The idea of building a stadium in general, anywhere in a city is great... if the economy is good. However, what really pisses me off is all of the attention that this is getting when our unemployment is the second highest in the nation. 100 jobs? Really? That is it? You want people to spend their discretionary dollars when we are being laid off?

Nothing is that important that it cannot wait until our economy is better. If Portland is good enough for professional soccer today, it will surely be good enough for it tomorrow. If we have one person willing to foot most of the bill today, then we will have ten tomorrow.

I think that in your seat of privilege, not only on the council, but also being employed rather well, I might add, you have become blind to the real needs of this city right now.

Randy - Why don't you tell your BFF that Lents doesn't want to get rolled by downtown types like yourself and Merritt? Who knows maybe Merritt will get you another trip to NY and make you feel like an even bigger man.

You've said nothing at all about new jobs. Lents just kinda popped up when you couldn't shove Memorial Coliseum ballpark down peoples throats. So now in the best political gamesmanship possible lets go find a neighborhood without too much political power and jam it over there.

You saw the reception you got at the neighborhood meeting, are you tone-deaf?

'Lil Richie Rich can have the Beavers and Timbers play at Civic stadium without you blowing another $100M on his behalf.

Asshole. Classic Jack Bog.

Randy, this whole thing has boondoggle written all over it. Bet you didn't count on the revolt of the architects and others over "let's tear down Memorial Coliseum before we have all the details worked out", did you?

This has not been just a Portland issue since HB 2531 was introduced. The Sunday Oregonian did a great job describing the choices facing those who vote on the state budget, but the state should also vote to allow bonds for stadium funding because pro sports have a great record of providing income for the surrounding community?

This whole thing is stupid. I hope you never run for anything outside of Portland because I would sure never vote for you---not the same judgement we saw in you as a legislator.

Do you really believe the Paulson family can't afford their own stadium? Are they playing Oregonians for suckers? Do you really think that if you went through with the plans and then something went sour that Merritt Paulson would stick around to deal with whatever happened? Or would it be Oregonians who would have to pick up the pieces? Or didn't you think that far ahead?

Do not forget that one of the reasons Jesse Ventura was elected Gov. of Minn. was that a stadium deal like this was being debated the year of that election. The 2 major candidates made "politician speak" answers to a debate question in a 3 way debate, while Ventura spoke of looking into the finances of the team that wanted the stadium and finding they could afford to pay for a stadium themselves.

Randy, the whole quote is "snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory". If people who believe the mayor's personal life is his business have gotten angry over this stadium issue, the recall campaign might be stronger than anyone expects. And did your supporters really put you into office to have the city subsidize pro sports with the details being so foggy?

Randy Leonard is either (a) in the pocket of a neo-con, or (b) BFF with a neo-con. And Blue Oregon is the catalyst by which Leonard attempts to coalesce and (at the same time) mislead the public. Fuck em both.

Randy - WHERE'S THE MONEY GOING TO COME FROM??????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

(Jenuine - Go Fuck Yourself, neo-con lover.)

Randy Leonard:

When I won election to the Portland City Council in late 2002, my residence in Southeast Portland’s Centennial neighborhood made me the first person from east of 39th Avenue ever elected to the Portland City Council.

Bob T:

Which reminds me.....I hope we get another chance to change the city council to have a mayor, and four commisioners each representing a quarter of the city's population.

Randy Leonard:

[I] demanded that Lents be considered for the siting of a stadium when Major League Baseball was considering Portland as a location for the Expos franchise in 2003.

Bob T:

Sheesh! I would have first demanded that the Expos owner(s) pay for their own stadium regardless of where it could be sited. Once you started playing politics with site locations, the corporate welfare would have been inevitable, as usual.

Randy Leonard:

When the opportunity to bring Major League Soccer to Portland brought about the need to relocate the Portland Beavers, my first reaction was that Lents should be the location for the stadium.

Bob T:

Your first reaction should have been to inform Mr. Paulson that he won't get a penny of taxpayer dollars or any kind of tax break privileges.

Randy Leonard:

Since the creation of the Lents Urban Renewal Area in 1998, Lents has been starving for a catalytic project.....Unfortunately, the results have not materialized in the neighborhood in the way we had hoped.

Bob T:

Wow, it's been ten years, and no one has learned anything yet from this flop. I can't believe most voters still buy into these URD scams over and over. So I guess your plan is to use lots of tax dollars to give to a millionaire in order make the Lents flop less of a flop. Great.

Bob Tiernan Registered NA voter Portland

How much subsidized mixed use development has to fail before Randy recognizes it? And how many billions in Urban Renewal skimming from basic services will need to happen before Randy figures out where the money comes from?

Other uses for 40 million:

$100,000 seed money grants to 400 businesses to employ a few thousand people.

$99,900 seed money per above and ONE one way ticket back to NY for the carpetbagger.

$10,000 grants to fix up all existing businesses' fronts and the rest to add sidewalks to area streets.

Money to fund a local police precinct to once and for all get rid of that nickname. Or maybe Randy likes being the commissioner from felony flats.

That this stadium even came up is a poser child example of everything that is wrong with the whole urban renewal model. This is just Randy's private slush fund!!

Randy, keep up the great work for Portland city tax dollars waste and spending. Those of us in the rest of the state are thankful you are a Portland elected official. This Lents post is so self serving and exemplifies how Urban Renewal dollars are wasted nationally.

Randy, interested to know if the comments here are more likely to change your thoughts on Lents or re-enforce your position.

Randy -

Even if there's merit to putting $40 million of urban renewal money into public facilities, a venue that will sit empty probably 250 nights per year doesn't seem like the best use of scarce funds. I'd rather see that money go into better streets and sidewalks, with a good make-over of Lents Park and maybe some new (wide, welcoming) pedestrian viaducts over I-205 to help reconnect the divided neighborhood.

The prospect of "3,000-5,000 people from outside of the neighborhood coming into Lents 72 times each year to spend their discretionary income" doesn't excite me much; those people will drive in, park, spend their money on baseball tickets and concessions inside the park, and leave. Or they'll come in on MAX, walk a block along Holgate to the stadium, spend their money, and walk back. Nobody is likely to spend money at any local business, since there aren't any bars or restaurants at the corner of 92nd and Holgate -- the only place where a prospective business might benefit from spill-over traffic. The Lents Park Grocery and Deli might get a little more walk-in business on game nights, and a few more people will fill up at the Arco station. That's about it.

Additionally, while I don't live in Lents, I'd probably be up in arms if someone tried to put a baseball stadium in the middle of my quiet residential neighborhood. 72 nights per year of noise and traffic and people taking up all the parking in front of my house, with no economic benefit. I don't see any kind of payoff for the neighborhood here.

