The NBA has voted to explore Seattle & Las Vegas expansion — the relocation threat is overstated. Demand a real deal before Portland City Council signs.
690 people have contacted Portland City CouncilAdd yours ↓
Portland's true public commitment under SB 1501 is $1.06B–$1.11B. Each benchmark below is the same proportion of project cost peer cities actually negotiated — not just dollar-for-dollar matches. Charlotte's $32M rent on a $245M renovation = 13% of cost. Applied to Portland's $600M, that's $78M, not $32M.
Portland's deal
Low Market
Average Market
High Market
Private capital contribution
$00%
$108M18% — Indianapolis
$213M35.5% — peer mean
$373M62% — Cleveland
Rent over lease
$0no rent
$37M6.1% — OKC
$52M8.7% — peer mean
$78M13% — Charlotte
Naming rights revenue
$0team keeps
$0team keeps
$118M19.6% — 50/50 split
$236M39.3% — Sacramento
Ticket surcharge / fee
$0none
$0none
$34M5.7% — midpoint
$69M11.5% — Milwaukee
Community benefits
$0none
$35M5.8% — San Antonio
$36M~6% — midpoint
$37M6.1% — Charlotte
Total offset to public
$0
$180M
$453M
$793M
Net public cost after offsetsLower is better; every scenario remains net-negative.
$1.06B+
~$880M
~$607M
~$267M
Portland's current deal
$0
Total offset to public
Private capital$0
Rent over lease$0
Naming rights$0
Ticket surcharge$0
Community benefits$0
Net public cost after offsets$1.06B+
Low Market
$180M
Total offset to public
Private capital$108M 18% — Indianapolis
Rent over lease$37M 6.1% — OKC
Naming rights$0 team keeps
Ticket surcharge$0 none
Community benefits$35M 5.8% — San Antonio
Net public cost after offsets~$880M
Average Market
$453M
Total offset to public
Private capital$213M 35.5% — peer mean
Rent over lease$52M 8.7% — peer mean
Naming rights$118M 19.6% — 50/50 split
Ticket surcharge$34M 5.7% — midpoint
Community benefits$36M ~6% — midpoint
Net public cost after offsets~$607M
High Market
$793M
Total offset to public (best-of-each peer benchmarks)
Private capital$373M 62% — Cleveland
Rent over lease$78M 13% — Charlotte
Naming rights$236M 39.3% — Sacramento
Ticket surcharge$69M 11.5% — Milwaukee
Community benefits$37M 6.1% — Charlotte
Net public cost after offsets~$267M
Lower net public cost is better, but none of these scenarios creates a positive public ROI. The best version of this deal still leaves taxpayers paying more than they get back; the benchmark is reducing the subsidy and locking in enforceable public value.
Methodology: Each benchmark is calculated as a percentage of construction cost the peer city actually negotiated, then applied to Portland's $600M renovation. Example: Charlotte's $32M in rent was 13% of their $245M project. For Portland's $600M, the equivalent rent benchmark is $78M, not $32M. This ensures we're demanding market-rate proportions, not dollar-for-dollar matches from smaller projects. Percentage sources: Private capital (Cleveland 62%, DC 35.6%, Atlanta 26%, Indianapolis 18%). Rent (Charlotte 13.1%, SA 9.2%, DC 6.5%, OKC 6.1%). Naming rights (Sacramento 39.3% — the only peer city that retained 100%). Ticket surcharge (Milwaukee 11.5%). Community benefits (SA 5.8%, Charlotte capital fund 6.1%). "Total offset to public" combines reduced public spending (private capital) and cash returned to public (rent, naming rights, surcharges, community benefits). "Net public cost" subtracts that offset from Portland's $1.06B–$1.11B true public commitment. The High Market column is a composite — no single peer city achieved all of these in one deal. Sacramento came closest to break-even of any peer, with a net public cost of ~$45M on a $534M new build. No NBA city has ended up net-positive. Not included: PILOT payments (Raleigh precedent: $3.5M/yr ≈ $105M over 30 yrs), team-related income tax revenue, and surrounding district private development (San Antonio $1.4B, Salt Lake City $4B+).
