Here’s the thing—if we citizens “stick to our guns” and refuse to allow the climate fund (unused) to be put toward the Moda center rebuild and then cry about “taxpayer money” being used to fund the arena rebuild, Portland WILL lose the trailblazers. Once the blazers leave, this city will be eliminated from any short list of potential pro-ball team sites and no pro team will be moving here. I grew up here. I am proud of having an NBA team in our city. I have also lived in major cities and understand that the idea of “someone else” building your pro sports arena is an only-in-Portland fantasy. We aren’t owed any type of arena by team owners. The cities pay for these. We lucked out with Allen, but that’s over. There is a framework for using taxpayer money—it is called a jock tax, it affects the taxable income from the athletes who play there. Portlanders are more than happy to vote in opaque property tax increases with dubious metrics for success, but can’t fathom funding a municipal project with a measurable, net-positive impact? Give me a break. Fund the arena. Cry when you get your tax bill for the “homeless services” and walk down third avenue to see how well that money is being used.
Has anyone publicly addressed the legality of past expenditures and proposed future uses of PCEF dollars on items that are unquestionably outside the scope of the PCEF initiative language and the city's ordinances implementing it? Ordinances are laws, after all.
The governing ordinance is remarkably specific about the purposes for which PCEF funds may be used. The stated purpose is to provide a long-term funding source for climate-action projects that reduce or sequester greenhouse gases, support renewable energy and energy efficiency, promote transportation decarbonization, expand green infrastructure and regenerative agriculture, and develop a workforce capable of performing climate-related work. While the ordinance also emphasizes environmental justice and benefits for low-income communities and communities of color, those objectives are consistently tied to climate-action goals rather than serving as independent spending categories.
Given the increasingly creative uses to which PCEF funds have been put, it is fair to ask whether all such expenditures can be reconciled with the text approved by voters and later codified by the City. If they cannot, why has there been so little public discussion of the City's potential legal exposure?
At a minimum, the City should consider amending the governing documents of PCEF to clarify permissible uses and to ratify any spending practices that have evolved beyond the original framework. Doing so would promote transparency, restore public confidence, and reduce the risk of future claims that PCEF revenues have been diverted or misappropriated in violation of the initiative and implementing ordinances. Whatever one's views on climate policy, public safety, or other budget priorities, dedicated revenues should be governed by clear rules that can withstand scrutiny from taxpayers, regulated businesses, auditors, and any party with standing to challenge their use.
I don’t attend Blazers games, so it wouldn’t be a personal loss for me. However, I think it would be a major loss for Portland if the Blazers left. It would send a strong message to the rest of the country that Portland is no longer a serious city capable of maintaining major civic institutions.
I would pull the money from the PCEF, remodel the building, and move on with life. Sometimes—and very often—policy wonks overthink problems like this to the point that nothing gets done. Not every decision requires a perfect solution; sometimes a practical one is good enough.
The public debate over the Moda Center renovation has so far been framed around questions that serve ownership's interests rather than the public's — should Portland keep its team, can the city afford not to act, isn't there a hard deadline? These are the wrong questions, or at least not the first questions. The first questions are whether the city has met its basic obligation as the owner of a public asset, whether the proposed funding mechanism is even lawful, and whether Portland's elected officials have demonstrated the professional competence and political courage this negotiation demands. On all three counts the record thus far is deeply troubling.
The city has not met its obligation as a public asset owner, and the failure is not subtle. Consider what the city has not done:
- It failed to assemble the kind of experienced transaction advisory team — specialists in arena finance, comparable deals, and public asset valuation — that a negotiation of this scale and complexity demands. The other side retained Dan Barrett, who negotiated the arena deal in Raleigh on behalf of the public and extracted rent, private capital commitments, and development obligations from this same ownership group. Barrett now sits across the table representing the Blazers. Portland apparently brought no comparable expertise to the table.
- It failed to conduct and publish a systematic analysis of what other cities actually negotiated when public money went into arena renovations. Sixteen comparable NBA arena transactions are publicly available. Every single one involved a private capital contribution from ownership, and most involved rent. That record is the standard against which Portland's deal should be measured — and Portland's negotiators apparently never used it.
- It accepted and propagated a hard December deadline without being able to point to any legal basis for it. Neither of the enrolled bills underlying this deal contains that deadline. Portland manufactured urgency on ownership's behalf.
- It moved toward a funding commitment before lease terms were written — the negotiating equivalent of paying for dinner before seeing the menu.
- It conducted early negotiations under a nondisclosure agreement that appears to have prevented councilors from discussing terms with one another and with the public, leaving them without a shared factual basis at the moment when informed deliberation mattered most.
