On one hand I am glad this debate is over. But this was never about Democracy. This was about power. Again, those with the means are able to influence the outcome of decisions that effect those without the means. I hope the Anonymous Jerk who funded that campaign also makes a nice big donation to Main Street. Because, like it or not, he benefited from a Clean and Safe Easton for the last few years. We all have.

The NIZ proposal was a bad idea and had little support from the beginning from anyone in the zone. It was just another money-grab idea with little to back it up in terms of benefits to downtown Easton. Instead of thinking of other ways to grab money out of the pockets of innocent people, maybe go back and revisit the whole idea of what's best for the city since you were so wrong on this one?

And please stop whining about a well-organized campaign being formed against a bad idea. We're lucky people care enough to step up and battle things like this. Your whining about this reminds me about the Republicans whining about Obama's 2008 campaign.

Amend, I still don't think the side that supports it has sold their position. Even in this economy People will spend money if they're getting value and return. When you have someone like Larry Holmes, who has spent literally millions of $$ and decades of time in Easton, walking away for what amounts to be a small levy? Well that's a pretty strong statement.

Mr. Holmes had already planned to sell his building prior to the NID being proposed. it's illogical to think that any successful business would relocate from a profitable location to one of questionable merit simply over a few thousand dollars per year fee. when Mr Holmes addressed city council he spoke more about how he felt the city had forgotten about him, and not so much about the NID. and as it has been stated repeatedly in meetings and the media, the community saw the value of these programs. they just wanted someone else to pay for it.

Isn't it logical though to at least listen to the guy who has spent more of his own time and money in downtown Easton than anyone else in the city's history? One person's opinion, Easton took him for granted.

There is nothing that replaces real world experience, and we need more of that in our decision-making process.

As to the community, if they wanted someone else to pay for it then there's not enough value or return.

"The NIZ proposal was a bad idea and had little support from the beginning from anyone in the zone. It was just another money-grab idea with little to back it up in terms of benefits to downtown Easton."

On the contrary, all the news reports indicated that there was broad support for maintaining the Ambassadors and EMSI programs. The disagreement was over how to pay for them. My point is that the financing decision should have been left up to city council, not the 197 people who signed Robert Haver's pre-paid postcards.

As for Mr. Holmes, Andrew McGill's article in the Morning Call a few months ago made clear that Mr. Holmes' business is doing badly for reasons that have nothing to do with city policy. His restaurant is increasingly unpopular. He came across as bitter at the small restaurants ("hole[s] in the wall") that outcompeted him. (http://bit.ly/oP1VkD) That's hardly the sort of "real world experience" the city needs to be listening to.

There was never broad support for the NID. I read the same newspaper articles and heard a number of retailers promote the concept. Their opinions did not count. Legislation leaves the decision to property owners who opposed the increased costs. (Don't like that, change the law; we could only operate by the legislation) The costs were excessive and unreasonable. In most cases the proposed costs represented the equivalence of a 25% increase in millage, a number that would defeat an elected pol anywhere. That also contradicts any willingness on council to embrace this program and costs.
The NID advocates failed in three areas. They were unable to deliver a program with reasonable costs. And, that program lacked benefits for most properties. The program was going to be administered by a non profit. The advocates never disclosed in any of their mandated mailings who the directors of this non profit were. There were no descriptions of how the non profit would operate in the open and maintain transparency. Ultimately there was no public accountability for an organization spending millions of public money.

Lastly, there were no benefits for most types of property owners. I know I heard the argument over and over, "What's good for us is good for you." The argument is insulting. It presumes that "you" is really stupid and cannot see benefits for himself.
Mr. Haver's mailing did what the advocates failed to do. His letter and forms provided the 45 day notice after the last hearing. Had he not sent his letter the proposed NID would have slipped through because no property owner would have known that the period for objections had started.
Wallace Roberts and Todd, provided the economic development plan in 2006 which suggested an "improvement district" and the "ambassador program". They noted that a"sustainable source of funding" will be needed to support the program. They stated that "Over time, expansion of the downtown tax base due to commercial redevelopment should enhance opportunities to evolve from the existing Main Street program toward creation of a BID, providing a dedicated revenue stream to fund such clean and green programs as well as other critical initiatives such as marketing and business/tenant recruitment." The problem is that Easton's downtown tax base has not increased at a rate sufficient to absorb this proposed extravagance. The proposal also fails to adequately address housing and employment goals for the downtown. Easton needs to chase the residential projects that were once proposed for the downtown. Their taxes would do it.

