I think it should be "Beavers", not "Beaver's" in paragraph 3.

And Leonard is right: It's troubling that Paulson would pull out of Lents right before the vote. Although putting the stadium in Lents seemed to be a sinking ship of an idea.

We need to go back to the PGE Park idea, of locating the Beavers and Timbers both there. MLS has requirements for soccer-only stadiums, but their desires are really to have fans surrounding the field. Design could solve this problem in a way that creates a great experience for both Beavers baseball and Timbers MLS soccer at PGE Park. Firms in Spain, the USA and elsewhere have already designed retractible bleachers and other aspects of what could be a very innovative PGE Park that trades in the lousy shared-team experiences of the past (at 70s stadiums) and re-invent things in a way that's a win-win for everybody.

Spoiled baby can't get his way. Someone call the Wahhhhhhhhhmbulence.

Brian - that wouldn't just be a question of retractable seating. You'd also need to be able to switch the grass. baseball fields aren't flat, so they're not suitable (or really safe) for decent-standard soccer.

The technology to do that is out there. But it's not cheap. And I'd be surprised if it was cheaper than building a new baseball stadium.

Leonard knows after Sam's recall he was next in line with his hands all over this disaster. Screw MLS, Portland will dictate where they play if the people are paying for it. In PGE park as is or the Fred Meyer parking lot on Broadway take it or leave it.

Leonard needs to let this go. When hundreds of citizens show up at a public meeting, outraged by the proposed stadium, it is a pretty clear indication of public opinion.

If the URAC still holds a vote, and if they vote to proceed with the stadium, and if the city council agrees with that recommendation, then it will be a slap in the face to the families in the Lents neighborhood.

It's time to forget about the Beavers, let Paulson try to look elsewhere for a AAA baseball stadium, and focus the debate on the merits of remodeling PGE park to accommodate an MLS franchise.

This will still be a waste of public dollars, but at least it will have a smaller price tag.

Yes Anonymous, at some point public officials do need to listen to the public.

The whole way this has been handled by Leonard, Adams and Paulson has been completely tone-deaf to the public (for the most part), but more importantly completely tone-deaf to our current economic climate. Why are we even talking about convention center hotels and $60 million stadiums.

"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows."

Wait a minute... We already have a baseball stadium! A very nice baseball stadium. A newly renovated baseball stadium. Shouldn't we be looking for a spot to build a new Major League Soccer stadium? Or really, despite the MLS preference to have a soccer-dedicated stadium, other cities already share sports stadiums.

I do appreciate that Mr. Paulson was willing to listen to the opinions of the people living in the Lents community. That is something that Randy Leonard seems incapable of doing.

Thanks also to Sarah Mirk for posting the video of Mr. Paulson's introduction last night. I was there, sitting in row 2, and was disappointed that I missed out on that "mob on the verge of being out of control". Strangely enough the video is just as I remember the meeting...

Commissioner Leonard-- I do not feel that Merritt Paulson is "disrespecting" the Lents community in any way by listening to what we have to say about a proposed plan to build a stadium in Lents Park and take our community's Urban Renewal funds to do it with. Perhaps if you showed a little respect toward the Lents Community we'd be more inclined to work with you on a solution to your stadium problem.

Oh, and next time you quote The Oregonian, I'd suggest you skip the temptation to take quotes completely out of context and twist them to your own personal world view. Some of us in Lents can read all by ourselves.

The Beavers and PSU cannot sustain themselves in PGE. The Timbers and PSU can.

No other cities have been granted franchises that will combine soccer and baseball, that I'm aware of.

URACs have always been a problematic representation of neighborhood interests and their role within City decisions vs. community values and needs. We saw a very similar problem arise a few years in the Central Eastside when PDC proposed and then strongly advocated for a publicly funded in part, Home Depot using URA funds on what is now known as the Burnside Bridgehead spot. As the project went forward, PDC claimed they had done community outreach and had received positive input- The URAC is the official entity for community interests and representation they claimed. They held meetings, they put out a couple of notices for meetings (3PM weekdays usually) and that was that. The neighborhood, including many small business owners in the area went bat-shit ballistic causing the whole project to be put on hold, go back for public workshops and input and the whole notion of big-box was killed. Obviously, the City didn't learn from PDC's mistake.

