosphere at a Timbers game is the best fun I've had in this city for $11... These people are fun... And better still, none of it is choreographed. It all has the spontaneous feel of, I don't know, civic pride? ... The next game is on Saturday night. You should probably give some thought to being there." - Matt Davis

Soccer's eventual entrenchement in this country is moving at a slow, deliberate pace and it is irreversable. But it is still somewhat at the thin end of the wedge. This pathetic women is not yet aware if this. Nor are most other people. 30 years from now, her comments will resonate somewhat like George Wallace's of the 60's.

"but it certainly doesn't seem like it would be any worse for that building/the fund/etc than just giving the money to the schools."

Except for those fancy parking garages that were built years ago for the Rose Quarter. The bonds they used were backed by the spectator facility fund. They're still paying off those bonds. If You start taking money from the spectator fund you start backing those bonds with the general fund along with a whole list of other stuff. The spectator fund was created to protect the general fund. It's not as simple as saying it's all city revenue and they can divvy it out wherever they need to. Banks don't tend to agree with that and it wrecks your city's credit rating.

The city is taking all the risk here. Not only is the line of credit being taken out with the general fund, but Paulson is paying the rent up front. Not too bad a deal, except that the line of credit is on the city and the only income from the stadium is being paid in one lump sum. The interest on the line of credit still has to be paid, but since we won't be collecting rent from Paulson, the interest will be paid by the city.

Where does this money come from? The spectator fund. Which, of course, is funded by taxes off the Blazers ticket sales. So, that's where Blazer fans end up paying for the stadium. It'd be real nice if that money could be used for other things, but Merritt needs his sandbox.

The real issue is, what happens when the lease is up on the Rose Garden for the Blazers. That's 2025, before the soccer stadium is paid off. If the Blazers leave town (and it could happen, it happened to Seattle), then the city is going to really take it. Because then the city still has to pay the loan, but it'll have to pull money from the rest of the city instead of the spectator fund.

Of course, this all makes huge assumptions that the MLS stays in business and that the Timbers stay in business, and that the Timbers are good enough to draw. But hey, there's no risk. None at all.

"If the Blazers leave town (and it could happen, it happened to Seattle), then the city is going to really take it."

Sure it could happen, but the chances of that happening are slim. Here is my prediction for 2025. If Mr. Allen is alive in 2025 he's going to be 73. Unfortunately the truth is Allen has had better days health wise. It doesn't really matter if he's around or not. In 2025 the Rose Garden will be 30 years old, which is about the lifespan of an arena. Whomever owns the team at the time isn't going to shell out $200+ million of their own money to build a new arena like Allen did last time. When this happens there may be someone that wants to play to most everyone's fears like Fritz does and scream about the children and the potholes is but they'll be trampled by the Blazer fans stampeding to city hall to demand the city give whomever owns the Blazers whatever they want and city hall will.

It's just like now. The Blazers are going to get Jumptown because city hall knows how the city feels about the Blazers. In short there isn't an owner in the league that wouldn't want to own a NBA franchise in a city like Portland and as long as the city doesn't mess up their relationship with the owner of that franchise they aren't going anywhere.

"In 2025 the Rose Garden will be 30 years old, which is about the lifespan of an arena."

I know of exactly one school in Portland that is younger than that. Seriously, our priorities are fucked up.

@Matthew D

You're right. They are. Since you're mentioning it though. How much is it the city's fault? It's not like the City of Portland are the people who are passing No Child Left Behind and then not properly funding it. $11.9 million is a pittance of the city's billion dollar + budget. It's not going to save schools or fix every pot hole. We need a long term fix and complaining about spending money previously designated for spectator facilities isn't the fix.