Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Paulsons' Edifice Complex
For Henry Paulson and his son Merritt, the taxpayers of Portland, Oregon, must look like geese with an infinite supply of golden eggs.
The Paulsons own the Portland Timbers, a second-division soccer club that was recently allocated a much-coveted slot as an expansion team in Major League Soccer (MLS). Merritt, the 36-year-old son of the former treasury secretary, owns 80 percent of the team, while his father owns the other 20 percent.
In a story that has had more twists than a David Beckham corner kick, the Paulsons have doggedly pursued public financing to renovate PGE Park, the mass-transit-friendly stadium in the heart of downtown Portland, in order to make it soccer-specific.
Initially they demanded $85 million to revamp the stadium and build another one for their other team, the AAA-baseball Portland Beavers. An economic meltdown and grassroots outcry later, the Paulsons have been forced to scale back their stadium-building dreams. Now they intend to relocate the Beavers outside Portland and limit PGE Park renovations to $31 million, with the City of Portland kicking in $11.2 million from its spectator fund, a money pool derived from ticket and parking revenues.
It's a stark reversal for the Paulson gang, who claimed repeatedly that public stadium money could be the solution for Portland's economic ills. Unfortunately, they are still playing that tune, and the Portland City Council continues to dance.
On July 23 the Portland City Council voted four to one to move forward with the "public-private partnership." Despite Portland's reputation for innovative urban planning, city officials have yet to demonstrate the courage and ingenuity necessary to venture beyond the standard-issue financial model whereby the Paulsons cough up some of their millions and the city uses its bonding power to fund the rest.
The junior Paulson recently crowed, "I challenge people to find a better deal out there for the city."
As it turns out, numerous alternative funding options exist, as long as Portland is willing to live up to its reputation as a creative city.
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.
With Goldman Sachs--Henry Paulson's former firm--making $38 million per day and doling out the heftiest executive bonuses in its 140-year history, it shouldn't be difficult to find investors, especially if Major League Soccer is the money-maker the Paulsons have promised it to be. Perhaps it's time Henry Paulson went out and beat the silver-frosted bushes for some capital. In 2006 he bestowed $100 million to an environmental charity. Why can't he make a much smaller donation to his son?
Another option for filling the funding gap is to pursue a better naming-rights agreement.
PGE Park is named after Portland General Electric, a Fortune 500 company that had the misfortune of being an Enron subsidiary. In recent times PGE has thrived, raking in $145 million in profits in 2007 alone. Earlier this year CEO Peggy Fowler was handed an $11 million golden parachute upon her departure--coincidentally, almost the exact sum Portland residents are being asked to fork over.
PGE secured a decade's worth of naming rights at a bargain-basement price of $8.5 million, but the deal expires after 2010.
If the naming-rights agreements signed recently by other MLS teams are any indication, Portland could get a lot more bang for its corporate buck.
In Toronto, the Bank of Montreal paid $24 million for a ten-year naming-rights deal. The Los Angeles Galaxy scored $70 million over ten years from Home Depot for soccer-stadium naming rights. Real Salt Lake signed a ten-year deal with Rio Tinto for approximately $20 million, while Dick's Sporting Goods agreed to pay the Colorado Rapids $30 million over fifteen years for stadium naming rights.
If PGE were asked to fork over $19.7 million for the next decade of sponsorship--a figure in line with other MLS agreements--there would be no need to finagle the city for money.
And using the surplus naming-rights funds to pay for stadium building would help impose a shred of authenticity into what is otherwise a public-relations fleecing festival.
The resolution passed by the Portland City Council is riddled with problems. To name only a few of them:
• Merritt Paulson has not agreed to pay a fair wage--let alone a living wage--to stadium employees. Rather, the city will "top-up" subpar wages to raise them to fair-wage status.
• The agreement relies on zero-coupon bonds, which allow principal and interest payments to be shoved off into the future--2017, in this case. In the world of stadium financing, zero-coupon bonds are the equivalent of subprime mortgages with massive balloon payments, a huge factor in the housing bubble's catastrophic pop. To support public financing for stadium construction using zero-coupon bonds is to advance the same flawed ideas that got us into this economic meltdown in the first place. On top of that, there's no guarantee anyone will want to purchase these taxable bonds, which would bring us back to square one.
• The resolution states that the city and the Paulsons "agree to evaluate in good faith opportunities to enhance attendance and fan experience at the MLS Stadium with additional improvements in the future." That sounds more like a threat than a promise, making this $31 million plan sound like phase one of a multiphase project, the gateway drug to a future of addiction to such "public-private partnerships."
