Comments on: Portland adds two system development charges

By: Cascade Policy Institute – Oregon Public Policy » Proposed Charges Stifle Growth

Tue, 17 Aug 2010 23:42:04 +0000

[…] year the city plans to impose two new transportation overlay charges in the Portland State University and Central Eastside districts. These new impact fees, which will […]

By: ORBUSMAX ARCHIVES › Links From 7/6/10

ORBUSMAX ARCHIVES › Links From 7/6/10 — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 16:20:29 +0000

[…] issues apology to Palin family, says some statements “not completely true…” CHA-CHING! Portland adds two system development charges… San Francisco mayor bans sugar-added drinks from city vending machines… Warrant out for […]

By: Steve F.

Steve F. — Tue, 06 Jul 2010 21:03:00 +0000

Wow. Portland is again leading the race (to the bottom). As a developer myself that has properties in Portland and Gresham, I can tell you where the action is: Gresham is no longer the red-headed stepchild of the region…they’re showing Portland who has the wisdom to spur growth in the midst of the worst downturn we’ve seen.

I’ll never support Adams or anyone that has held a job at City Hall. It’s shocking and upsetting just how stupid these people are.

Wow. Just wow.

By: billb

billb — Tue, 06 Jul 2010 20:13:19 +0000

If I want to open a donut shop , and my SDC is 40,000
then I have to sell 40,000 donuts to get out of the hole
[pun intended] , I will never open up in my home town PDX ,
I will see you in VANTUCKY.

By: Nick Bjork

Nick Bjork — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 19:57:52 +0000

Old Town,

I agree that there is fairness in the citywide SDC, but these overlays zones have to bring the transportation capacity up in the specified area. The Orange line will go through the mentioned zones, but they really do benefit the city more than those areas. At the same time I do understand that they will benefit those areas more than the rest of town.

The part of your comment that I really agree with, though, is how SDCs and BIDs are really used as more taxes to cover the lost tax revenues of URAs. And on top of that the consumers, or property owners, have to pay the added cost. It’s like a tax multiplied by three. I don’t know what the solution is, as developers will always take taxes into account when penciling a project out, but it is really interesting.

By: Old Town

Old Town — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 19:16:41 +0000

“And since those jurisdictions have given them [SDC] breaks, we now have evidence that SDC charges have little to no effect on developments.” This from the firm that was hired to help create the new SDCs. I wonder just what is that “evidence?”

There is a certain amount of relative fairness in the SDC ‘tax’ to pay for development that benefits the city as a whole. It is more city-wide in its imposition than is either an URA or BID ‘tax.’ Both the URA and BID suck out money from within a limited boundary ostensibly for the benefit of those within the boundary. Thus why should one area pay for a project that is alleged to benefit the whole city?

There is some irony here – isn’t there? Development by and large in the city is tax increment financed. This caps and diverts property tax funds for services to development. In a sense to make up for this loss of property taxes, and therefore loss (attenuation) of (certain) services, other taxes are imposed via mechanisms like the BID and SDC.

But, as Mr. Bjork indicates – it is the ultimate consumer that pays for the “tax” whatever form it takes. There is no reason to assume that those taxed are going to absorb it. Best of all – none of this taxation needs to be presented for a vote. Just how aware are Portlanders of the many ways they pay for development?

However, isn’t the real question the propriety of this MAX line?

Good article.

A Perspective

By: disgustedoregoniandeveloper

disgustedoregoniandeveloper — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 17:24:00 +0000

The city continues to do a fabulous job of curbing development in the face of conventional wisdom, while chasing away great businesses. You stay classy Sam Adams!

By: Nick Bjork

Nick Bjork — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 16:12:15 +0000

Ed,

Good point. But even if the developer does own the land, that cost will just get passed over to the consumer of the development.

By: Ed

Ed — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 15:49:56 +0000

In the medium to long run SDC’s are just absorbed by the land owners. If a developer can pay $xx,xxx per dwelling unit, FAR or whatever for land and an SDC is added that developer can now pay $xx,xxx minus the SDC cost. SDC’s are a tax focused on a very narrow segment of the population, people who own land that can be developed.

In the short run a developer might have to pay more because they already own the land.