Today was the first meeting of the MLS2PDX AAA Baseball Stadium/PGE Renovation Task Force (that Amy J. Ruiz introduced originally). She and I live blogged the whole meeting, and Amy posted her thoughts within her mammoth OMG TOO MUCH CITY HALL SOMEONE GIVE ME A SANDWICH post, and I’ll be quoting that liveblog.
mark evans: someone just said ‘doing my google’
I need to learn that dance to keep up with the cool kids.
Reflections on the significant and insignificant details from the first Task Force meeting, after the jump
The Timbers Army showed up in force for tonight’s meeting, far beyond what I expected. Our presence may have helped the Commissioners realize the amount of public interest in MLS2PDX, but I got the feeling most of the Task Force didn’t have a clue who the fuck we were (more on this later).
Nevertheless, the TA presence seemed useful throughout Merritt Paulson and Don Garber’s presentation. Paulson talked about the economic benefits of a new baseball stadium, and how a Square Sports Specific PGE Park is key to the MLS effort but also will help PSU sports and local high school and youth sports.
The only truly new information I detected from Paulson’s presentation is that Providence wants to build a sports medicine facility into the revamped PGE Park. This had been mentioned previously as part of the new baseball stadium, so Paulson either got his facts mixed up (he’d been up for 30+ hours while his wife had their first child, congratulations to them), or he’s talked them into investing in the MLS effort directly. It’s unclear if the Providence will add significant money to the renovation coffers (relieving the City), but it is a huge demonstration of private interest and a promise of future investment in the MLS team, at the very least.
I mentioned to Amy that the Philadelphia MLS team (to begin playing in 2010) brokered a similar deal with a local health care company. I think this is when she thought I was speaking of Rhode Island.
Garber, during his bit, talked about the MLS as a growing, healthy organization. He mentioned that they are mindful of FIFA’s 18 team limit on leagues, which they will meet after this round of expansion, intimating that this may well be Portland’s best, if not last chance to get an MLS team. I have to call a bit of Bullshit on this Tostada: the FIFA mandate is but a strong suggestion, and there isn’t really much stopping the MLS from expanding past 18 teams (except perhaps a desire not to end up like the NASL).
It pains me, at a certain level, that the relocation of a AAA team to a new stadium is the crux of the MLS2PDX effort, but this much was confirmed tonight. Don Garber said so in so many words. When queried about the criteria for MLS expansion, Garber listed four things:
1) strong ownership
2) strength of the market (portland is smaller, but has soccer experience, passion and history)
3) competition (only one other major league team in the market)
4) No Soccer Specific Stadium, no team.
Perhaps most salient comment from Garber’s talk was:
“We want to have a team in Portland”
He backed off this a little at the end, but it’s out there now. He also winked at me, which was a little weird.
My favorite moment came toward the end of the Q&A with Garber and Paulson, when (quote from the liveblog):
Amy J. Ruiz: “We’re pretty close to Seattle, have you had franchises this close together?” asks Elisa Dozono. And suddenly the crowd of Timber fans audibly seethes.
Yeah. Merritt quieted the rabble and Garber closed their remarks by mentioning that in Soccer, regional/local rivalries are often what soccer fans cherish. Cue discussion on the liveblog:
Amy J. Ruiz: What’s that all about?
mark evans: we fucking hate the sounders
Amy J. Ruiz: Ah.
Amy J. Ruiz: “A Seattle-Portland rivalry would be absolutely fantastic for us all,” says Garber.
…[Comment From captain haddock] well, they are just terrible people. really, quite awful.
As the Q&A rolled, it became clear to me that the people asking questions hadn’t done their google, so to speak. The questions ranged from wildly under-informed (see above) to downright snarky. Mike Williams, who presided over the last PGE Park renovation essentially asked Paulson if he was the second coming of Marshall Glickman. For those who don’t recognize the name, Glickman was the head of the Portland Family Entertainment company who talked Williams and the City into the first PGE Park renovation, only to default on the bonds.
It was clear to me that Williams’ ego and career were still sore from the beating he received after PFE went belly up, but no one mentioned that Paulson is paying back the debt related to the original bonds, despite not actually being responsible for those debts. I think Paulson would have mentioned that, if he’d, y’know, SLEPT recently.
