Portland Diamond Project (MLB) | Proposed

[urbanlife]

The stadium and location look amazing, and even better, it is on the Orange line which is really easy for me to catch to go to random games. I really hope we see MLB moving forward with this sooner than later.

[maccoinnich]

Couple recent stories:

OHSU responds to South Waterfront ballpark proposal



If the Portland Diamond Project’s ballpark proposal ever grows from a dream into reality, it could draw upwards of 3 million people into the city’s South Waterfront district each summer.

That proposition has understandably raised questions about how such a project would be received by its neighbors, the most notable of which would be Oregon Health & Science University.

Numerous buildings adjacent to the proposed ballpark site at Zidell Yards are owned by OHSU, including the 16-floor Center for Health & Healing and the Knight Cancer Research Building.

The lower terminal of the Portland Aerial Tram, which connects the waterfront to OHSU’s main campus, is located along the southern boundary of the Zidell Yards property along South Moody Avenue. The tram transports nearly 9,000 people per day during the week, according to a City of Portland estimate.

...continues at the Oregonian.

Bill Oram: Is a picture worth (almost) a billion dollars? Oregon legislators face a big baseball question



The camera is always on.

Craig Cheek learned that lesson this week. The Portland Diamond Project founder didn’t realize when he spoke to a legislative committee on Monday that the hearing was being streamed online. Or that the Zidell Yards renderings he said he was showing lawmakers in a “sneak peek” could be easily accessed by the public.

Cheek told me on Tuesday that his group had been trying to be “disciplined and sensitive about being public right now.”

But when Cheek, a career Nike executive, pondered whether he would have delivered his message differently had he known he was speaking to the entire state, and not just its representatives, he chuckled.

“I might not have worn my grandpa glasses,” he said.

With that, a project that was gaining steam in the background has now surged back to the forefront. And for the first time in years, I think, it is deserving of some cautious optimism.

...continues at the Oregonian.

[PhillyPDX]

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

Couple recent stories:



...continues at the Oregonian.



...continues at the Oregonian.

So effectively the $900m stadium loan request is effectively a taxpayer funded stadium right? As in, a corporate handout to make it revenue neutral, which is the same as most any corporate tax break. It’s not “really” privately funded if all taxes from it are paying off said loan. Will be interesting to see if Oregon bites and plays the taxpayer funded stadium game.

[dizflip]

As long as they stick with a transit-oriented, mixed-use design, my vote would be yes to that.

[mhays]

If it's just selling bonds that will be repaid at a fair markup, then no. Your mortgage banker isn't subsidizing your house; they're trying to make a good business deal.

However this would be repaid by taxes essentially funded by local entertainment spending (directly and indirectly). The spending would generally not be net additional--it's money fans would spend on something else if the team isn't around--so it's basically an added tax even if paid by the players and team officials. Major league economic assessments typically treat all team-related revenue as new money, which is blatantly false.

(I'm mostly speaking generally...I don't know the inner workings of the Oregon deal.)

[PhillyPDX]

Originally Posted by mhays

If it's just selling bonds that will be repaid at a fair markup, then no. Your mortgage banker isn't subsidizing your house; they're trying to make a good business deal.

However this would be repaid by taxes essentially funded by local entertainment spending (directly and indirectly). The spending would generally not be net additional--it's money fans would spend on something else if the team isn't around--so it's basically an added tax even if paid by the players and team officials. Major league economic assessments typically treat all team-related revenue as new money, which is blatantly false.

(I'm mostly speaking generally...I don't know the inner workings of the Oregon deal.)

Yeah not trying to agree or disagree with it, but it’s the same thing as say, giving a major corporation tax exemptions to move/stay in a city, with the result being income taxes and other direct revenues increase. Hopefully providing a net benefit.

But the equation is drastically different from an actually private funded stadium where the state only GAINS in tax revenue/spending. Better than zero sum.

