Downtown Downtown and Downtown

There are a number of options available to the city to pay for our share of the project. Manchester has opted to assess a surcharge of .38% on their Downtown business improvement district. The city can assume that the project will increase the value of the buildings in the improvement district and that the added real estate values will pay for the projects bond without the city having to dip into the general fund. My line in the sand is  that any funding mechanism that is approved will have the bond payments coming from an increased tax base from the improvement district and not out of the city’s funds. Regardless of how the city decides to pay for this project, funding mechanisms need to be at the forefront of any discussions relating to this project.

That’s  part of a letter I wrote to Downtown Merchants on November 17, 2010 and shared with Patch readers in a blog on October 5, 2012. Before I get into some thoughts concerning recent Complete Streets project news, I want to update (correct) some earlier thoughts I have had on the project.

I wrote about creating a business improvement district (BID), similar to what Manchester has done. And I also wrote about the project impacting the assessed value of the downtown. First as I have stated on numerous occasions, the Complete Streets project will have no direct impact on the value of any taxable property. 

The only way assessments in our downtown can increase is through improvements to the buildings, or because of a higher income stream due to rents or improved business. At least that’s my understanding. So regardless of the street improvements there will be no increased value unless the Complete Streets project generates more business downtown or motivates landlords to improve their buildings.

While I have stated I want the increased value of the downtown assessment to cover the city’s share of this project, here’s what I don’t want and why. I don’t want a tif district. It’s funding that should be coming to the general fund. Because all a tif district does is allow for a sequestration of funds from the community. And here’s the bottom line. If the tif district can’t meet its financial obligations, the additional funding comes from the general fund, meaning you and I have to make up the difference.  

This is why I have been insistent that it is so important to enhance the value of the downtown before the project starts. So that there are enough funds to pay for the project while not increasing taxes for you. And if done properly, the increased value will not only pay for the cost of the project, but will provide additional revenue for city and school services.

The BID at first look appeared to be a way to have those who benefitted the most from this project pay their fair share. But a number of  things have changed from the time I wrote that original letter and the city council approved the Complete Streets project.

As I said earlier there will be no increase in the assessed value of the downtown. We can’t (and shouldn’t) assume that businesses will be doing better just because the downtown looks better.  Downtown merchants have been vocal in their concerns regarding the new two lane traffic pattern, parking and business disruptions during construction. So even if I was to support a Business Improvement District for our downtown, I would not even think of moving forward with it until after the construction was finished and there was empirical data to prove an overall improvement in the downtown’s economy.

But here’s the real reasons I don’t support a BID. First no one has asked the merchants what they think. (And the folks I have talked with aren’t crazy about it.) And second I don’t trust the city council or our city administration not to transfer expenses to the downtown that the city currently pays for. A BID is a Trojan horse and once it's through the gate there is no telling how much or what the city will demand the downtown pays for. 

Now onto some current issues. We hear about how beautiful the downtown will look and we hear about the accessibility and we hear about what a great place it will be to hang out. But we don’t hear about how it will improve the city’s economy. We don’t hear about heated sidewalks and streets. We don’t have a traffic model that show us what happens when real cars using a real Main Street enter and leave real parking spaces. 

We still don’t have a signage plan or a plan for alternate parking during construction. And we still don’t know how it will be paid for. (And now we’re told we don’t need to figure out the details for paying until after the construction starts.)

Here’s what the Complete Streets project has focused on these past few weeks. Two light posts that weren’t able to be successfully installed so we can choose which light bulb we like best (as I wrote in an earlier blog). And in Saturday’s Concord Monitor they tout a new accessibility logo. Yeah it’s nice, but what does it have to do with the success of this project. Maybe they think if they occupy our minds with the trivial, we’ll forget about the meat and potatoes.

Remember what James Carville said: “It’s the economy stupid.” 

And anyone who doesn’t think that the main focus of this project should be on how it will effect the city’s finances is just.....well just refer to the above quote.