New Angels owner plans $2.5B Anaheim stadium, according to nobody at all, apparently

Following Tuesday’s announcement of the sale of controlling interest in the Los Angeles Angels to multi-sport team owner Stan Kroenke, Forbes baseball writer Barry Bloom wrote this:

Kroenke intends to build a new $2.5 billion ballpark to replace aging and decaying Angel Stadium, which opened in 1966 and has been refurbished at least twice.

Bloom gave no source at all for this information, which was rapidly repeated across the journotweetosphere. But then, just a few hours later, that sentence disappeared from Bloom’s article entirely; the Wayback Machine was down yesterday so there’s no record there of the original version, but Angels Substack newsletter Beyond the Halo got a screengrab:

Weirdly, there’s no notice on the Forbes site that the article has been revised. (There’s also no correction of Bloom’s spelling of “empresario,” but that’s another issue.) And Bloom’s X posts are still up insisting that Kroenke is building this phantom stadium “in Anaheim” and is “not going to renovate again” because Angel Stadium “has infrastructure problems and needs to be replaced,” again all without citing any sources.

Presumably this, let’s be generous and call it “information,” is all coming from somewhere, whether that’s Kroenke henchmonkeys or somewhere else. (Bloom has a long track record as an access journalist, so much of his reporting needs to be treated as somewhere unknowable on the spectrum between unverified fact and planted PR slop.) The bigger question now becomes: Who wants us to believe that Kroenke has a $2.5 billion Anaheim stadium up his sleeve, and why are they trying to disseminate that information via Forbes — and what changed over several hours yesterday that Forbes had to take down the claim?

As with any handwavy stadium proclamation, there are tons of additional questions, starting with “Who’s going to pay the alleged $2.5 billion?” and “Is Kroenke going to make another go at getting development rights to the city-owned Big A parking lots, state law requiring affordable housing to be prioritized there be damned?” Kroenke, thanks to marrying a Walmart heiress, is rich enough to buy and sell Croesus before breakfast, so he can certainly afford to pay for a stadium himself, as he did for the Los Angeles Rams; he also almost certainly won’t want to if he can find a way to get some public money to help defray his costs. The Athletic reported on Tuesday that Anaheim Mayor Ashleigh Aitken said she’s “very hopeful that [Kroenke is] going to want to work with the city to come up with a really innovative development plan that would benefit the residents,” which doesn’t really tell us much of anything, but at least it’s a statement with a name attached that hasn’t been memory holed in the last two days, that’s a start, more actual reporting to follow, one hopes.

UPDATE: Bloom speaks!

I’m sorry for any confusion on this. The paragraph was removed because a spokesperson for Kroenke said the company was not ready to move forward on a new ballpark at this time, but might in the future. That has now been so noted in the third graph of the column for full transparency.

The new note on the article now reads:

09/03/2026 Information about building a new ballpark was removed from this story on Wednesday because a spokesperson for Kroenke said the Angels were not ready to move forward on the project at this time, but might in the future.

Bloom didn’t indicate, in either his X post or the article note, who told him that Kroenke intended to build not just a stadium, but a $2.5 billion stadium in Anaheim, if a Kroenke spokesperson said it wasn’t the case. Curiouser and curiouser…

AND MORE UPDATE: “I stand by my source who’s highly grounded in MLB and never gives me bad info. So I fully expect Kroenke to build a new ballpark in the Anaheim area,” writes Bloom in a followup X post. So this is supposedly someone well placed who knows Kroenke’s plans even though Kroenke denies them, but Bloom can’t tell us who it is, so we just have to trust that everyone here is being honest and not trying to spin things for their own reasons. This is typically the kind of thing that requires writers to confirm with multiple sources before publishing, but maybe Forbes has different standards (and X clearly does).

Share this post:

D-backs exec calls lease talks “non-productive,” “draconian,” would like his $600m check already

Arizona Diamondbacks stadium renovation talks appear to be at a standstill again, with team CEO Derrick Hall telling Axios that lease talks with Maricopa County have been “non-productive to date” and that “we need language that is not draconian in nature and reflects the spirit of that legislation without renegotiating it.”