In summary: I hope the people who didn’t talk know more about what’s going on, because the people talking (from the task force) haven’t done any due diligence. The suggestion of getting PSU grad students to do all the work is laughable, and makes me wonder why this Task Force exists: with no actual help/money/support from the city in terms of information or logistics, it’s either lip service to public involvement and the deal is already set, or the city is going to make this decision based on the recommendation of a task force that won’t actually have an educated opinion. Neither makes me particularly happy. The discussion of private listservs/email conversations amongst Task Force members raised my (and Amy’s) cackles as well.
I, for one, can think of a dedicated group of citizens willing to do all sorts of background research for free *cough* timbers army *cough*.
Amy also mentioned that she’s uncomfortable with the City opening the wallet for a new stadium, so let me remind everyone that Paulson and Co. are asking for city backed bonds that will be paid back through revenue sources directly related to the operation of the two facilities. While it’s possible that the city might decide to pay for these projects outright, I say that risk is minimal. No public money people, only bonds, and $85 million, which is less than the $125 million we gave to the Zoo to make the animals look less sad.
On an unrelated note: Merritt, if you’re reading, your first latte and Coffeehouse North West or Stumptown or Albina press or Ristretto or anywhere else local, is on me. I’m tired of you drinking Starbucks when you’re preaching your love of Portland. Seriously dude, call me.
That’s all folks, I’m out. Daddy needs some whiskey.
I totally saw Garber wink at you. I couldn’t see your face, so I was unsure if you winked first! That was weird. wweek made mention of people from Providence going to Houston (was it? or at least somewhere in Texas) to check out their sports medicine facility in their last article on how Merritt is Henry Paulson’s Son.
I don’t think Garber liked Merritt’s comment about soccer fans in Portland not supporting Seattle. He interjected right quickly!
All paid with his own money?
If you can’t make your case by telling the truth then your case isn’t a good one.
Fact check:
Paulson has been paying back the old improvements with a $2.1 million per year subsidy he gets from the people of Portland.
The new deal going foreword is that he will pay the new debt back himself, with the $2.1 million from the people of Portland, plus another subsidy from the state of Oregon, plus another subsidy in the form of an urban renewal tax levied against those in the area around his stadium.
Merritt Paulson bought a government subsidy which incidentally has a sports franchise attached to it.
Well as long as you assert a subsidy, no proof is required.
“No public money people, only bonds,”
You have no idea what a bond is, or how public financing works, do you?
Mark,
I appreciate that you and Amy are giving this proposal the attention that it needs –certainly more and better coverage than the Oregonian or WW –but a couple of your comments puzzle me a little.
You said the Task Force members were “wildly under-informed.” I was actually pretty impressed with them. I think for the most part they resisted the urge to make assumptions and genuinely wanted to hear Merritt and Don Garber speak to some of these issues. Don’t assume that just because they asked him to explain the deal they don’t already know some of the answers or that they don’t have any knowledge coming in.
I *think* you might have been referring, in particular, to Lisa Dozono’s question about the close proximity of Portland to Seattle. It was certainly one of the more entertaining bits of the meeting, and it gave the Timber Army a chance to do a little grumbling and get a laugh from everyone, but I don’t think it’s fair to call her uninformed. Whether it garners Animal-House-style “bullshit-*cough*-bullshit” responses from the TA or not, it’s still a perfectly reasonable question to ask whether Seattle and Portland are too close together to support two teams. Plus, for what it’s worth, I think she handled the heckling pretty graciously.
The other thing that I think you need some more info about is what it means when the City issues bonds to pay for something. It IS public money and it DOES impact other programs. Note that Merritt didn’t make the claim that you’re making, because I think he’s well aware that the “no impact on other programs” argument is disingenuous.
Anyways, thanks again for you continued coverage of this project, but please try not to let your Timbers homerism skew your critical eye about this deal.
-E
Philadelphia, Rhode Island, same thing.
And Euphonius: Mark is an unabashed fan of the Timbers, for sure. Which is why I’m also reporting on the issue from the city policy angle. He can be a rah rah about a stadium as he likes, and I can hector the city on the details. I have a feeling that he and I may end up arguing over this project in the end–which will be both entertaining and informative.
Hell, let’s start now.
“Amy also mentioned that she’s uncomfortable with the City opening the wallet for a new stadium, so let me remind everyone that Paulson and Co. are asking for city backed bonds that will be paid back through revenue sources directly related to the operation of the two facilities. While it’s possible that the city might decide to pay for these projects outright, I say that risk is minimal. No public money people, only bonds, and $85 million, which is less than the $125 million we gave to the Zoo to make the animals look less sad.”
