http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/BlogtownPDX/archives/2009/05/26/breaking-news-study-shows-beavers-stadium-deal-would-create-net-job-loss Comments On: BREAKING NEWS: Study Shows Beavers Stadium Deal Would Create "Net Job Loss" by Sarah Mirk en-us Copyright 2009 Portland Mercury. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, Portland Mercury readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact Portland Mercury. webmaster@portlandmercury.com (Portland Mercury Webmaster) Sat, 21 Nov 2009 00:00:01 -0800 Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:30:00 -0800 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss
That being said, if you want to conduct a study on the impacts of this ballpark, maybe you should submit your resume at City Hall, rather than the Blogtown message board.

Strange as it seems, the Mayor's Office does not confer with the blogtown crowd when making hiring decisions for their consultants.
Posted by Anonymous503]]> Wed, 27 May 2009 18:20:09 -0700 Portland Mercury
www.chjc.com

Charlie Johnson
Posted by charliej]]> Wed, 27 May 2009 18:14:22 -0700 Portland Mercury
Lents is ripe for affordable housing. Lots of people like Lents, and tons of hard-working people live there who would love to buy in.. have you been recently to the place that used to be called Columbia Villa in North Portland, aka gangland welfare colony extraordinaire? That place is now an affordable housing development and it is GREAT, with a strong community vibe and very low crime.

Why are you so stuck in your ways of thinking? do you not get out much?

Posted by gonetorio]]> Wed, 27 May 2009 16:37:44 -0700 Portland Mercury
Several years ago, Phoenix residents voted to build a publicly-funded hockey arena for the Coyotes, to anchor a shopping development, and bring prosperity and joy to the good residents of Glendale.

Year after year since then, the anticipated revenue failed to materialize. The team lost over $20 million per season, and is now declaring bankruptcy in an attempt to evade their commitments to the community.

If/When they leave Glendale (either through moving or just folding up), it'll leave the city with a $180 purpose-built facility with no purpose. Do Portlanders truly feel comfortable putting themselves into the same situation? Especially considering that we're talking about banking on AAA baseball/soccer vs. major league hockey.



link: http://www.azcentral.com/sports/coyotes/ar…
Posted by Phil Douglass]]> Wed, 27 May 2009 16:29:28 -0700 Portland Mercury
Except may to draw 5,000-9,000 Beavers fans 72 times a year into the Lents area to see that its not really as bad of a dump as its made out to be.
Posted by BlackedOut]]> Wed, 27 May 2009 16:07:32 -0700 Portland Mercury
I'm guessing we'd find a pretty clear "not much". I could see a minor league ball park giving a little boost to existing businesses (or maybe even to Portland Live!) but certainly not enough to drive any economic development on its own.


Posted by anon503]]> Wed, 27 May 2009 15:44:28 -0700 Portland Mercury
or do you prefer to sound like a moron?
Posted by eric cantona]]> Wed, 27 May 2009 14:30:22 -0700 Portland Mercury
So why are people going to go out there for Beavers games?
Posted by Blabby]]> Wed, 27 May 2009 14:25:52 -0700 Portland Mercury
I think you're missing the affordable housing problem. No developer in their right mind is going to build affordable housing out there. There isn't any money in it for them. They build the 30% they're required to and leave it at that. The rest of their developments are aimed at the 70% of people that can afford to live in fancy condos and fancy houses.

Lents isn't appealing to developers to use those URAs because the 70% of people that can afford the housing the developers want to build don't want to live in Lents. They'd rather live in an area not referred to as "felony flats". They can afford not to live in an area referred to as "felony flats".

URAs aren't welfare housing funds. Sure you could fill 30% of new residences that are "affordable housing" but where will you find the people to fill the remaining 70% of the unaffordable housing? Until you can provide that simple answer your argument is completely invalid.

The reason so many people live out there that aren't wealthy is because there is so much affordable housing. Jebus...when was the last time you tried to buy a house? If you want to live in SE PDX and can't pay 350K for a house you'll get shown nothing but houses in Lents. It's one of the few remaining affordable places to live in PDX proper.
Posted by BlackedOut]]> Wed, 27 May 2009 14:13:48 -0700 Portland Mercury
So...is there going to be proof shown that his wife didn't have anything to do with this study?
Posted by BlackedOut]]> Wed, 27 May 2009 14:01:56 -0700 Portland Mercury
The best tango club in town is in Lents
the best Vietnamese restaurant is in Lents
The best Chinese grocer is in Lents
Where can you pick out the swimming fish you want for dinner? Lents.
Where do you find a Lao nun cooking and serving vegetarian food in her dining room and living upstairs? Lents.

