Well no surprises, Northampton's Business Improvement District passed its second reading last night and, pending some kind of litigation, is now law. That means property owners within its boundaries have thirty days to opt out. Those choosing not to opt out will pay about 43% more in taxes related to their property's value, with the exception of those members who are tax exempt, like Smith College and various houses of worship among others.
It has been a contentious issue to be sure, with two people arrested at the PINAC protest on Friday, March 13. Accusations of a gerrymandered district and a faulty signature process loom over the city once again. Mayor Mary Clare Higgins has manipulated the levers of government to see through an initiative she supports, having signed the BID petition 18 times herself while also serving as the validator of the petition. There you have it in one neat package: the mayor sits as a proponent of an initiative as well as judge and jury. Is it any wonder 65% of Northampton's electorate does not vote in local elections?
The council in its wisdom saw fit not to place the BID on the municipal ballot and up next is the proposed new police station, whose costs increase with every media report. The Gazette stated recently that its estimated cost is now $17.5 million. Add at least $8 million in interest payments to that. Why not place the police station on the ballot as a debt exclusion override and let the people decide how much they want to spend?
It's an interesting dichotomy really. When the issue concerns financial cutbacks, the mayor and council will use direct democracy and seek a bailout by placing a tax override before the voters. This indicates to me they would prefer not to accept responsibility for cuts to services and teaching positions.
When the issue is financial expenditure, like the BID or proposed police station, the mayor and council prefer not to go to the voters for permission but instead choose to spend taxpayer money because they believe in representative democracy.
In short for anyone considering a run for office:
Spend taxpayer money >>>>>>> representative democracy
Cut services >>>>>>> direct democracy
Under this scenario decision makers cannot lose. How about asking voters either way?
There are so many inconsistencies in the decision making processes going on in the city I don't know where to start. So I won't, other than to say that the BID process was another based mostly on hearsay and anecdotal evidence. Some might opine that the city's downtown is fragile, while others believe it to be as vibrant as ever. Unfortunately there have been few statistics presented to support the rationale for the BID, but the mayor and council did not let this lack of evidence stand in their way.
One thing Northampton does have in its destiny is further homogenization and purification. For a city that is 90% white, its status as a progressive inclusive community is dubious and anyone who pins the progressive label on the Higgins administration is somewhat deluded in my view. It simply does not follow that because Higgins has some liberal credentials that she governs progressively, yet that is the argument her loyalists will make in order to keep her in office-that she is progressive. Balderdash.
As various officials prepare to leave Northampton's public sector it is clear that Higgins will have more opportunities to remake the city in her own image through the electoral and appointment processes respectively. For those who have grown tired of living under Higgins' rule, the time might be right to vote with your feet and make for the exits. For those who enjoy living in the Higgins majority, well, happy days for you.
