That makes a good case for ending all public-private partnerships.

Another good case is OHSU where they're a private corporation when it suits their interests and a public agency when it suits their interests. They can't have it both ways.

Members/Stockholders of Oregon Electric Co-operatives, state sanctioned monopoly power companies know all about this. They use this setup to avoid having fair and impartial board of directors elections among other things. So no one gets on their board unless those on the board want them there - no matter how many votes they get.

Not only can OHSU have it both ways, they do.

Not only that, all the other state universities think that is the way to go. It will provide 'versitility' and 'adaptability' in meeting the challenges of the future.

Yeah, riiiiight....

I don't know about you, but every time I hear this, I think,

"WOOO_HOOO!!! AERIAL TRAMS ON EVERY CAMPUS!!!"

*rimshot & cymbal crash*

It shouldn't matter if Phil Knight is buying the whole thing. It's still a public university and shouldn't be treated as PK's private property.

Doesn't Phil Knight have better things to spend his money on? Doen't the administration of the UO have better things to do than find ways to help him spend his money on sports? It makes me embarrassed to be an Oregonian - feels like we're becoming the Alabama of the West Coast.

There's no comparison to the Tram, OHSU or the typical public-provate partnerships.

It's actually the opposite.
Why would any of you want government bureaucrats injecting themselves into this 100% privately funded project gift?
To screw it up and make it cost more?

The *Swoosh* isn't for nothing.

OHSU doesn't have anything to do with this?

Ever heard of Knight Cancer Institute? At OHSU? Ever since Phil got his name attached, he's started thinking of OHSU as a wholley-owned subsidiary, with all of the OHSU employees and their families being extended "employee" status at the Nike Employee Outlet.

It sure doesn't hurt if you have the better part of over 8,000 employees, AND their families, wearing swoosh all over their bodies.

I'm just waiting for the "Swoosh Kills Cancer" campaign....I can see it coming.

I agree that, with very rare exceptions, public jobs should be open to public bidding. But just playing Devil's Advocate, I almost blew Diet Coke all over my Bunny Slippers when I read Union Boss Shipwrack caution us that U of O would be stuck with ongoing maintenance costs for the project - this from the guy who, with his wife, our County Commisar Judy, put together a building as a showcase for Quality Union Labor that had massive construction quality problems - they still owe the government tens of thousands, IIRC. And, on the other side, Mr Diane Linn, for the AGC. With friends like these, you almost gotta like Phil's plan. Almost...

Back when I attended the U of O in the early 1980's tuition was under $600 a term. There had not been a new building on campus since the early 1970's and they couldn't afford to maintain the buildings they did have. They were actually still using the "temporary" quonset huts left over from WWII for office space. The football team stunk and nobody went to the games. The Campus was over all seedy and rundown but you could get a good education there. Fast forward 15 years and Uncle Phil starts pouring some serious money into the University. They now have a greatly expanded library and a new law school building among other things. These two projects went out for public bidding and they both ended up 30% over budget and finished many months late. While I am very uneasy about the control Phil Knight welds over the U of O President the the Board of Higher Education I can't blame him for wanting these new projects done right, under budget and on time. In the end Uncle Phil has done great things for the U of O in his quest to have KNIGHT on every structure standing on campus.

Why would anyone expect Knight, who became one of the world's richest by outsourcing and offshoring all his company's manufacturing, to put up with quaint ideas like public accountability, competitive bidding and labor unions?