Here's this week's Mercury Blogtown question, with my response:

Question: What are your thoughts on the Portland Development Commission's eleven Urban Renewal Areas? More specifically, would you support extending the following Urban Renewal Areas when they reach their expiration date (dates are from the PDC's website)—three would expire during your term:

* Downtown Waterfront - 2008
* South Park Blocks - 2008
* Airport Way - May 2011
* Oregon Convention Center - June 2013
* Lents Town Center - 2015

Also, why would they support to extend or let the above URA's lapse?

Urban Renewal Areas (URAs) have helped Portland thrive while other city centers continue to decay. Public investment in the districts promotes private development. Both improve blighted areas, and rising property values will eventually generate revenue for the city.

"Eventually" is the key word. Even after the expiration date of a district, it will take ten to twenty years to pay off the debts. Extending the timeline and maximum indebtedness in Urban Renewal Areas is like taking out a second mortgage on a home. There might be good reasons to do it, but is it really the best choice?

Each year, urban renewal districts use $59 million in property taxes collected within the districts. About $24 million is diverted from the City's general fund, and $19 million from Multnomah County services. Renewing, extending, and expanding Urban Renwal Areas impacts the ability to pay for necessary infrastructure and services in the rest of the city and county.

Two Citizen Advisory groups are currently formulating recommendations on whether to add more debt, more time, and/or more land to existing urban renewal areas. The arguments that have been presented so far have not yet convinced me of the value of extending or expanding the first four districts listed in the question, but I will wait to hear citizen testimony before making final decisions on each one.

In addition to capturing funds generated within the districts, the four areas together currently receive $14.5 million annually from citywide property taxes (check the line item on the back of your property tax statement). Other neighborhoods may have greater needs for infrastructure improvements and basic services than urban renewal districts that are no longer truly "blighted". Some or all of these districts may now thrive without borrowing more money to fund public projects. Downtown Waterfront began in 1974, and has already been extended. These factors must be weighed against valid goals to fund worthy projects with long-term public benefits.

In Lents, I believe there may be a good case for extending the timeline and debt level. Many community leaders feel Lents was funded too conservatively, and now lacks enough investment capacity to complete the goal of creating a vibrant commercial and employment center. I am less convinced that expanding the boundaries of the Lents URA makes sense - but again, I want to hear the Advisory Committee's recommendations, and more from affected neighbors, before drawing firm conclusions. City Commissioners should not ask citizens to provide advice without the honest intention to consider it.

This is a complicated issue. I invite you to read more information on my campaign blog, and add your comments there.

And here are those further thoughts with more information:

Lents is different. It started later than the downtown districts, and hasn't already been extended. The Citizens Advisory Committee in Lents has just completed its sub-committee work, and citizens there agreed to request an expansion of acres and period of debt issuance. When visiting Lents Town Center, I do not get the "wow, this place has really taken off" feeling that is prompted in the booming or about-to-boom districts closer to downtown.

The question did not ask about the River District. The Portland Development Commission and City Council are considering adding around $300 million in maximum indebtedness to the River District. Suggesting that district isn't already a success and needs more public subsidy is ludicrous. The assessed value at the time the River District was formed was about $358 million. It is now valued at $1.35 billion. Adding $300 million in debt to the current $225 million means yet more money that won't be available to pay for basic services like sidewalks, housing, and parks in other neighborhoods.

The question also missed the Central Eastside URA, which expires in 2018; Interstate Corridor ending in 2021; and Gateway, due to expire in 2022. The decisions on whether to extend close-in west side URAs should not cloud the future of districts addressing blighted areas in other parts of the city. Urban Renewal can be a useful tool, used carefully and put away when the job is completed.

The City does not have to rely on Urban Renewal Areas to direct funds to improve infrastructure in neighborhoods. Both in current URAs and in neighborhoods without the designation, the Council can choose to allocate general fund resources to projects that will improve livability. Allowing existing URAs to end will increase revenue in the General Fund, allowing the Council to prioritize needs citywide while still allowing former URA districts to compete for project funding.

Footnote: I learned this (see comment # 6) after drafting my response to this Mercury question.