Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Sunday, September 5, 2010
City of Burlingame claims "re BID they know nothing"
CoB's feature "glad you asked that" misleadingly claims the following...
(I guess this could be called a white lie or a distortion or a partial truth... Let's read what the California Streets and Highways code permits the city (council) to do)
Q: Why is the city proposing a new Downtown Business District?
A: The creation of a business improvement district is a choice made by the local business community to self-fund activities and/or improvements that will directly benefit that business district. The city does not set the assessment for member businesses, nor does it direct the use of funds collected by district members; these decisions are made by the member businesses. The City's involvement in the Downtown Burlingame BID has been only to offer technical support to facilitate discussions. Though assessment payments will be directed to the City, funds collected will be disbursed directly back to the BID for it's usage as it sees fit.
sec 36526 of the California Streets and Highways Code states the following....
36526 (a) At the conclusion of the public hearing to establish the area (BID), the city council may adopt, revise, change, reduce or modify the proposed assessment or the type or types of improvements and activities to be funded with the revenues from the assessments.
(I guess this could be called a white lie or a distortion or a partial truth... Let's read what the California Streets and Highways code permits the city (council) to do)
Q: Why is the city proposing a new Downtown Business District?
A: The creation of a business improvement district is a choice made by the local business community to self-fund activities and/or improvements that will directly benefit that business district. The city does not set the assessment for member businesses, nor does it direct the use of funds collected by district members; these decisions are made by the member businesses. The City's involvement in the Downtown Burlingame BID has been only to offer technical support to facilitate discussions. Though assessment payments will be directed to the City, funds collected will be disbursed directly back to the BID for it's usage as it sees fit.
sec 36526 of the California Streets and Highways Code states the following....
36526 (a) At the conclusion of the public hearing to establish the area (BID), the city council may adopt, revise, change, reduce or modify the proposed assessment or the type or types of improvements and activities to be funded with the revenues from the assessments.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
DBBO thinking .... Volunteerism doesn't work... except when we do it.
Burlingame DBBO is exercising some surprisingly positive out
of the box thinking; like considering the use of CSM student resources, internships, in business and marketing departments. Although as of yet, none of these resources have been applied on downtown Burlingame.
Even though NO BID exists yet in Burlingame (and given the number of protests and mounting opposition collected so far, Burlingame BID will likely fail next month), DBBO efforts are at this point strictly VOLUNTEER. Interesting that one of justifications claimed by proponents and city council alike, for constructing a BID was "VOLUNTEERING DOESN'T WORK". except that it does.......and can.
Isn't that what they're doing now w/o a BID, VOLUNTEERING.
I wonder how DBBO can reconcile this fact ....
of the box thinking; like considering the use of CSM student resources, internships, in business and marketing departments. Although as of yet, none of these resources have been applied on downtown Burlingame.
Even though NO BID exists yet in Burlingame (and given the number of protests and mounting opposition collected so far, Burlingame BID will likely fail next month), DBBO efforts are at this point strictly VOLUNTEER. Interesting that one of justifications claimed by proponents and city council alike, for constructing a BID was "VOLUNTEERING DOESN'T WORK". except that it does.......and can.
Isn't that what they're doing now w/o a BID, VOLUNTEERING.
I wonder how DBBO can reconcile this fact ....
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Reject Burlingame BID
Creating a Burlingame BID is bad solution for Burlingame business owners (but really good for Burlingame City and City council); please reject the current proposal and ordinance using the form below.
The DBBO members are well meaning and well intentioned and we believe truly interested in the betterment of the Burlingame downtown; they are however the City’s BID paper tiger. We agree with DBBO committee’s stated aims for building a prosperous and thriving Burlingame downtown; however BID proposal, ordinance is simply THE WRONG way to go about it and a misguided effort.
* BID is a ponderous, expensive, inefficient, and bureaucratic.
* BID forces Burlingame businesses to pay an added expense assessment in an already difficult economy.