Here’s the difference between those bonds: The zoo bonds are paid for via property taxes, a steady stream of revenue. Soccer and baseball team ticket sales? Not quite as predictable.
What happens to a stadium bond if it can’t be paid back “through revenue sources directly related to the operation of the two facilities”? In other words, what if Portlanders ultimately don’t care enough about the teams to buy enough tickets to pay off the bonds? The city’s still responsible for paying them off, but at what expense? Would Paulson step up? Or would Portland have to scrape together public resources to meet the bond obligation?
Municipal bonds are by definition public money–Paulson isn’t taking a second mortgage out on his house to pay for this stadium, the city is. And then we have to hope Paulson’s business model is strong enough to pay us back. That sounds risky to me.
Smiley is back with his same BS talking points I destroyed earlier on this blog. I refuse to engage.
As for PGE Park. Folks, THE CITY OWNS THE STADIUM. Meritt Paulson is asking for public investment in a publicly owned facility.
This is very different than asking for public dollars for a privately held entity.
Let’s say the council chooses not to upgrade a facility they own to world class status in order to attract MLS here as well as international exhibitions. What’s the future of the stadium owned by us, the taxpayers?
Will it become another Memorial Colesium? Limping along, universally considered a blight?
We need to frame this discussion not as one of “new stadium for a Paulson vs doing nothing” but much more of “what do we, the People of Portland want to do with a stadium we own?”
We have a guy willing to pony up $40 million of his own cash to bring a second major league team here. Not to mention the substantial yearly operating costs. We would be insane not to provide him with an upgraded facility that we already own thus making our investment in the facility that much more valuable. Yeah we will double the bonds on the stadium but we are gonna quadruple the rent.
I pointed out that taxpayers are paying for the stadium improvement, not Merritt Paulson as Mark Evans claims, and you say that is how it should be Finnegan. That isn’t refuting my statement. That is stating your opinion.
Just as you haven’t proven your assertion, smiley. Put up or shut up.
“Here’s the difference between those bonds: The zoo bonds are paid for via property taxes, a steady stream of revenue. Soccer and baseball team ticket sales? Not quite as predictable.
What happens to a stadium bond if it can’t be paid back “through revenue sources directly related to the operation of the two facilities”? In other words, what if Portlanders ultimately don’t care enough about the teams to buy enough tickets to pay off the bonds? The city’s still responsible for paying them off, but at what expense? Would Paulson step up? Or would Portland have to scrape together public resources to meet the bond obligation?”
This is why public testimony and data/projections concerning interest in these teams, and historic numbers for the current teams would he very helpful. A “what happens?” maximalist argument to the negative is generally a scare tactic. More effective would be a good faith effort to predict precisely how much Portlanders care. It “sounds risky” because you choose to emphasize your concerns and amplify the “what ifs” to their limit.
I’ll put the converse to you, Amy. If you’ve seen the turnouts on events from the Women’s World Cup to exhibition games with international teams to standard 2nd tier league matches on nice summer days, all of which hosted attendances of 10,000+, what makes you doubt Portland’s ability to meet Paulson’s conservative projections of 15,000 paid tickets/game necessary for him to meet his financial projections?
All they really need to make this work is a linchpin, or a baseline. Something mixed-use, sustainable and green, like subsidy to pay spectators to sit through the tedious hours of a soccer game.
Maybe a payment to each spectator every time one of the players falls down, pretending to be injured.
Oh Little Richie, why don’t you take your ‘merican born cornfed soccer hating fist and shove it up your arse. If you don’t “get” soccer you don’t have to like it. I hate car racing but I don’t complain about it. Watching NASCAR to me is like getting punched in the face all Sunday afternoon…but it is the most popular “sport” in America.
Amy, Daaaaave has a good point. The numbers do point to the fact that the city would support a franchise. What makes you think an MLS franchise wouldn’t draw 15K fans a year?
Also why aren’t you talking about the stadium? It is a city owned facility. The rest of that neighborhood has improved vastly over the years. Why would it not be in the city’s best interest to improve the stadium? A nice new downtown stadium would do wonders to the property values over there right? Would it not? We have a MLS tenant who would pay rent to play there…why is it not in the city’s interest to invest in the stadium that the city owns? Seems like the plans call for some year round business at the stadium. Right now it’s a spring/summer only facility.
