Everyone But You
Portland promised $573 million for an arena in rooms the public was never in. Here is the whole story, from the City’s own records.
Every city that loses this fight learns how it lost years too late, from a post-mortem. Portland got the receipts early. For six months I read my city’s own records of the Moda Center deal — more than 8,000 pages of emails, calendars, studies and contracts — and published what they showed while the votes were still open. They show that $573 million was settled with the league inside a ninety-day window nobody watched, months before the public saw a term sheet or a single drawing. If your city has a team, this is the playbook that is coming for you. Here is what it looks like from the inside.
This section will be written the night of August 12, 2026, after City Council votes on the term sheet: what passed, by what margin, with which amendments. Until then this essay is published in draft, its ending left honestly blank — because unlike much of what you will read about this deal, this page does not claim to know things before they happen.
The two letters
In January 2024, a senior advisor in Portland’s City Hall wrote a memo about the Trail Blazers. The team wanted public money for its arena — a lot of it — and it wanted the Mayor to go get it.
“RCM continues to expect significant public sector investment — upwards of $350 million — for the renovations without any clear path forward to obtaining funding… Their expectation that the Mayor play a lead [role] in advocating for state funding in 2024 has repeatedly been rejected by the team.”
Barry Pack transition memo, January 17, 2024 · production C454413, p.214 Verified
Rejected. Repeatedly. On principle, in writing.
Twenty-four months later, almost to the day, the team’s counsel wrote to the Mayor’s office about the same request. Not to demand anything. To say thank you.
“Thank you again for your partnership and offer to have the Mayor connect with legislators about Moda Center — it’s really meaningful. As promised, sharing a list we think would be helpful…”
Trail Blazers counsel to the Mayor’s office, January 24, 2026 · production C443668, p.140–142 Verified
Same request. Same building. Same team. In 2024 the City refused it. In 2026 the City offered it — unasked, with the team’s job reduced to gratitude and a target list. Everything you need to know about how Portland came to owe $573 million lives in the space between those two letters. This essay is the story of that space.
If you do not live here, read it anyway, because nothing in it is about Portland. The same play is available in every city with a franchise, and it runs in five steps:
- A window opens. A sale, a lease expiry, an “aging” building. For ninety days the league, the seller and the buyer all need a closed deal — and the public is not in the room.
- The price arrives pre-set. Not from the building’s needs — from “market rate,” which means whatever the last city paid.
- The threat stays authorless. The owner never says “we’ll leave” on the record. Officials and anonymous quotes say it for him.
- The clock is borrowed. Every deadline belongs to the league and the team, and the governments obey it anyway.
- The last vote can only say yes. By the time your council holds its first public hearing, the money is pledged, the chorus is hired, and a no vote means being blamed for losing the team.
Portland’s records let us watch all five happen, in writing, with page numbers. Look at the deals the league’s own Portland talking points cite as precedents — Oklahoma City, Salt Lake City, Memphis, Charlotte — and you will find the same silence during the months that mattered. The strangest thing six months in the records taught me is that none of it requires anyone to break a law. It requires only comparables: each deal on that list became the benchmark that priced the one after it, until a number no building could justify arrived looking like a market. The one thing Portland did differently — the only thing — was read the documents in time to see the shape of it while the votes were still open. That is the transferable part, and it is the reason this page exists.
First, who I am. I am a Trail Blazers fan. I never wanted the team to leave and never argued it should. What I wanted was for my city to negotiate for it the way a city should negotiate for anything it buys with half a billion public dollars: a price built from evidence, terms written down before the money moves, a record the public can check. In February that seemed like the minimum. So I built a website that took the deal seriously — more seriously, it turned out, than most of the institutions deciding it.
Everything here comes from public records: the City’s own emails, calendars, studies and contracts, obtained under Oregon law and read in full. The complete chronology — every entry cited to its production and page — is at /timeline. The method of this whole campaign fits in five words: don’t take my word for it.
What happened, in four acts
A city that knew the rules
The record opens with a city behaving like a landlord. Portland hired its own arena advisor in 2021. It bought its own economic study in 2023 — flawed, as this site later showed, but answering to nobody’s advocacy — and its own program manager put the City’s actual annual revenue from the entire campus at $11.23 million. When the team came asking, the same 2024 memo you read above recorded the rest of the posture: the team was presenting no capital plan, and was “reluctant to share maintenance information or provide access to the building for inspection.” The City’s rule, stated flatly: “due diligence must be conducted before putting the question to Council.”
It followed that rule. Before buying the arena in 2024, the City commissioned a full engineering assessment of the building. The bridge lease it signed preserved the team’s “first-class” maintenance obligation — a clause the City had already enforced once, through a bankruptcy. Whatever else you conclude from this story, hold on to this: as recently as 2024, Portland knew how to say no.
The turn
The sale of the franchise changed everything, and the record catches the pivot almost to the day. In the summer of 2025, Commissioner Adam Silver publicly declared that the Blazers needed a “new” arena — a statement the team’s own advocacy materials would later cite as a reason to act. On October 23, 2025, Portland’s new Mayor had breakfast with Tom Dundon, the prospective buyer. That evening he wrote to Nike’s CEO:
“I had breakfast with Tom earlier today… I am looking forward to partnering with you to keep and grow this franchise in Portland. Let’s go, Blazers!”