* BID Return on Investment can’t be calculated: BID creates a new (“TAX”) assessment authority for the City of Burlingame without requiring the City to describe any measurable, specific,” value added” activities or improvements in advance of the actual assessment.
* BID projected assessments will total more than 500K over the 5 year BID lifetime:
* BID creates a new unnecessary (TAX) assessment authority: The current BID proposal allows the city to assess local business a minimum of 500k over the next 5 years. BID for FYI 2010/2011 raises 99k via assessments, and spends 104K in the first year per preliminary budget shown at www.burlingameBID.com/burlingameBID.com/Budgets~Contributions.html
* BID is inefficient: The current preliminary BID budget specifies 33k for administrative salaries, bookkeeping, City of Burlingame assessment fees of 5k, leaving only 66k for improvements, activities and events. Palo Alto’s “University Ave” BID of 2004, has failed with a similar operating budget after salaries. July 2, Section 1 of PA Alto Weekly, see http://www.paloaltoonline.com/weekly/morgue/index.php?images=yes
* BID is unbalanced: it forces business owners to participate without forcing the Burlingame city government to revisit their revenue streams and approach towards the very same downtown businesses and improve accountability and revenue share opportunities.
* BID is unaccountable: doesn’t legally require any real accountability by either the BID advisory board or City/city Council towards the assessed businesses in the Burlingame downtown. The Advisory committee really answers to the Council, as its reports, assessment recommendations, activities/improvements can be overridden, edited, and modified by the City Council.
* BID Assessments can be raised year to year without a public hearing: A management district plan can be used by BID to demand built in annual assessment increase over the 5/10 year BID lifetime; by submitting the management district plan, the City wouldn’t be proposing ‘new or modifying assessments’ and thus wouldn’t require a public hearing.
* DBBO outreach efforts have been lackluster and inconsistent; as an Advisory Board what does Burlingame Business's have to look forward to: DBBO has been operating for more than 1 year, circulated 2 informational FAQs in June and July and brought their website online on July 23, 2010, all of which rehash much of the same previously issued material. Many Burlingame business owners only recently found out about BID. It’s natural to be concerned whether this team, if becoming the BID Advisory board, would be any more effective administering the BID.
* DBBO makes vague and sometimes false assertions about the benefits of BID in their FAQs: at http://burlingamebid.com/burlingamebid.com/THE_FACTS.html and their printed material
MYTH: This is the same BID that business owners worked to defeat in 2006.
Nowhere does DBBO transparently detail or explain what the ‘concerns’ of the last failed BID in 2006 were and how they are specifically addressed in the 2010/11 BID proposal.
MYTH: Businesses will be paying for maintenance and beautification that is the responsibility of the City.
The underlying law for BID (sec 35500, et al) creation, operation and disestablishment provides for maintenance and beautification projects, the ordinance as written doesn’t preclude this expenditure by the City or the Advisory board.
MYTH: Business owners don’t have the opportunity to make an informed decision or have their voice heard.
The DBBO (future BID Advisory Board) does welcome and encourage participation, however its an “advisory board’ and skeptically the City Council retains final authority in determining what activities and improvements are undertaken in the BID district. The actual impact of the Advisory Board isn’t certain and subject to politics unfortunately.
MYTH: Funds will be going to support more street fairs and tree planting
DBBO doesn’t detail business owner feedback regarding advertising and direct marketing or who would drive such programs; effectiveness of such programs in this environment depends on the campaign owners and methodology. As above, the underlying law for BID (sec 35500, et al) creation, operation and disestablishment provides for beautification projects, the ordinance as written doesn’t preclude this expenditure by the City or the Advisory board.
MYTH: The City of Burlingame will levy another tax on businesses if this is passed.
BID assessments are a new expense (TAX) as far as business owners are concerned. Whether the City will attempt to levy other assessments is unknown.
The number of BIDs in State of California is irrelevant. Whether a BID in Burlingame can be effective or have positive impact depends on the way a BID would be constructed, who the members of the Advisory board/City Council were and what the working relationship is like with the Burlingame business community. PA is a BID disaster. See above.