Mike, I never said there was broad support for the NID. I said there's broad support for the Ambassadors and the Main Street Initiative. I'm referring to several non-opinion articles claiming that most people who attended the public meetings, and most members of city council, credited these programs with the visible improvements to downtown over the past few years. Do you dispute that?

I guess we'll never know what the political impact would've been, because the undemocratic process prevented the bill from ever getting to city council. I also don't think you can draw the conclusion that the advocates "failed." The views of 197 people just don't tell us anything useful.

Your argument that this wouldn't have benefitted property owners doesn't make sense. Anything that makes the downtown area more valuable as a place to do business is also going to raise property values, right? Maybe you disagree that these programs add value for businesses, in which case you're right - they wouldn't add value for residents either.

But if they do add value for businesses, as I think most people would agree, then they also add value for residential property owners. That's because it's the *land value* that's increasing. There's nothing to be insulted about - that's land economics 101. Increase the value of proximity to downtown, and you increase property values. That's a windfall for property owners.

I do not believe that there was wide support for the NID or the Ambassadors or Main Street among downtown property owners. Reason: the projected high costs of these programs. I do not know the attitudes of College Hill residents or opinion writers in other communities such as yourself. I do know where my downtown neighbors stand and most were particularly aggravated with costs associated with the Ambassadors and sidewalk cleaning
The advocates failed. The so-called “undemocratic process” was tilted to their advantage. It is almost impossible to organize 40% of property owners against this proposal. That number in itself is an indication of how weak the actual proposal was. In most elections you are lucky if you get a 66% turnout, so a 34% vote of the entire electorate can elect or defeat anyone. 40 % is a big number to achieve. (66% turnout for 2008 presidential)
Most ballot questions are known for at least six months. This proposal was known for 45 days. From my conversations the opposition is seriously understated. Many people have said to me that they were opposed and did not vote over fears of losing friends or business customers. Remember that you had to register your opposition. No secret ballots. A cumbersome process that advantaged the advocates.

Fundamentally, BIDs should improve property values. They should improve the level and quality of local public goods particularly in situations where government or market forces cannot meet demand . That can create value which should translate to improved property values. That’s the textbook answer.
Ain’t so. There is no empirical data to support that theory. I have looked at a number of studies. In fact, the limited data supports entirely different conclusions. A 2007 study of New York City BIDs-greatest number in the country- found weak correlations. Residential values decreased after BID creation. Small retail BIDs had no impact on office building values. BIDS made up of large office buildings tended to have greater impacts on commercial space only. Going back to my original statement, a successful NID proposal has to target residential and commercial office development to have worthwhile outcomes. This proposal did not. I did a lot of research and you have to believe me that if I saw an opportunity to cash in on this proposal I would have been leading the charge for the advocates.

It wasn't 40% of voters, it was 40% of property owners. That's my point. We don't do any other kind of election like that in America. It's never just property owners who get a say. That's undemocratic.

I also agreed in the column that getting 40% of property owners to sign a pre-paid postcard is a significant organizing achievement. But again, it's just 198 people. Is 40% of Easton's population 198? No.

Do you have a link to the NYC study on BIDs? Don't you think a study of a smaller market be more of an apples-to-apples comparison?

It seems like we disagree at a more fundamental level about whether these programs work. You seem to be arguing that they don't work, and if that's your position then of course the NID doesn't make sense.

I think things like facade improvements and having a coordination point between entrepreneurs, the city and commercial property owners are useful services. I think they add value by reducing the number of vacant storefronts, and by making buildings look nicer.

When a storefront goes dark for years, the properties next to it see their value decline, right? And when somebody finally fixes up that storefront and opens a business, the value of neighboring properties increases. It's the same reason neighbors complain about the guy who doesn't mow his lawn. One bad property hurts home prices on the whole block, and the reverse is true of well-maintained properties.

