The proposal to establish a Northampton Business Improvement District (BID) was passed by the Northampton City Council last month after two years of lobbying by the proposal’s supporters.

Smith College and downtown property owners united to form the BID partnership. According to the city’s website, the BID, through fees on property and a $35,000 annual stipend from the city, will ‘provide a wide range of services and programs not provided in’hellip; basic public services.’‘

Such services include reducing ‘aggressive solicitation,’ physical improvements to the downtown area and building a new police station, according to the BID proposal.

This vision of an improved downtown met with opposition when about half of the potential properties decided not to join the district, which reduced the budget from nearly $1 million to about $400,000. District officials said this reduced budget will decrease the amount of services the district is able to provide once membership fees are collected next year.‘

The district has also endured other opposition, including a lawsuit alleging it was created in violation of state law and a protest march through downtown which resulted in two arrests.’ ‘ ‘

The proposal was passed on March 5. The Northampton City Council voted 8-1 to establish the BID, and on March 19 the City Council voted 7-2 to accept the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), an agreement which legally obligates the city to provide services to the BID.

David Bardsley, a member of the City Council for 16 years, voted for the BID because he did not have a problem with ‘independent business people who want to get together and pool their money and do some thing to make downtown more attractive.’

He voted against the MOU because he felt Northampton should not ‘obligate itself to an independent third party [the BID] who could in theory sue us if we violated our obligations under the MOU.’‘

The BID intends to decrease the amount of panhandling and soliciting within the city of Northampton. However, some have objected to the anti-panhandling language in the BID.

Attorney Bill Newman, director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Western Massachusetts office, said in a Jan. 29 Valley Advocate article that, ‘The BID language should be amended or changed before it is adopted … You don’t have to rush into this.’

Northampton‘s district is one of several around the state in which property owners in a contiguous area elect to pay a fee to fund services for that area, including maintenance, physical improvements and tourism promotion.

Supporters say the city needs these services now because a ‘bold approach is needed to ensure Northampton‘s prominence as a destination and continued growth’ due to a recent erosion of ‘the strong underpinnings of downtown,’ according to the district’s website.

‘I don’t think the Chamber of Commerce has the strength or the funds to drive enough business downtown as I would like, and hopefully the BID can help with that,’ said Kate Glynn, a local Northampton business owner.

Glynn describes herself as being ‘very pro-BID.’ She owns ‘Impish,’ a store in Thorne’s Marketplace and ‘A Child’s Garden’ on Main Street.

Northampton faces a $6 million deficit, and opponents say the district is being wasteful in advocating for BID, which will cost the city and businesses money.

District membership fees are one half of one percent of property valuation, or $500 for every $100,000. Only property owners can opt out of the district, meaning businesses that rent their retail space could be subjected to mandatory rent increases if their landlord joined the district.‘ ‘

Such concerns resulted in 267 out of 499 parcels ‘- the city’s term for identifying properties ‘- opting out of the district, according to Northampton City Hall.‘

One of these properties that opted out was the ‘State Street Food Store.’

‘A lot of the budget is going to marketing out of the area, and being a grocery store, I wouldn’t really benefit from that,’ said owner Richard Cooper. ‘I would also have $13,000 a year in membership fees, which doesn’t really make sense for me.’

Some contend that the district is not only bad policy, but was created in violation of state law.‘ Massachusetts General Law stipulates that 60 percent of property owners in the proposed district area must sign a petition before public discussion of the district can begin.‘

Northampton counted a signature for each parcel in the district area, rather than one signature per property owner, to account for the 60 percent. Those who filed the suit ‘- downtown property owners Alan Scheinman, David Pesuit and Eric Suher said the city’s use of the ‘one signature, one parcel’ system was improper.

Scheinman noted the law doesn’t say 60 percent of the parcels, it says 60 percent of the property owners.‘

‘If the BID proponents had interpreted the statute how it is clearly stated they would never have had enough signatures to go forward’ said Scheinman. ‘They don’t have 60 percent of the owners, but they do have more than 60 percent of the parcels.’

Elizabeth Hahn, coordinator of the Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development, said the state recommends communities use the ‘one signature, one parcel’ system because ‘BIDs are made up of the parcels in that district so every parcel has to be represented.’‘

The suit also alleges that the city accepted illegible signatures, failed to verify independently of district supporters that the petition met legal requirements and that assenting signatures were collected before the district petition was drafted.‘

Teri Anderson, Northampton‘s economic development coordinator said the law doesn’t require the city to verify that the person signing the petition is a property owner, only ‘that the [district] petitioners obtain a signature and for us to verify that a signature has been obtained.’‘

This interpretation of the law allowed Northampton to accept assents to the district petition for three parcels that gave only ‘Center Street’ as the address, according to Northampton City Hall documents.

Although the law does not explicitly mandate how communities should verify signatures, Scheinman said the verification methods used by Northampton were improper. ‘

If the lawsuit succeeds, he said the district would cease to exist, and clearer standards would be set for future district petitions in the state. ‘ A ruling on the suit could take anywhere from several months to over a year, according to Scheinman.

Opposition over the district has also come from the homeless advocacy group, Poverty Is Not a Crime (PINAC). According to an anti-district website maintained by PINAC, the district will ‘gentrify’ downtown by removing low income people to make way for upscale luxury businesses and those who are affluent Caucasians.

Chris Russell can be reached at [email protected].