One further fact belongs here and has been largely absent from the public debate. Paul Allen built the Moda Center entirely with private money. Portland owns that building today because of that private investment. Tom Dundon paid $4.25 billion for the right to play in it. The current proposal asks Portland taxpayers to contribute $120 million toward a $573 million publicly funded renovation — every dollar of it public — while Dundon's operating company keeps the revenue it generates. Whatever one thinks of public arena financing generally, that specific sequence of facts has a plain English description that isn't "investment."
Is the proposed use of the Portland Clean Energy Fund even lawful? That this foundational legal question has received no public attention whatsoever — not from the press, not from the city's own lawyers, not from the business community whose members are paying the tax, not from any elected official — is itself a serious indictment of the quality of public discourse surrounding this deal. The ordinances implementing the PCEF initiative have the force of law, and they are explicit about purposes:
It is difficult to imagine how all or even a significant portion of the city's proposed contribution could meet those eligibility criteria. The large retailers subject to the surcharge have a legitimate legal grievance that should have been stated publicly the moment Mayor Wilson floated the proposal. That neither they, nor the city attorney, nor a single elected official has said so publicly — that this question has simply not been asked in any forum this writer has seen — suggests that the opacity surrounding this deal has been even more effective than its architects perhaps intended.
How did Portland end up here? The most plausible explanation is also the least dramatic one. The city lacked the experience and specialized expertise this negotiation required, and its elected officials have been paralyzed by fear of being blamed for losing the team. Those two conditions together — not knowing what a good deal looks like and being too frightened to slow down and find out — produce exactly the outcome we are watching. Governor Kotek's intervention, which consisted of pressuring city and county officials to accelerate their commitments rather than improve their terms, reflects the same political calculus dressed in executive authority.
As for the suggestion that Portland will lose the Blazers if it insists on a market deal, the facts do not support it. The NBA just designated Seattle and Las Vegas as expansion markets, not relocation destinations. Dundon paid $4.25 billion for this franchise in this market. A credible superior alternative has not been identified by anyone. The relocation threat is the oldest tool in the arena negotiation playbook and it works precisely because civic pride overrides analytical scrutiny. It deserves scrutiny, not deference.
The city owns this building. It should negotiate like it does.
Portlanders who want to understand precisely how much this mishandled negotiation is likely to cost their city in lost revenue — it's not peanuts - and what an immediate course correction would look like, should read the work of Edan Krolewicz and Jonathan Pulvers at "Rip City, Not Rip Off." They have done the arithmetic, sourced every number, and defined what a fair deal actually looks like. Here is the link: https://www.ripcitynotripoff.com/
I was pleasantly surprised when Councilor Pirtle-Guiney, who represents Portland City Council District 2, replied to my appeal to negotiate the best possible Moda Center deal for Portland's hard working voter-taxpayers instead of giving away the store to the Blazer organization. Here is Ms. Pirtle-Guineys response:
Thank you for reaching out and for engaging thoughtfully on this issue. I understand the range of concerns regarding the future of the MODA Center and the Trailblazers, and have heard from many Portlanders on this subject.
It is critically important that we negotiate a lease for the Blazers' use of the Moda Center that is a good deal for Portlanders, not just the Blazers. Right now, I'm looking for a deal that includes good jobs in the arena for Portlanders, neighborhood investments, a clear commitment to stay in Portland for the long haul – with consequences for breaking the lease early – and a commitment to sharing the arena with the many potential users of that space.
And we, as City leaders, must be clear about where funding comes from and what tradeoffs are involved. We're facing a lot of tough decisions as we balance resources for housing, public safety, transportation, and other critical services, and I am focused on identifying ways to pay for major investments that do not pull from funds needed for those essential priorities.
I am also committed to making sure that any use of PCEF funds is consistent with the voter-approved goals of the program and the requirements laid out in the PCEF. PCEF funds can only be used for projects that advance climate action and the program’s equity-centered and workforce goals.
I have been clear with the Mayor and administrative leaders that for me to support the use of PCEF funds I need information, sooner rather than later, about where those funds are coming from and what the tradeoffs are – essentially, what they are suggesting we won’t do – and I need a clear list of what PCEF-eligible upgrades they are suggesting the dollars fund. I will not support any proposal that uses PCEF funds as part of the arena upgrades without these two things. I share your view that PCEF must not be diverted away from its core mission or priority populations.
I appreciate you taking the time to weigh in and encourage you to stay engaged as the process continues via my webpage here: Councilor Pirtle-Guiney: Let's Talk About the Moda Center and the Blazers | Portland.gov
On this page, you'll find a short video, a timeline showing where we are now in the lease negotiation and the conversation about renovations for the Moda Center – which we'll continue to update as things progress – and a survey where you can let me know what YOU think a good deal for Portland looks like in a lease agreement. Thank you again for taking the time to care about our community.
Here’s the thing—if we citizens “stick to our guns” and refuse to allow the climate fund (unused) to be put toward the Moda center rebuild and then cry about “taxpayer money” being used to fund the arena rebuild, Portland WILL lose the trailblazers. Once the blazers leave, this city will be eliminated from any short list of potential pro-ball team sites and no pro team will be moving here. I grew up here. I am proud of having an NBA team in our city. I have also lived in major cities and understand that the idea of “someone else” building your pro sports arena is an only-in-Portland fantasy. We aren’t owed any type of arena by team owners. The cities pay for these. We lucked out with Allen, but that’s over. There is a framework for using taxpayer money—it is called a jock tax, it affects the taxable income from the athletes who play there. Portlanders are more than happy to vote in opaque property tax increases with dubious metrics for success, but can’t fathom funding a municipal project with a measurable, net-positive impact? Give me a break. Fund the arena. Cry when you get your tax bill for the “homeless services” and walk down third avenue to see how well that money is being used.
As I said earlier:
Has anyone publicly addressed the legality of past expenditures and proposed future uses of PCEF dollars on items that are unquestionably outside the scope of the PCEF initiative language and the city's ordinances implementing it? Ordinances are laws, after all.
The governing ordinance is remarkably specific about the purposes for which PCEF funds may be used. The stated purpose is to provide a long-term funding source for climate-action projects that reduce or sequester greenhouse gases, support renewable energy and energy efficiency, promote transportation decarbonization, expand green infrastructure and regenerative agriculture, and develop a workforce capable of performing climate-related work. While the ordinance also emphasizes environmental justice and benefits for low-income communities and communities of color, those objectives are consistently tied to climate-action goals rather than serving as independent spending categories.
Given the increasingly creative uses to which PCEF funds have been put, it is fair to ask whether all such expenditures can be reconciled with the text approved by voters and later codified by the City. If they cannot, why has there been so little public discussion of the City's potential legal exposure?
At a minimum, the City should consider amending the governing documents of PCEF to clarify permissible uses and to ratify any spending practices that have evolved beyond the original framework. Doing so would promote transparency, restore public confidence, and reduce the risk of future claims that PCEF revenues have been diverted or misappropriated in violation of the initiative and implementing ordinances. Whatever one's views on climate policy, public safety, or other budget priorities, dedicated revenues should be governed by clear rules that can withstand scrutiny from taxpayers, regulated businesses, auditors, and any party with standing to challenge their use.
I don’t attend Blazers games, so it wouldn’t be a personal loss for me. However, I think it would be a major loss for Portland if the Blazers left. It would send a strong message to the rest of the country that Portland is no longer a serious city capable of maintaining major civic institutions.
I would pull the money from the PCEF, remodel the building, and move on with life. Sometimes—and very often—policy wonks overthink problems like this to the point that nothing gets done. Not every decision requires a perfect solution; sometimes a practical one is good enough.
The public debate over the Moda Center renovation has so far been framed around questions that serve ownership's interests rather than the public's — should Portland keep its team, can the city afford not to act, isn't there a hard deadline? These are the wrong questions, or at least not the first questions. The first questions are whether the city has met its basic obligation as the owner of a public asset, whether the proposed funding mechanism is even lawful, and whether Portland's elected officials have demonstrated the professional competence and political courage this negotiation demands. On all three counts the record thus far is deeply troubling.
The city has not met its obligation as a public asset owner, and the failure is not subtle. Consider what the city has not done:
- It failed to assemble the kind of experienced transaction advisory team — specialists in arena finance, comparable deals, and public asset valuation — that a negotiation of this scale and complexity demands. The other side retained Dan Barrett, who negotiated the arena deal in Raleigh on behalf of the public and extracted rent, private capital commitments, and development obligations from this same ownership group. Barrett now sits across the table representing the Blazers. Portland apparently brought no comparable expertise to the table.
- It failed to conduct and publish a systematic analysis of what other cities actually negotiated when public money went into arena renovations. Sixteen comparable NBA arena transactions are publicly available. Every single one involved a private capital contribution from ownership, and most involved rent. That record is the standard against which Portland's deal should be measured — and Portland's negotiators apparently never used it.
- It accepted and propagated a hard December deadline without being able to point to any legal basis for it. Neither of the enrolled bills underlying this deal contains that deadline. Portland manufactured urgency on ownership's behalf.
- It moved toward a funding commitment before lease terms were written — the negotiating equivalent of paying for dinner before seeing the menu.
- It conducted early negotiations under a nondisclosure agreement that appears to have prevented councilors from discussing terms with one another and with the public, leaving them without a shared factual basis at the moment when informed deliberation mattered most.
