I support the Valley Advocate's criticism of the Northampton BID over the last few weeks. If the Chamber of Commerce had looked for best solutions to redress their failures to raise money for Holiday lighting, flower boxes, and whatever else business owners could imagine would make downtown more attractive, they would have been advised to reject a BID at first mention.
The proponents claim they are simply some property owners merely inviting others to be interested in also pooling their own money for additional services to beautify Downtown for the benefit of their individual businesses. No one is stopping them, they don’t need the city to enact a BID.
It was that failure by the COC that brought the opportunity for private interests to have a BID proposed which gives their directors greater control of more residents' resources for their own interest at the expense of the city itself. It is modeled on the maintenance contracts of condo and homeowner associations and allows the same abuses.
In this case, it is also intended that all will be forced by lack of choice to agree to be permanently indentured. Massachusetts is the only state with an opt-out clause because that protection was the only way it could get passed in our legislature. The opt-out clause further challenges BIDs that should not be adopted, like this one based on the assent of non-standard contributing members like Smith. But the strategy is that once BIDs are adopted they will petition the legislature and claim that the opt-out be removed because it dooms BIDs which have already been adopted to failure, and it will pass.
Business owners who wondered whether they should assent got a visit from the proponents themselves to promise whatever the owner thought should be addressed, like pan-handling would only be addressed by approving the BID. They delivered a message that the city has no money and most other retailers and Mayor Higgins are all for the BID.
Non-Profits made the BID possible. Smith College likely sees their assent helping get greater influence in the city which helped before to reduce any challenges available to citizens under Massachusetts law in colluding with Mayor Higgins and City Council on the Development Agreement and the Educational Use Overlay for their expansion. The Green/West neighborhood with no business to survive or viable plan for is now conveniently included in the Business Improvement District.
Smith College will invisibly be a major vote in what the BID will do and need only contribute what they want. Under their exemption for their annual $3,900,000 in fair share property taxes to Northampton they can contribute a staggering $100,000 to any cause citizens would forever gratefully remember. Businesses and rental residents in District will pay more to subsidize whatever services the BID decides to charge property-owners. Property owners will have their tenants paying for additional services they expect will increase the value of their property but now they themselves have nearly no vote in getting services that most benefit them.
Downtown Northampton business owners who signed don't seem to realize they already have the regional market. The promise of flower boxes and burnished sidewalks won't cure changes in buying habits or the effects of a recession. The sidewalks are still full with affluent shoppers, they are just spending less. Landlords who assent seem to forget that tenants don't like paying for what they don't get.
The proponents re-imagine a golden age to solicit community support. As I recall, in the ‘80’s the streets were dirtier-cleaner politicians and institutional administrators were what made it a better community to live in or visit. Mayor Higgins and City Council continue to preside over the decline of a better Northampton on the stage of Council Chambers. They are lost in the bubble of congratulating each other in turn while vying to be the most recognized fans of the prominent of private interest who come to beg to steal.
