An article in today’s Trib drills down on TIF (tax increment) funding for the proposed Streetcar Loop.
The target is $31M of the $70M of local match coming out of 4 urban renewal districts.
This is not a secret, Sam Adams testified to this effect in from of PDC more than 6 months ago.
But it raises an issue worth talking about: are transportation investments significant economic development drivers? In my mind the answer is clearly yes (and ironically, the “Cost of Congestion” study woujld butress my point).
30 responses to “Urban Renewal and Streetcar”
Yes.
That’s the only reason I can support them being of a liberty and anti-Government perspective.
They encourage better land use (set path transit), encourage more concentrated development, and create a process that pushes for more wealth generation over the long term (by reducing problems associated with auto infrastructure – dead downtowns, massive parking garages, etc).
On another note though, it would be better on a HUGE scale if it was done via the faster, more capable, more efficient, more market & citizen adaptive private industry. But that really is a moot point these days considering how many people want to be cooks in the kitchen. But because they provide such a better investment incentive (mostly in the way of real estate) I can support them, even though it hurts me every time I vote or push for it, knowing merely because I’m in the majority I get to oppress those that oppose it.
…it’s really not fair, but it is a good investment.
…and just to add flame bait…
…it’s a way better investment than education. It’s far better for measuring the return on investment also. The country’s wealth (the US) was built off of transportation investment and NOT off of education investment.
Nick did not get the TIF analogy quite right. The roommates gave the authority (election) to their roommate take out the second mortgage knowing that making upgrades to the house would speed up its market value appreciation. What’s more “mortgage payments” only go up by the statutory 3% per year…its almost like free money. URAs borrow against future value; its how Paris built its boulevards in the 19th century.
The key question is “what would happen to property values and tax collections if no URA investments were made?” If they would remain flat (commercial) or just increase slightly (3% for residential), then the new private investment that URA projects can attract (Streetcar for example) adds value that would not otherwise be there and which will eventually come back to the tax rolls.
That said, I think there is merit to going to the voters at some point and for not having URAs go on indefinitely.
Well, the question really boils down to “will the streetcar be responsible for the increase in property values in the burnside/couch couplet area”.
I’m going to guess “No”.
People may point to the Pearl as proof that the streetcar increases property value – but I don’t see much streetcar-inspired investment between Burnside and Main street, or anywhere south/east of the URBN plaza (South Waterfront development was not due to any streetcar presence). Or significant new investment due to streetcar west of I-405.
To me, increase in property values (in forms of new investment) is a limited resource. There are only so many dollars waiting for a streetcar presence. The lion’s share are waiting for sweeter government subsidies and grants.
More specifically, will a streetcar increase investment along the Burnside route? I’m skeptical about the eastside portion – Who’s taking streetcar to the Burnside/Sandy intersection? Just to transfer to a bus that originated downtown anyhow? Without getting to Hollywood and serving riders there, I’m not sure how much of a benefit the route would provide. A fixed-transit system will only inspire investment at a rate which it inspires riders.
Manzell, I’m inclined to agree that there is less development potential on Burnside than in the Pearl, but you’re omitting quite a bit of investment South of Burnside along the streetcar lines. The Elliot and two buildings that share that double-block, the Benson, Gallery Place, the Mosaic, and two affordable housing projects have all been completed following the installation of streetcar. Additionally, there have been several renovations/repositionings, including the Ace Hotel on Stark Street. Finally, there are several more substantial projects in the pipeline, including the new mixed use office-apartment-retail building at 12th & Washington scheduled to break ground next month. If you look at all the development that has taken place in Portland over the last 10 years, even excluding the Pearl, the area within walking distance of the streetcar has had a disproportionately high share of development. I’m not saying it’s all because of streetcar, but it’s also not accurate to say that there hasn’t been “much streetcar-inspired investment between Burnside & Main.”
