If the Blazers are moved

Partbof my concern is that Portland tax payers will not step up and contribute to a new or renovated arena. If it goes to a public vote Im not real optimistic. The City is in sort of a bad financial situations as it is.

 

that's not what I was saying. That supposed 'support' you used as proof of intent in the form of a bond authorization appears to fit into the 'talk is cheap' category; or cart before the horse. Can you tell me if any bonds have been issued since this authorization was granted? Will the city start the construction of the stadium before it is awarded a team? Are there any plans approved for construction? Any designs at all?

besides that, the authorization seem to implicitly say there would no be general taxes levied to pay the bonds; that's why it passed the legislature so easily. Rather the cost would be born by taxes on players and staff. So then, let me riff a little bit here, say the interest rate on the bonds is around 4%. For 800M in bonds, the annual debt service would be 32M. The goal would be to pay off the bonds over a 20-30 year period. At a 25 year schedule for bond retirement, that would be another 32M/year

so, 64M year. The average MLB payroll is around 170M. So, say the total staff payroll is 30M, and that's probably way high. That would mean there's a taxable base of around 200M to allegedly support the bond authorization. That 200M income base is supposed to cover 64M year in financing. That's a tax rate of over 30% and that comes after being taxed at the federal and state level. Not only that, the average player payroll of 172M is not all Oregon taxable; only half of it is. So those numbers are all off. Probably only have a taxable base of 100-120M....to pay 64M/year in debt service. LOL...not happening

I'd suspect that in the talk-is-cheap category, the legislature just threw this out because they knew it was easy pie-in-the-sky PR. Meanwhile, the City and state would have a fiduciary duty to have a finance plan in place and the one prescribed by the legislation is horse shit. That article even talked about the 'economic denialism' inherent in the bill. In other words, the notion that this won't be financed by general revenue is nuts. Further, the notion that finding real money is as easy as finding the play money in this bill is even more nuts

I was living in Juneau Alaska in the early 80's. In the late 70's there had been a big push by the state to move the capital from Juneau to up near Anchorage. The legislature had voted to move a couple of time. And there had been a statewide ballot measure that voted overwhelmingly to move the capital. So everything was in place for the move. EXCEPT for one minor detail: how to pay for the 3B it would cost to move the capital to a new location. The legislature had a plan: higher sales taxes, AND the suspension of the annual dividend check issued to all Alaskans. So that had to be approved by ballot measure. And unsurprisingly, the same people who were gung-ho about moving the capital were not gung-ho about paying for it. The ballot measure failed and the capital is still Juneau, more than 40 years later

I don't know what is going to happen on this Arena issue. I do suspect that a renovation of the Moda won't satisfy the new owner. The location is still a bad one for monetizing the area and the renovation would be a major one and that would shut the Moda down for at least one season, maybe 2, and there's no suitable alternative venue. I'm inclined to think that the city would be ok with assuming some of the cost of a new arena. Maybe Dundon would finance the bulk of the cost, especially all the depreciable assets. But I also know that when the buck stops, a lot of time, nobody wants it to stop on their desk

 

and that makes no financial sense at all....it's pie-in-the-sky nonsense.

again...this 800M bond authorization is loopy. There is no fucking way that a jock tax will fund 800M in bonds

and yeah, I know you were just quoting the article and aren't buying the assumptions

 

With his background, hes going to want an entertainment district, and that means 1 of 2 things:

Moda revamped, MC destroyed and made into the district (with most likely the north parking structures destroyed or revamped as well)

Or

New arena in a much more versatile area for an entertainment district (Lloyd center would be a shit show but it would be an amazing place for an entertainment district).

 

I suppose it's possible that the Blazers could still play at the Moda while it was under renovation. Do it in the off-seasons. Would probably take 2-3 years. Might have limited capacity at times

I'm not that familiar with Portland. Been to the Lloyd C once, didn't pay attention to the surrounding area. Been to the Moda a couple of times and remember I-5 right next door. Overhead view shows freeway and railroad tracks surrounding it. Not sure how many acres could be opened by demolishing the MC. I doubt it would be enough considering the location, but maybe

Might have to flip that 800M bond authorization for MLB stadium to a new Blazer arena. And at the same time, get real about how it's financed

 

Nah dont take away the mlb money! Lol.

