I got the same confusing missive from the PDC. I say confusing because I'm not really sure what they intend to "develop" in the designated areas. I'm afraid that these areas may not truly end up as industrial, which equals jobs for folks of income levels far less than those living in the Pearl.

A question for Bojack, though: is your "assessed" value close to the real value of your expensive Irvingtion property? I can attest that the "assessed" value of my Brooklyn property is definitely lower than the real market value.

Of course, it's less. That's true everywhere in Oregon, thanks to Ballot Measure 5. But you know, so what? The assessment's low, the rates are high. It comes out about right.

And I don't mind having it jacked 2 or 3 percent a year. That's also about right.

But I do wish that the 8%+ that's going to "urban renewal" were going toward public safety, homelessness, and mental health services, rather than statues in the Pearl.

And about those state and local income taxes, at over 10 percent....

Actually, there are places in Oregon where the two-tiered valuation system wrought by Bill S. (Measure 47) via the former superintendent (Measure 50) results in the same number (assessment equals market value). And, there are numerous situations where similar properties similarly situated have significantly different different ratios of assessed value to market value. But, that's OK because Measure 50 excepted its results from the constitution's uniformity provisions.

A big, complicated system that largely avoids the longstanding discussion that connects what we as a society really want with what we are willing to pay. The tax equivalent of sound byte elections, perhaps. How . . . 21st century.

Jack,
Check out how much of your prop tax bill is going to "Police/Fire Pension". This year, for the first time, they broke it out. On mine, it's one third the amount spent on ALL education services and one-third the amount spent on ALL city services. That's for pension and disability only. It's a hot potato downtown, but they better get a handle on it pretty soon.

"And, there are numerous situations where similar properties similarly situated have significantly different different ratios of assessed value to market value. But, that's OK because Measure 50 excepted its results from the constitution's uniformity provisions."

And where significantly less valuable properties pay higher taxes than those costing much more. I mentioned this in one of these blog notes a week or two back, wondering why some "enterprising reporter" didn't take a look at this, because on my own, in my neighborhood, I had. And was rather aghast at what I found.

I did not know that the Measure had included a constitutional exemption from some uniformity provision. Thanks for cluing me in.

It's a non-issue for most Oregonians, but it was one for me. Any tax is more palatable if everyone similarly situated is stuck with the same. Oregon's property taxes are so far as bizarrely uneven.

As I understand urban renewal in PDX, what you see on your tax bill is an incremental capture of rising property values and not necessarily an increase in taxes, which is why they can say it won't increase your taxes. It may, however, take tax money that would have gone to general services. What I don't completely understand is why urban renewal is taxed city-wide rather than within the renewal district, as it's done in other states where I've lived.

Typically, in an urban renewal district, there's one large investment that the district caputures to jump-start an increase in the area's assessed value. And increases in assessed value in ensuing years are then funneled into the URD while the base value continues to be taxed for general services such as schools, police, fire, etc.

I'm going to try to attend one of these open meetings to learn more about the city-wide taxation to support renewal in areas in which I don't reside. That arrangement seems odd to me.