Also, Manzell mentions that there isn’t much significant investment west of I-405. I don’t think that’s relevant to a streetcar discussion given that it’s outside the 1/4 mile walking radius, and well served by MAX; nonetheless it’s still ignoring the Civic [261 Condos, 140 Apartments], the Jefferson [52 Condos], and the Allegra [200ish condos] which has now been approved for takeoff. That’s not even counting the student/affordable housing at 17th & Jefferson, assuming that was spurred by “government subsidies & grants…”
I think for focus of this round of URA funding for Streetcar is the eastside loop, so the analysis has to be done primarily in the Central Eastside & Lloyd. Blocks on either side of the Grand/MLK couplet are zoned for much more intense use, Broadway east from the river has lots of potential (ie. vacant lots) as does the Lloyd District, with several projects proposed.
Another reason to justify URA funding…which in effect takes resources from the general fund for capital investment within a particular area…is a project’s city-wide value or significance; Waterfront Park as an example is used by people from all over. Likewise Streetcar can be an amenity that is used by residents from other districts to get to important destinations like OMSI, Convention Center and PSU.
Multnomah County is at the URA trough as well as the City…the new courthouse will use some of this money, and I am sure there are talks with the county now about their capital needs in the various URAs on both sides of the river.
The main problem with relying on TIF to provide city services (like improved transit) is that TIF only works where the increase in residential property value can pay for it. So it necessarily requires a change in the neighborhood it is used in and this usually means you lose the old nature of the neighborhood.
When TIF was first concocted this was supposed to be the case and it was used in blighted areas that were almost valueless (in reality the definition of blight also often meant minority neighborhoods.) So long as TIF drive infrastructure development it will only provide new infrastructure to the middle to upper income areas of the city. Deep southeast, north and other lower income areas will never benefit – largely because for TIF to work, those current populations would never be able to continue living there.
Long way of saying, TIF is fine for the streetcar if we are ok with the Central Eastside changing away from what it is now, and we are okay with all of the that growth in population and demand for city services not having a tax base to pay for city services over the next 40 years.
I’d be more impressed with the eastside streetcar if it actually served us in southeast. It doesn’t.
I’ll agree that transportation infrastructure investments can –and do– drive development…but what development, how much, what are the trade offs, and is this the BEST investment? We’ve been told this will improve traffic flow…but also, concurrently, provide traffic calming. Sure.
We say we want to honor and maintain the industrial sanctuary…but the streetcar won’t promote industrial development. We’ve got new condos coming out our butts in SE…but, alas, no money for infrastructure to support the increased density. (Our DivisionVision funding didn;t even make the first cut at METRO…but we need a 600 room hotel.) How about building our Community Center to GO with all the condos being built next door?
And with increasingly BAD bus service in SE, and Tri-Met saying they can’t afford to operate the streetcar…I just don’t get it. You want to promote development in SE…build us streets we can drive on, and sidewalks we can walk on. I know, I know…too radical!
I tend to agree with Multnomah County Chair Ted Wheeler. There are too many urban renewal districts and too many that continue to have extended life.
There is also a somewhat relative editorial in today’s O that is titled: “One reason for that big tax bill”. It is in reference to Senate Bill 366 that would allow school districts to charge housing developers impact fees of up to $6,500.00 per housing unit to support schools. Low income housing would be exempt. This bill just cries out for an amendment that not only includes money going to schools from the taxes on increased property values in urban renewal districts, but also tightening up their numbers and sizes, and restricting their extensions. The bill also begs for an amendment that would eliminate property tax abatements on all but low income housing.
Furthermore, because I believe the streetcar is fast becoming Commissioner Sam Adams full sized Lionel train set whereby he continues to want a bigger and bigger layout to play with, but at taxpayer expense, I too believe the streetcar should be put to a public vote.
The Oregonian will NEVER do an adequate story on Urban Renewal.
They have been helping to cover up UR abuse and failure for decades.