Mayor Keith Wilson to Elliott Hill, October 23, 2025 · production C443791, p.3–5 Verified
Read it the way a negotiator would. Seven months before any term sheet existed, the man who would lead the public’s side of a half-billion-dollar negotiation committed — in writing, to a third party — to the outcome. Not “we’ll see what the terms are.” Partnering. To keep and grow.
The machinery followed the sentiment. In November, the “Project Mt. Hood” meetings began: a standing series merging City negotiators, team executives, the team’s consultant and a lobbyist into one invite list. In December, City staff flew to North Carolina with team executives to tour the buyer’s previous arena deal. Somewhere in those weeks the negotiation quietly became a joint venture. From that point forward, across more than 8,000 pages, I could not find one document in which the City demands a term from the team. Not one.
Ninety days in which the number was fixed
This is the window the whole story bends around, and the public was not in the room for any of it. On January 15, a “Moda Center Renovation Conversation” convened a state senator, a county commissioner, the Governor’s office, the Oregon Lottery, City staff, the team, and the team’s lobbyist. Circulated for it: the “Trail Blazers Toolkit” — talking points asserting a $600 million figure on the authority of unnamed “best firms in the nation,” sized, in its own words, to “what types of spaces a market like Portland can sustain.” A revenue target, not a repair bill. The toolkit supplied the deadline (the 2030 Women’s Final Four), the frame (“doom loop”), and the ask (the Legislature’s short session). Nine days later came the thank-you note you read at the top of this page — and by April, a Deputy City Administrator would describe the arrangement in the City’s own words: “partnered for the first phase of the coordination to support the State’s passage of SB 1501.” The wall the previous administration built took two years to erect and one winter to dismantle.
The pace of that winter tells you what was at stake. February 2: the Mayor’s office scrambles — “urgently… the timing is quite sensitive” — to book a twenty-five-minute call for the next day with the Governor, the Mayor, and Commissioner Silver. February 4: a senior mayoral aide proposes giving Salem a funding number “without telling them exactly where that $ would come from.” March: a majority of City Council declines to sign a letter to the NBA — and the letter goes anyway, from three offices, declaring Portland “united and all-in,” sent to meet a deadline the league had set. March 13: Silver comes to Portland — a private meeting with the Mayor in the arena’s Star Room A, then a reception for councilors, invitations handled by the team, its lobbying firm copied.
That same month, the sale closed. Five months later the Mayor described the result to reporters in a sentence that deserves to be carved above City Hall’s door:
“We arrived at the $573 million, which at this point was accepted by all parties, and there’s a commitment there, and the Blazers also in March supported that amount.”
Mayor Keith Wilson to reporters, August 5, 2026 · KGW/KATU coverage
Accepted by all parties — in March. Before Council saw a term sheet. Before any economic study was presented. Before, by the team’s own later admission, plans existed at all. The number was fixed, with the league, inside the sale window. Everything the public was shown afterward was downstream of it.
The ratification
Once you see the March lock, the spring reads differently. The listening sessions, the work sessions, the term sheet — all of it was the process of getting the public to approve a decision already made. The tell is what happened to the City’s own analyses. On May 29, the City asked its own economist what would actually be lost if the NBA left — “the key question from our elected officials,” the request says. Crossroads Consulting answered on June 5: isolating the building’s non-Blazers impact from the rest of the Rose Quarter is not feasible, because costs are reported on a combined basis and any allocation “would be subjective and difficult to support.” That answer has never appeared in a public presentation; it surfaced in a records production.
Two days before it arrived, the City’s Spectator Venues Program Manager had priced the building without the team. Of roughly $482 million in capital the arena needs over twenty years, removing every project that could be linked to NBA basketball — locker rooms, the team store, the family room, the media room, the courtside club, sports lighting, broadcast cabling — brings the twenty-year plan to about $402 million. A difference of $80 million. [Correction, August 8: this passage previously said that memo never reached Council. That was wrong, and I thank KATU’s Wright Gazaway for the correction. The memo went to every council office on June 3, 2026, from the Council President’s own policy director, together with the facility assessment, the twenty-year capital plan and the 2022–23 economic impact analysis, ahead of the June 24 work session. The error was mine and the record is the opposite of what I wrote.]
What the corrected record shows is not concealment from Council. It is something more ordinary and harder to fix. Council had the $80 million figure on June 3, in a packet the Council President’s office sent with the note that “the timeline here is ridiculously compressed.” The administration asked that a caveat be highlighted alongside it — that the assessment covers only keeping the building in its current configuration, and so “it is not appropriate to directly compare FCA cost estimates with the potential cost of the proposed major renovation.” That caveat is fair and this site accepts it. The memo carries a second one that cuts the other way and got less attention: some of the removed items would still be needed for WNBA and college basketball, so the true NBA-only number is smaller than $80 million, not larger. Either way, the figure existed, in writing, in every councilor’s inbox, seven weeks before the vote. It never became part of the public case for the deal. What reached the public, on July 30, was the team’s consultant presenting $15.2 billion — a number whose supporting memo, we later learned, sat behind the team’s own release approval. [Update, August 10: the memo was released, with the team’s permission, after this page’s public requests — and is published in full, with our reading, on the model review.]
