⚠️To get clear facts about PTC and USTA, please open the original petition link on your phone and scroll down one full page.

You’ll see an icon that says ‘XX updates.’ Tap that icon to open all previous updates and read the full information.

I’m speaking as a member of the Portland Tennis Center.

USTA Pacific Northwest is asking the City for a 30‑year lease of the Portland Tennis Center for $1. In exchange, they offer about $3 million in upgrades — a new roof, a new dome, lighting, technology improvements, and $200,000 for outdoor hubs. They also promise scholarships, jobs, and expanded access.

But Portland voters just approved the 2025 Parks Levy, providing $91 million per year for the next five years to maintain and improve public parks and recreation facilities. Voters were told this levy would protect and strengthen public assets, not pave the way for handing them over to private operators. Many community members feel deeply betrayed that, only months after approving this funding, the City is considering giving away its only year‑round public tennis center for $1.

That sense of betrayal is made worse by the fact that all discussions between USTA PNW and the City occurred without any public awareness or community involvement. The public was not informed that these negotiations were happening, even as they were being asked to approve a major levy to support public recreation. Transparency is a basic expectation in decisions involving public assets, and that expectation was not met here.

Portland has only six months of playable outdoor tennis each year. That makes PTC the only reliable, year‑round public tennis facility in the entire city. Giving away control of the one indoor public center for three decades is not a partnership — it is a permanent transfer of public power over a critical community resource.

And despite claiming they want to “grow tennis citywide,” USTA PNW is seeking control of only PTC, the highest‑demand, highest‑revenue site. Their model prioritizes competitive play, which serves a much smaller audience than the broad, diverse community PTC currently supports — kids, beginners, seniors, adaptive players, and long‑time recreational users. PTC is unique in its ability to bring all of these groups together. That community cannot be rebuilt once disrupted.

There is also a major concern about coaching and staffing. USTA requires all coaches to be USTA‑approved, USTA‑trained, and USTA‑certified, meaning they must pass USTA’s internal testing and credentialing system. This creates a closed loop of “connection, connection, connection” — where only USTA‑aligned coaches can work, teach, or lead programs. This raises serious questions about whether current PTC coaches, instructors, and staff — many of whom have served the community for years — would even be allowed to continue. The impact on unionized workers is also completely unknown. Losing trusted, community‑rooted staff would fundamentally change the culture of PTC.

This proposal may look like an easy financial fix for the City — short‑term savings and quick repairs — but long‑term, it is a bad deal. PTC is one of the few recreation assets that can actually generate revenue for the City. Cutting or giving away revenue‑producing facilities leads to less long‑term revenue, which ultimately forces cuts to community centers and programs that don’t break even. The City risks creating a domino effect: once one public facility is handed off, others may follow.

There are also serious concerns about accessibility. USTA’s model risks higher costs and reduced open play, making tennis less accessible to the very people who rely on PTC the most. Public commentary so far does not reflect what many PTC community members actually feel — there is significant concern, not support. People want to preserve the existing community, not see it replaced by a more exclusive, competitive‑focused environment.

Several issues demand clear, enforceable answers:

1. Access: How will the City guarantee that everyday players still have open courts and affordable winter play, instead of losing time to tournaments and leagues?
2. Affordability: Will the City cap fees so seniors, juniors, and low‑income families aren’t priced out of the only indoor public option?
3. Equity: A one‑time $200,000 for outdoor hubs is not a citywide strategy. Where is the commitment to underserved neighborhoods?
4. Community impact: Why does public commentary not reflect the concerns widely shared by PTC users?
5. Labor: What happens to current staff and unionized workers — and will USTA’s certification requirements push out existing coaches?
6. Accountability: What metrics must USTA meet, and can the City terminate the lease if public access declines or promises go unmet?
   
   

One suggestion: If the City is concerned about PTC’s finances, there are straightforward, public‑centered fixes. The discounted pass program currently offers 25%, 50%, and 90% discounts — and the 90% tier is being abused. Reducing the top tier to 50% would still protect affordability while restoring revenue. Even with this adjustment, PTC would remain far more affordable than a USTA‑run facility, where higher court and program fees could push long‑time players out entirely.

These internal, balanced solutions should be explored before giving away Portland’s only year‑round public tennis center.

The community is not opposed to partnership. We are opposed to giving away Portland’s only year‑round public tennis center — especially after voters approved $91 million per year to strengthen public recreation — without binding protections for access, affordability, equity, labor rights, transparency, and long‑term public benefit.

I urge the City to pause this process, conduct a full public impact study, and meaningfully involve the community before approving a 30‑year, $1 lease that will shape Portland tennis for a generation.

Thank you.