Randy Leonard and Merritt Paulson were hoping to present a done deal tonight to Lents neighbors who hold the purse strings for new Beavers AAA stadium funding. But instead, after grueling negotiations, Leonard and Paulson turned up at tonight’s Lents Town Center Urban Renewal Area Committee to make a tentative pitch that, despite two hours of Q&A with neighbors, still has some unanswered questions. An Oregonian article this morning wondered how much Leonard would ask Lents to pitch in to the Beavers deal – tonight he announced that for the deal to work, Lents will have to put $42 million toward the stadium in 2010 and 2011. Paulson will shoulder an unspecified chunk of the remaining 20 percent of the stadium cost.
Once they found out the pricetag, the Lents Urban Renewal Committee (URAC) and the 40 neighbors who turned out to the meeting had some incisive questions. The big issues are: what projects will Lents lose if it throws nearly all its urban renewal money into the stadium and will it be worth it?
“It’s a big number, it’s a scary number,” acknowledged Lents URAC chair Cora Potter as she opened up the floor for questions. The first issue neighbors raised was whether the stadium would actually catalyze economic development in the neighborhood.
“We need to think about the economics,” responded Leonard. “But I think it benefits the city in more than just economic ways. As I have been telling people, if you build it, they will come.” The councilor predicts that anywhere between 4,000 to 6,000 people would travel to Lents to catch each Beavers game. “Some of what I’m going to tell you now, I don’t know how to quantify,” said Leonard. “Some of the benefit is psychological. What’s it going to mean to kids to be able to say they live in the neighborhood that’s the home of the Portland Beavers?”
Whether stadiums actually revitalize neighborhoods depends on who you ask — studies turn up varied results. While Leonard and Paulson put significant weight on the economic success San Diego saw from its downtown major league stadium, Lents resident Kristina Lake piped up in the audience to point out a Brookings Institute report that found stadiums are not always worth the cost. “I don’t think we should go on intuition, I think we should go on facts,” Lake challenged. “You do not need a ballpark to revitalize, you need the projects this will cut.”
The city has not yet done a study on the impact of the stadium on Lents economy. But the PDC’s draft budget for the next 10 years of the Lents urban renewal area (URA) concludes that “the stadium financing would consume enough financial capacity (maximum indebtedness) that potential projects beyond the five year forecast would be reduced, which could hinder the URAC’s ability to accomplish the goals established in the 1998 URA plan.”
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.”
Leonard responded that there would be no net loss of affordable housing citywide — the council could bend the rules of urban renewal (which mandates 30 percent of funds are spent on affordable housing) to make other districts build Lents’ share of affordable housing. Leonard added that market rate housing in Lents is affordable and money should be spent instead on a big stimulus project, a view shared by URAC chair Cora Potter. This is the second time in one month that a city councilor has asked a neighborhood urban renewal group to put its funds toward helping the overall Major League Soccer deal. On April 20th, Mayor Adams asked Interstate to consider giving money to the Rose Quarter makeover.
All the details of the deal are still being hammered out, so the Lents URAC did not decide anything for sure tonight. But for all the “intuition” behind the plan, the deal has momentum both at the city and in the neighborhood: when the Lents Neighborhood Association performed a “full mail penetration” survey (their words, not mine) in Decemeber, the 1,000 respondents favored the idea of a stadium in their area 2:1.
I think the key question here is how much money would property owners (via urban renewal or some other mechanism) have been asked to pony up if this new stadium were to be constructed in the Rose Quarter? Is a larger portion of the bill being presented to Lents as a matter of convenience?
“What’s it going to mean to kids to be able to say they live in the neighborhood that’s the home of the Portland Beavers?”
Um. Nothing?
@Bob R.
The Rose Quarter was always cheaper. The price was less and Paulson would have ponied up more. The architects killed that deal. Now we have Lents. It has support. I’ll have a nice day enjoying my view of Mt. Hood a few years from now at a ball game.
From what I understand, Merritt Paulson was willing to spend more of his own money for a stadium closer to the city center. Now that it’s farther away, he wants that community to contribute a greater proportion of the total stadium construction costs.
