What are we doing here?

Why does Lake Oswego have Urban Renewal?

URBAN RENEWAL IN OREGON
oregonlaws.org
ORS 457.010
DEFINITIONS

Blighted areas means that, by means of deterioration, faulty planning, inadequate or improper facilities, deleterious land use or the existence of unsafe structures, or any combination of these factors, are detrimental to the safety, health or welfare of the community.

ORS 457.085
Urban renewal plan requirements

(1)    An urban renewal agency shall provide for public involvement in all stages of the development of an urban renewal plan.

ORS 457.020
Declaration of necessity and purpose

See oregonlaws.org for complete text of all sections of ORS Chapter 457.

At the Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency (LORA) meeting on Tuesday night (February 24, 2015), the Agency Board (made up of City Council members) deliberated on which projects for the East End Redevelopment District (downtown) should be undertaken in 2015.

Only one councilor questioned whether a new police and emergency communications departments facilty should be an urban renewal project since it didn't fit the purpose of urban renewal which was to jumpstart economic activity and add to the city's tax base.  (Lake Oswego does not have any true blight, only perceived underperforming properties.). Public buildings do neither.

It is a real estate rule and economic truism that you don't locate public (non-tax paying) buildings on expensive (prime downtown) land.  Public (financial) interests are best served by putting public buildings on lesser value land.

In prior years the LORA Director's office and the Council have agreed that in order to get this facility built, the money might best come from the urban renewal pot.  The benefits are that there is plenty of room left in the debt limit of the district, and the city does not need to go to the citizens for a vote on new taxes.  An urban renewal district allows the city to borrow money (through TIF bonds) on its own and claim that the subsequent rise in the tax base will cover the cost of the bonds.  The latter is not the case with public buildings - the entire district will subsidize the loan, thereby extending the length of the urban renewal district which is now 29 years old with years yet to go to pay for current and new indebtedness (Wizer block for one - cash subsidies and 2nd street regrading paid for by the district).

What has happened, as it has in most cities, is that urban renewal has become the de facto financing plan for a variety of public works and capital improvement projects in addition to subsidizing private business interests (crony capitalism).   In fact, Metro encourges urban renewal as a development tool to transform commercial areas into more "compact" (dense) mixed-use areas (dense) areas (usually it's less parking and more intense, urban characteristics near transit).  They know that their goals can be accomplished more easily and quickly if not impeded by public votes on general obligation bonds like the (good) old days when citizens got to choose.

This blog post does not get into the grit or detail of the Tuesday meeting, which is important.  For that I will have to re-watch the entire meeting, and I suggest everyone else do the same, as well as read the reports on the meeting website (see the interactive agenda).

One last thought - while this topic is fresh in your (my) mind, take a moment to study the East End Redevelopment Plan (2004).  The plan was totally revised with new projects in 2004 since most of the original projects has been completed.  It has been amended several times since then.  Look at how many projects were done prior to the 2004 revision, and how much of downtown has been, and is projected to be, part of the total make-over of downtown Lake Oswego under a government plan, using your money to do it.  Understand too, that any need to "jumpstart" the district has long since past.

If the downtown hasn't improved in 30 years will all the attention and money spent, then there is something else going on that perhaps government cannot fix - or more probably, government is creating the problems.  Consider, that by subsidizing so much of the development of downtown, and having designated so much more property for future projects, the subsidies so far have only slowed or discouraged development because, 1) non-redeveloped property values have gone up artifically, and 2) no development will take place without government subsidies now that it is known the city's ambitions go well beyond mere facade improvements.  I could be too that downtown Lake Oswego has a finite ability to grow its economic base given its geographic limitations.

As the EERP continues to evolve with amendments, additions and changes, how is the public (beyond the standard stakeholder group of Chamber of Commerce members) being involved?