I'll give you the point that the programs work - but at what cost? This new plan was too damn expensive, people couldn't afford it, and it wasn't providing enough value for the investment.

So instead of trying to find another path to hammer people with taxes they can't afford, sit down and figure out a way that works for all. Example - other cities run theirs with one paid employee and a ton of volunteers.

That's a very well-argued defense of the propertarian democracy that was originally established by the Constitution. It's their money that paid for the services - why should anyone else get a say? Only problem is, I think most people agree that's a disgusting elitist view of politics.

I'm totally open to other ideas for ways to deliver these services and ways of financing them. I've been arguing for the NID because it's been the proposal most likely to actually pass. But two things I think are critical are finding a dedicated revenue stream for them, and not allowing the level of service to deteriorate. I'd be wary of any program overly reliant on volunteers for that reason.

Examples abound with volunteerism working, from the Emmaus Main Street Program to large youth associations. It's hard work yes, but it does work well.

One paid employee is all Easton needs. Give them office space at City Hall and make them a city employee so they are covered under the city's employee benefits package. All in costs would be under $100k and you could have a very effective Ambassador/Main Street program.

Seems like a pretty lean operation as it is. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't Kim Kmetz and Megan McBride the only staff members at EMSI? And isn't Megan managing the Farmer's Market full-time? (http://www.eastonmainstreet.org/contact-us)

I'm more skeptical about the Ambassadors, but it's hard to argue that downtown isn't cleaner since that program began. That's the sort of "real world experience" I value - visible results. An alternative way of keeping the sidewalks clean would be to better define property rights and expectations for cleanliness in the code, and then issue fines for violations. I doubt this would be more popular than just paying the Ambassadors to do the work, but I bet it would work.

If it has a full-time employee who's sole job is managing a seasonal farmers market that's open one day per week, it's not lean at all, it's laden with fat. That job is 10hrs/week max.

I really hope you're wrong about that.

I have no idea whether that's her sole job, and can't presume to know how much work there is. I would expect the workload to increase with the new indoor location.

To bring it back to the topic of the column, the productivity issues you raised are important for determining *how much* revenue is required to run the programs, but that is a separate issue from choosing *what kind* of tax to use, and *who* gets to decide whether the district is created at all.

Comparing Easton's Main Street to Emmaus's isn't a fair comparison. Emmaus is a much smaller community, and it lacks the depth of problems that Easton has. As a person who helps organize these two programs, I can assure that they are run very efficiently, and Main Street utilizes the efforts of some 60 or so volunteers. to assume otherwise is jaded, and lacks any investigation on those postulating such. be an educated citizen, not a gossip.

as for why the NID failed, it would be simply to say that those advocating for it didn't sell it well enough, but that's really more of a smoke screen that fogs the philosophical positions at the heart of the debate. those who embrace these programs know what the impact has been over the past 7 years. in the worst economy in nearly a century, Easton is somehow maintaining growth. that's not a reflection of luck or some level of mismanagement. that's hard work and ROI. to the opposition, this is meaningless. they are disconnected, so no level of informing would change that. their opinion is solidified prior to any discourse because their opinion is based on that disconnect, and how that disconnect affects their view of the community. so they see is at residential v. commercial, as a tax instead of a fee, robbery instead of investment. they vilify businesses investing in their community as they spend money in the suburds on cheap goods made in China; all the while complaining about the state of the city and why their taxes keep going up.

Thanks for clarifying, Amend. Sorry for the idle speculation.

You make good points - this is the same fight we are having at all levels of government. The opponents of these programs don't care whether they work because they are reflexively opposed to taxes. That's what it comes down to. For ideological reasons, they think government shouldn't ever try to do anything.

I think the Panto administration has proven that an activist city government and an engaged civil society can in fact turn things around if they have the right ideas. Some people have a vested interest in downplaying the city's recent successes for this reason, but you can't argue with visible results. Businesses are opening, the bond rating's improved, construction is happening. Has there been an Easton mayor who has presided over more improvement?

