The views expressed here are my own.
You don’t know me, but my name is Brandon. I like the Portland Trail Blazers. I have liked them for a long time and have spent many hours and days and weeks watching the Blazers, writing and talking about the Blazers, buying Blazers tickets and merchandise, and sharing Trail Blazers-related content on social media.
I know you, at least as a public figure: Dewayne Hankins, President of Business Operations for the Blazers, a title that doesn’t completely capture the role you played in Thursday’s Portland City Council Work Session about the proposed renovations to the Moda Center where the Blazers play 41 home games per year.
I’m writing because some of what I saw from you in that work session was frustrating.
As you delivered the team’s prepared remarks, I was troubled by how many of their claims seemed unsupported, misleading, or inconsistent with the public record. And I was bummed to hear you make criticisms of Portland that sounded like they came from someone who neither lives here nor particularly likes it here.
You started your remarks that the “market-rate deal” the Blazers were seeking was about more than the Moda Center itself:
“For the past four months in meetings with the City’s leaders, we have been clear about the first step that’s needed for these negotiations to move forward: the bridge agreement.”
You went on to explain that the “first-class standard” language in the bridge agreement between the City and the team – which requires the team to keep the Moda Center in good shape – has been “wielded as a weapon, chilling negotiations.”
As far as I can tell, this was first talked about publicly in a June 24 work session. That’s barely a month ago. Not four.
At the time, City staff clarified that clause only applies to buildings “for its age,” and even then, that there were items that needed addressing identified by the City’s 2024 in-depth assessment – such as failing expansion joint covers, soffit damage, floor transitions that are trip hazards, and support post bases that need re-grouting – to ensure the Moda Center meets that standard, even for a 30-year-old building. While later you said there “is not deferred maintenance” and “we keep the building in great shape,” it’s hard to view trip hazards and water damage as any other kind of needed maintenance than deferred.
Even setting those things aside, it is difficult to accept that one Councilor’s question about enforcing an existing agreement – a Councilor who is NOT a member of the City’s negotiating team – should justify withholding information in a negotiation about a future lease.
As your comments continued, you claimed that “for 30 years, the team has invested nearly a billion dollars to ensure the building is in first-class condition.”
Maintaining the arena was also necessary to run a business that has generated billions of dollars in revenue. Historic operating expenditures alone do not establish what Portland taxpayers should contribute under a new lease. Much of that investment was also made by a completely different ownership group.
Moments later, you called the City’s draft term sheet – a list of concessions the City might want to see from the team in a new lease – a “PR response” that “contains more than 20 material departures from the state’s language in Senate Bill 1501… that add hundreds of millions of dollars in cost.”
Wasn’t the absence of this draft term sheet something the team had previously claimed as the reason for not sharing more information? Isn’t the draft term sheet supposed to be a document that advances conversations about what both sides want from a deal? And wasn’t SB 1501 always meant as a floor – not a ceiling – for what either the County or the City might expect in exchange for hundreds of millions of dollars in public funding?
You also said, “no team would sign a lease that would keep this business in the red for the next 20 years.”
You’re right! But the team hasn’t (at least not publicly) provided the data to support that prediction. Without that, Council and the public can’t really evaluate a claim that the proposed terms would leave the business operating at a loss.
Given estimates of team revenue in the hundreds of millions of dollars annually, and a proposal involving up to $600M in public investment, the team ought to show its work before claiming that the City’s proposed terms would leave the Blazers in the red.
You then said that a vote on August 12 [when City Council would finalize a term sheet] wouldn’t get the Blazers any closer to a deal “unless that vote fixes the bridge agreement.”
You talked again about the “first-class standard” clause. A clause that seemingly applies… if the team leaves Portland.
Can you understand why some folks might feel weird that the team is making such a big deal about this?
…and all of this came in just the first few minutes of your time at the dais!
As the proceedings continued, I saw a glimpse of something interesting.
After Councilor Morillo asked for “more information on the proposed scope and budget” from the team – a perfectly reasonable ask when a private entity is requesting $600M in public investment – you said the team could not develop or provide more detailed plans without funding the professionals who would produce them.
Then how did the team arrive at this number? Why not just share whatever projects the team wants covered by the very specific amount of money the Blazers agreed was needed?
…that doesn’t make sense, but ignore that for a second.
You said you didn’t have plans, but you had concepts.
That led Councilor Morillo to ask, “So right now you have concepts of a plan?” You paused and laughed. It made me laugh. Many viewers probably did, too.
But the exchange exposed a serious problem: the team has identified a highly specific funding request without publicly presenting a correspondingly specific scope of work.
When you talked briefly about the possible redevelopment of Lower Albina and the importance of NBA teams partnering with the community, your tone changed a little. The words came easier. You weren’t looking at a piece of paper. You were sharing your own thoughts. They were thoughts shaped by your many years spearheading partnerships between the Blazers and the Portland region that both supports and deserves support from the team.
That was a good look. And it was too brief during a session dominated by the team’s talking points and ultimatums. Later, when asked a softball question by Councilor Eric Zimmerman – will you commit to working toward a binding lease by the end of the year to take advantage of the state funding the Oregon Legislature passed earlier this year – you took a breath, then returned to the same points that had been made before: the City must address the “first-class standard” clause, its proposal differs from the state bill, and substantial discussion remains.
None of that prevented you from answering, “of course. We want a deal done this year.” But you didn’t say that.
One of my least favorite parts of the proceedings was when you made an unsupported claim that “Portland’s divisive political environment” (among other factors) makes it “harder to sell tickets.”
Portland has long punched above its weight for attendance, and it has maintained 700K+ annual total attendance – well above the attendance during the McMillan era years 20 years ago – despite multiple years of rebuilding that would test the limits of care and attention for even the most diehard fans.
If the organization has evidence that the city’s “political environment” is materially suppressing ticket sales, it should produce that evidence. We haven’t seen it, because the team didn’t offer it during the work session.
Dewayne… or Mr. Hankins, whatever you prefer… your presentation hurt my heart. Much of it didn’t ring true for me, and I reckon for plenty of those who have been paying close attention, including for those who are a) lifelong Blazers fans who b) want a deal done and c) have begged Portland City Council to get on the same page with itself in these negotiations.
You have a difficult role in a high-stakes and highly public negotiation. I get that. But professionalism also requires claims that can withstand scrutiny. Too many of the team’s claims on Thursday did not.
You don’t have an easy job. And what I hope to hear from you the next time you speak publicly about this is pretty simple: more facts with fewer ultimatums, and direct answers to reasonable questions about how $600M in public investment would be used.