Smiley I was talking about your ridiculous assertion that Merritt is getting $2.1 million in taxpayer subsidy a year right now.
But you knew that.
This is Smiley’s math people (all numbers rough): The City of Portland owes about $3.2 million a year on the stadium to satisfy payments on the 1999 bond (most of which were done to bring Civic up to seismic code and infrastructure stabilization, something that would have been required to have any events at Civic, now PGE, in future years. It is called public investment in a publicly owned facility).
Merritt pays about $1.1 million a year to rent the stadium for 72 home Beaver games and 16 home Timbers matches and assundry other exhibitions.
Now according to Smiley. Merritt is “getting $2.2 million in taxpayer dollars every year” because he is “only” paying $ 1.1 Million a year for rent.
That is some fuzzy ass math.
That is like me saying that I am giving my tenant a $500 subsidy each month on the house I rent to him for $1075 a month but my total monthly mortgage payment is $1,575. Never mind I took a second to pay for a new kitchen in the house plus a new furnance and to shore up the foundation. In Smiley’s world I should be able to charge my tenant that extra $500 a month (even though the market won’t bear that) and if he won’t pay I will call him a beggar and evict him. Thus leaving my house empty with not tenant and I now have a $1,575 a month rent payment with no money coming in at all.
Does that make any sense whatsoever?
No it doesn’t Finnegan…Smiley doesn’t understand thes types of things. He sees the name Paulson and automatically thinks the guy is trying to rip everyone off.
Keep in mind that I’m still neutral on this whole thing, but am raising the questions that the task force and/or Paulson (and, as a reporter, I) need to answer, with data and facts, before I can make up my mind either way.
Let’s see the data that backs up 15,000. What’s the attendance prediction for the Beavers in a new stadium? How much revenue does that translate into? What are the other sources of revenue, and how steady are they? How does the recession impact any of this. (Can we even sell a bond for a stadium in this environment? The Port Authority of New York & New Jersey couldn’t find a buyer for a recent one.) How would a losing year for either team impact any of this?
What happens if the average is 14,000? Does the deal need to be extended? If we average 16,000, do the taxpayers realize an additional benefit for shouldering the risk?
I’m looking forward to seeing what the task force and Paulson lay on the table.
Soccer? That’s the one where they hit the little birdie over the wicket, right? In the silk short pants?
Fuck yeah, I’ll pay an extra grand a year in property taxes for that!
Funny stuff lil’ richie.
++++
Amy, I think your questions are right on point and deserve good answers.
Revenues like ticket surcharges (or whatever they are discussing) are not an exact science and are bound to vary from year to year; therefore, someone (government, team owner, or a combination) will need to make up the difference if there ever is one.
As far as your interest in what metrics there are for these kind of deals, there are plenty of new stadia that have been built for MLS over the last 5-8 years to compare to. The financing plans have varied from complete financing by local government (Chicago’s stadium in Bridgeview, Illinois) to complete financing by the team owner (Red Bulls Arena in suburban NY, of which government only provided the land), to somewhere in between, which is where most of the deals have landed. Most of these MLS stadium deals have cost in the $60-150 million range, and have been for only one stadium, not two – so Portland’s plan looks to be pretty decent, especially if there is redevelopment money that can be tapped for the AAA stadium.
Overall the league is on a significant upward trajectory with growing attendance and revenue figures, substantially increasing investment in the league from new owners, new stadia, new sponsors and media partners, etc. I think the last 5+ years has seen roughly $1 billion in new investments – which is unprecedented for soccer in the U.S. MLS is executing a business plan (Don Garber is widely credited in the industry for being a leading sports businessman and is only casually a soccer guy) which calls for slow and steady growth over a period of years (and even decades) with heavy investment in infrastructure and revenue-stream generation (coming from stadium-related revenues like tix, parking, concessions, naming rights, concerts and other events, etc. along with shirt sponsorship), but already the changes from just 5-6 years ago are quite significant.
The down side to MLS is that in most markets (esp. the larger ones) it is still relegated to the back pages and has a much smaller following than the traditional sports franchises. In smaller markets like SLC (which might compare closely to Portland) where there is not as much competition from other teams, MLS has received much greater attention which has lead to a much larger fan base than one might expect for a smaller market. This overall dynamic will probably not change overnight, but MLS can be successful (and even modestly profitable) right now without being a sports juggernaut, and soccer as a whole is well-positioned to increase it’s market share over time due to a variety of reasons that might take a long time to go into.
