Last Thursday evening's vote by the Northampton City Council to approve the creation of a Business Improvement District (BID) within downtown Northampton capped a three-month period that featured a protracted public hearing, ongoing media coverage and street protests that resulted in two arrests. Opposition to the BID has come from property owners, from good-government advocates, from citizens concerned about the privatization of public space, and from a group calling itself "Poverty Is Not A Crime" (PINAC), whose members have staged raucous marches, maintaining that the BID represents a "racist and classist" agenda.
Two police officers were stationed outside the Council chambers, perhaps expecting trouble, but the PINAC demonstrators, many of whom are college students on spring break, were conspicuously absent save for a single woman quietly holding a sign throughout the meeting. PINAC organizer Ira McKinley was in attendance, peacefully volunteering time as a camera operator for Northampton Community Television.
Mayor Mary Clare Higgins, chairing the Council meeting, came prepared to challenge assertions, made most forcibly by city resident Gene Tacy, that the city's contribution to the BID would be onerous. While she acknowledged that the city would grant the BID $35,000 in cash yearly, fund trash pickup (more than $50,000 per year, including a tipping fee subsidy at the landfill), and purchase a $35,000 sidewalk sweeper, she soft-pedaled the overall fiscal impact of other provisions of the plan.
"These are all things that we are doing already or were going to do anyway," the mayor asserted.
Higgins' six-page handout on the fiscal impact of the BID listed the purchase of a $35,000 street sweeper as a "one-time cost." While this may be technically true, the city's Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the BID requires that taxpayers cover fuel, garaging, and maintenance for the machine, as well as the purchasing and maintenance of "other equipment needed for the BID's landscaping program."
City solicitor Janet Shepard, BID committee chair Dan Yacuzzo and BID consultant Ann Burke of the Western Massachusetts Economic Development Council were granted the floor several times. Councilor Maureen Carney thanked the proponents for "clearing up the misconception" that the BID would privatize public space. David Narkewicz asked for reassurance that the Council would not be ceding any authority by approving the BID, and seemed satisfied by Shepard's assertion that the BID would have to go through the "same regulatory, the same permitting process as everyone else." Councilor Marianne LaBarge noted that she was "still concerned about the language about solicitation," but was told that the language in the BID petition cannot in any way be changed.
Councilor Michael Bardsley demanded answers on the "opt out" provision of Chapter 40-O, the state law enabling the formation of BIDs, and referred to a BID committee FAQ sheet suggesting that there might be a move afoot at the state level to remove or amend the rights of property owners to opt out of a BID within 30 days of its passage. "Is there any way that the removal of the opt-out clause in Chapter 40-O could be made retroactive?" Bardsley queried.
Shepard responded that "it is very unusual for the Legislature to go back and affect property rights retroactively. It can essentially be called a taking. It is probably unconstitutional."
Burke assured Bardsley that there is no move at the state level to remove the opt-out provision. She did not mention that the Massachusetts Municipal Association in December, 2008, presented written testimony to the joint House and Senate Special Municipal Relief Commission, chaired by Sen. Stan Rosenberg, in which it specifically advocated for the removal of the opt-out clause of Chapter 40-O.
Members of the City Council, relying upon BID proponents for information, seemed satisfied that they were being told the whole story. Dissent came from veteran councilor Ray LaBarge, who voted against the formation of the BID and against the MOU, and from Michael Bardsley, who ultimately approved the BID formation but cast a vote against the MOU.
"I'm not against the BID in concept," Bardsley explained to the Advocate. "But I do have concerns about the MOU between the city and the BID. The MOU was drafted two and a half years ago, during a different economic climate. I am concerned that some of the specific provisions of the Memorandum Of Understanding will put the city in a difficult position in the future. The second Council vote tonight was supposed to simply authorize the mayor to negotiate an agreement, but it turns out the agreement has already been drafted. It is being presented to us tonight as a done deal. Many of the specific provisions in the MOU are unnecessary, and may be ill-advised during these tough economic times."