Other Claims by DBBO and City Council
1) Many proponents of BID and various members of the Burlingame City Council claim or assert that ‘volunteerism doesn’t work’, therefore BID must be pursued and urgently because of the upcoming “Christmas/Holiday season”. Rushing a bad solution isn’t a prudent approach and doesn’t ensure a good ROI.
2) The DBBO FAQ false claims or asserts,
“This proposal has been constructed to offer the MOST benefit, have the GREATEST IMPACT, with the LOWEST cost while avoiding the pitfalls of the previous DBID. The bottom line is that we all need and want more foot traffic, increased revenues, a vibrant downtown, and unified voice to make change happen within our local business community.”
Los Altos Village Associate, LAVA, produces greater benefits, impact at ZERO assessed cost to Downtown Los Altos business owners without a DBID bureaucracy or any of its attendant problems
3) The City Attorney claims that over 2 years of research into the new Downtown Plan helps to support the 2 preceding propositions.
Other Claims by DBBO and City Council - DISPROVEN
All three of the above claims are disproven by examining our neighbor to the south Los Altos.
Los Altos Village Association, LAVA, is organized as a non-profit, raises more money annually than either the Palo Alto or the proposed Burlingame BIDs and assesses “0” dollars from downtown business owners. The organization is all voluntary and encourages true accountability between downtown businesses and Los Altos City government.
1. LAVA receives revenue from Annual parking permits, which helps fund downtown Los Altos beautification projects at no direct cost to business owners.
2. LAVA receives income from summer Farmers market’s that funds LAVAs budget.
3. LAVA manages and receives income from the annual Art and Wine festival to fund LAVA’s budget.
4. LAVA produces 60 events per year for Los Altos downtown at ZERO assessed or added cost to downtown business owners.
The DBBO members are well meaning and well intentioned and we believe truly interested in the betterment of the Burlingame downtown; they are however the City’s BID paper tiger. We agree with DBBO committee’s stated aims for building a prosperous and thriving Burlingame downtown; however BID proposal, ordinance is simply THE WRONG way to go about it and a misguided effort.
* BID is a ponderous, expensive, inefficient, and bureaucratic.
* BID forces Burlingame businesses to pay an added expense assessment in an already difficult economy.
* BID Return on Investment can’t be calculated: BID creates a new (“TAX”) assessment authority for the City of Burlingame without requiring the City to describe any measurable, specific,” value added” activities or improvements in advance of the actual assessment.
* BID projected assessments will total more than 500K over the 5 year BID lifetime:
* BID creates a new unnecessary (TAX) assessment authority: The current BID proposal allows the city to assess local business a minimum of 500k over the next 5 years. BID for FYI 2010/2011 raises 99k via assessments, and spends 104K in the first year per preliminary budget shown at www.burlingameBID.com/burlingameBID.com/Budgets~Contributions.html
* BID is inefficient: The current preliminary BID budget specifies 33k for administrative salaries, bookkeeping, City of Burlingame assessment fees of 5k, leaving only 66k for improvements, activities and events. Palo Alto’s “University Ave” BID of 2004, has failed with a similar operating budget after salaries. July 2, Section 1 of PA Alto Weekly, see http://www.paloaltoonline.com/weekly/morgue/index.php?images=yes
* BID is unbalanced: it forces business owners to participate without forcing the Burlingame city government to revisit their revenue streams and approach towards the very same downtown businesses and improve accountability and revenue share opportunities.
* BID is unaccountable: doesn’t legally require any real accountability by either the BID advisory board or City/city Council towards the assessed businesses in the Burlingame downtown. The Advisory committee really answers to the Council, as its reports, assessment recommendations, activities/improvements can be overridden, edited, and modified by the City Council.
* BID Assessments can be raised year to year without a public hearing: A management district plan can be used by BID to demand built in annual assessment increase over the 5/10 year BID lifetime; by submitting the management district plan, the City wouldn’t be proposing ‘new or modifying assessments’ and thus wouldn’t require a public hearing.