Once the Oregonian promotes and supports something in it’s news and editorials there is NEVER any follow up once it goes badly.
Urban Renewal and TIF has become a badly manipulated and abused revenue source with dire consequences which no one is tracking.
Certainly not the Oregonian.
They are too lazy and part of the problem.
Howard, how about you and me go over to the Oregonian building and barge into the newsroom and turn over some desks? That ought to get the job done.
Actually TIF has been used much more in the Central City than in outer neighborhoods; Gateway, Lents and Interstate URAs are relatively new and are all feeling their way on a key issue…how do you improve a community without pricing existing residents and businesses out. The fact is many residents of these URAs want amenities that more prosperous neighborhoods have as well as the increased property values that mean growing equity for homeowners. The 30% affordable housing set aside will help to insure that those investments are made, but even this has drawn opposition from some URA residents.
The problem with the older URAs in Central City is that new projects keep coming along that many people (a majority?) want, so their life keeps getting extended. If you don’t like the projects…i.e Streetcar…then it is easy to opposed extensions, but if you do, then what?
re Franks lament…at least along NE Broadway/Weidler there is plenty of infrastructure to support 6 story condos from the River to Hollywood, and just about everyone prefers these to 3 story Westen specials dropped everywhere on streets of single family homes as was done in SE in the 70’s. Take your pick.
My pick is toreduce the of TIF/UR Districts to fund transportation. Use Local Improvement Districts and direct funding from the governmental entity in the area.
This means that some of these governmental entities must reduce some of their spending and re-prioritize what is important.
TIF/UR funding is just re-distribution of the costs to someone else. It is NOT TAX FAIRNESS. As senior we are the group most caught paying for increased service obligations when the property tax dollars collected from the value gains are intercepted and direct away.
Well the beauty of TIF is that there are no costs; taxes go up regardless according to state law, etc. Its the increment within URAs that goes for projects within same, which results in slower growth in overall tax receipts, unless the URA tax base was stagnant. That’s why North Waterfront (Pearl) and South Waterfront are (or will be) such huge successes. As vacant industrial land these areas produced very little tax income. As development grows…the formula is public investment attacts private investment…taxes go up and up. Initially all that goes to the URA, but at some point (here’s the rub) it goes into the general fund. Any everyone’s a winner. Sounds like capitalism to me.
There may not be any additions to a tax bill with TIF, and in the case of areas with very little investment (South Waterfront) it isn’t much of an issue.
In an area like East Burnside however, property owners are fronting the bill for what is being marketed as a benefit to the entire city. Residents in Hollywood, Hawthorne/Belmont, Laurelhurst etc. won’t be paying for a TIF-funded streetcar (however, the officials they elected will be making those decisions). They’ll see their property taxes plowed back into road improvements or school funding or they myriad of things that property taxes pay for.
Ultimately, this comes down to honesty and equity: If the new streetcar route is a city-wide resource, the entire city should be providing the funds; if the route is meant to serve the people in the URA, the stakeholders in that URA should have an outlet to endorse or contest the plan.
Lenny,
Your descrition of local UR/TIF is the PDC line.
Inaccurate, misleading, deceptive and dishonest.
Among many problems with UR abuse:
The typical UR district encompasses many parcels already fully developed in order to divert greater sums to the smaller targetted area.
There was no UR district with a stagnant tax base. Including the Pearl and SoWa.
The yearly increases in tax revenue from these many parcels wll not be returned to the general fund for 4 or more decades. Robbing basic services budgets of many millions needed to offset rising costs.
SoWa is 130 acres and the URD is 409 acres.
Hardly a stagnant tax base.
The only thing which willbe stangant is revenue to basic services from this horribly mismanaged plan. Nearly every public improvement project in SoWa is far over budget and under funded along with every revenue projection falling way short.
How can you possibly call it a success?
Measured by what? Simply spending millions?
You don’t even know how much the thing costs.
