TOD Tax Credit Expanded, but Under Review

Portland City Council is reviewing a number of its tax abatement programs. In fact, there is now a moratorium on the multi-unit housing abatement.

The abatement for Transit-Oriented Develop is also being reviewed, but is still available. In fact, the eligible areas have been expanded to include more Light Rail stations.

The TOD program is not under a moratorium. It is currently available in light rail station areas (not Interstate) outside the Central City, the Gateway Regional Center, the Hollywood and Lents Town Centers, and the Northwest plan district. It is, however, a very similar program and is included in this review.

On June 27th, the Planning Commission approved the staff proposal for changes to the TOD program boundaries to include all light rail station outside the Central City (Interstate and I-205), as well as MLK, and portions of Sandy and Foster. They also approved some updates to the public benefits list and approval process. The program will be brought before the City Council later this summer.

For more information about the proposed changes to the TOD Tax Exemption, as well as the resolution to extend the NMUH Tax Exemption program visit

8 responses to “TOD Tax Credit Expanded, but Under Review”

  1. In my neighborhood, Hosford-Abernethy, a single-family home site –a historic one– has been torn down to build a four story, 27 unit condo that threatens to overwhelm the neighborhood. There is no visitor parking for the condo units, or the multiple retail spaces being built, including a restaurant…not even bicycle parking. There was a variance granted so that the developer would not to have provide the code-required loading zone spaces.

    There are, however, parking stalls being provided –behind a locked gate– for sale to the tenants.

    But…because this is being built on SE Division, it gets a TOD reduction in the transportation system development charge.

    The logic of this escapes me.

  2. Frank, you said ‘tenants’, are these owner-occupied condos, or apartments? If they actually unbundled the parking spaces from the units, I think that’s a very good thing to help reduce auto ownership.

  3. They’re condos, Chris. But I don’t see how adding 24 parking stalls for 27 units, with NO parking for guests or retail customers earns one a transportation SDC break. Just ’cause its being built next to Division. I mean, they even bought their way out of providing bicycle parking…in our neighborhood which is very much a bicycling neighborhood.

    It just doesn’t pencil out for me.

  4. Frank, I don’t know of any zone where parking for residential guests is required. The rest of the pattern sounds a lot like Northwest! So you get a lot of vitality accompanied by gripes about parking – just make sure Dick Singer doesn’t start buying up property.

    Seriously, I agree with you about the bike parking, it’s being abused all over the city. But on the auto parking side, do you really want to fill up the real estate in your neighborhood with parking spaces?

  5. Putting mid-rise condos and apartments along Divison, Hawthorne, Belmont, Broadway/Weidler…all served by excellent transit…is just a no brainer. If you live in these areas and have a parking problem…well, sell your car. I’ve never had a problem finding parking in Portland, not even NW.
    What I don’t understand is why Interstate, with the new MAX line is still waiting for the City’s TOD designation as well as rezoning to higher densities in station areas. Why were these things not done when Council adopted Interstate as the prefered alignment in 1999?

  6. Putting mid-rise condos and apartments along Divison, Hawthorne, Belmont, Broadway/Weidler…all served by excellent transit…is just a no brainer.

    If it’s a no brainer…why do we have to subsidize this development? There isn’t enough money to keep up on street maintenance as it is, and yet we give a discount to someone building (and selling) 24 new parking stalls. I don’t get it.

    As for “supporting” transit in this way…there’s not enough Tri-Met operating revenues to fund both the proposed Streetcar (in the new TOD area, of course) AND the Milwaukie Light Rail Line (let alone any OTHER transit enhancements for existing residents). Why should existing users of the system subsidize NEW users, as their part of the system deteriorates?

    Or, how about this…so we give them a break on Transportation SDCs. How about replacing that lost revenue with a Transit SDC?

    For all the teeth-gnashing about what Singer’s doing in NW…we’ve just replaced a “historic” single family home with a 24 stall parking lot, –that’s private and gated and unavailable to the public. But throw housing and retail on top and we’re supposed to cheer it? And give the developer a break on his SDC charges? I still don’t get it.

  7. I think it’s fair to question what we’re asking of developers to earn the credit. I’ve printed out the final task force report to read tonight.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *