Quick Hits: Darlene Hooley goes late, gets "rowdy"
Kari Chisholm
I've been mostly off the blog for the last week or so - travel, illness, other obsessions - and here's a few items we missed along the way:
- It seems that our very own Congresswoman Darlene Hooley had fun at the White House Christmas party, according to the Washington Post:
White House Xmas Party for Lawmakers Goes Late, Gets Rowdy
Last night's White House Christmas party for members of Congress dragged on way past President Bush's bedtime, thanks to Rep. Darlene Hooley (D-Oregon), who broke a cardinal rule of etiquette.
Don't tell Miss Manners, but Hooley was the last guest to leave the party.
"Congresswoman Hooley, her friend Susan Miles and daughter Jen were having such a joyous celebration, talking, dancing and taking in the festive decor that they just lost track of time," explains Hooley spokeswoman Joan Evans. "Before they knew it, they looked around and discovered everyone else was gone."
Everyone else except White House security, that is.
"The guards very kindly helped them locate their coats and escorted them to the gates, which clanked behind them," Evans says.
Hat tip to Senator Ron Wyden, who mentioned this story at Darlene's retirement party on Sunday night.
- I was always under the impression that Republicans tend to think of themselves as the pro-business party. It's a little strange then, that when Oregon's corporate leaders float the idea of spending the kicker money on schools, the Republicans - like the right-wing wind-up dolls that they are - gave us the knee-jerk reaction.
House Minority Leader Bruce Hanna, R-Roseburg, said he has little doubt that voters would reject any attempt to reduce the size of their kicker checks.
"I think they'd absolutely say no," said Hanna, arguing that the state could build a decent reserve fund by simply putting aside some of its income tax revenue when times are good.
Gee, Bruce, times were good when you people were in charge. Why didn't you set aside some of the revenue then? Oh, I remember: when times are good, Republicans like to play drunken-sailor and throw money at people. This is the old "when the economy is good, tax cuts! when the economy is bad, tax cuts!" nonsense.
- The O editorializes in favor of spending city money to attract Major League Soccer. I like the idea of attracting a major league team here - even though I'm not really a futbol fan - but I'm not so sure about spending public money...
- Gotta tell ya: The addition of Margaret Olney and Brent Foster to John Kroger's team at the AG's office, well, it's gotta have Bill Sizemore and corporate polluters kinda worried. As Steve Duin notes, about Foster:
"This is a game-changing dynamic," said Mark Riskedahl, executive director of the Northwest Environmental Defense Center, a group much more effective than DEQ at taking on polluters. "It's not just another shift in the world of gray. It's bold, and it's decisive. These are no-nonsense guys. There's no room for 'maybe.' "
"I'm doing precisely what I said I would do during the campaign," Kroger said. "I take the environment very seriously. Brent's job is to help Oregon become what it ought to be, the nationwide leader in environmental protection."
- So, Phil Stanford has been laid off at the Tribune. Jonathan Nicholas has taken the O's buyout. Byron Beck is gone from WW, and is now blogging on his own. I've certainly been a critic of our local media - including these guys, from time to time - but it's just not a good thing to have fewer voices in our local media. I've never felt that blogging could or should supplant opinion journalism, but it's looking more and more like we're going to have to try to fill some of the gaps.
- And it looks like the Oregonian is well on its way to abandoning the idea of being a statewide paper -- with the end of daily sales, both home-delivery and newsstand, in Eugene. Maybe they'll rename it the Portlandian. Sigh.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Dec 16, '08
Wondering if all of Oregon's daily newspapers will still be publishing - in print - a year from now. The cuts are coming so ferociously you have to wonder if we're approaching a tipping point.
Dec 16, '08
Kari, I'm pretty heavily invested in the MLS to Portland. By public money you meant to say bonds that would be paid back by taxes on the players, gate revenue, etc right?
We're also talking about the city improving a city owned stadium for an MLS team AND PSU football AND high school football. It's not a handout. They do get to charge rent on PGE.
Any questions as to what PGE would look like as a soccer specific stadium should look at these 3 pictures.
11:37 a.m.
Dec 16, '08
I worry for the future of print journalism. There will always be some form of the art, but just how meager it is yet remains to be seen.
And, I wholly agree Kari: blogging does not make up for a lack of good, crack journalism.
11:37 a.m.
Dec 16, '08
I have to say, it's exciting to see Kroger coming out of that gate so quickly and showing signs of being every bit the activist AG his supporters hoped for.
Dec 16, '08
And how about that bond market? http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/01/business/01muni.html?hp=&pagewanted=all
And MLS and AAA baseball player incomes aren't exactly sky-high.
