Make a deal, not a donation. Email your city councilors →
The Opportunity Cost · Portland's real leverage

How much is keeping the Blazers worth to Portland?

The deal asks the public for ~$900M over 20 years — and $0 from the owner. So what’s the team worth to you? Drag your number.
$450M what you’d pay to keep the team, over 20 years
$0Walk away —
bid the building out
~$900MSign the deal —
owner pays $0

Vs. Dundon’s offer

$450M too much

By your number, Dundon’s ~$900M deal costs $450M more than the Blazers are worth — and he chips in $0.

Where the difference could go

~$23M / yr

Public money that, by your own number, didn’t need to go to the arena. For scale, the deal already pulls ~$36–41M a year out of Oregon’s General Fund — schools, parks, public safety — into a fund that can only be spent on this building; the County is adding ~$88M while facing an ~$80M budget hole.

The deal’s ~$900M is the conservative 20-year public cost (the full range is $880M–$1.11B). “Walk away” means bidding the publicly-owned building to a competitive operator — which can run it at a profit (the full ledger and the operator comparison are below). Only the owner can decide to move the team; this is about what the public should pay to keep it.

Over 20 years, here is the entire choice — in two numbers.
Sign this deal
−$880Mto −$1.11B
total public cost · 20 years
−$44 to −$56M / year
for $0 in rent, naming or revenue share
vs
Say no — bid the building out
−$164Mto ~$0
total public cost · 20 years
−$8M to ~$0 / year
+ rent & naming a competitive operator pays
And that’s only the cash. Hold the owner to what his signed lease already requires — the $164–600M “first-class” duty plus his ~$18M repair match — and the per-year math flips:
−$53 to −$87M/yr
with the deal — even deeper underwater
+$1 to +$31M/yr
without it — the City comes out ahead

A ~$1 billion difference over 20 years — the price of this deal, not the team. Make the owner honor what he already owes, and saying no doesn’t just cost less — it pays. The leverage figures aren’t soft — the owner’s signed lease already requires them. Only their exact dollar value turns on scope, so we keep them above the audit-proof floor rather than bake them in.

The whole ledger — with the team, and without

The Blazers are worth a fortune. This deal is really about one thing — who keeps that money:

~$100M+/yr
the operator makes off the building — gate, concerts, naming
$1/yr
his rent for the arena Portland owns
~$4.3M
all the public sees of it

So here is the full accounting — every line, both ways — with one yearly number per column you can multiply by 20. The bottom line is at the very end.

Confidence on every line: High public record / enacted law / executed lease  ·  Med sourced estimate  ·  Est modeled — terms not public.  Offsetting lines are marked “↔”.

