More funny.

Just like TriMet, the PDC blames the economy and says nothing about their massive debt amd unfunded liabilities.

As Bruce Warner sails off into retirement, his family living large in the grand scale of Fred Hansen and many others who got hooked up to the Goldschmidt rip off.

You hooked me on that one! Well played Jack!

PDC should lay off the 17 highest paid employees!
I bet no one would notice the difference.

But...but...didn't the PDC get $2 million in "high speed rail" funds to help promote and build new high speed rail corridors...to replace the roof on the PDC owned Union Station?

"The city-owned agency generates most of its operating budget from urban renewal districts, which produce less money as they age."

Well that statement pretty much explains their relentless drive to destroy perfectly good infrastructure.

As Rasheed Wallace famously said, "Just cut the check".

or in their case, "Just cut the ribbon"...

"The city-owned agency generates most of its operating budget from urban renewal districts, which produce less money as they age."

Explain that to me, please. Besides, I thought the prop specif stuff went to bonds and PDC got its money from everyone's prop taxes.

WOW!!

Great news.

Only 138 FTEs left to go.

Keep the good news coming in this time of bad news.

Thanks
JK

The PDC siphons off millions in borrowed Tax Increment Financing from every UD district for their operation.

For example in one 5 year budget cycle in SoWa the PDC is getting $18 million from the bond proceeds.
The budget line item is Mangement and Administration.

Being borrowed money their operating budget actually is millions greater.

All of which is paid with property taxes.

So as the PDC operates it's borrowed operating revenue stacks up more debt that requires greater debt service amounts every year.

It's an entirely bogus and ponzi scheme-like madness that the Creepy Mayor deliberately doesn't even understand.

He is of course an inept scum bag.

So let me make sure I have this straight.

The PDC's purpose is to identify places of blight within the city that should be redeveloped under the umbrella of "urban renewal districts."

The PDC gets most of it money from said URDs, but that revenue stream diminishes as the URDs age.

To maintain and/or grow its coffers, then, the PDC must continually create new URDs to replace the money lost in the old, aging URDs.

Since it would seem the supply of blighted areas within the city would eventually be exhausted, the PDC's raison d'etre gradually shifts from redevelopment to self-perpetuation.

Where am I going wrong here?

"The city-owned agency generates most of its operating budget from urban renewal districts, which produce less money as they age."

Explain that to me, please.

They produce less revenue for operating expenses because PDC has borrowed all of it to pay for capital projects that now have to be paid off. Every URA has a maximum indebtedness limit, and once that limit is reached, the TIF is siphoned off for the next 20 years to pay off the debt.

Assuming, of course, that the URA isn't extended. (Ha! Ha!)