View Full Version : Proposal- Relocation of Bears to Portland Area
05-16-2011, 04:46 AM
Article here: http://www.oregonlive.com/mlb/index.ssf/2011/05/single-a_yakima_bears_could_la.html
I found a blog entry alluding to this in Yakima, but not discussing it in any detail. Sounds like they might have a bigger production into the week?
Yakima has a relatively newer stadium. They've just never drawn that well.
One of the co-owners is representing the Clark County group, so this appears to have ownership backing.
Money is no sure thing with Clark County. I wouldn't be surprised if this takes some time.
This Vancouver is in the Portland area, but the Columbia River and I-5 traffic are formidable barriers.
05-16-2011, 10:07 AM
Found a Friday article in the Yakima Herald.
07-14-2011, 06:51 PM
Clark County seems to be progressing in stadium negotiations.
First off, the current working agreement involves the owners group funding all stadium construction. The entertainment tax that has been proposed is still on the table, but is now planned to be used for maintenance of the proposed ballpark. That tax is drawing an opposition, but yet to be determined if that is significant. There will be a vote on a non-binding agreement, apparently set for July 26, that truly starts the ball rolling.
There's another way in which the tax can complicate things: because the county proposes to levy it, they want the city of Vancouver to promise not to levy their own entertainment tax. I sense the votes are there to authorize that, but again, it's a tricky time to be entertaining any tax.
That the owners are willing to go all out on constructing the stadium tells me how much they value the Portland market. There's maybe half a dozen souls in the area who realize that the owners will take the whole Portland market with this move, only half of whom are even raising a half-hearted stink about it, none of whom are powerful enough, or otherwise inclined, to actually do something about it.
The words "October construction" with a June completion timeframe are now out there. That's not unreasonable given how fast the east stand went up in old PGE Park (with more complications, BTW).
One more thing to point out: there's an artist's rendition in that article; there's now an architectural rendering on Facebook from another angle that looks pretty similar (from a different angle). I'll try to post that later. My point: it appears to be easily expandable if these owners want to entertain returning AAA to the area.
10-17-2011, 01:53 AM
Many of you probably know that the process is snagged. Certainly, you can tell by the timeline that a revised plan was sort of promised at the end of September and still hasn't materialized.
The key issue, kind of familiar around here: Clark County determined that the tax proposed wouldn't cover their portion of the cost of construction (which, for some reason, went back to being the plan of choice).
You can also see a mention (I'll let it fall short of "threat") of the Milwaukie proposal. That has its own issues (the city thinks the owner is going to pay for the whole construction component), I don't know.
11-30-2011, 01:34 PM
After a brief bit of optimism regarding a revised plan, the Vancouver WA plan is dead.
The Clark County commission voted it down. The second vote against attributes his decision to city of Vancouver councilors opposing a provision to not tap into the proposed entertainment tax.
One of the Yakima owners- and the main driver on the Vancouver plan- expressed his disappointment in The Columbian and on the drive's facebook page... then whoosh went the facebook page. Gone.
Let's see if Milwaukie has any cards to play.
03-22-2012, 06:46 PM
While Milwaukie... moves... very... slowly...
The suburb that one of our local sports biz gurus always thought would be the place has finally stepped into the fray.
Whether this gets passed easily or runs into bumps, we'll see.
Whether this involves Yakima, or maybe Boise, we'll see. Of course, if they start flirting with a 6,000 number, and that involves seats and not just capacity, then we're talking AAA, not just NWL.
05-22-2012, 02:25 AM
I'm not sure I wanted to get in line with the Ballpark Digest take on the negotiations, but I may have to give them credit. Apparently, NWL has a 50-mile territorial radius. That puts both the Hillsboro and Milwaukie proposals within Salem-Keizer's territory. While I argue the Vancouver proposal was also in that 50-mile radius (just barely, one way or the other), I think the Volcanoes management wants a bit more out of either idea. As such, the league now has a problem trying to tap into the obvious market without trudging on current membership. I don't know how the league fixes this mess... but Hillsboro has the money if this clears up.
However, where Ballpark Digest falls down is the notion that Hillsboro could consider WCL. Answer would be an obvious no. Same for Milwaukie.
06-30-2012, 06:53 PM
So... there's one approved
A funny thing happened from there.
So Ballpark Digest was possibly more wrong, and now me with it.
First Milwaukie complains the league isn't talking to them, then Hillsboro comes out of nowhere and gets a deal done, now it turns out that there's jockeying, the league plans to accomodate a second ballpark in the Portland market, and someone's ready to move.
Still, the Milwaukie proposal is said to go to a vote in November. Um...
09-08-2012, 06:44 PM
I guess there's a couple last updates to be had.
Yakima made the NWL playoffs by winning the East first half, nearly swept Boise in 2, but lost the series in the 3rd game in front of 368 fans in Yakima. (Someone in the crowd counted 150)
Hillsboro breaks ground and announces the team name on September 21.
Milwaukie figured out the league really wasn't favoring their effort, gave a few days of consideration to the West Coast League, then abandoned the effort.
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2013, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.