UGB expansion areas “blighted”?

Leaders in Beaverton and other jurisdictions in Washington County are expressing concern over the idea of establishing an Urban Renewal Area for Bethany – 800 acres of farmland designated to receive 12,000 new residents under Metro’s expansion of the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). Good article by David Anderson in today’s Oregonian.

Designating Bethany “blighted” and establishing an Urban Renewal Area there would allow Washington County to plough (geddit? farmland, plough…hehehe) all new tax revenue as the area develops back into the district, instead of giving other taxing jurisdictions like schools and parks their cut. The article reports:

“… the board president of the Tualatin Hills Park & Recreation District has sent the county a letter expressing “serious concern” over the plan. District officials estimate that the plan could cost them as much as $2.2 million a year at the same time they will have more parks and more customers to serve.”

With the counter view, Tom Brian, chair of the Board of Washington County Commissioners, reportedly says:

“… it’s not necessarily a subsidy. It avoids dipping into other pots of money, such as the county’s share of state gasoline taxes, to pay for roads in North Bethany, for example. “It really makes the area help pay for itself,” Brian said.”

The article notes that “The cost of roads, sewers, waterlines and other infrastructure for North Bethany is estimated to be $250 million more than available funding through traditional means, such as charges on new development.” Of course, there’s nothing stopping elected officials from choosing to dedicate some of the new tax revenue to providing more infrastructure in Bethany, without designating the area as a blighted Urban Renewal District. Making reinvestment a choice rather than a rule would allow still sending their share of tax revenues to the jurisdictions that need it. It would provide less money for Bethany, of course, and would depend on elected officials making ongoing commitments to funding – which might affect bond interest ratings. But establishing Urban Renewal Areas isn’t the only way to provide improvements when the political will is there. See Gresham’s approach to developing their UGB expansion area in Pleasant Valley.

It’s good to see a robust discussion of pros and cons of urban renewal districts before choosing to establish one. Here in Portland, we’ve almost reached the 15% maximum land area allowed to have the designation under state statutes. Our choices are limited to whether to extend the timelines of current districts, or allow them to end – freeing up capacity to start new ones if the City Council and Portland Development Commission want to designate a different blighted area. Or even taking the new taxes generated by improvements in formerly blighted areas, and putting them into the General Fund, schools budgets, TriMet allocations, and other such worthy causes. Ryan Frank’s article, again in today’s O, reports on Old Town/Chinatown’s revitalization thanks to the River District Urban Renewal Area. City Council and the Portland Development Commission are talking about increasing the maximum indebtedness of the River District and extending its boundaries, to allow for more improvements to be purchased now the area is “taking off”.

Portlanders generally won’t have much input into the Washington County decision – there are just a few hundred residents of our city who live in Washington County. Most of us should be able to participate in deciding whether or not to extend the timelines and/or debt load of urban renewal districts here in Portland.