1:09 p.m.
Dec 16, '08
Re: the Hanna quote--as I pointed out at LO, his comments seemed like a good thing, since they basically call for exactly what he says people won't go for--diverting money from the kicker to other programs. After all, we don't have a kicker UNLESS we have those magical "good times," assuming that 2% above revenue projections represents a nominally good time for Oregon. And since the kicker takes the ENTIRE overage as opposed to just that over 2%, anytime we get those "good times", there isn't any money to divert...since we're kicking it back. I'm glad to see Hanna calling for putting unexpected revenue away for a rainy day! When will he call to repeal or modify the kickers, I wonder?
On MLS to Portland: I'm all for it. I love soccer, I think Portland is a solid soccer town, and the team would do well here. Why public monies need to be involved, I have no idea. To my knowledge not a SINGLE other owner in MLS has used public funds to build their soccer-only stadium. In my view Paulson's argument for funding works against him; he says back in the day the expansion fee for an MLS team wasn't so high (it's now $40mil). Any idea WHY it's gone up? Because owning an MLS team has become a more profitable asset. If Merritt wanted to build his own park, he could probably do it with non-living wage labor, hire non-living wage staff once it's built, and control all of the parking and concessions for himself. That wouldn't be ideal for Portland regarding the employees, but the whole point of not using public funds for sports stadia is that the idea it brings many jobs and more incometo the region is mostly hooey. What it does is add a couple hundred low-skill stadium jobs and a few professionals in the team office.
Merritt seems like a good guy, but he's trying to hold the city hostage, and is basically saying it won't get done unless we pony up. More recently he's allowed there might be some wiggle room, which to me says he knows he can still come out like a bandit on the deal, even with little to no public finance.
Bring MLS to Portland, by all means! But let Paulson pay for it if he's going to reap the benefits.
Dec 16, '08
Whether or not public money is involved, Portland needs to secure this MLS expansion franchise if it is ever going to be seriously considered for another Major franchise again. Portland's short sightedness costs us the Raiders way back in the early 60's with the Delta Dome, and the constant bickering over petty little items involving getting an MLB franchise has made MLB sour on Portland. The boutique ballpark idea for the Lents District in paralell with the PGE park upgrade for MLS is the most forward sighted idea for Portland in a long time. MLB will be watching this with keen secret interest if it does go through. Soccer in Portland has been, since the days of the NASL, a better magnet than baseball due to the nature of players staying and the more intrenational concept of soccer around the world. Besides, you don't see any 'Beavers Army' at a Portland Beavers game..do you? Pauson has the right ideas. Let's not kill them with our petty NIMBY blinders.
1:46 p.m.
Dec 16, '08
"Let's not kill them with our petty NIMBY blinders."
No one's saying don't put a team in our backyard, they're saying don't make us pay for the privilege of allowing you to profit from it.
Dec 16, '08
I remember fondly the old NASL days and fierce rivalry between the TImbers, Seattle Sounders and Vancouver Canuks.
Go Tony Chersky!
Dec 16, '08
Ironically, the reductions in journalism expenditures and consequences of that fact is a major under-reported story.
Who is going to do the tedious, time-consuming work to dig out stories that government may not want discovered?
I think the Oregonian has been a cautious, conservative newspaper for a long time and while they will continue to print AP or NYT or McClatchly national and international stories, where will the Oregon coverage come from?
With the termination of Eugene delivery/sales, does this mean elimination of stringer stories as well (do they even have stringers??)?
Randy2
Dec 16, '08
Kari -- and those commenters who worry about the end of print journalism -- I agree completely. I'm sorry, but I just don't see myself sticking a laptop under my arm on the way to have coffee, or settling down on Sunday morning with my computer screen. Blogging is great, but newspapers are the best form of entertainment wherever I go. Please make this bad trend stop!
2:24 p.m.
Dec 16, '08
"I'm sorry, but I just don't see myself sticking a laptop under my arm on the way to have coffee, or settling down on Sunday morning with my computer screen."
What if you had no other choice? Or more saliently, what if you didn't have to wait until Sunday? Much of it is feature-laden, broader-perspective stuff anyway, that one doesn't need to wait until a lackey hits your porch with it to read somewhere.
And wouldn't the sharp decrease in milled paper and petroleum-based inks improve the environmental picture? I'd just like to get The O to stop polluting my driveway with a Wednesday recap-and-ad-circular edition every week. They all but flatly refuses to stop it.
2:36 p.m.
Dec 16, '08
Newspapers are in terrible shape, and no one has figured out What Comes Next. When Paul wrote about canceling his subscription, I wrote that I give the O two years of home delivery--and that still seems about right. (Are there gambling sites with "death watches" for print papers? Two years, that's where I'd put the over/under.)