And I still haven't seen any convincing reasons why PGE Park can't be upgraded to support both MLS and a minor league baseball team. That should be tens of millions of dollars less expensive than building a new ballpark, and would improve the value of an already existing public asset.

Randy, you read this blog enough to know that the facts will never trump the appearance. And once the left's version of conservative talk radio get a label...well, they listen just as much. You should know the BO mindset. 1/2 these posters never read your article. They saw your name and thought, "oh, goody. I get to say "Fireman Randy" and pasted their standard comment spam. And not just that Jack-off Bog; intelligent regulars like mp are just as guilty. Is anyone capable of addressing the facts of a proposal without the free personality analysis?

It also shows why BO tolerates an out and out environmental terrorist like "billy". He's just like the rest of the readership, when push comes to shove.

There are problems with the deal, but, of course, there will be no possibility to discuss them. We will have the "our city has a..." crowd shouting at the "fireman randy is proud of felony flats and his slushfund crowd", both making up whatever to support a position they already had LONG BEFORE you ever mentioned this deal.

Ironically, it is only transparency and access that has attracted the latter sentiments. You must be crap at benefiting from graft, as it leaves no trace! Enough is enough. You've made a career off of honesty. You need to extend that to the rest of city gov. I know its not particularly classy, but it is no longer enough to be personally honest. You must out the liars and manipulators in city gov, and refuse to compromise. Which is hard in a profession whose essential art is compromise.

Sam is a good example. You should have said publicly, not just thought about it personally, that Sam's lies and callous manipulation make you regret that he was elected, but, practicality demands a compromise. Short of that, you're going to lose people like me as well.

Another poster said that Portland gives progressivism a bad name, and you are the best example. The litmus test for real progressivism is precisely the reactions you see here. You're naive, you're a fraud, you're really in bed with the developers, it's the dumbest idea we've ever heard...you'll see every one of those statements trotted out every time anyone proposes a truly progressive idea.

Start by publicly saying that people that voted for Sam in the expectation that a progressive would not use the most cynical in-group strategies and callous personal self-interests to advance his agenda and cover his ass, have every right to stage a recall. You can still continue on, and say that you think there's more at stake, and you will not vote for the recall. Either that's what you really think, and all I'm saying is stop being real part-time, or the critics are right.

By the end of this year, people like me won't be wondering anymore. We've written off the Democratic Party in Oregon as totally subservient to the national Party, composed of self promoters that like the idea of progressive ideas. You're the only one on the city council that knows in his/her heart of hearts what is a lie. When Saltzman says some hack policy that is the opposite of what the constituents wanted is probably best, he has convinced himself of that. Sam has never had a job outside of politics. You've seen the battles anyone that knows a rationalization from their own mind has with the participation generation's chosen shambolic reps. If you choose to go along to get along, then we truly have no hope left.

These posters either mean not one word about the economy, or are too stupid to listen to. No one will consider reforming Information Technology, requiring public, open bids, for all projects, like any other expenditure. Instead private contractors are hired at exorbitant rates to right barely usable, poorly specified crap, under the direction of management that have no experience doing the work they supervise. Then that gets repeated at the county, metro, muni, the police bureau...the list is endless! That one step alone would cover 3x PER YEAR more than the stadium would cost.

And back to the canned spam...SURPRISE...they would say the exact same thing about my proposal as yours. That's what BO readership does with progressive ideas. Thanks for reaching out. Personally, I'm embarrassed by the volume of biters on this board! Just remember what the developmental psychologists tell us about biters. They lack the verbal and cognitive skills to express themselves in appropriate ways.

Randy if you really want to help improve the job situation just repeal some of the regulations and taxes that make it so difficult to start a business here in Portland. You don't have to spend other people's money. Remove the barriers! No more welfare for the rich!

"Unfortunately, the results have not materialized in the neighborhood in the way we had hoped." --Randy Leonard.

  Memo to my staff: We have now adopted this as our standard press release to apply to every project. For example, you would put a heading like, "South Waterfront" on the memo then run with the quote. This will streamline the apology process and allow me more time to focus on visions and stuff. Thank you. --Randy

 P.S. To the person who put actual city work on my desk last week, we're watching you. That was not cool.

 P.S.S. Do not refer to me being elected from east of 39th anymore. 39th is over. We're trying to be futuristic here, people.

" Is anyone capable of addressing the facts of a proposal without the free personality analysis? "

OK, for 100 jobs that move from downtown to Lents (maybe) we will pay a moving fee of $40M (minimum.) This is approx. $400K per job.

It was cheaper when we just took jobs from Gresham (like Assurety) and moved them to Lents.

I'd say instead of a pooly thought out plan (which this travelling sideshow has been), why not ask employers what it would take to move to Lents instead of building things and praying?

Randy, it all sounds good. Stupid question here: WHO will shop at overpriced New Seasons? THIS is your anchor? Think again, think about who really lives there and try for a store/presence that will be there not just to look good, but also to be used. Indeed, that chain is so UNgreen, it boggles. Search the merchant-scape for an affordable company that does not damage the environment thru chi chi packaging to please the moneyed.

Lents has a twin poet team who made The New Yorker recently. You could aim for hip, affordable, ghetto-bohemian charm, Randy, and that way the people who really live there could STILL live there.

Randy, this is not a very good argument. I'd say it's downright disingenuine. I'm in Lents fairly often and to say that urban renewal there has made a significant impact is absurd. It's had some recovery, but only that which has been the economic osmossis of rising property values in closer areas like Woodstock and East Tabor. It begins a downward slope of social drift leading toward an area that is bound to the south by Mt. Scott, to the north by E. Burnside, and begins around 122nd, strectching to the outskirts of Gresham. In Portland, it's our slum. Every big city has one, even in highly socialized nations like Denmark and Switzerland. The crime rate, income, demographics, and drug problem there tell the story.

I think urban renewal there is needed and I think that IF all the conditions were right for MLB to come to Portland it should be accessed by MAX and 205, but I've seen no evidence or precedence that putting AAA there is going to be this catalyst to change the fortunes of the area. In fact, it could jeopardize the the area's stability as it sits on the brink of joining the Rose Slum to the east.

Why not show how tough you are and stand up to MLS and Paulson and demand a solution using the existing PGE Park. Cut under and/or build over SW 18th to create stands for the extra sideline of view, if necessary. Portland has already spent a lot of money on PGE Park and for less than $5M in upgrades, it could be used for both sports. Once PGE starts bursting at the seams with rabid soccer fans, then we can start discussing $80M renovations or new stadiums.

