Rethinking TIF: Toward a Portland That Works for Everyone
Portland Is on the Verge of Establishing Five New Urban Renewal Areas—Will We Repeat Past Harms or Begin Building a Just Future?
Dear Readers,
As promised, here’s my follow-up to yesterday’s post. After that mega-issue, I’ve kept this one short and focused—but if you have questions or want to dig deeper, I’m happy to oblige. This is also an example of the regular content I’ll add once we hit 200 paid subscribers. Please consider sharing it or encouraging others to subscribe if you find it valuable. Every bit of support helps keep this work going.
If you’re unfamiliar with how Tax Increment Financing (TIF) works, you’re not alone. It’s one of the most powerful—and least understood—tools cities like Portland use to fund infrastructure and redevelopment. In simple terms, TIF allows the city to freeze property tax revenue in a designated area and use any future increase in tax revenue (the "increment") to fund improvements in that area.
Sounds like a win-win, right? More investment leads to higher property values, which generates more revenue to reinvest in the neighborhood. But in practice, it hasn’t always worked out that way.
Over the past two decades, Portland has used TIF to transform neighborhoods like the Pearl District, South Waterfront, and parts of North and Northeast Portland. The investments often brought new parks, transit, and commercial development—but they also contributed to rising rents, increased property taxes, and the displacement of long-time residents, particularly Black Portlanders. In many cases, the communities most affected by the change had little say in how the money was spent—or who benefited.
Organizations like Imagine Black, Unite Oregon, and APANO have been sounding the alarm about these undesirable outcomes. At a recent City Council committee hearing, all three called for a new approach that centers community voice, builds in anti-displacement protections, and ensures that public investment benefits the people who already live in these neighborhoods.
Their testimony emphasized a simple but transformative idea: when we center the needs of those most often left behind—such as renters, people of color, low-income households, and people with disabilities—we create stronger, more resilient communities for everyone. We don’t need to choose between equity and prosperity. When we invest in people, everyone benefits.
So, what could a better system look like?
I’ve been exploring that very question. The result is an emerging framework that reimagines how public investment could work in Portland—not just to grow, but to grow justly. Here’s a preview:
Democratic control: Communities most affected by public investment must have real decision-making power. That means participatory budgeting, neighborhood assemblies, and community representation on governing boards.
Anti-displacement guarantees: Every dollar of public investment should come with strong tenant protections, affordability covenants, and ownership models that keep housing and land permanently off the speculative market.
Shared wealth-building: Instead of profits going to outside developers, investment should support community land trusts, co-ops, and Community Investment Trusts that give residents a lasting stake in their neighborhoods.
Green and accessible infrastructure: Public dollars must fund projects that improve health, safety, accessibility, and climate resilience—not freeways or luxury towers.
Accountability to future generations: Every decision should be guided by a commitment to long-term well-being. If a project harms the climate, increases displacement risk, or undermines future affordability, it shouldn’t move forward.
This isn’t just theory. We’ve seen glimpses of what’s possible in the Jade District, where APANO led a community-driven TIF process, and in Cully, where residents created Portland’s first community-centered TIF district. These efforts didn’t just make development more equitable—they made it more innovative, sustainable, and locally driven. We can build on these models—and go even further.
One powerful partner in this work is the Portland Clean Energy Community Benefits Fund (PCEF). Created by and for frontline communities, PCEF provides funding for climate-resilient, community-led projects—everything from green job training to energy-efficient housing upgrades. Aligning a reimagined TIF with PCEF could supercharge investments in affordable housing, accessibility, and climate resilience—ensuring that public dollars don’t just build but sustain and uplift the communities they’re meant to serve.
I’ve been through enough of these conversations to know that lip service isn’t enough. We need protections and priorities baked in from the start. Our communities need more than warnings and watchdogs—we need blueprints, test sites, and transformational policies. If we want different outcomes, we need new tools. We need to fund what matters, protect what’s precious, and ensure the future we’re building doesn’t come at the expense of the people who already call this city home.
Portland has the chance to lead—not just in doing TIF differently but in redefining what public investment looks like in a just, livable city. Let’s not miss it.
Take Action
Five new urban renewal areas have been referred to City Council for approval on April 2nd. They have been placed on the Consent Agenda, meaning no further discussion or public comment will occur unless they are pulled. There is still time to shape the process, but the community voice must be loud and persistent.
Contact your City Council members and demand that any new TIF districts include binding anti-displacement measures, affordable housing guarantees, and democratic community oversight.
