Although meetings themselves can be unproductive, there’s money in the meeting business.

An analysis from Portland indicates that city, in 2007, missed out on $8 million in visitor spending because it lacks a large convention center.

It’s this type of spending that has driven dreams for a convention center in Lewiston for years, with Bates Mill No. 5 as the site. Studies have confirmed the market for meeting space, but in broad estimates and projections.

Portland’s analysis injects reality into the convention center debate; instead of assuming which groups might be interested in Maine as a meeting destination, the analysis shows who was interested, who came, who didn’t and why.

From its findings, it’s clear a Maine convention center would serve an untapped market, which frustrates Portland because that city has all the amenities to service such events, save one: a place to hold the meetings.

This is a new wrinkle in the thinking regarding Mill No. 5’s envisioning as a convention center, but one that falls along old lines: Lewiston-Auburn vs. Portland.

L-A cannot compete with Portland on existing amenities. Unlike a Portland convention center, which would fill a glaring void, the same center in Lewiston-Auburn would be viewed as the spark for further development.

Portland also has the quantified existing demand for meeting space, plus the stronger tourist market and reputation. Heck, the city even has a Convention and Visitor’s Bureau to conduct this type of analysis, something L-A lacks. (But will need, if a center proposal goes forward.)

Lewiston-Auburn has the site and infrastructure, however, some impending hotel construction, and, most important, the strong political will to see the mill redeveloped.

A question now is whether a convention center in Mill No. 5 can tap into the market being rebuffed in Portland, and sell L-A as an viable alternative.

Or, what would happen if Portland builds or plans its convention center first.

The Bates Mill No. 5 Task Force holds its next public meeting 6:30 p.m. Tuesday in Mill No. 6. In its weighing of the mill’s future, this issue should be explored.

For years, talk about Mill No. 5 needed grounding. Bud Lewis, the building’s former engineer, provided ballast with his recommendation to raze the structure.

The Portland report – although far from comprehensive – hints at the real economic potential a convention center could carry, and bolsters the case for spurring investment into a major Mill No. 5 redevelopment.

If the convention market is there, it is a good idea.