Here's what has been wrong with this whole thing from the start: Adams and Leonard stepped outside of their roles as Council members who are in office to weigh costs and opportunities and vote on proposed projects, and Leonard especially has decided to become a very hands on "power broker" to make direct deals with one single specialized, and wealthy interest (in this case Paulson). That's problem number 1. Leonard never really went to the true community stakeholders (this is not a URAC) beforehand, the City did a very weak job at coalition building and outreach to the community, and Leonard continued to strongly advocate, rather than act as a balanced and fair steward of the public's trust. There are times for advocacy and for taking a stance - in the case of safety of citizens over flood protection for example, or a budgetary crises. But not for what many of us, and many solid findings consider to be an enhancement, not an economic development catalyst. Randy should have stepped out of this long ago and let dedicated staff handle it. He's made himself out to be an enemy now in the eyes of both Lents residents and stadium proponents.

Paulson is just a business owner, albeit extremely clueless as to the issues and values in Portland. If he didn't realize he was walking into a hostile room last night, then

The people of Lents are pissed. I don't blame them. That area has been screwed by the City repeatedly - going back to condemnation without keeping the promise for making the place better when I-205 bulldozed through, destroying homes, businesses and a community, to ongoing and unresolved issues with sewer and unpaved streets (even though residents pay taxes to improve them), to flooding issues caused by Johnson Creek diversions, and now the URA. A lot of progress has been made with the City over getting people on board with the idea of Urban Renewal in the first place - especially in large public workshops on how the URA budget should be shaped and spent.

To come in suddenly and for Leonard to push and say, "oh, sorry, we take it back, we need your money for something else and a stadium comes before all your little business, housing and basic infrastructure needs" does feel like a slap in the face to many in that community. Lents is a working class community, the Stadium proposal appears run by downtown suits, and a rich "Lake Oswego" millionaire. Which, it is. People in Lents aren't stupid, they aren't rubes. As we saw last night and especially in Sarah's video - they are concerned citizens, concerned with what is occurring and will occur in their community. And they got angry, then got organized. Hats off to them. That's good citizen activism if you ask me.

Then there's all the idiotic mis-steps throughout the process such as first claiming the proposal would go out to the public the same day the URAC votes and gives recommendations on it, thus not giving the already pissed off community enough time for review and input. I mean, come on. That's just lame.

Adams blew it, Leonard blew it, and Paulson blew it. Adams initially pushed but withdrew 'cause all his personal scandals are making him a limp noodle mayor at this point and he can't risk even more community alienation. Leonards got so blindly power hungry and attached to the shiny object promised around Paulson that he forgot to listen to the community from the start, and Paulson is well, an outsider that is completely out of touch with hot button issues in Portland and what happens when people here get pissed off about something.

A classic case study on the elites vs. the grass roots if you ask me. And a classic case study on how not to push an expensive, controversial project on a community.

I strongly disagree Leonard was not acting as a public steward. The original deal was reached after Randy set down a host of conditions, chief of which were an absolute refusal to use general funds, and a personal (not corporate) guarantee attached to the financing plan that would require rental payments for 25 years regardless of the team and league's fortunes even if they fold.

The (real) Couv is spending about a quarter million Canadian in public funds for their stadium. In Portland, decoupled from baseball, $15 million of increment financing--possibly even debt limited Option 3 financing, like the Rose Quarter--with repayment guarantees is a seriously good deal.

I hope Randy is the one to relax. If he holds firm, there's a definite straight line to both teams leaving/folding, which puts over $25 million of remaining PGE debt onto the GENERAL FUND books. So, $15mil from a tax increment, or $25mil off basic services? Which would you choose?

I can't necessarily argue with the way the Lents situation was handled the second go-round, though. Sloppy, but that's what you get when you're rushed.

Look, fuck sports, okay?

The stance that torridjoe advocates basically ignores the possibility of continuing to house both the Beavers and Timbers at PGE Park.

Everyone is well aware that the MLS has taken the extreme stance during this negotiation process that the Beavers must leave the stadium so that soccer can rule supreme. Are we to just accept this scenario as set in stone and then run around like chickens with our heads cut off crying about how we might lose both teams?

The reality is that continuing to share PGE Park is the most cost-effective solution that satisfies all parties. We can spend the money to upgrade PGE Park -- widen the concourses, upgrade the bathrooms, add more concessions -- and we can add a portable grandstand to the eastside. There is already a concourse on the east side, which corresponds to above the left field wall in the baseball configuration. Bathrooms and concessions can be added to the left field corner and at center field. This will serve the portable grandstand.

