Its pretty amazing to me that folks can read this and not ask the question WHY that 20% is not going to schools and community assests that benefit them and not make money for developers.

Just to mention it.

Isn't there a cap on the total city's total assessed property value allowed to be wrapped in Urban Renewal Districts? I believe its 10% of total assesed property value inside the city.

With the rapidly expanding values in gigantic North Portland URA, the high dollar per sq foot in the Pearl and Old Town URA, and the up and coming South Water Front it would seem that the PDC will hit a wall in the available area allowed to be wrapped up in URAs.

I got my tax statement this weekend and am happy to see this post explaining the line items (as I'm a newish resident).

Does 100% of URBAN RENEWAL funds go to the PDC???

DarePDX With the rapidly expanding values in gigantic North Portland URA, the high dollar per sq foot in the Pearl and Old Town URA, and the up and coming South Water Front it would seem that the PDC will hit a wall in the available area allowed to be wrapped up in URAs.
JK: That’s probably why we are hearing occasional noises from the spendthrifts at the city about going to Salem to have that limit raised.

We need a ballot measure to limit city spending. Perhaps a vote on all departments budgets above, perhaps $50 mil. Heck we ought to elect department heads too for the big spending department instead of them bing selected by the mayor. Who would like to elect the head of the PDC or planning? Or Parks? (Elect me and I’ll give Homer $400 mil, elect me & I’ll sell the parks)

Thanks
JK

Does 100% of URBAN RENEWAL funds go to the PDC???

I believe so.

If the court system won't enforce the appropriations provision of the constitution regarding revenue bonds, calling payment on such bonds as a "moral" obligation (where future payments are merely optional but not compulsory, and thus not a violation) what makes you think that the dreamers cannot recharacterize their way around ANY limitation?

Any describable revenue stream is amenable to being matched against nearly any present expenditure for the purpose of issuing bonds. For example, parking meter revenue to obtain bond proceeds to be used to tear up the downtown streets.

As far as I am concerned such proceeds belong, if anywhere, in the general fund itself. If any is replaced with all describable revenue streams (the entire budget for all expenditures/receipts, broken into describable-pieces but fully fungible) then conceptually we could have one big bad revenue bond and one big bad budget to blow in one single budget cycle.

I am partial to letting one set of Leaders blow all they can blow within the period they sit in office so folks can just toss the bums out for a replay in the next cycle. The threat is the bond payments that hamper the next set of blowhards to do anything contrary to the prior blowhard's choice for allocation of such future (contingent) resources without being called immoral. (See the visionary for this design-scheme in Kane v. Goldschmidt.) Call it economic development, where Sten and the like can count their eggs before they hatch. I would rather not argue about color or size of the eggs, or whether they are fertilized or the requirements for their incubation, but rather whether Sten and the like can, consistent with the law of physics and biology and science and reason, lay an egg. (My Chickens Lay Three Eggs A Day -- I Swear)

Of course he can. You would be immoral to claim otherwise. Blasphemy.

Read this recent characterization (summarization) and weep: "See, e.g., State ex rel Kane v. Goldschmidt, 308 Or 573, 590, 783 P2d 988 (1989) (although state-approved financing agreements did not contravene constitutional debt limitations on their face, future, unpredictable circumstances could render agreements in violation of those limitations)"

Which means, someone will have a look at any egg Sten-and-friends laid when they open some time capsule in a children's history exercise, no sooner than twenty years hence, where they can hop into their time machine and go back and fix it; unless a bankruptcy proceeding requires opening them all first so as to declare us all immoral or at least not as stiff as the Man of Steel. (That way we, the court, do not "stray into giving an advisory opinion." Kane.)

Its pretty amazing to me that folks can read this and not ask the question WHY that 20% is not going to schools and community assests that benefit them and not make money for developers.

Not really. If you ask any of the people running the city, they will tell you that all of that money is benefitting the people, because it fits their agenda. Their view of Utopia. And they tell you that with the grin of the Cheshire Cat. And the majority of voters either agree with their agenda, or feel powerless to do anything about it.

You see, its "benefitting" their view of what they want this city to be. They will keep building "affordable" housing for the poor, and condos for the rich. The rest of us get to move to the 'burbs. (I already did..)

We need a ballot measure to limit city spending.

Never happen. People are already bitching about the current measure to limit state spending. The status quo thinks throwing money at problems fixes them. And they dont want to know how they spend it. They just want things done. And that kind of thinking has got the whole state into trouble.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/bplive/2006/states/OR.html

Portland proper didn't even make the Top 100 of Best Places to live. Beaverton, Bend, and Hillsboro.

Like jon pointed out the Burb's rule.

The limit on Urban Renewal districts is 15% of the City, either by area or property value. Portland is essentially at the limit under either measure. In the next few years, the amount of money PDC will have to spend from Urban Renewal will drop dramatically.

And won't you be sad, Choo-Choo Boy -- ONLY KIDDING!