One further fact belongs here and has been largely absent from the public debate. Paul Allen built the Moda Center entirely with private money. Portland owns that building today because of that private investment. Tom Dundon paid $4.25 billion for the right to play in it. The current proposal asks Portland taxpayers to contribute $120 million toward a $573 million publicly funded renovation — every dollar of it public — while Dundon's operating company keeps the revenue it generates. Whatever one thinks of public arena financing generally, that specific sequence of facts has a plain English description that isn't "investment."
Is the proposed use of the Portland Clean Energy Fund even lawful? That this foundational legal question has received no public attention whatsoever — not from the press, not from the city's own lawyers, not from the business community whose members are paying the tax, not from any elected official — is itself a serious indictment of the quality of public discourse surrounding this deal. The ordinances implementing the PCEF initiative have the force of law, and they are explicit about purposes:
- Clean energy investments
- Workforce development
- Climate resilience programs benefiting Portland's frontline communities
It is difficult to imagine how all or even a significant portion of the city's proposed contribution could meet those eligibility criteria. The large retailers subject to the surcharge have a legitimate legal grievance that should have been stated publicly the moment Mayor Wilson floated the proposal. That neither they, nor the city attorney, nor a single elected official has said so publicly — that this question has simply not been asked in any forum this writer has seen — suggests that the opacity surrounding this deal has been even more effective than its architects perhaps intended.
How did Portland end up here? The most plausible explanation is also the least dramatic one. The city lacked the experience and specialized expertise this negotiation required, and its elected officials have been paralyzed by fear of being blamed for losing the team. Those two conditions together — not knowing what a good deal looks like and being too frightened to slow down and find out — produce exactly the outcome we are watching. Governor Kotek's intervention, which consisted of pressuring city and county officials to accelerate their commitments rather than improve their terms, reflects the same political calculus dressed in executive authority.
As for the suggestion that Portland will lose the Blazers if it insists on a market deal, the facts do not support it. The NBA just designated Seattle and Las Vegas as expansion markets, not relocation destinations. Dundon paid $4.25 billion for this franchise in this market. A credible superior alternative has not been identified by anyone. The relocation threat is the oldest tool in the arena negotiation playbook and it works precisely because civic pride overrides analytical scrutiny. It deserves scrutiny, not deference.
The city owns this building. It should negotiate like it does.
Portlanders who want to understand precisely how much this mishandled negotiation is likely to cost their city in lost revenue — it's not peanuts - and what an immediate course correction would look like, should read the work of Edan Krolewicz and Jonathan Pulvers at "Rip City, Not Rip Off." They have done the arithmetic, sourced every number, and defined what a fair deal actually looks like. Here is the link: https://www.ripcitynotripoff.com/
I was pleasantly surprised when Councilor Pirtle-Guiney, who represents Portland City Council District 2, replied to my appeal to negotiate the best possible Moda Center deal for Portland's hard working voter-taxpayers instead of giving away the store to the Blazer organization. Here is Ms. Pirtle-Guineys response:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for reaching out and for engaging thoughtfully on this issue. I understand the range of concerns regarding the future of the MODA Center and the Trailblazers, and have heard from many Portlanders on this subject.
It is critically important that we negotiate a lease for the Blazers' use of the Moda Center that is a good deal for Portlanders, not just the Blazers. Right now, I'm looking for a deal that includes good jobs in the arena for Portlanders, neighborhood investments, a clear commitment to stay in Portland for the long haul – with consequences for breaking the lease early – and a commitment to sharing the arena with the many potential users of that space.
And we, as City leaders, must be clear about where funding comes from and what tradeoffs are involved. We're facing a lot of tough decisions as we balance resources for housing, public safety, transportation, and other critical services, and I am focused on identifying ways to pay for major investments that do not pull from funds needed for those essential priorities.
I am also committed to making sure that any use of PCEF funds is consistent with the voter-approved goals of the program and the requirements laid out in the PCEF. PCEF funds can only be used for projects that advance climate action and the program’s equity-centered and workforce goals.
I have been clear with the Mayor and administrative leaders that for me to support the use of PCEF funds I need information, sooner rather than later, about where those funds are coming from and what the tradeoffs are – essentially, what they are suggesting we won’t do – and I need a clear list of what PCEF-eligible upgrades they are suggesting the dollars fund. I will not support any proposal that uses PCEF funds as part of the arena upgrades without these two things. I share your view that PCEF must not be diverted away from its core mission or priority populations.
I appreciate you taking the time to weigh in and encourage you to stay engaged as the process continues via my webpage here: Councilor Pirtle-Guiney: Let's Talk About the Moda Center and the Blazers | Portland.gov
On this page, you'll find a short video, a timeline showing where we are now in the lease negotiation and the conversation about renovations for the Moda Center – which we'll continue to update as things progress – and a survey where you can let me know what YOU think a good deal for Portland looks like in a lease agreement. Thank you again for taking the time to care about our community.
Warmly,
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Portland City Councilor
District 2