The MLS wants upgrades in order to better serve the attendees, and to also make the experience more comfortable for capacity crowds. Currently, PGE Park cannot handle capacity crowds. We can address this issue without kicking the Beavers out of the stadium. The MLS wants a grand stand on the east side so that soccer games look better on TV. We can accommodate this request without kicking the Beavers out of the stadium. The MLS wants to ensure that they can schedule regular season games as well as friendly matches. The Timbers have had no issues with this for the last nine seasons, and have international teams visit us every season. We are hosting Club America from Mexico and Burnley of the English Premier League this season. The Beavers go on extended road trips, and they also only play from mid-April until early September, leaving 2.5 months of the MLS schedule free of any baseball.

If the Beavers leave Portland, the Spectator Facilities Fund will lose the revenue generated by their 72 game dates. This Fund is the primary source of funding for the new upgrades, and it is also being used to pay for the existing debt from the previous renovations. If we are going to invest in new upgrades for PGE Park, it doesn't make sense to delete 72 revenue-generated game dates from the Spectator Facilities Fund. This is true regardless of the increased revenue that an MLS will bring compared to the current USL Timbers.

Whenever someone cries about the Beavers leaving Portland in order to scare you into supporting more corporate welfare and increased debt burden for the city, let them know that continuing to share PGE Park as we have done for the last nine seasons is the solution. Sharing is the smart and right thing to do.

I hope that Sam Adams and the rest of the city council acknowledges this. Sam is supposed to be our leader, and the city council is supposed to represent the people of Portland, not be a shill for a corporate "partner". The MLS and the Paulsons can get everything they need from a sharing arrangement without having to put the city into debt. City council, stand up for what is right.

Even though I would love to see MLS in Portland and see the Beavers stick around somewhere, I find myself fighting against the whole thing. It has been handled like one might expect a 5 year old would. What kind of hick politician is Leonard anyway? And he ran unopposed last election? WTF, Portland!

"The stance that torridjoe advocates basically ignores the possibility of continuing to house both the Beavers and Timbers at PGE Park."

It ignores it intentionally--because there IS no possibility. No soccer specific stadium, no franchise. Get OVER it. Please. Soon.

I believe Randy Leonard to be entering the early phases of terminal asshole syndrome and will not be a viable leader of any sort.

Once Adams is on his way, Leonard will become the next ejection-from-power project for those of us who are FED UP with these incompetent, high-handed, loud-mouthed, and wrong-minded JERKS.

What an awesome day!

Gonetorio:

You're not too far off the mark. Leonard once had an appeal as a regular blue-collar joe-type. Once PDX got 'sold' to the upscale market its like he's Frank Ivancie reincarnate. Sad.

torridjoe, I will not "get over it". And neither should anyone else. What stance you are advocating is a strong-arm tactic. Just because you yell "OMG, we will lose both teams if we don't kick the Beavers out of PGE Park!" doesn't make it so.

Let's assume that the city studies the financials of a sharing arrangement and comes to the conclusion, as I believe they will, that it is the most cost-effective solution. And then they go to the MLS and say "We will spend the money necessary to upgrade PGE Park, but we want to use a portable grand stand in the east side so that the Beavers can play at the stadium when the MLS team isn't playing." You honestly believe that the MLS will just cut and run? Why? They will get everything they truly need to make the fan experience comfortable and the soccer games to look good on TV. Why would they be spiteful just because a baseball team plays there, as well?

We are not trying to keep the east side open as a baseball outfield during soccer games as it is right now for the USL Timbers. We are trying to accommodate the MLS needs as much as possible, while trying to ensure that the Spectator Facilities Fund has as much revenue in to pay for MLS's needs. This is a very fair way to approach this. I don't believe that the MLS is spiteful in the way that you are portraying them.

I believe you are projecting your own desire to beat your chest about soccer and see baseball fans suffer. I have gone to Timbers games since 1975 and have never been to a Beavers game. I don't want to see us engage in these kinds of ridiculous emotional arguments that cloud our minds and prevent rational thought. The rational approach is to ensure that the Spectator Facilities Fund retains the revenue from the Beavers games so we can actually afford to pay for the MLS renovations, and pay off the existing debt from the last round of renovations in 2001.