T h e H id d e n Tax
is $36.97. Compare that to what this
property owner pays to the Educational
Service District (E.S.D.) or Portland
Community College. How does county­
wide public education compare to
urban renewal districts in the city of
Portland?
There are no right or wrong
answers to the question. For some the
distribution may look just right, for
others, not enough. It boils down to
values. But it REALLY underscores the
importance of taxpayers knowing and
having a say about the spending of
those dollars.
Today, many citizens seem
dissatisfied. They ask, “Why am I
paying m ore taxes to government
today and receiving fewer services?” A
partial answer may be, “Because of tax
increment financing.”
Whatever a person’s feelings about
the merit of tax increment financing,
wouldn't it be good to know what the
real costs are? Shouldn't urban renewal
projects be recorded on the tax
statement just like the other costs?
Why isn't it? Because efforts to get
such disclosure have been blocked in
the legislature.
Has Urban
Renewal Brought
Tax Relief?
Below are a list of projects in
Portland's urban renewal districts that
have begun since Oregon permitted
tax increment financing. The first
started in 1965 and the list is growing.
One can see from the data that the
excess value of these properties
represents millions and millions of
dollars lost to the tax rolls, for purposes
of financing our cities, schools, etc.
The taxes paid on the new growth in
the urban renewal areas, (the “excess”
values), go straight to the Portland
Development Commission.
The data also shows that little has
been returned to the rolls during the
last 20 years, although the projects
have mushroomed. What’s to prevent
this growth? As long as the
development stays within a designated
urban renewal area, then the City of
Portland, together with the Portland
Development Commission, which
runs the programs, are free to invent
an endless list of needs. While urban
renewal has returned over five million
Dollars Lost From Tax Rolls
South Auditorium Urban Renewal
TOTAL:
$5,000,000.00
Downtown Waterfront Urban Renewal
Year
1974- 75
1975- 76
1976- 77
1977- 78
1978- 79
1979- 80
1980- 81
1981- 82
1982- 83
1983- 84
1984- 85
1985- 86
1986- 87
1987- 88
Amount
$213,820.93
$853,833-20
$1,352,546 80
$2,255,662.10
$3,135,329.41
$3,611,648.96
$3.650,583.11
$4.825,766.18
$6.212,390 97
$6,833.346.73
$8,037.686.43
$9,889,434.25
$12,475,373.15
$9,402,716.30
$72,750,138.52
TOTAL:
N.W. Front Avenue Urban Renewal
1978- 79
1979- 80
1980- 81
1981-82
1982- 83
1983- 84
1984- 85
1985- 86
1986- 87
1987- 88
1165,474 50
$140,72337
$156,260.68
$1.5'6.291.32
$1,798,058.39
$1,726,733 02
$1,788,377.36
$2,055,2'3.78
$1,677,030.81
$1,724,677.39
$12,798,900.62
TOTAL:
St.John’s Urban Renewal
1981- 82
1982- 83
1983- 84
1984- 85
1985- 86
1986- 87
1987- 88
$11,221.26
$19,401 14
$20.037.71
$30,191.65
$30,358.69
$10,794.”5
-0-
$122,005 20
TOTAL:
South Park Blocks Urban Renewal
TOTAL:
1986- 87
1987- 88
$4,216,866.82
$1,587,216.00
$2,629,650.82
Central East Side Urban Renewal
1987-88
$226,244.10
$226,244.10
TOTAL:
Columbia South Shore Urban Renewal
1987-88
TOTAL:
GRAND TOTAL LOST FROM TAX ROLLS:
Chart No. 5A
, .-i.
$107,873.24
$107,8^3.24
$95,222.028.50