• The resolution flaunts the falsity that stadium-building will jump-start the Portland economy. Yet there's not a shred of evidence from independent academic sports economists to support this claim. Just because you say something a million times doesn't mean it's true.
• The deal hinges on a steady flow of money from the spectator fund. While boosters of the deal argue that fans will pay off the bonds, what happens if this money pool dries up--via a lockout or an economy that continues to sour? Ultimately, the spectator fund is backed by the city's general fund, which is to say it's backed by taxpayers, so the people of Portland would be on the hook, not the Paulsons. Moreover, every penny of bonding power put toward stadium-building is money that could be spent on other programs that benefit a wide range of Portlanders--not just its sports fans--and that actually boost the economy.
As the Paulsons pounce on Portland to wrest public funds for their escapades, it's a great time to ask ourselves if this model of "public-private partnership" is the best we can do.
The stadium-financing imbroglio in Portland is a test case in the postmeltdown era. Will we see ersatz public-private partnerships continue as before? Or will a new era of equity and vision emerge in which we will cease socializing the costs of business while privatizing the profits?
Portland Mayor Sam Adams recently said, "There's a lot more work to be done on this deal, but we are moving forward." The people of Portland should take that as their cue: it's time to get the Paulsons' hands out of our pockets.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...




17 Comments so far
Show AllUnbelievable, that the people of Portland, in this economy, could or would fall for any "public/private" finance scheme for any stadium (aka internment camp), esp. one involving former Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson who led the nation into irreversible bankruptcy while living high on the hog.
-30-
Portland has publicly financed elections. I wonder what is going to happen when the porland electorate finds itself stuck with this bill?
The junior Paulson recently crowed, "I challenge people to find a better deal out there for the city."
I have a better deal, much better. Get a .44 Magnum Dirty Harry Special. Put six bullets in the cylinder. Put the barrel in your mouth, cock the hammer and pull the trigger.
It's got to be a matter of principle---if so, it's the only one he has---for Paulson, who could easily write a check for the whole enchilada, to instead use OPM (Other People's Money).
George Steinbrenner is another case in point. Guy's got more money than God, but the taxpayers of New York City built his new stadium for him.
"If God had not wanted them sheared, he would not have made them sheep." (the bandit Calvera, as played by Eli Wallach in "The Magnificent Seven")
Portlanders, vote with your feet. Boycott or bleat!
Thanks for remembering the Eli Wallach quote from "The Magnificent Seven".
It isn't just Paulson, or Steinbrenner. Steinbrenner isn't even the richest owner in baseball, in terms of non baseball related wealth. That happens to be the owner of the Minnesota Twins, Carl Polhad, who got a new stadium built for him. Pretty much EVERY sports stadium for the pro sports teams are built by taxpayers, then given over to the owners, with the occasional exception such as the baseball stadium of the San Francisco Giants which was privately built.
Sports fans in the US howl and complain about the high salaries of the millionaire players, who earn their pay fairly. But, they idiotically have no problem with building stadiums for the billionaire owners with public money.
When they say a stadium will bring money to Portland, thats not the same as saying it'll create money. Stadiums 'create wealth' the same way Las Vegas does, by moving it from little fish to big fish.
Most independent economic studies show that new stadiums do not so much create wealth / jobs, but rather, simply move the wealth / jobs around.
That is, the area around the new stadium will have more wealth / jobs. But, those jobs, that wealth, simply comes from another nearby area in the same city / locality.
This is nothing more than a redux of the Bush deal in texas some years ago. It's the same playbook to swindle the taxpayers and further enrich the wealthy.
Business people like Paulson got their plays from the hoodlums that ran Russia during the Brezhnev years.They are smooth swindlers. Build their own without public money or rent the facility like the rest of us. To be extorted, you need to buy into the con.
We are forgetting that given our current economic situation, we are effectively a Third World Nation...increased Sports activity is merely spectacle for the masses...for purposes of diversion...much as they were during the decline of the Roman empire.
Stadiums have shown themselves very important worldwide for sorting people before transporting them out to the various internment camps. This happened in Rwanda, it also happened in Chile under Pinnochet and in Argentina under the Generals.
The Paulson's, given their level of intimate economic knowledge, can't be so ignorant, but are obviously part of "the plan". So stadium upgrades will be needed to make them better places of detention, to sort people, increase surveillance and perimeter security. Paulson's associates likely know that this isn't a plan to make money, in fact they are likely in on "the plan" too. They therefore need the government to fund the upgrades.
