City's Lack of Reporting Hides Range of Urban Renewal Projects

Over at our Strong Towns group they posted a great question about Urban Renewal.

via FB

Here, we've been very skeptical on the first round of Urban Renewal a couple of generations ago.

On the Pringle Creek Urban Renewal project:

• "Pringle Creek Urban Renewal District Nets Little over Inflation" (2012)
  
• "Parking not Strolling was the Focus for the Pringle Creek Urban Renewal Area" (2023)
  
• "Civic Center and Millrace Park shared Designer with Failed Eugene Pedestrian Mall" (2023)

Spandrel and a bench where no one wants to sit
Recently removed I think (Hollywood)

And the Hollywood project:

• "Hollywood District Urban Renewal's Desolation and Third Bridge" (2012)
  
• "New Bank for Hollywood Urban Renewal District in 1972"

These involved declarations of blight and demolition of many buildings, and displacement of people. The resulting urban forms were less walkable, with large parking lots, fewer businesses, and ultimately a smaller  property tax base. If one of the goals of Urban Renewal was to create more value, these areas failed.

Because Salem has always been pretty white, these Urban Renewal projects have not seemed racialized, however. There has been no classic "slum clearance" Urban Renewal here.

Not quite the current URAs
(Pringle Creek has been closed!)

More recent rounds have seemed more targeted, with funding for specific projects on specific lots rather than wholesale bulldozing of districts and superblock redevelopment. In general it seems more finely grained. They are better considered as "tax increment funding" districts focusing on a mechanism for funding on specific projects than as large scale clearance and renewal projects.

One commenter singles out the McGilchrist URA as the most offensive. That is based on the expensive street project hoovering up everything, but you can see on the map the area is larger, and its funding could go to industrial development or to a conversion to housing.

NEN-SESNA land use concepts (2014)

You may recall this was discussed a decade ago for the NEN-SENSA neighborhood plan, and with the continued expansion of industry at the Mill Creek Industrial park, there seems to be a flight of industry to the edges and closer to I-5. Theoretically anyway the URA could be employed for making a shift in land use.

A good bit of URA funding is in fact now being used for housing. That's a use that meets our moment. The single lot TIF concept piloted at the north campus of the former State Hospital property, the Jory TIF district, is a fascinating example, and it will be interesting to see if more single-lot TIF districts are formed.

Chunks of the Riverfront-Downtown and South Waterfront URA funding have been used for housing. The conversion of the former Boise site to apartments got a substantial chunk, new housing in the Nishioka building and at the former Nordstrom site got some, and the alley block of apartments at the England-Wade building got some. Other mixed use projects like the rehabilitation for the Fork Forty Food Hall and new Wexford/Whitlock's have got some. These seem like very good uses for URA funding, helping to make wanted and difficult projects pencil out.

But at the Boise project an office building did secure URA funding for an extra floor, but the building already had been mostly leased up, and this seemed to be a clear instance of URA funding padding profits, extra slush, rather than helping make happen something that otherwise wouldn't happen.

Some Downtown funding is also going to streetscape work. It funded the short segment of two-way on Court Street recently completed. Many of the new corner bulb-outs also use URA funding.

Lots of URA funding for streets (2022-2026 CIP)

URA funding flexes over time, but in our current window, between bond bond measures, a large proportion of street funding comes from URA funds.

North Gateway URA and Portland Road (2016)

In the North Gateway, and again at McGilchrist, URA funding is going to streets. North Gateway URA funding went to enhanced crosswalks and other streetscape improvements, for example. Also funded intersection work with a new left turn lane on 17th and Silverton Road, as well as a bunch of projects on Pine Street. Mill Creek has a lot of road work associated with the industrial park areas.

Recently the Fairview URA funded airport expansion. 

Tracking all this is hard, and the City does not make any convenient list of funded URA projects. You'd have to go through each year's CIP, extract them, and compile your own spreadsheet.

This is nonsense
(Comments reversed in white added)

Additionally, the City uses misleading reporting. In a 2020 report on URA "growth" they omit any measurement of time and fail to make any adjustment for inflation and citywide increased property value. The before/after comparison, asserting "growing assessed value" is just empty puffery.

The City takes pains to obfuscate on Urban Renewal Areas and funding.

When the City is not transparent, it is easy for claims about "developer welfare" to flourish. The City makes it nearly impossible to assess Urban Renewal critically and to make judgements about successes and failures.

Addendum, January 10th

Totally spaced a very relevant application of Urban Renewal funding!

URA provided maybe half
of the Union St. funding (2018 memo)

The language of "leveraging" and "matching" is often how the City uses URA/TIF funding as supplemental or completion funding.

Addendum the Second, January 11th

Here's another good one, the Minto Bridge! This is not the final budget for the bridge, but it does give a real sense for the way URA funding is used.

from a Staff Report to Council, June 2013