The reality here is that Paulson's buddies in City Hall want to curry favor with the billionaire, Wall Street and Washington insider class so they can turn pro someday. That's how democracy is done these days. This isn't in the best interest of Lents or Portland and, like the South Waterfront and Convention Center Hotel, a totally half-baked and deceptive financial analysis that is more propaganda than sound policy.

Douglas K:

And I still haven't seen any convincing reasons why PGE Park can't be upgraded to support both MLS and a minor league baseball team.

Bob T:

I'd like to see those reasons as well -- I'm not entirely sure about what had previously been said about why, i.e. that the field shape won't do, and I'm guessing that portable seating along the east side of the soccer field (covering much of left field and some of center field) is not good enough (it must be permanent, at least until the next renovation after MLS flops and moves away).

Bob Tiernan Portland

Ted:

Why not show how tough you are and stand up to MLS and Paulson and demand a solution using the existing PGE Park.

Bob T:

There's no need to "stand up" to someone who can't get tax dollars without the politicians doing it for them. All a decent city commissioner needs to do is say, "raise your own money", and this can be done sitting down. Leonard and Sammy Whammy created this mess merely by being open to the idea of corporate welfare in the first place.

If this goes through, try to remember that it won't be Paulson who used force, but Leonard and Sammy (and Salzman). Which key voting bloc put them there? Will you sign the recall because of support of this stadium deal? Will you vote against Randy next time he runs for something?

Bob Tiernan Portland

Douglas K:

And I still haven't seen any convincing reasons why PGE Park can't be upgraded to support both MLS and a minor league baseball team.

Bob T:

I'd like to see those reasons as well -- I'm not entirely sure about what had previously been said about why, i.e. that the field shape won't do, and I'm guessing that portable seating along the east side of the soccer field (covering much of left field and some of center field) is not good enough (it must be permanent, at least until the next renovation after MLS flops and moves away).

Greg:

MLS has said specifically that they will not allow Portland to play in a stadium that has a baseball diamond in the field of play. Moving the Beavers was part of the requirement to allow Portland into the league. PGE park as-is would be the WORST venue in MLS, and that is by a wide margin as well. Portland wanted a team, now they have to play by the rules MLS set to keep their team.

"Portland wanted a team"

No, Merritt Paulson, Randy, Sam and 200 Timbers fans wanted a team on any terms.

i've posted this on the mercury blog and want to post it here as well:

i would like to ask Randy a question in relation to this bit of his essay: "...the same plan that has left Lents in a “just about ready” condition for the past 11 years".

now i'm not trying to be dense or disingenuous, but has any developer or business or whatever in the last 11 years been offered anything close to the deal that Paulson is being offered? i'm guessing the answer is no, but i am honestly interested in understanding just what is on the table at this point.

if the answer is no, then Lents and the rest of the city need to rise up in protest over this. $40m in secured loans or whatever should go an awfully long way to creating opportunity in the area. a baseball stadium in no way will bring any long-term economic stimulus of note. that is not to say that i don't see some benefit to public expenditure towards professional sports for the area. i do believe they provide benefits to overall city image and marketability, as well as catering to sports-minded individual like myself.

but any development like this needs to be done entirely honestly and above-board. i just don't see that as happening right now.

MLS has said specifically that they will not allow Portland to play in a stadium that has a baseball diamond in the field of play.

That doesn't count as a "good reason" to spend tens of millions of dollars of tax money. The "baseball diamond" in question would be the barely barely visible residue of field chalk put down for baseball. The faint outline of a baseball diamond won't confuse soccer players, and it probably won't even confuse most of the fans. It certainly won't affect the game in any way at all.

Frankly, if PGE Park can be affordably modified with retractable seating to accommodate both sports, and MLS wants to back out of a potentially lucrative market because of some barely visible lines on the field that don't affect play ... well, let them go. We'll still have the Timbers and still have soccer at PGE Park.

I see no reason to put up tens of millions of dollars of additional taxpayer money because MLS is offended by a little chalk. MLS needs Portland a hell of a lot more than Portland needs MLS. If they want access to our market and if they want us (the taxpayers) to provide the arena, they can do it on our terms, or go elsewhere.

Wow. This post has generated some absolutely vicious, and at the same time vacuous, responses. There are good reasons to be both for and against this particular public subsidy for a new baseball stadium, and it's too bad the BO community doesn't seem interested in having the debate.

What seems to be missed by most commenters is Randy's central thesis: Lents has an existing urban renewal area. The tax increment is already being drained from the general fund, so it is not a question of spending it on economic development vs. "core services". It MUST be spent on economic development. The question is whether you spend it on many smaller projects that may or may not materialize, or you spend it on a new AAA stadium.

Although the City Council makes the ultimate decision, if I were them I would put great weight on the wishes of the Lents community. The evidence so far is mixed. The opponents came out to last week's meeting, but the neighborhood leadership is generally in favor and an earlier survey showed moderate support. I think the City should conduct a postcard survey to every household in the URA and use the results to guide the ultimate decision. This is about their future, and really it's their money. Let them make the decision.

Steve writes:

"'Portland wanted a team"

No, Merritt Paulson, Randy, Sam and 200 Timbers fans wanted a team on any terms.'"

I suspect this is right. I remember when the old Timbers were around in the 1970's and 200 is about the size of the crowds I recall. I would have expected more on the last game I attended since Mt. St. Helens was erupting in the background.

Ya know, I personally railed the media on their opinion lines and OPB too for all that stupid "SExxxxxxxx Ssssssssscandallllll" crap they ran on our mayer a while back.

At this point I'm just not sure why I bothered.

He seems to own a lot of shovels and is pulling them out to dig his way into an underground location, professionally.

Speaking of MLS and other ridiculous distractions.

Old Ducker: "200 is about the size of the crowds I recall"

wrong. i was there, too. but i actually went to the games, and the team averaged over 10k for nearly every one of it's seasons playing at civic stadium. a few years were well over that.

my belief is that the MLS is going to ultimately be successful, and that the Timbers will draw in excess of 20k per game in the MLS. i honestly think that it will be an economically viable enterprise and the city will be paid back every penny it's fronting Paulson.

I can't say the same for the beavers, however. they will always need public subsidy if they have to build a brand new stadium. is it worth it? i'm not sold. especially if it's at the detriment of the Lents neighborhood.

PGE Park is perfectly fine as-is for soccer and baseball. How do we know this? Because the Beavers and the Timbers have been sharing PGE Park for the last 9 seasons without any issues.

I would like to hear an official statement made by Major League Soccer regarding the suitability of PGE Park as it is. Not a sound bite from an interview, but a literal official statement. I want to see this statement in writing -- signed, sealed, and delivered: "We are officially on record as saying that an MLS team cannot share with a baseball team under any circumstances. We will rescind the MLS expansion nomination for Portland if the Beavers are not kicked out of PGE Park."

Until there is an official statement made by the MLS, we should assume that it is just the preference of Merritt Paulson to operate two sports stadiums for his personal profit at the expense of the Portland taxpayer, including ripping $40 million from the Lents neighborhood that they could put to much better use.

eric cantona, I believe Old Ducker is referring to the very small minority of Timbers fans that don't have the interests of the city they claim to love in mind, just the bank account of the Paulsons. Many Timbers fans such as myself are disgusted with the manner in which Merritt Paulson, Sam Adams, and Randy Leonard have conducted themselves since March. I don't want the Timbers legacy to be tarnished by these shenanigans.

With Jack Bog as the first commenter on this post, it's no surprise that it's mainly a lot of vitriolic hacks that follow. There's a bona fide debate to be had, but I guess no in response to Randy's post. Perhaps there'd be a real debate if this had gone up on a weekday.

Jonathan, I hope you don't mean this when you talk about vitriol.

Frankly, if PGE Park can be affordably modified with retractable seating to accommodate both sports, and MLS wants to back out of a potentially lucrative market because of some barely visible lines on the field that don't affect play ... well, let them go. We'll still have the Timbers and still have soccer at PGE Park.

I see no reason to put up tens of millions of dollars of additional taxpayer money because MLS is offended by a little chalk. MLS needs Portland a hell of a lot more than Portland needs MLS. If they want access to our market and if they want us (the taxpayers) to provide the arena, they can do it on our terms, or go elsewhere. <<

I happen to agree with Douglas K. Call me any name you want, I'm glad Memorial Coliseum was spared--until this came up I didn't realize being a fan of Skidmore, Owings and Merrill buildings (they also did the Labor and Industries bldg. on the Capitol Mall in Salem) was so controversial.

The introduction of HB 2531 (stadium bonds) made this a statewide issue.

Now if the above is not "real debate", I'd like to know what is.

Randy Leonard says: "[T]he relative economic impact of the stadium in Lents would be greater than anywhere else in Portland."

Why is it, then, that folks in City Hall are saying that the City is sitting on a study that says that a Lents stadium would have no positive impact or a negative impact?

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the stadium will have no positive economic impact for Lents. People will just buy hot dogs inside the stadium and then leave. They won't stick around to shop in any of the stores ... stores that don't exist anyways, and won't exist because the money from the URA that is earmarked for business development will be given away to Merritt Paulson.

On top of that, there have already been numerous studies done on the economic impact of sports stadiums. Most all come to the same conclusion. No positive economic impact. For there to be positive economic impact, there must be other factors at play to contribute to a perfect storm. A Stanford economist who has written a study about the economic impact of sports stadiums agrees: http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/BlogtownPDX/archives/2009/05/13/stanford-economist-refutes-stadium-benefits

Ultimately, what this whole thing comes down to is a corporate welfare at the expense of a poor neighborhood in dire need of real economic improvement. Lents needs small businesses and entrepreneurs, local people who will employ other local people. It doesn't need an out-of-town billionaire to steal their URA money to construct a fenced-off stadium on public park land (which, by the way, will also cost the city between $13 and $29 million to replace: http://blogs.wweek.com/news/2009/05/14/portland-parks-13-million-to-29-million-needed-to-replace-portions-of-lents-park/ The Parks Board is opposed to the stadium.

Why does Lents have so much on the table for urban renewal? Well probably because no private investors want to act on it. Now there is one that does. Good on him.

It'd be nice to have a meeting of all the detractors to have their argument shredded.

Alas...leave it to Jack Bog's sycophants to always show up and post their BS.

Merritt Paulson is investing no private money into the potential baseball stadium in Lents. He was going to put $12.5 million toward the Rose Quarter site if the city demolished Memorial Coliseum for him, but he took that money off the table for the Lents project because he doesn't feel that private investment is worth it for Lents.

Let's not get into what into what's good for Merritt Paulson, though. This is about what's good for Lents. That $42 million could go a long way toward a lot of projects to stimulate the local economy. What Lents really needs is small businesses. The baseball stadium is not going to help. All the studies prove that sports stadiums do not have positive economic impacts, and I am sure the specific study that the city is waiting for will prove it in this case, as well.

Furthermore, that $13 to $29 million for the park land replacement could go a long way for the city. Is it really worth $55 to $71 million to build a 8,000-seat baseball stadium in the middle of a residential neighborhood, while the neighborhood itself is in need of affordable housing and small business development?

I am a progressive, not a Jack Bog sycophant. I want the city's money spent for the citizens of Portland, not for a spoiled rich kid from New York who doesn't even live in Portland. The URA is meant for the people of Lents. Let's be truly progressive and turn the neighborhood around. The baseball stadium should be built with private money somewhere else.

Moving bleachers AND covering the turf every week costs a lot of money. Having a surface with a baseball diamond on it... including seams which may have cost the Timbers a championship in 2007... is not professional. It does not help Portland get better players for MLS.

MLS sacrificed an opportunity for a publically funded stadium in the St. Louis area because they decided Portland was a better market. Essentially, if the city were to attempt dictate terms to MLS, the response will be pretty much automatic, never mind what any lawyer thinks they can win because there may not be a bylaw. Merritt Paulson never had to sell me on not sharing with baseball- it's been MLS fan mantra since it first got off the ground.

...then, with Vancouver taken by MLS, leaving nobody in USL-1 out west, and a baseball situation that has NEVER BEEN LONG-TERM profitable at PGE Park (resulting in the Beavers leaving that site TWICE), you're foolish to think Merritt Paulson is going to turn around and keep playing at PGE Park after the current lease terminates in 2010. Moreover, you're foolish to think that anyone else will want to buy into the situation there. That jeopardizes the current bonds paying off the 2000 PGE Park renovation. Then what?

Mind you, AAA ballparks aren't the perfect investment, but they have their value. Raley Field has helped chase away a drug and hooker trade that used to thrive around the West Sacramento spot where the stadium now stands, drawing record season average crowds. It's taken Dell Diamond 9 years, but there's some development AND proposals for further development in that land area (merely 23 miles away from downtown Austin, while being on pace to draw this year's best PCL crowds). The other good examples- Memphis, Oklahoma City, and this year's new ballpark in Columbus- show that the ballpark woven into an arena district or near-downtown entertainment area (like the Rose Quarter proposal) works quite well for the baseball component.

One thing Randy Leonard actually shorted... in this decade, new AAA parks in the same city have averaged an increase of 300,000 fans in a season over old ballpark attendance. The question is how much current overcounts for baseball in PGE Park factor into that. Of course, there's that chance Lents probably won't draw as well for its location... but if it works against the stereotype and the current reality in Lents, that might be all Lents needs.

