Public Statements by Councilor Dan Ryan Before the 2025 Parks Levy Vote

(using his exact words and explaining what was incorrect, incomplete, or misleading)

This summary uses Councilor Dan Ryan’s own public statements, including his October 31, 2025 press release, his newsletter, and his public comments about the Portland Tennis Center (PTC). Each quote is followed by factual context explaining why the statement was viewed as incomplete or misleading by community members and policy observers.

1. “From both a financial and service standpoint, this should be an easy yes.”

He argued that approving a USTA PNW takeover of PTC should be obvious and straightforward.

What was incorrect or incomplete:

• No financial analysis was provided to support the claim that privatization was an “easy yes.”
• PP&R had not completed a cost comparison or feasibility study.
• The statement assumed benefits without evidence and ignored risks to affordability, equity, and public access.

2. “USTA PNW would assume annual operating costs… that would equate to a cost savings to the City of $500,000.”

He stated that PTC’s operating costs would shift to USTA PNW, saving the City $500,000 per year.

What was incorrect or incomplete:

• PTC is revenue‑positive; it generates more than its $2.2M operating cost.
• There is no $500,000 loss for USTA to “save.”
• PP&R’s financial reports show PTC’s surplus revenue supports the General Fund.
• The statement misrepresented operating cost as a deficit.

3. “They’d invest $2.5 to 3 million in deferred maintenance.”

He framed USTA’s proposed investment as a major benefit.

What was incorrect or incomplete:

• No binding agreement existed guaranteeing this investment.
• PP&R had already budgeted for several needed repairs.
• Capital improvements are funded separately from operating revenue; privatization is not required to fix the building.
• The statement implied PP&R was unable or unwilling to maintain PTC, which was not accurate.

4. “This means that the towels used to mop leaks on the court could instead be used to dry the sweat of Portlanders playing tennis.”

He used this imagery to suggest PP&R neglects maintenance.

What was incorrect or incomplete:

• Maintenance delays were citywide, not unique to PTC.
• PP&R had already scheduled repairs for the roof and bubble.
• The statement implied neglect when the issue was actually capital backlog and citywide funding constraints.

5. “I visited the Vancouver Tennis Center and saw how the USTA PNW has successfully activated and refurbished that facility.”

He cited Vancouver as proof that USTA PNW would improve PTC.

What was incorrect or incomplete:

• Vancouver’s facility and funding structure are not comparable to Portland’s.
• Vancouver’s agreement was made under different financial conditions and governance.
• No evidence was provided that the same model would work at PTC or benefit Portlanders.

6. “City of Vancouver Parks got a similar deal done in 2018—so why are we still asking the question?”

He suggested Portland should follow Vancouver’s example without further discussion.

What was incorrect or incomplete:

• Portland’s public asset policies, equity goals, and financial structure differ significantly from Vancouver’s.
• Portland had not completed due diligence, community engagement, or financial modeling.
• The statement implied PP&R was dragging its feet, when in fact the proposal required analysis.

7. “Fee discounts not tied to means testing.”

He used this phrase to argue that PP&R’s discount program was inefficient or abused.

What was incorrect or incomplete:

• PP&R’s discount program is means‑tested; the honor‑system model is standard nationally.
• No evidence was provided showing misuse or revenue loss.
• The Parks Levy backfills all discounts, meaning discounts do not reduce PTC revenue.
• The statement created a misleading impression that players were abusing the system.

8. “Asks Portlanders to pay for inefficiencies the bureau hasn’t fixed.”

He used this phrase to justify opposing the 2025 Parks Levy.

What was incorrect or incomplete:

• No specific inefficiencies were identified.
• PP&R had already undergone major restructuring and cost‑cutting.
• The statement implied mismanagement without evidence.

9. “PP&R should generate more of its own revenue instead of relying again on taxpayers.”

He argued that PP&R should be more self‑funding.

What was incorrect or incomplete:

• PP&R already generates one of the highest earned‑revenue shares of any major parks system.
• Parks systems are not designed to be self‑funding; they are public goods.
• The statement misrepresented PP&R’s financial performance.

10. “75% levy increase” / “75% hike.”

He emphasized this number repeatedly.

What was incorrect or incomplete:

• The 75% figure referred to the levy rate, not total property taxes.
• The actual dollar increase for most households was much smaller.
• Presenting the percentage without context was technically true but materially misleading.

11. “Force PP&R to make institutional changes.”

He said voting NO on the levy would “force” reforms.

What was incorrect or incomplete:

• This treated the levy as leverage rather than a funding mechanism.
• It implied PP&R leadership would not reform unless punished by voters.
• It risked destabilizing essential services to make a political point.

How these statements shaped public understanding

Together, these statements created a narrative that:

• PP&R was mismanaged
• the discount program was being abused
• PTC was financially failing
• privatization was an obvious solution
• the levy was excessive or unfair

These interpretations were not supported by PP&R’s financial reports or by the broader context of citywide budget pressures.