Meanwhile, we the people, won't understand this until after the economic collapse, riots, Civil unrest and pandemic begins, when people die or disappear in mass numbers.
The tired old "sports as the opiate of the masses" spiel that is spouted by some pseudo intellectuals. Entertainment, and many other things are for "diversion". Get rid of all entertainment. Get rid of sports. Get rid of any music that diverts. Get rid of movies that entertain. Theatre that diverts. Books that divert. Websites that divert. Poetry that diverts. Literature that diverts. Ban anything that doesn't rouse the proletariat to revolution. Social Realism !!!11!!
Good luck.
This happened in the USSR. The arts, music, poetry, etc were all required to be Socially Realistic. To support the revolution. You are welcome to live in such a society if you want. Most people are not going to join you. Not to mention, it won't work. All it will result in people being sent to gulags, being sent into internal exile, and the activity driven underground, "samizdat".
Do you work for the Paulsons'? Conspiracy theories like yours only strengthen the case of people like the Paulsons' who want the public to subsisise their profits.
rfloh, MAAS's comparison with the Roman Empire is not far off. There's absolutely no need to defend commercialized "sports". They are nothing more than a business venture for the owners of the sports teams, while also pampering their vain egos. There are many businessmen (and some -women?) who have managed to make big money, relatively easily, and then buy up a sports team or two. And when this sports team gets moved to another venue, the local people are expected to suddenly become loyal fans and cheer for the "local" team. And buy the team-related junk, mostly made in China, to show their loyalty. And watch the games - either live or on TV - while advertisers and beer manufacturers make their money. Sports and games for the individuals or teams formed by enthusiasts is one thing. Commercial ventures with lots of manufactured hype and induced loyalty are things a dying empire can do without while it deals with bread and butter issues. Also, no need to muddy the issue by grouping commercial "sports" with entertainment, theatre, literature and poetry - they are NOT the same.
How does professional sports differ from the typical blockbuster Hollywood or Bollywood movie? From the typical chart topping pop song? From typical crime fiction, pulp fiction, chick lit, pulp fantasy fiction / pulp science fiction, etc book?
Nor is all theatre, nor even all poetry, high art.
Not to mention how pretentious some theatre productions can sometimes be, precisely because a particular production tries too hard to be Socially Realistic.
The goal of the typical Hollywood or Bollywood movie is to entertain. To divert. The goal of the typical pop song you watch on MTV is to entertain, to divert. None of Justin Timberlake, or Britney Spears, or Taylor Swift are trying to rouse the proletariat to revolution.
I am well aware of what the typical billionaire sports owner does. And the tactics they use to suck money out of the local populace. The way they use corrupt local politicians to get a new stadium built for themselves at taxpayer expense. The way they cry poverty right after the new stadium has been built for them. The way they take out huge loans from the banks to buy a sports team, and then transfer that debt to the sports team. The way they give their children, their family members easy lucrative jobs at the expense of the sports team. Etc.
It is why I have a soft sport for successful professional sports team that are owned by the community, by their many members, for example the Spanish soccer team Barcelona, the German soccer team Schalke 04.
As for the comparison with the Roman Empire, it isn't far off because humans have always been interested in sport, all throughout history, all over the world. Just like they always have been interested in music, dance, art, theatre, plays, movies etc. And just like some people have always been interested in these things, some other people have always sought to dismiss the value of these things.
"Commercial ventures with lots of manufactured hype and induced loyalty are things a dying empire can do without while it deals with bread and butter issues"
There are always pressing bread and butter issues, including in countries that aren't dying empires. And people will always still want entertainment and diversion. All over the world, whether the entertainment and diversion be in form of sport, movies, music, etc.
I'm not saying that the blood sucking billionaire owners should be subsidised. No. Public money is much better spent elsewhere.
I'm saying that the idea that professional sport is the (new) opiate of the masses, isn't insightful and doesn't serve much purpose. It isn't really different from blockbuster movies, from chart topping pop songs, etc. It is meant as entertainment and diversion.
Nor is trying to get people to give up entertainment and diversion going to work, nor has it ever worked. First, because humans want entertainment and diversion. Second, because the measures used to get people to give up entertainment and diversion are often worse than the problem. Thirdly, the measures never work anyways.
I agree - there's too much hype at the school level itself. When there's a game with a 'rival' coming up, everyone is psyched up - definitely expected to be psyched up - with local businesses putting up signs and what not. All in all, good business for some, while many live under the illusion of participating in something meaningful. When so much energy is lost in these pursuits, there will obviously be less to spend on other issues - which will suit those with vested interests in the current 'system' just fine.