Last night, the Lents Neighborhood Association (LNA) held a special meeting about the proposed baseball stadium for the Portland Beavers. Before the meeting, I stopped by Lents Park to get a few pictures of Walker Stadium and the section of the park that will be affected should the stadium be built. When I arrived, there were three Lents Little League games in progress. Kids and parents alike were having a great time. The scene was a slice of American life—kids playing baseball, because they love the game.
The scene at the neighborhood association meeting was a different slice of American life—angry neighbors venting their frustration at city officials and their own neighborhood association members. Many Lents residents complained that the stadium proposal was being railroaded through without public process. They were angry, because the LNA announced that there would be a vote of support on the stadium proposal at the end of the meeting. Neighbors argued that they had not received details about the proposal, yet were told a decision would be made.
The LNA countered that the stadium proposal had been discussed in meetings for some time now, and URAC meetings, which are open to the public—are always posted on the neighborhood and city websites. At that point—when residents were asking for personal notification, such as phone calls or direct mail—Leonard chimed in that it is neighbors' responsibility to keep informed.
Since the City and the Beavers had not yet agreed on the terms of the proposal, there were no details to discuss and nothing on which to vote. The call to vote was premature and appeared to escalate an already emotional issue.
Instead, residents were given the opportunity to question public officials about the proposal. In attendance were Commissioner Randy Leonard, Greg Peden representing the Beavers, and Juan Carlos Ocana-Chiu from PDC.
Resident's concerns echoed the questions that were raised in last week's Lents URAC meeting where Randy Leonard and Merritt Paulson pitched the stadium proposal.
Questions asked, included:
- Is it worth it?
- Will it bring economic benefit?
- Will the benefit be greater than other investments?
- How will the stadium affect on property values?
- How will the stadium affect traffic and parking?
- How will noise and unruly fans impact neighborhood livability?
No new information about the proposal was provided, but a straw poll was reluctantly taken at the end of the evening. The majority of those in attendance were against the stadium proposal. This contrasts sharply with the results of a survey conducted by the Lents Neighborhood Association, which showed residents in favor of the stadium by a 2 to 1 margin. It's difficult to say whether the LNA survey or last evening's straw poll accurately represent the view of the majority of Lents residents.
During the meeting, Lents resident Nick Christensen shared an interesting personal observation. Christensen was a reporter covering triple-AAA baseball and has visited many stadiums. About 1/3 were in urban/downtown areas, 1/3 were in the suburbs, and 1/3 in rural areas. He noted that stadiums located in the suburbs or rural areas didn't spark the economic development that officials are claiming will happen in Lents. Commissioner Leonard countered that Lents is in Portland and is, therefore, an urban location.
After the meeting, I asked Christensen how Lents compares to the urban, suburban, and rural locations to which he referred. Because Lents is primarily a residential community of single-family housing, Christensen reasoned, "Lents definitely falls into the suburb category." Christensen is a huge baseball fan, but based on his experience, doesn't think the Lents location will work.
Leonard and Paulson often refer to a Stanford University study of San Diego's Petco Field as an example of how a stadium can revitalize an area. What they neglect to mention is that the plan to build the stadium was part of a larger plan to redevelop the surrounding area. The revitalization of the area was not the result of Petco Field being built—it was the combination of redevelopment and the stadium that created an attractive location. The Mercury has an interesting article that explores this further.
Can the success in San Diego be replicated in Lents? After all, it is an urban renewal area that is in the process of being redeveloped. After the development agreement is reached, URAC and residents will have an opportunity to weigh in on recommendations. The final decision, however, is out of their hands—we can only hope that city officials respect the wishes of Lents residents.
One thing to note, the LNA did admit the vote shouldn't have been called, they didn't understand that an agreement between the city and Paulson hadn't been reached.
Another thing that is unfortunate is that because of the meeting day/time the Little League families were unable to attend. They were playing games. The Little League is one of the biggest group of constituents that support bringing the Beavers to Lents.
Commissioner Leonard has chided my referring to Lents as suburban. While Lents is no Beaverton, it's hardly what one would call a gritty urban area, either.
Either way, if you classify stadium locations as downtown, urban (not downtown, but not gleaming new upper-middle class housing) and suburb (fringe development)... Lents is in the middle there. And at the Triple-A level, stadiums nationwide are in urban areas not downtown, not on the edges have not been successful in attracting new development to their surroundings.
Portland is different. But there are way, way too many suppositions being made here. We're supposing that people will walk down to the Lents Town Center before or after games to dine and shop and get off/on MAX, when there's a station right next to the proposed stadium. We're supposing the new stadium will somehow be just as accessible to the community as Walker Stadium is now (at least when the Beavers aren't using it, which will be on 72 of Portland's sunniest, driest days of the year). We're supposing that $42 million will be all that's asked for construction. We're supposing there is no other way to bring people to Lents (a concert venue? a community/amateur athletic complex? Heck, an MLS stadium?).
I do love baseball and want the Beavers to have a lively, vibrant home stadium. I think the only place that works is downtown. I love Lents, too, which is why I chose to buy my first home here.
Will a ballpark make Lents worse? Not at all, except for the immediate neighbors, who will have to deal with the stadium lights and PA 72 nights a year, minus Sunday day games.
Will it make it better, especially $42 million better?
The odds aren't in Lents' favor.
Nick, Thanks for providing more details about your thoughts. These are the discussions residents must have before a decision whether or not to support the stadium is made.
Difficult to say whether the straw poll or the survey more accurately represents the majority view of Lents residents? Anyone who regularly attends meetings here can look at the picture of attendees and help you with that one. Even with a house packed with the usual trouble-makers, I was surprised that the "straw poll" was as split as it was. When will a journalist step up and tell the real, whole story about what's happening in Lents?
@steve
The LNA survey asked residents if they supported the idea of a stadium. That's different than asking how much they're willing to payor potentially sacrificeto make the stadium a reality.
Residents who participated in the LNA survey were entered into a drawing for one of a number of prizes (see survey for details) if they completed the survey.
74.7% of LNA survey respondents were Lents residents.
The estimated project cost has grown dramatically since the LNA Surveyand so have the concerns of your neighbors.
In our assessment, these points make it difficult to determine whether the straw poll or the LNA survey results most accurately represents the majority view of Lents residents.
[The LNA Survey Link doesn't work, but can be accessed through this post on the LNA website.]