The team, meanwhile, had gone silent in public while staying busy in private. In June the City Attorney sent seven written questions. The team’s internal emails answered them honestly: “I don’t think our public answers will be well-received.” “We should discuss whether we even respond to this.” “Very much feels like a trap.” A written response was drafted. It was never sent. When the team finally offered the public a reason for its silence — fear of litigation — the City had already delivered the legal cure in writing, twice.
Even the “public conversation” was staged. On July 30, Council’s session with the team’s president was preceded, 45 minutes earlier, by a private prep meeting in City Hall’s Rose Room — the Mayor, the Council President, the City Attorney, and the executive Council was about to question, whose one-hour appearance and early exit had been arranged the day before. Four days later the team circulated a general-contractor cost comparison and booked its architect’s lead for the next design meeting. The public was told there were no plans. Only concepts.
Then, right on schedule, the boosters arrived. On July 16 — the day the term sheet went to the team — a coalition called “We Are Rip City” launched, describing itself as “a broad coalition of Portland restaurants, small businesses, community organizations, and civic leaders,” warning that “if we miss this window, we will not get another.” Its launch materials left one thing out. According to the state ethics commission’s own registry, the coalition’s media contact was a registered lobbyist for Rip City Management/TBI from February 16 to April 9, 2026 — the exact window of the Legislature’s $365 million push — and is a former deputy chief of staff to the Governor. The restaurant owners on that letterhead believe every word they signed; their sincerity is not the question. The question is who organized the chorus, and the registry answers it. The full documentary record of all of this, with every citation, is at /paper-trail and /timeline.
The missteps — with the fair reading printed beside each
This site has followed one discipline from the start: the damning read and the innocent read, side by side, and the reader decides. Here is the whole ledger at once.
Between them, these four committed every public dollar in this deal: Wagner introduced SB 1501 and sat in the January 15 convening beside the team and its lobbyist; Lieber, co-chair of Ways and Means, carried its $365 million; Vega Pederson brought the county’s $88 million to her board; Wilson pledged the city’s $120 million to the Oregon Senate on February 11 — a month before the sale closed, and months before his own Council deliberated a dollar of it. Now search the record for what any of them obtained in exchange. No guaranteed private contribution from an ownership group that just paid over $4 billion for the franchise. No rent above one dollar. No revenue share. No naming-rights participation. No written league assurance the team stays. This was not an oversight discovered later. Asked directly whether the owner should put in a couple hundred million, Senator Lieber told KGW: “it was not something that was overwhelmingly needed at the time.” They did not fail to get private money. They never thought it necessary to ask.
The “negotiation” was left to the councils voting last, against a stacked sequence — state money raised, county money resolved, three governments publicly “all-in,” a no vote framed as losing the team. Understand the mechanism, because nothing in it requires rigging a vote. Commit to the outcome first. Build the money second. Negotiate the public’s return last, when changing anything can be called endangering everything. Every decision-maker keeps their vote; the sequence just guarantees the last one faces the highest price for using it. Council still has yes and no. What the sequence removed was the only answer that ever gets a city a fair deal: yes, on better terms. They set the table so the last vote could only say yes, and called the seating arrangement deliberation. That is not negotiating for the public. It is theater, staged at the public’s expense.
The October 2025 “partnering” email surrendered the only leverage a public negotiator has — the credible ability to say no — before the first number was on paper. You cannot drive a hard bargain for something you have promised, in writing, to deliver. The office then went further: the lobbying role the previous administration had “repeatedly rejected” as improper, this one offered, unasked. The team’s thank-you note is in the record. The wall didn’t fall. It was handed over.
Four months later a number followed the promise — and it went to Salem before it went to Portland. On February 11, before the sale had closed and before his own Council had deliberated a dollar of it, the Mayor sat down in front of a committee of the Oregon Senate to testify for SB 1501:
“I’m here bright and early today to ensure that you know that the City of Portland is all in on Moda. We have a local investment plan in the works that will go through Council that will include $120 M of upfront capital investment… for a total of $360 M over the life of the investment.”
Mayor Keith Wilson, prepared testimony for the Feb 11, 2026 SB 1501 hearing · production C443668, p.478–479 Verified
In the margin of that draft, a staffer asked whether it would help to “add/show this commitment in the letter from council/city.” It did not go in. The day before, the City’s government relations director had told councilors why the Council’s letter of support would carry no figures at all: “As specifics are still being discussed both at the local and state level, we do not think specifics should be elevated here.” Read the two together and the asymmetry is the whole story of this deal in miniature. The specifics were elevated to the legislature that had to appropriate the money, and kept out of the letter signed by the body that had to approve it. Six months later the money still was not there. Councilors spent the August 6 session arguing over which fund would repay Portland’s share, and the councilor most willing to vote yes said what none of the February optimism had: the term sheet has to find the $120 million, “because we don’t have it yet.” Committing the number before the money was not carelessness; it built the urgency that now argues for itself. A hole that must be filled by December makes whatever fund is nearest look like the responsible choice.
