How about making the Trailblazers Portland's?
In his latest column on the Blazers seeking public money, Dave sounds suspiciously like the letter I sent to John Carzano a couple months back. John warned Marlins management to not leave their cars while in Portland to get a pulse of whether Portland wants major-league baseball or not. In response I wrote to John:
I'm not sure what point Dave is attempting to make in this column. Is he against the Blazers seeking public funding, or does he support it? As it's typical for Reinhard to take the "rock-the-boat" stance in the editorial pages of the biggest newspaper in blue-state Oregon, what stance is he going to take in regards to billionaire Paul Allen approaching the community with his hat in hand? Perhaps Dave took the temperature of the blogosphere first. As various entries from the lefty side make it clear that they'd have no qualms saying "Sayonara" to the Blazers, well then, Dave couldn't take that stance could he? So he comes out in favor of public support for the cash-strapped Trailblazers.
And is that really surprising? My "spider sense" started tingling when hestarted a paragraph by saying "As a free-marketeer..." What, exactly, does that mean? It seems the current-day's interpretation of "free market" means public subsidies of corporations, legislation titlting favorably for business interests, the minimization of regulations that protect the community and decreases the influence of labor. In short, selling out every resource and every person of the community in support of the dollar and to maximize the profit line of a company based, usually, either in another state or in another country. I mean, as Dave points out: "The city no longer boasts a Fortune 500 company..."
Sorry, Dave, but a true free-marketeer would come to the conclusion that the Blazers are done. Kaput. Put a fork in them. If they're bleeding millions due to mismanagement, then the market dictates the franchise either folds or moves to another locale. The only way a "free-marketeer" would support the local subsidization of an organization consistenly in the red is if they're one of these new-fangled George W. Bush apologists for incompetence and insist that the public bail out dying industries to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.
But what about the jobs? Didn't I make that point to Carzano regarding the Marlins? If the Blazers leave town, the economic hit on Portland will be huge, and there is no denying that. However, I find it highly ironic that Dave writes his column illustrating the economic benefits of the Blazers, and how it would be in Portland's best interests to keep them in town, on the same day that the main headline of the Oregonian read: "Oregon gets kicker shock". It turns out that $666 million of tax profits reaped by the state, a huge windfall by any standards and is more than enough to fill any gaping holes of any unfunded budgets (like, oh I don't know, school districts struggling to keep their heads above water), are going to be sent back to indivudal tax-payers and out-of-state corporations. So I don't need for Dave to counsel me on economic "benefits" of the Blazers' presence- obviously our state, and Portland by default, is doing plenty enough right. I have a $150 check headed my way, and there is a hammock that I've been eyein'. Screw you, PPS!
Look, call me old-fashioned but I believe that private money should support private interests, and public money should support public interests. They may be called the Portland Trailblazers, but everyone knows who the owner is. It's not Portland, it's Paul Allen, the seventh richest man alive. But perhaps, just maybe, the opposite could be true. Maybe the city of Portland could own the Trailblazers.
I know it's an idea that could be dismissed as radical, as it's rooted in history and pragmatism, but imagine if the Trailblzers were a publicly owned, non-profit corporation, that had shares available to purchase by stockholders (citizens of Portland and outlying areas). Imagine if a favorable lease at the Rose Quarter could be re-negotiated, and limits were in place as to the number of shares of the team any one holder could have. A consortium of wealthy Oregon businessmen could provide the financial backing to get the dead weight of the Blazers off Paul Allen's hands (so he could go buy the Sonics), and after the IPO, serve as the club's board of directors. With a direct interest, minus any divdends as any profit would be split between the team and the local community, Blazers fans would be compelled to go to home games, fill the rafters, and be committed to the franchise playing in one of the west coast's smaller media markets.
Sounds pretty fanciful, pie-in-the-sky stuff? Hardly. I'm simply applying the business model used by the Green Bay Packers, who are publicly owned and are one of the most storied and respected franchises in all of football- even perhaps out of all team sports. The Packers play each season in a small town of a population of 100,000, yet consistently sell out each home date due to their regional interest and appeal.
The Packers' formula for success found its roots in the populist and progressive mind-set of 1920s America, when small communities gathered resources and worked together to find solutions to problems. The Packers' model allows benefits for all- a profit for the team, and professional football excitement for the fan/stockholder. The Packers' formula flies in the face of the mind-set of the modern-day "free marketeer", in which communities are held hostage to bail out private, millionaire investments that go sour.
Still, imagine if a similar model could be adopted in this situation- we'd actually be able to have the Portland Trailblazers.
Obviously, it appears, they shouldn't read the Sports section of The Oregonian, either. They just might get the feeling that their prospective interest in bringing their business to our city- and the number of jobs and revenue that would accompany a relocated major league sports franchise- is not wanted.Dave wrote something similar to this in his column. But that is where me and him part ways.