I just know some here don’t like the idea of stadium handouts, which this clearly is. Until these last few weeks I was also under impression mlb to pdx had private financing/backers for all stadium facilities, so this caught me by surprise.

[HillsboroTech]

Maybe there is something I’m missing and excuse my lack of economic knowledge, but wouldn’t they use the teams payroll state income tax to pay for this?

MLB payrolls are huge and increase year over year. I can see this getting paid off from that alone in 20-30 years. This MLB payroll state income tax revenue isn’t gonna exist without this action because the MLB will most likely pick a different city that does have public subsidies.

[PhillyPDX]

Originally Posted by HillsboroTech

Maybe there is something I’m missing and excuse my lack of economic knowledge, but wouldn’t they use the teams payroll state income tax to pay for this?

MLB payrolls are huge and increase year over year. I can see this getting paid off from that alone in 20-30 years. This MLB payroll state income tax revenue isn’t gonna exist without this action because the MLB will most likely pick a different city that does have public subsidies.

Yeah I think that’s what they are doing. But to me it’s still the same as any corporate subsidy. Threaten to leave, move etc, get tax exemptions in order to stay. And it’s the same argument, better to get a company/team than not (or lose to Texas/Southeast, in the case of companies). It’s pretty much what all cities do to compete, pay to play. Lots of people don’t like the optics of corporate handouts.

[subterranean]

I don’t think this will ever get built. Too many costly infrastructure changes, traffic would be horrendous, and it looks ridiculous wedged there against the Ross Island.

It’s never been an option, but I still think they should approach the city about buying or leasing the area where the Washington Park Soccer Field is, south of the Rose Garden. Create a new underground Blue/Red MAX station and reconfigure the Jefferson ramps to accommodate the park. It wouldn’t be perfect, but I think it could work well so long as they build a parking deck instead of a surface lot. The biggest problem would be the loss of trees, but if they could minimize that, it might actually be cool to have a baseball stadium in the middle of a forest.

[maccoinnich]

Portland Diamond Project asks legislature for $800 million for waterfront ballpark



The Portland Diamond Project is asking Oregon legislators for $800 million to aid construction of a baseball stadium, more than five times as much as lawmakers approved two decades ago.

Sen. Mark Meek, D-Gladstone, sponsored an amendment to Senate Bill 110 on Thursday in an effort to help attract Major League Baseball to Oregon when the league next expands.

Original legislation from 2003, Senate Bill 5, approved $150 million in bonds if Portland landed a team. The bonds would be paid back by the income tax on baseball players and team employees, as opposed to diverting existing tax revenue or increasing taxes on Oregonians.

...continues at the Oregonian

[PhillyPDX]

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

...continues at the Oregonian

Tough sell in current environment. The “but for” argument is bogus, as it can literally be applied to anything for taxes. Think of all the millions we’ve lost due to wealthy leaving. Cut their taxes so they stay, it’s literally the same concept. They wouldn’t be here otherwise.

[mhays]

They'll portray this as a tax on "new money" but it's really a tax on the same (mostly) local entertainment dollars divided in a different way. This is pretty close to an outright subsidy. It does sound like a tough sell.

The truth is far more complex than that of course. It might be a great investment for the region...PR value etc. And some of the money will be new to the area, including some of the broadcast revenue. But the nuances won't play with voters, and their legislators might listen to them (they should listen to nuance, not the winds of populism, but it'll be mixed).

[PhillyPDX]

Originally Posted by mhays

They'll portray this as a tax on "new money" but it's really a tax on the same (mostly) local entertainment dollars divided in a different way. This is pretty close to an outright subsidy. It does sound like a tough sell.

The truth is far more complex than that of course. It might be a great investment for the region...PR value etc. And some of the money will be new to the area, including some of the broadcast revenue. But the nuances won't play with voters, and their legislators might listen to them (they should listen to nuance, not the winds of populism, but it'll be mixed).

