Distributing the Benefits and Burdens of Growth: Metropolitan Equity in

the Portland Region

Sprawl, Segregation, Growth and Fiscal Equity

in the Portland Metropolitan Area

Regional institutions like Portland Metro can help to mitigate the effects of

local government fragmentation by

coordinating land use, transportation, housing

and environmental policy on a metropolitan

scale.

Portland and the Twin Cities have the strongest

regional governance institutions in the

country.

Their performance on various indicators of social and economic health reflects this.

Sprawl

Portland sprawled less than expected between

1970 and 2000(given its degree of local

government fragmentation).

The amount of urbanized land in the

region actually grew less rapidly than population,

making it one of only four metropolitan areas

among the 25 largest where this was true.

Recent growth remains relatively balanced with the highest growth rates occurring (for the most

part) in already-developed incorporated

areas.

The region is well-known for coordinating

new housing with targeted growth

corridors determined by the region’s urban

growth boundary (UGB) and transportation

infrastructure.

However, Measures 37 and 49 have threatened

this record. Existing Measure 37 claims

outside the region’s UGB could, if acted upon, lead to much

more sprawling development than the region has seen in the

past.

Measure 37 Claims

Segregation

The region was less segregated in 2000 than

expected, given its degree of local

government fragmentation.

However, more current data for schools shows

that the region’s schools are becoming more and more segregated by race

and income.

The number of non-white segregated

schools is increasing rapidly.

In 1998, there were only 14 elementary schools in the 5-county region with

non-white shares above 50 percent. Just 10 years

later, in 2008, the number was 67. More than half

(36) were in the suburbs

Similarly, there were only 5 elementary

schools in the 5-county region with non-white

shares above 67 percent in 1998. Just 10 years

later, in 2008, the number was 32. 13 were

in the suburbs.

More than a quarter of elementary schools

open in both 1998 and 2008 experienced an

increase of more than 25 percentage points in the share of non-white students. Most were in

the suburbs.

Non-white segregated schools are among the poorest schools in the

region.

56 of the 67 schools with non-white shares above 50 percent also

had poverty rates above 50 percent.

51 of the 65 schools going through rapid

racial transition (non-white share increases of

more than 25 percentage points) had poverty rates above 50

percent.

Research shows that high-poverty, segregated schools undermine opportunity for

their students in many ways, including:

• Lower test scores• Higher dropout rates• Lower college attendance rates• Lower earnings later in life• Greater risk of being poor as

adults

Research also shows the academic and social benefits

of integrated schools for students of all races,

including:

• Greater academic achievement• Higher expectations• Narrower inter-racial

achievement gaps• Greater cultural competence,

preparing students of all races for our increasingly diverse workforce and society

Affordable housing policies can be used to

provide greater educational

opportunities for poor kids and children of

color, while also promoting more

integrated neighborhoods.

Job Growth

The region has grown more rapidly than expected givens its

degree of local government

fragmentation.

And job growth has been relatively balanced

between urban and suburban locations, with

relatively dense job centers capturing much

of the growth.

However, the region’s growth advantage

relative to the rest of the country is

narrowing. Regional growth was 9 points

greater between 1990 and 1995, but only 1

point greater between 2000 and 2006.

Fiscal Equity

Local tax base was distributed more equally

across the region than expected given its

degree of local government

fragmentation.

Unlike many metropolitan areas, the fully developed core of the region shows tax

bases and growth roughly commensurate

with most suburban areas.

Regional Policy-making for the future:

Segregation

Segregation in schools and neighborhoods are closely

related. Neighborhood characteristics shape schools and school characteristics factor into

neighborhood choices by parents.

School transitions can accelerate neighborhood transition; stably

integrated schools can help stabilize neighborhoods.

2000 Distribution of 633 Tracts that were White/Black Integrated in 1980in 15 Metro Areas with County- or Metro-wide Busing in the 1980's and 1990's

0

25

50

75

100

12 17 22 27 32 37 42 47

Percentage Black in 1980

Conclusion: Tracts were more likely to remain integrated than to resegregate during the next 20 years from all starting points.

Per

cent

age

of T

ract

s in

200

0

Remained Integrated Changed to Segregated Changed to Predominantly White

Regional/statewide approaches to school and neighborhood integration:

• Financial incentives to school districts

• Intra-district choice—e.g. magnets

• Inter-district choice—e.g. Choice is Yours Program

• Multi-district collaborations• Targeting LIHTC, Section 8 and

other affordable housing programs in pro-integrative ways

Regional Policy-making for the future:Fiscal Equity

Regional tax-base sharing systems like the Fiscal Disparities Program in the Twin Cities:

• Place a portion of growth in tax base into a regional pool

• Distribute the tax base back to participating municipalities and school districts based on tax base, population or other local characteristics

• Reduces incentives for inefficient competition for tax base (the “ratables chase”)

• Encourages joint economic development efforts, enhancing long-run regional growth

• Complements regional land-use planning

• Provides insurance against future changes in growth patterns – few parts of a region can count on being a regional growth leader forever

• Reduces inequalities in tax rates and services

Tax Base Sharing:

• Each year, each location contributes 40% of the growth in its commercial-industrial tax base to a regional pool.

• Tax-base in the pool is then be re-distributed back to each location based on total local tax base and population.

• The re-distributed tax-base is then taxed by each location at its own tax rate.

• The program covers the seven core Minnesota counties in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area.

• It benefits most residents. In 2004, 64% of households in the region lived in areas that received more from the pool than they contributed.

Twin Cities Fiscal Disparities Program

• In 2004, 32% of regional commercial-industrial tax base and 10% of total tax base was in the pool.

• In St. Paul, one of the largest beneficiaries, the average homestead tax was 8.8% lower than it would have been without Fiscal Disparities.

• Minneapolis has had periods where it contributes and other when it benefits.

Twin Cities Fiscal Disparities Program

• Reduces overall property tax base inequality in the region by about 20% (as measured by the Gini coefficient).

• Reduces the ratio of the highest to lowest tax base per household from 25 to 8.

• Reduces the ratio of the second highest to second lowest tax base per household from 10 to 4.

Twin Cities Fiscal Disparities Program

Regional Policy-making for the future:

Land Use Planning

Strategic use of the UGB expansions to complement other policy objectives, such as targeting to communities pursuing pro-integrative school or neighborhood policies

Set measurable performance standards for Portland Metro.

•Growth in urbanized land compared to population growth.•Segregation in schools; racial transition in schools.•Job growth compared to other large metros.•Fiscal inequality (Gini coefficient for local tax base per capita)•Percentage of affordable housing in high-opportunity communities.

Regional Policy-making for the future: Accountability

Contact Us:

http://www.irpumn.org