On Thursday, June 18, the City will present its non-binding stadium agreement with Peregrine, LLC (Merritt Paulson) to the Lents Town Center Urban Renewal Advisory Committee (LTC URAC). Prior to the meeting, an Open House will be held 4–6 p.m. to acquaint residents with the tentative agreement. However, it is unclear if the URAC will actually vote on its recommendation for the stadium proposal. A member of the URAC has indicated to Neighborhood Notes that it is possible the vote will be postponed.
Update: The LTC URAC has decided to postpone its vote on funding the Triple-A baseball stadium proposal, the open house and meeting will be held as planned. The LTC URAC will vote on its recommendation regarding the baseball stadium on June 25th at 7PM, the location has yet to be determined.
Lents residents and Friends of Lents Park have argued that presenting and voting on such an important proposal in the same night will not give residents and URAC members adequate time to properly evaluate the proposal and its impact on the neighborhood.
At a time when residents should be discussing the advantages and disadvantages of bringing Triple-A baseball to Lents, they're fighting among themselves: recent Lents Neighborhood Association meetings and discussions on the Lents Yahoo Group have devolved into heated exchanges with accusations of conflict of interest, lack of communication, lack of representation, and even a campaign to recall LNA Chair Damien Chakwin.
How did it come to this?
August 2008: Greg Peden of Gallatin Public Affairs, announced that Merritt Paulson planned to bring Major League Soccer to Portland and that, due to changes to PGE Park, it was possible that a stadium would be built in Lents for the Portland Beavers. The initial proposal was to remodel PGE Park as a soccer only stadium and build a Triple-A ballpark in Lents.
September 2008: The first discussion about stadium financing occurred at the September 2008 LTC URAC meeting.
November 2008: Commissioner Randy Leonard attended the November LTC URAC meeting to discuss the proposal further. At that time, it was suggested that $25 million in Lents URA funds be used for the stadium, but there was no formal stadium agreement.
December 2008: The Lents Neighborhood Association conducted a survey, which indicated that Lents residents supported the stadium in their neighborhood.
February 2009: The site of the proposed stadium suddenly shifted from Lents to the Rose Quarter. Numerous reasons—parking, noise, central location, potential for other uses—were given for the change in focus. As the Rose Quarter site gained traction, a group interested in preserving Memorial Coliseum pushed back. Led by Brian Libby, the group argued that Memorial Coliseum was an architectural gem that should be saved.
May 2009 Portland residents perceived that the Rose Quarter plan was being fast tracked, because the City never established a formal public process to determine the best use of Memorial Coliseum. This misstep solidified opposition and virtually eliminating any chance of reasonable discussion. The standoff ended in May when Mayor Adams officially announced that the Rose Quarter was of the table.
May 12, 2009: Lents was thrust back into the spotlight as THE preferred stadium location. At the May 12 LTC URAC meeting—still lacking a formal agreement—Leonard and Paulson threw Lents residents a curve ball: they said that $42 million of Urban Renewal money would be needed to bring the Beavers to Lents. That amount was a 68% increase over the $25 million originally discussed, which meant that Lents would finance approximately 82% of the stadium. Many residents, including those in favor of the stadium, were taken by surprise and very angry at the amount of URA money that would be required to make the stadium a reality.
Adding insult to injury, Paulson dropped the bomb that he could no longer contribute the $12.5 million he planned to commit to the Rose Quarter location, because he couldn't put that much into a stadium outside of the city center. Many residents—who expressed feeling like pawns in a political game—contended they were being asked to build a stadium for a "rich millionaire who wasn't willing to invest as much in Lents as he was in the Rose Quarter."
The meeting became contentious as residents argued that it was the first time that they were privy to any details about the proposed stadium. Residents accused the LTC URAC—their neighbors—of being biased and withholding information.
