The Nation?!

Query: Would a taxpayer who resides in an adjacent neighborhood in unincorporated Washington County be subject to taxation if the stadium is built in Beaverton?

Terrific article on "Dismantling the Temple" by Greider while you're there --

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090803/greider/single

How bout Cesar Chavez (soccer stadium)? That would get international respect.

It's probably time to outlaw public-private partnerships entirely. I've never seen one that ever benefited the taxpayers.

Can we all just forward the link to the city council?...IF they read?

Anon's query regarding unincorporated Washington County taxes is a good question. I don't have the answer and hopefully somebody does.

The 97225 area code is a vocal crowd, even spending tens of thousands of dollars to fight down a carwash at 91st/Beave Hillsdale Hwy. Think Lents in Lexus'

When this soccer deal becomes an expensive abandoned pipe dream in a few years, how about locating the new water treatment plant there?

If we have to continue to get fleeced for things we don't need and shouldn't have to pay for, why not locate them all in the same place?

That way we could create a sort of a shrine for inept and corrupt public policy. We could line the place with hall of shame placards for all the folks who made their living by feeding off of the public trough.

The list would be long.

That article in The Nation is incredible!

You may recall that a couple of months ago the New York Times Travel section ran a wonderful story about Portland, which all of the local media gushed about afterwards.

So, I wonder how the local media will handle the story in The Nation?

In the meantime, rather than continue to simply complain about the soccer deal, I think it's time to talk about taking legal action in civil court to stop this deal. And the article in The Nation provides valuable new evidence to go along with all of the other evidence of malfeasance, misfeasance, and nonfeasance that we've seen up until now.

This comment:

"Call us purveyors of the obvious, but we think one "better deal" for the city would have the Paulsons paying for their own sporty ventures. "

...is the first thing I said when confronted by this confounded "deal".

Marvelous article and hard to ignore when all of the material is presented so concisely and well in one place.

However I'm afraid that even if the article is read by the City Council, it will be ignored.

We've learned that, unfortunately, no amount of public outcry about an unpopular council decision makes any difference once it has the bit in its teeth, other than token "tweaking" that will divert the direction the moth approaches the flame, not turn it away from the flame entirely.

As far as the naming rights money, it was touched on during the meetings of the committee charged with rubber stamping ...oops, I mean investigating ... the original deal set up between Paulson and the city.
If I recall correctly, the naming rights money is counted as part of Paulson's "contribution" to the deal.

Al, according to all the news about Paulson's PGE Park deal the naming rights and value are to go to Paulson. Contrary, it becomes Portland taxpayers "contribution to the deal." Not a good deal when they own it.

Janik is looking out for us taxpayers, his employer, I'm sure.

lw, I believe you are correct and I didn't make myself very clear. The money for naming rights does go to Paulson, but I believe it goes into the cost of redoing the stadium, listed as part of Paulson's contribution ... even though he's just serving as a conduit for the money. Just like the facilities fund. That's why it's so maddening when stories in The O break down who's paying for what and list things like those as Paulson's "contribution."

Portland Native wrote: "Can we all just forward the link to the city council?...IF they read?"

First they have to be able to read, aka Firehoser.

Did anyone notice that one of the article's authors is a former professional soccer player? Not that that'll matter to the Timbers Army people who'd claim bias.

Al, good clarification. I think it's way past due for the Oregonian to have an accountant in the news department with public policy training that could extract the simple fact that the naming rights and it's value is not a Paulson contribution. But then, maybe they do know that but are spinning the stories-do you think?

At last, someone who can say clearly that the Emperor isn't wearing any clothes! Why does it take someone from outside PDX to detail this crazy deal so well?

I hope that this article is widely read and receives lots of comments. But as NWPortlander says, the City Council has built a reputation based on ignoring anything that contradicts the direction they want to go. Even if the councillors see this article, they will never acknowledge it.