BLOG: Central Eastside Industrial District Needs More Investment to Succeed
Sam Adams
One way the city funds neighborhood and business district improvements is with tax increment districts. Today we considered the future of the Central Eastside Industrial District tax increment district.
I am worried that there is not enough money in the proposed $35 million extension of the Central Eastside Industrial District to complete the Eastside Streetcar Loop and the East Burnside Couplet.
- Eastside Streetcar Estimated Budget Gap:
o $22 to $42 million (still a early low confidence estimate)
I am pushing for a new streetcar spur from the River District at NW Lovejoy, across the Broadway Bridge, through the Lloyd District and down MLK Blvd and SE Grand to OMSI. Without an adequate local funding match, we will not qualify for federal streetcar funds. Thus, no streetcar.
- East Burnside Couplet Estimated Budget Gap:
o $11.2 to $20 million (still a early low confidence estimate)
U.S. Congressman Earl Blumenauer has done a great job of obtaining federal funding for the East Burnside Couplet project. But the project, which is going through preliminary engineering right now to get a more accurate cost estimate, has a substantial gap.
I also am concerned that without more tax increment resources to deal with the old buildings in the Central Eastside Industrial District it will gentrify away many Portland-based existing small businesses. And that all the housing to be built will be financially out or reach for most Portlanders.
So I proposed an amendment today – that the City Council approved on a three (Adams, Leonard, Sten) to two (Potter, Saltzman) vote -- to raise the Central Eastside Industrial District debt extension from $35 million to $50 million. The ordinance itself will be considered in mid-July. We will have a City Council Worksesion on this matter at 9:30 am on Tuesday, July 5, 2006.
Most of the small business advocates and many neighborhood advocates expressed support for my amendment.
I am interested your thoughts on this hearing from you.
Posted by Sam Adams on June 14, 2006
(8) Comments | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Filed Under Blog, Downtown Portland, Front Page, Jobs & Economy, Transportation
Comments by site visitors
Sam,
For once I partly agree with Lenny. The urban renewal districts should not be given time extensions and Lenny makes a good case for that. It is time these districts be placed back on the property tax roles to support schools and other government services. It is doubletalk for the Mayor to state that the children are his top priority while continually siphoning off tax dollars from these never ending districts that would otherwise go to schools.
My disagreement with Lenny relates to the Eastside Streetcar. Lenny has suggested the most likely and correct funding method for such a project, but the route of the streetcar is in the wrong place and the plan has not addressed and/or glossed over the negative impacts it will have on congestion, motorist fuel economy and air quality. Several members of the streetcar CAC are too intense on taking a club approach to the traffic on MLK and Grand Avenue, a club approach that will only make things worse. Instead of using the MLK and Grand Avenue alignment with a Broadway Bridge river crossing, a two-way pedestrian oriented transit mall like route using Sixth Avenue should be chosen with a Steel Bridge river crossing on the tracks already in place. Further open minded study is absolutely needed
The couplet too has problems, in particular with the eastbound traffic connection from Burnside to Sandy, and the westbound connection from Burnside to Couch. This too needs further study before any project is approved or started.
Posted by: Terry Parker | Jun 15, 2006 5:29:59 PM
I don't think that the connections that Terry mentions are really going to be a problem. Both may use 14th Ave, but signalling should allow them use it at different times/phases. It'll be like the transition from Hawthorne to Madison, except that 12th Ave traffic will be replaced with EB Burnside to Sandy traffic. Also, with the MAX Green Line, the Steel Bridge will be filling up.
Moreover, though, it is nice to see some criticisms that are actually constructive. This is unlike Lars Larson, who seems to believe that the artery is going go get pinched so bike lanes can be added and that people who are going the other way than Burnside traffic is will be out of luck. A couplet, by definition, allows (for better or worse) increased traffic, since two streets instead of one will be used for the artery. Moreover, in this case, it will allow legal left turns and more on-street parking, both of which are lacking.
Posted by: Jason McHuff | Jun 15, 2006 9:29:07 PM
Where can we find more information explaining the benefits of the proposed streetcar?
Posted by: Brett Miller | Jun 15, 2006 11:38:55 PM
How many family wage jobs will the new condos drive out of town?
Already familys and jobs are leaving, seeming by design of the city council.
Maybe we could become a bed room cummunity to Beaverton.
Of course this is just another step towards making Portland into a rust belt city.
Thanks
JK
Posted by: jim karlock | Jun 16, 2006 2:27:54 AM
Mr Adams - Before you start throwing money at an area and assuming it will produce something besides more condos, why not go to employers and ask what they would like to to move to this area.
I know the Laika studios move will hurt, but use it as a learning experience. Maybe there is something we could have done to keep those potenitally 600 creative jobs in Portland instead of Tualatin.
Please do this especially after PDC's feeble attmepts to justify its investments as economic development. I think he days of "build it and they will come" are gone, I hope.
