Portland funding gap more like $26 million (not an April Fools thread)

A couple new articles got posted tonight:

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2009/04/portlands_accelerated_major_le.html

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2009/04/mayor_gets_input_on_removing_m.html

 

http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=123973700936666400

 

So help me understand all this, those links all saying the same thing? Basically the mayor wants to slow down and maybe not do anything after all?

 

Portland has what is called a "weak mayor" system. The mayor is actually one of five city council members. The mayor, Sam Adams, and the president of the council, Randy Leonard, support the stadium deals. Two other council members, Nick Fish and Amanda Fritz, are opposed. The fifth council member, Dan Saltzman, is both supportive and opposed depending on certain aspects of the deals. He was the swing vote in the last council meeting where they voted 3-2 to continue with the process to build the two stadiums, but his vote was contingent on removing $15 million dollars of funding that would have come from an urban renewal district around PGE Park.

There is another vote coming up on April 22nd to approve the Rose Quarter designs. The Rose Quarter is where they are proposing to build the new baseball stadium, but this proposal requires the demolition of Memorial Coliseum. Many people are opposed to this proposal. Dan Saltzman, the swing vote, says he favors slowing down the process in order to examine all options for the Rose Quarter. In other words, he may vote "no" on April 22nd. That wouldn't kill the MLS bid, it would just mean that they have to figure out a better way to deal with the new baseball stadium.

The new baseball stadium is necessary to get the minor-league Beavers out of PGE Park.

 

bright ... i'm just playing with you buddy. i frankly don't care what they do with it, i just have to point out the hypocrisy of all this 'Memorial Coliseum nostalgia.' to me, it's the same type of revisionist history that we see in our day-to-day lives. Nostalgia can really skew a person's memory/general perception.


it's kind of like .. (random example)... that restaurant that was around for a while, but finally closes its doors after 15 years. feeling nostalgic, you talk about how you "went there all the time" and how it was one of your "favorite places". when, in reality, you really only went there 5 times. that's once every 3 years. but with each recollection, you went there more and more often in your memory. suddenly, after 5 conversations about it, you went from a peripheral consumer to their favorite customer. all of the sudden you went there once a week, and you had your own special booth. and you're pissed this crummy society couldn't support it, and it has to shut its doors. it's total revisionist history, drummed up and exaggerated to create some BS artificial nostalgia. i HATE this.


i understand if you're a huge blazer fan, and you went to the MC in the 70s, and you're nostalgic about it. that is a natural and real feeling. but a lot of these people haven't stepped foot in the MC since the blazers moved to the rose garden. if you never go there any more, you can't talk. you can't have it both ways. FFS, they are razing Yankee Stadium. nostalgia only has its place to a certain degree. it's not a trump card.


and BTW ... please, don't say it's a "beautiful building." it's not.

 

Asprilla, that's cool. No harm, no foul.

Nostalgia is not what motivates my stance. I am motivated by sustainability and efficient use of civic resources. I also believe that Memorial is cool looking. It is a unique part of Portland that defines the landscape. The "box" can serve a multitude of purposes that will add a lot to the community. Tons of people live in the densely-populated surrounding area that could enjoy an indoor public space. A minor-league baseball stadium doesn't even come close to the value-add of a refurbished Memorial Coliseum. It's a pretty sad trade-off, imho.

On top of that, I also feel that fast-tracking demolition without considering other ideas is just a bad way to run a city. It is also not the way Portland characteristically gets things done. This is a poor political tactic in the larger context and will unnecessarily create political opposition to the stadium deals. Remember, the 2 council members who support the stadium deals can't just do whatever they want. They have to convince at least one other council member to go along with them, and they have only been partially successful in doing that. They need to tread carefully lest they screw this whole thing up.

 

"Enjoy an indoor public space" sounds akin to walking in a park only indoors. It's not like just anybody can walk in there anytime they want and 'enjoy' it. They have to wait for one of the sporadic events that happens there and only then can they enjoy this crumbling facility. And no, you don't seem to know Portland all that well because relative to other neighborhoods, this area is not densely populated. It is a dead zone now, which is why the Live! District is being proposed at all.