Lents is cool. Affordable housing is needed there.





Posted by gonetorio]]> Wed, 27 May 2009 13:39:11 -0700 Portland Mercury
Ah, the honor system at work. Good ol' journalism.
Posted by you've been poisoned.]]> Wed, 27 May 2009 11:21:10 -0700 Portland Mercury Posted by eric cantona]]> Wed, 27 May 2009 11:15:10 -0700 Portland Mercury
This line that "no one will develop in Lents" is a ruse. The PDC could just build affordable housing itself. Countless community development orgs would gladly run new affordable housing projects there. They need to get to work on the town center there as they've been promising for years. If they feel like they have $42 million sitting around, that would go a long way.

If the projects in the Urban Renewal plan aren't working, they need to go back to the drawing board, not divert every available dollar to a AAA baseball facility, of all things.
Posted by Blabby]]> Wed, 27 May 2009 11:10:49 -0700 Portland Mercury
6) provide assurances (proof) that other developers/businesses have been or would be offered the same terms that Paulson is getting from the lents URA.
Posted by eric cantona]]> Wed, 27 May 2009 11:00:15 -0700 Portland Mercury
and i still agree with you Blabby. urp... shit!

i would add one more item to your list:



if there are a number of projects delayed or not being pursued because "no one is interested in development in lents" under the current URA terms, and those are the same terms for the stadium, then i guess i can see the argument of this project bringing a positive impact for the community. but my bullshit meter keeps spiking whenever i hear the spin from city hall.
Posted by eric cantona]]> Wed, 27 May 2009 10:56:02 -0700 Portland Mercury
(Is this the new meme, that I'm carrying water for Jack Bogdanski? We have multiple people here who can't take Merritt Paulson's cock out of their mouths long enough to make coherent arguments, and you're accusing ME of parroting someone else's talking points??)

Anyway, instead of the trickle of nonsense numbers we've seen so far, most of them produced by Paulson himself (hmmm, what incentive would he have to cook the numbers?), why don't we get an actual study of this whole thing, that includes the following:

1) New construction cost estimates from a third party source (it doesn't take $42 million to build a AAA ball field in Lents);
2) A realistic pro forma that demonstrates how much these stadiums can generate in revenue based on realistic attendence numbers;
3) Good analysis on job creation;
4) The cost of subsidizing the wages of stadium staff as we do now, so they make a "living wage";
5) Most importantly of all, the real on-going costs of paying off public bonds with interest, and how these public outflows compare to the stadium revenues mentioned above.

My guess is that actual revenue from rent, ticket fees, and whatever else will cover 15% of the public cost, tops.

If you want to prove me wrong, commission a real frickin' study to demonstrate how wrong I am.

The reason that Leonard, Ty, Adams, Paulson, the Timbers Army or whoever else will NEVER do such a study, is because it would damn their project in no uncertain terms.
Posted by Blabby]]> Wed, 27 May 2009 10:39:28 -0700 Portland Mercury
i also agree with Blabby Bogdanskian's comment. oop... crap, i just threw up a little bit in my mouth.
Posted by eric cantona]]> Wed, 27 May 2009 10:18:29 -0700 Portland Mercury Posted by Blabby]]> Wed, 27 May 2009 10:06:50 -0700 Portland Mercury
So instead of complaining about this study, why don't you arrange to have a real one done on behalf of the taxpayers?

Hearing someone who is very much part of the City Hall establishment complain that City Hall can't do anything rigth (i.e. this study) is annoying in the extreme.

Your job isn't to shove vanity projects down the city's throat. What use are you?
Posted by Blabby]]> Wed, 27 May 2009 10:06:10 -0700 Portland Mercury Posted by truthiness]]> Wed, 27 May 2009 09:53:38 -0700 Portland Mercury Posted by Matt Davis]]> Wed, 27 May 2009 09:49:57 -0700 Portland Mercury
"(1) NO money from the General Fund will be expended on this project and (2) only a small portion of Lents Park would be displaced by the proposal."

Commissioner Dan Saltzman told me yesterday that the city would agree to loan PDC money to carry out the displaced projects on a case-by-case basis. The practice is known as tranching, I believe.

So this project would take money from PDC's budget that would then be back-filled, subject to council approval, by the city's general fund.
Posted by Matt Davis]]> Wed, 27 May 2009 09:47:08 -0700 Portland Mercury
http://www.econw.com/people/person?name=da…
Posted by truthiness]]> Wed, 27 May 2009 09:41:10 -0700 Portland Mercury http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m402…
Posted by gonetorio]]> Wed, 27 May 2009 09:27:08 -0700 Portland Mercury