In a controversial move, the Prosper Portland board voted to sell a 0.8-acre lot on the east end of the Hawthorne Bridge to developers working with Live Nation Entertainment. The $50 million venue project, driven by Beam Construction & Management LLC and Colas Development Group LLC, has sparked heated opposition from Portland musicians and local business owners, citing concerns over Live Nation’s monopolistic behaviour. The decision has raised questions about economic development, community impact, and potential legal risks stemming from a U.S. Department of Justice lawsuit.
Sale of the Eastside Lot for $2.4 Million
On September 18, 2024, Prosper Portland, the city’s economic development agency, approved the sale of a plot valued at $2.4 million. The developers, Beam and Colas, secured the land to build the Live Nation-backed music venue. The land, one of three lots Prosper Portland purchased from the Oregon Department of Transportation in 2017, was initially set to be leased. However, the decision to sell has drawn sharp criticism.
Opponents argue that the lease would have generated long-term income for the city, estimated at $130,000 annually over 100 years. This revenue would have amounted to at least $13 million, far exceeding the current $2.4 million sale price. Critics see this as a poor decision, especially when weighed against the potential monopolistic behaviour of Live Nation and the broader impact on Portland’s local music scene.
Monopolistic Behaviour of Live Nation Raises Concerns
Portland musicians and venue owners have voiced strong opposition to Live Nation’s involvement in the project. Live Nation, the world’s largest entertainment company, has a history of monopolistic behaviour, which has drawn scrutiny from the U.S. Department of Justice. In May 2024, the DOJ filed a lawsuit against Live Nation, alleging anti-competitive practices. The lawsuit, supported by 40 state attorney generals, including Oregon’s, highlights concerns that Live Nation’s business model stifles competition and harms local music venues.
Katelyn Convery, a Portland musician, testified against the sale, questioning whether a Live Nation venue would serve the city’s best interests. “The answer is simply no,” she stated, expressing concerns about Live Nation’s prioritisation of profits for shareholders at the expense of local artists and independent venues.
Also Read: Hezbollah Pager Attack Cripples Communications, Kills and Wounds Operatives
Community Impact of the New Venue
The construction of the new venue has sparked a wider debate about the community impact and whether the project offers sufficient public benefits. Prosper Portland argues that the sale will contribute to the city’s economic development by increasing commercial activity and funding small business grants on the Central Eastside. Additionally, Colas Development, a Black-owned firm, is cited as contributing to equity and diversity within Portland’s economic landscape.
However, community activists and organisations like MusicPortland, a non-profit group representing local musicians, argue that Live Nation’s involvement does more harm than good. MusicPortland released a statement accusing Live Nation of exploiting its position in the entertainment industry, claiming that the company consistently violates consent decrees, lease agreements, and fair business practices. The non-profit argues that the new venue, rather than supporting local musicians, could monopolise Portland’s live entertainment sector, driving out smaller, independent venues.
Legal and Environmental Challenges
The project faces additional legal hurdles. Tomorrow, the Portland City Council will hear an appeal from MusicPortland, which challenges the conditional use permits for the 62,000-square-foot building. MusicPortland contends that the city should have denied the permits due to potential environmental harm, inadequate parking, and the venue’s proximity to unprotected train tracks. The non-profit further argues that the venue offers little public benefit, and that the sale favours corporate interests over the needs of Portland’s music community.
U.S. Department of Justice Lawsuit and Its Implications
The U.S. Department of Justice lawsuit against Live Nation is a significant concern for Portland. The lawsuit accuses Live Nation of using its dominant position to bully independent venues and artists, forcing them to use Ticketmaster or face exclusion from major tours. This monopolistic behaviour is particularly alarming for a city like Portland, which has a rich history of supporting independent music venues and artists. The DOJ’s legal action could potentially impact Live Nation’s ability to operate freely in Portland, further complicating the sale.
While Andrew Colas, president of Colas Development, claims to have secured guarantees from Live Nation to curb anti-competitive practices, such as allowing other promoters to book shows and forgoing restrictive “radius clauses,” scepticism remains. Radius clauses are notorious for limiting artists’ ability to perform at nearby venues, effectively eliminating competition and consolidating market control. Colas admitted that negotiating these concessions from Live Nation was difficult, raising doubts about the long-term sustainability of these promises.
Economic Development vs. Monopolistic Behaviour: The Debate Continues
As Portland grapples with the future of its live music scene, the sale of the Eastside lot represents a crossroads. Proponents argue that the new venue will drive economic development and provide much-needed revenue for the city, while opponents point to Live Nation’s monopolistic behaviour and the broader community impact on Portland musicians and independent venues. The U.S. Department of Justice lawsuit against Live Nation underscores the risks involved, with potential legal and economic consequences for Portland if the entertainment giant is allowed to dominate the local market.
Conclusion: The Path Forward for Portland
The sale of the Eastside lot to developers working with Live Nation remains a deeply divisive issue. While some see it as a victory for economic development, others view it as a threat to Portland’s vibrant independent music community. As the legal battles and public debates continue, the city must weigh the potential benefits against the risks posed by Live Nation’s monopolistic behaviour. For now, Portland musicians, community groups, and local officials must continue to advocate for a live entertainment industry that serves both the city’s economic goals and its cultural heritage.
