Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Portland observer. (Portland, Or.) 1970-current | View Entire Issue (Feb. 17, 1988)
4 hidden tax. Since the cost of tax increment financing is buried in the property tax rate, the portion of cost for these projects is unknown to the individual taxpayer. 2. The length of time the property in urban renewal districts is off the tax rolls, between 20 to 30 years, is too long to w ait for tax relief. 3 Tax increment financing circumvents the public’s right to vote on public debt. 4. Tax increment financing can result in taxation without representation: The city creates a debt, but through the tax rate, the cost is spread, not only to its residents but also to residents of the county living outside the city. Those outside the city limits are barred from voting for or against the elected officials who create this tax burden. The Journey Back Here we are, back ir Multnomah County. It's been an interesting journey, but now we wonder what all the fuss was about. Tax increment financing may be a problem for a galaxy long ago and far away, but do WE need to w<>rry? The best thing we can do is kx»k at our tax statements to see how much we really pay. Unfortunately, when we look, we discover the information isn't there If we ask w hy, we learn that forces have been at work in the Salem legislature to make sure it's a well kept secret. Who the Darth Vadar’s" are among us, we ought to find out, but for the moment, we ll ask our friendly Multnomah County' Assessment and Taxation Division. They turn out to be pretty nice people and oblige by sending us a sample of what a typical hom eow ner’s statement would look like IE THE URBAN RENEWAL COSTS WERE BROKEN OUT. This is a REAI., not mythical, tax statement billed to som eone in the county. Here's what it would l<x)k like if urban renewal costs were shown, compared to what it does l<x)k like when urban renewal costs are “hidden.” (see chart 4A) We discover that 33% of this tax bill g<x.*s for urban renewal The sum T he H id d en lax Impact o f Urban Renewal Taxing Body on Individual Tax Return True $ Amount Port of Portland City of Portland E.S.D. Portland S.D. #1 PCC MDS (.Multnomah) County' Port Bonds 13.94 269.93 50.51 550.07 32.42 9.04 15381 1.50 14.54 278.43 52.55 570.28 33-55 8.95 158.77 1.12 $1,081.22 36.97 ****** «1,118.19 «1,118.19 Total, w/o Urban Renewal: Urban Renewal adds: Total (WITH Urban Renewal): bodies. As Seen on Tax Bill 1 Chart No. 4A Urban Renewal 1987-88 Statistics South Auditorium Urban Renewal Created: Frozen Base. Excess: Returned to Roll: 1965-1966 $11,005,789 $59,939,967 $59,939,967 Downtown Waterfront Urban Renewal Created: Frozen Base: Excess: Returned to Roll: 1974-75 $97,406,603 $317,016,733 $134,662,237 N.W. Front Avenue Urban Renewal Created: Frozen Base: Excess: Returned to Roll: 1979-80 $30,045,830 $58,148,260 -0- St. Johns Urban Renewal Created: Frozen Base: Excess: Returned to Roll: 1981-82 $3,685,122 -0- -0- South Park Blocks Urban Renewal Created: Frozen Base: Excess: Returned to Roll: 1986- 87 $402,291,511 $88,659,839 -0- Central East Side Urban Renewal Created: Frozen Base: Excess: Returned to Roll: 1987- 88 $297,333,210 $7,627,920 -0- Columbia South Shore Urban Renewal Created: Frozen Base: Excess: Returned to Roll: 1987-88 $146,986,010 $4,572,404 -0- ChartNo. 4B i