This table is the standard, not a single fixed demand. Low Market means Portland gets the weakest comparable public protections. Average Market means Portland lands near the peer-city middle. High Market means Portland combines the strongest benchmarks other cities have negotiated. Even at the highest peer benchmarks combined, Portland would still pay roughly $267M net on a $1.06B commitment — far better than the full $1.06B with zero coming back under SB 1501. City Council should not support the joint authority or funding package until the lease terms are public and can be judged against these benchmarks.
What a responsible vote requires
The benchmark table is not a fixed demand. It is the public standard Council should use to judge whether the final lease lands inside the realm of acceptable market-rate terms.
Gate 1
Cost basis
Publish the renovation scope, cost model, independent review, and explanation for why $600M is the number.
Gate 2
Revenue flow
Publish the draft lease and revenue waterfall showing who receives every major arena revenue stream.
Gate 3
Public ROI
Show what returns to the General Fund, not just what gets recycled into the Arena Fund for debt and operations.
Gate 4
Lease terms
Benchmark rent, revenue sharing, naming rights, audits, overruns, and relocation protections against peer cities.
A yes vote before these documents are public is not an informed vote. A no vote on an undisclosed or below-market deal is a vote to keep negotiating.
For City Council: the vote standard.
The question is not whether Portland likes the Blazers. The question is whether the lease gives the public a market-rate return for a public building before City money is committed.
Cost: what are we buying?
What is the actual renovation scope Council is being asked to fund?
Who produced the $600M estimate, and can the public review the underlying cost model?
Has the City completed or received an independent facility condition assessment or cost evaluation?
If a lower internal estimate exists, including the reported $520M repair figure, why is $600M still the public number?
Could the state's $365M bond authority cover the necessary repairs without additional City or County subsidy, and who pays overruns?
Revenue: who gets the money?
What is the expected return to the City's General Fund, not just the Arena Fund?
For non-Blazers events, who receives ticket revenue, concessions, suites, sponsorships, naming rights, merchandise, venue rental, and net event profit?
Does the public receive anything beyond parking revenue and ticket user fees?
If more concerts and events come after renovation, does that new money reach public services or get recycled into arena debt, maintenance, and operations?
Where does the final deal land against the low, average, and high market benchmarks?
Lease: what terms are enforceable?
Will rent, revenue sharing, naming rights participation, PILOTs, or ticket surcharges be part of the lease?
Will any public return flow to the General Fund?
Will the lease require audited annual disclosure of arena revenues and expenses?
Will the City retain approval rights over naming rights, sponsorships, major capital scope, overruns, and operating budgets?
Will the lease run long enough to justify the full public investment?
Will relocation penalties protect the full public investment, or only outstanding bond debt?
Process: how does Council protect trust?
Will draft lease terms be posted before any vote commits City money?
Will the lease vote and funding-source vote be separated?
Will Council disclose meetings with team ownership, lobbyists, and representatives?
Will councilors decline team hospitality while active negotiations are underway?
Will each councilor say what lease terms would make them vote no?
Bridge lease baseline
The 2024 bridge lease is Council's own comparison point. It was not perfect, but it preserved basic public-protection principles that the 2026 proposal must explain before abandoning.
Required 1:1 matched capital spending.
Capped City exposure at Blazers home-game user fees and parking revenue.
Retained City parking and user-fee revenue from other events.
Kept Rip City Management's existing operational rights.
Required repayment of City capital investments if the team left.
Promised no upfront City investment, no City debt, and no new taxes.
Willamette Week reported that three District 2 councilors met with Tom Dundon and received comped Blazers playoff tickets during the active negotiation. The issue is not whether a technical exemption was available. The issue is public trust.
During this negotiation, every councilor should decline team hospitality, disclose meetings with ownership and representatives, publish meeting summaries, and keep public due diligence separate from private courtship.
Before voting yes, every councilor should be able to say what deal terms would make them vote no.
Why Portland has leverage
The local vote is not ceremonial. It is the condition that makes the state bond package work.
The state money is conditional.
Under enrolled SB 1501, the State Treasurer may not issue the Moda Center debt instruments unless the State and City have formed the joint authority, the lease and management agreements are executed, the scope and budget are approved, and the City of Portland and Multnomah County have made binding and substantial commitments to finance the project.