Personally I think the people of Lents Park should use their urban renewal money to buy me a new snowboard setup. In addition to contributing 20% of the total purchase cost from my own personal funds, I promise to occasionally drive through Lents Park on my way to Mount Hood and solicit one of their many fine retailers such as Wal-Mart.
“The architects killed that deal.”
Actually, the architects did not kill that deal. The architects lobbied to save Memorial Coliseum from the wrecking ball. (And who would have paid to construct a facility of similar scale elsewhere? All the MC-hosted events would NOT have gone next door to the Rose Garden).
The decision to site the new baseball park further out is only indirectly related to the preservation of Memorial Coliseum. Lents has been considered as a site (and has many things going for it) for several years now, even though more recently it was off-the-table (to the chagrin of a number of Lents boosters).
I think it is a good thing that a Lents site is possible, but I hope that Lents residents and businesses aren’t unduly burdened, especially if that burden is blamed on the preservation of MC.
I’m willing to keep an open mind about this and hear the details.
We all know there could be some benefits from a stadium here in Lents and I’m not going to just knee jerk at the number until we know more.
This possibility, good or bad is way too big for any of us to just turn off our brains and fall into our predisposed ways of thinking without really listening to all arguments.
People please, I implore you, whether you are pro or con, please set aside your prejudices about wanting Baseball or hating Paulson, let’s really try to consider all the facts here. We haven’t heard them all so I encourage you to be willing to change any opinion you may already hold.
I’m willing to keep an open mind about this and hear the details.
We all know there could be some benefits from a stadium here in Lents and I’m not going to just knee jerk at the number until we know more.
This possibility, good or bad is way too big for any of us to just turn off our brains and fall into our predisposed ways of thinking without really listening to all arguments.
People please, I implore you, whether you are pro or con, please set aside your prejudices about wanting Baseball or hating Paulson, let’s really try to consider all the facts here. We haven’t heard them all so I encourage you to be willing to change any opinion you may already hold.
Until yesterday, up to $25million was being considered in Lents urban renewal money should the stadium be sited there. Now it’s more than $40million.
In the Rose Quarter, they were also looking at $25million in urban renewal money, probably from Interstate. Those discussions didn’t get too far advanced though, except for a meeting in the district with Interstate neighbors.
@Bob R. – There is no clear answer to your question. In the Task Force Report Council accepted in March it indicated that the cost of stadium development in Lents would be less than RQ development. However,putting any faith in specific numbers at this point is difficult.
@ Angela – A clear trade-off is being requested. You don’t need final numbers to consider that.
If you build a stadium in Lents, a significant loss in affordable housing and small business development is required.
In terms of economic development, the deal puts all of Lents eggs in one basket: a stadium.
There are always claims of job growth and economic development attached to stadium investments but, whenever these claims are looked at after a stadium is built, no measurable impact on personal income and local development is ever found:
http://www.umbc.edu/economics/wpapers/wp_0…
In terms of the Paulson’s deal, even without a single spade of dirt being turned, the estimates of job creation don’t add up and the quality of the jobs are far from family wage:
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.s…
For many folks, of course, there are more than dollars and cents to this deal. There is the civic pride that may come from Major League Soccer and/or enhanced visibility for the Beavers or, in this case, Lents.
These things may have a value, but do they trump lost economic development opportunities and affordable housing?
No.
Here’s an answer for Randy, Sam, and Merritt, which is representative of some people’s feelings toward them….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkfI_sRMAdA…
@Tony Fuentes
Guess what…there aren’t a lot of “family wage” jobs in the city. That’s because the housing prices and the cost of living has gone up and wages haven’t. I’m a single professional guy with years of experience at the same job. I make decent money for myself but there is no prayer I could raise a family on 36K a year.
I do know there are a shit load of unemployed people around town who probably wouldn’t be too pissed off to pull a few hours a week at a ballpark for $10 an hour. Probably quite a few in Lents itself. There are quite a few recently unemployed Circuit City employees around town who would probably be cool at $10 an hour considering that is probably a raise from what they were making.
Are you hearing me up on that high horse Tony?
> The decision to site the new baseball park further out is only indirectly related to the preservation of Memorial Coliseum.
You just keep telling yourself that, if it makes you feel better. It’s not true in the slightest.
