Portland: Let them eat stadiums
Even though I've been in Portland for almost a year, I still find that the best way to put local news in perspective is to talk it over with my five roommates, all Portland-area natives. Case in point: The $88.8 million plan for a soccer and baseball stadium, approved this past week by the Portland City Council.
The roommates weighed in: The real estate broker tells me that $88 million (we rounded it down, reflecting our finders fees) will buy 296 area houses. The TV cameraman, says: "Soccer? Nobody here wants to watch soccer. This is Portland, we like to drink beer and smoke weed." And, I should add, watch the Trailblazers play. I should also add that $88 million can buy just under 1.8 million beers, 22,000 pounds of pot, or 607,000 Blazers tickets.
Now, this blogger is all for urban development in his adopted city, but the benefits of this project are dubious and the costs very real. And big. As my roommate noted, Portlanders have other things to worry besides funding a new sports venue.
That $88 million could put about $20,000 in the pocket of each Portland-area homeless person, thereby resolving that issue for now. The money would hire almost 2,000 new police officers. It would solve Tri-Met's budget woes six times over. We could institute a bike-rental system, or fund a great museum, or even buy the City Council a Gulfstream jet and have enough left to pay for years of flying it. It's enough to provide nearly 8,000 families with health insurance.
A press release from Merritt Paulson, the major private investor, claims that the plan "creates hundreds of jobs, protects taxpayers from risk…we have agreed to finance or guarantee a majority of the project, the safeguard against cost overruns and to expand our already ambitious involvement in the community." His assurances sound good, and granted, his $40 million is a big chunk, but selling bonds and raising another $15 million for the balance in this economic climate is not smart. The jobs Paulson mentions would be in construction and service industries &mdash areas where we need job growth — but for this kind of money, the Rose City could just hire all these would-be workers directly. Create a real jobs program, folks.
It's nothing personal, Mr. Paulson. I like soccer — not that I can afford to attend the games &mdash but there are more pressing issues here. And I'm not talking about the beer, weed or even the Trailblazers.









Comments:
Posted Sat, Mar 14, 10:39 a.m. inappropriate
Sounds like Seattle is not the only city in which a majority of voters recognize that subsidizing pro sports stadiums is an irresponsible waste of public funds.
Posted Sat, Mar 14, 11:49 a.m. inappropriate
There is a rich history of soccer in Portland, even for those who like beer and weed. The original Portland Timbers (1974-82) drew huge crowds and had a couple of very good seasons. The players endeared themselves to Portlanders, and several still live in Portland; Clive Charles went on to coach the nationally ranked team at Portland University, others coached at several levels and soccer is a major sport at Oregon high schools. Perhaps soccer will return, but if it doesn't it won't be because of lack of fan base, it will be because the City Council does a lot of dicey stuff with urban renewal funding, which may be part of the package for young Paulson. As a former Portlander (and Timbers fan), I'd love to see it back and look forward to a real rivalry with the Sounders and a future team in Vancouver, which seems close to a sure deal. Finances and economics,not lack of a fan base, are the hurdles in Portland.
Floyd McKay
Posted Sun, Mar 15, 11:10 a.m. inappropriate
"Finances and economics,not lack of a fan base, are the hurdles in Portland."
Isn't that like saying "It's not lack of willing buyers that is threatening GM (they sold over 300,00 cars last year!), it's economics and finance". Why can't the size of the stadium be tailored to the actual fan base and make ticket prices carry the load? a familiar question of course and one seldom answered.
Posted Sun, Mar 15, 12:55 p.m. inappropriate
Is it not the case that Merrit Paulson offered to by the stadium and refurbish it himself?
Is it not the case that ticket taxes and income taxes on the players' salaries will pay back the bonds?
Didn't Paulson personally guarantee the bond payback?
It looks to me as if Paulson is just using the city's ability to issue tax exempt bonds to finance the stadium improvements.