And on August 6, asked directly where the deal’s definition of “market rate” came from, the Mayor said it plainly from the dais: “There’s nothing written down, but we used our discussions with the NBA to frame what a market rate deal is.” The independent check on that number, he continued, was a consultant hired to verify the deal was “acceptable through the NBA and the team.” Read those two sentences together and the standard the public’s money was measured against becomes clear: not what the building needs, not what the City can recover — what the recipient would accept. That is not a negotiation. It is a quote, confirmed with the vendor.
Staff worked the team’s legislator list, coordinated with its lobbyist, agreed to tip the team off before fulfilling public-records requests (“to the extent permitted by law”), planned to withhold the funding source from Salem — and described itself, in its own sunset email, as having “partnered” to pass SB 1501. Its own countervailing analyses, the no-NBA costing and the economist’s honest answer, stopped moving the moment they were written.
The largest share — $365 million — moved through a short session on the toolkit’s numbers, with the Governor’s office inside the coordination from the start. No independent state validation of the $600 million figure appears anywhere in the record — and in August, the bill’s sponsor confirmed the method on camera, to KGW’s Tim Gordon. The amount was the recipient’s ask: “we knew that what they wanted from the state… was between 500 and 600 million… and that’s what we tried to put together.” There were no drawings: “we don’t have architectural renderings… it’s a little chicken or egg.” The purpose was a message to the league during the sale window: so the NBA would tell the incoming owner “they’re coming in with a really good package here… now you need to stay.” Even the scope list she recited — “HVAC, plumbing and electrical, the basics” — is the $482 million the City’s engineers say the building needs with or without an NBA team, while “upgrade the fan experience” is revenue work for the operator who keeps the revenues. The state bought the landlord’s baseline and the operator’s upside, and called it a market deal.
$35 million of the county’s contribution is one-time business-income-tax receipts from the franchise sale itself — the tax on a $4 billion transaction, recycled back to the buyer’s building. The county’s true all-in cost, with interest, is $138.6 million, not the $88 million headline.
Councilors put real admissions on the record, and a majority refused to sign the “united and all-in” letter — which is why it went out from three offices instead. But Council never used its actual power: it scheduled votes without requiring the information first. Questions without consequences are requests the schedule absorbs.
Then came August 6, the session called to amend the term sheet — and it removed any remaining doubt. Eleven amendments reached a recorded vote. Not one passed. Rent on a building the City owns and leases for a dollar a year: failed 6–6. Private capital from an owner who paid $4.25 billion for the team: 5–7. Naming-rights revenue: 5–7. A report on funding sources and their opportunity costs, thirty days before any vote: 5–7. A single sentence directing the Mayor to negotiate any return on investment: 6–6. The Council President announced before the first amendment was introduced that he would oppose all of them — not on their merits, but because they had not been pre-cleared with the administration’s negotiating team.
That theory did not survive its own test case. The last amendment of the day changed nothing in the term sheet at all. It added a single line to the resolution directing the Mayor to “negotiate final agreements that deliver a return on investment for the city’s financial contributions… through a combination of terms and community benefits.” Its author had run every one of his amendments past the person the administration told councilors to run them past. And minutes before the vote, asked from the dais whether he wanted a return on this investment, Mayor Wilson answered: “Absolutely… it’s absolutely at the core of what we’re trying to do,” and called the amendments “some great ideas.” It failed, 6–6.
Which means the tallies do not measure what a reader would assume, and it matters to say so plainly. Six votes against a return on investment do not mean six councilors oppose a return on investment — the Mayor who would have been directed by it said he wants one. The no votes were cast on a theory announced before the substance was heard, which drained every tally of the information it should have carried. Portland walked into the last moment it could amend anything and walked out with no record of what it requires. That is precisely what a negotiator is supposed to be given. “Even if there may have been majority support,” one councilor said, “we haven’t actually had a chance to express majority support, because this is that time.”
But turn the tallies over and they say one thing the majority never intended. The no votes were procedural; the yes votes were substance, cast against the grain of a leadership asking everyone to wait. Six for rent. Six for a return on investment. Six for a larger PILOT, six for the user fee. Six is not a defeat; six is a floor — and definitive agreements need seven. The negotiating team walked out of that room knowing it is one vote short of a council that requires a public return. A December package with a dollar of rent and no private capital is a bet that one of the six folds. That bet is now the whole deal.
And the session sent a signal after all — just not the one intended. Anyone watching on behalf of the other side learned two things in a single afternoon: that half of Portland’s council wants rent, private capital, naming-rights revenue and a measurable return, and that the governing majority will not ask for any of it while the deal feels fragile. That is not leverage saved for later. That is leverage spent in public. Councilors established on the record that this was the last chance to amend the term sheet itself: executive sessions cannot take votes, and amending the definitive documents in December is, in staff’s words, legally possible but “a bad idea.” [Clarified August 8: Council does retain later votes — an operator-lease MOU ordinance this winter and the formal lease ordinance in Q1 2027, both on the City’s own published timeline, and the City Attorney confirmed on July 30 that material amendments to the existing lease require Council approval. What August 6 closed was the amendment window on this document, not every remaining vote; the full schedule is at the blank check.] One councilor named the shape of it out loud — that the administration might bring back something unpassable and then blame Council for it. Another, an economist, used the same session to reveal that the deal the public has been told costs $573 million actually commits $848 million.
