News

Northampton BID: Progressive? Aggressive? Regressive.

How might a Business Improvement District work in Northampton? Look to the "village" on Hospital Hill.

Comments (25)
Tuesday, February 10, 2009

Standing on a street corner in downtown Northampton soon, there’s a good chance you’ll see one of two mythical, money-eating creatures.

You’ll have to look closely to make a positive ID. Both will have their hands out, promising good things for only a small, but hopefully regular, contribution. Both will be accused of misrepresenting what compels them to beg.

The trick to telling them apart is that one creature, the elusive Aggressive Northampton Panhandler, will be asking for spare change to feed themselves or a habit, or for a bus ticket home. The other mythical beast, the proposed Northampton Business Improvement District (BID), will be looking for a monthly payment from downtown property owners, based on the assessed value of their property, to fund upkeep, special events, security, and marketing for a large swath of the city’s center. The panhandler typically approaches funding sources directly, while the BID sends letters to the building owners, detailing its finances and letting them know what extra they’ll be paying monthly.

Reports on the precise nature of an attack from an aggressive panhandler have never been substantiated (the non-aggressive variety let people pass, maybe feeling a tad guilty, but generally unharmed), but property owners within the business district who do not opt out within 30 days of receiving their letter will get regular letters forever after requiring liberal injections of cold, hard cash.

If the City Council approves the BID request, which it may vote on as early as its next meeting on February 19, it will also be approving a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Mayor Clare Higgins and the BID organizers on what the city will contribute. Though the city is not a business and doesn’t pay taxes itself (it levies them, of course), the MOU makes the city a member, and public properties are included within the district served by the BID.

Most importantly though, in lieu of the city paying dues, the MOU commits Northampton’s taxpayers to at least $85,000 annually, with a list of other possible “in kind” contributions. While individual businesses can opt out, resident taxpayers only have the Council’s vote to protect them from the BID beast.

*

Opening the Northampton City Council meeting last week, Mayor Higgins read a letter written by herself, director of economic development Teri Anderson, and Police Chief Russell Sienkiewicz. They were asking that their solicitation (formerly “panhandling”) ordinance be tabled indefinitely. No apologies or regrets; they tucked their tails because the debate got heated. Too “polarized,” they called it. They didn’t want disapproval over the ordinance to get in the way of approving the BID.

But even with the panhandling ordinance tabled, in his opening remarks to the Council, BID organizer Dan Yacuzzo still spoke of the panhandlers. Keeping downtown clean and safe are key to his platform promoting the BID, and a chorus of other longtime business owners, including realtor Pat Goggins and Mansour Ghalibaf, owner of the Hotel Northampton, emphatically assured the Council that their downtown is getting more and more unsafe by the day. (You might not see it yourself, living and working here, but returning visitors mention it often, Ghalibaf said.)

Yacuzzo maintains the aggressive panhandlers aren’t just fantasy—he’s seen them; as someone who has spent two years and thousands of his own dollars trying to make a BID a reality, he hopes soon to witness the birth of one in Northampton.

Long-time owner of the East Side Grill, Yacuzzo was also a previous chair of the Planning Board. He sold the successful business last year and is now a restaurant consultant. Though he no longer owns property within the proposed district, he sees a BID as the only thing that can save his downtown from becoming a dangerous dump.

In an interview with the Advocate the morning after the Council meeting, Yacuzzo rejected the accusations other local business owners like Eric Suher had made the night before, describing the BID’s dues system as draconian and unfair. Property owners who are hesitant about or against joining the BID can opt out, Yacuzzo explained, and they’re always welcome to join later. They can also be selective about which of their properties participate, he said, recognizing the BID benefits wouldn’t be equally advantageous to all properties.

He also disagreed with the Smith student who had addressed the Council after he did the night before. Gerilyn Hubbe charged that the school’s dealings with the BID organizers had happened while students were away on break. Smith students didn’t want their campus part of a business district, she declared, and Northampton was more important to them than just a place to shop. She was concerned about the budget allocated for “safety” and feared the BID would employ private police. She promised to organize a resistance.

Yacuzzo told the Advocate he felt the criticism was unwarranted. He and Ruth Constantine, Smith’s Vice President for Finance and Administration, had been in negotiations for nearly a year, but they have still not decided on Smith’s in-kind contribution. He added that it’s not at all unusual for colleges and universities to be part of a local BID, and said there would be no “rent-a-cops.” The percentage allocated for safety in the BID budget mostly reflects an in-kind contribution from the city for a beat cop to patrol downtown. Yacuzzo said the extra police officer was the first item the city had agreed to provide in the MOU.

Given that city government is typically responsible for a town’s cleanliness and safety, and an election will be held this year, Yacuzzo laughed off a suggestion that perhaps, instead of creating a new paid bureaucracy, he run for mayor. The BID, as he saw it, was not in competition with the city, but simply afforded members a seat at the decisionmaking table.

During the Council meeting, he also laughed when it was suggested that he might be angling for the position of chair on the BID committee. In his subsequent interview with the Advocate, he initially explained that, since he didn’t own downtown property, he’d most likely consider being a BID committee member at-large. Toward the end of the interview, though, he allowed that if no one else stepped forward, he’d consider chairing the committee on a limited basis.

*

Yacuzzo said he hadn’t imagined there would be opposition to the BID. How could a big pot of money to improve downtown be anything but a good idea? Once people understand the truth, he said, he’s confident the BID will become a reality.

There is no need for imagination, though, to determine what might happen with a BID, should it be created. Yacuzzo and several of the key players involved with the proposed BID also sit on the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC), the group that oversees the development on Hospital Hill.  More than $22 million in taxpayer money has been spent on the hill, but little of what the group initially planned has ever come to fruition.

Less than a year before the BID was first presented to the City Council, the CAC unanimously voted to abandon long-held, oft-promised plans for the creation of a village—a mix of retail, commercial and residential property—on the hill. Early last year, CAC voted to allow defense contractor Kollmorgen to relocate to a site previously designated for use as an “incubator” for new, small businesses. At the time, Joe Blumenthal, CAC member and BID advocate, said there would be time for public input later. To date, the public has not been asked for input.

Last December, the CAC passed a plan, endorsed by the mayor, to add up to a hundred additional houses to the development. Over the course of several months, the group was unable to agree on a plan for the site, but nevertheless approved the additional housing; though many CAC members noted that the extra housing units would further limit the chance to mix the site with commercial property, the housing plan still passed.

Although Blumenthal voted against the extra housing and CAC member Bruce Fogel, a local lawyer who also represents the proposed BID, abstained, it is worth noting that both of them, as well as Yacuzzo, were simultaneously negotiating with the chair of the CAC, Mayor Higgins, over the city’s financing of the BID—an apparent conflict of interest.

Yacuzzo disagreed, saying that what happened on Hospital Hill has nothing to do with what is being proposed downtown.

Comments (25)
Post a Comment
I found this article to curiously insulting to the VOLUNTEERS who have commited the time, resources and personal energy for over two years to incorporate the comments, recommendations and concerns of literally hundreds of downtown residents, property owners, and businesses to create a package of supplemental services that could be undertaken by the BID to improve the downtown for all users. I facilitated the 3 community forum meetings and can attest that there was a high level of consensus amongst the hundreds of people who took the timeto prticipate around the package of services that people felt would benefit the BID district and all who used it as employees, residents, students, businesses and visitors. These services included enhanced maintenance and landscaping to create an attractive environment, marketing and special events to to promote and create a vibrant urban space and the businesses and attactions within the district to new markets , and enhanced public safety and the delivery of social serivces. The participent suggestions reflected a sincere concern for the most disadvantaged in Northampton and the recommendations in the BID plan acknowledge the need for a comprehensive approach to social services, enforcement, and leadership in addressing the needs of the property owner, visitor and disadvantaged to ensure that all rights are protected and appropriate services are delivered. TTo suggest otherwise is simply not true. The attempt to highjack this discussion by pitting the BID versus the disadvantaged is particularly misleading and unfortunate.... some of the most successful and proactive programs to assist the homeless and disadvantaged in the country are being led by BIDS. Look at great programs in DC, Philadelphia's Center City, Baltimore and elsewhere and you will see some terrific efforts led by BIDS in these cities. I would be happy to direct anyone to specific individuals in a dozen communities who will proudly discuss their programs if you want to take the time to learn the facts. Do your homework and you will see that these programs designed to assist the less fortunate are exciting and work!
Posted by ann burke on 2.12.09 at 8:14
Hmmm. This is in a newspaper? This is ALL innuendo and opinion and does not contain a single BID related FACT. Nice work in forwarding meaningful discussion and debate/
Posted by nohodude on 2.12.09 at 8:22
Actually, I read the article it its entirety. So, yes, I did take the time to read the article. OK. Yes. You're being fair in comparing the BID to street bums in your initial characterization which sets the tone for the article. I take it all back.
Posted by nohodude on 2.13.09 at 3:20
It's fun to hear from the snarky anonymous assholes who populate the masslive forums once in a while; nohodude's contributions here are extra special. "This is in a newspaper?" "Not a single BID related fact." (You mean, a fact as BID proponents see it?) Here are some questions: Does nohodude really give a shit about the BID, one way or the other? Has he read MGL Chapter 40 O? Does he really believe that Roessler violated some time-honored code of journalism? Or that such a code exists? Does nohodude really think sarcastic rejoinders win the day? Who is nohodude--and is he really a dude?
Posted by Vannah on 2.13.09 at 5:26
Cool, Vannah. I wrote this response before reading your reply to me. Yes. I have read every line of M.G.L. chapter 40O. I care very much about Northampton and the BID. If I didn't I would be taking time to respond. Back to my original post: First off, its great that you at least took the time to pass along statements from those involved in the BID, but that doesnt change my critique. Honestly, in reading your article I had to look back to the top of the page and confirm that it was posted as news not an editorial. In my critique of your discussion of the facts, I was referring to your statements, not those of whom you interview. Is it not the job of a journalist to present the facts and issues from an unbiased perspective with the intent to educate readers and allow them to draw their own conclusions? Your article drips with your personal opinion and views. You call the BID a money-eating creature[s] in your opening line. You compare the BID to beggars and say that essentially, theres no difference. You essentially describe the BID as a shakedown, despite the fact that folks within the BID have to vote and approve its creation and can opt-out from participation at all if it passes and they dont like the outcome of the vote. This would seem to indicate that membership is entirely voluntary and the businesses within the BID are agreeing to pay the fees because they think it will be good for them. Under Massachusetts Law, a BID dissolution may be initiated at ANY time by a petition containing a simple majority (51%) of BID member signatures. So if a simple majority of BID members dont feel the BID is serving their interests or delivering value for their money, they can dissolve it. You go on to say that the BID will cost Northampton about $85,000 with other possible in-kind contributions with only the council to protect them from the beast. You could have had a bit more objective discussion in regard to the fact that the citys contribution of $85,000 will be met with approximately three quarters of a million dollars in BID member contributions. Is an $85,000 investment worth a three quarter million dollar return? My opinion is yes. I clearly know what your opinion is in this news piece because I find it everywhere. You go on to provide ample quotes to Yacuzzo in the middle of the article, which is commendable, but its not Yacuzzos quotes Im reacting to. You have obviously taken a position and that is clearly influencing your writing. If I want your opinion, Ill ask you, but since this was written as a news piece, I expect more. Ive typically never looked to the advocate to get unbiased news to further my understanding of issues. Your article once again confirms this belief. For the record, Im not a BID organizer, nor a business owner in the district. I am a resident within the BID.
Posted by nohodude on 2.13.09 at 5:58
Vannah: "Does he really believe that Roessler violated some time-honored code of journalism? Or that such a code exists?" Do I really have to answer if true journalism has any codes or standards? Really? Is that what we've come to? Many people will be developing some of their initial opinions and positions based on articles such as these. If you do not feel there's any responsibility against bias or opinion, really, I do not know what to say to you. If this was an "editorial" I would offer my disagreement with a different tone.
Posted by nohodude on 2.13.09 at 6:03
One, more thing Vannah: While you and others may disagree with the BID which is certanly your right, this article essentially calls people who have been working hard on this effort because they believe in it and believe it will amount to good things for northampton "beggars" and equates them to street bums. I'm tired of seeing such efforts insulted and people personally attacked. Do you know how many people worked against and trashed organizers of the Taste of Northampton? I'm tired of such efforts to malign. You call me an "asshole" and question if I'm even a man because I'm railing aginst these types of characterizations in news articles. Good for you.
Posted by nohodude on 2.13.09 at 6:20
Oh, and many of these same "bums" and "beggars" organizing the BID have been volunterring and doing great things for this town for years. Before thoughts of the BID, many of the business owners and BID supporters organized volunteer events such as street cleanups, etc. I know because as a resident, I picked up a broom and trashbags and helped as well. I was on the team that cleaned up beer bottles and trash on the trail from behind the bus station, under south street out to the athletic fields. (let me tell you, there was quite a bit of stuff to pick up there. Sometimes gloves just aren't thick enough) I guess collecting bottles and cans further proves that they are beggars and bums, right?
Posted by nohodude on 2.13.09 at 6:40
Roessler reported the reasonable objections offered by business owners themselves at the City Council meetings and the anology that it is comparable solicitation is not unfair. What was unfair is that these issues should have been addressed before it is proposed that a majority vote of the City Council will impose it as is. Suher's remarks that it could and should start as voluntary and be more equitable and Scheinman's remarks over the process, the law, and the way Smith is involved are reasonable and a public concern. If business owners as a group could decide by majority what they should fund, knew what their share should be and that nearly every other member was contributing a fair share, we would get greater and more positive support. Nohodude could have avoided his rant he had he listened more closely to hear that the law requires that the BID could only be dissolved by City Council once it was approved not simply the members of the BID as he claims. As it is, it is a bad idea.
Posted by kenneth mitchell on 2.13.09 at 8:44
Kenneth: These are reasonable and fair points for discussion, but again, it's the characterization and character assasination that I most objected to. Of course you realize that before it could even get to city council, the BID petition required substantial initial support from members within the BID and required a significant threshold of signatures before the issue even arrived at city council. My understanding is that these discussions have been ongoing for about 2 years or so. The city council hearings are also a valid and significant forum to air views and positions and that's what people did. Not everyone is going to agree. As far as you statement about my listening more clearly - there was no listening on my part involved. I read the Laws in regard to BID formation myself in detail. For clarity's sake and to avoid confusion on all sides, here is the precise language in regard to BID dissolution: "PART I. ADMINISTRATION OF THE GOVERNMENT TITLE VII. CITIES, TOWNS AND DISTRICTS CHAPTER 40O. BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS Chapter 40O: Section 10. Dissolution Section 10. A BID may be dissolved by petition to the local municipal governing body and a subsequent decision by such governing body to authorize dissolution. In order to be considered by the local municipal governing body, a petition to dissolve a BID shall contain the signatures of the owners of at least fifty-one percent of the assessed valuation within the district or at least fifty-one percent of the real property owners within the district. The local municipal governing body shall hold a public hearing within thirty days of receipt of a completed petition on the issue of dissolution. Following the public hearing, the local municipal governing body may declare the BID dissolved; provided, however, that no BID shall be dissolved until it has satisfied or paid in full all of its outstanding indebtedness, obligations, and liabilities; or until funds are on deposit and available therefor; or until a repayment schedule has been formulated and municipally approved therefor. In addition, the BID shall be prohibited from incurring any new or increased financial obligations. Any liabilities, either current or future, incurred as a result of action to accomplish the purposes of the BID improvement plan shall not be an obligation of the municipality, but said liabilities shall be paid for entirely from revenue gained from the project or facilities authorized, or from the fees on the properties in the BID. Upon the dissolution of a BID, any remaining revenues derived from the sale of assets acquired with fees collected shall be refunded to the property owners in the BID in which fees were charged by applying the same formula used to calculate the fee in the fiscal year in which the BID is dissolved. "
Posted by nohodude on 2.13.09 at 9:17
Vannah: Fair enough. I will agree with you that my first post should not have been made as it was - without detail and all stone throwing. I can admit when I am wrong. I read the article and was really angered by the characterization and responded quickly as I had nearly no time to post. I will admit that I should have posted my second comments first (which was my intent when I had more time). I was in the middle of doing so when I saw your comment pop up in the list. So, no, my second post was in reality not truly a response after "being called out". When I say bias, I am saying that the author has a particular point to make and it's obvious even in his title which contains two questions and a statement. That statement is 'regressive'. - right out of the gates. I say bais because he clearly has taken a position on the issue. You call it advocacy journalism. So be it. I personally disagree with this approach, but that is also why I don't read the Advocate. While I agree in some sense that complete objectivity at times is a near impossibility, I personally think it is something that so many media forms are abandoning. More and more, media sources are telling us what to think about the news and spending less time reporting details. You say that people cheer media scrutiny of G.W.Bush. I always believe in scrutiny, but I believe in information over simple attacks (referring to Bush scrutiny this time). While I generally have despised the Bush Administration, I have defended them on point decisions which I thought were correct and criticized them when I thought they were incorrect. The information comes first, the position comes second. As far as calling you folks bullies. It's not exactly that you point out issues or potential issues with the BID, it's the unhelpful name calling and comparisons in doing so.
Posted by nohodude on 2.13.09 at 10:14
Thanks. If I respond again to an article I will try to be more detailed and less emotional in my response (especially initially). If I can be truly self critical, there's so many people out criticizing the BID organizers and I've both seen and heard about how this weighs on them personally. I came to this discussion with alot of energy that was touched off by that article that should be a bit more 'compartmentalized'. Whether individuals agree with me or not, I do think that they are working hard for Northampton - even if some don't agree or share their goals. Thanks to you as well for being open to feedback, even if we didn't get off on a good footing initially. Have a good weekend. Whatever the outcomes, there's so many compelling reasons why I've chosen Nothampton to be my home.
Posted by nohodude on 2.13.09 at 12:11
Nohodude, Thanks for the clarification of your position and the paste of Section 10. A BID may be dissolved by petition to the local municipal governing body and a subsequent decision by such governing body to authorize dissolution. As you can reread, it is only the City Council who can dissolve the BID. That was misrepresented to the public (including you) and to the Council itself. The BID is only a more recent example of a long line of misrepresentations to Northampton City Council that too often have gone unchallenged because most of our local news media failed to have the courage to report when it might offend prominent city personalities or city governors; and failed to write angrily enough to make the public aware that they should be offended when decisions are to be made that do not serve the best interests of the public and may diminish the future of our city.
Posted by kenneth mitchell on 2.13.09 at 12:33
Kenneth: I can appreciate where you are coming from. A petition initiates the process both in the BID creation and dissolution. City Council approves it both in creation and dissolution. I agree that clarity of information is what is most important here for all to decide and in this line, thanks for the challenge leading to the clarification. It was not my intent to misinform on this subject. I did not include all steps in the dissolution process and surely Council approval is a key step. I've also heard statements on the other side of the issue that once the BID is in - it's in forever which is also clearly not true. I can appreciate your position, but I don't think that angry writing alone is really the solution here (hey! I can poke fun at myself as well!). It's clarity of information that is most important to make sure that people make a fully informed decision. Based on what I currently know and believe, personally I still strongly favor the BID. I'm not sure what specifically you are referring to when you say "misrepresentations", but sharing what you think they are would be helpful as well. With this being sad, I'm ejecting my laptop in my office and heading out for the weekend. Have a good one Kenneth.
Posted by nohodude on 2.13.09 at 12:53
Nohodude, You helped a better weekend for me. I was glad to see this turn better. I've had a lot to say about those past "misrepresentations" here and on Northampton Redoubt and will probably be encouraged to continue because of your engagement. It seems when the truth finally comes out we all can begin to agree. Enjoy your weekend.
Posted by kenneth mitchell on 2.13.09 at 13:58
All I have to say is, thank goodness for the Advocate's intrepid reporting on the BID, Village Hill, the panhandling ordinance and all the other divisive, questionable issues of the day in Northampton. It is the only media outlet that is pulling aside the veil surrounding the movers and shakers in this city and allowing the average citizen to discover what is happening right now. Keep up the great work!
Posted by John on 2.14.09 at 11:31
"...his article essentially calls people who have been working hard on this effort because they believe in it and believe it will amount to good things for northampton "beggars" and equates them to street bums..." That was a pretty factual statement as far as I was concerned. and I might have said this before, but Ive really enjoyed reading mark and others lately in the advocate. Mark in particular has been tirelessly shining his flashlight where ever he sees darkness. I love it! That indeed is journalism.
Posted by Paolo Mastrangelo on 2.17.09 at 11:06
yOU Thanksss
Posted by Sohbet on 4.10.09 at 14:23
thanks man
Posted by Fethiye on 4.11.09 at 8:12
thanks
Posted by mirc on 4.30.09 at 14:45
thx
Posted by sh8d on 5.20.09 at 21:37
readers more
Posted by FLV to MOV Mac on 6.8.09 at 1:56
thanks admin good post
Posted by sohbet on 6.9.09 at 8:32
Thank you for sharing, good article
Posted by Betclic on 6.10.09 at 5:01
http://www.ilaclama.us http://www.basariilaclama.com http://www.bocekilaclama.name http://www.bocekilaclama.web.tr http://www.ciyan.org http://www.tasaristanbul.com http://www.keneilaclama.name http://www.pireilaclama.us http://www.etkinilaclama.net
Posted by fare on 6.11.09 at 6:14
Comment:

Name:

Password:

New User/Guest?

Find it Here:
keyword:
search type:
search in:

« Previous   |   Next »
Print Email RSS feed

Pro-Choice Choices
Imperium Watch: Let's Get Back to Making Things
We let our manufacturing sector dry up at our peril.
American Catechism
Andrew Bacevich's Washington Rules examines American orthodoxy and global warfare
Voters, Fasten Your Seatbelts
Jill Stein is finally in the gubernatorial debates--and she's got a lot to say.
Down to the Wire
Between the Lines: Changes
A note from the editor
Letters: What Do You Think?
This week: No Contest in D.A.'s Race; No Free Lunch; Greenfield Needs Facts, Not Opinion; Of BP and Vermont Yankee; and Letter About Letters
Success for Story's Bill for New Mothers