BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA
One item that constantly pops into my head is the downtown BIA which only serves the interests of the downtown region(The east corner of Broadway st down to Wellington street is considered the BIA's domain) if even that.
The BIA burns up several hundred thousand dollars per year on operations and rents and frankly I see no reason why the thing should even exist as it does today. This is nothing more than a big subsidy for one persons' job.
The downtown of Woodstock is full of empty units and was before the recession kicked in which indicates that the person who runs the BIA has not done a very effective job. In fact I have had personal conversations with landlords who have stated that they were approached by the BIA and asked not to rent out units to certain businesses or individuals as it might degrade the downtown core.
Frankly I think the downtown core is empty for many reasons, but most of all the primary reason is the rents are far too high for the values that they present.Perhaps the rents are too high because the taxes are far too high in the area. Perhaps the taxes are too high because we operate silly programs like the BIA.
Considering that Woodstock employs a development commissioner I see no reason why this person should not be doing the job of promoting downtown Woodstock as a development/shopping destination.This would save Woodstock hundreds of thousands per year in wages, rents and expenses which could go towards whittling down the 6% increase in spending that the city plans on spending this budget year.
If the downtown businesses want a BIA why would you scrap it?! It's up to them whether they want one or not; they can scrap it or keep it.
ReplyDelete"If the downtown businesses want a BIA why would you scrap it?!"
ReplyDeleteI've talked to a number of downtown retailers over the years. Few of them have any use for the BIA. The few that do support it do so because they profit politically from that support.
The businesses have no authority to scrap it. They are unwilling participants.
good point on the "value" of the development office vs the $ value of the BIA
ReplyDeleteSorry, but the BIA is a creation of the businesses. Provincial law lays out the rules for scraping it and if businesses want to scrap it they can. I don't think some politicians should be deciding for himself to scrap it! Check things out before you post something like this.
ReplyDeleteYes, it was initially a lobbying effort of business owners that created the thing.
ReplyDeletePerhaps the better thing to do would be to put it to a poll, letting the ratepayers(who pay the bill ultimately)make that decision for themselves.
Perhaps the question should read...
Do we need an additional office and staffing to conduct downtown developement when we already have a developement office in place that is designed to do just that city wide?
These days the downtown is fairly quiet. It's the efforts of retailers that have kept the place in order, not the efforts of another bureacracy.
"Sorry, but the BIA is a creation of the businesses. Provincial law lays out the rules for scraping it and if businesses want to scrap it they can."
ReplyDeleteI don't suppose you've got a link to that specific bit of legislation?
The BIA website states that the BIA was established in 1976 through a by-law of Woodstock City Council. There is no mention of a majority of businesses supporting the creation of the BIA and an online search of the Woodstock municipal code was typically a waste of time.
ReplyDeleteIf anyone can find the bylaw from 1976 that established the BIA it would be helpful.
I thought I posted a detail response, but I must have messed it up. To keep it brief, BIAs are outlined in the Municipal Act. If a majority want to scrap it they can. So seeing as how that has not happened one can infer that the majority of businesses actually want the BIA. And I'd rather stick with what they want, thank you very much.
ReplyDeleteJim, while I dismiss most of your rants as left-leaning rhetoric, I do have to agree with your assessment of Woodstock's BIA. It's a self-perpetuating bureaucracy and an unnecessary burden on taxpayers.
ReplyDeleteExcept taxpayers don't pay for it - BIA members pay for it, and they seem to want it. But if some nanny-state government comes in and tells them they are wrong, well we get the government we deserve.
ReplyDeleteDo I understand you correctly? You want to take the BIA, which is currently financed by the BIA members, and replace the staff with the development commissioner whose salary is currently financed by tax dollars. Why? You say you don't want them subsidized and then propose something that will do exactly that.
ReplyDeleteIs the BIA 100% funded by members? I thought Council kicked in funding as well. If that's the case scrapping the BIA and having the Development Commission handle promotion might actually result in savings. It would certainly result in improved efficiency as it would eliminate the overhead, salaries and expense accounts of paid BIA staff.
ReplyDeleteI'd have to see numbers before I'd dismiss the idea out of hand.
It's too bad the BIA doesn't post an annual financial report so we could see the ratio of overhead to promotional spending.
According to the municipal Act a BIA is established by an act of Council not a vote of prospective members. There is no mention of a vote by anyone other than Council.
ReplyDeleteIf, as claimed, Woodstock's BIA was established as a result of a majority of downtown retailers requesting it I'd like to see some proof.
Per the Act the BIA is entirely under the control of Council as Council has right of refusal over any member nominated to the board.
I'd still like to see the actual bylaw passed by Council in 1976.
I'm not from Ontario any more, but you've completely misread the legislation. It says right there that a majority vote with a majority of the assessment can end the BIA. And I never heard of a municipality subsidizing the ongoing operations of a BIA. I checked out the Woodstock BIA and they say their funds are raised from a special levy, which is the same way other BIAs are operated. This whole article seems like an attack on the downtown businesses. And, by the way, prime retail space is nearly always rented triple net (which means, among other things, you pay your own taxes); that means if you think the rents are too high it's not because of property taxes because they aren't included. But I think they should be able to charge whatever the heck they want. Are you anti-entrepreneur/business?
ReplyDeleteAs a business person I am not anti business.
ReplyDeleteI am anti redundancy.
We have a development commissioner.
We have a BIA.
They both do similar/same jobs...they promote Woodstock as a destination for business investment.
More than 10 years ago the law was changed on this. We used to pay an annual fee for the BIA membership...there was no choice...you moved into an area between broadway and wellington and bang, you got nailed for the annual fee. If you did not pay, they would put you into collection for the fee.
Then the fee was tossed onto downtown property owners in the 1990's. The fee is now a levy on downtown property.
This is not voluntary. In 14 years of downtown business I have never seen a public vote on anything. Not once. in fact, I have no idea how they arrange for board members, it's not a public event.
Yes, the landlord covers the costs through a tax levy. I wonder, how many landlords( who are business people) would honestly say that they are happy about the BIA levy on their properties?
Not too many I bet.
The real issue is this, if we pay the bill for this through a tax/levy, then is there any reason for it to exist when we have a very similar position in that of the development commissioner?
We want to save money, somethings need to be examined for the entire worth.This is one of those things that need to be pruned, or just weeded out.It's really a make work project for someone.
"It says right there that a majority vote with a majority of the assessment can end the BIA."
ReplyDeleteNOT true. I just read the BIA section of the Act clause by clause and it says nothing of the kind. there is no provision for a vote by the membership to dissolve a BIA.
Even if there were such a clause it would be meaningless. The decision to hold a vote would have to be supported by the board. The board members serve at the pleasure of Council. The only way the board would agree to hold that vote would be after getting approval from Council. But that's all hypothetical since there is NO such clause.
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_01m25_e.htm#BK217
Starts at section (204).
whine whine whine
ReplyDeleteAnon 8:21.....
ReplyDeleteLiar.