Beneath the procedure sat a category error, and it is worth naming because it will outlive this deal. Whether Portland requires private capital, rent, or a measurable return is not a negotiating tactic. It is policy — the kind of decision elected principals exist to make and agents exist to execute. How to ask, when, in what order, traded against what: that is the negotiators’ craft, and Council has no business scripting it. On August 6 the majority handed the agents both — and no one on the dais separated the two sentences a principal must never confuse: the counterparty has refused this, and our negotiators would rather we not ask. Asked what evidence supported the blanket no, the Council President answered: “it is what I am believing at this moment.” Asked whether the league had called any of it a deal-breaker, the Mayor confirmed nothing is written down. All afternoon, nobody produced a refusal. Every constraint in that room was a recommendation wearing a constraint’s clothes.
And beneath that sits the bitterest irony of the afternoon. A council that legally cannot be reconvened to concede is the strongest card a city can carry into a negotiation. The negotiator who can truthfully say my principals require a return, and no one can call them back into session to soften it holds leverage no professional skill can substitute for — and Portland holds that card by charter: executive sessions cannot vote, and the next real vote comes after the negotiating is done. On August 6 the majority declined to play it. Unplayed, the card works in reverse. A body that cannot reconvene to demand is just a body that cannot reconvene — sidelined until December hands it something it can only take or leave.
It is worth being honest about why. A yes vote here is nearly free and a no vote is expensive, and everyone in the building knows it. Yes costs a councilor nothing they can feel: the money is diffuse, the bill arrives over twenty years, and the ribbon-cutting comes with a photograph. No costs them a specific, nameable catastrophe with their face on it — and the campaign made sure of that. One councilor said so publicly, in reporting that circulated inside City Hall’s own files:
“Koyama Lane told OPB that, through conversations, these lobbyists ‘have made it clear that elected officials will be blamed if the team leaves Portland.’”
News coverage circulated in City files, February 2026 · production C452264, p.147 Verified
Put that pressure beside the reception where the team introduced councilors to the commissioner, the game tickets and parking passes offered to new members, and a business community that treats this project as the test of whether you are serious about Portland — and you have a vote where conviction and career point in the same direction for almost everyone. Which is exactly why the loudest argument for this deal is the one about losing the team. It is not primarily aimed at the public. It is aimed at the people casting the votes, and it works, because it converts a hard question about price into an easy question about loyalty. I believe several councilors know this deal is bad and will vote for it anyway — not because anyone bought them, but because the structure charges them personally for being right and pays them for going along. That is a design flaw in the room, and the fix is structural, not moral: make the information a precondition, and a councilor who asks for it is following the rules instead of risking a franchise.
Offered a public work session, it pre-negotiated a single hour. Asked seven written questions, it drafted answers and shelved them because they would not be “well-received.” Asked for term-sheet edits, it responded instead with a demand to waive the existing lease’s protections — protections that matter, by the City’s own analysis, only in the scenario where the team departs. A release that survives relocation is valuable only to a team that might relocate.
Notice the shape of the threat itself, because it is the cleverest thing in this record. Nowhere does the team say it will leave. It never had to. The officials said it for him — “possibly lose the Blazers” is the Mayor’s framing, not the owner’s — while the team’s written counterproposal ran on relocation-contingent “hypotheticals” and its one concrete demand was a release that survives departure. The politicians needed “we had to.” The owner needed “I never said that.” The threat did all the work precisely because nobody would sign it — and no one in power ever demanded to know whether it was real.
The commissioner publicly declared the arena inadequate in 2025. The league joined an urgent call with the Governor and Mayor in February, met the Mayor privately in March, set the deadline for Portland’s loyalty letter, and — per the Mayor’s own account — participated in the back-and-forth from which $573 million emerged. The league’s role appears nowhere in any public presentation to Council.
Put the August 6 admissions beside that timeline and the league’s role sharpens. The Mayor says Portland “used our discussions with the NBA to frame what a market rate deal is.” The state’s $365 million was assembled, by the bill sponsor’s own account, as a message to the league during the sale — so the NBA would tell the incoming owner “it’s a market deal… now you need to stay.” Which means the negotiation did not begin when Portland’s council finally reached the table. It happened months earlier, in rooms where officials believed they were building confidence — because every number a government communicates is an anchor, and every assurance is a bid. By the time the elected body arrived, the opening bids had already been made on the public’s behalf. And the reference price for all of it, “market rate,” was supplied by the seller. A league that controls the supply of thirty franchises does not merely benefit from the comps chart; it manufactures it. Every city’s surrender becomes the next city’s “market.” Portland adopted the counterparty’s definition of a fair price, then hired a consultant to confirm the counterparty would accept it.
