Perpetuating the "urban renewal" myth
Headlines like this make "urban renewal" programs -- which are all paid for by property taxes -- sound as though they make money magically fall from the sky. And the text isn't much better:
The new $9 million station was financed almost entirely through the city's downtown urban renewal district, resulting in no direct increases in property taxes for Canby residents or business owners."We're proud of how that district works," said City Administrator Greg Ellis. "The district has put about $13 million into local infrastructure and has attracted $80 million to $100 million in private investment."
Money borrowed under "urban renewal" is paid back out of the future property taxes of the district, which "urban renewal" is supposed to increase. Much of any increase in taxes may have come about anyway, even without "urban renewal," and that money is no longer available for basic services, the cost of which is bound to rise.
Certainly in this case, the police station is not paying any property tax, and so the money used to pay for it will be robbed from somewhere else. The reporter here knows that, but he won't acknowledge it. It's so much easier to parrot back the politicians' happy talk.
| Posted at 11:24 AM | Permalink |
|
Comments (15)
Because if there porter or anyone else dares to question this rip off (that is going on world wide) one ends up punished in one way or another.
The powers that be will do anything to protect their interests!
Posted by Portland Native | August 4, 2012 2:10 PM
Oops should read "reporter".
Posted by Portland Native | August 4, 2012 2:11 PM
No, "porter" is the correct, if Freudian slip-in, word. As in Mr. Bella is carrying the water for the carpetbaggers.
Posted by Old Zeb | August 4, 2012 2:54 PM
You hit it ... Much if not all of the supposed increase in value being credited to urban renewal simply reflects general inflation.
The solution to this conundrum is to discount the percentage tax basis value for all the URA taxes by the general rate of appreciation in the greater metro area ... So if all PDX metro values see a 2% nominal value increase, then the increase that can be tapped to support the URA is only the appreciated value in excess of 2%.
This would still permit URA funding, but the investors would suddenly get very serious about valuing the projects being funded and only backing those with solid prospects for real (rather than nominal) value enhancement in the URA.
Posted by GA Seldes | August 4, 2012 3:30 PM
Jack, I agree, "this" reporter being around a long time at the O should know that in this case the police station has raised property taxes indirectly.
I've found in talking to most of the media around town that they don't get the real cost of urban renewal and how it works. Especially in cases when a great percentage of an URA has projects that are not property tax generators, then the burden is placed on all the rest of a city/county taxpayers to make up the difference in service costs. Take for example SoWhat that has over 50% of the area not paying property taxes-OHSU, PSU, affordable housing, TOD's, etc.
It's simple. So I've come to believe that those like Bella are water carriers at best, lying most likely, or they are that dumb.
Posted by Lee | August 4, 2012 4:32 PM
I wonder what is being taught at journalism schools these days? I do think the reporters know better but in order to be employed, they need to "stay in line." I would think it would be frustrating to be a reporter, especially if one wanted to be an investigative reporter and not much of an outlet for it.
Posted by clinamen | August 4, 2012 7:23 PM
The real issue in the construction of these projects--police stations in Canby or the city hall in Wilsonville, etc.--is that the police station serves then entire city, yet only those properties within the urban renewal district pay for it. The costs of the entire city are therefore being inappropriately shifted to the urban renewal district. This cost shifting is harmful to the taxpayers in the urban renewal district who pay an inordinate cost for the rest of the city.
Posted by Thoughtful Goober | August 4, 2012 11:04 PM
How come they never mention the cost to administer the URA? It doesn't run itself. One of the reasons the PDC for example wants to extend a URA when it's about to expire is self preservation. Less URA's mean less jobs at the PDC.
Posted by Mike | August 5, 2012 6:21 AM
If one aspires to be a "investigative" reporter....start a blog.
No one will hire you for money!
Posted by Portland Native | August 5, 2012 6:32 AM
Jack, not to mention the police station is being built adjacent to an old rock quarry on a one way street. It is as far out of town as you can get with a busy railroad tracks in between the station and 99e. The first thing that hit me was what was mentioned above, "police stations don't pay property taxes, and police services are for the entire community not just businesses in the urban renewal district".
Posted by Anthony | August 5, 2012 6:34 AM
Does the reporter know better?
I'm guessing not. Most folks have very limited concepts of how an economy works.
That is why we are in the pickle we are in. Even the so-called financial scholars are winging it.
Posted by tim | August 5, 2012 9:37 AM
The reporter knows.
His reporting and editor's headline writing is deliberate.
Bella has a long track record of this.
Posted by Track Record | August 5, 2012 9:54 AM
Would someone please give Thoughtful Goober a lesson of how wrong his comment is. I'm too tired, and don't know where to begin.
Posted by lw | August 5, 2012 1:43 PM
Go ahead LW, enlighten me. I'd be happy to provide you a lesson on the basic and advanced considerations of UR in Oregon.
Posted by Thoughtful Goober | August 6, 2012 12:27 AM
Goober,
You do need a little help.
You said, "the police station serves then entire city, yet only those properties within the urban renewal district pay for it."
That may be technically true but it means little. The effect of property taxes being siphoned off of real estate within an UR district to pay that UR debt is less revenue for city wide and county wide services.
The costs of the entire city are being inappropriately de-funded by the urban renewal district skimming away revenue from property taxes within the UR district.
There is no cost shifting to the taxpayers in the urban renewal district. They do not pay an inordinate cost for the rest of the city.
They pay the same as they would without UR. UR diverts part of their property taxes to UR debt servicing.
Posted by 3-401 Rail Vote | August 7, 2012 3:42 PM