Scappoose committee weighs where — and how — to create a downtown hub

Members of the Scappoose Economic Development Committee spent much of their Oct. 10 meeting debating where and how the city should create a downtown that serves residents and attracts visitors.

The discussion began after the committee watched a recorded Strong Towns/Urban3 presentation showing that traditional mixed‑use downtowns typically generate far more municipal revenue per acre than low‑density, car‑centric suburban development. Speaker 7, speaking from a developer perspective, said the city must decide “where it’s going to be” and suggested Highway 30 and nodes near City Hall and the library as candidates.

Committee members repeatedly returned to the practical levers the city can use. Speaker 6 summarized Oregon’s land‑use framework, noting that zoning is generally set in advance and that the city’s best opportunity to influence development is to change code or create new zone subclasses before applications arrive. “So at the time we get an application … we can’t determine as long as it already meets what our code says,” Speaker 6 said.

Several members flagged liability risks tied to downzoning. Speaker 1 warned that reducing allowed uses could lower property values and trigger compensation claims; instead, the idea of upzoning or creating a new subclass for newly annexed parcels was proposed as a way to encourage desired forms of development without creating immediate takings liability.

The committee sketched several candidate locations: parcels behind the food carts (centrally located), sites near the railroad, the airport/industrial area, gravel‑pit parcels that could become available, and Chapman Landing on the river. Speaker 5 urged using the waterfront and outdoor amenities to reinforce Scappoose’s identity as a gateway to outdoor recreation. Speaker 4 reminded the group that the existing downtown overlay requires buildings to be fronted on the street and said the overlay can be used to secure the pedestrian‑friendly character members expect.

Members discussed financial incentives to spur redevelopment: service development charge (SDC) relief, tax abatement or enterprise‑zone style programs, and targeted public investment or public‑private partnerships. Speaker 7 described a typical 10‑year tax abatement approach and cautioned that incentives must be structured with strings — for example, minimum affordability or pricing thresholds — to prevent windfalls and ensure public benefit.

Committee members agreed on next steps: prepare a recommended Option A for where a downtown should focus, collect the available policy levers (zoning changes, SDC relief, targeted tax abatement, infrastructure investments) and circulate materials before the next meeting so the group can make a formal recommendation to planning staff and the council.

The committee did not adopt any new code changes at the meeting; members directed staff and the committee to develop options and return with a draft recommendation.