Skip to main content
Rip City, Not Rip Off
Read it, then say it on the record. Email your city councilors →
Updated context: the September 8 contract review
September 8 contract review. Historical quotations and events below remain attributed to their dates. Our current analysis corrects maintenance valuation, funding totals, naming and parking definitions, guarantees and takeover rights. Read the corrections and current evidence; see the revised 46-entry Register.
The evidence library

Every claim on this site traces to a document

Contracts, statutes, the City’s own studies, and disclosed models — organized by the question you’re asking. Start anywhere; every page carries its own sources, and every figure carries one of four badges, so you always know what kind of claim you are reading.

VerifiedA primary document says it. Read the document and you need nobody’s interpretation, including ours.
CalculatedArithmetic from verified inputs. The inputs and the method are both shown.
ModeledReported or assumed, with the outlet named in the text. Change the assumptions and the answer changes.
UnpricedThe records needed to settle it do not exist publicly yet. We say so rather than guess.
If you read three pages: the Public Balance Sheet (who pays, who collects) → the City’s Draft, Scored (what’s on the table) → the Fair-Deal Terms (what to demand instead). As of September 28, 2026, the August 12 term sheet, as amended, is adopted and nonbinding; the binding documents are due by December 31, with a Council vote targeted for December 17. Corrections are dated in the correction record.

What kind of thing is it?

Everything in this library is one of three things, and the difference matters more than any single number.

The 2024 bridge deal

What the City signed when it bought the arena — and what those documents already decided.

Money & revenue

Who pays for the building, and who keeps what it earns.

Renovation costs

The study’s categories, priorities and recommendations, with every source row available to inspect.

Economic impact

What the headline claims dissolve into when you read the study they cite.

Relocation leverage

What leaving would actually cost, and what protections belong in writing.

Comparable deals

What every peer city negotiated — and the market test Portland hasn’t run.

History & the record

How the public’s stake was built — and what officials have already admitted.

Skip us entirely

Read them yourself. These are the documents every page on this site is built from.

How these numbers fit together
$573MProposed public renovation portion: State $365M, City $120M, County $88M. The adopted negotiating documents still need a reconciled funding plan and complete project budget. Proposal verified
Up to $288.6MContinuing contribution ceilings: City $275M plus County $13.6M. Annual limits and actual-receipt conditions matter; these are not unconditional cash commitments. Proposal verified
$861.6M$573M + $288.6M: combined nominal framework ceilings before financing costs. This is neither a present value nor a binding all-in expenditure. Do not add repayment of the same borrowed principal twice. Calculated
$3.17M + $3MProposed initial annual rent and tax-offset payment. Rent begins at the specified post-renovation commencement and escalates by the lesser of CPI-W or 3%; the tax offset grows 5%. Start dates, recipients and credits still matter. These are not the public’s only receipts. Proposal verified
UnvaluedThe maintenance claim, new commercial rights and operating alternatives require legal, engineering and financial valuation. A lifecycle cost estimate is not a damages award; gross venue revenue is not profit.

Verified describes what a source says, not that a proposed obligation is signed or funded. The reconciled ledger and sources →

Each page in the library carries its own sources and method; bridge-lease citations (§) are to the executed 2024 documents under Ordinance 191857.