There'd be design ways to use that big old space where the MC is now where you could set up at least 3 or 4 bars and places for sure. If you've ever been to chase center in San fran, im kinda thinking that set up.

Lloyd center would be absolute hell for car traffic if they made an entertainment district there but its priiiime for it. Especially with the big ass parking lot and theater across the way.

 

If this whole (who and hows it paid) thing gets at all political, its really risky. I cant imagine the Portland City council being in favor putting to a general vote for public financing. Dundon is already going through the new arena entertainment district development, not sure he's want to take it on again considering political history here?

 

It is but that Baseball stadium funding found a way around that. I highly doubt a new basketball arena could pull the same thing off but they could also find some inventive ways to fund that project.

 

The Shanghai blazer dragons has a certain ring to it

 

It will pay faster than that. They also get revenue from non athletic things that the venue is used for.

 

Spurs are tying to move TO Austin right now. You can take that inside info to the bank.

 

I like that idea but everything ive heard is that the economic impact studies around sports teams and stadia are mostly bunk. what are you basing this on?

 

I see what you're saying, but $800 million has been authorized with a tax on arena related revenue.

The people I listen to who were professionals who had examined the details said that it actually penciled out. The money would be there if a team came.

It wasn't just player salaries. It was also fees for parking and other businesses at the arena, etc.

I don't know the details, I just know that the commitment has been made. The dollar amount has been set. The funding mechanism has been set. And I believe it has been reviewed, or at least that's what it sounded like in the interviews that I listened to.

I do not know how much of a tax per line item It would be. I do know the player tax was not very high. Nowhere near 30%. I don't even think it was 10%.

If there is a specific lie in this policy that you are aware of I'd be happy to listen to it and your explanations to why it won't work. But just saying you don't believe it doesn't carry as much weight with me as an actual bill that we have on the books.

And I don't mean any offense by that.

I'm just not going to worry about the team leaving until it's happening. I'm going to support everything reasonable that I can to allocate the funding to make the team stay.

 

Whats the holdup?

 

I read an article a few weeks ago (which referenced a study) stating that the economic value of the Blazers for the local economy was determined to be at least double the cost of a new arena.

Unfortunately, I'm not finding that article now... But it made a lot of sense.

 

agree, however there are other factors that have affected the tax base with negative impact.
High Taxes Are Hurting Portland Job Growth and Prodding ...Willamette Weekhttps://www.wweek.com › news › city › 2025/01/16

read comments below article

 

Reading comments under any article like that is not worth anyone's time. It literally makes you want to bang your head against a wall.

 

Arena

 

that's not what the article you posted said:

"Instead of pulling from current state revenue, the bill calls for paying off the bonds through income taxes on players and staff. Proponents say it would be on the team to figure out how to fund the rest of the stadium, expected to cost $2 billion."

and, obviously, the new owners might object to a tax on arena related revenue. I'm not even sure the city has the authority to create new taxes like that, especially if they are being used to service a bond

I'm not buying it. The math just isn't there.

so it might have been 10%....maybe 8%. Do you realize how crazy that is? What players would want to play for the Portland team, if they had a 30% federal tax, an 11% state tax, and an 8% arena tax on top of it all?. If I player is making 20M/year, he'd be paying all the normal taxes plus kicking in 1.5-2M/year for an arena. Like I said...pie-in-the-sky

usually some type of participation tax like this is less than 1%. Maybe 1/2 of 1%. Remember now, the average MLB payroll is 170M. That would mean half of that would be exempt. So, 85M taxable. One percent of that is 850K. Even at a ridiculous 5%, that's around 4.3M/year from payroll tax dedicated to servicing the bonds. And if the debt service was 60M year (interest & 'principal) that comes up way short. Maybe calculate about million or so for "staff" salary taxes, although that probably high. So, to pay for 800M in debt, and it is debt, there's a base of 5-6M, at most from what that article said would pay for the bonds.

again, 800M in debt at 4% is 32M/year....just in interest. Retiring the principal would be an additional 27M/year over a 30 year span Are "parking taxes" going to pick up the slack between a 60M/year debt service and 6M/year in payroll/staff taxes?

I'm not saying that the city and maybe the state would not be willing to dip into general revenues in order to service that bonding obligation. I'm just saying there is no fucking way at all that payroll taxes on players & staff + some parking and concession taxes will offset the cost of that debt