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?
You’re right that there are parallels to TIF: both rely on capturing future tax revenues to finance development today, and both raise important questions about who benefits, who decides, and who bears the risk.
With SB 110, the repayment mechanism is different—it uses a so-called “jock tax” on future income from MLB players and team employees. So, unlike TIF, it doesn’t divert existing revenue from schools or services, and it’s not based on property taxes. That said, many of the same concerns apply: we’re still talking about public dollars being used to support a privately owned development, with promises of public benefit that are hard to guarantee.
What worries me is the pattern: high-profile, top-down projects—like stadiums, convention centers, or luxury redevelopment—often win support on the idea of economic impact, but rarely center community needs. Meanwhile, deeply affordable housing, anti-displacement strategies, and local wealth-building get sidelined or underfunded. Whether it’s income tax or property tax, if we’re using public dollars, we need public governance, transparency, and long-term community benefit baked in.
So yes, although the mechanism is different, I think SB 110 risks many of the same pitfalls as traditional TIF—especially if the project is framed as a done deal without meaningful public engagement or accountability.
To add to that: there are a few more reasons for concern.
First, these kinds of financing models rely on projected future tax revenue—and projections don’t always pan out. If the team underperforms, relocates, or if revenue simply doesn’t meet expectations, the public could be left holding the bag. Even if the state says it won’t backstop the bonds, defaults or shortfalls can still impact future budgets or credit ratings.
Second, there’s a long track record of MLB and other pro sports stadiums overpromising and underdelivering when it comes to economic impact. The jobs are often temporary or low-wage, and the surrounding development tends to prioritize luxury over affordability. Public investments should meet real community needs, not just branding opportunities.
Finally, we can’t look at this in a vacuum. Portland has a history of prioritizing big, high-profile projects while neglecting basic infrastructure, affordable housing, and neighborhood-led development. If we’re serious about equity and resilience, we have to ask: why are we so quick to mobilize hundreds of millions for a stadium, but not for the things that help people stay rooted and thrive?
These questions aren’t about saying no to everything—they’re about saying yes to the right things and demanding that public investment serve the public good.
Thank you! Good to hear this perspective - and thanks for taking the time to respond thoughtfully!
I was disappointed to see that so few of these questions were asked by the elected officials that voted this through, because I agree with you that it's vital that a public investment of this magnitude actually serves the public good.
SB110 and the tax mechanism aren't bad, but letting the Portland Diamond Project dictate the terms exactly as they want them is.
"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"
Yes! TIF districts are not static, and with enough political will and community pressure, they can be restructured to reflect new values and priorities. One of my biggest frustrations left over from City Hall is how hard my team worked on advancing anti-displacement measures and how little support and cooperation we received from the Mayor’s office😡We’ve been talking about this for at least a DECADE!!
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?
You’re right that there are parallels to TIF: both rely on capturing future tax revenues to finance development today, and both raise important questions about who benefits, who decides, and who bears the risk.
With SB 110, the repayment mechanism is different—it uses a so-called “jock tax” on future income from MLB players and team employees. So, unlike TIF, it doesn’t divert existing revenue from schools or services, and it’s not based on property taxes. That said, many of the same concerns apply: we’re still talking about public dollars being used to support a privately owned development, with promises of public benefit that are hard to guarantee.
What worries me is the pattern: high-profile, top-down projects—like stadiums, convention centers, or luxury redevelopment—often win support on the idea of economic impact, but rarely center community needs. Meanwhile, deeply affordable housing, anti-displacement strategies, and local wealth-building get sidelined or underfunded. Whether it’s income tax or property tax, if we’re using public dollars, we need public governance, transparency, and long-term community benefit baked in.
So yes, although the mechanism is different, I think SB 110 risks many of the same pitfalls as traditional TIF—especially if the project is framed as a done deal without meaningful public engagement or accountability.
To add to that: there are a few more reasons for concern.
First, these kinds of financing models rely on projected future tax revenue—and projections don’t always pan out. If the team underperforms, relocates, or if revenue simply doesn’t meet expectations, the public could be left holding the bag. Even if the state says it won’t backstop the bonds, defaults or shortfalls can still impact future budgets or credit ratings.
Second, there’s a long track record of MLB and other pro sports stadiums overpromising and underdelivering when it comes to economic impact. The jobs are often temporary or low-wage, and the surrounding development tends to prioritize luxury over affordability. Public investments should meet real community needs, not just branding opportunities.
Finally, we can’t look at this in a vacuum. Portland has a history of prioritizing big, high-profile projects while neglecting basic infrastructure, affordable housing, and neighborhood-led development. If we’re serious about equity and resilience, we have to ask: why are we so quick to mobilize hundreds of millions for a stadium, but not for the things that help people stay rooted and thrive?
These questions aren’t about saying no to everything—they’re about saying yes to the right things and demanding that public investment serve the public good.
Thank you! Good to hear this perspective - and thanks for taking the time to respond thoughtfully!
I was disappointed to see that so few of these questions were asked by the elected officials that voted this through, because I agree with you that it's vital that a public investment of this magnitude actually serves the public good.
SB110 and the tax mechanism aren't bad, but letting the Portland Diamond Project dictate the terms exactly as they want them is.
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"
Yes! TIF districts are not static, and with enough political will and community pressure, they can be restructured to reflect new values and priorities. One of my biggest frustrations left over from City Hall is how hard my team worked on advancing anti-displacement measures and how little support and cooperation we received from the Mayor’s office😡We’ve been talking about this for at least a DECADE!!