The deal, measured
I believe this is the worst modern NBA arena deal an American city has signed. That is a claim about arithmetic, not a slogan, and it is conditional in exactly one way: it describes the term sheet as drafted, and the outcome box above will record what actually passed. On the metrics, as drafted:
- The public share: $573 million of initial capital — roughly the entire construction cost — from City, County and State, for a building whose tenant is owned by a group that just paid over $4 billion for the franchise. Comparable deals: /deals and /councilor-comps.
- The rent: one dollar per year — against roughly $4.5 million in Raleigh under the same owner, $2.4 million in Oklahoma City, $1.6 million in Minneapolis, $1 million in Orlando. The chart: /the-model.
- The building’s own arithmetic: by the City’s internal analysis, only about $80 million of the $482 million twenty-year capital need is tied to NBA basketball — less, by the memo’s own caution, since some of it would still be needed for WNBA and college games — yet the NBA tenant is the argument for the entire package.
- What the public gets back: no guaranteed private minimum anywhere in the term sheet; an arena fund the state’s own revenue office scores as capturing tens of millions per biennium from the general fund; and $11.23 million in actual annual city revenue — the City’s own number. The full accounting: /public-balance-sheet.
“Worst” is a comparative claim and I hold it to comparative discipline: on public share, rent, revenue participation, and enforceable private commitments, I have not found a modern NBA deal that combines all four this unfavorably. Show me one and I will publish the correction, dated, as this site always has.
Added August 8, four days before the term-sheet vote — a prediction, so this page can be graded later. Between now and December this deal will improve, and every improvement will be ranked by its cost to the owner, not its value to the public. What fans pay will move first: the ticket fee. Government accounting will move second: bonding language, fund mechanics. Optics third: reporting. The owner’s own cash will come last and smallest, and the recurring terms — rent, revenue share, naming rights — will not come at all. The deal will improve by roughly the price of the seventh vote, and not a dollar more. If December delivers real rent, a recurring share, or a binding private minimum, I will print this paragraph’s failure beside it.
What we accomplished — and honestly, what we didn’t
Start with the thing that made Portland different, because it is the point of everything else on this page. In every other city on the league’s comps chart, this process happened behind closed doors, and the public learned the price retrospectively — from economists’ post-mortems, years after the ribbon was cut. Portland is, as far as I know, the first city where the extraction was documented in public, in real time, from the government’s own records, while the votes were still open. Portlanders did not have to wait a decade to find out how this was done. You could watch it happen. The owner will very likely get his money. What he did not get was the dark.
What worked
- The record is public before the vote, not after. 879 dated records, cited to the page, while the decision is still open. Whatever happens on the 12th, no one gets to say they didn’t know.
- Things exist in writing because someone kept asking. The economist’s support memo is now acknowledged to exist — and, as of August 10, released and published in full. The seven answers exist in draft. The admissions from two work sessions are on the record. Silence, it turns out, is a statement too — but only if someone counts it.
- The bar moved. County amendments demanding scope before money. Councilors demanding the methodology behind the headline number. Reporters asking who accepted $573 million, and when. I don’t claim credit for all of it. I claim the conversation in August does not resemble the conversation in February — and that was the aim.
- Blazers fans became civic actors — and this is the part I did not expect and care about most. People who came for basketball stayed to read a term sheet. They learned what a guaranteed maximum price is, what revenue sharing means, why a dollar of rent is a policy choice. They testified. They emailed councilors who had never heard from them about anything. A fandom is a civic muscle that mostly gets used for cheering; for six months, Portland’s got used for governing. Whatever the vote says, that muscle is stronger than it was in February, and it does not only work on arenas.
What didn’t
- The number never moved. $573 million entered the process in March and will likely leave it in March’s condition, untouched by public scrutiny — because it was never on the table in public.
- Money still precedes scope. The votes are being taken before the plans exist. That is the failure everything else flows from, and we did not stop it.
- The information regime held. The NDAs, the withheld attachments, the unanswered questions — the asymmetry survived every challenge, including ours.
- The honest one: the fight was probably lost before it started. The decisive window was January to March, inside the sale process, and the public — including me — did not know there was a contest until it was over. That is not despair; it is the single most important lesson here, and it is about process, not effort: a city that only mobilizes when the term sheet appears has already lost.
Who is responsible — and what I call it
Responsibility here is layered, and naming the layers matters more than naming a villain. The league built the structure: thirty franchises, more cities wanting one than have one, and a commissioner whose job is converting that scarcity into member revenue — a job he does exceptionally well, which is an indictment, not a compliment. The sale window was the mechanism: for ninety days the league, the seller, the buyer and the governments all needed the same thing — a closed deal. The league was in that room. The team was in it. Three governments were in it, along with their lobbyists, their consultants and their press advisors. Everyone was in the room but you. The Mayor’s office made the decisive local choice: partnership over negotiation, months before terms. The state supplied speed without scrutiny. The councils and boards treated the information they were denied as an inconvenience rather than a reason to stop the clock.
