Communities agree that the process of B.I.D. formation is not fair to everyone.

Activist Zella Jones speaks out against the process by which Business Improvement Districts are formed in New York City.

Chinatown no-BID activists, predominantly made up of small property owners, have also been crying foul over the last several years. This came to a head when the Chinatown community had to scramble to get official objection forms signed by property owners within the allotted 30 day period as prescribed by BID law. Regardless of the geographic size of a proposed BID service district the City, inexplicably, limits the amount of time for objection forms to be handed in to 30 days. This means that a one-block-BID and a seventy five block BID with thousands of tax lots has the same short period to object. This is ludicrous and speaks to the built-in-bias in favor of pro-BID developers and the Mayor's office which heavily supports BIDs. The way the system is currently designed, it behooves any group to draw in thousands of tax lots in order to ensure a limited amount of objections due to the short objection period and verification process.

Despite this overwhelming obstacle, the no-BID-Chinatown property owners have eclipsed the pro-BID supporters. The claims made by CPLDC, Margaret Chin, and the Small Business Service that 97% of Chinatown supports a BID, are bogus because there is no system to authenticate any ballot survey turned in to the SBS. There is also no way for SBS or Council Members to claim that every single pro-BID ballot is verified and authentic. The only vetted documents are the ones that are objections because they are accompanied by notarized signatures and copies of deeds (as required by law). These are legally binding documents, whereas unverified support ballots probably are not.

While property owners wishing to oppose the BID scramble to officially object, multi-million dollar public relations firmed who are buoyed by multi-billion dollar real estate developers are throwing out lies and playing with semantics to confuse the issue of BIDs popularity while slinging mud at legitimate opposition.

Zella Jones sent this letter to the editors of the Downtown Express Newspaper referring to the BID process in general, but in response to the proposed expansion of the NoHo BID, which she was able to stop, and the SoHo BID which is in the formation process right now.
She has spoken out in favor, however, of a Chinatown BID. With these built in flaws to the process, we're not clear why Jones sees fit to have a BID in Chinatown, but not one in her neighborhood.

August 24, 2011 | Filed under: Letters to the editor | Posted by: admin

To the editor:

Re: “B.I.D. group charges much opposition is from outside district” (news article by Aline Reynolds, Aug. 11)

These numbers are not adding up. There are 280 tax lots in the proposed district. Only 124 responded and only 99 approved the proposal. That’s only a 44 percent response rate and only 35 percent approval. This certainly does not constitute a majority.

Further, if approving owners represent only 30 percent of the assessed value of the area, there is not a majority by this factor either.

It is particularly unfortunate that the New York State law that enables the formation of business improvement districts does not suitably recognize the impact of a B.I.D. in areas that are predominantly residential.

The legislation reads: “Owners of real property within the district opposed to the plan have 30 days to file objections at the municipal clerk’s office. If either the owners of 51 percent of the assessed valuation of all benefited real property or at least 51 percent of the owners of real property within the district file objections, the district will not be established.”

This puts the onus on property owners who do not favor a B.I.D., and who may not be otherwise organized or funded, to launch a campaign equally as intense and expensive as the city-backed business proponents to actively solicit objections and affidavits and to lobby against its formation. Further, as opposed to the allowed 18 months for B.I.D. formation granted to the proponents, the opponents get 30 days!

This legislation needs change.

Zella Jones

Zella Jones responds to this posting: 

Dear Jan: 

I do feel that the legislation that provides for Business Improvement Districts should be revisited.  As it is currently written, and currently applied, the legislation is flawed. It warrants the attention of our elected leaders in its revision. 

I am not universally opposed to Business Improvement Districts.  There are benefits to collective representation and distinction in many areas of our City and particularly in City Council District 1 where there are so many diverse communities with distinctive needs, highly dependent on International commercial viability and attractiveness…not only to business owners but employment, as well.  Nor, am I opposed to a tax assessment structure that funds the mission, management, and operation of a district, though I would also favor reallocation of regular tax dollars to various City Services to allow for more “home rule” in their geographic allocation.  Some of this could be made available to “Improvement Districts” to defray additional assessments.  The current Community Board budget request system is too often ignored and, by its very nature not well focused on “hot spots.”  Indeed, Community Boards could benefit by more organized and recognized constituencies to back up their district requests.

In my opinion, there should be an additional option provided by the City and State, that could more adequately represent area stakeholders.  Other states and cities have adopted Community Benefit Districts.  In fact I have shared several examples and some research with you on this topic in the past.  A Community Benefit District is represented by resident, business, institution and nonprofit stakeholders.  The assessments are smaller because they are spread among all property owners.  These entities can also apply for and receive grants from third party foundations for specific initiatives.  The disbursement of funds and the initiatives sponsored are more representational because the board and its interests are diverse.  Such entities encourage collaboration and consensus.  In areas like the SoHo and NoHo where the majority of stakeholders and square footage of property ownership is not for commercial investment alone, this model could be very constructive.  There are neighborhoods in all five boroughs that could benefit by such recognized representation and oversight; but at present the State and City have no provision for incorporating it.

As regards the Chinatown BID, it is my observation, from my association with the Chinatown Working Group and intensive involvement with the Economic Development Working Team and involvement with BID structures in general, that the assessments are unusually fair for their distribution;  that the budget for the area is in line with a modest community-wide improvement, that such improvements could affect better commerce, jobs and wages and that the outreach was particularly representational, in terms of stakeholders/property owners and square footage.  I expressed that opinion as an interested citizen; there were many other opinions expressed.  I respect your right to disagree and your more intimate connection to the area.

As regards NoHo, the stakeholders in the proposed expansion area are predominantly residential/institutional and have expressed their majority opinion that a strictly commercial frame of reference does not serve their interests.  As it turns out the business owners in this area also agree.  In fact NoHo stakeholders are so invested in having dialogue and a unified vision that they have initiated the formation of a private nonprofit Community Benefit District to represent their collective interests, until such time as the State and City adopt similar provisions.  The funding is through voluntary membership; it is based on a percentage of gross square footage of property owned.  The budget may not be as substantial as a BID would provide, but the commitment to having one voice among elected and appointed leaders is high.  I am always proud to speak on their behalf.

Thank you for making available this opportunity to respond to your post.

Zella Jones
NoHoManhattan.org

http://twitter.com/NoHoManhattan

Downtown residents "mop up" the pop up cafe idea by D.O.T.

SoHo and NoHo have successfully defeated all but one application for the so-called "pop up Cafes" that were supposed to be springing up like spring flowers all over the downtown area, regardless of existing zoning laws or traffic conditions. The pop ups are six foot wide platforms that would sit in the gutter and protrude into what are usually parking spaces, although in some instances the DOT has targeted areas where cars are prohibited (usually because parking there would pose a serious safety threat).

Here's the story on www.nearsay.com <--------click here.

Chinatown Partnership LDC - Causing a rift with Chinatown's neighbors - NY POST reporting"

Chinatown clash

Border war over plan to expand

Proposed Business Improvement District borders drawn in 2002

Orange indicates the gross expansion of B.I.D. borders by CPLDC in 2010

From 2010 CPLDC BID map

A powerful civic association that's making an ambitious bid to expand the boundaries of Chinatown has created a Cold War turf battle.

If the Chinatown Partnership Local Development Corporation has its way, parts of Little Italy, SoHo, NoHo, TriBeCa and the Lower East Side would become subjects of the Middle Kingdom.

The group wants to create a Chinatown Business Improvement District that would affect all sides of busy Canal Street. But the proposed BID boundaries have neighboring civic associations seeing red.

The BID map originally wanted to take over the last two Italian blocks on Mulberry Street -- all that remains of once-sprawling Little Italy -- but it was met with resistance from longtime residents. "We didn't need it. We clean our own streets. We put up our own holiday lights. What good would it do for us?" said Ralph Tramontana, president of the Little Italy Merchant's Association, which has warned the Chinatown Partnership not to invade its turf.

Neighboring pockets of SoHo and TriBeCa, however, are still included -- over protests from residents, as well.

"Traditionally, Chinatown has always been considered to end at Centre Street, and Lafayette Street is part of SoHo," said Sean Sweeney, a member of the SoHo Alliance. "Yet if you look at the latest BID map from the Chinatown Partnership, they claim west of Centre Street as Chinatown, and it's not."

One intersection the Partnership wants to annex, Broadway and Walker, actually bears signs declaring the streets part of TriBeCa East's Historic District, Sweeney points out.

Property owners who live in the proposed BID area -- in SoHo, TriBeCa and along Canal Street -- will have to fund the organization through a new tax on the assessed value of their buildings.

Kurt Trenkmann, whose family has owned property between Broome, Grand, Centre and Lafayette streets for over a century, says the Chinatown BID will cost him an additional $22,000 a year in taxes, for services he doesn't need.

"Our staff of porters and handymen already clean and tend to the sidewalks adjacent to our buildings. The SoHo Partnership regularly sweeps and collects the small accumulation of residual litter on our block," Trenkmann wrote in a letter of protest to Mayor Bloomberg and city officials.

His block is a "well-established" part of the SoHo community, he added, noting that it was included in the SoHo Cast Iron Historic District created by the city two months ago.

Wellington Chen, head of the Chinatown Partnership, said his group is working to soothe unwarranted fears. 

"The reality is, we are surrounded by BIDs, from all sides. Chinatown needs its own BID," he said.

His group has funded its BID efforts through a $7 million grant from the Lower Manhattan Development Corp. -- awarded in 2004 and initially earmarked to create heritage trails and tourist signs for Chinatown.

Additional reporting by Joseph Goldstein

gotis@nypost.com

Chinatown Business Improvement District Plans Continue to be met With Resistence

From the Wall Street Journal

By JOSEPH DE AVILA

Chinatown has never had a reputation for being a tidy neighborhood. Next year, it might get even worse.

A $5.4 million grant that paid for extra street cleaning and garbage pickup is about to run out, reviving a call to bring a business improvement district to the neighborhood.

View Full Image

Mustafah Abdulaziz for The Wall Street Journal

Boxes from fruit stands line the curb along Forsyth Street in Chinatown on Friday. Chinatown's street cleanliness grade has improved since 2001, but is still below the city average.

For four years, the Chinatown Partnership Local Development Corp., a nonprofit business group, has relied on a grant from the Lower Manhattan Development Corp., a city-state agency that handed out federal aid after the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks.

"We don't know what we will do at the beginning of next year," Mr. Chen said.

Chinatown's street cleanliness grade issued by the mayor's Office of Operations has improved from 64.6% in 2001 to 88.5% in 2009, an improvement but still below the city average of 95.8%.

The Chinatown Partnership is taking the opportunity to renew a campaign to organize the neighborhood into a business improvement district to pay for the extra cleanup. But property owners have twice rejected BIDS since the 1990s, and opposition remains intense.

It takes a majority vote of property owners to create a BID, a public-private partnership where members pay assessment fees, said Wellington Chen, executive director of the Chinatown Partnership. He said a BID can take decades to pass, pointing to districts in Bedford-Stuyvesant, Brooklyn and Flushing, Queens. Mayor Michael Bloomberg has been a strong champion of the districts; there are 64 now and a dozen more are proposed.

Some Chinatown businesses say that becoming a BID is not the right answer. They say it increases costs on small businesses and gives to strong a voice to absentee landlords. They also say that the reason for the problem is decades of neglect by the city.

Fees in Chinatown could run up to $5,000 annually per property—even if the property owners don't want to participate.

"A lot of those costs are going to be pushed down to the low-income small businesses," said Josephine Lee, an organizer with the Coalition to Protect Chinatown and Lower East Side.

Small businesses have been decimated in Chinatown since 9/11, said Paul Lee, a lifelong resident in Chinatown. An assessment would only exacerbate the situation, he said. "Ask any one of these small businesses if they are willing to pay an extra $1,000 a year," Mr. Lee said.

Jan Lee, a Chinatown resident whose family has owned property there since the 1920s, has been at the forefront of the opposition to a BID. "It is the most undemocratic, quasi-government agency every formed," he said.

Absentee property owners who would have a voice in running the BID don't know the concerns of the community, said Jan Lee, director of the Civic Center Residents Coalition.

Despite the criticisms, other property owners are supporting the proposed BID. They say that with the neighborhood being such a high-traffic, tourist area, cleanliness will always need extra attention.

"I think people forget what it was like" before the extra cleanup, said Michael Salzhauer of Benjamin Partners, which owns two commercial buildings in Chinatown. He has been doing business in Chinatown for about 25 years. "Prior to that, cleaning it was another obstacle to people enjoying it."

Write to Joseph De Avila at joseph.deavila@wsj.com
Comment:

Sean Sweeney said...

It's bad enough the directors of the BID are pursuing this in Chinatown proper.
But they are now extending it to parts of SoHo and TriBeCa, despite protests from SoHo property owners.

Mr. Chen claims that his Clean Chinatown campaign got $7.25 million from LMDC post 9/11 to clean up areas in SoHo. Yet by his own admission, his group abrogated that responsibility and left the SoHo Partnership - a charity - to do their dirty work, while Chen's group pocketed the taxpayers' money that was intended to clean SoHo!

Is this the shenanigans that we will expect from his BID?

The BID claims that it includes Little Italy, yet their own map belies this assertion: three blocks of Mulbery Street have been removed at the insistence of the restaurant owners.

I've never seem a BID face such opposition. This duck is dead in the water.

Oversight Overdue

For too long the Dept. of Transportation has gotten away with altering streets without sufficient oversight or community input. On a frigid Saturday a week before Christmas a rally was held in front of The DOT headquarters to call for the Transportation Committee of The City Council to hold an oversight hearing with the D.O.T. to stop using communities as experimental rats in a maze.
Tribeca, Greenwich Village, Chinatown, and SoHo stood shoulder to shoulder in the freezing weather (a testament to how devoted communities are to this cause) to bring attention to the need for an end to free wheeling deal making with special interest groups hell bent on bull dozing through projects that are untested, unproven and unreasonable .