We know two things:
Something's gotta give. I feel somewhat responsible, as a blogger, for hastening all of this. The irony is that I started blogging because freelancing didn't pay enough to go to the trouble. A viscious cycle.
Dec 16, '08
Remind me, how well that billion dollar kicker worked out.
Republicans should be drowned in a bathtub.
2:50 p.m.
Dec 16, '08
The other thing we lose with the loss of newspapers is copy editors. You wouldn't see "viscious" in newspaper copy.
Dec 16, '08
TorridJoe: "To my knowledge not a SINGLE other owner in MLS has used public funds to build their soccer-only stadium."
Actually, you're almost exactly wrong. All but ONE soccer-specific stadium used in the MLS was built with some form of public fund/subsidy/abatement (the exception is the Home Depot Center in LA).
Dec 16, '08
Posted by: zag | Dec 16, 2008 3:00:08 PM
TorridJoe: "To my knowledge not a SINGLE other owner in MLS has used public funds to build their soccer-only stadium."
Actually, you're almost exactly wrong. All but ONE soccer-specific stadium used in the MLS was built with some form of public fund/subsidy/abatement (the exception is the Home Depot Center in LA).
South Africa has shown that rugby/football(soccer)/cricket can be melded into a single stadium and is a good base. If rugby works, then American football would work too. Believe it or not, there's already an NFL connection. When the International Cricket Committee wanted to build a slew of new stadia in the West Indies, one of the major donors for the Guiana project was the Dallas Cowboys. They use it as a training ground and were the majority stakeholder. There's also easy money to be got with Sir Allen Stanford's billions that he's willing to dedicate to making cricket world #1 over footie.
3:22 p.m.
Dec 16, '08
Zag, I should have been more direct: not a SINGLE other owner in MLS has used ONLY public funds to build their soccer only stadium. And didn't Lamar Hunt fund the Columbus Crew stadium on his own?
I think when the ownership group is worth in excess of $700 million dollars, as Paulson and his father are (or were when Paulson Sr. took his job under Bush) they can afford the upfront investment. To come to the public takes some big balls, but I guess he's got 'em.
Jeff, I think there are actually FOUR things we know:
:)
Dec 16, '08
But a PGE renovation would be unique among the other MLS soccer specific stadia: a reformatting of a pre-existing, publically owned facility done for half or a third of the cost of building a new stadium from the ground up. A modest success -- both ticket sales and corporate sponsorship -- would almost certainly pan out and pay for this portion of the plan.
(I can't speak to the baseball question; frankly, I wish the Beavers would move to Boise....)
The Paulsons are already spending $40 million and probably more. How many other industries/investors are coming forward today to make such a commitment to this area/market? And why shouldn't the city get behind turning an inadequate facility into something better? Do you honestly think that a private investor should finance a renovation of a public facility? (Do you pay to have the potholes filled in your neighborhood? What if, like me, you live on a dead end only used by four houses? Should we have to pay -- or only if you deem our pockets deep enough?)
3:53 p.m.
Dec 16, '08
"The Paulsons are already spending $40 million and probably more. How many other industries/investors are coming forward today to make such a commitment to this area/market?"
Why is that the proper question? Why isn't it, "why are these insanely rich two people asking a city on hard economic times for money?"
3:56 p.m.
Dec 16, '08
Something's gotta give. I feel somewhat responsible, as a blogger, for hastening all of this.
Nah. We shouldn't.
The newspapers are dying because of direct competition for their major classified advertising revenue streams from Craigslist/Ebay, Monster.com, Cars.com/Vehix, and others. Display advertising is suffering somewhat through indirect competition from internet strategies like online advertising, retailer websites, and retailer email broadcasting efforts.
To the extent that subscriptions are dropping, they're largely suffering due to competition from the websites of national news sources. (Why read the O's abridged versions of NY Times stories, when you can get them online, faster and in full?)
Bloggers are barely competing at all -- maybe a little with the editorial pages, but very few subscribers get the paper exclusively for the editorial commentary... and among those who do, they're not going to give up the paper because there's a local blog. Blog readers tend to be voracious consumers of editorial content; they want more, not less.
3:59 p.m.
Dec 16, '08
One more reason they're dying: The rise of the internet has meant a proliferation of information - which has meant that information consumers specialize and drill down for niche information.
If I'm an obsessive Tampa Bay Buccaneers fan living in Portland, Oregon, I no longer need to get the Oregonian for the two column inches of Bucs coverage in the sports section on Monday. Instead, I can read the Tampa Bay newspaper online, read in-depth Bucs coverage at ESPN and CNNSI, hang out around Bucs fanboards, and even subscribe to the RSS feed of official Bucs press releases.
