Thanks, Todd, for the nice mention in your Multnomah Dems column. Just for the record, the magazine was the October 1960 issue of Harpers not Time.

Sue Stinson

I attended last night's Mult Dems meeting and for the record there was one vote in favor of the Lents stadium-- mine. The discussion was heavily skewed to the negative with 2 out of 3 panelists against the stadium and all speakers from the audience against. As one who has not followed the issue, I heard no compelling arguments against. I doubt that urban renewal $ can be used for other things such as road improvement, etc. Soccer may not have been that hot 15 years ago, but a new generation is growing up with it. The soccer moms might just show up. 250 jobs at $11/h are nothing to sneeze at in our desperate economic straits. Sure, business might not spill over into central Lents, but the Lents residents could walk to those jobs. In this crappy climate, we need some indoor entertainment besides drinking, and Gresham/Troutdale is loaded with sports fans. Tigard is a short freeway ride from Lents. What is not to like?

What a great story about the magazine cover! Thanks for sharing, Todd, and thanks to Sue for getting it done.

As to the Lent's ballpark, I'm really curious to see what happens at the Lents Urban Renewal Advisory Committee meeting, and to see whether Lent's residents end up favoring or opposing the stadium. There's been a lot of criticism of the Mayor and Randy Leonard over this, but they both seem to be willing to leave the final decision to the neighborhood.

I was up in the area last week-end and spoke with a friend who is an avid soccer fan and a sometime baseball fan. He said he will not travel to Lents to go see baseball - period. His travels to PGE Park are on the public transportation grid that seems to have forgotten Lents.

He also questions why spending the money to upgrade PGE Park to soccer only AND building a new AAA baseball stadium is the right way to go. If it must be done, why not keep PGE multi-use and build a new soccer specific stadium somewhere?

His last point, upon which I agree, is that public money being used to build private team stadia is ineffective in stimulating lasting economic growth and is poor public policy.

Oh, and the alleged $11/hr stadia jobs are already being subsidized by the City of Portland, so that is a false economic promise as well.

I love soccer, I'm fond of baseball. Hopefully the city will make a rational decision when it comes to placing public bonding capacity and money at risk for this.

I'm also opposed to the Lents stadium. In fact, I'm opposed to moving the Beavers at all. As Kurt said, why not build a new soccer stadium, if one is going to be built? (Maybe then we could have real grass at PGE Park.) There isn't a shred of evidence that the stadium would bring economic development to the Lents area, based on similar scenarios elsewhere.

If the Lents residents want the stadium, that would be a point in its favor. As for the "unbalanced" meeting with more people opposing than in favor, do you suppose that could be because more people oppose the stadium than are in favor of it?

Thanks for the coverage, Todd.

Just so folks know, we (as in Vice Chair Susan Silodor and I), invited many proponents to be part of the panel, including, but not limited to, folks at City Hall, business advocates, as well as other Lents Neighborhood Association leaders. Unfortunately, significant schedule conflicts prevailed with pre-existing meetings and commitments.

I give Judy a great amount of credit and a hearty thank you. I advised her beforehand that she might be the lone voice on her side, but she was game. And while the discussion was predominantly opposed to the stadium/soccer proposal, it wasn't anti-Judy, but just a reflection about how folks feel.

Although I've only just met her, I am actually a Lents neighbor too, and she told me this: "KC, you need to be at the Lents meeting so you can vote - I don't care HOW you vote - just be there to express your opinion."

KUDOS to you, Judy.

Dems have a lot of nerve showing up at a Pride event in light of the abhorrent Obama DOJ DOMA brief just released. Your president argues that gays have no equal protection arguments, no right-to-privacy arguments, do not deserve heightened scrutiny, and makes the outrageous claims that DOMA wasn't motivated by animosity toward homosexuals and doesn't deprive gay Americans of any rights because they can still get married to people of the opposite sex. I guess Obama's good buddy Rick Warren fed him that line.

2009, and we still have a bigot in the White House. Thank loads, Blue Oregon, for all your fine effort.

