2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

I have yet to read a pro-soccer poster that does appear to understand the way urban renewal funding works. As I said, Mr. Glasgow gave a quite cogent statement of the real impact of this deal on future general funds. You were tuned out, apparently.

If Finnigan, as you claim, there are some really really smart people who do understand, they seem to be willing to avoid the subject. The rest, like you, seem disposed to keep on making the same uninformed statements.

Put in simple terms that even you might grasp: it is a fact that this deal will cost general fund dollars in future budget years. (Don't believe me? Call up Eric Johansen, the City's Debt Manager, at 503-823-6851. He'll be happy to confirm it for you.)

And PS, I don't know who this Smiley person is. If your assumption is that there's only one person in this city who doesn't agree with your childish ranting, you're wrong.

posted 4 years, 2 months ago
view in context

pdxpuma:

Nobody outside the timber army has made this claim. Merritt Paulson certainly hasn't, as anybody who listened to this broadcast would know.

And even if the ultimate deal has Paulson "guaranteeing" the bonds, there are still significant costs to the city's general fund in future budgets.

Will Glasgow made a very thoughtful comment today about the growth in future tax receipts within the URA being diverted to pay off these bonds in future years. He noted that these revenues would be going to the general fund if they weren't already committed to paying the stadium bonds.

This is a very basic issue that hasn't been addressed, and it makes a lie out of the task force's recommendation that there be no general fund impacts.

All the newfound public financing experts among the Timber Army don't seem to get this... their analysis of how bonds work seems to begin and end with "Me Want Soccer!"

F 

posted 4 years, 2 months ago
view in context

Sorry Finnigan,

No independent assessment was made of the economic benefit study. You're referring to the consultant who looked at the Timbers sources and uses projections, which are a different thing.

You can go play and let the grownups talk now.

posted 4 years, 2 months ago
view in context

Mr. Masur is wrong to suggest that urban renewal funds can't be used for schools or other public programs. Since this project assumes that the definitions of "blight" and "economic development" can be stretched to include a downtown soccer stadium, they can be stretched to mean anything, including schools, police, and everything else the city funds.

posted 4 years, 2 months ago
view in context

Please ask Mr. Paulson and Mr. Masur the following:

Mr. Paulson has been making some big promises about the creation of new jobs from this project. Why didn't the city do an independent study done to verify these job creation projections? Why didn't the task force ask any questions about these numbers?

Secondly, since this project is being paid for by funds earmarked for economic development, the question shouldn't be "Is there some economic development?" The question should be "Is there more economic development from this than from another project the city could do?"

Please ask Mr. Masur why no comparisons were made between projected economic development from this project versus economic development from any other $85M outlay?

posted 4 years, 2 months ago
view in context