Portland City Council hits pause on music venue moratorium
Apr. 28—The Portland City Council voted Monday to refer a proposed moratorium on new theater and live music developments larger than 2,000 seats to the Sustainability and Transportation Committee.
The decision, which came in a nearly unanimous vote at the council's meeting Monday night, means an order proposing the six-month moratorium will be revisited at the May 19 meeting, at the soonest. That should give the committee time to answer underlying questions about the potential impact of live venues and new parking on traffic and road safety.
At-large Councilor Benjamin Grant initially motioned for the moratorium to be simply postponed and revisited at the May 19 meeting, but he later altered the motion to instead refer the issue to the committee, which next meets on May 14.
"I don't think we are ready for this question right now," Grant said. "There's been a lot of motion, a lot of activity, but not a lot of progress addressing some of the key issues."
Though Grant agreed that additional questions need to be answered before new projects can move forward, he argued that a moratorium was the wrong tool for the job.
Councilor Wes Pelletier, who proposed the moratorium along with Councilor Anna Bullet, cast the sole vote against referring the moratorium. He and Bullett had originally sought a full vote Monday.
"I'd have preferred that we'd created a more substantive period in which we could evaluate the city's ordinances and land use code to make sure we're planning our city center wisely," Pelletier said in a text message. "But I'm hopeful the Sustainability and Transportation Committee will come back with a strong course of action."
Dozens who had filled the council chambers, including members of the public and developers, filtered out of the room following the vote. Many who had come to offer public comment mumbled frustrations as they shuffled out.
At its May meeting, the transportation committee will consider questions surrounding parking and congestion related to live events.
The moratorium, as currently drafted, would stretch into the fall unless the city first implements new rules related to permitting and zoning for large event spaces and concert halls. In the meantime, "no permit applications for any new theaters or performance halls with a capacity exceeding 2000 people shall be accepted, processed, reviewed, or approved," according to the moratorium order.
Pelletier, who represents District 2, and Bullett, who represents District 4, proposed the moratorium this month.
It would directly impact a controversial plan to build a new venue at 244 Cumberland Ave. — tentatively called the Portland Music Hall — though it does not explicitly name the project. Pelletier has previously told the Press Herald the moratorium was not targeted at that single application.
LIVE NATION PROPOSAL AT CENTER
Mile Marker Investments, a Scarborough-based developer, partnered with Live Nation to propose the new venue, which would be about a block from the roughly 1,900-seat Merrill Auditorium. Despite public pushback, the companies have maintained that the music hall would fill a middle-ground niche between smaller auditoriums, like Merrill and the State Theatre, and larger spaces like Thompson's Point, which can fit about 6,000 for an outdoor show.
By filling that gap, the music hall could attract acts that may otherwise be simultaneously too big and too small to book Portland's existing venues, the developers have said.
But frustrated neighbors, including residents and other businesses, have charged that the relatively large venue and its central placement near several existing event spaces could choke local traffic and create hazardous conditions for pedestrians and cyclists during busy nights.
In written comments submitted ahead of Monday's meeting, locals expressed concern with the pace of development, the size of the proposed space and broad distaste toward Live Nation, a live music corporation that owns venues and operates ticketing services across the country, among other activities. The company is currently involved in an antitrust lawsuit for what the Justice Department last year called "unlawful conduct that thwarts competition."
The order for the moratorium noted that the city's land use code does not require any spatial buffer between large theaters and performance spaces, "which should be considered to protect public safety and ensure that these venues are not clustered and do not overburden public infrastructure." It applies to all applications submitted after Dec. 1, 2024 — less than three weeks before the proposed venue's application was filed.
The order also requires the council's Housing and Economic Development Committee to review the city code "and develop amendments ... to address the concerns" raised. The pause will last through Oct. 25 unless altered by the council, or until any new amendments to the city code take effect, whichever comes first.
Construction on the new site was originally slated to begin this fall, with doors opening in late 2027. It's not clear how or whether the moratorium — should it eventually pass — would impact that time frame.
