The debate over the future of Portland’s Moda Center has grown into one of the most significant public spending questions facing Oregon. It has become a conversation that extends far beyond professional basketball, forcing taxpayers, elected officials and business leaders to confront an increasingly important question: When should public money be used to improve a facility that serves as the home of a privately owned professional sports franchise?
That question gained new urgency after Portland Trail Blazers owner Tom Dundon indicated he does not intend to personally finance the estimated $600 million renovation of the Moda Center. Instead, discussions have largely focused on public financing, with state, county and city governments considering ways to fund most, if not all, of the project.
For many Oregonians, that is where the debate begins.
Supporters of public investment point out that the Moda Center is publicly owned. Because taxpayers own the building, they argue taxpayers also have a responsibility to maintain it, just as they would any other public asset. Beyond Trail Blazers basketball, the arena hosts concerts, family entertainment, college sporting events, community gatherings and other major attractions. Supporters contend that preserving the facility protects jobs, tourism, convention business and economic activity throughout downtown Portland.
Those arguments carry weight. So do the questions raised by opponents. If the Trail Blazers are owned by a billionaire and the franchise itself is valued in the billions of dollars, why should Oregon taxpayers bear the overwhelming cost of modernizing the building where that business operates?
The question becomes even more significant when viewed against Oregon’s broader financial challenges.
Residents continue to face rising property taxes, increasing utility costs, higher insurance premiums, escalating housing prices and some of the highest state income taxes in the nation. Communities continue to grapple with homelessness, addiction, aging infrastructure, public safety concerns and schools seeking additional funding. Rural hospitals remain under financial strain, while transportation and infrastructure projects compete for limited public dollars each legislative session.
Against that backdrop, many taxpayers are asking whether a $600 million arena renovation should rank among Oregon’s highest spending priorities.
Unlike a traditional public infrastructure project, taxpayers receive no ownership interest, dividends or direct financial return from an NBA franchise. While public investment would improve the value of the arena, it would also strengthen the financial position of the Trail Blazers through enhanced premium seating, luxury suites, sponsorship opportunities, advertising revenue and other business advantages.
Those financial gains accrue primarily to the franchise, not to Oregon taxpayers. Supporters maintain that the public benefits indirectly through job creation, tourism and economic activity. Critics point to decades of independent economic studies suggesting publicly financed stadiums and arenas often generate significantly less economic benefit than originally projected, with much of the spending simply shifting from one entertainment venue to another rather than creating substantial new economic growth.
That debate has played out repeatedly across the country. As professional sports franchises have become some of America’s most valuable private businesses, taxpayers have increasingly been asked to finance facilities without receiving an ownership stake or a direct share in the financial returns.
The Moda Center discussion also highlights another issue: public confidence. Many taxpayers expected new ownership would be willing to invest alongside government, sharing both the costs and the benefits of preserving one of Portland’s most recognizable venues. Instead, many interpreted recent comments as an expectation that government should shoulder the financial responsibility because it owns the building.
That perception has fueled growing frustration. Few dispute that the nearly three-decade-old arena requires substantial modernization to remain competitive and continue attracting major events. The central issue is not whether improvements are needed. It is who should pay for them.
Should taxpayers finance most of the project while private ownership contributes little or no direct capital? Should any public investment require matching private funding? Should public financing include legally enforceable guarantees that the Trail Blazers remain in Portland for decades? Should taxpayers share in future revenues generated by publicly financed improvements? Should income from luxury suites or naming rights help repay the public investment?
These are not questions about sports, they are questions about public accountability. Every public dollar committed to one project is unavailable for another. State and local budgets are built on priorities, and taxpayers have every right to ask whether an arena renovation should take precedence over transportation improvements, housing initiatives, public safety investments or education funding.
Professional sports unquestionably contribute to civic pride. They create memorable moments, strengthen a city’s identity and generate economic activity.
Whether civic pride alone justifies hundreds of millions of dollars in public spending is the question Oregon leaders must answer.
As discussions continue over the future of the Moda Center, lawmakers and taxpayers alike face a decision that extends well beyond basketball. They must determine whether investing hundreds of millions of public dollars represents sound stewardship of taxpayer money or an unnecessary subsidy for a highly valuable private enterprise.
The Trail Blazers remain an important part of Oregon’s identity. Whether Oregon taxpayers should shoulder most of the cost of preserving the franchise’s home deserves a thorough public debate before another tax dollar is committed.