Skip to main content
Rip City, Not Rip Off
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.
← ripcitynotripoff.com
Rip City, Not Rip Off · ripcitynotripoff.com/press

Press & Media

A volunteer Portland campaign on the Moda Center public-funding deal. Keep the Blazers, renovate the arena—and secure an affordable, enforceable public bargain. Our contract review and corrections →

The story in one paragraph

Portland owns the Moda Center. The adopted nonbinding framework proposes $573M in public renovation funding and up to $288.6M in continuing support, subject to stated conditions. Initial annual rent of $3.17M was added on August 12; a proposed $3M tax offset has different timing and escalation rules. A reconciled financing plan, complete project budget, new private capital and enforceable obligations remain central questions for the final documents. The campaign asks Council to publish the complete bargain and secure the 46 public requirements before binding approval. Funding definitions and sources →

Contact

Reach us — same-day response to press

Edan Krolewicz & Jonathan Pulvers, organizers

Message us on Bluesky: @ripcitynotripoff.bsky.social — happy to go on the record, walk through the documents, or brief your desk.

Quote sheet — attributable to the organizers

A volunteer Portland campaign on the Moda Center public-funding deal. Keep the Blazers, renovate the arena—and secure an affordable, enforceable public bargain. Our contract review and corrections →

— Rip City, Not Rip Off

“Portland owns this building. The owner pays a dollar a year, just sold the team for $4.25 billion, and is being asked to put no base capital into construction. Peer arena deals routinely return rent, revenue, private capital, or some combination. Council holds the leverage — under the law, no public money moves until the City signs. They should use it.”

— Rip City, Not Rip Off

“We’re not asking Council to kill the deal. The term sheet passed August 12 — amended, on the record, to add real rent. We’re asking Council to publish the definitive documents 30 days before the December vote and land them inside a market range. There’s time to get this right.”

— Rip City, Not Rip Off

Press kit

High-resolution chart exports and the verified 16-deal dataset are available on request via Bluesky.

Watch — the case, in clips

Campaign co-founder Edan Krolewicz on the Wake Up Rip City podcast (July 2026), in ten segments — each plays the exact excerpt, timestamped for verification. Full episode →

Should Portland run a competitive bid for the arena operating agreement?
at 41:55 · 2:28 · YouTube
Would you buy a house without seeing the Zillow listing?
at 7:07 · 0:37 · YouTube
Investing in the arena is a terms question, not a vibes question
at 16:56 · 2:12 · YouTube
Why Portland’s situation is nothing like Seattle
at 19:38 · 2:53 · YouTube
Why the relocation threat is incredibly low
at 25:19 · 2:43 · YouTube
Fans need to stop freaking out and giving away the city’s leverage
at 31:31 · 1:22 · YouTube
Why is the Mayor saying we don’t have the details of the deal?
at 33:02 · 1:49 · YouTube
How much does relocation cost Dundon?
at 38:26 · 1:44 · YouTube
Do we lose the state money if we delay?
at 40:32 · 1:08 · YouTube
Is there an end in sight? How does this get resolved?
at 34:50 · 3:10 · YouTube

Questions reporters should ask before Aug. 12

The missing deal terms
  1. Will the term sheet include owner/operator capital, rent, or substitute rent?
  2. Will the public share in new premium-seat, naming-rights, sponsorship, parking, ticket-fee, or district revenue?
  3. Which PCEF-funded line items are climate outcomes, who owns the improvements, and who keeps operating savings?
  4. Is the PFM funding summary (surfaced July 9) the State’s answer to SB 1501 §6(2)(a) — and if so, where is the deal-terms review (rent, relocation, revenue shares) it describes? Will it be public before the vote?
  5. If relocation risk is driving concessions, what written relocation BATNA has the City reviewed?

These questions are tracked in the public-protection matrix.

The City’s June 9 page vs. the City’s own documents

The City's facts page is a start — here are five places it doesn't match the City's own documents. Not a hot take. Just the numbers.

The City’s later scenario

The June 3 memorandum puts its adjusted twenty-year current-operations scenario at approximately $482M.

How that relates to the workbook

The original workbook has $252.9M in listed 2024-basis costs and a $504.9M scheduled forecast that already includes assumed escalation. The City’s later deductions produce different scopes. None is a verified one-time transformation price or repair debt. Read the reconciliation · Full workbook · City memo

The City says

The arena “generates $600 million for the local economy.”

The City's consultant says

That's “total output” — gross churn. The same study puts actual tax revenue to all state and local government at $17.9M a year ($11.3M from the Blazers), and almost half the headline is a modeled multiplier on money nobody spent. The numbers, decoded →

The City says

“No money would go to the Trail Blazers or their ownership.”

What the study can establish

Paying for building work can also improve commercial spaces used by the operator. The report explicitly discusses premium experiences and per-person spending. That purpose does not establish exclusive benefit, profitability or legal responsibility for every expense. Read the source passages · Full workbook

The City says

The state has committed to contribute up to $365 million.

The enrolled bill says

“The State of Oregon and the Legislative Assembly do not have a legal obligation to deposit moneys in the fund… The Legislative Assembly declares its current intention to issue debt instruments sufficient to yield $365,000,000” (SB 1501 §3(4)). An intention is not a commitment — so the City should not make binding commitments against a non-binding one. Council's obligations should be expressly conditioned on actual bond issuance.

The City says

“To fulfill the bond requirements, a new lease… must be signed by December 2026. Without this, the City will not receive State funding.”

The enrolled laws say

Neither law contains that deadline — and the City's page cites no statute for it. SB 5701's first $200M of bonding authority runs through June 30, 2027 (§4); the remaining $165M is already enacted for the biennium starting July 1, 2027 (§6); SB 1501 has no date at all. If December slips, OPB itself reports lawmakers “have a chance to introduce an identical bill” in the session convening mid-January — and the City's same page schedules the binding vote for Q1 2027. The deadline, fact-checked →

How we got here — a sourced timeline

Who we are

Rip City, Not Rip Off is a volunteer-run, unfunded campaign by Portland residents and Blazers fans. We take no money from any team, the City, or a competing developer. We read the bills, ran the numbers, and publish our sources — and we correct ourselves on the record when we get something wrong.

In the press: KATU · KGW · Willamette Week · CBS Sports

ripcitynotripoff.com · Press contact: @ripcitynotripoff.bsky.social. Every figure on this site is sourced to an enacted statute, an executed contract, a verified peer deal, or the City’s own study; primary documents are hosted on the site.

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 relocation shouldn't be treated as proven leverage without evidence. The early reporting was thin, and the timeline left little room for public scrutiny. 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