This letter is my response to Jonathan Hayes' letter titled "What We Don't Get About Urban Renewal." Mr. Hayes considers two scenarios. The first assumes there is an urban renewal district and that urban renewal bond proceeds jump start private investment in the district and property values grow. The second assumes there is no urban renewal district and property values do not grow.
If one looks at Chapter Four, "Financial Analysis of the Plan," in the South Corvallis Urban Renewal Report, available on www.corvallisoregon.gov/cd/page/urban-renewal-south-corvallis, one will find an analysis of the projected growth rate (6 percent) in the district and the statement, "This analysis is based on new, market-rate development that is anticipated to occur on its own." Hence the $72.3 million. If one does not agree with the 6 percent growth occurring on its own -- and I see no reason to disagree with it, one can reduce that growth to the 3.0 percent, based on constitutional limits, which will happen anyway -- district or no district. I reworked the table computing tax increment financing on page 15 of the report with 3 percent appreciation and found that the tax increment financing to be about $29.7 million.
Anyway, the decision is still the same: Do we fund urban renewal in South Corvallis or do we save the $29.7 million to $72.3 million in anticipation of future needs?
Corvallis (Feb. 2)