A D V E R T I S E M E N T
A D V E R T I S E M E N T
ADVERTISEMENTS
<< Prev. Page 1 | 2
The “memorandum of understanding” agreed upon by the city and Paulson is a non-binding, preliminary deal. It’s an agreement between the two parties to move forward with good faith negotiations. The document sets a goal of Nov. 16 for the first binding contract and is targeting Dec. 15 for the final, definitive agreement.
If all goes according to plan, the stadium will start construction on Feb. 15, 2010.
At least one sticking point in the timeline is the location of a possible stadium, which has yet to be decided. Last week, the city announced that it’s previous four site options were no longer being considered.
Doyle said that the plan is to bring the memorandum of understanding before city council with a definitive location, to be decided within the next 10 to 14 days. He said that numerous public forums are planned to discuss site options during that time.
Gary Brentano, business development services director for the city, said that there are two to four sites being considered, all in the downtown area.
“That’s essential, that we can make that downtown revitalization happen,” said Doyle. “You got to remember: We’re reflecting the visioning the we’ve done over the past two years. People want a vibrant downtown core.”
The mayor has said that he wants to make the baseball stadium a catalyst for a renewed downtown, and a civic gathering place. Besides 72 homes games for the Beavers every year, the stadium would also host concerts and municipal functions like high school graduations.
As well, the document revealed a new part of the plan: A Beaverton stadium would be home to the Oregon Sports Hall of Fame. Both Paulson and Doyle said that this would help make the venue a year-round destination.
Opponents of the plan to build a stadium, who showed up in loud numbers at the council meeting on Oct. 5 and demanded that the issue be put to public vote, can make that request a reality if they choose. A bond decision can be forced to public vote if 5 percent of the electorate signs a petition within 60 days. That would be about 2,200 people, city officials say.
Paulson said that Beaverton is first and best option for locating the stadium right now, despite some rumors of moving the team to Clackamas and other areas.
“This is the only spot we’ve done an MOU for and the only place I’ve been publicly talking about at all.” Paulson said. “This is where we are, and if we get this deal, this is where we’ll be.”
City Council and staff meets for a study session on the baseball stadium project at 6 p.m. Tuesday Oct. 13, at Beaverton City Hall, 4755 S.W. Griffith Drive.
ejohnson@commnewspapers.com
<< Prev. Page 1 | 2
It's not about site selection, it's about studying and understanding which area(s) in Beaverton are best suited to accommodate the infrastructure required for a stadium of this caliber. We all know that Beaverton has suffered the plight of a bedroom community-turned-suburban mass without the necessary infrastructure to support the population. The new stadium will bring thousands of much needed jobs to the area, and hopefully (with proper site selection) will (re)vitalize the city. Let's get the ball rolling NOW to help get commercial interest and community support. The right site will come along as long as the city (hopefully) delves into understanding the implications of a stadium and its implications (traffic/congestion, commercial viability, utility upgrades, suburban revitalization) on our community.
PS: It is quite unfortunate that the site near The Round was nixed. Near public transportation (to bring in people from the east side without traffic), near commercial areas (would boost the economy and fill up empty stores in the area), and on a vacant lot (help clean up the area and add to the nucleus of the community). Too bad Mayor Doyle laid back on this one. I have a feeling that the stadium, if it comes to Beaverton, will end up in the sticks where it won't do any good for our community.
(email verified)
Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 12:00 PM
Oh, the audacity of these knuckleheads... If a stadium were a good investment, then private financing would be knocking on Paulson's door. But it's not. Anyone can see that, which is why private funding is not clamoring to be the first in line. These shenanigans go for a public/private project to guarantee funding from citizens who may/may not benefit from the project. We won't see our investment pay off in terms of additional revenues or yearly kick-backs to us as the product gets better and/or improves in value. We get stuff with 60% of the tab. It's not as cheap to live in Washington County as some say it is - I pay $4200 a year on a modest newer-construction home, +$250/month for HOA fees which are mandatory in the Cedar Hills Neighborhood. I don't want the traffic, I don't want the eyesore and I don't want people to be lured by the "sense of community" that a "community gathering place" will somehow create out of thin air.
(email verified)
Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 12:44 PM
It is crazy to think the city will not push the point of placing this facility at the round.
One family/man holding up potential progress/development for the entire city is shameful.
(email verified)
Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 12:53 PM
I agree with "JPS" - it is absolutely ridiculous that one family is allowed to holdup a city's progress!
(email verified)
Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 02:42 PM
What the city needs NOW is more local parks for dogs, kids, less congestion, no more stupid townhouses/condos and convient transportation for those who can't drive, If Paulson and the mayor are so sure that Beaverton NEEDS a baseball stadium let them pay for the whole thing, why should the taxpayers have to pay for something that they(majority) really don't think is necessary, Mr Paulson and to the mayor WALK don't run don't drive around Beaverton/Washington County and other counties and actually COUNT (if capable) houses (condos.townhouses)up for sale??? if Every house (condo/townhouse) was occupied we have a very strong economy and people could afford to not only go to the games but help pay for it too.I really don't think the majority of people can afford much more stress with taxes. Also you claim that it will create jobs, yeah for a lot of illeagals or temporary jobs at that people who need a job they Need it for life not 6 monthes and end up claiming unemployment again.