Beneath them sits the quietest layer: the expert class. A city that needs arena advice hires from the arena industry — consultants who have spent careers on both sides of this table and internalized its rules as physics. Ask them whether a deal is “market rate” and they answer honestly, by their lights: they benchmark it against what other cities gave away. In a market where every prior price was extracted the same way, the comparable-deals method launders the extraction into a standard. The one sentence a city most needs from its advisor — this market is rigged, and the comps prove the rigging, not the price — is the one sentence the industry’s alumni are professionally incapable of writing. Nobody in that room is lying. That is what capture means.
Then there is the personnel chart, because the capture is not only intellectual. The team’s public voice in this fight is a former press secretary for Oregon’s previous governor. The “grassroots” coalition’s media contact is a former deputy chief of staff to the current one — and was the team’s registered lobbyist during the session that produced the $365 million. The City advisor who wrote the saner-timeline memo of January 2024 reappears, two years later, on a Legislature email address, sending the invitation to the meeting where the toolkit was circulated. The Governor’s office sat inside the standing design meetings; a Metro official sat inside the Council President’s drafting thread. None of this is conspiracy — a conspiracy would require secrecy and effort. This is staffing: a small set of people rotating among the offices that were supposed to check one another, until the deal could be done in a back room and handed to the front rooms for the stamp. By the time the public’s representatives got their turn to deliberate, everyone who mattered had already agreed — because everyone who mattered had already worked together.
Within those layers, four names belong on the record together: Wilson, Wagner, Lieber, Vega Pederson. They made the pledges; the record of what they demanded in return is empty. Not thin. Empty. Be precise about that word, because the City did ask. On June 15 the City Attorney put it to the team in writing — how much private capital is the team willing to contribute, what annual rent is it willing to pay, and on what basis. Those questions are in the record, and they are the right questions. But a question is not a demand. Nobody attached a consequence to the answer, the team drafted answers and shelved them because they would not be “well-received,” and the schedule moved on regardless. Asking without a consequence is how a government produces a paper trail instead of a return. I want to name that failure precisely, because it is neither stupidity nor conspiracy: a difficult negotiation was available, and they could not stomach it. Testing the threat, demanding the drawings, holding the money until terms existed — that would have been hard, uncomfortable, slow. Saying yes was easy. So hundreds of millions that could fund the things this city and state say they cannot afford will flow to the arena fund instead, tens of millions per biennium by the state’s own scoring, because comfort won. The ribbon-cutting will be lovely. The invoice arrives for twenty years.
To be precise about what the record does not show: no one pocketing anything, no law broken that I can point to, and small-dollar ethics enforced scrupulously. These are public servants who believe keeping the Blazers is good for Portland — and about that much, they are right. What the record shows is a thing that never needs a lawbreaker: a city’s institutions converted, one meeting at a time, into the delivery mechanism for someone else’s price.
The NBA, under Adam Silver, allows its owners to extort the cities that built its franchises. Not extortion in the criminal sense. The everyday kind: the price of keeping something you love, set by the only seller, on the seller’s schedule, under the stated possibility of losing it, with the evidence held behind the seller’s permission. I do not know a more honest word. [Updated August 7: when I first wrote this, I noted that nobody in the record had used the word. That changed on August 6, when Councilor Angelita Morillo said it from the dais during the amendments session: “it does feel like there are some of us up here who might be getting extorted by the NBA.” An elected official, mid-vote, reaching for the same word.] It has gotten worse as the league has financialized: Forbes valued this franchise at $2.1 billion in 2022; a buyer paid over $4 billion four years later; within months, three governments were assembling $573 million for his building — of which the City’s own engineers can tie $80 million to NBA basketball. These prices stopped tracking buildings long ago. They track valuations, and valuations are exactly what arena subsidies inflate. The machine feeds itself, and the public is the fuel.
Tom Dundon did not build this franchise, this fandom, or thirty years of sellouts. He bought them, the way a financier buys any asset, and his first civic act as owner was routing a demand for half a billion public dollars through three governments while his organization declined, in writing, to answer seven questions about it. He extracts value other people created and calls the extraction a partnership. The uncomfortable part is that none of this requires him to be uniquely bad. Weak elected officials have let the playbook run, city after city, until extracting the maximum available subsidy became every arriving owner’s rational move — and nobody on the public’s side of the table was ever equally incentivized to minimize it. Adam Silver could end it. He is the most capable executive the league has ever had — which is what makes the omission a choice. A commissioner who cared about fans the way the league’s marketing claims would have built the framework years ago: public exposure capped by formula, asks scaled to what a market can bear, a private-capital floor, negotiations in public instead of in sale windows and back rooms. Nothing stops him. He has chosen otherwise, deal after deal, and the choice is as much his legacy as the growth: billions in public money from the very cities the league’s Portland talking points listed as precedents — $940 million in Oklahoma City, $900 million in Salt Lake City, $550 million in Memphis — and now, if this holds, Portland. He knows the economic-development story is not true; the research is as close to unanimous as economics gets, and the league office is not naive. What a city buys with an arena subsidy is the right to keep what its own fans built — fans who already pay at the gate, on the screen, and in the team store, and who are then asked to pay once more, through their governments, for permission to keep paying.