In general, sports as an industry does not make lots of money – just like performing arts institutions don’t tend to be wild profit machines. Even the NFL and MLB tend to just break even on their operations (due to high expenses), but healthy teams can take care of themselves, and they can provide a positive benefit to communities and become much loved institutions over time. Paulson is also being smart in that his modest investment now could end up paying off down the road with a much higher-valued franchise. Teams were selling for $10 million back in 2002 and are selling for $30-45 million in recent years which is a growth on the order of 300+% making Apple stock look like a comparatively weak performer.
Anyway, I hope you’ll continue to keep an open mind about this proposal while you get more information. And, as an out of state MLS fan I would love to visit Portland sometime for a Timbers game, so for purely selfish purposes I hope that this all works out in the end.
BTW – I’m impressed by your coverage with the live blogging and everything.
Amy, I see a difference between wishing to see the data supporting the bid, which I believe will be forthcoming at subsequent meetings, and the tenor of your first set of questions, which was a series of doomsday “what if” questions.
“And then we have to hope Paulson’s business model is strong enough to pay us back. That sounds risky to me.” is not a “neutral” statement. Proving the ability to gain profit and pay off your debts is the core of any business model. The city is a potential investor and this is due diligence. What’s “risky” about a bog standard piece of putting together a business venture? This task force was put together and publicized like this so that we could have the due diligence you’re looking for and Mark Williams didn’t pursue in the Glickman/PFE deal.
I’m not sure what kind of proof of attendance would satisfy you. Here’s a link
http://www.gregs-mom.com/USLAttendance.htm
showing an average attendance of 8,500 for the Portland Timbers last season, with 4 games breaking 10,000 fans. In addition, exhibitions against Monarcas (Mexico), AC Milan’s youth team (Italy) and Sunderland and Coventry City (England) have also all drawn more than 10,000 in attendance. And I’ll stress again this this is for a 2nd tier product. Two top-tier Mexican teams, Cruz Azul and Chivas, played in front of a sold out crowd a few years ago. Here’s a picture of what PGE Park looked like for the Women’s World Cup (with added bleachers on the south and east sides of the stadium).
http://soccercityusa.com/oct2-pano2m.jpg
And another of the turnout for the World Cup Final at Pioneer Courthouse Square.
http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h192/jam…
Support for the current product is proven. Support for top-tier soccer is, in my mind, in arguably strong. We have a strong backbone of youth leagues. A strong history of success as players and as teams in our colleges (U of Portland, Oregon State). What else do you require?
Complaining that you’ve not yet seen data which you know has already been put on the agenda of future meetings seems more like griping than objective reportage. The supporters of this deal are ultimately only looking for patience and an open mind (and that means real objectivity, not just numerous protestations of neutrality) as Paulson presents his plan and the task force gathers information.
You have to have your head stuffed far up your denial to not be aware that Portland taxpayers are funding the stadium. If soccer succeeds or fails, the bill for the stadium is being paid by the taxpayers, not Merritt Paulson. It doesn’t matter if Merritt Paulson’s venture succeeds so that the debt will be paid, since he is not paying it. That money is coming from a variety of tax sources, and is slated to come from more sources if the stadiums are upgraded again. Only on the Mercury is the myth being spread that Merritt Paulson will be paying for this. Shame on the Mercury for doing such such bad reporting.
http://bojack.org/2008/09/what_is_paulson_…
http://blog.oregonlive.com/portlandcityhal…
Check out the city study that states the funding source. The car and hotel rental tax they mention funnels the $2.1 million to pay for the upgrades.
Shame on the Mercury for being such asshats with the poor reporting on the financing for Merritt Paulson.
That’s you Amy.
You point to where I’ve said Paulson is paying for it. Everything I’ve written so far is about the public money going into this—and I’m only getting started.
“Overall the league is on a significant upward trajectory with growing attendance and revenue figures, substantially increasing investment in the league from new owners, new stadia, new sponsors and media partners, etc.”
It is interesting that there is so much news lately contradicting this optimism, mentioning “worrying” TV ratings and declining attendance:
http://www.majorleaguesoccertalk.com/mls-tv-ratings-worrying/505
http://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/article/60481
Good old argument-by-google.
Your second link disproves your first.
