Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What benefit? Cleaner streets? More activities planned to draw people to the area? more collective marketing? Ya, sure they benefit, but they are playing a tax to cover the costs. I still don't get the complaint.

Are you familiar with taxation without representation?

Nonsense. The people who put this in place either are elected officials or subject to them. There’s no lack of representation.

Rarely do we vest an unelected board with taxing authority. Rarer still is a board whose composition is determined by how much land someone owns or how much money they make. There are good reasons this is rare. The council’s own staff said the proposal was inequitable. Riemer pushed ahead anyway.

The taxing for a BID is still done by the government, who then puts the money into the account managed by the board and staff. Or, in some places, the tax is part of the jurisdiction forms, but the money goes directly into their account. Either way, it isn't the BID that has the taxing authority.

Of the course the government collects taxes. It’s what governments do. A handful of big landowners are using the government’s taxing power to fund a program that they will primarily govern.

Both the tax rate and how the money is spent should be governed by a democratic process, not governed by who owns the most land. Really, the BID is one step removed from ancient voting laws. How would the program have been harmed by democratic governance?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are three companies that own most of downtown silver spring's big retail and residential developments. Lee, Peterson, and the other one. (Sorry, name escapes me.) I'm not anti-business, or anti-development--and I don't think they're soulless, evil corporations--but they do seem somewhat woefully out of touch with how to make a successful and vibrant city center. Silver Spring could be a new business incubator with the right direction, but most of the small businesses are sidelined while the developers chase chain tenants who don't add any particular value to an urban center. (Another mattress store? A tire shop? Seriously?) A chain franchise's "fast concept" food court? Five spin cycle gyms in a three-block radius?

Chains and other big franchises are the only businesses able to afford the rents, taxes, and red tape in Silver Spring. Potential small business owners look into opening shop in SS but then decide to go to DC or VA instead and make $$$.

Anonymous wrote:If you are like the DC densifiers, you love giving money to big developers. That IS the point. Then later these developers can hire you, or finance an election or some way scratch your back. Density wins and developers make money.

Anonymous wrote:There are three companies that own most of downtown silver spring's big retail and residential developments. Lee, Peterson, and the other one. (Sorry, name escapes me.) I'm not anti-business, or anti-development--and I don't think they're soulless, evil corporations--but they do seem somewhat woefully out of touch with how to make a successful and vibrant city center. Silver Spring could be a new business incubator with the right direction, but most of the small businesses are sidelined while the developers chase chain tenants who don't add any particular value to an urban center. (Another mattress store? A tire shop? Seriously?) A chain franchise's "fast concept" food court? Five spin cycle gyms in a three-block radius?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What benefit? Cleaner streets? More activities planned to draw people to the area? more collective marketing? Ya, sure they benefit, but they are playing a tax to cover the costs. I still don't get the complaint.

Are you familiar with taxation without representation?

Nonsense. The people who put this in place either are elected officials or subject to them. There’s no lack of representation.

Rarely do we vest an unelected board with taxing authority. Rarer still is a board whose composition is determined by how much land someone owns or how much money they make. There are good reasons this is rare. The council’s own staff said the proposal was inequitable. Riemer pushed ahead anyway.

The taxing for a BID is still done by the government, who then puts the money into the account managed by the board and staff. Or, in some places, the tax is part of the jurisdiction forms, but the money goes directly into their account. Either way, it isn't the BID that has the taxing authority.