That means Council still has leverage. If the lease is undisclosed, below-market, or missing enforceable protections, Council can keep negotiating instead of locking Portland into weak terms.
Why does Moda Center's renovation cost $600 million?
And can the public review the evaluation? Here's what peer cities actually paid to renovate their publicly-owned NBA arenas.
Cleveland Cavaliers
Rocket Mortgage FieldHouse
$185M
Total renovation cost
62% private · Dan Gilbert paid $115M and absorbed all overruns. Mid-market, publicly-owned — directly comparable to Moda.
Atlanta Hawks
State Farm Arena
$192.5M
Total renovation cost
26%+ private · Hawks absorbed all overruns above the base cost. City-owned. Lease through 2046.
Portland Trail Blazers
Moda Center — SB 1501
$600M
Proposed renovation cost
0% private · 3× the cost of Cleveland. No public cost evaluation has been released. Figure comes from the team's own consultants.
All 8 recent NBA arena renovations — sorted by cost
Cleveland$185M
Atlanta$192M
Charlotte$245M
Indianapolis$360M
Salt Lake City$525M
Memphis$550M
Portland$600M
Washington D.C.$800M
No public cost evaluation has been released
The $600M figure comes from the team's own consultants. Cleveland renovated a comparable publicly-owned, mid-market arena for $185M. Atlanta for $192M. Indianapolis for $360M. Four peer cities completed their renovations for under $400M.
If City officials have reviewed a lower internal estimate, including the reported $520M repair figure, Council should publish it and reconcile the gap. The public needs to know which costs are essential repairs, which are revenue-generating upgrades, and whether the state's $365M bond authority could cover the core work.
Before Oregon commits over $1 billion in public funds, the public deserves to know: what should this renovation actually cost?
Every other publicly-owned NBA arena gets money back.
Here's how much each city's team pays back over the life of the lease — through rent, revenue sharing, naming rights, and ticket surcharges.
Sacramento Kings
Naming rights (city keeps 100%)
$210M
over 35 yrs
San Antonio Spurs
Rent + community benefits
$195M
over 30 yrs
Milwaukee Bucks
$2/ticket surcharge
$60M
over 30 yrs
OKC Thunder
Rent + F&B revenue share
$55M+
over 25 yrs
Washington D.C.
Lease payments through 2050
$52M
over 26 yrs
Charlotte Hornets
Rent + capital fund
$32M
over 14 yrs
Portland Trail Blazers
Nothing. No rent. No revenue sharing. No naming rights.
$0
over 20 yrs
Average return across peer cities: ~$100 million over the lease. Portland: $0.
The story
What's happening
Oregon is handing a billionaire $1 billion+ to renovate an arena the public already owns. The owner pays nothing. No rent. No revenue sharing. No private capital.
No transparency
City officials say they have retained Carl Hirsch of Stafford Sports to advise the public side. That makes Council's mandate even more important: before any vote, the public should know what terms the negotiator is instructed to pursue and what lease terms would be unacceptable.
Update — March 25, 2026
The relocation argument is weaker than officials suggested.
The NBA Board of Governors voted on March 25, 2026 to formally explore expansion in Las Vegas and Seattle, the two cities repeatedly cited as relocation threats throughout the SB 1501 debate.
If Seattle and Las Vegas are expansion markets, they are weaker relocation leverage than officials suggested. A relocation into one of those cities could consume a reported $7B-$10B expansion sale, or roughly $230M-$330M per existing team if split evenly. Council should not treat relocation as a reason to rush the lease unless someone with actual authority identifies a real destination, arena plan, NBA approval path, relocation-fee treatment, and 2030-ready timeline.
Relocation could impose billions in direct and opportunity costs.
Full analysis: NBA expansion could create major owner payouts if Seattle and Las Vegas are preserved as expansion markets. Austin, Nashville, San Diego, and Kansas City are not TV-market upgrades. Raleigh is the most plausible Dundon-adjacent alternative, but no one has shown the NBA package. Vancouver and Mexico City are serious long-term market concepts, not 2030-ready pressure points. No public record shows a confirmed superior relocation package.