Line itemWith the Blazersthe proposed dealWithoutnew operator, City’s buildingConf.
1 · Public capital & financing — annualized
State bond repayment$531–623M debt service over the life, avg ~$29M/yr (Oregon LFO). The $365M is net proceeds — a declared intention, not a legal obligation (SB 1501 §3(4)) — repaid by diverting income-tax growth out of the General Fund (LRO).−~$29M/yr$0High
City capital + enhanced upkeep$120M capital + ~$280–285M upkeep pledge (~$14M/yr). Without: only baseline upkeep on a building it already owns.−~$20M/yr$0Med
County contribution~$88M (~$130M w/ interest, Comm. Moyer’s est.) over 20 yrs — against the county’s ~$80M four-year deficit.−~$6M/yr$0Med
Real repairs the building needs either way↔ the ~$164M first-class / life-safety floor. With the deal it’s buried inside the $600M; without, the public pays it pay-as-you-go — or a competitive operator funds it.in the $600M−~$8M/yrMed
Subtotal — public capital−$44 to $56M/yr−$8M to ~$0/yr
2 · Public operating revenue — per year · as recited June 24, pending confirmation vs. the recording
Blazers user fees↔ lost if the team leaves+$2.9M$0Med
Non-Blazers user feesalready larger than the Blazers’ slice — the City keeps this either way+$4.3M+$4.3MMed
ParkingBlazers $1.4M + non-Blazers ~$2.5M; the non-Blazers share persists+$3.9M+$2.5MMed
Coliseum, rents & visitor-facilities IGA$0.65M + $1.2M + $0.53M — unchanged either way+$2.4M+$2.4MMed
Rent from the operator↔ a competitive operator pays real rent the $1 deal doesn’t — modeled, terms not public+$1/yr+$2–6M/yrEst
Naming + revenue share to the City↔ the deal routes naming 100% to the operator; a bid could share it — modeled, terms not public$0+$3–7M/yrEst
Subtotal — operating revenue~+$13.5M/yr~+$9.2M + operator (modeled)
3 · Other costs, leverage & tax
Operating cost of the buildinghistorically near break-even — the fees above ≈ cover opex, so operating roughly washes and the capital line is the real swing≈ revenue≈ revenueMed
Property tax forgoneORS 307.171 sports-facility exemption — identical either way; the building stays public−$1.2M/yr−$1.2M/yrMed
“First-class” repair claim (§10.2)↔ the lease makes the operator keep the arena NBA-caliber at his own cost — a ~$164M repair floor ranging up toward the full ~$600M renovation (Councilor Novick asked why the City hasn’t sued for it). The deal asks the City to forgive that claim; without, it’s kept as leverage. Contested & tolled — leverage, not booked cash.−$164–600M+$164–600MMed
Operator’s 50/50 match + clawback (§10.9)↔ for the ~4 yrs the bridge lease still runs, the operator funds capital with the City’s reimbursement capped at ~$4.6M/yr (~$18M over 4 yrs; last year’s match was ~$4.5M) and repays the City if the team leaves (§10.9.1). The deal erases the match and the cap — the public funds 100%.$0+~$18M/ 4 yrsMed
State income tax if the team leavesthe Blazers’ payroll tax is diverted to the Arena Fund regardless (captured as an “operating organization,” SB 1501 §4); leaving simply keeps the smaller event/away-team tax in the General Fund — how the diversion worksdivertedstays in GFMed
4 · Jobs — direction only (no salary figures; the softest data)
Event-day hourly (concessions, ushers, security)roughly a wash; slightly less consistent scheduling without a set NBA seasonbaseline≈ washEst
Full-time building operationsunchanged to slightly up — a concert calendar needs more active booking & marketingbaseline≈ / upEst
Team front officethe real loss if the team leaves — but the same owner already cut more than 70 business-office staff (incl. a senior VP), weeks before asking the public for ~$600M (KOIN / Willamette Week). Scrutinize the counterparty — not the team.▼ already cutting▼ lostMed
Skilled production / stagehands (IATSE)up — concerts are far more production-intensive than basketballbaseline▲ moreEst

Reading it honestly. The ~$12M/yr the City collects in fees and parking roughly covers the ordinary cost of running a building it already owns (historically near break-even), so the real swing is the capital: this deal commits $880M–$1.11B of new public money for $0 in new rent, naming or revenue share, while the alternative commits ~$0 (the real ~$164M of repairs are owed either way). The Without column’s operator rent, naming and revenue-share lines are modeled ranges — a public owner provably can collect them (Seattle keeps its arena and charges OVG rent; D.C., Orlando, Milwaukee and San Antonio all collect rent on theirs), but the exact Portland figure isn’t public, so we never sum it into a headline. FY24-25 fee & parking figures are as recited at the June 24 work session, pending confirmation against the official recording. Peer splits are detailed in /deals; the term-by-term value of a fair deal is in /terms.

The Blazers aren’t the ceiling. The operator is.

A publicly-owned building is only worth as much as how hard it’s worked. The Blazers’ own affiliate runs Moda as a basketball arena with events on the side. A professional operator runs the building as the business — and the gap shows up in the numbers.

~$90M / yr
what Oak View Group grosses at Moody Center — a comparable arena with no NBA team at all

Moody Center in Austin has no NBA or NHL tenant — just a college basketball team. A professional operator books it to ~140 ticketed events and ~$90M a year, and it won Pollstar’s Arena of the Year in 2024 and Billboard’s #1 spot in its size class. The building thrives on events alone — the very thing Portland is told it needs a billion-dollar team subsidy to protect.

Moda Center — run by Rip City Management (the team’s own affiliate)
  • ~150 events a year — the City’s own figure.
  • A ~30-year-old building its own backers say touring acts now bypass — “because the arena can’t meet modern production needs.”
  • Run by the team’s affiliate, whose priority is the ~41 basketball nights — not filling the other 300.
Moody Center — run by Oak View Group (no NBA team)
  • ~140 ticketed events + ~$90M gross a year.
  • Pollstar Arena of the Year, 2024; Billboard’s #1 venue in its size class.
  • A dedicated operator whose entire business is keeping the building full.