Pounder -

You gave some examples of some nice stadiums. But if you talk to folks around the country, there's been little-to-no new development around every stadium except Oklahoma City, Memphis, Toledo and Durham — all in downtown areas. West Sacramento, nearly a decade after Raley Field opened, is just now seeing some proposals for development around the stadium. I talked to a city councilman from Round Rock last week who said all the ballpark's done for the neighborhood is fund an amateur sports complex, which is good for hotels and restaurants in town a few miles away, but doesn't do anything for the area in the immediate vicinity of the stadium. Rochester, Syracuse, Pawtucket, Salt Lake, Albuquerque, Tucson... the list goes on and on of new ballparks that have not sparked development around them.

Non-downtown stadia simply don't work for economic development at the Triple-A level.

As for the 300,000 number — yes, attendance for Triple-A teams increases by 1-2,000 a game for new stadia... but those numbers appear to settle over time after an initial spikes.

Pounder, Merritt Paulson leaving doesn't jeopardize paying off the old bonds because he isn't paying anything on the old bonds. Taxpayers are paying the old bonds and any new bonds with the Merritt Paulson deals, which is why Portlanders don't want to continue the handouts for stadiums.

Without trying to get in a fight with the so and so people that say they know everything at this point.

The MLS will not come here if the Beavers are not out of PGE Park. PGE Park has to be a soccer specific stadium (PSU football will remain because it will be a square field and this has been endorsed by PSU...also our various high school teams will still be able to use PGE for high school football). Don Garber (commissioner of MLS has blatantly said that the Beavers cannot remain at PGE and Portland will keep the MLS franchise) Anyone that says the Timbers and Beavers can share a park is an uninformed idiot. Judging by who is writing those arguments here I'm inclined to thing thats not so far from the cookie barrel anyway.

This argument that they can share long term is a lie. Yes they can share in the short term...i.e. the Beavers have a place to play and they have to share temporarily. There really isn't a reason to share though since both could be in their own homes by 2011. Also why would they want to look half assed in their first game? Considering what the first game of MLS looked like in Seattle I would imagine ESPN would be out here in full force for game 1 and Portland would be center stage. We would instantly have one of the best fanbases in MLS...you want to showcase that on ESPN with a half assed AAA stadium? Please...grow up...we'd be losing out on millions of dollars associated with opening day ...and yes with a soccer specific PGE Park MLS would most definitely have us on opening day most likely vs. Seattle. The media coverage alone would be worth millions to the city. The alternative would be a Kingdome clone in Vancouver BC.

The other argument is potholes and school funding.

You're going to hear that until times are good. People will say schools aren't funded enough and they have a pothole in front of their house and if things are bad you'll hear the same thing. Three years of me happily voting for and paying my Multnomah County income tax says that (in full disclosure I'm a single male with no children and no real inspiration for kids so I paid for, and voted for your rugrats to go to school because I think its important).

Merritt isn't trying to rob you. He has done nothing but try and present a fair deal to everyone. He came with one of the best deals a sports owner has ever come to a city with and several architects pissed and moaned about the memorial coliseum to the point enough detractors were able to convince people to wait for the Blazers to demolish the MC. Of course everyone will be happy to let the Blazers do what they will with the Rose Quarter. Try to stop that train friends. You'll find yourself looking down the smoking barrell of a 12 guage dealing with the Blazers wanting public funds.

My prediction...The Merritt deal will go through...mostly because its a good deal for the city. A year or three later the Blazers are going to decide they want to redevelop the Rose Quarter. It's going to cost 12X what putting a AAA stadium in the RQ would have cost. Everyone will be cool with it because Paul Allen will have found a loophole in his deal with the city to move the team to Seattle.

P.S. if you dont think Allen hasn't been working on moving the Blazers to Seattle you're shortsighted. It will happen the second its possible legally. If that ownership group in Seattle fails Allen will actively start working on every scenario of moving the team there in a second unless he gets every demand in Portland met. He'll probably get that because it would be political suicide to allow the Blazers to leave or actively campaign on letting them go.

Garrett, if the Beavers leave PGE Park, the proposed renovations will not transform it much from how it looks right now. The renovations will just pretty up the insides and build an uncovered grandstand on the east side. If we keep the Beavers at PGE Park and use a portable grandstand on the east side, it will look exactly the same on TV.

Please point us to an official statement or document from the MLS stating that they will rescind our expansion spot if the Beavers are not kicked out of PGE Park. We are in the league now, they can't just kick us out. That would be a PR disaster for them, and they would become the laughing stock of the sports world. Therefore, we are in the driver's seat. Let's save a ton of money and keep the Beavers in PGE Park.

Election of Portland City Council Members via 4 precincts each equaling a quarter of the Portland's population is way overdue. Furthermore, make it so that the City Council Members have to reside in their precinct at least 180 days out of a year every year to run and retain their seat.

Make these blowhards accountable to voters in a precinct. This "city wide" bunk is just allowing individuals to get in their and run it like a little empire.

"Jaws of Victory." I am glad that you realize now that it has been defeated.

Portland City Council = we are going to shove it down your throat and force you to like it because we are currently not accountable to a precinct.

There's been a lot of comments about the dissenters here being knee-jerk haters of the deal, who didn't even read Randy's article. Jack Bog is mentioned and people who write on that site have been called his sycophants. Their opinion has been characterized as BS.

Well, I write comments on Jack's site so I'm going to respond with a question of my own. This one goes out to Garrett, Jonathan Radmacher, Bite Me, Boggers!, and Jenuine.

I read Randy's piece and I want to focus on his opinion that this baseball deal, "would give Lents a competitive psychological and economic edge that no other neighborhood in the City could compete with."

Do you believe that? Really? Or do you believe Randy is just shoveling the BS here himself?

Go ahead. Show us how smart you are. Make a stand. You've been quick to characterize our comments. How would you characterize Randy's analysis?

Oh, I get it. Maybe you were counting on us not reading the article. That must be it.

Well, I did and that little gem of genius is in it. According to Randy, no other neighborhood in this city will be able to compete with Lents after this deal. Is that BS or not? Go ahead. Put on those thinking caps and tell us what you think.

Now ask yourself if he's shoveling BS with that line, what else about this deal is BS?

Perhaps an accurate comparison could be made to Louisville Slugger Field, home of the AAA Louisville River Bats. the stadium was constructed between 1998 and 200 in the older warehouse district of downtown Louisville between Butchertown and downtown. Completed for just under $28MM, the stadium seats about 13,000 and has the ubiquitous corporate boxes.

