The Arch Bridge-Bolton Town Center Draft Plan approved by the West Linn City Council is online HERE. There is a lot to look at. Page 61 explains the politics of financing for Options A, B and C:
A. Pay up-front
B. Incremental payments
C. Watch and hold (market-driven investing)
The best way to understand the differences is to read the dscriptions at the top and drawbacks at the bottom.
A. Aggressive. Use General Obligation Bonds to fund initial infrastructure, then layer on urban renewal debt to subsidize developers willing to build according to city visions.
B. Cautious. Pay for infrastructure with urban renewal debt and other incentives that subsidizes
developers willing to build according to city visions.
C. Hold and Watch. City makes infrastructure improvements when market supports development. Subsidies of differing incentives lure development.
Obviously the most aggressive approach requires the most public funding. The downside to this option is that the City must communicate benefits to community ahead of a city-wide vote. GO bonds would still not be enough to cover all costs, so TIF debt and other funding would be needed.
In the middle you have the revolving credit card form of debt - urban renewal and tax increment financing. The problem with this is where to get money to get the ball rolling. Once it starts rolling, it becomes the perpetual motion machine - it's all downhill on the debt side.
At the other end of the spectrum, the free market decides what will be built and when. City funding covers infrastructure as needed. The downside to this option is that the outcome will likely be lower density and little public funding for a parking garage. But the biggest problem may be that the City "may not achieve vision for development of the area."
It's a downer for local governments to have to ask taxpayers to support a City's vision, and it's a double-downer to not get to have the vision at all. Shouldn't taxpayers be asked what they are willing to pay for? It is very easy to get people to say yes to something in a survey, and quite another when they are told what they will have to pay for it.
Another Metro sponsored project to "dense up" the area and build bicycle and walking paths no one will use?
ReplyDeleteThe area looks good for some limited development, and that should happen. The question is why hasn't it happened yet? The area appears to be rather small and oddly located to generate the activity the plan envisions. The isolation of the Arch Bridge area doesn't not scream Town Center as it is not the center of anything. Weat Linn is 100% low-density, widely dispersed residential outside of Willamette and a couple of retail areas on Hwy. 43. The park the plan envisions sits below a major freeway interchange. The housing and everything else that might go in there would be subjected to freeway noise and pollution 24-hours a day. The small amount of housing would not support area shops - there is competition just down the road. You have to ask yourself why anyone would want to build or do business in that location. In my opinion, this area is not prime for what the plan envisions - a Town Center is something the city wants to have to keep up with the Jones's, but it has no place to put it.
ReplyDelete