My Statement on Council's Consideration of 30% TIF Set-Aside

We are at a pivotal decision point in our collective and ongoing city-making and city-remaking responsibilities.

Depending on the choices we make, and how we spend tax increment financing, we can greatly influence affordability for perhaps the next two generations of Portland families.

Rarely have the stakes for Portlanders been higher.

The state legislature has been resistant to taking needed action on housing.

The current federal administration has made some phenomenally bad choices that now have them defunding many federal affordable housing programs.

In the FY 06-07 budget, we as a City Council backfilled some of the federal cuts on a one-time basis with local funds. But the City's General Fund cannot continue indefinitely to backfill all of these federal government affordable housing cuts.

State inaction and the federal government disinvestment in affordable hosing come at a very bad time for Portland - many local wages are not keeping up with the rising cost of living. We do not control things in Salem and we cannot immediately change the misadventures of the current federal administration, but until times get better with this nation's government, we must respond locally.

Are we going give in to gentrification or fight it? Are we going to be a city with a diverse range of incomes or are we going to be a city that hollowed out its middle class?

I know first hand that low-income families rarely make the leap to middle income status without getting help through tough times. And with this discussion about setting aside 30% citywide, we have the opportunity to municipally to actually do something to help poor families become middle income earners.

My approach is to raise the maximum indebtedness in increment districts where housing can be built to reach the 30% set aside. By raising the debt we do not raid projects already approved in each tax increment district. As always, if someone has a better idea, I look forward to hearing about it.

I want to thank Commissioner Erik Sten, Mayor Tom Potter, the Portland Development Commission and the Bureau of Housing and Community Development for shepherding this conversation. I look forward to the discussions ahead.

For more information about the proposal to set aside a percentage of urban renewal dollars, visit PDC's website. Read The Oregonian's coverage here.

Sam Adams's recent posts | Print this page

Posted Thu, 08/17/2006 - 3:22pm.

[[ Categories: Housing | Speeches & Testimony ]]

Some discrepancies

Submitted by Steve on Thu, 08/17/2006 - 6:20pm.

My response is why should we? I thought SoWa was supposed to be partially affordable housing to qualify for the pots of development money you are throwing at it.

Well, guess what there is NO affordable housing there. I almost feel like I have not been told the truth about these projects and why they are funded. So whay would we believe the money is being spent properly now?

» reply

This proposal needs some more thought

Submitted by Rob on Fri, 08/18/2006 - 8:10am.

Commissioner and Staff,

Perhaps you can clarify the proposal. Using municipal debt through PDC as opposed to general fund income to build low income housing with many years of service life makes sense. Of course, it should be dispersed within higher rent development, such as the South Waterfront, and not revert to market rent after a period of years.

But increasing the debt limit for existing projects would result in fewer general fund dollars collected by the City's property taxes. Is that correct?

I think a discussion of the qualifying income targets is appropriate. Perhaps the PSU Urban Studies Program could undertake a study of other cities' income and labor profiles and projections of them for the future. That data could be used to reset the targets, perhaps lower.

The South Waterfront is a textbook case. Operation of OHSU and the district itself is dependent on entry wage services. Why not district level social services, including child care and tuition assistance, to accompany the housing, and paid for by the businesses requiring that labor?

As for increasing the PDC setaside from 16% to 30%, consider setting a schedule for a gradual increase, say 2-3% a year, with measurable goals each year required for the next increase. The construction trades are very busy and expensive now, in a few years, that may not be the case. That would be the time to focus on public residential projects.

The Council has been doing a great job, but this proposal may need more work.

» reply

SoWa Affordable Housing

Submitted by Sam on Sat, 08/19/2006 - 7:32am.

SoWa includes more affordable housing now that some of us fought hard to get it early this year -- just not enough their and in other TIF districts.

» reply

Sam, I share your concern

Submitted by paul on Fri, 08/18/2006 - 4:02pm.

Sam,

I share your concern with affordable housing, but I think SoWa and the other TIFF districts are probably not the right location.

Most families that I know (including my own) want a self-standing house with a yard, nearby parks, low traffic, nearly schools, and inexpensive shopping. And good middle class jobs.

Candidly, SoWa offers none of this. There is no nearby schools, low priced shopping, I fear that traffic loads on Macadam will be heavy. And we are experiencing job loss in the central city.

SoWa will be a playground for wealthy yuppies, retired folks, and Drs on the hill. That's OK. Can't we somehow redirect the funds to affordable housing and economic development away from the central city, where most families will want to live anyway?

» reply