This week’s question—from reader Jasun Wurster—tackles the PDC’s urban renewal areas.

What are your thoughts on the Portland Development Commission’s eleven Urban Renewal Areas? More specifically, would you support extending the following Urban Renewal Areas when they reach their expiration date (dates are from the PDC’s website)—three would expire during your term:

* Downtown Waterfront - 2008

* South Park Blocks - 2008

* Airport Way - May 2011

* Oregon Convention Center - June 2013

* Lents Town Center - 2015

Also, why would they support to extend or let the above URA’s lapse?

From what I hear, Charles Lewis was ecstatic about this question. So much so, that he not only shot and edited a video while in Namibia, Africa, but he was also the first to respond:

Charles Lewis
Position sought: Commissioner #1
Website: charleslewis.com
Public financing status: “Over a 1,000 signatures and counting,” according to his campaign.

Lewis’ challengers are after the cut. Send question suggestions to me in the comments, or via email.

Chris Smith
Position sought: Commissioner #1
Website: citizensmith.us
Public financing status: 932 signatures & contributions, according to Smith

I think we’re asking the wrong question. District-based Urban Renewal is no longer working for Portland. The City certainly needs to continue to make investments, but they don’t fall conveniently into ‘blighted districts’. Indeed the definition of blight is now so flexible that I think we can declare any property blighted!

And the needs for investment don’t just fall in the 15% of the City (a statutory limit) covered by districts, they are all over the city. This is a huge matter of equity.

I would like to lead the conversation to shift to a City-wide capital budgeting process as a replacement for Urban Renewal. In such a system the School Districts and County would be voluntary partners, not dragged along for the ride. As we design the replacement for Urban Renewal, we can work out the transition process that will phase out the current districts. In general I do believe the first three districts have largely accomplished their missions and should close soon, although I am not committed to exact dates as I know there is still considerable discussion in the community about the specifics. And some portion of the two downtown districts may be appended to the River District.

Amanda Fritz
Position sought: Commissioner #1
Website: amandafritzforcitycouncil.com
Public financing status: Has filed request for certification.

Urban Renewal Areas (URAs) have helped Portland thrive while other city centers continue to decay. Public investment in the districts promotes private development. Both improve blighted areas, and rising property values will eventually generate revenue for the city.

"Eventually" is the key word. Even after the expiration date of a district, it will take ten to twenty years to pay off the debts. Extending the timeline and maximum indebtedness in Urban Renewal Areas is like taking out a second mortgage on a home. There might be good reasons to do it, but is it really the best choice?

Each year, urban renewal districts use $59 million in property taxes collected within the districts. About $24 million is diverted from the City's general fund, and $19 million from Multnomah County services. Renewing, extending, and expanding Urban Renwal Areas impacts the ability to pay for necessary infrastructure and services in the rest of the city and county.

Two Citizen Advisory groups are currently formulating recommendations on whether to add more debt, more time, and/or more land to existing urban renewal areas. The arguments that have been presented so far have not yet convinced me of the value of extending or expanding the first four districts listed in the question, but I will wait to hear citizen testimony before making final decisions on each one.

In addition to capturing funds generated within the districts, the four areas together currently receive $14.5 million annually from citywide property taxes (check the line item on the back of your property tax statement). Other neighborhoods may have greater needs for infrastructure improvements and basic services than urban renewal districts that are no longer truly "blighted". Some or all of these districts may now thrive without borrowing more money to fund public projects. Downtown Waterfront began in 1974, and has already been extended. These factors must be weighed against valid goals to fund worthy projects with long-term public benefits.

In Lents, I believe there may be a good case for extending the timeline and debt level. Many community leaders feel Lents was funded too conservatively, and now lacks enough investment capacity to complete the goal of creating a vibrant commercial and employment center. I am less convinced that expanding the boundaries of the Lents URA makes sense - but again, I want to hear the Advisory Committee's recommendations, and more from affected neighbors, before drawing firm conclusions. City Commissioners should not ask citizens to provide advice without the honest intention to consider it.

This is a complicated issue. I invite you to read more information on my campaign blog, and add your comments there.

