This is clearly a residential district -- and the few businesses here
might be included in the assessments of any broad-based district simply
because
they can't be reasonably excluded from the benefits. All of which says
that
if any plan is to be considered feasible, it should cover all properties
in
the specified area.
Al Krigman
Exactly my point. The enabling law defines a "business improvement
district" as being a district of entities engaged in "trade and commerce",
such as the 40th Street, Lancaster Avenue, and Baltimore Avenue business
strips. The law also places apartments within a defined "residential
improvement district".
So why did UCD's BID attempt to redefine apartments as being within a
"business improvement district" despite the law's clear definitions? Again,
my belief is that: a) a business improvement district that was within the
letter of the law would be limited in scope to the aforementioned commercial
strips; b) the proponents knew that if they proposed a "residential
improvement district", which UC clearly is, they would never get the
required number of residents to approve it; and c) the residents, and not
the big landlords and people beholden to Penn, would control the resulting
entity.
Karen Allen
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: UnivCity@list.purple.com
Subject: [UC] Thank You, Paul Levy
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 08:58:48 EDT
Paul Levy of the Center City District -- CCD -- (of whom Wendell Lewis
more
truthfully than he imagined admitted he was "not worthy") made a convincing
point about the invalidity of UCD's scheme to label it's initiative a
"Business
Improvement District" (BID) and tax rental property owners because
they're
in business.
Levy wrote:
"The CCD is a business improvement district. About 90% of our assessment
revenue comes from office buildings, hotels, and retail establishments;
less
than 8% comes from apartment buildings."
This is precisely the point many of us in the loyal opposition have been
stating since the ill-conceived plan here was first introduced. "Business"
is
defined in the state enabling law as involving establishments engaged "in
trade
and commerce." Levy points out that the CCD indeed is overwhelmingly
involved with these kinds of properties. Clearly, apartment buildings
interspersed
among them are ancillary -- and probably should be assessed because they
can't
be reasonably excluded from the benefits. Here, of course, the opposite is
true. This is clearly a residential district -- and the few businesses
here
might be included in the assessments of any broad-based district simply
because
they can't be reasonably excluded from the benefits. All of which says
that
if any plan is to be considered feasible, it should cover all properties
in
the specified area.
Always at your service & ready for a dialog,
Al Krigman -- 36-year local resident & housing provider
************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL
at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
----
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
<http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