Support organizations like Imagine Black, APANO, and Unite Oregon, which are working to ensure these investments benefit local communities and the people who need them most.
Talk to your neighbors, share this piece, and push the conversation forward. Progress doesn’t happen quietly.
We’ve seen what happens when we leave public investment to speculation and status quo thinking. Let’s show what’s possible when we lead with justice, care, and community!
Wonk Out!
These resources offer valuable insights into the complexities of urban development, financing mechanisms, and strategies for creating equitable and sustainable communities.
Books
The Affordable City: Strategies for Putting Housing Within Reach (and Keeping it There): Shane Phillips presents pragmatic solutions to the housing affordability crisis, emphasizing a comprehensive approach backed by strong, diverse coalitions to improve affordability and increase community resilience through local action.
Root Shock: How Tearing Up City Neighborhoods Hurts America, and What We Can Do About It: Mindy Thompson Fullilove explores the profound traumatic stress—"root shock"—experienced by communities subjected to urban renewal projects. Through detailed accounts of neighborhoods in Pittsburgh, Newark, and Roanoke, she illustrates the lasting impact of displacement on African American communities and advocates for policies prioritizing community cohesion and well-being.
We Live Here: Detroit Eviction Defense and the Battle for Housing Justice by Jeffrey Wilson & Bambi Kramer: A powerful, firsthand account of grassroots resistance to displacement. Centered on Detroit Eviction Defense, this book chronicles tenant organizing, direct action, and the urgent fight for housing as a human right. Clear, accessible, and grounded in lived experience, it’s a vital read for anyone committed to housing justice and community power.
Just Action: How to Challenge Segregation Enacted Under the Color of Law by Richard Rothstein & Leah Rothstein: A follow-up to The Color of Law, this book shifts from history to strategy. It offers real-world tools for confronting segregation and housing inequality at the local level—through zoning reform, school integration, reparative investment, and more. Written for organizers, advocates, and everyday residents ready to take action.
Documentaries
Flag Wars: This documentary provides an intimate look at the conflicts that arise when economic development collides with existing communities, focusing on gentrification in a historically Black neighborhood.
Owned: A Tale of Two Americas: Directed by Giorgio Angelini, this film examines the dark history of housing policies in America, revealing how systemic inequities have shaped real estate, wealth, and community.
Articles & Reports
Urban Renewal and Its Discontents: A critical analysis of urban renewal policies, this piece discusses the historical context and ongoing debates surrounding redevelopment efforts in American cities.
7 Policies That Could Prevent Gentrification: David Price outlines actionable policy initiatives to mitigate gentrification and displacement in vulnerable neighborhoods, emphasizing community stabilization through equitable investments.
Housing/Anti-Displacement: PolicyLink provides a comprehensive overview of tools and strategies designed to expand housing opportunities and prevent displacement of low-income communities of color, focusing on increasing affordability, fostering economically integrated neighborhoods, and protecting tenants.
New North Portland development aims to repair harms of urban renewal (OPB): This piece highlights a new housing development designed to address the legacy of displacement caused by Portland’s past urban renewal efforts. Focused on supporting Black homeownership, the project represents a step toward reparative investment in a community long impacted by exclusion and disinvestment.
Restorative Housing Policy: Can We Heal the Wounds of Redlining and Urban Renewal? (Shelterforce): This article explores what it means to move beyond equity toward restoration—repairing the damage caused by redlining, urban renewal, and racist housing policy. It features examples from across the country and offers a bold vision for housing justice rooted in accountability, healing, and community control.
Chloe, I'm curious your thoughts on SB 110 which reads to me like a TIF-esque tax scheme (using future taxes - income, in this case - to pay for development today), specifically designed to benefit a private company who is building a privately owned property which will presumably have some level ancillary public benefit.
Does SB 110 risk the same pitfalls as TIF-financing? Is it better or worse as income tax vs. property tax, state tax vs. Portland tax, etc? Should the state be looking at similar framework to minimize negative externalities, or is a Zidel Yards not as susceptible to the same issues that other neighborhoods have experienced? Is the media coverage - and statements from the Mayor and Portland Diamond Project - accurately describing the mechanics and impact of SB 110 to the public?
Thank you, my submission ⤵️
"Reform all old and new TIF areas with clear and enforced anti-displacement criterion , oversight by neighbors who are diverse and part of coalitions( not rich white neighbors) renter protections, limits on land hoarding and landlords, and taxes on the rich to enhance transit demands created by such growth"