Jon sez: The status quo thinks throwing money at problems fixes them.

I disagree, Jon. My view of the status quo is that they think that they can get something for nothing. "Cut those taxes!...Whaddya mean, the firetruck won't be able to get to my house before it burns down?"

"Cut those taxes! Whaddya mean we can't find decent teaching talent? For crepes sake, we pay them more than the folks working for Portland Habilitation Center!"

"Cut those taxes! Whaddya mean we have to sell Mt. Tabor to pay the upkeep on Tanner Creek?"

One of these days, people will wake up and really decide that they need to keep a close watch on those they give the responsibility to spend our tax monies. I can understand the desire to take responsibility away from those who have abused it, but do we need to abuse ourselves in the process? Hold elected and appointed public officials responsible for their actions, rather than allow them to repeat their "mistakes"..."mistakes" which somehow line the pockets of their friends in the construction, acquisition and real estate businesses.

Jack - thanks for your response.

I finally found this on the PDC website:
http://www.pdc.us/about_pdc/property_tax.asp

JohnCapradoe: Its pretty amazing to me that folks can read this and not ask the question WHY that 20% is not going to schools and community assests that benefit them and not make money for developers.

While I agree on principle...
Looking at my tax statement, 27% of my property taxes is going towards "education" taxes.

As a relatively new Portland resident, looking at PDC's list of shining urban renewal projects, I'd have to say that I'm less than impressed with most of the ones I've encountered.

The percentages in the post are the percentages of what the City of Portland collects, as it says. Not the percentages of what you pay to all takers.

And won't you be sad, Choo-Choo Boy -- ONLY KIDDING!

Nothing like being welcomed to the conversation.

You might be surprised that I think funding the City's capital needs on the basis of urban renewal 'districts' is fundamentally outdated. The City needs a capital budgeting process that reflects the needs of the whole city and doesn't impact other governments as severely.

The City needs a capital budgeting process that reflects the needs of the whole city and doesn't impact other governments as severely.

Thank you, Chris. The increasing reliance on tax increment financing (TIF urban renewal district funds) has totally distorted, for example, the Park's Bureau spending priorities. That's why we see new parks in the Pearl and South Warerfront, while other long-established neighborhoods outside urban renewal districts are still waiting their turns. You shouldn't get to cut to the head of the line this way.

I think, too, the culture is changing so that people are recognizing that TIF money is not "free" money, spent with wild abandon. It is nothing less than future General Fund (and School District and County) money, being committed with way too little oversight.

"I think, too, the culture is changing so that people are recognizing that TIF money is not "free" money, spent with wild abandon. It is nothing less than future General Fund (and School District and County) money, being committed with way too little oversight."

A major frustration for me has been that, if we really had rational comprehensive planning, which is supposed to predict future problems and reduce uncertainties, this would have been realized earlier. Instead just about everybody got taken in and it has taken the blogoshere to step in and permit discussion of what should have been obvious from the start, if we really had planning in Portland.

I think the problem is the accounting, vs real costs. When you look at the PF&D fund issue where the pay as you go scheme was clearly a way for not paying for the services of our services in the year they were incurred. In other words when the pension money was not set aside in the year it was earned, the true cost of the services was avoided, and there was Extra money in the budget to spend on pet projects. As pointed out what this does is put a future liability on our kids.

I disagree, Jon. My view of the status quo is that they think that they can get something for nothing. "Cut those taxes!...Whaddya mean, the firetruck won't be able to get to my house before it burns down?"

I dont think people realize that the people spending the money dont care about anything but where their PERS account is heading, and how fast. Yes, people want taxes cut, (fees too). But the problem lies where the money is spent, and how. I certainly dont want spending cut on essentials like Police & Fire. But I feel education administration at the state and district levels are severely bloated. Why do they have to cut there? Why cant they cut, say, 1/2 the engineers at ODOT? Do they really need over 5,000 of them? For such a small state? I mean, c'mon...what do they really do? Wouldnt cutting 300 out of 5000 engineers at ODOT be better than 300 out of 600 State Troopers?

I think all of the above critiques are correct in causes for the bankruptcy we are approaching. And I would add another criteque: the media.

I know of several reporters at the Oregonian, WW, Tribune, and even the neighborhood newspapers that have been "light" on connecting the numbers, asking public officials the tough questions and getting the results published. That may be the fault of their superiors. Of course there has been some exceptions, but many times that comes after the fact, like Nigel Jacquis's recent article on North Macadam which came after the initial vote by City Council on NM's Amendment 8.

Then if you throw in TV coverage that only covers "crime stories" and a few "spin" releases from governmental agencies, you get the continuance of a "coverup".

Where is the analysis before/during the studies, meetings with comparison values, costs, etc?

Why isn't the media even doing the analysis that Jack did above? It is a fact, but maybe it might be editorializing too much. But certainly the media editorializes when they have a point they want to keep pounding; and they do it everywhere besides the editorial page.