And Portland isn’t too small. It’s a bigger TV market than Austin (#23 vs #34), with a nearly identical metro. Arenas that do have an NBA team book even more — the United Center and Madison Square Garden run 200–320 events a year. The Blazers’ ~41 dates are additive to a full calendar, not a substitute for one. What caps Moda isn’t the market or the team — it’s who runs it, and how hard. And here’s the tell: the City’s own pitch for the renovation is “acts bypass Portland, we need more shows.” Exactly — so bid the building to an operator whose whole job is filling it, and make them pay to run it, the way Seattle did.

Sources & method

Moda Center’s ~150 events/year and the “touring acts bypass Portland / can’t meet modern production needs” framing are the City’s and Blazers’ own, from the 2026 renovation materials (portland.gov/council/moda-facts) and KOIN’s reporting. Moody Center figures — ~140 ticketed events, ~$89.8M gross, 854K paid attendance (FY2025), Pollstar Arena of the Year 2024, Billboard #1 in its size class (2022/2024/2025) — from Billboard / CultureMap and moodycenteratx.com. Market ranks: Nielsen DMA #23 Portland vs #34 Austin. Anchored-arena counts (United Center, MSG: ~200–320 events) from venue reporting. Honest caveat: Moda’s operator publicly reports strong concert sell-through (83–94%), so the point is the building’s dated infrastructure and lost tours — conceded by the renovation’s own backers — plus the headroom a professional operator captures, not that Moda sits empty. “~150” (Moda) and “~140 ticketed” (Moody) are counted differently across sources; treat as directional, not a precise head-to-head.

The ~$900M is a premium — not a repair bill

Actually keeping Portland’s arena sound and safe costs about $164M, pay-as-you-go. This deal commits more than six times that. The gap is a premium — the price of keeping the team on the owner’s terms:

$1–1.1B
what the deal commits, over 20 years
$164M
to actually keep the arena sound — pay-as-you-go, no bond
~$900M
the premium to keep the team, on the owner’s terms

Even on the most conservative public count, the premium is ~$720M — still the single largest line in the deal.

The honest questionIt isn’t whether the Blazers are worth something. It’s whether ~$900M — with $0 from the owner — is the right price, when every peer city’s owner paid 18–62% of the renovation and the public kept ownership.

 Take the dealSay no — run it as ours
Public cost, 20 yrs~$1.0–1.1B committed~$164M to maintain our own building — pay-as-you-go, no bond
Operator pays$0 private capitalStays bound by his “first-class” upkeep duty (his sole cost), plus a ~$20–25M clawback if he leaves
Public’s return$0 — no rent, share, or namingKeeps the option to bid it out (peers got 18–62%) and every non-Blazers dollar
If the Blazers leaveLocked into the commitment to keep themA small, largely-offsettable loss (~$3–8M/yr) — far below the “$670M” rhetoric
The premium~$900M on top of upkeep$0 premium — but the team-retention guarantee is forfeited

Held honest: the premium isn’t pure waste — the deal side also buys ~25 years of team retention the maintain-only path forfeits. The point isn’t that keeping the team is worthless; it’s that ~$900M, with nothing from the owner, is a steep way to buy it when peers paid far less and made the operator chip in.

He already owes a first-class arena — at his own cost

This is the clause the new owner wants erased — because the lease defines “first-class” about as expansively as a contract can. In its own words:

Lease §10.2 — Operations & MaintenanceThe operator must maintain the arena “as a first-class improvement… consistent with the Operating Standard.”
“Operating Standard” — defined term“an operating standard suitable for professional basketball arenas in the NBA to serve as the home facility for NBA teams… consistent with the standards of quality and performance that exist at the pertinent time.”
Lease §5.4 — Maintenance, Repair & ReplacementMaintained “at Tenant’s sole cost… in first class operating condition… clean and attractive.”

In plain English: whatever today’s NBA standard requires, the operator is already contractually bound to provide — and to pay for it himself. The “first-class” upgrades the public is being asked to fund for ~$600M are, by the contract’s own words, his obligation. That is why the City quietly agreed not to enforce it in 2024, why the new owner wants it erased in a new lease, and why Councilor Novick asked on June 24: “Why haven’t we filed a lawsuit asking for $600 million?”