What should alarm everyone is that neither does the SoWa Urban Renewal Advisory Committee or their Budget Sub Committee.
Because the PDC refuses to show them either a full accounting to date or new estimates and revenue projections for the entire plan.
Which also means NOT ONE elected official has reviewed any full accounting at any time since the first 1999 plan was approved.
Nice system. I guess we should call it a success?
Richard,
none of what you say backs up your charge that I am dishonest, etc.; its clear you don’t like making public investments funded by tax increment funding.
A simple measure of success is how much private investment is attracted as a percentage of public investment. The number is quite high for both the Pearl and SoWa. One could also compare tax receipts prior to URA formation against those at the end of 20 years with and with/out the public investments.
Property taxes are still collected in URAs for the City’s general fund, the county, schools, etc. It is the increment from the date of URA formation that stays in the district.
The term of URAs is an issue as long as URA advocates and City Council extend their life. That is a policy decision…if you don’t like it, run for office and vote against extensions.
The key question is do you favor public investments? Then, what investments? And, last how do you propose to pay for them. TIF is only one of several sources of funds, it is basically a loan against expected increases in tax receipts.
Terry said:
“Furthermore, because I believe the streetcar is fast becoming Commissioner Sam Adams full sized Lionel train set whereby he continues to want a bigger and bigger layout to play with, but at taxpayer expense, I too believe the streetcar should be put to a public vote.”
>>>> You mean, Sam is starting to think like a typical “railfan”? Or has he been brainwashed by railfans who seem to control/unduly influence the transit agenda/process here, to the detriment of transit-dependent riders like me (e.g., creating additional transfers whenever a new rail line starts operating around here).
Lenny,
I know for a fact that you do NOT know how much SoWa or other UR cost the taxpayers or basic services.
Your pretense that you do is not honest.
I don’t mind some TIF investments. That’s not the issue.
Your “simple measure of success” is entirley concocted. You haven’t any measure of either the public cost or what it rerally attracted. Yet you imply you do.
Are you aware that theh hype numbers from the PDC have no accounting to back them up? That they are predictions, estimates and forcasts being misused
as observed outcomes?
Then you make the baseless claim that “the number is quite high for both the Pearl and SoWa”.
Not according to what is actually unfolding there.
But you haven’t any idea what is happening do you?
You take the PDC hype and look at the buildings going up your an experet on SoWa and TIF.
You are misinformed and are being misleading.
Then you specualate about “tax receipts” over a 20 year period as if the TIF is retired and new revenue generated by the UR flows to basic services and that it would not happen without it.
That is pure fantasy.
Decades more are needed to retire and break even on the investment and loss of basic services revenue for those many years.
Anyone who is slightly familiar with UR/TIF knows that “property taxes are still collected in URAs for the City’s general fund, the county, schools, etc”
No need for the elementary “Increment” lesson.
The problem you represent is a total lack of full accounting on major public investments.
It’s not just “policy” and if one “favors public investments?”
It’s the reckless and irresponsible use of public monies.
Your pretense that anything less is happening is misguided and part of the problem.
Public improvement projects are neccessary and must be funded.
Covering up rampant mismangement does not help either.
In SoWa the mismanagement has reached a new and very troubling level.
Not according to me, Lenny, but the SoWa Urban Renewal Avisory Committee and their Budget Sub-Committee.
You are wholy disconnected from the realities of UR and what is emerging in SoWa.
I suggest you stop misinforming people.
I went to the South Waterfront today and saw where thousands of people will live. They will pay a lot for their view. I saw doctors, interns, patients and joyriders take a 3-minute ride between waterfront and hilltop hospitals. I saw other electric mass transit vehicles, streetcars ushering them to and from places downtown. They had never seen anything like it, but liked it and I’ll wager support development there to continue. Housing, hospital care, electric mass transit, river views. Boy, that’s really terrible. Really terrible. I’d rather plow farmland into dust and scrape forested hillsides into mud and put up garages with attached houses and streets leading from them filled with motorists fuming inside behind other motorists on freeways, and outside through a hundred thousand tailpipes burning vapors that came all the way from Iraq.
