How to be a Portlander:

1) Demand lots of expensive "process"
2) Get a lot of expensive "process"
3) Declare "process" invalid
4) Demand a new "process"
5) Repeat steps 1 through 4 as many times as necessary
6) Realize that during the "process", the economy and most of the other relevant facts on the ground have changed
7) Stick final report on shelf, ignore

8) Let the Blazers do whatever the hell they want because they have a far higher approval rating than any local elected official.

@ BOH -

Fuckin' A. GO BLAZERS!!!

GO BLAZERS! BRANDON ROY FOR MAYOR!

the words fuck and cluster come to mind, not necessarilly in that order

1. Paul Allen shelled out a lot of money building the Rose Garden when he could have just up and moved the team if the city didn't want to build him a new stadium.

I don't even know why Obletz is bothering. If the city actually went in to try and negotiate with Vulcan the smart business decision would be to tell the city to kick rocks because they fulfilled their end of the bargain building the RG. This really isn't a surprise.

Blabby's got it.

@Smirk - I read through that pdf and the minority report looked like an official part of a much larger document. Did they really "split from the rest of the committee" in writing it? Minority reports are sometimes just a good tool for reaching consensus. If your group reaches a key decision, you might write up the losing option - either to archive it's arguments, or as a way of explaining your reasoning to a larger audience. Is that what happened here? Or is it a more dramatic "we give up!" kind of thing?

I've heard the Mayor explain that we are postponing looking at contract conflicts because we shouldn't rule out any options this early. Let's figure out what we want to do, and then go fight for it if the current contract doesn't allow it. That makes more sense to me. These dissenters say they want LESS Blazer influence AND want to kick out any proposals that don't match their current contract - that doesn't seem to make much sense.

"Members of the majority of the stakeholder committee call the discussion over the contract conflict a "red herring." They believe that if the Blazers are not the chosen developer, there's no way they would go on their new faith contract."

A little research would reveal that SAC Member Rosemary Colliver, the person responsible for the "red herring" comment, works for the law firm (Tonkon Torp) that counts both the Trail Blazers and Winterhawks among their clients. Did she reveal her conflict of interest to the Council before issuing her on-the-spot legal opinion? No. This is but one example of a very screwed up, conflict-filled public process.

Blabby-spot on. I can't help but feel the outcome has already been determined and the debate is all bullshit to appease the process whores.

Of course the outcome was predetermined. Vulcan has certain development rights in the area and they could probably sue the living bejeesus out of the city if they went with anything else.

"Mayor Sam Adams office has told the people pitching ideas for Memorial Coliseum to not worry about the contract, that his office would work out any conflicts after the stakeholder committee and city council chose a final plan."

That's our Mayor! If a non-Blazer group is selected, I'm sure the Blazers would love to give up a pretty good revenue source apparently and modify the contract to allow the non-Blazer group to directly compete with the Blazer's for concerts and other large events.

Eastport,

Though Collins is a sports lawyer at Tonkon Torp, a law office where some lawyers have done work for the Blazers, she denies having worked for the Blazers or the Winterhawks. I'm looking into whether that's true.

In the meantime, be aware that while Blogtown is full of good-natured baseless accusations, comments that falsely accuse specific individuals of crimes or serious ethical violations will be deleted. If you have info to back up a conflict of interest Colliver may have, feel free to drop me a line at smirk@portlandmercury.com. If not, don't go pointing fingers.

With all due respect, whether she did work personally or not for the Blazers or Winterhawks, it's not cool (if not unethical) for a lawyer not to reveal that her firm has represented these clients. It is also naive to believe that even if a lawyer has not personally represented a client, that there are not influences that exist within the law firm. This is why law firms routinely seek conflict waivers when working with clients as a means to be above board regarding potential conflicts of interest. Colliver should have at least revealed to the City Council that she works for a law firm that has lawyers that have represented the Blazers and Winterhawks. Feel free to delete this post if you find that it is at variance with typical conflict of interest guidelines for law firms.

I really think people need to focus on how ALL of these proposals will stir up job creation. As a local Oregon contractor, I must say that my industry has been hit the hardest by this economy. During the Great Depression, the president of the United States helped to fund the construction of the Bonneville Dam. That helped to create the cheapest electrical services in the nation that fueled the largest shipbuilders to relocate to Portland. This created tens of thousands of jobs in Portland. Several people from the south moved to Oregon, including a large number of African Americans. The district where the Memorial Coliseum now stands was once a thriving African American community that worked in the shipyards. They lived and worked in the district which was nicknamed “Jumptown”. We have an opportunity to create the desperately needed jobs like we did during the Great Depression.

Fast forward to 2010…Portland has one of the highest rates of unemployment in the nation. There is an opportunity to create thousands of jobs. So far I’ve seen two of the three proposers pick non local General Contractors, and that is the one thing that absolutely no one is focusing on. “MARC” has teamed with Howard S. Wright, a Washington based General, and “VMAC” has teamed with Kiewit Corporation, an Omaha, Nebraska based contractor. The Blazers have not yet announced who they plan to use, but I’m counting on them to be responsible and choose a company that is truly owned and operated in Oregon. Given the track record of the Rose Garden, Turner (German Owned) / JE Dunn (Kansas City), they might go down the same path as the rest of the teams.

The Blazers are teaming with developer Cordish who on their last project, “Kansas City Lights”, located in Kansas City, had a lot of problems from the minority community, but at least they hired local Kansas based contractor, JE Dunn, to do the work. Most Oregonians don’t realize that while a lot of the General contractors such as Turner (German Owned), Skanska (Swiss Owned), JE Dunn (Kansas City), Howards S. Wright (Seattle Washington), Kiewit Corporation (Omaha Nebraska) have offices in Oregon but are not Oregon based.

This means that the profits the companies make, do not recirculate in the Oregon economy. When you’re talking about millions of tax dollars going to these projects, it is irresponsible to hire non-local contractors and negligent when you’re talking about non-American owned companies such as Turner and Skanska. We have a host of locally owned General Contractors with great track records including: Hoffman, Anderson, Walsh, Emerick, R&H to name a few. While my firm is too small to go after such a large project, I’d rather see local contractors when it comes to publicly funded projects, because the money stays in our economy. Let’s hope the Blazers don’t go down the same road they did when they built the Rose Garden hiring Turner/JE Dunn to be their contractor (keep our dollars in our COMMUNITY!!!). I love reading the Mercury, and I hope it will write an article about how many jobs are being taken from the qualified local General Contractors.