The team owners, Humana and Hillerich and Bradsby (makers of the Louisville Slugger) teamed with the city to construct the new stadium. I do not know if Urban Renewal funds were used, but the team pays around $850k/year in rent. The stadium was supposed to have retail and other shops incorporated. Now, 10 years later would be a good time to delve into how successful the stadium has been in providing an economic engine for redevelopment in the area.

If Randy Leonard is convinced the Beavers Stadium is a great idea for Lents, perhaps he could get us some data from the Louisville Slugger Stadium. A precurser to the current team, The Redbirds, set the AAA single season attendance record in 1983 of over 1,000,000 fans.

Let me make it simple, Randy.

Push this stadium through, you're through in politics in Portland. It's a waste of city money, there's no history of stadiums rejuvenating the neighborhoods into which they are placed, and more to the point, there's no need for it at all right now. MLS is not going to generate much revenue for anyone except the team owners, and even then I doubt it will be enough to keep them here for more than a few years.

There's still time. Recant, tell the whole story of how this has become important, expose the power, influence, and lure of the wrecking ball crew, and you'll be a hero. Surely you're not a victim of the bright lights and lure of easy money this Paulson bunch is known for selling local politicians.

Otherwise, I hope they're paying you enough so you can have a quite comfortable, if notorious retirement into which you'll be forced.

Beavers draw mostly casual fans. Anything that makes attendance less convenient (and more expensive) will further deplete the limited number of AAA baseball fans in Portland. We were at the game yesterday (Memorial Day) and even though it was beautiful weather and a family-friendly daytime game, there could not have been more than 4000 paid attendance, maybe much less. Looking around at the crowd of families, young children, and baseball "nerds", I can't imagine that more than about a third of that crowd would drive to Lents to see a game.

If Lents was not sitting on a pot of urban renewal cash that can be diverted to a ballpark, do you think anybody would seriously consider placing a minor league baseball park there? I don't.

A third of that crowd might not drive...but they may take the MAX...and for some of them, it would be a much shorter trip. Currently, 25% of the Beaver's attendance comes from Multnomah County. Most of Multnomah County is east of the river.

The truth of the matter is that there are a lot of people who can't imagine people venturing beyond 60th Avenue, because they never have. East Portland (the area east of 82nd) has 25% of the population of Portland, a regional center and Lents Town Center, and now, a light rail line conveniently connects the two.

This same light rail line also provides great access to for people coming from the Clackamas county market and Gresham. I-205 provides easy driving access, either directly to the site, or to the multiple park-and-ride lots along the 205 corridor.

Public funds are available in Lents, and yes, that was weighed during the course of identifying appropriate sites. But, that does not invalidate the other positive qualities of the Lents neighborhood or the market viability for baseball in East Portland.

It's always amusing to read arguments put forward by people who clearly haven't set foot in Lents or PGE Park.

First, the economic development angle: Lents needs destinations. The ballpark will attract people from the four-county area. You don't think a couple of new restaurants are going to open up and take advantage of the crowds coming through the neighborhood? You don't think that Eastport Plaza is going to benefit by having thousands of extra people drawn into their area?

Second, PGE Park: A fundamental problem there is that the 2001 renovation was primarily for seismic and ADA requirements. They did not do a good job of thinking through the concourse renovations, and anyone who has spent any time there will tell you that the effective capacity is only about 10,000. Beyond that, the concession stands and bathrooms can't handle the load.

re: "soccer specific". while i agree that the timbers and the beavers should not share civic stadium (fuck PGE, BTW) long term, using the phrase "soccer specific" then adding the notion of HS and PSU football happening there actually negates that notion.

re: "You don't think a couple of new restaurants are going to open up and take advantage of the crowds coming through the neighborhood?"

if anyone's stupid enough to open a restaurant that will rely on baseball crowds for its livelihood, well, best of luck with that.

a stadium in Lents will not in any way improve the economic conditions there. no freaking way. anyone with a modicum of intelligence can not seriously argue that it would. promoting that idea is so beyond reasonable that i find it astonishing that anyone (Leonard?) could say it with a straight face. sure it may lift the spirits of a portion of the neighborhood, but it wont put bread on the table.

other ideas for baseball sites:

Expo Center - lots of space near I5 and MAX. close to clark county and eastside baseball nuts. fairly easy access from westside (easier then lents).

Delta Park - similar arguments to above, a little more difficult access, though.

Blanchard site - may require additional expenditures but would be a nice central location. has built in access to lots of transit and parking associated with the RQ.

all of these would be large enough for the possible expansion to MLB specifications, which really should be a no-brainer.

With all due respect Mr. Leonard, do us all a favor and Google / Yahoo / Nexis the term "public financing for sports stadiums."

Now show me one independent study that shows how this works out well for the general public. The fact of the matter is public financing for private sports enterprises never - NEVER - works out well for the taxpayer (except in the case of Greenbay, WI).

Having worked with investment banks, venture capital, and angel investors over the last 20 years the one thing I have learned is there is no such thing as a "win/win" situation. Like sports, there is a winner and a loser in every deal and the Paulson family is very good at the game of using OPM (Other People's Money).

Eric, the fallacy there is that a restaurant would need to rely solely on the baseball crowds to do well. There is enough latent demand in Lents to support retail, grocery and restaurants as demonstrated by the retail market study conducted by PDC last year.

What a ballpark would do is help overcome the negative perception that there is nothing in Lents, that the neighborhood is not worth investing in, and in addition would cause people to come to the neighborhood to see that fact with their own two eyes. Sure, it's a really intangible benefit, and 42 million is a lot to hang on an intangible, but it's a definitely a benefit that Lents needs.

Commissioner Leonard,

Thank you for the post. I don’t doubt your desire to see significant economic development in Lents. Nor do I doubt that siting a stadium in Lents has been your first choice from the beginning specifically because you believe this development will spark additional economic growth in Lents.

That said, in my opinion, the present financial deal for stadium development in Lents as reported in the press keeps many important questions unanswered. Moreover, I believe the proposed deal is not conducive with the conditional commitments required by the Major League Soccer/Triple-A Baseball Task Force Report accepted by Council in March.

Contrary to Commitment to Neighborhood Involvement in Urban Renewal Areas: The proposed $42 million in funding from the Lents URA will result in a loss of affordable housing support that must be made up elsewhere to ensure "no net loss of affordable housing."

This expands the scope of the decision on stadium development beyond the purview of the Lents URA advisory committee. Other urban renewal area(s) will need to program money away from present economic development plans to make up for the resulting shortfall.

This outcome is not supported by the Commitment to Neighborhood Involvement in Urban Renewal Areas outlined by the Task Force in its report to the Council. Arguably, it also bends existing commitments and practices used for URA funding decisions: should a decision endorsed by citizens in one URA limit the flexibility for programming funds in other URAs?