Especially with other budget gaps. On top of city issues, my kids’ elementary school is losing 3 FTEs next year because of PPS funding post strike.

[urbanlife]

This is a good deal to help securing a team. It is similar to how an urban renewal district bond works.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by PhillyPDX

Especially with other budget gaps. On top of city issues, my kids’ elementary school is losing 3 FTEs next year because of PPS funding post strike.

This tax wouldn't have anything to do with this because it won't exist without a team and stadium and it won't come from the general taxpayers.

[mhays]

The money is still mostly from locals. They're simply buying tickets, TV packages, etc., instead of other things.

That's the fundamental disconnect with sports economic analyses.

[MarkDaMan]

Originally Posted by mhays

The money is still mostly from locals. They're simply buying tickets, TV packages, etc., instead of other things.

That's the fundamental disconnect with sports economic analyses.

Like what other things? I'd buy MLB game tickets several times a year and it wouldn't impact my entertainment dollars from another local entertainment venue. I may stream less shows to go to a game, maybe. The regular NBA season and regular MLB don't have much overlap so I wouldn't spend less on Blazer tickets to go to MLB games since they're different times of the year. Likewise, I'm not less likely to go to an MLB game over a concert put on by an artist I want to see. If anything, I might make less trips to Seattle since I'd have the oppotunity to watch my team here in Portland.

An ownership group would be investing money in construction, players, stadium workers and I'd expect Zidell would finish developing their lots as the stadium goes up. I'm seeing a lot of areas that would be new streams of funds pumped into our economy if we landed a team.

[mhays]

For most people, new spending on one thing means less money for other things. Their spending "pie" is finite.

A new team will typically just mean their time and money goes there vs. whatever else. (I don't understand your desire for examples...literally anything someone can spend money on.)

[RED_PDXer]

This old economic theory that there is a finite "entertainment" budget has some merit, but it also has its limits. It's based on an idea that we find various activities completely interchangeable, but anecdotally I know that's not true. For example, I have some friends that are more interested in a baseball game than anything soccer or basketball. I'm more likely to choose something like this to go out with them. Otherwise, we hang out less frequently and probably stay at home more often watching streaming services. I know certain companies who choose to locate conferences, training seminars and other events specifically around MLB events. I'm not sure there's a comparable entertainment choice right now other than other sports, which is not exactly interchangeable. Also, Portland would draw in entertainment money from an hour or two driving distance that may be spent outside the city now. Honestly, the only thing competing with my choice dollars is travel abroad, which doesn't get spent in the Portland region. Maybe this economic theory is outdated with the increased options people have to spend money in places further away.

The city of Portland stands to benefit the most from MLB than the rest of Oregon or the suburbs since people going to games will make an afternoon or evening out it more than likely, resulting in new or more successful restaurant and bars in this part of town. TriMet would also benefit since this location has good transit connections. TriMet has thousands of park-and-ride spaces that could be used to support trips to games.

I would definitely be opposed to spending general fund dollars on this, but if there's a way to isolate wages from the baseball team, that seems like an easy win for me.

[mhays]

Close-in neighborhoods would probably see more net business*, true. And some people would visit the region who might not have otherwise. My points were more about the whole market/region, which would be the source for most fans.

While anecdotes are interesting, it always comes back to macro stuff like aggregate spending power...a pie that stays the same (with some limited growth from outsiders), except now baseball takes a big chunk of it.

*Local businesses would have pluses and challenges. In my neighborhood near Climate Pledge Arena, or in Pioneer Square next to MLB/NFL/MLS, restaurants often find themselves packed at 6:00 but dead at 7:00 because everyone else is scared off by the game crowd or can't park. Shops that aren't restaurants don't even get the 6:00 boom, and often hate game days. (It's great for me near Climate Pledge because I'm a pedestrian, it's easy to get a table during games, and we don't have the NBA so who cares about the game...)