Year No. of telecasts Avg. rating No. of viewers
2008 26 0.2 253,000
2007 25 0.2 289,000
2006 21 0.2 263,000
which is remarkably stable. This also doesn’t include viewership from new television deals inked with ESPN Deportes, Telemundo/Telefutura and HD Net which did not exist in 2006, so it’s an apples and oranges comparison DUE TO THE GROWTH IN THE LEAGUE.
So far this season, the NBA has averaged 17,008 attendance per game. But in the 2007/08 season, the NBA averaged 17,396. That’s a WHOPPING 2.2% drop in attendance year/year.
This is the downside of having your argument-by-google rely on blog arguments-by-google.
So the big news is that MLS lost less than 2% of their paid attendance during a massive downturn in the economy which appears to be similar to other leagues.
Thank you for your support.
Smiley lives in a fact free universe. No amount of pointing out otherwise with actual facts is going to change his position. Please ignore him Amy and continue to report. The fact he is linking to bojack is the final nail in the coffin.
And I welcome a discussion about whether government should be in the business of investing in upgrades to government owned entities in order to reap greater profit for the taxpayer.
By this logic we should never fix a pothole, do streetscape improvements, invest in public transportation. And the PDC most certainly should not exist. Using public dollars to help local businesses???? NEVER.
Amy, you and the Mercury put up some puff PR drivel about how wonderful it is that Merritt Paulson is trying to bring a soccer franchise to Portland, and then turn the rest of the reporting over to Mark Evans and the Timber Army to fill in the fantasy about this being paid for without subsidies. Nowhere in any Mercury reporting is there any attempt to point out that this is complete BS, that soccer is in fact heavily subsidized now and this is a proposal for even more.
Merritt Paulson’s proposal itself lists the subsidies needed, existing and additional subsidies, and city documents list the numerous subsidy sources, but there is no mention of that anywhere in the Mercury.
The truth is that if you add up the subsidy Portlanders are being asked to pony up the cost is incredible. If the new upgrades go through, just the PGE Park portion, adding the existing debt to the proposed debt, $28 million plus another $40 million at 6 percent interest, Portlanders and Oregonians will be paying a subsidy of $22.93 per person per game. That is based on most optimistic estimate by Merritt Paulson of selling out all 17,000 seats for all 15 games per season for every game for the next twenty years that he seems to be committing to. And that estimate is low as he or whoever the current owner is will certainly be back to the trough to ask for more in that time.
Finnegan, Here is the answer to your assertion that paying for a facility to benefit a private enterprise is just like paying for street repairs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position. To “set up a straw man,” one describes a position that superficially resembles an opponent’s actual view, yet is easier to refute. Then, one attributes that position to the opponent. For example, someone might deliberately overstate the opponent’s position. While a straw man argument may work as a rhetorical technique—and succeed in persuading people—it carries little or no real evidential weight, since the opponent’s actual argument has not been refuted.
For the last time, Smiley. I haven’t written puff PR drivel—I’ve said the task force is a good idea, and a great way to parse the facts and data. I’ve said I’m personally undecided—a stadium could be cool, but I’ve got concerns about taxpayer money going toward that instead of something else. And while I’m eager to see what the task force sorts out, I’m looking into these things myself. My spreadsheet on MLS attendance numbers elsewhere, and the financing structures in other cities isn’t quite ready for prime time.
Meanwhile, yes, Mark is very open about being a sports commenter who loves the Timbers and wholeheartedly supports this idea. Reporting has not been turned over to him. He can trumpet soccer all he wants, and I’ll still be digging into the city policy end of things. So take a deep breath. And while you’re at it, read the recent column I wrote referring to stadiums as risky public investments, and this whole situation as a controversial political hot potato. http://www.portlandmercury.com/portland/ha…
The AFL is the country’s longest-standing professional football league, other than the NFL. Against a backdrop of a weakened economy and mounting financial losses and belt-tightening even by the NFL and other professional sports leagues is considering suspending its 2009 season.
The NFL, whose average franchise valuation has topped $1 billion for the first time, is looking to cut costs and the league will offer a voluntary separation package to 150 staffers over the next 60 days. NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell says the league intends to reduce its staff of 1,100 by at least 10% to 15% and salaries will be frozen at least through 2009.
Similar layoffs have been announced by Major League Baseball, the NBA and NASCAR teams, and the NHL reportedly has implemented a hiring freeze.