Is there anybody out there who thinks this is a good business proposition on its own merits? Is there anyone who thinks that attendance will be sufficient in Lents to meet projections? Who does not imagine that in 5 years, someone (Paulson?) won't be pointing a "gun" at City Council asking for another subsidy saying "You mean you want to lose baseball forever in Portland?"

Come on Commissioner Saltzman, there is not one ounce of analysis or data that says this deal pencils out.

Some (possibly debatable) facts about this whole thing:

• Lents IS on the “public transportation grid” with the new MAX line a block away, and several existing bus lines. • Most people who currently go to games for either franchise would agree that Civic Stadium is too big for AAA ball, and nearly perfect for MLS. • It should be less expensive to build a 7-9k AAA park vs. a 20k soccer stadium.

Personally, I believe that if Lents wants this, then they should get it. I can’t see any real positives for them, but it’s (sorta) their money.

Leonard’s comments in the O this morning cracked me up. I’m paraphrasing from memory, but he basically says that any report that doesn’t bolster his arguments is wrong. You got to admire his tenacity. I guess…

Michael M,

First of all, Obama is THE President, not "your" president or "my" president. Just like Bush was THE president, even when I disagreed with him which was, oh, 99.99999% of the time.

I disagree with and am disappointed with the stance and decisions of Obama and his administration around several issues, including the one you raise.

Multnomah County Democrats and DPO are strong advocates for the GBLT community. They are participating in the parade to demonstrate their support for equality for everyone...and to remind our government,including President Obama, of what we stand for....even when we stand opposed to the decisions of our government. If anything, it's MORE important for us to step up when our electeds do things we disagree with so we can be very clear to them that we DO NOT agree with their decisions.

I hope to see you Sunday when we all walk together to show our support for equality for ALL people.

Shameless Plug for East County Event:

Also mentioned at last night's meeting was the Troutdale Summerfest Parade and Festival, July 18th. Multnomah County Democrats will be marching in the parade and staffing a booth at Glen Otto Park afterward. Anyone interested in participating can email me at [email protected]

Hope to see you there!

Mike Schryver:

There isn't a shred of evidence that the stadium would bring economic development to the Lents area, based on similar scenarios elsewhere.

Bob T:

Again, that's irrelevant. Even if every such stadium in the country triggered such development, the stadiums, arenas etc should be paid for by the team owners, and without government using eminent domain on their behalf.

Whenever you start considering the possibilities of economic development (or just whether or not the team will be successful), you buy into the corporate welfare idea. That's what those like Merritt Paulson want to hear--people discussing such details while he laughs all the way to the bank. And let me remind people once again: Paulson can't get a dime from us unless government does it for him (i.e. Adams, Leonard, Salztman).

Bob Tiernan Portland

...and more specifically to M. Miles complaint, (altho I am loathe to entertain discussion that is way off topic), the Multnomah County Dems are the first County Dem Party to endorse the REPEAL of Measure 36.

Miles seems to think that if Obama behaves badly, all Dems should shrink away and hide our heads in shame.... I don't think so! Oregon Democrats and Oregon Democratic elected leaders have been stellar in their advocacy for the GLBT community. IT'S UP TO THE PRESSURE AND WILL OF THE GRASSROOTS TO MOVE THE STRUGGLE FOR FULL EQUALITY ALONG.

Do you really think we're going to wait until Obama has an epiphany?

Bob Tiernan is correct again. By focusing the discussion on the venue for stadia, Adams and Leonard have won the greater discussion w/out argument.

The real discussion shold remain about public dollars going to fund a private and risky venture.

"Again, that's irrelevant. Even if every such stadium in the country triggered such development, the stadiums, arenas etc should be paid for by the team owners, and without government using eminent domain on their behalf."

So you'd be against governments granting railroads rights of ways or funding airline terminals? I'm just trying to see how close to anarchy your libertarian mindset takes you...

But, to the point, in this case we have a family holding the envelope containing the promise of a sports franchise frenetically rushing around because they don't have an appropriate venue. I think the question, "what's in it for us?" is the right one for citizens to ask. IMO, not much. Using dollars that would otherwise be spent for home owners assistance, economic development and developing affordable housing? Bad idea.