Cost of Open Space Replacement Commitment is Unknown: The Task Force Report requires that "If open space land for public parks is used in this project, the project costs will include funds to purchase or develop and to maintain equivalent open space land for public use in the same area of the City."

Although the replacement cost for the lost parkland has been assumed as a $2 million expense, it has been reported that this expense may be as much as $29 million (Willamette Week, May 14, 2009). It seems that a definitive cost much be assessed before a cost-benefit for this proposal can be determined.

The potential for this expense to expand beyond the present $2 million budget underscores another critical conditional commitment made by the Task Force: protection of the general fund.

Ability to Maintain Commitment to Protect the General Fund is Unclear: The city has made a conditional commitment that it will hold the general fund harmless as part of the MLS/AAA project.

It is unclear to me how any overrun in parkland replacement expenses or fulfilling existing affordable housing commitments will be remedied in a manner that protects the City's general fund.

Further, although you cite an overall commitment to "invest more than $50 million in private capital to bring Major League Soccer to Portland and Beavers baseball to Lents", it is unclear to me if Shortstop LLC has proposed to commit any direct financial support toward development of a Lents stadium.

Needless to say, any insight on these questions and concerns is very, very welcome.

All the best,

Tony Fuentes

i'm sorry Cora, but I don't see it. having a restaurant that has the capacity to deal with large crowds only 72 (i think) times a year simply doesn't make economic sense. if there was an active neighborhood retail area to draw from as well, then i can see it. what i would argue is that you need the retail activity more than the baseball activity for real sustained viability.

which is why the $42m should be spent a little smarter.

also, again, has any business/developer/whatever been offered the same terms that Paulson has in the last 11 years for lents URA funding? i believe the answer to this is critical to understanding what Leonard is proposing. if there has been, and no one has taken it, then maybe Randy has a point. if not, then we need to take a very hard look at why Paulson is getting this deal and not others, who might bring a lot more jobs/stimulus to lents.

Jonathan

How can we have a constructive debate when Randy and the Mayor try to ram rod through the first plan; when by all reports Randy is bullying Lents neighbors in a neighborhood association meeting; and now he has the gall to wrap himself in a working class stiff just looking out for the little guy cloak.

He points to a few times when ill considered decisions that would have hurt the east side were turned back, without mentioning the years of neglect and downtown-centric decisions that he has actively participated in or led since he came to the council.

The Lents neighborhood sees through the smoke screen. Randy has become one of the "downtown elites calling the shots."

If Randy really wants to support the interests of East Portland, he'd support a districted city commission that would never again have only one council member east of 39th.

Hey, chicken littles who offer nothing but rhetoric to back up their argument...read what Jeremy Wright just wrote. How about debating the facts now?

Jeremy:

1. What's the proposed costs, total, of building the new stadium? Including the demolition costs of Walker stadium?

2. How much money has MLS brought into communities the size of Portland? Not revenue for the team, but money in the areas around their stadiums? I'd love to see those facts and figures. Especially if a community built a new stadium.

3. Who is going to foot the bill for the 270+ days of "community use" ideas you list for the new stadium? Is the city going to pay for the insurance for such events, and the power?

4. Finally, you TRUST the Paulsons to guarantee with their own money something that if it goes through will drive an economic stake into the heart of an extremely liberal city? I remember Texans trusting the Bushes with similar promises back in the 80s when they got the state savings and loan laws changed and took a couple of S&Ls into the commercial real estate development business; that turned out well. If the Paulsons are that flush, why not let THEM pay for it now instead of being -- oops -- bankrupt later when the bill comes through?

Jeremy:

1. What's the proposed costs, total, of building the new stadium? Including the demolition costs of Walker stadium?

2. How much money has MLS brought into communities the size of Portland? Not revenue for the team, but money in the areas around their stadiums? I'd love to see those facts and figures. Especially if a community built a new stadium.

3. Who is going to foot the bill for the 270+ days of "community use" ideas you list for the new stadium? Is the city going to pay for the insurance for such events, and the power?

4. Finally, you TRUST the Paulsons to guarantee with their own money something that if it goes through will drive an economic stake into the heart of an extremely liberal city? I remember Texans trusting the Bushes with similar promises back in the 80s when they got the state savings and loan laws changed and took a couple of S&Ls into the commercial real estate development business; that turned out well. If the Paulsons are that flush, why not let THEM pay for it now instead of being -- oops -- bankrupt later when the bill comes through?

Does that mean I am always right on your site, Jack?

"How about debating the facts now?"

Sure as soon as he puts forth some facts. Right now, it is a lot of theories that have never panned out or have any basis in reality or fact.

It boils down to this, is this the absolute best way to spend $100M to improve Portland? More so than getting actual jobs, better schools or fixing infrastructure?

If you really believe sports teams can cure cancer, well god bless you all.

This whole proposition is based on the notion that Paulson will pay for everything which means he will need to make a pretty good profit. Is this teh best use of public money?

There are no facts from Randy et al, heck, they can't state with a straight face how much it will cost ($85M ot do we need $15M or will this thing even come close to hitting a budget?) or where it will go (MemCol, Delta Park, Lents, Blanchard?)

If Randy and his supporters had shown a little forethought instead of pasting this together on the flyer on the orders of Don Garber, they might have more credibility.

Here is a very helpful summary that was passed on to me by a friend.

I am utterly opposed to using city financing to fund a sporting venue during the deepest recession in 70 years. Based on the experience of other smaller metro areas with public-private sports arena schemes I expect this venture to be a financial drain for decades.

Oh Bill MickeyD, get over yourself. Cherry picking a line here or there.

Go back to jerkbog and live in your sheltered radicalized life...

PDXer, I'll work on getting over myself. I'll also work on getting over what the Paulson family did to America. In fact we all will - even Randy Leonard - once he gets done being their temporary bellhop.

Steve wrote:

"I'd say instead of a poorly thought out plan (which this travelling sideshow has been), why not ask employers what it would take to move to Lents instead of building things and praying?"

This sounds like a great idea to me.

I believe a stadium will be semi-successful in Lents. As someone posted before, the possibilities for the stadium to hold more functions than just Beavers games is an exciting prospect.
The problem I see is with the financing. I do believe Portland should pay a share through the URA. However I also believe Paulson should be contributing more than he is. If you read the fine print, he is contributing very little. With someone so close to the banking industry, it would seem he could easily obtain construction loans for at least one of the projects...unless banks do not see the 'smart' investment, much like Paul Allen and the Rose Garden.
Although this could all be setting Portland up for something bigger in the future. If Portland can show MLB and the NFL that it will fund stadiums, maybe that will get Portland closer to having one of those teams.