The information explosion has led to niche consumption - which is killing off general-interest publications.
Dec 16, '08
"why are these insanely rich two people asking a city on hard economic times for money?"
Because. The. City. Owns. The. Facility.
If the PGE renovation goes through and Portland is awarded an MLS team, the Paulsons would have spent more than the city, and the city would benefit from having 1) a better stadium; 2) a better tenant; 3) the benefits that come from being part of a sports league with eyes on it all over the world (unlike MLB or NHL, certainly, and probably more than NFL; NBA is definitely global now).
Dec 16, '08
"Because. The. City. Owns. The. Facility."
So what? Why should that matter? Paulson still reaps his profit no matter who owns it.
And if it freaks you out that badly, the City should simply sell PGE as is to Paulson and let him renovate it. Or we can simply let him pay off the remaining bonds from the last renovation, and take ownership. Done.
Dec 16, '08
Paulson is already paying off the remaining bonds from the last renovation (which was for seismic/ADA upgrade).
/discussing this with someone without a single salient fact to hand
5:29 p.m.
Dec 16, '08
I'm going to throw this out there on the newspaper (and news outlets in general) situation because its something I've wondered about.
Is it possible (once the current economic shambles recedes) that newspapers and other news outlets will no longer be considered businesses per se, but entities that serve the public interest? Can they be restructured and purchased by healthy businesses and set up as something that serves our Democratic Republic--rather than something that makes money?
I honestly don't know how this would be done, much less if it would work. But it seems like independent reporting of the news is an absolute necessity to our society. When does the public interest begin to subvert the necessity of making money? Or..does it?
Dec 16, '08
Going back many years, the O spent more money and ink covering Eugene than anywhere outside the metro area except DC and Salem. And hardly anyone there subscribed. Which would seem reason to not spend so much were it not for the university and the number of good stories that came out of the Eugene area. Losing statewide distribution is one (sad) thing, but the likely loss of what statewide perspective The O had is quite probably the more damaging impact. Is it still a state, in the sense of an organized social community, if all we have in common are Lars and Portland TV?
6:03 p.m.
Dec 16, '08
Spending public money for major league soccer in Portland is a lousy idea. According to Forbes, the league is worth $165 million, and has an annual operating loss of $20 million. The article states that fewer than 1/4th of MLS teams are currently generating a profit.
Why should the city spend $85 million in Public funds in a down economy to redesign PGE stadium for a soccer league that is rumored to be teetering on the edge of bankruptcy?
Dec 16, '08
"Why should the city spend $85 million in Public funds in a down economy to redesign PGE stadium for a soccer league that is rumored to be teetering on the edge of bankruptcy?"
My God this is ill-informed.
1) The MLS is a success financially. By every independent audit the league is thriving. There are two openings for 2011 at $40Million each and there are six teams of investors lined up to compete for them. Salaries are going up; attendance is going up; the TV contract with ESPN has been renewed at a higher rate of income.
2) The city isn't spending money out of some bank account or the general fund; it's floating bonds; and it's not $85 million for the PGE renovation, it's less than half that. (The other portion of the bill is for a stand-alone AAA stadium for the Beavers, which you can stick in your garage as far as I'm concerned....)
I'm impressed with how confident people are on this site without the least bit of factual information to back themselves up.
Dec 16, '08
Stadiums do not get built, or improved without public funding in this day and age. Period.
Portland needs to decide the culture and feel of the city moving forward. MLS is a cheap option in the grand scheme of things. Even tickets are relatively inexpensive at $25-30.
Bring it, dream big, act big, show some cajones PDX, do not cower to the NIMBY faction.
7:12 p.m.
Dec 16, '08
Regarding the state of the MLS finances... take it up with Forbes. According to the article, fewer than 1 in 3 teams are operating at a profit and the league, valued at $165 million, lost $20 million last season.
As to the $85 million bond... I think it's a bad idea whether the investment is $85 million or $40, but to the best of my knowledge, no one is floating a $40 million proposal.
Dec 16, '08
"take it up with Forbes"
I did:
http://www.forbes.com/business/2008/09/09/mls-soccer-beckham-biz-sports-cz_kb_0909mlsvalues.html
You have cherry-picked their data shamelessly. I'll let my dog filter your blog for meaty bits henceforth. He's much more used to sniffing feces.
"the best of my knowledge" = 'little-to-none'
Dec 16, '08
A: bloggers should feel responsible only for a slight elongation of the lifespan of print journalism, as people belatedly realised the value of a professional writer.