The honest caveat: the City tolled (paused) enforcement during the bridge term, so it’s pressable at lease-end, not today; and the “equivalent age” language gives the operator a defense on the exact scope — so the figure (the ~$164M repair floor up toward the full renovation) would be settled or litigated. But the obligation itself is in black and white. Read §10.2 / §5.4 in the lease →

Owners pay. Portland's deal is the outlier.

A publicly-owned arena can be bid out — cities do it. The precedents split into two honest tiers: full rebuilds a private operator financed 100%, and comparable renovations where the operator funded 18–62% of the capital. Portland's scope sits in the renovation tier — where the realistic target is a real operator share, not $0.

The operator's share of the capital, by city
Portlandproposed0%
Indianapolis18%
Atlanta26%
Washington DC36%
Cleveland62%
Seattlefull rebuild100%

Comparable publicly-owned arenas. Renovations landed the operator at 18–62%; full rebuilds at 100%. Portland's proposal: nothing.

Arena (public-owned)Operator's capital shareHow it was selected
Full redevelopment — operator financed 100% (the demonstrated ceiling)
Climate Pledge Arena — Seattle~$1.15B (100%)Competitive RFP; City kept ownership, long-term lease; OVG absorbed all overruns
UBS Arena — Belmont, NY~$1.1B (100%)State RFP; public land via ground lease (~$2.24M/yr + ~$50M upfront)
Comparable renovation — operator funded 18–62% (Portland's realistic band)
Rocket Mortgage FieldHouse — Cleveland~$115M (62%)Negotiated; team absorbed all overruns
Little Caesars Arena — Detroit~$539M (60%)Negotiated DDA deal (weak public revenue return otherwise)
Capital One Arena — Washington, D.C.$285M (36%)P3 sale-leaseback; team funded its share + all overruns
State Farm Arena — Atlanta$50M+ (26%+)Negotiated; team absorbed overruns; $200M+ non-relocation penalty
Indianapolis (Gainbridge)~$65M (18%)Negotiated; team capital share + commitments
PROPOSED Moda Center — Portland$0 (0%)Negotiated, no competitive bid; $1/yr rent; no rent, revenue share, naming share, or relocation penalty to the public

Full-redevelopment figures (Seattle, Belmont) are larger, newer buildings — shown as proof that a publicly-owned arena can be bid out with zero public construction dollars, not as Portland's target. The renovation tier is the apples-to-apples comparison for Portland's ~$253M scope. Peer figures sourced on /deals; private-investment figures from public reporting.

The deal is worse than the lease already in force

You don't have to imagine a fairer arrangement — Portland signed one in 2024.

The lease in force — 2024 bridge
  • The operator does the capital work and pays for it.
  • The City reimburses at most 50% — capped at the Blazers-game fees + parking it collects (~$4.6M/yr).
  • “All capital costs… beyond the City’s limited contribution are the responsibility of Rip City Management” (§10.9).
  • If the Blazers leave, the operator repays the City (§10.9.1).
The proposed deal
  • $365M+ from the public.
  • $0 from the operator.
  • No clawback if the team leaves.

So the proposed deal isn’t just below market — it’s a downgrade from the contract Portland is operating under right now. That’s the flip Councilor Avalos named on June 24: “I will not accept anything less than half.”

Sources & method

Public commitments: Oregon LFO Fiscal Impact and Legislative Revenue Office Revenue Impact for SB 1501/SB 5701; the Mayor's Office “ModaFuture” page; reporting from OPB, KGW, and the Oregonian. The City's collected fees and parking are the FY 2024-25 figures stated on the record at the June 24 work session, cross-checked against the Crossroads Consulting study (City-reported). Peer-arena capital shares and the bridge-lease §10.9 terms are sourced across /deals, /terms, /renovation, and /economic-impact. Caveats we hold ourselves to: the $1.02–1.11B range is an estimate that includes full projected bond interest (a conservative public count tops $880M); the ~$36–41M/yr General Fund figure is a per-year average of the LRO's per-biennium numbers; the first-class duty (~$164M face) is leverage the owner’s signed lease already grants, not recoverable cash; and competitive-bid private investment is upside the City could pursue, not money already booked. We never present an estimate as a fact, and we'll correct anything the records contradict.

Owning a billion-dollar asset is a responsibility.
Making it sweat is the job.

The Council doesn't have to choose between the Blazers and a fair deal. It has to do the one thing a steward of public property must: refuse to commit ~$1 billion until the public gets value for what it owns. The alternative is priced. The leverage is real. Use it.

Tell the Council to make it sweat →