The Excesses of Tax-Increment Financing & Urban Renewal

By Rob Taylor

Sex scandals aside, taxes are the biggest issue on the table right now, which is understandable when most families are spending more on taxes than they do on housing, food, and clothing combined.  Most people think they are paying too much due to the overspending of government, so it makes sense to shrink the budget.

There never seems to be enough revenue for education, infrastructure, and public safety, so eliminating the process of tax-increment financing would stop Urban Renewal Agencies from siphoning money from those and other overlapping taxing districts that provide those services.

According to data collected from the “OR Property Tax Annual Statistics FY 2016-2017” found on the Oregon Department of Revenue’s website, there are 110 Urban Renewal Agencies in the state.  Those UR agencies received $223.3-million from the “Revenue from Excess,” while others received an additional $21.1-million from special levies totaling $244.4-million that was diverted from other various taxing districts or directly from the taxpayers.  The revenue from property taxes going to Urban Renewal through the TIF process in FY 2009-2010 was $182-million.

“Revenue from Excess,” is the property tax revenue generated by increased property values inside the UR area over the frozen increment when the authorities enacted the plan for the district.  Without the TIF process, the other districts that overlap the UR area would retain that money.

Statewide in FY 2016-2017, Public education lost $87.2-million in potential revenue because of urban renewal activity. Cities lost $73.3-million in that same fiscal year, and counties lost $41.5-million, which includes the $28.2-million taken from Multnomah County alone.  Other districts, including Fire Districts, lost $21.3-million.

Those totals do not include the maintenance of the unfunded projects built with the redirected money.

Politicians use urban renewal funding as seed money to create new taxing districts, or they use tax dollars from existing districts to maintain unnecessary projects at the expense of necessary amenities. Those projects include auditoriums, carousels, conservation easements, convention centers, decorations, estuaries, murals, racetracks, swimming pools, sports stadiums, sculptures, street art, and theaters, which take money directly from colleges, roads, schools, police and fire departments.

The idea of redevelopment is to increase the assessed values of property surrounding and within the urban renewal area by artificially inflating the local tax base using public money—all to generate new economic activity that most likely would have taken place with or without public incentives.  It just may not have happened in the area desired by the urban renewal planner but in a place chosen by the private business owner, which alleviates the taxpayers of the financial risk.

Some independent studies have found little evidence that municipalities with Urban Renewal Agencies developed any faster than cities without these programs did.  In fact, one study titled “The Effects of Tax Increment Financing on Economic Development” written in March of 1999 by two professors of economics, Richard F. Dye, and David E. Merriman, it found TIF areas grew slower than areas without it did:

If the use of tax increment financing spurs economic development that would not have happened but for the public expenditures, we would expect (after controlling for other growth determinants and for self-selection) a positive relationship between TIF adoption and growth. If the use of tax increment financing merely moves capital around within a municipality, relocating improvements from non-TIF areas of the town to within TIF district borders without changing the productivity of that capital, we would expect (after appropriate controls) to find a zero relationship between TIF adoption and growth. What we find, however, is a negative relationship between TIF adoption and growth. This is consistent with the hypothesis that government subsidies reallocate property improvements in such a way that capital is less productive in its new location.

A Senior Fellow at the CATO Institute made the case against urban renewal and tax-increment financing in a policy analysis titled, “The Case against Tax-Increment Financing” by Randal O’Toole.  In the paper, he states:

There are two problems with any attempts to reform TIF. First, no matter how much legislatures may try to focus TIF on genuine examples of blighted neighborhoods, cities will find ways to get around such safeguards. Second, there is little evidence that city gov­ernments are better than private developers at determining the type and location of new development that cities need, and plenty of evidence that they are not as good. Instead of reforming TIF, state legislatures should sim­ply repeal the laws that give cities and coun­ties the authority to use it and similar tools to subsidize economic development.

The politicians intentionally design these types of development schemes to centralize power and money for the utilization of government planners.  Oregon legislators both Democrat and Republican ignore the annual loss of revenue, especially to education, so they can continue the excessiveness of constructing nonessential boondoggles of the future because it benefits the special interest of both parties today.

Rob Taylor is the tentative Chief Petitioner for the “Committee to Shut Down the Coos County URA.”  Go to for more information.

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 01:33 | Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Bob Clark

    Great article. My town of Milwaukie Oregon just had to have an urban renewal district for our down town. But much of the district projects are public projects like nature trails, which in and of themselves have no return on the capital spent (there is no property tax revenue from public lands and projects). In another town, I am acquainted with Tillamook Oregon, they use urban renewal to fund building a skate board park just for the local children who probably otherwise would find other ways of working their skateboards.
    The other irritating thing is these urban renewal districts go on for thirty years, making any returns on them not useful for taxpayers for thirty years and sometimes the districts are extended. There should be a heavy discounting on returns not accessible for ten or more years.
    And these small towns like Milwaukie and Tillamook are largely volunteer public positions, and so, you get millions of dollars being taken from basic services like police and fire and tossed almost indiscriminately to shiny public projects. And a lot of times its directed to the down town core where most of those taxed don’t reside and don’t really necessarily spend much time down town. In fact, Milwaukie is much more about its bedroom neighborhoods than its down town core (i,e, urban renewal encourages geographical inequities in the way the public’s monies are spent).

    • Bob Clark

      Milwaukie City Council didn’t allow its citizens to vote on the urban renewal district it created by a 4 to 1 council vote. Trying to do a referendum petition is very difficult as we needed to collect nearly 2000 signatures in a town of 20,000 in the course of less than 26 days which included a labor day weekend. Referendums and Initiatives need to have the bars reduced to 5% and 10% of electorate signatures from current 10 and 15%, respectively.

  • Rob Taylor

    Hey Bob,
    Thank you for the compliment. Great minds think alike.
    I had the same problem reaching the 15% threshold for my last local initiative, so I filed another initiative to take it down to 5% of the voters. Cut my work load by two thirds. When the state registered everyone through the DMV it increased the amount of voters here in Bandon by 18%, so I had to find a way to level the field. Plus, the fewer petitions to circulate helps with the wear and tear on the hips and back.
    Here is the wording if you would like to file the same amendment for your city:

    City of Bandon, Oregon

    Five Percent Amendment


    (a) TITLE

    This amendment concerning local election law shall be known and may be cited as the Five Percent Amendment.


    A petition to initiate a City measure shall be signed by a number of the electors registered in the city equal to or greater than 5% of the number of electors registered in the city the day the prospective petition is filed.


    All provisions of this amendment shall become effective immediately upon passage by the electors.

  • This is really informative information. Thanks for your better information.

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)