a citizen speaks out against the BID

Here's a viewpoint from a Northampton citizen, as posted in the Paradise City Forum. The comments on the panhandling ordinance are especially noteworthy, given main BID proponent
Dan Yacuzo's vow to bring the legislation up again.
**

A long time ago, when the BID was just a twinkle in the eye of some of our downtown businesspeople and their most ardent supporters, I said on the pcf that I had concerns about what the program would do TO Northampton, aside from what it was supposedly going to do FOR Northampton. Since then I’ve been very stressed out by various generations of family stuff, so It’s only very recently that I retrieved from under the bed and looked at the 62-page report on the BID that the Chamber of Commerce had given me long before. But long ago, someone replied to me personally and said that she would like to know my thoughts on the BID, so I'm giving that comment now, even though late.I am aware that Northampton’s proposed anti-solicitation ordinance has been officially separated from the BID proposal. However, this does not mean that the two are unrelated.For those who haven’t seen the report, I’m typing in a few paragraphs from the “Public Safety” section, pp. 28 and 29 of the report.

“Overview“The sense of personal safety has an enormous impact on the comfort of residents, employees and visitors. The ability to make an area inviting and safe is the bedrock of any successful downtown. While Northampton is generally considered a safe and welcoming community, several troubling and difficult issues negatively impact the sense of safety and security. The City of Northampton, Chamber of Commerce and local residents and businesses work continuously to develop an ongoing educational and comprehensive homeless services campaign, coupled with enforcement and ordinances. The BID will take a leadership role in managing downtown strategies as they relate to public safety, working in close cooperation with the City of Northampton . . .

“Public Safety Program“The BID acknowledges that Northampton’s public safety and panhandling issues are complex and require a multifaceted approach to be successful. The goals of this program are to increase the sense of safety and security, reduce crime, homelessness and aggressive panhandling. . .”

The report goes on to advocate homelessness services and “Make a change” meters and deposit boxes so that people can help by giving to the services instead of to those who are directly and personally soliciting help on the street.Under the subhead “Long Term,” the report describes the possible development of an “Ambassador Program . . . uniformed, trained individuals who are actively on downtown streets to greet, guide, and assist visitors and customers,” concluding the public-safety section of the report in these words, “Ambassador programs are very successful in other BIDs and prove to be a cost effective way to increase security and hospitality programs within the district.”

We have been assured that the BID will have no police functions; these duties remain in the hands of our elected government. The Ambassadors’ description here does not indicate that they will officially interact in any way with those undesirable people who have no ability to buy things and yet will stray onto the downtown streets. And yet, and yet . . . Personally, I think that if I were to be confronted by a uniformed, trained individual when I went downtown, I’d be forced to rethink my “Buy from a local and locally owned store whenever possible” strategy. I would feel that my personal space was being invaded if such a person even entered my field of vision . . . and furthermore, that my downtown had been reduced to a mall for sure.

Moving back from the long-term possibility of an “Ambassador” program, just to the preconceptions of the BID in general, it is noteworthy (again, to me! Perhaps to no one else) that it is “the sense of personal safety” that the BID is concerned with—not real safety. If one’s sense of personal safety is enhanced by not having to come into contact with poor people, or ill-dressed people, or panhandling people, perhaps one would be better off in a mall.

It seems to me antithetical to the notion of a town—even a 21st-century town—that it should actually *cater* to people’s desire never to be challenged by interaction with people unlike themselves in superficial ways, such as clothes and money. And again, speaking very personally, I believe that intensive studies should be conducted to determine whether “aggressive panhandling” occurs indiscriminately, or whether the aggression is in response to people who indicate by a determined refusal to make eye contact that they refuse to acknowledge the other as a fellow human being. (Perhaps the new economy means we will all be more willing to believe that beggars are fellow human beings—but I doubt it.)I don’t believe that a refusal to acknowledge others as fellow human beings should be catered to as a necessity in giving them “a sense of personal safety” on the public streets of any town, especially not *our* town. And this is why I believe that the BID will do TO Northampton as well as FOR Northampton.

Virginia Schulman