Posted by: Steve | Jun 16, 2006 6:32:46 AM
Sam - why are you asking? Or should the question be - are you not asking after the fact? The council already approved the amendment, it seems to me that "considering the ordinance" will merely be a formality. Like so many other things that this city does, there is no real debate (that includes the public) - rather some folks in city government gather a quarum and keep spending our money - no vote of the people, no TRUE discussion (merely the formality of going through the motions). We see it time and time again - it happened with the tram, it happened when we voted down some of the light rail, it happened with the "voter owned elections". About the only time in recent history that I didn't see it happen was the covering of the Mt. Tabor reservours.
So I guess I'm asking why you bother to post it? It's obvious that the council members think they know best; so why even ask it on this blog?
As usual you won't like my opinion but here it is. The couplet is a waste of taxpayer money followed by a MUCH bigger waste of a streetcar (bigger waste in that it's truely a waste of time, money and resources). When the URA is over, it needs to be over. This city continues to NOT bring the (so called) districts back into the normal tax rolls and this is a terrible hoax on all citizens in the city.
Told you that you wouldn't like my opinion.
Posted by: mmmarvel | Jun 16, 2006 6:45:37 AM
Thank you Jason for your comments. And for all readers, please take the following comments also as an attempt to be constructive and make changes in current processes.
Expanding a little bit on my previous post related to the Burnside Couplet problems, by routing both eastbound Sandy traffic and westbound Burnside traffic on the same street, 14th Avenue, even with signalization, if there is any kind of incident that causes a traffic back up in the area, this bottle neck could conceivably choke traffic. A far better route for eastbound Sandy traffic would be to retain two eastbound lanes on Sandy between 12th and 14th Avenues, and not have eastbound Sandy traffic go out of direction and around the horn. There is no viable reason not to retain theses two lanes on Sandy.
Another concern I have is how traffic will be handled on Couch Street itself. In addition to regular traffic, Couch Street will have to accommodate frequent bus service from at least two bus lines. Currently during the morning rush hour, traffic westbound on Burnside from 12th Avenue to the bridge has a third travel lane, accomplished by not allowing parking on the North side of the street. It is my understanding, although the final design has not been done, Couch Street will be two lanes of regular traffic westbound. If a decision is made to remove parking on the North side of the street to handle the additional morning rush hour traffic, and thereby not reducing the motor vehicle capacity that currently exists westbound on Burnside, buses will continue to stop for passengers in a third lane during the rush period. If parking is retained all hours of the day on the North side of Couch Street, considerably more congestion will be created for morning commuters. Either way, bus zones must be created on Couch Street so that when the street is operating with two lanes, busses will be required to pull over to the curb when stopping for passengers, thereby not blocking other traffic that would only add more unnecessary congestion and require motorists to use more fuel due to extra engine idling time. If Couch Street is designed to operate as two lanes full time, curb extensions must NOT be installed where the busses stop so an orderly and continuous traffic flow can be maintained. .
I also want to back up some of mmmarvel ‘s comments. Personally I have attended many mostly transportation related public forums, and testified at public hearings. Therefore my comments come from my experiences. With all the respect to the people who volunteer their time and serve on citizen committees, and others who attend these forums and hearings, much of this process is just window dressing. Citizen committees have become a combination of a hand picked stacked deck choir and who’s who in Portland. There are very few just plain ordinary citizens on these committees. The fact is there is Downtown Westside business representation on the Eastside Streetcar CAC. Projects for the most part are decided prior to any public process. The public process is now only to iron out some details. The Idea of an extending the Portland Streetcar to the Eastside and much of the preferred routing was decided well before the public process was started. Individuals that do not sing with the choir, or have opposing views are not invited to the table and kept off these citizen committees. The best example can be found in that stakeholder taxpaying motorists do not have a direct representative on any transportation related citizen committee that I know of. This I view as taxation without representation. Citizen committees are no longer a cross section of the community, part of the function they were originally designed to perform. Furthermore, public hearings have become nothing more than a required formality.
And Sam, constructively speaking, you have not changed things much in this arena of public participation other than to have more forums to discuss issues which I do appreciate. Citizen committees however are still lopsided and stacked with choir participants. More changes with a better cross section of representation is desperately needed on CACs.
Posted by: Terry Parker | Jun 16, 2006 3:08:26 PM
Post your comment
Please note: your email address, although required to post, will not be visible. We remove inappropriate or offensive content, and content deemed improper by State and City election and ethics law. The comments posted do not necessarily reflect the views of the office or the City of Portland.
Sam,
As a member of the Interstate Corridor URA CAC, and as a citizen who resides outside of any URA, I am inclined against most, if not all, extensions of URAs. There will be no end to worthy projects, but at some point they need to get funded on their merits without URA dollars. The UR "contract"...if you will...is that when the time or money runs out, the URA will return to tax rolls for the City general fund, schools, etc. I think this needs to be honored, despite the need to do more work in a URA.
I think LIDs are a better way to fund Streetcar, and spending good money on any couplet, to my thinking, is a waste.
So, I vote NO.
Posted by: Lenny Anderson | Jun 15, 2006 2:36:26 PM