I've worked for and served on the board of agencies that developed affordable housing. When done right, affordable housing does not simply add low rent units to a neighborhood, as Randy Leonard has implied ("Lents already has low rents...) Affordable housing aggregates folks with service providers creating multiplier dollars. Affordable housing creates opportunities for transition from homelessness and families out of addiction and disease. Affordable housing creates retail first floors with customers residing upstairs. IMO, giving seed money for this type of development to a wealthy family so they can build a self-contained entertainment center (stadiums are designed to capture, not distribute, money) is a bad investment.

"And why should the arenas be paid for by team owners when the arenas are owned publicly?"

If the team owner pays for the facility the team owner will own it, just like any other business venture. If Paulson wants the taxpayers to finance the stadium, then Paulson should be paying the full cost of the facility back, not the less than one million a year he pays now, but the 12 to 15 million that the facility actually costs.

Kurt Chapman:

The real discussion shold remain about public dollars going to fund a private and risky venture.

torridjoe:

What private venture? The dollars are building/renovating two municipally owned parks, which will receive (guaranteed) rent from that private venture.

Bob T:

PGE Park is a pre-existing condition for Paulson, and us, while any new stadium will not necessarily be built upon parkland (the Lents deal hasn't been settled, unless you know something we don't). Besides, Kurt Chapman was correct to refer to this as a private venture. We can't do much about PGE Park right now, but it's not written in stone that any new stadium must be government owned as a matter of course. People only assume that sort of thing because too many cities and states have caved over the years. It's never too early to start saying no. Never.

Bob Tiernan Portland

jim:

Who does not imagine that in 5 years, someone (Paulson?) won't be pointing a "gun" at City Council asking for another subsidy saying "You mean you want to lose baseball forever in Portland?"

torridjoe:

Council would laugh--because even if they left, by agreement Paulson would still be on the hook to make rent payments. Whether the team and/or league moves or folds, the rent will be paid.

Bob T:

Yeah, Paulson paying rent on an empty stadium will still trigger the economic activity being discussed. People will walk up to the empty stadium, and then turn around and go to the new taverns down the street, and the Zupans.

Problem is that if the AAA leaves for one reason or another, we'll have an empty stadium that the local government will then want to throw more money at in order to get something going (like the convention center, too). Maybe more of you guys should watch "Roger and Me" again to see Moore rip apart this sort of project like he did for the alleged entertainment center in Flint, Michigan. It was one of the few right-on things in that film, but the one too many progressives failed to learn anything from.

Bob Tiernan Portland

Bob T:

the stadiums, arenas etc should be paid for by the team owners, and without government using eminent domain on their behalf.

toridjoe:

You can't do eminent domain on property you already own, Bob.

Bob T:

It was a general statement about these projects, not just about this particular scam. Still, the fact that the city has been considering using government-owned land doesn't mean that it'll wind up that way.

torridjoe:

And why should the arenas be paid for by team owners when the arenas are owned publicly?

Bob T:

But the structures shouldn't be government owned! Try to get out of the mindset you have on this (you've been properly conditioned to think that way, which is what those like Merritt Paulson rely on). You seem to think in terms if, "Air is free; speech is free; and all sports venues must be owned by government".

torridjoe:

Teams come and go; stadia are buildings that remain.

Bob T:

Sure, because we've had many decades of city governments across the nation that consisted of politicians who felt that it was so important for their cities to have professional sports for bragging purposes and so-called civic pride that they were willing to use other people's money (tax dollars) to give to team owners, and this made it even worse. Without that starting, we would still see major league sports but with venues we no longer think possible. But they are. All we had to do was stay out of it. If you really think that major league sports would not exist without these subsidies, then you are really team owners' favorite kind of voter (and they're all laughing all the way to the bank).

Bob Tiernan Portland

reads

Bob T:

Again, [development is] irrelevant. Even if every such stadium in the country triggered such development, the stadiums, arenas etc should be paid for by the team owners, and without government using eminent domain on their behalf.