Sorry to disappoint you Amend but I also know the organizations very well. Only 60 volunteers in Easton is very low, Emmaus has substantially more volunteer support than that even though it's a smaller town. Sounds like Easton has some efficiencies to go after. And we all know what happens when government gets involved - volunteerism drops because it becomes something that's paid for.

It's very easy to blame people who oppose this initiative for being disconnected, or that they don't want government to do anything. That's just not true. There some who are disconnected, of course - as there are on your side of this discussion as well. Instead, listen to what they're saying - this plan was too expensive and didn't provide enough of a return. So I repeat, let's try to come up with a better plan instead of another way to jack money out of people's pockets.

Public services can always be provided more efficiently. That's not the point. The point is that quality public services are worth paying for, and it's worth finding a dedicated revenue stream to pay for them. You are conflating the question of appropriate funding levels with the question of whether there should be a dedicated revenue stream.

ah yes, this mythical "better plan" that is half price and shifts the burden to someone else; because surely it has been functioning inefficiently (tho somehow successfully) up until now. to your point about low volunteerism and your knowledge of the organization, certainly you are a volunteer then, no?

ABEcomment, sorry, unfortunately US campaign finance disclosure laws are laughably weak, so it's not possible to say with 100% certainty that Mr. Haver was behind this campaign, even though news reports have basically inferred as much. Wearing my civilian hat, I personally believe Mr. Haver was behind it, but it would have been irresponsible to accuse him directly in my column.

I think the point about the service area is pretty weak. If waterfront property owners wanted more of an Ambassadors presence on Larry Holmes drive, they definitely could have negotiated that. That would have been a perfectly fair request and I'm sure that city council would have agreed to put that in the deal. The obvious explanation is that they didn't want a higher tax bill, so they organized to kill the proposal.

Right now I serve on several nonprofit boards and also volunteer for youth activities. Over the years I have also for my church and several social service organizations. I also write checks to the extent I can. I'm lucky, and I was raised to give back to the community in every way I can.

So again nice try.

So yeah, I volunteer.

Quality services are worth paying for, yes - but not paying more than they're worth! That's my point, we can't just throw money at problems, we need to solve them.

My question was about you're involvement in the Main Street Initiative, not if you volunteered at all. You're involvement in other organizations doesn't lend you clarity towards EMSI, and reading articles doesn't make you engaged either, That's just silly to assume that it should.

Which leads me to my next question, how have you come to the conclusion that the budget in question is tantamount to us paying more then they are worth? and how do you suggest we solve our problems, by abandoning successful programs? That's my problem with much of the opposition. They speak of things as tho they have answers when they have none; other than to say that they aren't willing to pay for solutions. They observe from a distance and speak as tho they are critically informed, when they have little to offer other than their opposition.

What is supposed to be the evidence that the programs aren't worth what GEDP says? That 198 people signed a postcard saying they didn't want to pay? That tells us nothing of value.

But talking to many business and property owners in Easton, which I do regularly, gives me a pretty clear understanding of what's going on there.

What I have said from the beginning is this process needs to be inclusive, needs to focus on the needs of the business owners because they're the ones at risk here, and needs to be as efficient as is humanly possible because people don't have extra money laying around! Why are these points so hard to understand?

I don't have all the answers, nor do you. I don't want to see successful programs abandoned either - unless their cost outweighs their benefits. Throwing more money at problems does nothing without a solution that has been developed in conjunction with the people that have to live with that solution.

But you haven't shown that the "cost outweighs the benefits." You haven't even come close to providing proof for this claim.

It would be "throwing more money at problems" if the programs were badly designed and not producing results, but you have already admitted that the programs are showing results:

"I'll give you the point that the programs work"

People like these programs. Plenty of businesses want to continue supporting them. The only hurdle left is anti-tax politics. At that point, I think city council just needs to plow ahead and pass the thing, anti-taxers be damned.

What I'm saying is that the opposition to the NID was based on the property owners' belief that there would not be enough return for the increase in taxes. That's their feeling, and it's not going to change unless you prove otherwise and that hasn't happened. The only way you're going to do that is to sit down with people and talk about it, show them the budget, show them what will be done, tell them who's accountable to make it happen. In short, show them the proof.