Right on, Wells. :-)
– Bob R.
Yeah Right on.
It looks so pretty. It must be good.
Now that’s deep.
Never mind ANY of the scheme and tax money.
Never mind the area would have been devloped long ago, at a fraction of the public cost, had the city not blocked it.
Never mind basic services will be robbed of funding for 4 or 5 decades.
Never mind OHSU won’t be paying property taxes ever.
Never mind OHSU Medical Group who owns the first OHSU building doesn’t pay property taxes, TriMet taxes or business taxes.
Never mind the current central district portion of SoWa is chewing through the funding for the entire plan.
Never mind the remaining public parks, greenway, I-5 ped/bike bridge and streets will be costing 4-6 times the estimated costs.
Never mind that in order to finish SoWa as planned countless millions will be needed from outside the district.
Never mind the total public cost will soar far above both the 1999 plan and the current vaguely stated costs.
Never mind what 100s of millions could have done for the city and residents had it been spent honestly and wisely.
Only in near total ignorance of the unfolding plan can someone say “right on” to this municipal
fraud.
Who cares, there’s streetcars and shiny buildings.
The citizen advisory committe should just shut up cause it’s “right on”.
It doesn’t matter what agency staff did, who’s pockets get lined, where the millions go, where they came from or what malficience was committed.
Sounds like the Bush administration is running the city.
Why are you fans? Or rather hypocrites?
My experience with URAs is based on over six years on the Interstate Corridor URA Advisory Committee. The biggest problem with URAs is the ill-conceived notion of CAC members and their neighbors that TIF dollars are “their money.” In fact its everyone else’s money that the City has decided to spend within a certain part of town.
How it is spent…foolishly or wisely… is a matter between CACs, PDC Commissioner and ultimately City Council (if they get their way).
If SoWa is indeed going to hell in a handbasket, get involved, ask questions, etc., but it looks like a success to me, indeed like nothing Portland has ever seen before.
Not sure what level of taxes came from the mostly vacant and in some cases contaminated land in SoWa and the Pearl prior to development, but it can’t have been much.
In the new Willamette Industrial URA, there is actually “negative TIF” as assessed values of commercial and industrial property to not go up 3% per year as residential property does. Indeed, in WIURA some are going down.
The real issue for URAs getting them closed down at the end of their 20 year life span and returning redeveloped areas to the regular tax rolls. I opposed the CEID extension.
Let me see if I’ve got Robert’s argument correct:
First the complaint: Tax money, public cost, funding robbery, property taxes, business taxes, more funding, costs, countless millions, vaguely stated costs, 100’s of millions, lined pockets where millions go, etc etc.
Next the defense: looks pretty, must be good, streetcars, shiny buildings.
Deep, really deep. It’s all so clear. Mstly money vs other stuff.
Sorry. I meant “Richard’s” argument –
‘mostly’ money vs other stuff.
Money money money money muuhneee! Muuhneee!
You aren’t paying attention and don’t understand the local UR districts.
Lenny, you keep commenting on TIF money coming from “mostly vacant,contaminated land and “it can’t have been much”
So let’s try again.
Every district engulfs far more acreage and tax paying real estate than the target development plan.
The SoWa plan involves 130 acres. Even that 130 acres is not and was not all vacant or contaminated. The North Macadam Urban Renewal district is 409 acres. That means 279 acres of existing, developed, tax paying real estate is have every year’s 3% or more tax increase diverted to the 130 acres, for 4 decades.
Leaving little to offset the rising cost of basic services. Is there any wonder there is never enough? The city keeps skimming more and more every year to pay for their “let’s play developer with other peoples money” games.