The legislation in question is last year’s bill providing $500 million in state sales and income tax money for renovating the D-backs stadium, though the total could end up being more than $600 million once future increases are taken into account. That was all contingent on the team signing a new lease, something very little has been reported on over the ensuing 14 months; according to the Axios bulletisticle, sticking points include that team owner Ken Kendrick meets state procurement rules and guarantees that he’ll put in $250 million of his own money that he’s promised, which Hall now seems to be characterizing as trying to renegotiate the deal rather than trying to fill in everything that wasn’t decided at the time.

Either way, Kendrick has 600 million reasons to want to get a lease done, and Hall didn’t make any threats about what would happen if the stalemate continues, something he’s never hesitated to do in the past. So this should get hashed out eventually, unless

I wouldn't be surprised if the D-Backs are seeing what the Rays and Royals are getting for new ballparks, and switch to seeking more money for a replacement rather than a renovation.

J.C. Bradbury (@jcbradbury.com) 2026-09-02T12:45:48.530Z

Jeez, J.C., don’t give them any ideas! Though if Kendrick really did tear up his current deal and try for a new, bigger one, that might give Arizona elected officials the chance to get out of their $600 million obligation, maybe? Admittedly, it never seems to work out that way, but there’s a first time for everything.

Share this post:

Friday roundup: Plano residents to vote on $700m Stars arena subsidy, Bears still playing hard to get with IL and IN

In case you missed it, sports economist/meme master J.C. Bradbury has a new book on sports subsidy deals due out soon: This One Will Be Different details the latest in stadium and arena deals and why they never pay off for the public, with a particular focus on the Atlanta Braves‘ extraction of money from Cobb County for a new stadium just 17 years after getting their last one, which he had a front row seat for. And for the run up to the publication date, Bradbury has been building out his sports economics website with all sorts of fresh goodies: FAQs on stadium economics and how stadiums are funded, links to academic studies and presentations, and even a series of YouTube shorts on the lessons of past deals and the prospects for future ones. Check it out, it’s entertaining and eye-opening rabbit holes all the way down!

But don’t go just yet, because first we have another week of stadium and arena news to get through:

Share this post:

Portland okays spending $120m on Blazers arena renovation if Dundon agrees to pay rent and PILOTs

After months of public debate, the Portland city council voted 8-4 yesterday to approve spending $120 million toward renovations to the Trail Blazers arena, plus $275 million for upgrades over the next 20 years. But the term sheet it approved included several major new conditions — most prominently, that the team start paying rent, starting at $3.1 million a year and rising by up to 3% a year, as well as payments in lieu of property taxes on the tax-exempt land around the arena, starting at $3 million a year and rising by 5% a year. The team must also agree to cover any cost overruns.

None of those provisions in the final term sheet were in the original one, and they could end up being pretty significant. With the rent and PILOT payments set to increase over time, they should be worth about $110 million in present value to the city, roughly $50 million from the rent and $60 million from the PILOTs because of the different escalation percentages. And while it’s hard to exactly credit these as a windfall for city taxpayers — paying rent on the building you’re a tenant in and property taxes on the land you’re using are usually just what’s expected of everybody — they are additions to the term sheet that would mostly cover the city’s debt payments on its $120 million in arena construction costs. And as for the $275 million in upgrades, that would mostly be covered by ticket taxes, which as we’ve explained here previously largely end up coming out of team owners’ pockets because microeconomics.

This doesn’t make the Blazers plan a good deal for Portland, but it would make it a far better deal. Councilor Angelita Morillo, one of the four no votes, called the revised plan “still the worst deal in the country,” which is almost certainly wrong given some other recent examples, and added “the public is getting fleeced,” which is absolutely correct, especially given that state and county taxpayers would still be on the hook for another $480 million. And it could still get worse in upcoming talks with the team: Yes vote Steve Novick said yesterday, “I’ve already signaled that I’d be willing to accept something that’s arguably less,” which is really not the way you want to start off negotiations.

Still, the Portland council did something all too rare: Presented with a plan that would have poured tax money into the local sports billionaire’s pockets under threat of the team leaving town, they decided to use their leverage as the team’s best option to play in to demand that the billionaire cough up at least some money toward the project, no matter how much he said he wasn’t gonna. And Blazers execs didn’t immediately shoot it down, with team president of business operations Dewayne Hankins issuing a fairly conciliatory (for him) statement that said, in part, “We look forward to continuing to work with the City’s negotiating team in good faith, addressing the issues that remain and finding a resolution that allows all of us to move forward together.” That’s not an acceptance of the city’s rent and PILOT demands, but it’s not “Tom Dundon’s way or the highway” either. One thumb up to the council for at least trying to get something significant for taxpayers, rather than just rearranging deck chairs — how much they stick to their guns from here will determine if they can earn the other thumb.