Ron Morgan:

So you'd be against governments granting railroads rights of ways or funding airline terminals? I'm just trying to see how close to anarchy your libertarian mindset takes you...

Bob T:

Oh, here we go again. They're not exactly the same thing even if they were/are problematic regarding property rights, but if you want me comment on this to make you happy, okay, I will.

[By the way, I don't know if you use the term "libertarian mindset" to define some sort of fringe thinking (it might be jealousy on your part since we out-liberal you in so many ways), but it's not necessarily a separate mindset when taken in parts. I share views on corporate welfare shared by some, but not all, progressives. But that doesn't make it anything other than plain old basic economics.]

I cannot spend spend too much time or take up too much space here replying to your questions, but I can try to keep this concise.

You mention railroad rights of ways, and airline terminals (airports, actually, as opposed to seaports).

They are not the same thing (and neither is in the same category as sports venues), unless you're thinking in terms of the commercial users both being private. That's fine--let's talk about it.

The use of eminent domain by government has been reviewed by courts since, I suppose, the first day we lived under the Bill of Rights.

The main point has always been the "public use" part, or at least that is what was involved in most of the incremental steps the courts have taken to bring us from using eminent domain power for courthouses and harbor forts all the way to booting little old ladies out of their well-kept homes so that a billionaire like George Soros could build a mansion and pay more in taxes to the local government than could the old ladies as a group.

These steps involved four categories of "public use", with each one being increasingly difficult to justify although steps 1 and 2 were much clearer while still needing to jump strict hurdles.

Each step had to be justified constitutionally (and often with twisted logic, particular steps 3 and 4) before the next step could be considered, and still don't pass the smell test for many scholars on both the so-called right and the left (I use these terms because I don't think you can function without them). Even with these steps, rulings beyond the first step were/are increasingly controversial, and it can be pointed out that good cases could be made to overturn these interpretations for being based on twisted reasoning, but I'll settle right now on just calling them as on shakier ground with each step.

Richard Epstein, author of Takings--Private Property and the Power of Eminent Domain, identified these in his book as well as in his Brief of the Cato Institute as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioners presented in the US Supreme Court for the infamous Kelo v. New London case which resulted in us being let down by the five most left-leaning justices on the court at that time. Of the four categories of "public use" (as defined by the courts so far), Epstein regards generalized economic development [as] surely the most problematic." Categories 1 and 2 meet the standard economic definitions of nonexcludable, or public, goods, while categories 3 and 4, which encompass the definition offered by respondents, do not.

The first category is very uncontroversial because it involves what most or all of us see as no-brainers. As Epstein puts is, these "public uses includes private property taken, owned, and operated by the state for standard public functions [ the "full range of government facilities"], "such as military facilities, public highways, public schools, and public hospitals. Public use in such cases is sufficiently straightforward to survive the strictest level of judicial scrutiny". Note that many of these facilities, such as any county or state courthouses, can be avoided by individuals their entire lives without losing their purpose as being for public use. They are part of the government structure, and even if they don't have to (schools), they are still part of a government system and staffed with government employees and so on.

Neither railroads nor Yankee Stadium fits into that category.

Category number 2 "includes cases in which property is taken for subsequent use by other private parties who make it available to the public at large. The common carrier obligations incumbent on railroads, grist mills, and public utilities are usually (but not invariably) subject to direct state regulation on matters of access and price and are commonly understood as activities for public use, even if privately conducted."

In this category we got into the private ownership aspect, but these projects still needed to justify the use of government power because that could not be used simply by claiming that they were the same as courthouses or Fort McHenry.