* DBBO outreach efforts have been lackluster and inconsistent; as an Advisory Board what does Burlingame Business's have to look forward to: DBBO has been operating for more than 1 year, circulated 2 informational FAQs in June and July and brought their website online on July 23, 2010, all of which rehash much of the same previously issued material. Many Burlingame business owners only recently found out about BID. It’s natural to be concerned whether this team, if becoming the BID Advisory board, would be any more effective administering the BID.
* DBBO makes vague and sometimes false assertions about the benefits of BID in their FAQs: at http://burlingamebid.com/burlingamebid.com/THE_FACTS.html and their printed material
MYTH: This is the same BID that business owners worked to defeat in 2006.
Nowhere does DBBO transparently detail or explain what the ‘concerns’ of the last failed BID in 2006 were and how they are specifically addressed in the 2010/11 BID proposal.
MYTH: Businesses will be paying for maintenance and beautification that is the responsibility of the City.
The underlying law for BID (sec 35500, et al) creation, operation and disestablishment provides for maintenance and beautification projects, the ordinance as written doesn’t preclude this expenditure by the City or the Advisory board.
MYTH: Business owners don’t have the opportunity to make an informed decision or have their voice heard.
The DBBO (future BID Advisory Board) does welcome and encourage participation, however its an “advisory board’ and skeptically the City Council retains final authority in determining what activities and improvements are undertaken in the BID district. The actual impact of the Advisory Board isn’t certain and subject to politics unfortunately.
MYTH: Funds will be going to support more street fairs and tree planting
DBBO doesn’t detail business owner feedback regarding advertising and direct marketing or who would drive such programs; effectiveness of such programs in this environment depends on the campaign owners and methodology. As above, the underlying law for BID (sec 35500, et al) creation, operation and disestablishment provides for beautification projects, the ordinance as written doesn’t preclude this expenditure by the City or the Advisory board.
MYTH: The City of Burlingame will levy another tax on businesses if this is passed.
BID assessments are a new expense (TAX) as far as business owners are concerned. Whether the City will attempt to levy other assessments is unknown.
The number of BIDs in State of California is irrelevant. Whether a BID in Burlingame can be effective or have positive impact depends on the way a BID would be constructed, who the members of the Advisory board/City Council were and what the working relationship is like with the Burlingame business community. PA is a BID disaster. See above.
Other Claims by DBBO and City Council
1) Many proponents of BID and various members of the Burlingame City Council claim or assert that ‘volunteerism doesn’t work’, therefore BID must be pursued and urgently because of the upcoming “Christmas/Holiday season”. Rushing a bad solution isn’t a prudent approach and doesn’t ensure a good ROI.
2) The DBBO FAQ false claims or asserts,
“This proposal has been constructed to offer the MOST benefit, have the GREATEST IMPACT, with the LOWEST cost while avoiding the pitfalls of the previous DBID. The bottom line is that we all need and want more foot traffic, increased revenues, a vibrant downtown, and unified voice to make change happen within our local business community.”
Los Altos Village Associate, LAVA, produces greater benefits, impact at ZERO assessed cost to Downtown Los Altos business owners without a DBID bureaucracy or any of its attendant problems
3) The City Attorney claims that over 2 years of research into the new Downtown Plan helps to support the 2 preceding propositions.
Other Claims by DBBO and City Council - DISPROVEN
All three of the above claims are disproven by examining our neighbor to the south Los Altos.
Los Altos Village Association, LAVA, is organized as a non-profit, raises more money annually than either the Palo Alto or the proposed Burlingame BIDs and assesses “0” dollars from downtown business owners. The organization is all voluntary and encourages true accountability between downtown businesses and Los Altos City government.
1. LAVA receives revenue from Annual parking permits, which helps fund downtown Los Altos beautification projects at no direct cost to business owners.
2. LAVA receives income from summer Farmers market’s that funds LAVAs budget.
3. LAVA manages and receives income from the annual Art and Wine festival to fund LAVA’s budget.
4. LAVA produces 60 events per year for Los Altos downtown at ZERO assessed or added cost to downtown business owners.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)