Link to Portland Tribune article (please use the link, thanks)

Beavers in Lents? I don't buy it
On Sports
By Kerry Eggers
The Portland Tribune
Aug 21, 2008

Randy Leonard and Merritt Paulson are convincing folks, and they contend passionately that if a new park for the Triple-A Beavers is to be built, the best place is at Lents Park.

They've done their homework and have facts and figures that back up their point of view.

And I'm still not sold.

I think a new ballpark in the downtown area "” contingent upon Portland landing a Major League Soccer franchise for PGE Park "” best serves the Beavers' constituency.

Paulson, owner of the Beavers and Timbers, has studied other sites, including one in an industrial area on the west side of the Willamette River, across from the Rose Quarter. He says Lents is the best potential location for a new 8,000- to 10,000-seat baseball stadium.

Not to impugn their integrity, but Leonard and Paulson both have vested interests in Lents.

Leonard, the go-get-'em city commissioner, lives in the Mount Scott area, not far from Lents, and regularly drives or rides his bike through the area. He'd like to see a ballpark there to help revitalize and spur development.

Paulson is seeking substantial city financial support for a project that would upgrade PGE Park, construct the new ballpark and cost upward of $100 million, including a $40 million MLS expansion fee he intends to cover himself. Paulson figures the easiest way to get the package approved is to ride the coattails of Leonard's support, and he's right.

Leonard points to light rail within a block or two of the Lents site as a major transportation benefit, with plans for a parking garage that would beat anything a downtown site could offer. He says the opportunity for family entertainment in the Lents area would make it a more desirable destination than downtown.

Paulson says a lot of the Beavers' customer base is from Southeast Portland and Clackamas and Clark counties.

"Frankly, light rail is going to be very easy from downtown, and it's not more than a 15-minute drive (from downtown)," he says.

When it's suggested that a central location is preferable, Leonard has an answer.

"My goal is to redefine what central means," he says. "I'd argue that (Lents) is more centrally located in the Portland metropolitan area than what people consider downtown.

"A number of people do not appreciate not being able to find a place to park (downtown). This could redefine that unpleasurable experience. Get on light rail and get to the game and have restaurants and stores to enhance the family experience."

A lot of folks, however, don't want to take mass transit. Even with parking issues "” and you would hope a parking garage could be fit into a construction plan for a downtown ballpark "” many fans don't want to have to go to the east side.

"Would building a park on the waterfront with MAX access work? That would be the perfect spot," Paulson says. "Is that feasible? Absolutely not."

I respect the work Leonard and Paulson have done.

But I'm still not convinced.

kerryeggers@portlandtribune.com

quote:

"Would building a park on the waterfront with MAX access work? That would be the perfect spot," Paulson says. "Is that feasible? Absolutely not."

So is he saying that Blanchard isn't feasible? Why not? Cost-prohibitive?

quote:

Originally posted by BC in Newberg:

quote:

"Would building a park on the waterfront with MAX access work? That would be the perfect spot," Paulson says. "Is that feasible? Absolutely not."

So is he saying that Blanchard isn't feasible? Why not? Cost-prohibitive?

This argument is part what the little birdies are saying, and part common sense.

Paulson is working with the city.

Blanchard is not owned by the city.

The city is only offering what the city has because there's no time to do much else. Involve someone else, and the contractual squabbling will take until Montreal and St. Louis get their franchises. Perhaps until New York and Vancouver get theirs 1-2 years later.

The more I think about it, I think about Pokey talking about the extra cost of expansion, even for something designed with it in mind. This proposal comes so cheap that there's probably no difference in cost between the concepts, presuming MLB does drop in anytime soon, because we know MLB won't settle for Lents.

Or do we know they'd not settle for Lents? They're not far from settling for the Orange Bowl site and Fremont, California.

The other thing that comes to mind... Portland has the worst attendance for a downtown ballpark in AAA. Does that make Lents an even worse deal, or is that the dynamic in a building too large for AAA? Is any AAA ball a good investment in Portland? Is Lents competing with the MC or Blanchard... or with Vancouver Canada, suburban Houston, and Tucson?

That was awesome--a Pokey reference! That's either impressive or scary (both?) that you remember Pokey's musings, Paul...Pokey--what a great guy, and what a tireless and affable proponent of MLB in PDX...

quote:

Or do we know they'd not settle for Lents? They're not far from settling for the Orange Bowl site and Fremont, California.

The Orange Bowl site is no more than a mile or so from downtown Miami, and I don't think MLB is all that happy about the A's trying to move down to Fremont - much too far from any urban core - but there doesn't seem to be much alternative. Frankly, I think the A's would be better off in Sacramento, if they want to keep their NoCal fans.

You can thank the San Francisco Giants for the Fremont location in a way. San Jose would have been the best location for the A's, but the Giants don't want the competition. I'm sure Peter Magowan, who owns the Giants, probably doesn't want the A's in Sacramento either, and would everything in his power to make sure that a move there would shot down too.
I just don't like Magowan at all, and will be thrilled when he finally sells the Giants to someone else.

I also don't get Magowan. He pulled a major coup when he got the knuckle heads in MLB to think that San Jose is part of San Francisco's territory. Anyone who lives there knows that the A's current park is closer to downtown SJ than is Pacbell.

1. Magowan stepped down from the Giants this year;
2. The Giants needed the San Jose market in order to keep the stadium full in order to pay down the massive stadium debt they took because of the city refusing to pay for hardly anything with Pac Bell. (which is why you'll see Paul Allen coughing loudly every time another pro team attempts to set foot in the Rose City - when the public doesn't foot the bill, the owner is relying on their near-monopoly status to get the facility paid for).