Avoid things like, " your real estate will be worth more" because that's meaningless unless they sell their property. Show them how it's going to put more money in their pocket in the next 6, 12, and 18 months. How their business will be more successful than if this tax wasn't levied and these services provided.

I go back to the original point Jon - this case hasn't been made, and a better organized opponent did it in. The proponents have no one to blame but themselves for not making their case.

198 people signing a prepaid postcard is not proof that the case hasn't been made. It is not proof of anything, other than that 198 people don't want to pay more taxes. It just isn't. It would be foolish to draw any conclusions at all from this.

I'll go back to my original point - property owners can feel however they want about it, but their opinon isn't the only one that matters. It should've been left up to city council to pass this. The process established by the state's NID law is absurd and undemocratic.

I'm a downtown business owner and resident. I've been chair of PRIDE, a board member of the EBA, a founding member of Main Street, and now a board member of the GEDP. I dont think that automatically grants my omniscience, but it does afford me a unique perspective. I can tell you, from my vantage point, the ROI from these programs is obvious. The NID was defeated by out of town land owners, those who separate themselves from the community and the disengaged. It was a matter of politics, not worth. As I stated before, no amount of education was going to change their preconceived bias. I've had many conversations with those in opposition, and even after informing them of how inaccurate their "facts" were, they still chose to believe their faulted logic. I'm not calling people stupid, but I will say that there was a level of ignorance that was insurmountable. That's why citizens need to take it upon themselves to be informed and not spoon fed their information. When I have questions, I go ask the person I think can best answer. I don't just create an opinion on half truths. If nothing else, the process demonstrated how fractured we truly are as a community.

And to your point about better cheaper solutions, there is no free magical panacea out there. It's going to take effort and investment to keep our community moving forward. Thinking otherwise isn't a realistic solution.

Amend, what you're saying about your conversations is very similar to what I'm saying about my conversations. I do not think this was defeated by out-town land owners though. In my opinion the people you talked to had formed their opinions based on what they thought to be true, then the out-towners provided the organization to get it done. But no matter how your slice it, there was not sufficient support for this initiative.

Jon you keep going to the 198 cards and not what people are saying when you walk the street and talk to them. You'd learn more in 1 day out in the community than you will in a year staying behind a computer. Get out and talk!

Anecdotal evidence is even less useful than the 198 postcards. A larger sample size is needed for anyone to comment with any accuracy on what the majority opinion was. My point is that it shouldn't matter what the majority opinion is. The only opinions that should matter in the end are what elected city council members think is best for the whole city.

Who said anything about only talking to a few business and property owners? Easton isn't that big, talk to most if not all of them.

You and I both know politicians care most about 1 thing, getting re-elected. Majority opinion sure matters in that regard. And I have to ask - why are you so opposed to an inclusive process? Wouldn't that help bridge the gaps and mistrust that Amend was talking about?

What I am saying is that you have no basis to say that there wasn't sufficient support, or that advocates didn't make the sale. No objective information exists to support that claim - not anecdotes, not 198 postcards, nothing. That is 100% opinion.

I am arguing for a more inclusive process than you are. I love that the NID law requires public information sessions. It would be great if there were even a few more. But after the public information sessions, the proposal should go directly to city council for an up or down vote. A referendum of property owners is never appropriate.

Then instead of attacking the people who didn't support this initiative, try to change the law that governs the process.

But the fact is this was a fair process (meaning both sides had ample opportunity to organize and get out their support) and you lost. If you choose to learn from that loss or take the easy way out and blame the process is certainly up to you. I'd choose to learn, but that's just me.

Did you even read my column? Literally the entire first half is spent arguing that the state law is flawed. That's what the column's about. The need to change the state law.

The second half is about how that flawed state law resulted in a process that, while unquestionably legal, has zero democratic legitimacy. I wholeheartedly support peoples' right to maximize their political advantage down to the letter of the law, but my point is that the current law allowed for an immoral situation where one rich guy was able to capture the process for self-serving ends.