Interstate URD is 3744 acres. Most of which is existing real estate paying property taxes.
Again, for decades all 3744 acres will have every yearly 3% or more increase diverted from basic services to subsidize the much smaller targetted development. Not just the vacant or undeveloped land taxes.
Willamette Industrial URD is 751 acres.
The “complaint” is massive misrepresentation, misappropriation of public monies, wholesale mismanagement and incompetence, horrible accounting, no accountability, tremendous waste, the crippling of basic services funding and neglectful back logging of basic infrastructure maintenance.
The city is now diverting $65 million per year from property tax revenue otherwise headed to basic services. It is being spent on sloppily managed boondoggles and private development.
PDC’s budget is $270 million per year. Borrowing more and more every year to feed their UR ponzi scheme.
The indebtedness, the extensions and the abuse of TIF was out of control years ago.
Today it is official malficience.
The only reason you think it isn’t is your lack of understanding what is happening and the broad cover up by multiple public agencies.
Other URD:
Airport Way, 2780 acres
Central Eastside 681 acres
Convention Center 601 acres
Downtown Waterfront 309
Gateway Regional Center 653
Lents Town Center 2472
River District 310
South Park Blocks 161
Portland now has 12,000 acres within Urban Renewal districts with $4 billion in real estate value NOT being taxed for schools, parks, police libraries and other basic services.
Instead the $65 million from $4 billion in assessed real estate value goes to pay back massive debt created by spending on light rail, the Tram, street cars and private development.
But it “looks pretty and I like it” so it’s OK?
Or, that’s the only way anything gets done? Right.
Bring in the feds.
Since you guys are the experts about funding…
So how do you propose paying for shit? Just not build anything? Leave Portland a craphole? Add an extra sales tax? Increase gas tax for transit projects? Toll the freeways and use revenues to pay for transit projects?
There are, of course, other things that need to be funded besides roads and transit:
parks
schools
poliec/fire stations
community centers
etc
Should these be paid for by bonds? Sales tax to float additional bonds? System development charges?
It’s really easy to complain and criticize, but I haven’t EVER heard one. single. word. that is constructive and offers an alternative to how we can pay for things.
Note: I myself agree that TIFs are just ‘skimming the cream’ from the top of the property tax latte.
Bill,
The way we pay for things is by not wasting revenue while lining the pockets of the few favorite land barons.
TIF is indeed skimming and it is needlessly devouring countless millions due to gross mismanagement with no oversight.
Hundreds of millions have been and are being spent on wild UR schemes that don’t pan out.
Despite appearances.
Cascade Station was a huge failure and waste of public money and assets. There was no need to play mini-city making as if the hundreds of million was funny money. The emerging big box cluster did not need any of the UR help. Of course Cascade Station was a cover up scheme to fund and move forward the MAX extension after voters turned down more light rail. That’s why many here on this blog won’t face facts on the Station failure. They don’t care because light rail was extended. Had the Station failure cost 2, 3, 10 or 100 times what it did they would still defend it.
SoWa is the mother of all phony schemes.
Both reckless schemes and many others have been and are being covered up.
The PDC hierarchy likes to play big shot developer with tax dollars and they don’t know what the hell they are doing.
Real developers, the ones working the PDC, laugh at the city behind closed doors.
It’s an amazing dysfunctional mess of amateur hour bureaucrats versus seasoned veteran corporate business management.
That’s why the city should not be in the business they don’t know well. Some municipal projects are worthy endeavors. Most of what the PDC does is official malfecience.
But too many are cheering on the schemes simply because more rail transit comes along.
Heck, they have already declared SoWa a success without measuring anything at all.
The waste is massive and drain on basic services worsenes every year. It is also a severe long term problem with 4 or 5 decades needed to break even on many of the TIF schemes.
Cascade Station was a moronic joke, and I don’t see any reason to defend it.
