7 Comments
User's avatar
Anthony's avatar

Agreed on all points. And the owner gives me pause.

Joshua Marquis's avatar

Wow!

I actually agree with Mike on something!

Mike Schmidt's avatar

Haha. Welcome Josh.

Ryan Haas's avatar

I have a somewhat cynical take that this whole kerfuffle looks like click farming from the O. It’s hard to imagine actually getting this offended by a public official’s opinion on — as you rightly point out — a legitimate point of public discussion around PUBLIC money.

Kari Chisholm's avatar

Mike, in general I agree with you, but some of the objections raised by critics and repeated her are straw men. Yes, there will be a binding commitment that the Blazers stay. Yes, the Blazers will pay for cost overruns. It’s right there in SB 1501, Section 6.

https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2026R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/SB1501/Enrolled

Kari Chisholm's avatar

SECTION 6. (1) The joint authority and a management entity must execute one or more agreements that collectively contain all of the following provisions:

(a) A binding commitment from the management entity to lease the Moda Center for a minimum term of 20 years;

(b) A provision authorizing the joint authority to give final approval of scope, schedule and budget for construction or renovation projects relating to the Moda Center, provided that such approval does not cause unreasonable delay to the project;

(c) A provision addressing responsibility for cost overruns in any project carried out by the joint authority, which must provide that the joint authority is not required to pay for any cost overruns…

ERVIN SIVERSON's avatar

The most balanced writing I’ve seen on this subject. I guess I would like to know who is responsible in the city for negotiating this deal with the new Blazer owners? The Mayor? The largely dysfunctional city councilors?