Lents Gets a Curveball

Randy Leonard and Merritt Paulson traveled to Lents last night to pitch their proposal for a triple-A baseball stadium—and threw east Portland residents a curveball by asking for $42 million in urban renewal money to finance most of it.

Using that money for a stadium would have a broad impact on the Lents URA plan—and residents are concerned.

Randy Leonard was hopeful that stadium deal negotiations would be complete prior to last night's meeting, but two sticking points left the issue unresolved: a guarantee of how long the Beavers would stay in the stadium and limiting the City's responsibility for cost overruns.

Paulson said that the stadium lease would be 25 years, guaranteeing that the Beavers would not go elsewhere any time soon. Leonard further clarified that it is the structure of the guaranteed occupancy that is being negotiated, as well as who pays for what in the remaining $9 million of stadium financing.

Stadium Financing

$42 million is a much larger request than Lents residents anticipated. Sticker shock large. Paulson had agreed to contribute $12.5 million to construction of a Rose Quarter stadium. According to the Oregonian, Paulson said he couldn't put that much into a Lents stadium nor could he guarantee revenue to the City with the stadium outside of the city center.

Last night, Paulson said that he "couldn't be more excited about the opportunity to bring the ballpark to Lents." If that's the case, then why ask Lents residents to pony up a larger portion of the tab than in the Rose Quarter deal? According to Leonard, "If you build it, they'll come." Does the increased burden on Lents residents indicate a lack of confidence from Paulson—and should it raise a red flag for the city?

Lents resident Kristina Lake questioned Paulson's logic that sports teams act as a financial catalyst for neighborhoods or cities. "If you google economic impacts of professional sports teams," she challenged, "the first page of results are studies from recognized institutions, such as The Brookings Institute, and all of them say that sports teams have no positive beneficial impact."

Paulson responded that the Brookings study, along with many others, is a comparative analysis of choices: investment in a sports team versus investment in a business such as Walmart or Target. The Brookings study concludes that there is no net difference between the two choices, but both choices have a positive economic impact. Paulson added that a Stanford Business School study of Petco Field in San Diego more accurately portrays the economic benefit associated with a sports team. The Stanford report analyzes the economic impact, not the difference between two choices.

Impacts on the Lents URA

Financing the stadium would mean cutting or delaying a number of projects Lents has identified as critical to revitalization. John Mulvey of Powelhust-Gilbert noted, "You're asking us to postpone $42 million of other investment." Examples of cuts include $7.4 million from the Lents Town Center Redevelopment budget and $3.4 million from the SE 92nd redevelopment budget. Storefront grants, neighborhood transportation safety, and target industry development projects would also be impacted.

Leonard said that not all projects would be cut or postponed. The council is considering a loan to the Lents URA in order to keep other vital projects on track—just like the South Waterfront and Interstate URAs. The money would be paid back out of future URA dollars. The idea is that the stadium and other projects will act as a catalyst and build momentum for private investment in the area. The result would be the tax increment growing at a faster rate, providing money to pay back the loan.

Leonard added, "It is my unshakeable belief that if we build a baseball stadium in Lents it will be the catalyst that causes the kind of investment activity that Lents has thirsted for, for a long time—in a way that none of these [other] projects would."

82nd Avenue Business Association member Gary Sargent expressed concern about the 30% affordable housing obligation of the URA. He pointed out that committing $42 million to the stadium would have a greater impact, because it carries that obligation, which would leave less money for other economic investment. 

Leonard offered that he and Mayor Adams have considered waiving the affordable housing commitment for the Lents URA. "When Lents market rate housing provides affordable housing," he explained, "it's probably not the best use for that money." To maintain its commitment to affordable housing, the City would require that another area make up that affordable housing deficit in Lents. This would not eliminate all assistance to low-income families, it would just relieve the URA from its 30% affordable housing obligation.

Revitalization: Now or Never?

Lents is facing a difficult choice in its revitalization effort: a baseball stadium could act as a catalyst to create investment momentum and bring more private investment to the neighborhood—or not. By committing a large portion of its URA dollars to the stadium; Lents residents risk delaying or cutting other critical projects needed to develop the area. On the other hand, without the stadium, the Lents URA may take much longer—or it may never—gain the momentum needed to attract private investment.

The Lents URA committee will meet in the next couple of weeks to determine its recommendation.