Note that when all was said and done, the new establishments were used by much of the public and therefore also had to come with strings that mandated their services be available to all who needed them. That's why the grist mill cases spelled this out, in that few people had the ability to mill their own grains and used these mills to do it for them. As with a court system or military defense, providing it for one provided it for all, and as Epstein said, the rules "treated grist mills like traditional public utilities by requiring their owners to process the grain of all comers on a nondiscriminatory basis 'at tolls fixed by law'." It was not the mills per se that justified the takings, but the fact that they needed to be placed along rivers and streams and could not be just "anywhere" (I don't know why windmills were not used, unless they were known to be too unreliable for constant use by a large number of people). And it wasn't necessarily the small parcel of land on which the mill stood that was needed, but the fact that the dams necessary for them to operate caused part of someone else's property to be flooded. But anyway, as Epstein pointed out, the courts allowed the takings so long as the beneficiary paid the compensation and made his services available to all and not just his friends. It was part of commerce in itself, as a stand-alone entity, in that it helped increase the trade in foodstuffs and was part of the system of making raw agricultural products edible. You benefited, it was said, even if your only link to that grist mill many miles away was the fact that you ate porridge on some mornings. The rulings also had to deal with unique possibilities of acute hold-outs over these projects.

I can't see Wrigley Field or Clackamas Town Center in this category at all, but railroad rights-of-way were included for, as Epstein again points out: "The common carrier obligations incumbent on railroads, grist mills, and public utilities are usually (but not invariably) subject to direct state regulation on matters of access and price and are commonly understood as activities for public use, even if privately conducted". And operations such as railroads, canals etc required a "unified network" of parcels.

Such projects also required specific locations or an assembled set of locations that all needed to be part of the whole or at least most of them provided useable alternatives were available. Here's where the oft-cited hold-out issue comes into the discussion, and how this was dealt with in those cases because one hold-out party can.

The third category of "public use" is where we really strayed, and which triggered more such outrages by providing precedent.

These takings were necessary, the arguments went, so that the "public use" was to "alleviate various forms of 'blight' and slum-like conditions. The property taken for such reasons is slated (as in category two) to be reconveyed to private parties, albeit without any restriction on its subsequent use. Rather, the rationale is simply the need to remove the property from its current run-down condition."

The key ruling for this category was Berman v. Parker in the mid-50s. What the courts did not want to recognize here. and what the local government did not want to utilize for some reason, was the fact that dealing with blight was already allowed by use of the police powers that are part of general governing, with blight being one of many "nuisance" issues always being dealt with. To go so far as to actually seize the property against the wills of the owners (in this case, even the owner of an unblighted department store which happened to be in the zone as drawn by politicians) in order to deal with a nuisance issue was to ramp up the eminent domain powers far beyond that seen before. Again, Epstein states the issue clearly:

"The term 'blight' suggests that the property has deteriorated into a nuisance-like condition. But if that were the case, then the blight could be eliminated under the traditional police power (through condemnation of dilapidated structures) without the need to pay any compensation at all. Berman...however, rejected that option. Yet, neither opinion has explained in a satisfactory way why outright transfer of broad swaths of property to another individual who is under no duty to alleviate the blighted conditions should be considered the legally preferred solution to the problem. Nor would any such explanation be remotely convincing: Put simply, the blight rationale opens the gate to state abuse that targets the most vulnerable members of the population." [see also the Wall St. Journal editorial "Let There Be Blight", Jan 11, 2007].

Berman was reinforced by the infamous Poletown decision in which the Michigan Supreme Court rubber-stamped Detroit's condemnation of "blighted" mostly black-owned properties so that General Motors can have it (tho' they never bult a plant on it as intended). This ruling was cited by the landgrabbers in the Kelo case, even though by that time it had been overturned by the Mich SC in Hathcock in which the ruling finally slapped down the power abuse mindsets in the government-corporation partnerships.

A baseball stadium does not fit into this category, either, since the key issue is getting rid of the alleged "nuisance" rather than what any specific use any new owners make of it. The "public use" was the removal of the blight. But of course, this excuse has since justified programs such as Urban Renewal which in the years since the idea was created has been twisted since state and local governments have constantly re-define "blight" to mean anything they wish it to be in order to justify removing people from their property. In one Illinois town, blight was defined to include homes with only one bathroom, and this was used to seize scores of well-kept bungalow homes of senior citizens so that a bunch of high-end condos could be built to face a nearby golf-course being planned. If you think "due process" was any protection, then you'd have to accept any of the usual public discussions that were held even though the decision was already made. Big deal.