Count one more cost, the one no study will ever price: what this does to a city’s insides. The auction is built to pit Portlanders against one another — fan against taxpayer, the people who love this team against the people who keep the schools and shelters running — and to leave whoever wins feeling vaguely ashamed of winning. That fracture in a city’s sense of itself belongs on Adam Silver’s ledger whether or not he can admit it to himself. The owner is only the beneficiary. The commissioner built the corner the city is trapped in — and a cornered city can be bled indefinitely, because it can neither leave the table nor stop loving the thing being held over it. Yet the corner is weaker than it looks: Sacramento’s voters said no, 71 to 29, in 2006, kept their team for a decade — and when its owners tried to move it, the league itself blocked the move 22–8 and forced a sale to local buyers. The threat is real until it is tested, and it is tested far less often than the league would like you to believe. One last thing, because it is the part I cannot accept: they want to be thanked for it. The team, the league, and the officials who will hold the ribbon all present this transaction as a gift to Portland. You cannot extort a city and call it a favor. Pick one. Read the record at /timeline and choose your own word. Mine is extortion.
What Portland should build instead
The Mayor says Portland needs to prove it can do hard things and build big projects. I agree completely — which is exactly why this process deserves everything written above. A city does not prove it can build by saying yes quickly. It proves it by running a process so predictable and so airtight that everyone — teams, leagues, developers, voters — knows what dealing with Portland means: fair, fast, and priced by evidence.
A public-assets deal charter for Portland
- Scope before money. No vote commits public capital until a scope of work, budget breakdown and risk plan exist — the county’s own amendment language, made standing policy.
- A guaranteed maximum price and named responsibility for overruns, in the first document, not the last.
- The market test. Every operating arrangement for a public venue is priced against third-party operation — the City’s own staff proposed this in an internal memo; it should be policy, not a footnote.
- Transparency by default. No NDA may cover the methodology behind any number presented to a public body; consultant work cited in a public decision becomes public on presentation.
- Information preconditions. A body that has asked written questions does not schedule the vote until they are answered in writing. Silence pauses the clock. It never runs it.
- No borrowed clocks. Deadlines asserted by a counterparty are evidence to be verified, not calendars to be obeyed.
And a national ask — which now exists
Commissioner Silver does not need Portland to design the fix; he has had the power to build it for a decade. He has not, and I have stopped believing that is an oversight — the city-versus-city auction is worth too much to the sellers. So the cities have to force the question. No coalition of host cities has ever jointly demanded a compact with the league. Not once, in the league’s entire history.
So we wrote one. It is called the Fan Compact, and everything I learned reading 8,000 pages is compressed into five rules that would have made this deal impossible:
- Show us the numbers. Before any vote.
- Put in real private money. Owners build with owners’ money first.
- Tell taxpayers what they get back. A number — not a dollar a year.
- Prove relocation threats are real. Or don’t use them.
- Same rules in every city. No more auction.
Read that list against this essay and you can watch each rule catch the thing that actually happened here. Article I is Exhibit A left blank. Article II is the guaranteed private contribution of zero. Article III is the dollar-a-year rent. Article IV is the threat nobody would sign but everybody priced. Article V is the auction that made all four possible — and it is the reason this has to be a league rule rather than a Portland ordinance. One city refusing the ransom just moves the ransom to the next city.
The NBA says its teams are civic institutions. Civic institutions accept civic terms. The question I would put to the league, and the one I hope reporters keep putting to it, is not whether Portland got a bad deal. It is simpler and much harder to duck: which of those five rules is unreasonable?
What remains, concretely
This deal is not over on August 12. The lease negotiation runs through December. A final Council decision follows. The county’s conditions need enforcing, records requests are still pending, and what they return will be added to the timeline. This site stays up, the archive stays public, and corrections will be honored and dated. My own role will shrink — by design. The point was never that one person should have to do this. The point is that no one should have to.
To the fans
One more thing, and it is the thing I care about most. Throughout this process, the deal’s arithmetic has treated Portland’s fandom as worthless — a given, a rounding error, a thing that will show up and pay regardless. Every number in the term sheet prices the team’s scarcity. Not one prices ours.
But an NBA team is only a civic good because a city makes it one. Thirty years of sellouts in a small market. The loudest building in the league, for teams that often didn’t deserve it. Your hours, your money, your best memories — my best memories. That devotion is the asset this entire deal is secured against, and the people who hold it were the only party never represented at the table.
So here is my last request, as I step back. Keep loving this team — that was never the question. But remember what you now know. The record of how this was done exists, in public, with page numbers. The next time someone tells Portland the clock has run out and the price is the price — pull up the record, and start the meeting over.
And do one thing for the city that gets this next. Somewhere right now — Memphis, Milwaukee, Cleveland, San Antonio, a city that doesn’t know it yet — someone is about to spend their summer the way I spent mine, discovering far too late that the number was settled in a room they were never in. They should not have to start from nothing, the way we did. The Fan Compact is what I wish had existed in February: five rules, written down, that a fan in any market can hand to their council before the clock starts.
Owners are organized. Players are organized. We are the only ones who never were — and the only reason any of it is worth anything.