B: No public money for the stadium. That is the proposal.
C: NO. PUBLIC. MONEY.
7:44 p.m.
Dec 16, '08
Bloggers are barely competing at all -- maybe a little with the editorial pages, but very few subscribers get the paper exclusively for the editorial commentary... and among those who do, they're not going to give up the paper because there's a local blog. Blog readers tend to be voracious consumers of editorial content; they want more, not less.
Okay, what I really feel guilty about is competing with paid writers for eyeballs. We offer content for free (perhaps idiotically), driving down the perceived value of content. (It's hard to argue that David Reinhard was offering something more astute than you could find in the blogs. Sarasohn, okay.)
I'd love to get paid to write. I think journalists and writers are hugely undervalued. Yet the idea that you'd pay someone to write these days seems crazy. Doonesbury's actually doing an arc with this theme.
7:52 p.m.
Dec 16, '08
Invective and wishful thinking are poor substitutes for hard data.
There are 13 teams in the league. 10 out of 13 are posting an operating loss. The league has revenues of $165 million, and lost $20 million last year.
What happens to that bond money if the league folds in 5 years?
Dec 16, '08
Okay let's repeat this again.
THE CITY OF PORTLAND OWNS PGE PARK AND CHARGES PAULSON, PSU, SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND VARIOUS OTHER FOLKS TO USE IT.
Sorry to yell but it is driving me nuts with the immediate knee jerk reaction because "it's a sport". So what? This is public investment in a publicly owned entity that would create badly needed living wage construction jobs over the next three years. You know - kinda of like a small version of what Obama is proposing.
On top of that to everyone who is like "let Merritt build his own stadium!". Great, Merritt builds his own stadium....and then what? The taxpayers of Portland own an empty stadium. What then? More crappy overpriced condos? MAC Club expansion? I guarantee you the cost of tearing down PGE Park would be more than the $35 Million we are talking about to upgrade it.
Finally, the City of Portland has expressed zero interest in parting with the facility or even allowing part ownership in exchange for private investment. You don't think Paulson would like to get his paws on an ownership stake in the stadium if he could?
I'm as liberal as they come but the knee jerk negative reaction by progressives to the idea that public investment in sports can be a community builder drives me crazy. We invest taxpayer dollars in the zoo not because there is money to be made but because there is a community benefit. Half a million Portlanders attended Beavers and Timbers matches last year. Half a million.
Dec 16, '08
MLS is not making money yet, but they will be soon. Since the Forbes article was written, another league controlled stadium has opened (Salt Lake), so there's one more team that will be in the black instead of the red next season. Nearly all MLS teams have a plan for building their own stadia. Kansas City and San José are two to three years out on their plans, but KC has all of the approvals they need and SJ is close behind. (The SJ stadium will be entirely with private funds by the way.)
The upside for Portland is that remodeling one stadium and building a second one will provide some high paying jobs for the hard hit construction industry. Because the city already owns PGE and will own the second stadium, the city will make money on the deal, as long as Major League Soccer does not go under. MLS is supported by multiple billionaires. They are not going to go out of business. Also, the owners do make money on World Cup broadcasts and international matches. They need to keep MLS afloat to hang on to the World Cup cash cow.
Also, Portland will earn some money from visiting players, teams, and media. The city will gain a lot of exposure, both nationally and internationally. Because MLS is the top division in the USA, Portland will be able to get some big name teams in PGE. Because MLS is major league and the Oregonian and other local media are finally getting on the Timbers bandwagon, we can expect much larger crowds for these games and therefore more income for the city. Also, MLS always throws a big match to new cities. So Portland can almost count on getting the MLS All-Star Game or MLS Cup within a year or two of completing the stadium upgrade.
Because the stadium will be able to seat more people, I think (not certain, but suspicious) that Portland will have a shot at some US National team games. Think lots of media, lots of visitors, lots of cash.
Bringing Major League Soccer to Portland is a great idea. I'm sure that the city will make money off the deal. Also, I don't see Portland having a chance at any other major league team. The other big leagues are tightening their belts. MLS is growing.
8:10 p.m.
Dec 16, '08
Markmcf - The Colorado Rapids are losing $2.2 million per year, in part because the production cost of the teams televised games outweigh the ad revenues. I mention it because Denver is the closest city to Portland in terms of size among all of the cities in the league. Columbus, which has a soccer-only stadium and a population that is 200,000 larger than Portland, is losing $4 million per year because of the lack of sponsorship and non-soccer events.