Anyway, if you buy into this argument, then you'll have to be for bulldozing the "blight" of Lents even if no stadium is planned.

Now we get to the final category, and the one that received its final nail in the coffin with the infamous Kelo decision. Joining private property rights defenders in this case was the ACLU but decades of irrational watering down of property rights had taken its toll. In the end, the USSC pretty much abdicated its review responsibilities just as if they refused to overrule a local court or legislative body that dared to define something like "freedom of the press" any way they wanted, so long as that local decision involved "due process" (often bogus town hall meetings), and there is now no limit on the eminent domain powers. Earlier, of course, governments tried to get around the compensation part by draconian zoning that left the property ownership intact (like letting you keep your TV but telling you which shows you must watch), but fortunately the USSC did eventually address the definition of "taken" in order to prevent these abuses of power. But of the 5th Amendment conditions on all of this, "public use" has now been totally ignored by being allowed to mean anything.

Here's how Epstein put it:

"The state is on still thinner ice in the fourth and final category, which allows the condemnation and destruction of perfectly suitable private homes and businesses, and the permanent displacement of property owners, to make way for grander projects initiated to revitalize an 'economically depressed' community. This rationale is deeply problematic. The finding of public use is not subject to any easy judicial verification as in categories one and two. Nor is the range of government action constrained in choosing the objects of condemnation, as in category three. Rather, governments can simply gin up pro forma findings that some benefits are expected from the project in question. Indeed, that’s exactly what happened in this case [Kelo]."

Your stadium fits into this one, of course. How could it miss since anything is allowed? Stadiums are in the category of movie theaters, by the way.

Ron Morgan:

But, to the point, in this case we have a family holding the envelope containing the promise of a sports franchise frenetically rushing around because they don't have an appropriate venue.

Bob T:

So? All he has to do is look for land to purchase for his stadium, and if he can get a parcel large enough with strictly voluntary agreements from one or more sellers, then he can present his plans and have them at least reviewed for things like noise ordinances we all seem to agree on (but ignored near PGE Park, apparently). Anyway, there is no difference between this project and a movie theater or a new Safeway, except that which is in your mind and the minds of politicians and others who have been conditioned to see having sports teams as being equal to, say, a water department or traffic light system. Get over it.

Ron Morgan:

I think the question, "what's in it for us?" is the right one for citizens to ask.

Bob T:

No, not really. All you're doing with that mindset is buying into the corporate welfare micro-management game. A reasonable person with a free society mindset won't ask "What's in it for me?", but will say, "Fine - good luck. I'll neither help you nor get in your way so long as you don't violate the rights of others in your prusuit of this goal".

Ron Morgan:

I've worked for and served on the board of agencies that developed affordable housing.

Bob T:

Good for you. Has nothing at all to do with a private team owner looking for a place where his team can play for our entertainment on nights choose not to go to the movies.

I'm glad you oppose this deal, but just the same, it's not in the same category as many other projects that have involved the use of the now unlimited powers of eminent domain (thanks to the five most left-leaning justices on the USSC at the time of Kelo).

You ought to read Epstein's brief for the court in which he explains all of this. Briefs were also filed by Jane Jacobs (praised by many progressives), and as the Institute for Justice website states, the "National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (the nation’s oldest civil rights organization), AARP (the nonpartisan group whose 35 million members address the needs and interests of older Americans) and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (founded by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.) joined with other organizations to roundly criticize the practice of eminent domain abuse that they demonstrate 'has and will continue to fall disproportionately upon racial and ethnic minorities, the elderly, and the economically disadvantaged.' "

Links to these briefs can be found here.

Again, note that the left's four most hated justices at that time were the ones who tried to stop power abuse by corporate-influneced politicians vs. the little guy, while the other five disappeared. That's why I try to avoid labeling justices. And to think that President Obama announced his recent choice for the court, saying something like, "Let justice come to the court". Hmmm, does that mean the little guy needed to be squashed in a 7-2 decision instead of 5-4? That looks like the wrong direction.

Bob Tiernan Portland