(email verified)
Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 02:45 PM
This thief is going to steal your money. His investor group could pay for this whole thing, but they want our money instead. Since his daddy already stole our money, why would we let him steal our money again. When he is tired of owning the team, he will sell it to the highest bidder, leaving us holding the bag. He lies about attendence at PGE Park. He announced an attendence of 16,000 for the Sounders game. His own website states that PGE Park holds about 19,000 but there are 6,000 seats covered up by big baggies. I was at that game that night and saw security making people move after they tried to remove the protective covering and recovered the seats. So how can there be an attendence of 16,000 with all of those seats covered? Don't tell me standing room only in the outfield. There just werent that many people out there that night. Don't let this liar have your money. Wake up and smell this thief.
(email verified)
Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 02:52 PM
Really? One family who owns private property shouldn't be allowed to hold up your version of "city progress"? I bet you wouldn't be saying that if they were taking your home or property for a parking lot. Show some respect for the Biggi family to use the property they paid for in a manner that they see fit. Just as you deserve with the property you own. Baseball isn't more important than private property rights.
(email verified)
Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 03:00 PM
What's shameful, JPS, and Beavertonian, is the City of Beaverton spending thousands of dollars of taxpayer's money to find out the feasibility of having a baseball stadium without getting input from the homeowning taxpayers who will be footing the bill. I feel like we are in a lose-lose situation. If the stadium does not go through, we've paid a lot of money already. If it does go through, we (the taxpayers) will be paying a lot more. When do the taxpayers get a vote about this?? And why is so much of the information not being made public??
If this is such a "great deal" as so many supporters say, then why didn't the City of Portland jump on it? What kind of revenue has the team brought to the city in the past several years that all of a sudden will be coming to Beaverton?
My family attends several Beaver and Timber games each year at the park, and I have to say that the traffic alone just going from Beaverton to PGE is not great. If you take MAX, there are never enough trains, and you often have to wait a long time to get a train, which can be difficult with small children. I don't see how this will be improved in Beaverton. Getting to downtown Beaverton, either by MAX or via car will be a nightmare.
Let the taxpayers decide by voting on it!!
(email verified)
Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 04:12 PM
Perhaps it will revitalize the area but the locations they've looked at don't make sense. The roads in Beaverton are already terribly congested. Farmington and Canyon/Tv Hwy are already a mess. It would make sense to put the stadium in a location that has better access. A location that has at least 2 major, wide roads leading into it would be the best bet. That wouldn't be downtown Beaverton. And why aren't the voters allowed to make the decision whether to have a stadium or not? I don't see any direct advantage to me. Possibly it'll add jobs but Beaverton is already overcongested. We're being asked to plunk over another $5/month for something we don't want that helps who? Why is making everything into a congested, concrete jungle considered progress?
(email verified)
Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 04:45 PM
I'm glad they're not staying in Portland....who needs the adding expense of this 3rd rate sport? We just have to pay for bridges now! Washington DC residents foot the bill for the $550 Million stadium that house the Nationals....go Figure, Hank Paulson was in on that one too!
(email verified)
Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 04:51 PM
Of that, taxpayers would be on the hook for 60 percent — or about $34.9 million.
Why again do taxpayers have to be part of this deal? This is a government ripoff.
(email verified)
Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 08:34 AM
Does this $59 million include the cost of the land, parking lot, and all of the other additional costs such as lighting? Is there a contingency in this cost? Who covers cost overruns? Is the amount paulson will invest a fixed amount, or will it expand as cost overruns occur? If not, does the tax payer have to pick up that overrun cost?
(email verified)
Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 10:03 AM
Find a way to place this piece of crap deal into Beaverton's hands as we in Portland want nothing to do with Daddy Warbucks Jr. and his taxpayer funded team. The only winner in any deal with this thief will be him and his ilk. We cant even afford true infrastructure spending because of all the crap we spend taxes and fees on, then go begging for more money. When the people say NO MORE they raise car registration FEES state wide and multnomah county gets thier own rate increase. What about $150.00 every two years for each car you own? Yeah charge me for a team I'll never want to go see. I hate all you progressives and I'm a government employee!!!!
(email verified)
Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 10:28 AM
Why on earth should taxpayers be on the hook for Paulson's money-losing hobbies - AGAIN?
Hasn't anyone learned anything from Portland's experience with this man?
Or how about the well-researched studies that demonstrate that investing public money in sport stadiums costs the taxpayers major money every time?
(email verified)
Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 10:42 AM
Agree with "Beaver Fan"....People that site the "single land owner" for not selling, really? Why don't they take YOUR land away and pay you less than it's worth just for private entertainment purposes, see how you like it. I'm appauled at that attitude.
(email verified)
Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 11:52 AM
Find a paper
Enter a street name
or a 5 digit zip code
Browse archive
The Beaverton Valley Times
News feed
Facebook
Digg
Del.icio.us
Newsvine
Stumbleupon
Reddit
Re: Beaverton, Paulson ready $59 million stadium deal
Maybe I'm stupid, but how can they put a price tag on this deal when they have not identified a stadium location? Without a stadium location, how can Beaverton accurately gauge the financial prospects of the new team? If Beaverton cannot accurately gauge the financial prospects of the team, how can they be asssured that Peregrine (not Paulson personally I am sure) will make the payments?
"Stan"
(email verified)
Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 11:31 AM