I understand that people who reallyreallyreally want soccer in Portland don't much give a damn whether the project will pencil out for the city, but I'd just as soon that the good folks at city hall proceed with an abundance of caution. Whatever else the O's editorial board had to say, the real money quote in the article was this:
8:15 p.m.
Dec 16, '08
Markmcf - some of your points have merit. Thanks for that.
8:30 p.m.
Dec 16, '08
Jeremy-- In general, I am sympathetic to your argument, and it's helping me clarify my thinking ... so thank you.
However, I am fairly certain that a half million Portlanders didn't atten games last year -- the city only has roughly 700,000 residents. A half million one-day attendees is a fantastic thing but a far cry from 70% of the population enjoying a single amenity.
10:05 p.m.
Dec 16, '08
Kari I worded that poorly. What I meant to say is that half a million folks went through the gates of PGE park last year for Beaver and Timbers games. How many were season ticket holders vs repeat regulars vs one timers I have no idea. My point is that there are an awful lot of Portlanders who enjoy professional soccer and baseball. The same metric holds for the zoo. There are significant public benefits that come along with this well beyond simply $.
10:15 p.m.
Dec 16, '08
The county of Multnomah has something approaching 700K; the City of Portland had an estimated 568,000 as of last July 1.
It's funny to be accused of not bringing any salient facts, when the main one I presented (it would be unprecedented in the league to do what Paulson asks, fund the stadium entirely with public funds) ultimately unchallenged. I'm all for it; I don't see the need to commit public risk or money to it. There's no risk for Paulson at all; why should the City take it on?
Dec 16, '08
I love the comments that blast Merritt for being a Paulson. Yeah...all of us are exactly like our dads. Ahem...
PGE will either be the giant suck hole that it currently is or it could be an amazing major league soccer specific stadium. 5,000 people show up for a Beavers game and the place looks empty...
PGE is an outdated city owned stadium. We have an opportunity to create an amazing stadium downtown that creates a huge sense on community for a pittance. A pittance when it comes to publically funded stadiums! As a public work this is a no brainer. MLS is on the up and it's not going to fail.
Look, this isn't a time for Hooverism where we don't spend money on public works. We should invest in public works right now. This will create a lot of construction jobs and give Portland something to be proud od.
Dec 16, '08
Sal, thanks for the thanks.
Part of the reason that Colorado are losing money is that they have alienated the supporters groups. They are not filling their stadium and it's no fun for visiting fans to go there. Columbus has been a demonstration in running a club poorly. Still, I expect those clubs to turn their financial performance around.
One thing we know about Merritt Paulson is that he does a good job getting people out to see his teams. Attendance has increased for both of his clubs and he seems to be making money. I think that's a good sign.
I'm not saying that the city should rush into this. Certainly they should check it out. I just expect a careful analysis to lead the city to agree to the deal.
torridjoe wrote: "It's funny to be accused of not bringing any salient facts, when the main one I presented (it would be unprecedented in the league to do what Paulson asks, fund the stadium entirely with public funds) ultimately unchallenged. I'm all for it; I don't see the need to commit public risk or money to it. There's no risk for Paulson at all; why should the City take it on?"
First off, it's not unprecedented for some municipality to fund a stadium. Bridgeview ate the whole cost on the Chicago Fire's stadium. They thought it was a good idea.
The issue for Merritt Paulson is that he doesn't have $85 million on top of the $40 million he needs to buy into MLS on top of the money he needs to operate the Timbers and Beavers for the next couple of seasons. But, he does think the two stadia will pay for themselves.
To his credit, Paulson is paying off the debt from the last remodeling of the stadium. I think this will fly, but the taskforce will make the call.
One of the odd things here is that the stadium belongs to the city. Some at the first task force meeting said that they were hopeful that PSU would pitch in on the stadium upgrade cost. So that might come into play.
12:23 a.m.
Dec 17, '08
I love the comments that blast Merritt for being a Paulson. Yeah...all of us are exactly like our dads. Ahem...
I could care less who his dad is... unless he's using his daddy's money.
Or is Merritt a self-made man?
Dec 17, '08
"Also, Portland will earn some money from visiting players, teams, and media. The city will gain a lot of exposure, both nationally and internationally"
Just look at this if MLS comes to Portland - All friendlies and have people who will travel to see thier team:
Portland Timbers vs: Manchester United (England), Liverpool (England), Boca Jrs (Argentina), Alante (Mexico), Newcastle Jets (Australia), Gamba Osaka (Japan)....with a possible David Beckham sighting(LA Galaxy)and dates against those hated Seattle Sounders FC twice a year...plus some team USA dates (world cup qualifiers and the like).
These would pay dividens for the PGE park upgrade as well as tourists dollars rolling in.