While consumers are cutting back on non essentials, corporations, which have long pumped billions of dollars into sponsorships as well as pricey suites and season tickets, also are curtailing expenditures. Numerous corporations have pulled their ads from the Super Bowl. Golf and tennis are heavily reliant on sponsorship revenue like NASCAR. The LPGA cut three events from its 2009 schedule, and the PGA Tour and tennis is considering following suit.
College sports are not immune as the weak economy likely will mean delayed stadium construction, lower booster donations and weaker financial performance of school endowments.
Oregon’s unemployment rate is 7.3% tied with the most corrupt state in the nation Illinois and Ohio 7.3% with only Alaska at 7.4%, D.C. 7.4%, California 8.2%, Nevada 7.6%, Rhode Island 9.3%, South Carolina 8.0% higher than Oregon with more layoffs being reported in this state daily.
Major League Soccer is heavily reliant on sponsors and butts in the seats.
Now sell me today on a kick ball team in Portland, major renovations to PGE Park and a new baseball stadium on the backs of taxpayers, with packed stands, substantial sponsorship money when Pitiful Paulson cannot answer the one simple question.
“Will the Paulson family be guaranteeing the performance… with its personal assets?”
In the end I think the deciding factor for why Portland might want to invest a modest amount of tax dollars into sports stadiums is not that they are guaranteed profit machines. If they were, then private investors would be lining up to pay for sports stadia around the country, but they’re not. However stadiums are still built every now and then when it’s determined that doing so is in the public interest, not as a way to make money, but as a way to enhance public life.
What Portlanders need to decide is whether they want to have enhanced sports teams and venues in their future or whether they prefer to pass on this opportunity (and risk that their existing teams and infrastructure may stagnate and eventually whither away). There is realistically no way that the stadiums will be able to be built without at least some help from the city.
Certainly government help is needed to pay for or subsidize vital services like education, healthcare services, transportation infrastructure like bike lanes and public transit systems and bridges, and those needs should be prioritized above others. But a better question is whether that is the only purpose or possibility of local government. Are folks going to be satisfied with a city that only has those services, and otherwise leaves everything else up to the free markets? As an individual you could live your whole life not spending any money to buy a nice piece of clothing, or to take a trip to another city, or to go to a museum or go out to eat at a restaurant, and sure you would have saved yourself some money – but would you really have made the most of your opportunities?
Sports stadium deals are sometimes winners and sometimes losers. An example of a loser is the Oakland Coliseum, re-built for the NFL Raiders, which was a giveaway to the team and still costs the city something like $20 million annually to pay off the construction bonds (in other words, the team extorted the city into paying for massive stadium renovations in order to bring the team back from LA without agreeing to share some of the risk, and now the revenue being generated is not enough to cover the costs). An example of a winner is the San Jose arena for the NHL Sharks, built back in the early 90’s it took great political will to garner public support to float the construction bonds, but it has been a tremendous success by any metric (attendance, revenue, public opinion) and looking back seems like a no-brainer to San Jose residents who previously had never had a major league sports franchise. HP Pavilion as it is called is now the centerpiece of a redevelopment proposal to bring further jobs and housing and public transportation infrastructure to their downtown.
What Portland needs to decide is whether Paulson’s proposal is a fair and equitable one for the city – I don’t see it as a matter of affordability as the dollar amounts under discussion are relatively small, and whether or not Portlanders want their city to be the kind of place where you can go out and enjoy a world class sporting event. New urbanism is predicated on making communities dense, sustainable, and enjoyable places to live, work and raise a family. Without having a place for civic institutions, that vision is always going to be a limited one, so the question is what should those institutions be and what’s a reasonable proposal to bring those visions to fruition?
I think Matt in SF just nailed it.
As a shill for the Hank Paulsons, both II and III, I can assure all of you that the proposal is fair and equitable. They did not pay me to say this.
Portland too can become a world-class city, like Columbus, Ohio, or Thornton, Colorado. It’s win, win, win, for us. And you. Your existing civic institutions are insufficient to meet your needs — and we at Shortstop LLC have the answer.
Can we all just agree to start with the fact that the City of Portland owns PGE Park? And it rents it to various folks including Paulson, PSU and School Districts?
Smiley you are the one setting up strawmen here and no amount of pointing out your fact free ways seems to deter you from your task.
What would you have to city do with PGE Park? Let me guess – more souless condos?