Edan Krolewicz of Rip City Not Rip Off with Wesleigh Ogle, ARC PDX.
Portland already owns the Moda Center.
The city purchased the arena from the Paul Allen estate for $1 in 2024. Every lease term, naming right, and revenue participation in this proposal flows from this ownership. The city is not asking for a gift. It is setting the terms under which a private operator uses a public building.
A familiar playbook
This is Dundon's playbook. In Raleigh, he got $300M public for the arena, then built $800M in private development around it. The public hired Dan Barrett of CAA Icon to negotiate — and got $4.5M/yr rent, PILOTs, 10% affordable housing. Now Barrett represents the Blazers in Portland. Portland says Carl Hirsch of Stafford Sports is advising the public side, so Council should disclose the mandate: what rent, revenue, naming-rights, audit, and relocation terms is he empowered to secure?
Element
Raleigh (2023)
Portland (2026)
Public arena $
$300M
$600M
Private arena $
$0
$0
Owner / Negotiator
Barrett represented public (Centennial Authority)
Barrett represents Blazers; Carl Hirsch advises public side
Rent to public
$4.5-5.5M/yr
$0
Revenue sharing
Ground lease at 6% FMV
None
PILOTs
Yes
None
Affordable housing
10% required
None
Total public debt service
$300M
$531-$623M (state bonds only)
District tax capture
Limited
All employee withholdings, scaling
The result of this pattern is now quantifiable. On March 5, 2026, Sportico reported that Dundon sold a 12.5% minority stake in the Hurricanes at a $2.66 billion valuation — up from his $420 million purchase price in 2018. That is a 6.3x return in seven years. The $300 million in public arena funding from Raleigh helped drive that appreciation. Dundon captured 100% of the gain. The public got zero. Portland is being asked to repeat this at double the public investment.
Source: Sportico, March 5, 2026; confirmed by ESPN, WRAL, KGW.
Correction (March 1, 2026): An earlier version of this analysis described Dan Barrett of CAA Icon as representing Tom Dundon in the Raleigh arena deal. Barrett was in fact retained by the Centennial Authority, the public body that owns PNC Arena, to represent the public side. He is now representing the Blazers in Portland. We regret the error.
Frequently asked questions
"Why is City Council the focus now?"
SB 1501 is now law, so the state fight has moved into the local lease negotiation. Portland still owns the Moda Center, and City Council still controls whether Portland joins the final structure and what lease terms the public accepts. That is the leverage point now.
"Are you trying to kill the deal?"
No. We support keeping the Blazers in Portland and we support renovating the Moda Center. The question is whether Council signs a blank check or negotiates a market-rate lease for a publicly owned building before committing public money.
"What should Council disclose before voting?"
At minimum: the full renovation scope, the source and assumptions behind the $600 million estimate, any City or independent cost evaluation, a draft lease, a revenue waterfall showing who receives every major arena revenue stream, a General Fund ROI model, audited annual disclosure requirements, and relocation protection tied to the full public investment.
"What does a market-rate arena deal mean?"
It means comparing Portland's lease to what peer cities actually negotiated: private capital, rent, naming-rights revenue, ticket surcharges, community benefits, audits, and relocation penalties. The benchmark table above shows low, average, and high market outcomes so Portlanders can judge the final lease instead of accepting a vague promise that the deal is competitive.
"What is the total public commitment?"
The state authorized $365 million in bonds, but debt service is estimated at $531-$623 million over 20 years. Add City and County commitments and the true public commitment is over $1 billion. That is why the lease terms matter: the public should know what it gets back before the money is committed.
"Where does revenue from non-Blazers events go?"
The public bridge-lease materials confirm that the City retains parking and user-fee revenues from other events. They do not show that the public receives broader commercial revenue from non-Blazers events, including concessions, suites, sponsorships, naming rights, merchandise, venue rental, or net event profit. Council should publish a full revenue waterfall before voting.
"Does more concerts and year-round activity make this a good investment?"
Only if the public can see where the money goes. More concerts may benefit the arena operator, team ownership, nearby businesses, and the Arena Fund. That is not the same as a return to the General Fund. If officials argue the renovation will attract bigger acts and more events, they should also show what revenue returns to public services if those events actually happen.