I'm not sure what point Dave is attempting to make in this column. Is he against the Blazers seeking public funding, or does he support it? As it's typical for Reinhard to take the "rock-the-boat" stance in the editorial pages of the biggest newspaper in blue-state Oregon, what stance is he going to take in regards to billionaire Paul Allen approaching the community with his hat in hand? Perhaps Dave took the temperature of the blogosphere first. As various entries from the lefty side make it clear that they'd have no qualms saying "Sayonara" to the Blazers, well then, Dave couldn't take that stance could he? So he comes out in favor of public support for the cash-strapped Trailblazers.
And is that really surprising? My "spider sense" started tingling when hestarted a paragraph by saying "As a free-marketeer..." What, exactly, does that mean? It seems the current-day's interpretation of "free market" means public subsidies of corporations, legislation titlting favorably for business interests, the minimization of regulations that protect the community and decreases the influence of labor. In short, selling out every resource and every person of the community in support of the dollar and to maximize the profit line of a company based, usually, either in another state or in another country. I mean, as Dave points out: "The city no longer boasts a Fortune 500 company..."
Sorry, Dave, but a true free-marketeer would come to the conclusion that the Blazers are done. Kaput. Put a fork in them. If they're bleeding millions due to mismanagement, then the market dictates the franchise either folds or moves to another locale. The only way a "free-marketeer" would support the local subsidization of an organization consistenly in the red is if they're one of these new-fangled George W. Bush apologists for incompetence and insist that the public bail out dying industries to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.
But what about the jobs? Didn't I make that point to Carzano regarding the Marlins? If the Blazers leave town, the economic hit on Portland will be huge, and there is no denying that. However, I find it highly ironic that Dave writes his column illustrating the economic benefits of the Blazers, and how it would be in Portland's best interests to keep them in town, on the same day that the main headline of the Oregonian read: "Oregon gets kicker shock". It turns out that $666 million of tax profits reaped by the state, a huge windfall by any standards and is more than enough to fill any gaping holes of any unfunded budgets (like, oh I don't know, school districts struggling to keep their heads above water), are going to be sent back to indivudal tax-payers and out-of-state corporations. So I don't need for Dave to counsel me on economic "benefits" of the Blazers' presence- obviously our state, and Portland by default, is doing plenty enough right. I have a $150 check headed my way, and there is a hammock that I've been eyein'. Screw you, PPS!
Look, call me old-fashioned but I believe that private money should support private interests, and public money should support public interests. They may be called the Portland Trailblazers, but everyone knows who the owner is. It's not Portland, it's Paul Allen, the seventh richest man alive. But perhaps, just maybe, the opposite could be true. Maybe the city of Portland could own the Trailblazers.
I know it's an idea that could be dismissed as radical, as it's rooted in history and pragmatism, but imagine if the Trailblzers were a publicly owned, non-profit corporation, that had shares available to purchase by stockholders (citizens of Portland and outlying areas). Imagine if a favorable lease at the Rose Quarter could be re-negotiated, and limits were in place as to the number of shares of the team any one holder could have. A consortium of wealthy Oregon businessmen could provide the financial backing to get the dead weight of the Blazers off Paul Allen's hands (so he could go buy the Sonics), and after the IPO, serve as the club's board of directors. With a direct interest, minus any divdends as any profit would be split between the team and the local community, Blazers fans would be compelled to go to home games, fill the rafters, and be committed to the franchise playing in one of the west coast's smaller media markets.
Sounds pretty fanciful, pie-in-the-sky stuff? Hardly. I'm simply applying the business model used by the Green Bay Packers, who are publicly owned and are one of the most storied and respected franchises in all of football- even perhaps out of all team sports. The Packers play each season in a small town of a population of 100,000, yet consistently sell out each home date due to their regional interest and appeal.
The Packers' formula for success found its roots in the populist and progressive mind-set of 1920s America, when small communities gathered resources and worked together to find solutions to problems. The Packers' model allows benefits for all- a profit for the team, and professional football excitement for the fan/stockholder. The Packers' formula flies in the face of the mind-set of the modern-day "free marketeer", in which communities are held hostage to bail out private, millionaire investments that go sour.
Still, imagine if a similar model could be adopted in this situation- we'd actually be able to have the Portland Trailblazers.
posted by true_slicky at 7:36 PM
2 Comments:
Apparently this kind of ownership is not currently allowed. But I heard Blumenauer has been trying to get that changed.
well *of course* it is.
as I wrote, that plan is rooted in history and pragmatism, and doesn't benefit the intersts of a single wealthy owner, so it must "threaten America's way of life." thank god public ownership of franchises is outlawed. if it weren't, we'd be one step closer to having terrorists decapitate us right here on the streets of Portland!
kudos to Blumenauer for challenging a ridiculous law....
Post a Comment
<< Home