The investment would be worth it. We would pay public money, but we would be getting it back in more than just international dollars. Portland has been touting itself as an international city for years - lets prove it.
Dec 17, '08
""Because. The. City. Owns. The. Facility.""
"So what?"
Hello, W.
So what? So the city upgrades a piece of their property to attract a tenant which will pay them a much higher rent. That it happens to be the same person as the current tenant is purely incidental.
Or you can do nothing, watch the USL1 move away from the west coast, the Timbers fold due to unacceptable travel costs, and the Beavers eventually move away because paying rent on a 20,000 seat stadium you only fill 1/4 of the way isn't the best business plan.
Hurray! Then PGE Park can go back to the no man's land it was from 93-01.
Dec 17, '08
As for this "teams are losing money!!!" canard...
Did you know that the Blazers are not operating at a profit and haven't been for years?
Toronto is already operating at a profit and have spun a $10m franchise fee into a team valued at $40m. Salt Lake is set to nearly triple revenues after moving into their own stadium. The league as a whole is not profitable yet more owners and cities are interested in joining the league than ever before. Did you even bother to read the article?
It's always amusingly ironic for progressives to go quoting Teve Torbes's mag when they want to justify a sudden case of Larsonism.
Dec 17, '08
Or is Merritt a self-made man?
Largely self made. He was the marketing director for the NBA. His father is a minor investor in Shortstop, LLC, but by no means is this Hank's show. It's about the amount of involvement any father would have in his son's business. Merritt doesn't have access to his father's millions if that's what you're asking (and a lot of people assume).
Dec 17, '08
Sal Peralta: "Columbus, which has a soccer-only stadium and a population that is 200,000 larger than Portland"
Sure. However, Columbus has a much smaller market area in terms of suburbs, etc, and corporate support.
As noted, time and time again...the city owns the facility. If the city upgrades the facility, then we get some better events....such as MLS soccer.
By the way, better schools, better roads, and better healthcare are not mutually exclusive from MLS. We should strive for both. I hope that you folks are arguing as passionately to make you city a better place in those areas...oh, and when those improvements come, your taxes will go up.
Dec 17, '08
Sal Peralta: "Columbus, which has a soccer-only stadium and a population that is 200,000 larger than Portland"
Sure. However, Columbus has a much smaller market area in terms of suburbs, etc, and corporate support.
As noted, time and time again...the city owns the facility. If the city upgrades the facility, then we get some better events....such as MLS soccer.
By the way, better schools, better roads, and better healthcare are not mutually exclusive from MLS. We should strive for both. I hope that you folks are arguing as passionately to make you city a better place in those areas...oh, and when those improvements come, your taxes will go up.
9:06 a.m.
Dec 17, '08
Garret-- Seriously? Are you saying that however many millions that Merritt is investing came from his salary as a minor NBA exec? He's not using any family money?
Dec 17, '08
Hey Kari, why don't you do your own homework before opining? What difference does it make where he got his money? He's an owner willing to invest in Portland. How many of those guys do you think there are around town? Oh no! The guy's related to an unpopular public official.
Talk about small minded...
Dec 17, '08
See, the parties are becoming more alike. Back in the day there was a study done asking prostitutes in cities that had hosted both conventions which delegates were the wildest. Almost to a person the prostitutes voted for the Reps. As they put it, the Reps would get back from the convention and party 'til the wee hours, but the Dems would go back to their hotel rooms and talk about politics. Still, she and Uncle Earl at least let us feel some communality with our Congressional representatives.
Funding for new sports by the city isn't particularly progressive or innovative, BTW. Nor am I on some far planet when I mention cricket. Do you know how much that radical Michael Bloomberg has spent in NYC on cricket infrastructure ? I predict within the next five he will see more revenue from that than the City has from all sport combined in the last 10. Oh, and on a political note- if he ran he would have my attention which is unique among Republicans, so the sport/pol connection should not be underestimated. Arnie's more a sportsman than an actor, if you have to give credit for either.
On journalism and profit in general, it's media and profit in general. Call it an oversimplification, but we haven't progressed one bit on that account since the day TV was invented. Prior to TV any entertainment or print was paid by the cover price. Advertising sweetened the deal, and allowed for greater subscriber numbers by lowering the cost per copy. When TV came along there was no way to collect a per viewer fee, so the advertising became the sole funder of any account. A generation later we have an information explosion and not one has worked out a better funding model, and, for that entire generation people have said the advertising model sucked. PBS tried to propose we just voluntarily pay for it until they became sucked into to quasi-commercial production. But generation is the key word, and perhaps the one growing up now will accept some kind of social tax, like building roads, to subsidize basic info/entertainment exchange. The point would be that no media since TV has come close to cracking the nut. It's not about whatever, today; they're just the latest example.