Mixed-use redevelopment works where there is demand: people want to be there. In Portland, all of the successful mixed-use and redeveloping areas are either the old existing pedestrian-friendly streets themselves, or ones near to them.
Cascade Station is WAAAAY the hell out in nowheresville. There are no nearby existing uses to set any sort of precedent. It was (and still is) an isolated greenfield site. Developers are very conservative, and the ONLY kind of precedent for development in this country that fits this kind of site is of a suburban shopping center.
Also, land use restrictions prohibit housing, and you can’t build very tall. The Airport MAX opened in 2001, right when the US hit the recession – it shouldn’t be a surprise that nothing got built here; there was simply no proven market for it.
In response to redevelopment in general, the original idea was to ‘spur’ development in an untested market, because there was no precedent. The previous batch of higher-density housing developments that occurred in the 50s and 60s were killed by NIMBYISM (Goose Hollow towers, Auditorium District ala Harrison Apts).
==============
Anyways, I’m not defending these things, just explaining them from a different perspective from the typical conspiracy theorist one.
My previous post was in asking you how you should pay for things such as parks, schools, and expanded infrastructure.
Your [lack of] answer apparently is that we should not build anything. How are we supposed to handle 1 million new people moving to the region in the next 20 years?
Just ban any new developments and watch housing prices match or exceed San Francisco’s?
What do yo mean lack of an answer?
Stop wasting huge sums was my answer and leave the current taxes for basice services.
The reckless diverting of countless millions to fund Transit Oriented Development schemes and expand rail transit against the voters.
I don’t need to hear spin that the voters by electing supports are in effect voting for more rail.
There would be plenty of money to pay for things such as parks, schools, and expanded infrastructure.
Pay attention and quit putting words into my mouth about not wanting to build anything.
Interstate Urban Renewal renewal was a scam to extend light rail. 3744 acres of north portland now have property taxes skimmed for decades to pay for it. The scam was needed to avoid a public vote on light rail.
“How are we supposed to handle 1 million new people moving to the region in the next 20 years?”
Not with Metro’s plan. It has been shown to be worthless. Metro’s plan has led toshortages of everything and housing prices quickly approaching San Francisco’s.
Aftyer 25 years of Metro planning all of the 23 cities within Metro are pannicked trying to figure out what to do about litterally everything.
If you follow the various municipal goings on they haven’t a clue on what to do about snarling traffic, dwindling supplies of affordable housing, sustainable funding for basic services, keep up with growing maintenance backlogged and strained infrastructure.
Some planning that’s happened! Model for the nation.
Too bad it’s been theoretical garbage without any signs of the utopian outcome promised. Despite the perpetual campaign to make it so.
Orenco Station is a auto oriented rat race with no “alternative” qualities other than a Euro looking centerpiece. Big deal. Most of the regions TODs have been comical. millions in subsidies to stack people up without any regard for fit, parking, astectics, or community.
Gresham Station a huge investment only to become another shopping center. Cascade Station a LOL fraud. SoWa is the mother of all local municipal practical jokes. After years of blocking development which would have happened long ago and now paying taxes amatuer city official played developer and is in fiscal chaos over the cooked up plan.
What is happening around here is NOT preparing for another 1 million people over the next 20 years at all. Quite the contrary. Nearly every decision happening has an obstructing, delaying, and repeating the status quo component.
A status quo that does not provide a workable substitute for the evil sprawl.
The Metro plans to build housing in Damascus while jobs are coming to Hillsboro says it all. Along with every traffic-transportation improvement being shackled with anti-car obstructionsists government staff, officials and activists things willbe getting much worse.
But just as with declinging supplies of affordable housing anti-sprawl fanatics simply do not care how bad traffic gets. There is not a detrimentaloutcome from our horrible planning that even nudges their affection for the Metro planning regime.
Like so many other fanatics their primary excuse for failure is there just hasn’t been enough of the attempt. So we need more of the same regardles of the cost or what it genuinely does.
Nice.