Calling it an overreach by state government, some downtown community members strongly criticized a bill signed by Gov. Doug Ducey last week that killed the Roosevelt Business Improvement District.
House Bill 2440, authored by Rep. Warren Petersen, R-Gilbert, requires a petition signed by owners of more than half the taxable property before the creation of a business improvement district.
The bill applies these new rules to the Roosevelt district and all business improvement districts formed after Jan. 1.
The district’s boundaries were approved by City Council on Jan. 20, but budget plans and other specifics didn’t pass. Many property owners expressed strong support for the district, which would provide enhanced services for businesses in the area through the collection of additional property taxes.
Carla Wade Logan, owner of Carly’s Bistro, said she believes the bill is unfair and a missed opportunity for many small property owners to practice self-governance, to retain the arts in the arts district and to better utilize neighborhood-driven funds.
Logan said many of the property owners are owners of vacant lots who will benefit from the hard work of small business owners who have been actively engaged in the community.
“It’s really disappointing that the state has intervened on this and basically changed the law,” Logan said. “The retroactive clause is very unfair.”
The retroactive clause of the bill applies to Roosevelt’s district because the boundary map was approved after Jan. 1.
The boundaries for the Roosevelt BID were approved at that city council meeting as being between Moreland and Fillmore Streets and between Seventh Street and Seventh Avenue. However, Bramley Paulin, a property owner in the proposed district, pointed out issues with the map presented to the City Council that helped lead to the postponement of the district’s other aspects.
Opponents of the district said they were given insufficient notice of the district’s creation. The bill attempted to address those concerns by requiring that the signatures on the petition be collected within 120 days.
Tim Eigo, Chair of the Steering Committee for the Downtown Voices Coalition, said the majority of the attendees at his organization’s meeting last Saturday were supporters of the BID. No formal count was taken within the meeting.
Eigo said a meeting was held within the Downtown Voices Coalition about a year and a half ago to explore the viability of the BID and to support the city expenditure of money towards the BID.
Greg Esser, vice president of the Roosevelt Row Community Development Corporation, said a strong majority of property owners support the formation of the district, yet there are limitations placed in the language of the law that should be further evaluated.
“It is apparent that this is special legislation targeting only the formation of the development of the improvement district, and as such, it is not constitutional under Arizona state law,” Esser said.
Erick Baer, one of the founding members of the Downtown Voices Coalition, said property owners deserve to have a say in the BID approval process.
“It’s going to allow the stakeholders an opportunity to vote either for it or against it,” Baer said. “I think it’s always good to have people being able to vote where they are being taxed.”
Baer said prior to the bill’s passage, there was only a very complicated protest process, and that his support of the bill has very little to do with tax information and everything to do with the right to vote.
“The bill clarifies how a BID is established and it allows the stakeholders to vote,” he said. “It’s extremely important to allow people to vote. That’s a democratic principle.”
Contact the reporter at brianna.bradley@asu.edu.
