According to Portland State University’s Population Resource Center, Bend’s population is predicted to be over 130,000 by 2035, and nearly 200,000 by the year 2065. In a town that’s roughly 33 square miles, the challenge is already apparent these days:
where to house all the people?
Expanding the Urban Growth Boundary—approved by the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development in December 2016, then unanimously approved by Bend’s City Council and the Board of Deschutes County Commissioners—is one solution. In addition to growing the city at its undeveloped borders, another part of that solution involves adding infill within parts of Bend that have low population densities—such as the 206-acre Bend Central District, bordered by Revere Avenue to the north, the train tracks to the south and west and Fourth Street to the east.
Councilor Nathan Boddie quipped during the March 21 City Council meeting the population density of the BCD is roughly one person per acre now.
“So, I mean, lower than farm land in the Dakotas or something—so there’s some room in the middle of town to put people,” Boddie said.
Brian Rankin, the City of Bend’s planning manager, said during that meeting—channeling ex-mayor Jim Clinton—that you could technically assume that the whole 20-year land supply could be made up in the core of Bend, if the policy direction from the council at the time were to say, “Yeah, that’s what we want.”
According to Central Oregon LandWatch, many barriers within the BCD discourage new investments in housing and infrastructure—and serve as a block between the east and west sides of Bend. Crossing Third Street, the railroad tracks and the Bend Parkway are challenging for families, customers and businesses, according to COLW. And then there’s the dank Franklin Avenue crossing where cyclists choose between the tunnel or battling cars through a narrow underpass.
However, advocates say the creation of an Urban Renewal Area in the BCD and nearby areas—such as KorPine, the westside industrial area bordered by Arizona to the north, Scalehouse Drive to the south, Bend Parkway to the east and Bond Street to the west—could fund projects such as streetscapes, safe crossing areas across the Parkway for bikes and pedestrians and infrastructure to support vertical development. It could also tackle part of the affordable housing crisis in Bend, COLW contends in a March letter to the City Council. They’re among groups encouraging the council to pursue the notion of an Urban Renewal Area in the BCD.
“The idea behind urban renewal is that you have access to additional funds that allow you to invest in an area for the purpose of growing the tax base above and beyond what you would otherwise have gotten,” said Lorelei Juntunen, a project director at ECONorthwest, who spoke at the Council’s work session on March 21. “So, infrastructure projects that are necessary to add capacity to allow additional density. For example: storefront improvement projects that let new businesses thrive and grow—those type of projects that otherwise you might not be able to fund. So, the idea is that everyone’s better off over time as a result of these investments.”
Urban renewal is a complicated tool and not a “silver bullet,” cautioned Juntunen, who summarized Oregon Revised Statue 457—which deals specifically with urban renewal—for the council.
“It’s a very common misconception that urban renewal somehow changes the amount that any individual property owner would be paying, and it does not—it does not—it just affects who gets the money and how it can be spent.” —Lorelei Juntunen
According to EcoNorthwest, urban renewal goes like this: first comes a pre-feasibility study, which shows “opportunity areas” that face barriers to development, considered “blight” defined by ORS 457 as, “areas that, by reason of deterioration, faulty planning, inadequate or improper facilities, deleterious land use or the existence of unsafe structures, or any combinations of these factors, are detrimental to the safety, health or welfare of the community.” The primary evidence of blight in the Central District, according to EcoNorthwest’s presentation, is inadequate infrastructure—lacking safe, multimodal transportation connections across the Parkway and railroad tracks, and underutilized land. The area contains a large number of surface parking lots and many older industrialized buildings that have low improvement-to-land-value ratios, the group alleges. In the URA scenario, leaders draw a boundary for the URA, and then it’s time to talk money, in the form of tax increment financing.
As the website Smartgrowthamerica.org defines it: “TIF is a term for a process in which municipalities use a portion of future tax revenue from a given area to promote development in that area. This is not a tax increase to property owners, just a redistribution of the amount of growth in tax revenue.”
“It’s a very common misconception that urban renewal somehow changes the amount that any individual property owner would be paying, and it does not—it does not—it just affects who gets the money and how it can be spent,” Juntunen said during the meeting.
There are side effects to TIF, however. During the operation of the urban renewal plan, overlapping taxing districts, such as schools, parks, libraries and emergency services, forego any increase in property taxes within the UGA, according to ECO’s presentation.
Agreeing to Less
Leaders at the Bend Park and Recreation District indicate being in favor.
