In reaction to information posted here on Northampton Redoubt and some of the articles in the Valley Advocate related to Northampton's proposed Business Improvement District I received an email correspondence from Jeff Keck, executive director of Springfield's BID (SBID). This led to us to speak by telephone for about an hour this past Friday. Jeff had some clarifications to offer based on what he's been reading. He was careful to note that he is neither for nor against the establishment of a BID in downtown Northampton nor can he comment on the political context of the current proposal, but he thought some additional facts or clarifications are in order.
He pointed out that a BID is a membership of property owners and not businesses, and that it covers a distinct geographical area, unlike the charge of an organization like the Chamber of Commerce. When asked to comment on the proposed budget of the Northampton BID (NBID) he said the reason Springfield's budget is about the same as Northampton's for a city five times the size of Northampton is due to the fact that assessed property values in Springfield are much lower. Springfield uses the same .5% fee structure, which he clarified, is not a tax, although he acknowledges that the fee could be passed on to tenants in whole or in part.
With regards to representation of ordinary citizens, he said that the BID will have an appointee of the city's mayor, if not the mayor herself, to represent the interests of the citizens at large. This appointee could be anyone, from an elected to an appointed official, or a private resident. That choice would be left to mayor Mary Clare Higgins. He said it is common for a city to be involved in a BID through its economic development and planning department, its treasurer's office or through its city solicitor. He said utilizing city departments to collect and distribute the fees or otherwise assist BID operations is more efficient that creating another separate administrative bureaucracy.
He also added that the city could opt out of the BID so that no taxpayer dollars are contributed but he cautioned that in a representative democracy citizens often do not wish to be involved in every decision made by government officials, but they do want representation on issues that may impact them. Clearly the BID has the potential to influence its members as well as ordinary citizens so having the city opt out would ensure no representation for the public at large. He also said based on his ten years of experience that many people, both BID members and nonmembers, do not know what a BID is and do not necessarily understand how its works. He said that outreach is key to helping people to understand what a BID can accomplish, what it will cost and how a municipality can benefit.
For my part I would add that BID proponents could agree to open up their meetings to the general public and the media and to make their minutes available for public inspection. The proposed BID's board of directors can always utilize executive sessions to discuss appropriate matters of confidentiality, but offering an elevated level of transparency and accountablility would be a positive goodwill gesture moving forward. If proponents have nothing to hide then they shouldn't hide anything.
Jeff said that the BID should be looked at as an investment tool, that it is intended to concentrate resources on whatever its members want to do. In other words, BID members have the autonomy of choice to focus on anything from economic development to the enhancement of social programs to the construction of affordable housing in the city. In addition, services provided to one member must be made available to all members. Referring to the concentration of resources Jeff said using the language of the, "malls," is common for BID proponents, because clusters of, "Main Street," types of businesses see malls as one of their primary competitors. Moreover, he said the city of New York has more than sixty BIDs and that the city has created a department in order to assist property owners in forming them. Jeff added that there are well functioning BIDs located all across the country.
On the topic of security Jeff offered that in the geographic area demarcated as Springfield's BID, there is far less crime than what occurs outside of those boundaries. He attributes this to the BID's investment in security cameras, which he argues is more cost effective than hiring additional BID ambassadors because cameras require just one person to monitor them. I don't believe security cameras have been proposed for the NBID. He acknowledges that sometimes ambassadors, otherwise known as rent-a-cops, have been involved in questionable ethical behavior, but so too have government funded police officers and other public safety officials. (Remember Rodney King?) He said that success here would depend upon the quality of the people hired. He also said that SBID officials have assisted city agencies like the health department in policing BID members that have engaged in illegal dumping for instance. When asked whether or not Springfield's BID includes an anti-solicitation ordinance (AKA panhandling ordinance) he said, "no, it does not."
I asked Jeff if he thought the notion of reauthorizing the BID every couple of years is a good one. He said it depends. If the BID is subject to reauthorization every two years a significant part of its activities and resources would comprise running frequent campaigns for reauthorization as opposed to focusing on other issues selected by BID members. If reauthorized every four years for example, its leadership would not have to engage in almost constant campaigning. He could not say what would be best for Northampton.
I thank Jeff for reaching out to Northampton Redoubt in an effort to further inform the debate.
We didn't really discuss the specific economic impacts that a BID might have, or how those might be quantified. Jeff did not disagree with my argument however, that the city and/or the BID's leadership could begin tracking the gross domestic product of the BID as a way of further informing those involved with the policy making process in town.
My personal feeling is that the issue should be added to Northampton's March override ballot. I believe Dan Yacuzzo, one of the most prominent proponents of creating a BID downtown, said during his public comments that he hoped citizens from across Northampton would get behind this initiative because the BID is intended to benefit all of the people in the city. (I think this could be referred to as trickle-over economics.) What better way to gauge citizen support than to take the question directly to the people in the form of a binding or a nonbinding public opinion advisory question? Northampton mayor Mary Clare Higgins has stated elections are one of the best ways to have a conversation about the future direction of the city, well, let's have at it.