Todd Goldenfarb, managing director of Mile Marker Investments, referred questions about the moratorium to a Live Nation spokesperson Monday afternoon.
A spokesperson for Live Nation declined to speak in person about the vote after the meeting and instead sent a written statement from Ryan Vangel, Live Nation's president.
"We're committed to building a great new entertainment venue that will expand the music scene in Portland," Vangel said, echoing language he used in a statement issued last week. "We look forward to working with the (Portland) Planning Board to show how our plan will make it safe and enjoyable for fans to come to Portland Music Hall."
OTHER BUSINESS
Though discussion of the moratorium took up a significant portion of the meeting, the council took up a handful of other discussions, including giving a first read to an order that would accept a new contract between the city and the Portland Police Superior Officers Association, the union representing Portland Police Department officers. That order will be read again and voted on at a future meeting.
The meeting began with nearly 30 minutes of public comment on non-agenda items, mostly from residents and business owners who expressed frustration about the homeless people who are gathering in Monument Square, saying the group is growing and becoming increasingly hostile.
The council also unanimously approved an order to tweak the calculations used in certain ranked-choice voting races. The previous formulas for counting proportional ranked choice-voting were written in late 2023, but the city has not had a reason to use them.
"This does not change ranked-choice voting that we use for (the) mayor, City Council — single-race ranked choice in any way," City Clerk Ashley Rand.
The new formula for proportional ranked choice voting, which applies only when numerous candidates are running for more than one available and identical seat, is designed to more accurately tabulate the winning candidates, according to the order. Such cases are rare, but could include putting together a City Charter Commission years down the line.
Copy the Story Link
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Insider
20 minutes ago
- Business Insider
Israel's trying to wipe out Iran's nuke program. It won't be an easy kill.
Israel launched an air assault against Iran early Friday morning that officials said is intended to damage Tehran's nuclear program. Hundreds of Israeli warplanes participated in a series of widespread airstrikes targeting sites associated with Iran's nuclear and missile programs, as well as military leaders and air defense systems, in a major escalation that has already drawn a retaliatory attack from Tehran. Specifically, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that his forces "struck at the heart" of the country's nuclear enrichment and weaponization programs, and targeted its main enrichment facility at Natanz. The extent of the damage is unclear so far, but analysts said it appeared to be limited based on satellite imagery. Netanyahu had long pushed for a military approach to Iran's nuclear program, as opposed to the deal that the Trump administration was hoping to settle to prevent Tehran from building nuclear weapons. Iran has said that its nuclear program is for civilian purposes. However, military and nuclear experts say firepower alone won't be enough to completely wipe out Iran's nuclear program. It has many scientists with nuclear expertise and has stored its most critical facilities in bunkers buried deep underground. This makes the facilities particularly challenging targets that, from the air, can only be reached by the largest bunker busters, which Israel lacks, or repeated strikes in the same spots. Natanz, home to Iran's largest uranium enrichment site, is located several floors underground in the center of the country. The Israel Defense Forces said its airstrikes damaged an underground area of the facility that contains an enrichment hall with centrifuges, electrical rooms, and additional infrastructure. Satellite imagery captured on Friday revealed what appears to be significant damage at Natanz, but only on the surface. Overnight, Israeli strikes reportedly targeted strategic Iranian sites, including the Natanz nuclear facility, Iran's primary center for uranium enrichment. High-resolution imagery from @AirbusDefence, captured on June 13, 2025, reveals significant damage to the facility. — Open Source Centre (@osc_london) June 13, 2025 Iran's other main enrichment site, Fordow, is buried even deeper in the side of a mountain and is the country's most "hardened" facility, said Darya Dolzikova, a senior research fellow for proliferation and nuclear policy at the UK-based Royal United Services Institute think tank. In comments shared with Business Insider, Dolzikova said Fordow has not been affected by the Israeli strikes, nor have other locations. "Should Iran make a decision to produce a nuclear weapon, it would likely do that at hardened and potentially still secret sites," she said. It's unclear what air-to-ground munitions Israel used to strike Natanz and the other targets affiliated with Iran's nuclear program. However, it would take a very large bunker-buster bomb to reach underground and destroy the more hardened sites. The likely best weapon for the job is the US military's GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator, one of the most powerful non-nuclear bombs and the largest bunker buster in America's arsenal at 15 tons. These munitions can only be carried by the B-2 Spirit stealth bomber and the B-21 Raider in development. Israel doesn't have bomber aircraft capable of carrying the largest bunker-buster munitions. The IDF shared footage showing its fighter jets — F-35s, F-16s, and F-15s — taking off and landing during the strikes. Weapons experts pointed out that some of the aircraft appear to be carrying 2,000-pound guided bombs. Israel's F-15I, though, can carry 4,000-pound anti-bunker bombs. Military analysts with RUSI estimated in March that the Fordow site could be as deep as 260 feet underground, likely beyond the reach of even America's MOP. Damaging it would almost certainly require repeated strikes, likely over days or weeks. US officials said Washington was not involved in the Israeli strikes. Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned Iran not to retaliate against American forces in the region, something Tehran and its allies have done in the past. The US Navy has one aircraft carrier and six surface warships in the Middle East right now. These assets are capable of providing air defense in the event of a larger Iranian response. So far, Tehran has retaliated by launching dozens of drones at Israel. Beyond the nuclear sites, Israeli officials said forces also went after other high-profile Iranian targets, including its top scientists, senior military commanders, air defenses, and ballistic missile program.
The Hill
33 minutes ago
- The Hill
Why are administrative judges trying to help China steal American technology?
A panel of judges is openly defying Trump administration policy — and effectively allowing a Chinese firm to keep stealing an American semiconductor technology used in everything from self-driving cars to satellites. These judges are not members of the judicial branch. They are executive branch employees, and the Trump administration has the authority to overrule their dangerous decision. It should do so immediately to protect American workers and uphold the rule of law. But the administration will also need to implement broader reforms — and work with Congress to codify them — to prevent rogue administrative judges from helping Chinese companies pilfer U.S. intellectual property in the future. The administrative patent judges in question work for the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, a powerful part of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. They just sided with Innoscience, a Chinese firm locked in a years-long legal battle with Efficient Power Conversion, a California-based semiconductor innovator. Efficient Power Conversion accused the Chinese firm of stealing its patented technology and selling knockoff chips. It took its case to the U.S. International Trade Commission, which investigates trade violations and protects American industries from unfair competition. After a 16-month investigation — including a trial, depositions, and expert testimony — the commission found that Innoscience had indeed stolen the technology and that Efficient Power Conversion's patent was valid. As a result, the commission barred the Chinese firm from selling the infringing chips in the U.S. And after its mandatory review period, the White House allowed the ruling to stand. That should have settled the matter. But separately, Innoscience challenged Efficient Power Conversion's patent at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, which ultimately invalidated key claims in the patent. This ruling handed Innoscience fresh ammunition to challenge the import ban and try to resume flooding the U.S. market with stolen technology. This is a direct assault on American innovation and the Trump administration's efforts to crack down on Chinese intellectual property theft. Worse still, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board should never have taken the case. The first Trump administration issued guidance barring the Patent Trial and Appeal Board from reviewing patents already being litigated in parallel forums. This policy was designed to protect smaller American companies from being overwhelmed by duplicative litigation across multiple venues. Put simply, patent disputes should be handled in court, or at the International Trade Commission, or at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board — but not all three. That changed in 2022 when the Biden administration reversed the policy. This gave Innoscience an opening to request a Patent Trial and Appeal Board review in 2023. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board accepted — and in 2024, proceeded with a review of Efficient Power Conversion's patent, even though the International Trade Commission had already completed its exhaustive trial and was days away from issuing its final decision. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board, applying lower evidentiary standards than a court, invalidated the patent. It issued its ruling on March 18, 2025 — weeks after the second Trump administration had reversed Biden's policy and reinstated the original rules, which on its own should have blocked the Patent Trial and Appeal Board from acting. The director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office can reverse this decision. That should happen immediately. Overturning the Patent Trial and Appeal Board 's ruling would align with the commission and block the theft of a vital American technology. But righting this one wrong isn't enough. The system that allowed this must be reformed to prevent future abuses. That means putting the new Patent Trial and Appeal Board guidance through the formal rulemaking process, thus making it harder for a future administration to reverse it arbitrarily. Even more important: Congress must act. Bipartisan legislation like the PREVAIL Act would bar duplicative Patent Trial and Appeal Board challenges and hold it to the same evidentiary standards as federal courts. As a member of the Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, I know how important it is to protect our innovation from theft by our most determined adversary. Passing this law would reaffirm America's commitment to its inventors, send a clear message to China, and stop unelected bureaucrats from hijacking trade enforcement. America's economic security depends on innovation. We can't afford to let the Chinese Communist Party and other foreign adversaries sabotage our innovators. Nathaniel Moran represents the 1st District of Texas and is a member of the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party.
