The Portland Development Commission released some numbers yesterday that neighbors have been waiting for - three budget scenarios for the Lents Beaver's stadium deal. The power is in the hands of the Lents Urban Renewal Committee to decide whether they should delay $42.3 million in planned projects and use the money to fund one big, hopefully catalytic project for the neighborhood, the new Triple-A stadium. Now, at least, they have some semi-solid numbers to work with.
One of the most controversial parts of the budget is cutting the area's required 30 percent set-aside for affordable housing. Deal supporters point out that the neighborhood already has a large amount of affordable housing, critics say funneling money from homeowner and rent-assistance programs to the stadium will hurt seniors and other low-income people.
So the PDC wrote up three draft budget ideas. The budget spells out exactly what services Lents would lose by funding the stadium and essentially asks the neighbors to choose between funding affordable housing or partially funding all other urban renewal projects.
If the urban renewal committee decides to fund the stadium and its current rate of affordable housing, its will have to slice all parks projects, street paving projects and storefront improvement plans. "PDC would likely have no tools to assist small businesses or do business recruitment and retention," the budget says. Yikes.
That budget is especially alarming because major economists agree that stadium projects only revitalize neighborhoods when coupled with overall neighborhood development projects — exactly the kind of projects the city would be cutting.
More on the budget below the cut.
You should really check out the short budget report for all the details, but here's the three budget scenarios in brief:
1. Pay $42.3 million for the stadium and keep the 30% funding for affordable housing, but cut all other urban renewal programs for five years. After five years, some amount of the small business and neighborhood development projects would start up again.
2. Pay $42.3 million for the stadium, but only keep 15% of the budget toward affordable housing. All other programs would be cut by 72 percent and partially restored after five years.
3. Pay $42.3 million for the stadium, keep only 15% of the housing budget and get a $15 million loan. All other programs would only be cut by 43 percent and eventually partially restored.
Commissioner Randy Leonard and Mayor Adams say they can reduce the 30% of the urban renewal budget Lents is supposed to set aside for affordable housing by bending the law — other urban renewal areas could build more affordable housing to make up for Lents building less than its required amount.
Showing 1-10 of 10
Both the Harvard and the Yale schools of business conducted lengthy studies into whether or not sports teams contributed to the financial bottom lines of cities between 2000-2005, and each study concluded that they DID NOT contribute to the local economy and in fact cost cities more money in the long run than was generated by the team's presence. Both of these reports can be found online using Google. Yet, people continue to believe the myth.
Many residents in Lents thought the baseball park issue was dead last winter. Lents residential stake holders are starting to wake up.
Almost all the neighbors I talk to are strongly opposed to this ball park using a public park land and $42 million of Urban Renewal funding (our Property taxes) going to subsidize a millionaire.
Expected some energized discussion from here on out.
Why have the %*@*%! laws to begin with if we're just going to bend them???
These guys are F-ing crooks. That's it and that's all.
There is going to be some interesting law suits out of this one. Groups are already getting organized and prepared on this. Just like the David Douglas/River District URA challenge by the group Friends of Urban Renewal, this will get tied up in the Land Use Board of Appeals and put the proposed project into an extended holding pattern.
In my 15 years in City politics and policy, I have never seen anything quite so brazenly immoral come out of Council and the Mayor's office. Adams and Leonard are committing political suicide, I can guarantee it and pretty much making it impossible to get any support and coalition building for future proposed projects.
This project is not only economically irresponsible, it is tearing the community apart. Way to go Adams and Leonard. You both Suck.
Portland Commissioner Randy Leonard said publicly he will oppose a minor league
stadium in Lents Park if neighors object.
They object and with good reasons.
Raising Kane,
Leonard says he'll vote no "if neighbors object". However, what the hell does that mean to him? The Urban Renewal Advisory Committee? How many neighbors? Where do they need to be located to be "neighbors"?
Sorry, but I just don't trust him. He's proven himself to be a myopic bully who votes to get his way, damn everyone else.
As for the line "Lents has a large amount of affordable housing,' yes, its does now. But try in five years once the light rail goes through and property values start to skyrocket. The 'affordable' housing that Lent's has is privately owned and remains 'affordable' because of current market conditions. Change the market conditions and good bye affordable housing. Removing the housing set aside just sets up Lents for a wave a gentrified displacement.
Why not leave the Beaver stadium in the current location at PGE Park, and build the new soccer stadium in Lents? Wouldn't that save like, millions? Oh yeah, Lord Paulson doesn't want to have his new stadium in the flats...but he will throw his baseball team there, at the expense of us all!
@ Bones...
The answer to your first question: money. And to your second question: no.
A new 7,000-8,000 seat AAA baseball stadium will cost roughly $40 million. A new 20,000-25,000 seat soccer stadium will cost roughly $100 million. And leave the Beavers playing in a stadium three times too big for their use.
Even if you add in the costs for the proposed renovations to PGE Park on top of the new Lents baseball stadium, your suggestion would still be roughly twice as expensive as the current proposal.
Comments (10) RSS