Press editorial: Renewed confidence in urban renewal

Now there’s a beautiful word: de-annexation.

What that means in local parlance is the removal of 62 parcels from Coeur d’Alene’s urban renewal districts. And what that means is several taxing districts — the city being the largest — will recoup about $1.3 million in tax dollars.

De-annexation was made possible by the 2016 Idaho Legislature. Even though some legislators wanted more stringent curtailment of urban renewal, de-annexation creates an important option while preserving what is good about urban renewal as an important economic development tool.

One of the biggest challenges with urban renewal’s tax increment financing is that the bounties of tax revenues after property is improved go to the urban renewal district itself. Until that district is dissolved, by statute or by a board’s decision, the surplus revenue continues to go to the urban renewal district rather than the other taxing entities in that district. That creates a temporary hardship on those other entities.

Post Falls has been a model of what many people consider ideal urban renewal, targeting truly blighted areas, assisting in their improvement and generating additional tax dollars while raising the overall value of the area and in many cases, providing additional economic development punch with jobs. Unlike Coeur d’Alene, Post Falls has closed urban renewal districts after just a few years. That way, all the additional tax dollars no longer flow back to the urban renewal agency; they go back to the other taxing entities like schools and the city that depend heavily upon them. Ostensibly, that leads to lower taxes for citizens, or at least keeps citizens’ property taxes from going up more than they would otherwise.

Coeur d’Alene should be commended on two fronts. One, Mayor Steve Widmyer, who is a member of Coeur d’Alene’s urban renewal board, instigated the de-annexation movement. His initiative paved the way for the first urban renewal de-annexation in the state under the new law.

Secondly, the urban renewal board itself deserves a round of applause. Rather than protesting or digging their heels in, the board was amenable to the change.

Moving forward, we hope more opportunities for de-annexation can be explored. It’s hard to conceive that urban renewal would be needed for any more big projects in the thriving Lake District, and with the economy so strong, even the River District’s undeveloped property near the Spokane River and Seltice Way should not need significant taxpayer support to see improvement. We should all remember that urban renewal is an economic development tool. It was never meant to replace private investment.