Hey Randy,

Why don't you clowns in City Hall focus on the basics first? How about sidewalks in the Lents area as a start rather than a baseball stadium? How about filling in some potholes or maybe adding a few police officers to the stolen car detail? How about towing away some of the abadoned vehicles in the neighborhood? Why do idiots like you want to waste money on big projects rather than just fulfill some simple job tasks?

Cloni, Several years ago the MLB advocates in town wanted the Expos to move here and play in PGE Park while a stadium was built.

   By making PGE Park soccer and football only, we'd be making a plan like that impossible.

  So this deal could actually prevent MLB from coming to Portland. Ironic, don't you think?

Didn't I hear on the radio this morning (KPOJ) that today's Willamette Week looks at this question from the point of view of Lents neighborhood?

"today's Willamette Week looks at this question from the point of view of Lents neighborhood?"

Sum and substance - If Randy raids the piggy-bank for the $42M to build this thing, then there's no money for anything else in Lents for the nxt few years.

Don't worry, the more eveyone doesn't like it, the more Randy likes it - Spoken like a true leader.

One more thing - The ECONetics report Randy keeps blowing about for new job creation. Paraphrase from:

Section 4.3 - Construction of the stadium would create fewer jobs than if the money was left in taxpayers' pockets.

If Portland can show MLB and the NFL that it will fund stadiums, maybe that will get Portland closer to having one of those teams.

Yeah, that's what we need. More billionaires hanging around City Hall looking for handouts to indulge their hobbies.

I actually have no problem with building a baseball stadium, but let's only do it once. Build the minor league stadium at the site of the (so far hypothetical) major league stadium, and expand it if and when the time comes. But if we can't do that right now, then just keep soccer and baseball sharing PGE Park until we can.

Jeremy Wright is the leader of the political action committee MSL2PDX, and he will say anything in order to get what Merritt Paulson wants. There are better ways to bring MLS to Portland, but he will have none of it.

Case in point: he continues to say in the comments of multiple articles and blogs that Walker Stadium is a "dump" and that the current grandstands cannot be used. Here is a picture taken recently showing people sitting in the grandstands of Walker Stadium: http://www.flickr.com/photos/38810939@N04/3568643087/in/set-72157618849346576/ You can see in the background a small section of seating that needs to be replaced. Should it cost $42 million of the Lents URA money plus $13-$29 million from the general fund to replace park land in order to refurbish that seating? I don't think so.

Walker Stadium is currently available for public use 365 days of the year. The picture linked to above shows a little league game taking place. If the Beavers build a new stadium in its place, 72 summer dates will be taken away from the public. Not to mention the numerous other events, such as concerts, that Merritt Paulson will hold at the stadium for his personal profit. Why should we replace a baseball field in a public park that is currently used by the citizens of Portland with an 8,000-seat stadium (that will be order of magnitude larger than the current Walker Stadium ... as you can see in the picture) that will not be available to the public 365 days of the year? Should we remove old-growth trees to make way for parking lots and offices for the Beavers?

Furthermore, Jeremy Wright claims that the MLS awarded Portland a franchise because the Beavers are being forced to leave PGE Park. Now that we have the franchise, I would like to see an OFFICIAL document or statement from the MLS that says our MLS franchise will be rescinded if the Beavers are not kicked out of PGE Park. Does anyone seriously believe that the MLS will take away our franchise? They would become the laughing stock of professional sports if they did that.

The city of Portland is in the driver's seat. We get to dictate the terms. Jeremy Wright is using fear to force people to act hastily and without regard for the basic needs of our city's residents. And what are we supposed to fear? That the Portland Timbers will have their MLS franchise taken away from them, and they will have to remain in the USL, as they have for the last 9 seasons? Where they have been successful at drawing crowds, and where Merritt Paulson is currently making money while sharing the stadium with the Beavers? Why should we fear this? Again, the city of Portland is in the driver's seat. Not Merritt Paulson. Not the MLS. Not Jeremy Wright, who does not have the concerns of the citizens of Portland in mind.

Also, notice how Jeremy Wright becomes very angry and attacks anyone who doesn't instantly agree with his stance. Everyone is wrong, and no one understands the "facts" except for him. This is why I, as a Timbers fan, am extremely embarrassed that this man is out in public representing us. His tactics have created a wedge in the Timbers fan base and turned the city against us. In the end, if we do achieve the goal he so desperately desires, it will be at the expense of our integrity and reputation. There are better ways to achieve the MLS goal. We don't need to be lapdogs for Merritt Paulson.

Cora, the $42 million from the Lents URA should be used to subsidize small business in the neighborhood, such as restaurants. That is a better expenditure of your limited URA money.

All studies about publicly subsidized sports stadiums show that these stadiums do not contribute to new business development. Rather, the only thing these stadiums have the potential for is to give a little boost to EXISTING businesses. So the first order of business for the Lents URAC should be to establish and stabilize a thriving small business community in the neighborhood. This should already be in place BEFORE considering spending all your URA money on a baseball stadium.

Again I suggest that someone do the investigative work to find out how Louisville is doing with their AAA baseball stadium built in 2000. It has been 10 years and many issues that are guesses or wide eyed suppositions now could be tested against empirical data.

Louisville is about the same size as Portland. It sits on a river and has a neighboring state just across the bridge. It has a stadium built with some public money in an area of town in need of economic development. The original plan called for the stadium to anchor retail, restaurants, etc. How are THEY doing?

Kurt,

Just look on google maps. Using the satellite view, then zooming to just the Louisville Slugger Ballpark and the vicinity within a few blocks, then using the "places of interest" app...the area appears to be booming. Lots of bars, restaurants and retail...

That particular ballpark is also surrounded by a sea of parking (the proposed ballpark will be surrounded by park) and does not have a light rail stop within 1/2 block (the proposed ballpark will).

If you switch to street view, and cruise E Main street, you also get a nice view of new developments currently under construction.

Thanks Cora, I'm from Louisville. Many times Google Maps can be decieving. The area has had one development effort after another over the past 30 years. I am glad to see some retail and business in the area and hope that it is successful.

I'm merely suggesting that those in favor of public money for this stadia deal get some hard data that may support their hopes that it will work out.

First off Randy Leonard has earned the right to fight for his east side district and home. Most of you commenting on here don't live anywhere near Lents and are armchair quarterbacking from affair.

Jeremy, there are no districts in Portland. All commissioners are elected city wide.

No one "earns" the right to fight for an area.

Where pray tell do you live, Jeremy? Maybe on Wilbur Ave. up near the University of Portland? But of course you are perfectly positioned to comment on Lents.