So you are arguing for the status quo, but you also talk about what a wonderful facility this could be. When and how do you think it would magically transform from a underused C-grade facility into a mecca for indoor enjoyment? I know you are not thinking public funding because as you have said before in the context of MLS, Portland doesn't like to committ to public projects.

Right, because no other sites were considered at all.

 

Kinda like how Spain won the Euros last year due to the of attrition of the other teams? Wow, that's some serious spin you're cranking out there to avoid concession.

Is it not possible that there was attrition because the other cities were not the strongest overall bids?

We can say now in retrospect that there was probably no point during the bidding phase that these cities didn't suffer from the issues that ultimately killed their bids:

St. Louis - apparently never had enough financial backing.
Miami - always had the issues with the market/fanbase.
Montreal - was never going to pay the fee.
Ottawa - never had a secure stadium location.
Atlanta - was never really ready.

So with those issues always looming, how were any of them at any point better bids? Some of these things COULD have been overcome, but again, in reality they never were. Just because you were not aware of the problems with the other cities doesn't mean that they didn't always exist or that Portland was ever, at any point a less attracive bid.

The only ranking of the bids was at the final tally when MLS selected it's candidates. There were bids that were selected and those that weren't. Portland and Vancouver were selected. The other bids were not.

When it comes to the reality of the bids, yes you clearly were wrong about which bids were more attractive to MLS. You said Portland wouldn't be selected from among the candidate cities that were in play, and yet in the end it was - contrary to what you argued tirelessly would not happen.

So forgive us if we don't swallow your analysis of the current political situation intact. You may be right, but as we have seen, you just as easily may be wrong.

 

The Rose Quarter is essentially downtown, thus "densely-populated surrounding areas". It is not that difficult to walk there from many parts of the city.

 

JERRY: So, when do I get my dinner?

KRAMER: There's no dinner. The bet's off. I'm not gonna do it.

JERRY: Yes. I know you're not gonna do it. That's why I bet.

KRAMER: There's no bet if I'm not doing it.

JERRY: That's the bet! That you're not doing it!

KRAMER: Yeah, well, I could do it. I don't want to do it.

JERRY: We didn't bet on if you wanted to. We bet on if it would be done.

KRAMER: And it could be done.

JERRY: Well, of course it could be done! Anything could be done! But it only is done if it's done. Show me the levels! The bet is the levels.

KRAMER: But I don't want the levels!

JERRY: That's the bet!

 

Anything in Portland proper is near densely populated areas - ironically though, this is the least densely populated area within the city core - a widely acknowledged black hole of consistent human activity - so this still isn't a great point for you to try to argue.

The question remains anyway; how are you claiming that people will suddenly discover and make use of this wonderful indoor urban oasis under a do-nothing status quo strategy? Why would that just magically happen?

Remember, this is not a 'spend lots of money to enhance the MC campaign', this is a 'do-nothing to the MC campaign' - stick whith what we've got, which is an arguably ugly OR beautiful building that often loses money.

As you've argued it, I don't think you've convinced many people here that MC-as-is is the best thing for Portland, but that doesn't matter anyway.

 

The pro-MC argument fundamentally is "don't demolish it", not "don't do anything". By preventing demolition, it allows other options than a tiny baseball stadium to come to the table. Also, I think it is pretty clear that demolition is not a wise move politically on the part of the pro-MLS people.

 

http://blogs.wweek.com/news/2009/04/15/rose-quarter-open-house-adams-as-phil-donahue/

Merritt Paulson weighs in with an editorial to the Oregonian:

http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2009/04/bring_the_beavers_to_the_rose.html

Everything he says bolsters the already accepted argument that renovating PGE Park and building a new stadium for the Beavers is a good idea. I don't see a strong argument for demolishing Memorial Coliseum in this piece.

 

Except the city has been trying to do something for 15+ years, and no one has stepped up besides Paulson and the Blazers. So whatever the new vision is will include Paulson and/or the Blazers. The Blazers are the biggest force against keeping the MC because any re purposing would use the funds they want for the 24/7 live zone.

They want it down as it is in the way of both their collective, and individual interests.

The Winterhawks ownership is also on board with getting rid of MC because they want to play all their games in the RG as they correspond with higher attendance and their season ticket holders prefer it. No one likes waiting 45+ minutes for beer, being nautious from the smell flowing out of the bath room, and having to sit in a camping chair to see a game. Not to mention the falling and leaking ceiling tiles. Hell they are playing 50% of their games in the Rose Garden next season, so that is a lot of dates that the MC is losing that will mean it will lose even more money.

Also referring to the article where J.E. Isaacs stated it makes money some years and loses money others. I will trust what David Lodgson, the facilities manager for the city, said at the taskforce meetings which was that it has lost money consistently since the Blazers moved out. With the average being -500k.

 

He will let the city take the heat as it is really not his deal, sure he gets a stadium there, but he was open to all other sites, and this is just what the city picked for him.

 

How about that doing nothing and keeping the MC will cost taxpayers half a million dollars per year and that the alternative will generate revenue?

I don't know how you didn't see that in the article. Or did you not want to?

In addition to the 500k per year, not mentioned are the opportunitiy costs of foregoing on the job creation and other benefits.

Again, bright your stance is keeping the Memorial Coliseum (why, because it is beautiful?) at the risk of the entire MLS deal and new baseball stadium, job creation, etc?

So, answer this question - if it comes down to keeping an old/expensive-to-maintain builidng OR bringing MLS to Portland, you would go with the old building?

 

Consider the political context:

Current obstacles:
- $15 million funding shortfall
- $12 million still to be determined through the state legislature
- $36 million in risky bonds needs to be sold in a tough market
- political resistance to fast-tracking Rose Quarter designs and threatening to demolish Memorial Coliseum
- mayor likely to face a recall vote

The ultimate goal is to get MLS in Portland. Correct? Threatening to demolish Memorial Coliseum is unnecessary to achieve this goal and it is politically unwise. You may have your opinions either way, but trust me that if they try to knock it down, it will be a huge political cluster-f*ck. There is another vote coming up in a week. It is really dumb, imho, to try to ram this through without solid support. Sam Adams can actually aid the MLS bid and help his own reputation by working out a compromise. Being stubborn about this and appearing to be a corporate toadie is just making things worse all around.

 

or they could try and knock down a SCHOOL building. my god, they would face the same, if not stiffer resistance to the alternative. bright, your reasoning behind the whole process is extremely shady. you claim that razing MC is not necessary but fail to provide a clear cut alternative that will lay down the golden road for PDX to get mls. you just dont understand whats going on here. knocking down memorial coliseum is the most viable option and appeases most parties. the only people that are pissed about this are disgruntled hippy architects who think MC is some landmark and a few vets who think it represents a war memorial. the people that stand to gain from this are: 1) merritt paulson and the portland soccer franchise, 2) merritt paulson and the portland beavers, 3) the portland trailblazers and their entertainment district, 4) the city of portland for not having to pay to maintain/renovate MC AND they get a new baseball park and entertainment area

you are spending this whole time trying to rationalize and develop an argument against taking down MC when the best argument is to actually get rid of the thing. you say that it is politically difficult to rationalize razing the place, but do you honestly think it would any easier to get public backing for bulldozing a public school building? hell no, it would be more difficult since you would have to get backing for bulldozing the place, finding financing to build a new public schools facility and get the baseball park to fit there.

you have made your intentions obvious bright, they are not popular and you are not helping your argument, just let it go.

 

The school district wants to leave the site north of Broadway, as doing so would save them money. If the school district says they want to leave, I don't see how there will be any public outcry. It is a cost-saving measure. When you factor in long-term costs, putting the baseball stadium north of Broadway is likely the best solution. It can also be expanded for MLB, saving potential costs in the future if MLB comes to town.

UPinSLC, this thread is about news. It's not a popularity contest. I want MLS to Portland. Threatening to demolish Memorial Coliseum is throwing an unnecessary wrench into these plans.

 

http://wweek.com/editorial/3523/12442/

 

The city council is hearing testimony today about the Rose Quarter development, including demolition of Memorial Coliseum:

http://blogs.wweek.com/news/2009/04/15/former-governor-protests-destruction-of-memorial-coliseum/

http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com...04/15/memorial-coliseum-demolition-opposition

 

Everything's going to be fine bright. You'll get your Portland Timbers in MLS and the MC will be razed. Don't worry - sure a handful of people are upset, but the basis of their argument are sentiment and aesthetics versus $500,000 every year and $10m-$30m to repair the MC, plus opportunity costs. Finances will easily win out here. You can let this go - no need to link to every negative comment on the topic because that wastes the internet.