May 20, 2009: On May 20, Lents residents played hardball at the monthly neighborhood association meeting. Many residents complained that the stadium proposal was being railroaded through without public process. They were angry, because the Lents Neighborhood Association had mistakenly 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. Because there was no formal agreement between the City and Paulson, there was nothing to vote on, but residents accused LNA Chair Damien Chakwin of pushing his pro-stadium agenda and silencing stadium opponents by preventing a vote.
June 2009:: From this chaos, the Friends of Lents Park was formed. This grassroots organization was established to give a voice to Lents neighbors who oppose the stadium site in Lents Park.
June 3, 2009: Friends of Lents Park held its first organizational meeting on June 3. Roughly 150 Lents residents showed up to voice their opposition. Each took two minutes at the mic to voice their concerns.
"I'm one of those who lives over between 92nd and the freeway and I'm locked in, on game night we're stuck, we can't get in and we can't get out,," said Lents resident Andi Hodge. "And if you bring a major league team in here we're going to be forced to deal with that all summer long."
"Here's what's indisputable, Sam Adams and Randy Leonard want to take green space, dedicated parkland, plow it under and put up concrete and asphalt," exclaimed resident John Jay. "In this day and age that's crazy!"
June 11, 2009: Lents Neighborhood Association board members met to set the agenda for the next general neighborhood association meeting. Unfortunately, the LNA mistakenly announced—again, just as on May 20—that there would be a vote of support on the stadium proposal at the end of the meeting. As a result, angry neighbors showed up to voice their oppoosition to the stadium and to the process. "If this was Laurelhurst Park this discussion would not even be happening," snapped an angry resident, "But because we're in the neighborhood we're in, we are going to be taken advantage of once again."
June 4, 2009:PDC releases four URAC budget scenarios.
June 15, 2009: PDC releases six URAC budget scenarios. which includes the four scenarios in the June 4 release, plus two new scenarios based on the yet-to-be-created Central City URA contributing to the stadium financing
June 15, 2009: Friends of Lents Parks Steering Committee sent this letter to City Council:
As the elected representatives of the Friends of Lents Park, a citizen group with a mission to preserve, maintain and enhance Lents Park, we must protest the shockingly undemocratic processes proposed to be used in the Beavers baseball stadium siting and funding decisions. Since the Lents Park stadium option was placed back on the table, Lents residents have been told - by our neighborhood association, our urban renewal advisory committee, and the city - that the public involvement process would begin once a "final deal" was reached between the city and Portland Beavers owner Merritt Paulson. A June 1, 2009 e-mail which our group received from Amy Ruiz of the mayor's office quotes Mayor Adams as saying "only if we can come to terms with Merritt on a stadium deal in Lents will we approach the issue with the Lents community."
Frustrating as the lack of any officially-sanctioned public involvement process to date, Lents residents have looked forward to the point when the city/Beavers plan would be finalized, its details disclosed to us, and the public involvement process would begin.
That time is now. We understand that the city has concluded its negotiations with Peregrine LLC, Merritt Paulson's company, and as of last Friday have received a city/Peregrine "term sheet." However, the public involvement process we were promised is nowhere to be found. Instead, both the city and our URAC seem determined to fast-track the stadium siting and funding decisions, by processes that appear designed to exclude public input.
Read the entire letter and the response of URAC Chair Cora Potter.
The rapid sequence of events, lack of clear process, poor communication and decisions du jour clearly demonstrates why this issue has polarized the Lents neighborhood, but no party—the City, Lents Neighborhood Association and even Friends of Lents Park—is blameless for the fallout.
The City's lack of process and fickle decision-making fractured the neighborhood. The Lents Neighborhood Association [admittedly] miscommunicated information that further frustrated and angered neighbors. At the Friends of Lents Park meeting, I overheard a supporter ask an organizer where to find more information about the stadium proposal. The organizer provided a list of websites that were both for and against the stadium. The supporter then said, "I don't want to hear what the other side (pro stadium) has to say, I just want to strengthen my opposition." The organizer then said, "I hear ya... then you should just look at these sites."