What an unbelievable joke this is. Putting the Beavers in Lents will kill the Beavers. NO ONE will go to baseball games so far from anything interesting. A big part of the draw of the Beavers now is the neighborhood – easily accessible by car or transit, and lots to do before and after games. What the f** are people going to do in Lents? Shoot pool with bikers? And how are they going to get there other than in cars?
The best option still is to kill the Coliseum and build it there. Ignore the pointy heads and git ‘er done.
Just thinking out loud, here, as Anna Griffin does this morning:
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/a…
But what if Paulson wants to get rid of the Beavers now, but needs some political cover to do it? Having said that, I think I heard Leonard tell a TV reporter last night that he wouldn’t support soccer if the Beavers left town.
Scratch that.
But something about last night’s presentation didn’t sit right with me…it felt like a dog and pony show, somehow. Of course, I don’t have any facts to back it up. Just intuition. But that’s the theme of the hour, right?!
Lents, Interstate. I wonder if there is a way consistent with labor law to guarantee stadium jobs to people who live in the urban renewal district providing the funds to build the stadium, rather than affordable housing, storefront improvements, street trees, hotels, mixed use, middle income apartments?
Matt facts are never your strong suit. In fact, you pointedly ignore them when they don’t suit your narrative
Point in case your comment higher up in this thread. The original proposal (which I still have a sneaking suspicion you still haven’t read) at the MC site had funds from convention center URD, zero coupon bonds and 12.5 mil in straight cash from Paulson. Interstate URD had nothing to do with it and only came into play after your quixotic campaign to ‘save’. The Colesium.
Love of soccer aside, can anyone explain to me how our AAA baseball club comes anywhere close to meriting a new $42 million facility?
In what alternate universe, accessed through a portal on what bumf**k planet, in what distant galaxy, does that come close to even a ghost of an impression of making a lick of sense?
Maybe they should let a group of neighborhood representatives manage the construction and contracting, based on a set of mutually-accepted features and standards? The URD can keep any cost savings.
Really? “The councilor predicts that anywhere between 4,000 to 6,000 people would travel to Lents to catch each Beavers game.” Has he ever been to a game at PGE Park? The only time there’s that many people in the stadium is when the Timbers are playing…
The Lents stadium idea is unusual round here in that the majority of the neighbors actually want it to be built, and that carries a lot of weight. But I’d still favor the option of letting the Beavers go to another city. “The Beaverton Beavers” has a certain ring to it…
“The only time there’s that many people in the stadium is when the Timbers are playing…”
That’s dead wrong. Early season is always low turnouts with much higher turnouts when the sun comes out. That’s how it works in MLB as well. I’d be happy to send you links to plenty of half empty stadiums. I can see how you might think that though. 5,000 people at PGE Park for a baseball game does make it look empty because its so big.
I was just wondering how big of a turnout the Volcanoes (I think that’s the right name) pull in their park by Salem. Anybody know?
$42 million? For a ballpark.
Yet the City of Portland is still poor mouthing a new Sellwood Bridge, and Multnomah County has no money. I have an idea: let’s use urban renewal funds to fund urban renewal. Like new bridges, roads, and housing.
The other issue is the 30% TIF Set-aside for affordable housing.
Here’s a fact: Commissioner Leonard and Mayor Adams continue to say that the TIF Set-aside should be considered in aggregate. anyone who reads the policy implementation plan and accompanying PDC workgroup notes will see that it clearly states that the TIF Set-aside is to be applied to each district. That was the intent of the policy. Talk about shifting things based on what you need in the moment. Matt’s hit is absolutely spot-on. It was a dog and pony show a la “Please change the policy that I voted on …”
The other issue is the 30% TIF Set-aside for affordable housing.
Here’s a fact: Commissioner Leonard and Mayor Adams continue to say that the TIF Set-aside should be considered in aggregate. anyone who reads the policy implementation plan and accompanying PDC workgroup notes will see that it clearly states that the TIF Set-aside is to be applied to each district. That was the intent of the policy. Talk about shifting things based on what you need in the moment. Matt’s hit is absolutely spot-on. It was a dog and pony show a la “Please change the policy that I voted on …”
I didn’t mean to say that twice, but if it enhances the emphasis … so be it.