“In general, the Park District supports TIF as long as we are included in helping establish the project list that the TIF plans to fund,” Don Horton, BPRD’s executive director told the Source. “In most cases, there are projects that benefit parks in these project areas. The TIF would need to help fund the Parks projects in the same way it helps to fund streets and other infrastructure projects. The net benefit for all taxing entities is that the tax base will grow over the lifespan of the taxing district and produce greater tax revenue when the life of the district ends. In theory, that is a good thing.”
Juntunen said her group looked at multiple areas for urban renewal and found the greatest potential in the Central District and KorPine.
“The reason that those areas have the best potential is that, well, for one thing, there’s already more existing development there now, which means they’re not entirely reliant on new development for incremental revenue growth because the existing properties continue to increase, according to Measure 5 and Measure 50 at roughly 3 percent per year. That 3 percent helps to provide some stability for the revenue in the area, and makes it less volatile and less dependent on new construction,” Juntunen said.
The Bend City Council will listen to public comment on the urban renewal area proposal Wednesday, April 4, during its regular 7 p.m. meeting, and will vote on the issue during its April 18 council meeting.
This article appears in Apr 4-11, 2018.
MAKE LOCAL JOURNALISM HAPPEN
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
In the Korpine area off Industrial Way – Killian Pacific, Hooker Creek, and Bill Smith will first have to solve their access problem to Arizona Avenue, as it is my understanding that a different company or group owns a rather expansive portion of the frontage along Arizona Ave., opposite Market of Choice and Colorado Crossing. Maybe these adjoining developers/land owners requiring access to Arizona Ave. for their large projects will be treated in the same reciprocating manner they have treated CRUX, when CRUX had their access from Industrial Way recently denied?
One of the things that really needs to be addressed in all of these areas is the dominance of ‘parking lots’ across the board. Just go to google maps and notice that most of the land in these areas goes to parking…check out the ill conceived Old Mill parking situation. NOT ONE parking garage. Someone argued that it’s more expensive to go to multi level parking…at which point I looked it up and indeed they were wrong. I consider multi level parking to be a major component in this puzzle. Density would imply density for parking, but apparently in Bend it does not. All and all this is an exciting position to be in as a city…the question remains will we throw our creativity together and find unique solutions or remain status quo and throw a building in among acres of parking spots.
Urban Renewal is simply Gentrification with a more appealing name. If you want real urban renewal use that land to put in affordable housing, fix the roads in the older neighborhoods so people will drive through there again, and use local labor to do it. Bend should NOT trade its public lands for more unaffordable condominiums.
The Urban Renewal this article is touting is just another way for mega rich land developers to squeeze a few more bucks out of Bend at the expense of the people and small businesses that consider Bend their home and not just another short term investment opportunity.
Growing Bends tax base sustainably is done by providing the people flocking to Bend with good jobs so they can afford to participate in the local economy. Taking away public lands that Bend is known for and giving it to outside developers for quick exploitation does nothing to grow our annual tax base and at best provides a quick shot of tax revenue to whatever politician is in power at that moment.
This is simply a land grab and a power grab and dont think it will stop with the limited proposed areas. Urban Renewal will include moving out working class Bend residents and pushing them from what has grown into the center of Bend, where some families have lived for generations, to the outskirts where they can afford to live.
By pushing out Bends local residences and businesses in favor of another Starbucks or yet another Carrera Motors expansion, spilling their inventory all over the other businesses around them, you are sabotaging Bends future and selling out its citizens for a quick buck. Bends leaders are supposed to be better than that. Arent they?
Tax Increment Financing is a way for business to use taxes only for itself – part of taxes paid are used only in the TIF district. This has the effect of short changing everyone else in that infrastructure costs that result from development but extend outside the TIF district are not funded from these taxes.
A more equitable solution is to collect taxes into the general fund where they can be allocated for everyone’s benefit, and all can have a say.
Thank you for a well written article Chris. It would be enlightening to hear what the different scenarios would look like in the Korpine/Old Mill area. Since this old Korpine Mill area off Arizona Ave. is flagged as being the next “Epicenter” of Bend, it would be nice to know what the vision is for this enormous chunk of land.
Hear, Hear! Cristafir has it correct. (I would like the source of your expense numbers so I can use it in the future.) Using land for parking is a great waste of land. Put up parking structures and leave the land for walking or if necessary, more building. And if you put a roof of solar panels on your parking structure, you profit even more and benefit the planet to boot!
Downtown constantly struggles with parking. A parking structure on the vacant lot on Franklin (behind McMenamins) would be ideal.
People prefer to park close to stores, and many even cruise for a time to find a close spot. Proper design of parking structures and the walking path to stores will make it easier for people to choose to park in the structure. Even include a section of the structure reserved for the monster trucks that don’t fit standard parking slots (and endanger traffic on Wall and Bond).