Share this post:

Arenas that have lost NBA or NHL teams turn out to have done just fine

For anyone who holds to the belief that sports fans are mindless boosters who want their elected officials to keep their beloved team owners (or just beloved team’s owners) happy no matter what the cost, I present you with Blazer’s Edge, the SB Nation fan site for the Portland Trail Blazers. Site editor Dave Deckard yesterday did something that the rest of the local media hasn’t yet: He assigned a reader/contributor who goes by the handle BlazerTag (possibly Ryan Whitledge, who used to host a podcast by that name) to investigate whether the Blazers leaving town would really result in an economic and fiscal catastrophe for Portland, with the city left with “a skeleton building, unused and rotting.” And the answer is: If the experience of other cities is to be believed, Portland would be just fine.

The former NHL home of the Arizona Coyotes has been without its anchor tenant since 2022; they’ve moved onto the greener pastures of Salt Lake City. To see how bad the finances got in the immediate aftermath, let’s hear from Glendale City Manager Kevin Phelps.

“The venue (Desert Diamond Arena) smashed its all-time record for revenue after the (Coyotes’) departure,” Phelps said. “The next year, they beat that number by almost $10 million.”

Glendale, you may recall, had an especially horrific lease with the Coyotes, under which the city had to pay the team to play there. Portland, meanwhile, has an especially horrific lease with the Blazers, under which team owner Tom Dundon doesn’t pay any rent or share any arena revenues.

At the peak of their popularity, the Warriors left Oracle Arena in Oakland for a new facility in San Francisco: the Chase Center. So what happened to Oracle (now called Oakland Arena) when the Warriors left? It had its best fiscal year ever and reduced its operating deficit by 97% between 2019 to 2023.

The Bay Area doesn’t have a ton of arenas — it’s basically the Warriors’ new arena in San Francisco and their old one in Oakland (not counting San Jose, the South Bay is really a different market [EDIT: or maybe one market but a really sprawly one or 1.5 markets or something, see comments if this is important to you]) — so getting the Warriors out of the way has been a blessing in disguise for the Oakland arena. Nobody ever talks much about San Francisco as an NHL expansion or relocation market despite its huge population, and this is likely one of the reasons. (The last attempt going extremely poorly would be another.)

KeyArena turned a bigger profit than it ever did with the Sonics. It happened the same way it did in Glendale and Oakland when their anchor tenants left: by freeing up the stadium revenue the sports teams were hoarding for themselves.

It goes on like that, but you get the idea. This is, in fact, a common theme in arena finances: Having an anchor tenant for 40 nights a year is nice, but not so nice when they’re not paying rent and are taking away dates that could be used on concerts that would. It’s still not especially likely that Dundon moves the Blazers, but it does seem that he needs Portland more than Portland needs him.

BlazerTag then summed up with a couple of paragraphs that reflect a position I’ve heard over the years from lots of sports fans who are all too aware they’re also taxpayers:

I’m aware of the sorrow that awaits if no Moda deal is struck. I understand the emotional stakes, but I won’t let them blind me to the cold, hard financial truth.

“Moda Center will crumble without the Blazers” is Stockholm syndrome reasoning from a fanbase being held hostage by ownership. It’s misinformation that I will not suffer.

Blazer’s Edge also did some tea-leaf reading recently of the recently revealed internal Blazers emails in which team lawyer Zandria Conyers suggested just not answering city questions publicly, because “I don’t think our public answers will be well-received.” Deckard noted that while the pissiness was not great, “it was not the kind of nonchalant dismissal one would expect if the organization had already checked out of the process,” which is very true. “The good news: the Blazers do appear to be seeking public funding for the arena for real, which means moving doesn’t seem to be their first option,” concluded Deckard, and while that’s probably stretching the meaning of “good news,” it does argue against the conspiracy theory that Dundon bought the team just to move it, which is better than nothing.

Share this post:

Friday roundup: Blazers arena staredown escalates, haggling continues in Rays stadium standoff

Happy Friday! There’s nothing in the latest batch of stadium and arena news that can quite compete with the European and North/Central American soccer federations vowing to start boycotting FIFA events as soon as this September if FIFA sells operating rights to the World Cup to Jared Kushner’s brother, but it was still a pretty eventful week:

Share this post:

Where will Tom Dundon move the Trail Blazers? Probably nowhere

The Portland Trail Blazers arena dispute so far in a nutshell: Tom Dundon, owner of the Carolina Hurricanes and past purveyor of predatory lending car loans, bought the Blazers from the estate of the late Paul Allen for $4.25 billion. With four years to go on a short-term lease with the city for the arena that Allen built and then his estate got the city to take over ownership of, Dundon asked for $600 million in city-, county-, and state-funded upgrades, with Dundon himself chipping in nothing on the grounds that he already pays taxes. State legislators said okay, but city and county leaders balked, at which point Dundon sent unnamed team officials to tell reporters that if they didn’t approve this deal, he could demand even more money or else he’d move the team — despite no other cities having expressed an interest in building him an arena, and a lease that prohibits Dundon from even talking to other prospective locations until 2030.

All typical sports venue gamesmanship, so far. But the sports media has lately zoomed in on only one piece of it: Oh shit, where are the Blazers going to move?

  • Two writers for The Athletic, after breaking down the basics of the arena renovation funding dispute, launched into a discussion of places the Blazers could move. After ruling out Las Vegas and Seattle since the NBA has its heart set on putting expansion teams in those two cities, they floated Raleigh (too close to the Charlotte Hornets), Austin (too close to the San Antonio Spurs), Nashville (too close to the Memphis Grizzlies), or Kansas City (a good bit smaller media market than Portland). “The case might just come down to which city is willing to offer the best sweetheart deal for an arena and a slew of tax incentives for the Blazers to come,” they report, which is true as far as it goes, but for the small detail that none of those cities are currently offering anything.
  • Fox 2 in St. Louis asks if the Blazers could move to St. Louis, noting that while “it’s unclear how strongly the Trailblazers would consider St. Louis as a possible relocation destination, and how much St. Louis city officials are interested,” one of the Blazers’ minority owners is from St. Louis, so it’s “an intriguing possibility.”
  • Blazers arena cheerleader Bill Oram of the Oregonian writes that “if left entirely up to me, [moving a team] would be prosecuted as a crime,” but thinks Dundon plans to do it, without specifying where he would take the team to.

Exploring whether the Blazers could actually move is fine enough journalism. But at a time when Dundon and his execs are trying to frame this as “Give me $600m or we’ll shoot this team,” headlines floating destinations where the team could go end up doing the Blazers owner’s move-threat work for him. Portland leaders actually have a fair bit of leverage here — especially with Dundon prohibited by his lease from talking about relocation for now, and with state funding that was already approved expiring at the end of this year — but they’re unlikely to use it if the news media are constantly speculating about other cities allegedly waiting in the wings.

Speaking of leverage, the latest sticking point in Blazers arena talks is a state-of-the-art clause in the team’s lease that — opposite to how these things usually work — requires the team to “maintain the arena in a first-class manner.” Portland councilmember Steve Novick has suggested the city should consider suing Dundon for failing to provide proper arena upkeep if he tries to move the team; Blazers officials say they won’t sit down to talk about a new lease unless the city first attests that it won’t challenge the quality of the team’s arena maintenance. Again, all typical sports lease gamesmanship, and to be expected. The question here appears to be who’ll blink first — and if city and county officials are more afraid of the boogeyman of St. Louis than Dundon is of losing the $365 million in state money he’s already won, that could make all the difference in the blinking calculus.

Share this post:

Tampa council swing vote opens talks with Rays about his price for approving stadium deal

Anytime you have a one-vote margin on a stadium deal, as currently exists on the Tampa city council, you can expect to see team officials see what it’ll take the peel off a swing vote to get themselves a majority. And we’re starting to see what that haggling is going to look like for the Tampa Bay Rays, as councilmember Bill Carlson — who cast the deciding vote in May to approve a Rays MOU but since then has voted against moving ahead with the plan — met with Rays CEO Ken Babby on Friday and emerged to say:

  • He told Babby to meet individually with all seven council members, and Babby agreed. (Carlson instructed him to hold individual meetings to get around state sunshine laws that would otherwise prevent the content of discussions from being withheld from the public.) “If the Rays hit the reset button today, they might have a chance,” said Carlson.
  • Carlson, who is running to replace term-limited mayor Jane Castor in the fall, blamed her for “sabotaging the negotiations” by excluding councilmembers from talks so she could blame the council if the project failed.
  • He said he doesn’t like the current deal, because “my constituents don’t want to spend any money to subsidize projects like this. They want us to spend on basic infrastructure.”
  • In particular, Carlson suggested capping the amount of property tax kickbacks going to the Rays from a downtown Community Redevelopment Agency, something he said would allow more money to be used for roads and sewers — “If I can say we’re moving $20 million a year to repair your roads, it would make it more of a win-win outcome” — without costing Rays owner Patrick Zalupski additional money. Carlson did not explain precisely how that part would work, given that if the city spends less on a stadium, somebody else would have to cover that shortfall.

It’s hard to know exactly how to read all this, other than that Carlson clearly wants to paint himself as both the defender of the public purse and the guy who’ll get credit if a Rays deal gets done. (Or blame! There is always the possibility of blame.) If he really uses his leverage as the swing vote to get major concessions from Zalupski, then that could make the Rays deal somewhat less wasteful, though it’s unlikely to shave much off the projected $2.1 billion total public cost. If he just ends up shuffling public money from covering one part of the stadium development plan to something else that seems more infrastructure-y, that’s even less promising.

It sounds like all this is going to get hashed out behind closed doors — thanks to Carlson’s plan to evade sunshine laws, something he presented as clever rather than devious — so in the meantime the most we can do is read tea leaves and try to run the numbers on who would pay what under a revised deal. I’ll do my part here, Tampa media outlets, can you try to investigate it as well rather than just waiting for the next press statement from the council?

Share this post:

Friday roundup: Tampa plans for Rays keep going sideways; new stadium funding demands in Orlando, D.C.

Happy Friday to those of you who can see this through all the burning Canada! Everyone stay safe, mask up, and stay indoors to read the latest sports subsidy news, only most of which this week involves Florida men:

  • Hillsborough County Commission chair Ken Hagan said Wednesday that if the Tampa city council won’t go along with contributing tax money to a new Tampa Bay Rays stadium, maybe the county will just go ahead without them. Hagan did not go on to describe where he would find $180 million to replace the city’s planned contribution. Rather than object to being threatened with a good time, Tampa council chair Alan Clendenin warned his recalcitrant colleagues, “Unfortunately, there’ll be a cost of the city not having participated in the process.” He didn’t say what kind of cost he meant, but he gave his word that it was the case, and that’s good enough with old Clenny.
  • The chances of convincing Tampa elected officials to spend public dollars on a Rays stadium, meanwhile, could plummet if Florida voters adopt sweeping property tax cuts in November, which would decimate local budgets. On the bright side — sort of — that would at least make any property tax exemption for the Rays stadium project worth less, since there would be less in property taxes to exempt, though it still would leave Tampa in the same budget hole for the project.
  • And finally, MLB commissioner Rob Manfred also chimed in on the Rays stadium situation, saying at the All-Star Game, “Every delay just makes it more difficult to hit a timetable of when the stadium is going to open,” which, yes, that’s how time works. Maybe Manfred would like to impose a pitch clock on stadium talks?
  • The group of wannabe Orlando MLB expansion team owners say they have more than $2 billion in place combined for acquiring a team and building a stadium, and with MLB’s expansion fee expected to be more than $2 billion, they’re asking the state of Florida to kick in $975 million in tourist tax dollars toward a stadium. The prospective ownership group said this would 100% be worth it, as a new team in Orlando would generate $73 trillion dollars in new economic activity in the first week alone (or something like that, I didn’t write down the actual number, mine is equally likely to be accurate). It also raises the question of whether Orlando is really a move threat for the Rays if it would require state money too, meaning state officials would really be bidding against themselves.
  • Some rich people in Nashville would like an MLB expansion team too, but city officials there say that’ll only work if they can privately fund a stadium, good luck with that.
  • The Chicago city council, as expected, approved spending $425 million in property tax proceeds on roads and public plazas and stuff surrounding a new downtown Chicago Fire stadium. Alderman Anthony Beale called the project “what exactly TIF is supposed to be used for,” adding, “When you look at the jobs that are going to be created by this, when you look at the revenue that’s going to be brought into the city by this project, the restaurants, the parking, the ticket sales and all the things that go along with that, that’s how we make our economy grow.” Beale did not explain how moving the Fire from one part of Chicago to another was going to create all this new revenue — or, for that matter, how encouraging construction of new housing in one part of Chicago rather than another — but surely he knows what he’s talking about, no reason not to trust him just bceause he once attended a fundraiser in his honor held by the taxicab industry the week before before voting to water down taxicab regulations.
  • Washington, D.C. council chair Phil Mendelson has proposed spending $300 million in city money on expanding D.C. United‘s stadium to 28,000 seats and building a roof on it, with the team owners on the hook for the other $320 million. In exchange, the district would receive “stadium-generated revenues and economic activity,” which is to say no actual money, just “maybe it’ll host some more concerts and not everyone buying tickets would have been spending their money elsewhere in D.C. anyway.”
  • The city of Portland broke the stalemate in Portland Trail Blazers arena talks yesterday, sending team owner Tom Dundon a draft term sheet that doesn’t include rent payments but does include payments in lieu of property taxes starting at $3 million a year and escalating over time. This came after NBA commissioner Adam Silver griped that Dundon’s plan to get $600 million in public money for arena renovations while putting in nothing of his own money “seems to have gone off track,” then refused to promise that the Blazers would stay in Portland even if the $600 million was approved — which seems to be a violation of Extortion 101, but maybe you do catch more flies with vinegar than honey, who knew?
  • Cleveland’s Gateway Economic Development Corp. just got a $52 million bill for projected repair needs for the Guardians stadium and Cavaliers arena, and doesn’t have $52 million to pay it with. Surely nobody could have seen that coming when the city agreed to cover the teams’ future capital expenses as long as they played there! Live and learn, or in Cleveland’s case, just live.
  • More World Cup economic impact data points: Some businesses in Atlanta are doing well, others are not; Arlington businesses are only doing well if they sell tourists on Texas-y things like barbecue or access to cattle drives; New York’s bars made out better during the event than its hotels; bars in England are doing great, too, despite England not actually hosting any games; downtown Seattle got an extra 3 million visitors on World Cup hosting days, but the Downtown Seattle Association didn’t release figures on whether the rest of Seattle got fewer visitors than normal on those days; and Miami and Los Angeles and Arlington should all see massive economic impact, report news sites (mostly former news site CBS) that only cite FIFA’s numbers.
  • Economist Geoff Propheter decided to get into the vaportecture game with AI designs for a new Blazers arena, and after some online kibitzing it ended up here, 10/10, no notes.
Share this post:

Portland could vote on $120m Blazers arena subsidy before knowing where money would come from, this should work out well

And speaking of “Approve sports spending first, work out the details later,” this just in from Portland, Oregon regarding Trail Blazers owner Tom Dundon’s $600 million arena renovation request:

As a deadline to commit public dollars to Moda Center renovations rapidly approaches, it appears that Portland city councilors will be asked to approve spending $120 million on arena renovations next month without knowing where that money will come from in the city budget.

According to city officials, that’s because the Portland Trail Blazers have yet to share details of the renovation plans they have in mind for the Moda Center. The Blazers say they need the city to commit to funding before they’ll share designs.

Sorry, wut? If ever a moment called for the employment of that Simpsons “aurora borealis” meme — oh good, looks like J.C. Bradbury is already on it.

With Dundon keeping his pig firmly within its poke, that limits Portland’s options for coming up with its $120 million share, because two sources of funding — the Portland Clean Energy Fund and a city economic development fund — have restrictions on what they could be used for. Not that it really matters: If those funds aren’t used, Portland will have to come up with other tax money, and if they are used, Portland will have to come up with tax money to pay for whatever those funds would have otherwise been used for.

Still, the fact that the Portland city council is set to commit to a term sheet for Blazers lease talks on August 12 and won’t know by then how it would pay the $120 million bill it would be committing to is, let’s go with “not great.” There’s nothing stopping the council from calling Dundon’s bluff, of course, and saying they won’t release his money until he releases his arena plans. That would seem to be the absolute least they could ask him to do, since it wouldn’t cost him any actual money — and Portland lawmakers could still totally request that he chip in more of that — but nobody ever became a billionaire by acceding to reasonable demands.

Share this post: