Downtown Crossing/Financial District | Discussion

Hutchison said:
It's legal because nothing about BIDs or TIFs is inherently illegal. If the City was actually raising money from one to pay for the other...of course that would be illegal, but conspiracy theories aside there is no evidence that is whats happening. I know I've already explained how the TIFs work, so I'll spare going into that, but I'll take a stab at explaining the BID a bit better.

The Boston BID is an extra assessment on the businesses in the area. All of the funds raised by the BID go to the non-profit the Downtown Boston Business Improvement District. The funds pay for the non-profit's operation as well as the services it provides to the area, including. In short, none of the funds raised through the BID are going to the City to be spent elsewhere.
Click to expand...

The way the city of Boston has enacted BID is illegal. These private downtown businesses are being extorted by our politicans and the BRA is 100% at fault here with the entire Filenes project disaster.

It doesn't matter what non-profit fund they keep this money in they are still washing the taxpayer's money in another account to justify for not keeping up their end of the bargain by not providing basic city services to the upkeep of the downtown area with the already paid in full property taxes.
This is a DOUBLE tax. No-way around this. Taxing without representation?

The reality to it is this.
The city is trying to build tax revenues by extorting money from hardoworking successful businesses then offer very generous tax incentives to their political friends.

#1 Fan Pier
#2 Liberty Mutual
#3 State Street (which just opted out)
#4 BCEC
 
The BID goes to a non-profit that operates downtown. extra Cleaning, welcoming committee (who I have seen and actually do seem helpful), events. These are all things done in addition to the basic city services to help businesses in the area, and as the article said 85% are currently doing it, 15% are along for the free ride.

There are fundamentally 3 options:
1) don't do it, get basic city services
2) have the city pay for these enhancements out of city tax funds- which is effectively a redistribution from other neighborhoods to dtx
3) BID- the commercial operators in this district pay for these enhancements from which they all benefit.

If you think something has to be done, then wouldn't option 2 be more fair than option 3?
 
TheRifleman said:
The way the city of Boston has enacted BID is illegal. These private downtown businesses are being extorted by our politicans and the BRA is 100% at fault here with the entire Filenes project disaster.

It doesn't matter what non-profit fund they keep this money in they are still washing the taxpayer's money in another account to justify for not keeping up their end of the bargain by not providing basic city services to the upkeep of the downtown area with the already paid in full property taxes.
This is a DOUBLE tax. No-way around this. Taxing without representation?

The reality to it is this.
The city is trying to build tax revenues by extorting money from hardoworking successful businesses then offer very generous tax incentives to their political friends.

#1 Fan Pier
#2 Liberty Mutual
#3 State Street (which just opted out)
#4 BCEC
Click to expand...

Then I believe every city that has a BID is conducting illegal activity as every city at one point or another, have doled out tax incentives.

In fact, I think every tax is illegal as it's extorting money from my income to give companies tax incentives.
 
Nothing about the implementation of the BID has been or is illegal. State law (MGL c. 400, Sections 1-10) provides for the creation of business improvement districts. You should note that BIDs are only created upon a petition of the property owners, consisting of 51% of the proposed assessed property and 60% of the real property owners, within the proposed BID.
 
choo said:
The BID goes to a non-profit that operates downtown. extra Cleaning, welcoming committee (who I have seen and actually do seem helpful), events. These are all things done in addition to the basic city services to help businesses in the area, and as the article said 85% are currently doing it, 15% are along for the free ride.
Click to expand...

So with BID we get
#1 Extra-Cleaning (priceless)
#2 Welcoming Committe/Events ?? I'm running a business not a circus

Just because 85% of the businesses are using BID does not mean the 15% are along for the free ride.

underground said:
Yes really. Property owners have to vote to approve the BID. Menino, Patrick, whoever, can say they want it all they wants. Property owners have to approve it.
Click to expand...

What happens if the
15% generate 90% of the income around the area? They will probably tell you that they already pay 90% of the taxes in the area also. So why are we going to pay MORE.
 
underground said:
Great. And now they pay their BID assessment just like the rest of the neighborhood because that's what the neighborhood voted.
Click to expand...

So how could a Community program to help the neighborhood like BID assessment become a situation that Landlords could face losing their properties?

"Under the legislation, landlords who opted out of paying into the Boston’s BID established in 2010 will be required to contribute or face a lien on their property when the improvement district comes up for renewal in 2015"
Click to expand...
 
TheRifleman said:
So with BID we get
#1 Extra-Cleaning (priceless)
#2 Welcoming Committe/Events ?? I'm running a business not a circus

Just because 85% of the businesses are using BID does not mean the 15% are along for the free ride.
Click to expand...

So you see no value to a retail destination having a clean appearance and events like concerts and farmers markets brought to a retail destination? If there is value, who do you propose organize something like this?
 
choo said:
So you see no value to a retail destination having a clean appearance and events like concerts and farmers markets brought to a retail destination? If there is value, who do you propose organize something like this?
Click to expand...

My whole point that the extra incentives from BID should be covered by basic services. Its BULLSHIT. Especially when the city/BRA really screwed up DTX not the private businesses. If I was a private business I would consider suing the city at this point.

It's one thing paying into a program with the other neighborhood activitists but when the city is giving unlimited amounts of tax-breaks to certain companies but not others why am I paying a tax with an additional neighborhood program Fee like (BID) in which the city created the entire problem in the first place? (FILENES HOLE)

This is how I see it.

KentXie said:
This is the "I got mine" mentality in full force.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you meant by this quote. Like community type feel and people being selfish? Things just seem very unbalanced in the city.
 
So Rifle, you want to raise my property taxes so that Downtown Crossing can have greeters and evening programming since they're "basic services". I live in the South End. How is that more fair than raising money among the property owners that directly benefit?!?!

One good point you make is that other property owners can't opt out. I don't understand how my neighbors can vote that I should have to pay an additional fee.
 
If the property owners in the area (in any area, for that matter), wish to improve things--services, etc.--above and beyond what the city is providing for them to, ostensibly, help make their area as a whole more appealing, what is stopping them?
Why is any governmental presence/action required?
Could not those property owners interested in such things communicate with each other, create a group of their own, share ideas, come up with a generally-agreeable plan and course of action, estimate how much it will cost and figure out a way to raise the necessary money themselves? That is, if it these improvements/services are things they want badly enough and feel strongly enough about?
 
Sure they could, but then they would have to police a rather complex agreement amongst themselves.

It possible, but I would think it is a lot easier to just cut a check have a neutral third party handling the details.
 
Statler, I can appreciate the notion of it being easier to just cut a check and have a neutral 3rd party handling the details. However, should that neutral 3rd party have the authority to penalize/tax those property owners that are not cutting a check for their extra services in the first place? It seems completely backward to me . . .
Shouldn't the penalty for a property owner not wishing to contribute toward a non-governmental organization (with the mission of making the "area" more desirable) be both the lack of voice in the decisions made by their collaborating neighbors and the possible (likely?) shunning by said neighbors who are giving of their private time and money to improve a public domain?
Further, should not the property owners be free to think through and make [lawful] decisions that are in their best interest? And to do so knowing (or at least having an awareness of) and accepting the rewards and consequences associated therewith? That is one of the benefits and responsbilities of being a property owner, no??
 
While the City characterizes those who opt-out of the BID as freeloaders, they may be property owners who simply don't believe there is a benefit to the BID that justifies the cost.

It's one thing to have a BID.

It's a leap to make it mandatory.

And I suspect these things have unintended consequences including a spike in rents that alters the migration of small, price-sensitive innovation economy startups to Downtown Crossing. These types of tenants are probably not the ideal tenant of the companies eagerly supporting the BID.
 
TheRifleman said:
Not sure what you meant by this quote. Like community type feel and people being selfish? Things just seem very unbalanced in the city.
Click to expand...

It's the "if this doesn't benefit me directly, then fuck you, I'm not paying for it." It's like the "I don't have a car so why should I pay taxes that goes into fixing the road if it doesn't benefit me."

Another good example is when a new park is being built at a location where the majority of the nearby residents will enjoy. The ones that don't will say, "I'm never going to use that park that is being built on my street. Why the heck should I pay taxes to pay for the park's construction and maintenance?" Which leads to, "I don't want this park because it raise the property value and thus my landlord will have reason to increase my rent."

The thing is, if Liberty Mutual was to ship employees out of Boston if no tax incentives were given, that means the number of jobs that could be gained or kept (including construction workers) will be spent elsewhere outside the city. This is a net loss in business. While there is no report done, clearly Boston feels that the tax incentive given is balanced out by the net gain provided by keeping Liberty Mutual in the city, and until a study is done, who's to say that the tax incentive won't give a net gain in business in the city?
 
Last edited:
KentXie said:
The thing is, if Liberty Mutual was to ship employees out of Boston if no tax incentives were given, that means the number of jobs that could be gained or kept (including construction workers) will be spent elsewhere outside the city. This is a net loss in business. While there is no report done, clearly Boston feels that the tax incentive given is balanced out by the net gain provided by keeping Liberty Mutual in the city, and until a study is done, who's to say that the tax incentive won't give a net gain in business in the city?
Click to expand...

You see you just don't get it. The question is WHY would Liberty Mutual want to leave? And if they did good RIDDANCE. With 5% vacancy I believe the Landlord owning the building can recruit a new tenant by lowering his rent.

And I'm 100% against giving a fucking insurance company that rips off their customers & the taxpayers when their CEO makes 50 Million a year.
I blame the politicans for approving this type of stupidity.

But Liberty Mutual creates jobs (they are an insurance company)? Any company can just threaten to leave the Bay State and say either give us taxbreaks or we will leave.

Microsoft, Facebook (both companies started in Harvard both companies left for the west coast.)
 
TheRifleman said:
You see you just don't get it. The question is WHY would Liberty Mutual want to leave? And if they did good RIDDANCE. With 5% vacancy I believe the Landlord owning the building can recruit a new tenant by lowering his rent.
Click to expand...

I don't know. Why is Fidelity constantly outsourcing its employees to other states? And what tenant would replace LM, which has a large presence in Boston? What other financial firm can Boston lure from out of state to replace them?

TheRifleman said:
But Liberty Mutual creates jobs (they are an insurance company)? Any company can just threaten to leave the Bay State and say either give us taxbreaks or we will leave.
Click to expand...

They did as expansion means more position. This also includes construction jobs, or are you telling me the building constructed themselves? And yes any company can just threaten to leave the Bay State and say either give us taxbreaks or we will leave, but they have to be smart enough to know that they can follow through with this threat.

38 Studios was one company who threatened and left. Unfortunately for him, although he followed through, his tax cut in RI went into his head, thinking that there is enough money to spend on expensive programmers. MA saw the bluff. LM however, may not have been bluffing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top