 

Bright, the reasons with which you defend MC itself are bogus.

BTW, it should be noted...

Issac can say "makes some, loses some" because the Blazers/Vulcan are responsible for MANAGING the coliseum. They staff it, sort of.

Logsdon can say it costs the city X per year because the city is still responsible for capital upkeep.

Add the two together. That's your answer.

In reality, the Blazers are playing this whole situation to their advantage, because they know nobody is going to actually fund improvements to MC. That's why they killed the rec center concept the first time, and shall do so again. They might be mildly tolerant of Paulson, and maybe not, depending on how he can twist arms with the city. One publication has already noted how Paulson outmanuvered the Blazers to this point.

HOWEVER...

...the assessment of the politics is pretty good. The majority of citizens are going to have to be talked into this. The argument is really more about process than outcome. People need to be convinced.

By my guess, the following has to be produced:

- What do the Winter Hawks really want? (Doug Piper is all but saying they're represented, and while he doesn't say that a deal with the Garden is imminent, it sure sounds like it. Talking down the hockey fans is one big thing.)

- How much will proper renovations cost? (Make it known how upkeep compares to the alternatives. Hint- the Winter Hawks need suites. Hint- how do you renovate the Glass Palace without disturbing the glass? Or do you?)

- What and where is the new veterans memorial? Will veterans actually be able to access the memorial, as opposed to the current situation? (Hint- you can get to it, but the friends of the people memorialized are kind of old to physically reach the site.)

- Who has a better idea? Really?

- Set up the next alternative. Portland State wants a new arena on campus... probably half the size of the current MC. The drill teams, wrestling, many graduations are PROBABLY better served there.

I've called the Live proposal Downtown Disney. I'm very likely right. It's meant to draw suburbanites to the city more often, the Kansas City example the Blazers use all but screams that. Portland, the city of, doesn't generally take a shine to that, so if properly positioned, the Blazers are about to hear a snap of epic proportions. That's something Paulson can walk through... but he really needs to pull back from being front and center for a month or two and try to draw the Blazers out here.

 

Paul, I realize that many of the Portland posters to this thread don't agree with my "green building" angle, and that is why I dropped that line of conversation. That kind of "hippy" thought isn't likely to fly on a "chest-beating" sports message board anyways. It is a tangential conversation to the more important point, which is that a majority of Portlanders will be opposed to demolition, as you have rightly pointed out.

We can speculate all we want about the costs of future uses of Memorial Coliseum. But here is what we know for sure: the entire stadium package (both stadiums) is still up in the air right now. Trying to ram it all through is not going to help. Some posters claim that the hasty actions of Adams and Paulson indicate that all options have somehow been looked at behind closed doors and therefore they know that knocking down MC is the best option. Saltzman says that he would like to slow the process down in order to examine other options, which indicates that all options have NOT been examined.

The public will demand to be involved, and if they aren't they will start throwing wrench after wrench into this thing. We are talking about Portland, where people will march for anything -- with extra gusto if it is to oppose corporations and rich people. This is political reality, and anyone who is thinking about this from a political perspective and not a "gimme my MLS team right now!" perspective knows that this has to be played a lot more carefully than it has been played so far.

What is likely to happen is that the process is slowed down and realistic public discussion about futures uses of Memorial Coliseum and better sites for the baseball stadium takes place. I don't see how anyone can argue against this unless you are like Marquis who is apt to take a sledgehammer to it one night while sleepwalking.

 

it doesnt matter if the public schools want to leave, if word got out that paulson and co wanted to demolish a public schools building for a stadium people would get pissed. if there is one thing i learned from the salt lake stadium fiasco is that no matter how clean and simple a stadium deal looks, people will ALWAYS misconstrue the facts. the general unknowing public will see that a public schools building is being demolished to make way for a stadium and will be up in arms. they wont care that the public schools want to leave the building, that wont be on their mind.

this thread is about DISCUSSING news, your discussion i feel is wrong. you are presenting one side of the facts and im arguing for the other.