The Challenge of Neighborhood Communication
Communication at the neighborhood level is always a challenge. Neighborhood Associations have very limited budgets and are run by volunteers. Often, participation is limited to a small group of active residents. The Lents Neighborhood Association is no different.
Despite meeting since September 2008 and making that information available through Portland Development Commission, East Portland Neighborhood Office and the Lents Neighborhood Association, many Lents residents insist that they were uninformed about the stadium. They want to know why the information wasn't sent to them.
Neighborhood associations often rely on their Neighborhood Coalition Office to help with communication and community outreach. Coalition offices are typically underfunded and rely on grants to partially fund their operations. [The Office of Neighborhood Involvement just informed coalitions that their 2009 budgets were cut by 5%.]
According to Mark Seiber, Executive Director of Neighbors West-Northwest, there are three issues with mass mailings:
- Identifying issues that warrant a mailing
- Identifying the audience to receive the mailing
- Paying for the mailing and staff time
Richard Bixby, Executive Director of the East Portland Neighborhood Office put these limitations in perspective: "To cover all of Lents with a simple one-page flyer (probably inadequate to cover this type of issue) would probably cost between $3,000–$4,000. Lents receives about $2,000 each year to cover notification and expenses for all their meetings and events held throughout the year."
One of the biggest challenges faced by all neighborhood associations is apathy—most residents don't take the necessary steps to become informed about their neighborhood. Often, residents aren't interested in participating until there is a major issue—such as a baseball stadium. Without staying informed or knowing where to find information, residents rely on hearsay, become misinformed, and have kneejerk reactions to issues, because they don't understand all of the facts. It's imperative that the City and neighborhood associations offer clear communication and process, but it's equally important that residents take responsibility and stay informed about their neighborhood.
Tonia Foster, concessionaire for Walker Stadium, had a neighborly piece of advice for Lents residents: "Everyone just needs to take a breath and listen to each other. Only when residents listen and understand all the facts can residents make a good decision about their neighborhood."
We think she hit that one out of the park, don't you?
Shooter,
Thanks for this informative article. I would only add two things.
First, you might note that in early June of 2009, three neighborhoods within the URA took strong "No" positions on the stadium project: Powellhurst-Gilbert, Foster-Powell and Creston Kenilworth. So far as I know, no rioting occurred.
Second, Mayor Adams and Commissioner Leonard made perhaps the most significant flaw in the whole process by insisting on their preferred sites for the stadium, rather than conducting an inclusive, public siting process.
I don't blame Merritt Paulson in the slightest, since I believe he deferred to Adams and Leonard on use of the Rose Quarter and Lents Park, respectively, for the new stadium.
The result was that once the Rose Quarter site was abandoned, the deal began to look more like an ultimatum than a discussion. The threat from Leonard, in particular, that a neighborhood park was the only site that could be discussed, and that rejection of that site was tantamount to the Beavers leaving town and/or the MLS soccer deal falling through, was what caused the opposition to take such a hard stance.
In short, Randy Leonard and Sam Adams are the ones who need a primer on public participation and community-building, not the neighborhoods of SE Portland.
Best Wishes,
John Mulvey
Foster-Powell Neighborhood Representative,
Lents Town Center Urban Renewal Advisory Committee
John thanks for your comment! I agree that we need a much better example from the top about public process and leadership. Making the URAC decision do or die was the wrong approach. Our current city leadership seems reactionary and focused on the issue du jour rather than following a plan. A better example from City Hall would set precedence for all. That was one point of the story. The other was that the simplest form of community involvement is making yourself aware of the issues in your community. After the opposition within Lents started organizing and growing, the question why wasnt I told about the stadium was asked over and over. While this issue had been discussed publicly since Sept 2008, many were surprised by or had serious misconceptions about the proposal. The information was available, but residents needed to participate by using it.
I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don't know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.
Sara
http://pianonotes.info