Newsweek
44 minutes ago
- Newsweek
US Ally Secures Military Access to Contested South China Sea
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Japan's ratification of an agreement allowing reciprocal military visits with the Philippines puts the U.S. allies on a course for greater security cooperation amid regional tensions with China. Newsweek reached out to the Japanese and Chinese Foreign Ministries via email for comment. Why It Matters China's rapid military buildup and overlapping territorial claims have driven Beijing's neighbors to deepen security ties with Washington, as well as with each other, through "mini-laterals" arrangements such as the "Squad" (comprising the U.S., Australia, Japan, and the Philippines), and bilateral frameworks. What To Know Japan's National Diet voted Friday to approve a reciprocal access agreement with the Philippines. Manila's legislature ratified the deal six months earlier. The arrangement is expected to enhance interoperability, facilitate military drills, and support joint operations, including disaster relief, according to the agreement. Philippine military chief General Romeo Brawner, chief of staff of the Philippine armed forces, in a statement, hailed the pact as a "significant step in advancing bilateral defense cooperation and regional stability." China Coast Guard vessels deploy water cannons at the Philippine military-chartered Unaizah May 4 (R) during its supply mission to Second Thomas Shoal in the disputed South China Sea on March 5, 2024. China Coast Guard vessels deploy water cannons at the Philippine military-chartered Unaizah May 4 (R) during its supply mission to Second Thomas Shoal in the disputed South China Sea on March 5, 2024. Jam Sta Rosa/AFP via Getty Images The Philippines is the third country to sign this kind of agreement with Japan, following Australia and the United Kingdom. Japan previously selected the Philippines as the first beneficiary of its Official Security Assistance program for like-minded partners. China has frequently criticized defense cooperation between the Philippines and "outside forces," maintaining that the South China Sea dispute is a bilateral issue. The Philippines is embroiled in a long-standing territorial dispute with China, which has expanded its maritime presence within the maritime zone of its U.S. defense treaty ally. China claims sovereignty over most of the South China Sea—through which an estimated $3 trillion in trade passes annually—despite a Hague-based arbitral tribunal's 2016 decision that dismissed these claims. A separate dispute also simmers over a group of uninhabited islands in the East China Sea, known in Japan as the Senkakus and in China as the Diaoyu Islands. Both Japanese and Philippine officials—like their American counterparts—have voiced concern over China's growing military activity around Taiwan, the self-ruled democracy that Beijing has vowed to unify with, by force if necessary. What People Are Saying Chen Xiangmiao, director of the World Navy Research Center at China's National Institute for South China Sea Studies, said in February: "Japan seeks to bypass the constraints of its postwar pacifist constitution through defense cooperation with the Philippines." The Japan-Philippines Armed Forces Facilitation Agreement says: "As the security environment in the region becomes increasingly severe, the signing of an important agreement in the field of security with the Philippines, a strategic partner located at a strategic location on sea lanes and sharing fundamental values and principles with Japan, will further promote security and defense cooperation between the two countries and firmly support peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific region." What Happens Next Earlier this year, the two countries announced plans for regular meetings to address Philippine defense equipment needs, as well as early efforts to establish an intelligence-sharing framework.