Jeff Bissonnette
Position sought: Commissioner #1
Website: portlandersforjeff.com
Public financing status: 660 signatures in hand, according to Bissonnette

I am supportive of Urban Renewal Areas (URA) as a tool to focus resources on specific areas to accomplish specific economic and development goals within the targeted area. However, we need to realize that by establishing an Urban Renewal Area, we are directing resources into that area and making those resources unavailable to support city services or make other investments.

With that understanding, as an Urban Renewal Area reaches its expiration date, I will look to see whether the goals that were put in place in establishing the URA have been achieved. If they have, I will be inclined to advocate for letting the URA designation expire and recapturing those tax dollars for other purposes. If the goals have not been accomplished, I will work to explore, with my council colleagues as well as residents and businesses within the URA, whether those goals remain relevant and if more time is needed to accomplish the URA's purpose. Allowing the expiration of a URA designation, or not, will need to be done on a case-by-case basis.

There is a specific proposal for an Urban Renewal Area that has is worthy of discussion here, even though its expiration date is relatively far away. The River District URA was created in September 1998 and is slated to last until October 2020. As most Portlanders know, the fomer industrial area that was redeveloped and revitalized and is now known as the Pearl has been wildly successful, largely because it has received targeted resources since it is part of the River District URA. In fact, the Pearl's development has been so successful that an active proposal suggests adding part of the David Douglas School District to the River District URA as a "satellite district" in order to send some of the River District URA funds to the school district. The theory is that because development has caused property values to soar in and around the Pearl, families are moving to East Portland and putting pressure on institutions like David Douglas with increased demand for services. The school district cannot afford to build classrooms to meet the increased demand. The idea is controversial because no other URA is separated geographically like this "satellite district" proposes to be.

I appreciate the creativity behind the proposal and agree with its overall purpose: to have the economic benefits of development in one area help fund needed services in another. However, before I would vote in favor of such a proposal, I have concerns about its legality that I would want to investigate thoroughly. And I am not sure that having this type of "satellite district" is the best way to prioritize funds. That is best accomplished through the city budget process. If there is indeed enough money being generated in an Urban Renewal Area to re-distribute to another area in the city, then the first step should be to explore whether we might end the designation early, capture the increased revenues from the improved tax base and prioritize investment another area, like the area served by David Douglas. I am in full support of designating areas in East Portland or other outer neighborhoods as targets for investment and development. But I would rather do it in a more straightforward manner.

John Branam
Position sought: Commissioner #1
Website: john4pdx.org
Public financing status: Over 900 signatures & contributions

I believe Urban Renewal Areas (URAs) can give a much-needed shot in the arm to specific neighborhoods. In their best iteration, URAs have helped boost the business and residential vitality of Portland's communities. This is important because two of my campaign's focus areas are just that: economic development and healthy neighborhoods. Portland's URAs are therefore one element of an overall strategy to achieve a better Portland.

That said, it's important to note that URAs are not the panacea for all of Portland's most challenged neighborhoods, particularly given the broader effects they have on our city. Most importantly, the Portland Development Commission (PDC) and the City must maintain a precise approach throughout the life of each URA, and must continually evaluate the degree to which we're achieving the broader goals of economic and neighborhood development. Too, since a significant percentage of PDC's staff are paid through URA revenues, it is also important for us to be extraordinarily careful to ensure that we're focused exclusively on doing what's in the best interest of our neighbors and neighborhoods.

I believe our general approach should be to allow URAs to expire so that we're forced to reconsider the needs of other challenged Portland neighborhoods. One possible exception is our downtown, whose success is essential to Portland's vitality and where there will always be challenges of less expensive land outside of the city's core.

Our reality is that we have limited funding for city and regional projects. Extending URAs diverts revenue streams away from other critical partners like the county and our school districts; all of whose health is imperative to a vibrant Portland. In real ways, URAs can position neighborhoods against neighborhoods and, in some cases, school districts against school districts. Our actions, therefore, must be precise and done in the context of our big-picture goals for a better Portland.

In short, I will support extending Urban Renewal Areas only in cases where there are compelling, specific and documented reasons that I could clearly justify to Portland's taxpayers.