Dec 17, '08
Dave nailed it. This is a sound investment with a solid vision toward the future. As a taxpayer, I will be sad if the city chooses not to improve its own public property, chooses to not create jobs in the area, and chooses to abandon its public space and turn it into an outdated and potentially empty shell when there is a solid opportunity right now for growth and development. When did the short-sighted, BoJack, W, Larson crowd replace civic-minded, progressive thought on BlueOregon?
Dec 17, '08
Kari,
Indeed, Merritt is getting the $40m franchise fee primarily from his father. But, as he said in an interview recently, he had to pitch to the elder Paulson just as he would to any other investor. He didn't just call up his dad and ask for a certified check. His father expects that money back, and the way he intends on getting that $40m back is being repaid as an investor in Shortstop LLC.
TL;DR. Merritt convinced an investor to provide most of the franchise fee. That investor just happens to be his father.
Dec 17, '08
Garret-- Seriously? Are you saying that however many millions that Merritt is investing came from his salary as a minor NBA exec? He's not using any family money?
Kari, Senior director of marketing and business development for the NBA who launched NBATV isn't a small title and I'm sure the salary wasn't small either. His wife is a hotshot lawyer lawyer as well. I'm not saying Merritt didn't have some kind of trust set up, most rich kids do, but this isn't Hank giving Merritt run of his riches and saying do what you can with it. Merritt made his own money and is now investing it.
I don't know what the Beavers and Timbers cost to purchase but I assume it was around $8-12 million. Merritt has said he has investors in the MLS franchise, one of which is his father, but his father is NOT bankrolling this. Merritt does not have access to his father's millions.
4:36 p.m.
Dec 17, '08
Well, Garrett & Captain Haddock -- Y'all sort this out and get back to me.
And yeah, I don't think our opinion of whether this is a good deal for the taxpayers should be determined based on whether he has an unpopular daddy...
But I do think it's fair to consider the credibility of his investors - and whether or not they've misled government leaders in order to change investment rules and cause financial disaster.
Hmmm...
Dec 18, '08
Last thing I have to say about this. I plagiarized it directly from someone else because it's the best.argument.for.MLS.in.Portland.
This is not a liberal or conservative issue... people who oppose it will simply borrow elements of their worldview to justify their opposition ("corporate welfare!" "no new taxes!" etc.). It gets tough here... there are some people out there who will simply say "I don't think that public funds (or public bonding capacity) should be used to pay for a professional sports facility."
So you roll out the arguments:
This will generate economic activity.... to which they will show you studies indicating that sports do not generate economic activity, that it is simply a substitution effect, that average incomes decline when pro sports come to town, etc.
This won't cost taxpayers anything... these are revenue bonds... and they will talk about PFE, and they will repeat the substitution effect, and ask why the owner doesn't float the debt himself or at least personally guarantee it, what happens if/when Paulson sells the team, the league fails, and so on.
The city owns PGE Park, not Paulson... and they will say that the city should not be involved in this sort of activity (ESPECIALLY NOW WHEN THE SCHOOLS/ROADS/FILL IN THE BLANK NEEDS MONEY - they always say this regardless of current economic conditions), that we just committed $40 million to PGE, that the city/MAC could put that site to better use, blah blah blah.
The way I look at it is this - the city's annual budget is, what, $3.2 billion? Annual debt repayment on an $85 million loan (6%, 30 years) would be about $6 million - 0.19% of the city's annual budget. Let's say there is zero economic development (no construction jobs, no new adjacent development, no new money from international soccer friendlies or exhibitions). And let's say that every single dollar spent related to MLS and AAA baseball is simply a dollar that otherwise would have been spent at another Portland business. And let's say, therefore, that every dollar must come from the general fund, either directly or indirectly. All these worst case scenarios coming true, and we are still talking about a speck on the radar of the city's budget in order to A.) obtain a terrific major league sport at a bargain bin price (most cities have to pony up at least 2-3 times as much) in the most underserved sports town in the USA; and B.) retain a low cost, family friendly sport in a right-sized facility that hundreds of thousands of area attendees enjoy annually.
<h2>Even if you ignore the economic benefits (which range from negligible to massive, depending on who you believe), and even if you assume the worst case scenario in terms of where the bond repayments come from, this proposal is worth it. It is a great bargain for the city and a pair of terrific, exciting, and affordable cultural amenities to its fans. And even if you aren't a fan, at least it keeps those people out of your hair for awhile.</h2>