"Why does revenue need to go to the General Fund instead of the Arena Fund?"
The Oregon Arena Fund is dedicated to arena expenses: construction, renovation, operations, maintenance, and debt service. Money that goes into the Arena Fund can help pay arena costs, but it does not fund schools, parks, public safety, housing, or other city services. A public return should reach the General Fund, not just recirculate inside the project.
"What happened to the 2024 bridge lease protections?"
The bridge lease required 1:1 matched capital contributions, capped the City's exposure at Blazers home-game user fees and parking revenue, promised no upfront City investment, no City debt, and no new taxes, and required repayment if the team left. Public documents also confirm the City retains parking and user-fee revenue from other events. Council should explain why the 2026 terms should be weaker than that baseline.
"Is relocation a reason to rush?"
No one with actual authority has publicly shown a real relocation plan, destination arena, NBA approval path, relocation-fee treatment, or 2030-ready timeline. The NBA Board of Governors voted on March 25, 2026 to formally explore expansion in Seattle and Las Vegas, which weakens the main cities cited as relocation leverage because owners may be giving up hundreds of millions per team in expansion-fee proceeds. Austin, Nashville, San Diego, and Kansas City are not TV-market upgrades; Raleigh is plausible but unproven; Vancouver and Mexico City are long-term concepts with cross-border operating issues. Council should require evidence before treating relocation as a reason to accept weak lease terms.
Act now
SB 1501 is now law. The Legislature passed it without requiring rent, private capital, or revenue sharing. Portland City Council is the last stop. The Council must negotiate the lease terms before handing over the money. Portland owns the Moda Center — that ownership is leverage, but only if the Council uses it. If they sign before the public can compare the lease to low, average, and high market benchmarks, the leverage is gone forever. Email all 12 Portland City Councilors now.
SB 1501 legislative archive
This campaign began by tracking the state bill. SB 1501 is now law, but its legislative history still matters because it explains why Council must negotiate the lease in public.
What the amendments changed
"Plaza" deleted from the Arena Fund: removed a boundary around what public money can be spent on.
"Sports and entertainment district" created: added a legal zone tied to a map drawn by the Blazers' management company.
District-wide tax capture: employee income taxes from new Rose Quarter businesses can be redirected from the General Fund to the Arena Fund.
Blazers given right to sue the public authority: the team can seek injunctive relief against the joint authority.
Public downgraded from "operator" to "overseer": the amendment weakened public control language over the building.
Tax confidentiality overridden: the bill authorizes use of tax information that is normally protected under ORS 314.835.
Ownership ambiguity: Section 5(1)(b) creates an escape hatch if the state does not own the arena.
Advisory-only negotiator: Section 6(2)(b) says the review does not require any particular term in the final agreement.
The amendment that never got a vote
Sen. Pham introduced the -5 amendment, which would have required private capital from ownership and revenue sharing with the General Fund.
Those were the provisions that would have changed the economics of the deal for the ownership group.
The amendment was acknowledged, but it was never debated and never voted on.
The public pays state bond costs, plus City and County commitments, to renovate the arena through redirected public revenue.
The renovation increases the value of the surrounding Rose Quarter district.
As new businesses open in the district, their employee wage withholdings can be redirected from the General Fund to the Arena Fund.
The Arena Fund then services renovation debt and arena costs, using tax revenue that would otherwise fund public services.
The capture continues until the later of lease expiration or all bonds are retired, which is why General Fund return must be explicit in the lease.
Who we are
We're a grassroots group of Blazers fans who want Portland to negotiate like a serious public owner. We love this team, and we expect a lease that respects the people paying for the building.
We started this campaign because no one else was making the case that Portland already owns the Moda Center, that every other city negotiated rent and revenue sharing, and that officials should not treat relocation as proven leverage without evidence. The reporting was buried. The hearings were rushed. So we built this site, read the bill, ran the numbers, and started organizing.
If the Council signs without negotiating, the leverage is gone forever. That's why we're here.
Edan Krolewicz · Jonathan Pulvers
Spread the word
Every share puts pressure on City Council to publish the lease, disclose the revenue flows, and negotiate before voting.