The Big Look Task Force has posed a series of questions to different organizations.
While they didn’t specifically invite Portland Transport to submit answers, that never stopped us before. Here’s a subset of the list that readers might want to share their perspective on:
- In the absence of the federal funding which underwrote much suburban sewer, water, and road-building in the mid-to-late 20th century, what new mechanisms are needed to provide infrastructure given modern fiscal circumstances?
- Are existing finance mechanisms sufficient to support the infrastructure required to support expected growth either within urban growth boundaries or in expansion areas added to urban growth boundaries? Are particular financial tools needed to reflect Oregon’s emphasis on encouraging more growth within urban growth boundaries?
- Do existing finance mechanisms place the burden of the fees or taxes appropriately on those that benefit? In instances where fees or taxes are collected in one area to build, operate or maintain facilities for another area, is that transfer transparent and implemented for an intended public policy reason, or merely a hidden cross-subsidy?
- Do existing fees and taxes reinforce or undermine adopted land use plans? In particular how do the property tax system post-Measures 5, 47, and 50 influence land use? How do the calculations guiding assessment of SDCs and the expenditure of their proceeds influence the use of land?
Good to know they haven’t oversimplified things :-)
4 responses to “Deep Questions from the Big Look”
“In the absence of the federal funding which underwrote much suburban sewer, water, and road-building in the mid-to-late 20th century, what new mechanisms are needed to provide infrastructure given modern fiscal circumstances?”
…and where exactly has it gone? They spend more of our money than they ever have in America’s history. It’s not ALL going to Iraq.
Part of it is clearly going into an inefficient health care system that spends more than any other country, but delivers worse results than many.
Here are my answers for the questions 7, 8 & 9, and my thoughts on 10.
7. In the absence of the federal funding which underwrote much suburban sewer, water, and road-building in the mid-to-late 20th century, what new mechanisms are needed to provide infrastructure given modern fiscal circumstances? For sewer and water, charge system development fees on new construction, both commercial and residential. New development should pay for itself and not be subsidized by ratepayers. For road building, charge both commercial and residential system development fees where the development requires upgrades to roads adjacent to the property being developed and/or new residential streets within housing developments. In addition, redirect the taxes and fees assessed on motorists so they are dedicated to motor vehicle infrastructure only, and can not be used to subsidize other modes.
8. Are existing finance mechanisms sufficient to support the infrastructure required to support expected growth either within urban growth boundaries or in expansion areas added to urban growth boundaries? Probably not. Bicyclists should be directly taxed to fund bicycle infrastructure and transit fares should to a greater extent than the current 20%, better reflect the costs of transit operations. In addition, a surcharge should be placed on transit fares to help pay for capital projects such as any proposed light rail expansion.
Are particular financial tools needed to reflect Oregon’s emphasis on encouraging more growth within urban growth boundaries? No – There are already too many financial incentives funded by taxpayers.
9. Do existing finance mechanisms place the burden of the fees or taxes appropriately on those that benefit? Yes – To much of the financial support for schools and other government services has been placed on the backs of too few property owners. All property tax abatement programs, except those for low income housing, need to be eliminated. Furthermore, too much of the transportation infrastructure costs is currently being funded by motorists subsidizing other modes.
In instances where fees or taxes are collected in one area to build, operate or maintain facilities for another area, is that transfer transparent and implemented for an intended public policy reason, or merely a hidden cross-subsidy? Urban renewal needs to be re-visited, the amount of land mass classified as urban renewal districts reduced, and the schools should get their portion of property taxes on the increased value of development.
10. I did not specifically answer question 10 because for the most part I agree with limiting property taxes (Measure 5) lest we have run-a-way government. I believe Oregon land use laws are too restrictive and need updating for more flexibility. I also believe people should have the right to develop and build a home on property based on the land use rules from the time when the property was purchased or purchased by a family member (Measure 47).
Terry, I do not know you or do I believe that we have met, but you shoot straight. We may disagree on many issues and priorities but I like what you say and the fact that you say it, so hang in there.
Thinking people need reason and balance and you bring it to the discussion most all of the time.