The 10-Minute Public Hearing for BID #44

This is a copy of the text of our presentation at the City Planning Commission Public Hearing, a 10-minute event held by the city, in which the 20 or so people attending were invited to speak for or against the BID which will result in a major increase in their taxes. (that's 30 seconds apiece - thanks so much!). We asked that our presentation notes be entered as a part of the meeting record. Hope it was noticed by someone.

Joyce Parker and Gary Guetzlaff - Comments for presentation to the Milwaukee Plan Commission hearing on Monday, September 21, 2009, 2:10 pm, 1st floor board room, 809 N Broadway.

Tony Zielinski keeps telling us that a Business Improvement District is such a good thing for the community. Why, then are the proceedings for establishing the BID tax being conducted so dishonestly? Could it be just a political money and power grab? The truth is, that there has been very little truthfulness to date in the process. The time of this meeting. First of all, why should something by and for the business people of the community be held at a time which precludes their input? At 2 pm on a Monday, business owners are busy with their businesses, and working people are at their jobs. Personally, I had to take unpaid time off from my job, and my wife had to reschedule appointments so that we could attend this hearing. Many property owners I know were unable to attend this hearing because of the hearing's time. Try and talk me out of this theory, but I believe that the timing of this meeting was found acceptable because it would cause the least disturbance to the planned adoption of the BID tax.

Signing the petition but unaware that it involves a tax.

Two of the people whom I wish could be here could not. One is a contractor who is starting a major job today and cannot leave it on its first day. The other runs a successful business on KK and would have been forced to close his doors to be here. What both of them have in common is that they signed the petition without knowing that it would involve a tax assessment. Both were surprised when I showed them the wording of the petition with their signature on it. I believe that the petition was presented in a deceitful manner, and under pressure to sign before thoroughly reading what it is they were signing. Since neither of them realized that there was a tax increase involved, I am led to believe that there were others who were coerced and pressured into signing before they had a chance to read the proposal over. “Hurry up, Bob, Ken's waiting use the petition to sign up”

Deceitfulness of the requested percentage.

At the September 15, 2009 meeting of the Bay View Business Association, Tony Zielinski told those in attendance that the amount of the assessment was artificially low, HE SAID IT WAS LOW, and the intention of the “low” amount is to get the BID tax enacted. Once instated the assessments are a lot easier to adjust because they are no longer accountable to the taxpayers DIRECTLY. Subsequent funding and assessment percentage increases require only the consensus of the non-elected officials and the approval of the Common Council, 80% of whom are preoccupied with the affairs of their own district. So, the percentage will almost certainly increase in subsequent years. And the Common Council, charged with responsibility for the entire city will be making decisions about money that is collected and distributed only in one district of the city. Is that even legal? The phrase “taxation without representation” comes to mind.

Another thing Tony told us at the Bay View Business Association meeting was that of all the BID taxes enacted, none of them was ever to his knowledge ever dissolved. A feeling of permanence. Can this be because the process of controlling the BID is so unaccountable to the people it afflicts? Once this is enacted, business owners are permanently and irrevocably screwed.

Exploiting the Skewed Perception

The image of our neighborhood is being manipulated by those who can't wait to get their hands on the BID tax funds. Mr. Zielinski is constantly commenting on the need to “clean up our image.”

Example #1 – Our business holds weekly public music concerts in a small private meeting hall. People attending the concerts for the first time usually comment “I never realized what a charming neighborhood this is.” Newcomers frequently stop to discover some of the other shops and restaurants in the neighborhood.

We own a number commercial rental units, and now that the economy is attempting to recover, we have rented everything available to hopeful and ambitious business people. We wish them every measure of success. They would not have chosen our neighborhood if this neighborhood had an “image problem”. We believe that the perception of the neighborhood's “image” is being manipulated to the advantage of those exploiting the BID TAX.The Budget

$15,000 for Grafitti Removal

Section III B and C call for Expenditures for Graffiti Removal. The Graffiti problem in the neighborhood is exaggerated by politicians in order to create the perceived need for expenditures on graffiti removal services. As an Example - On 9/14/9 I removed a 2' x 3' Graffiti decoration from one of our rental properties in 9 minutes, at a negligible material cost. Municipal and public graffiti services are overpriced, and the selection of these services is prone to cronyism.

And besides, if the district is so “improved” where does the graffiti come from in the first place?

$30,000 for Security Services

Section III B & C call for Expenditures for Private Security Services. We already have security services – the Police, and they do an exemplary job of keeping the neighborhood safe. Twice in the last month newly assigned foot and cruiser patrols have stopped to introduce themselves to me personally. JOYCE notes that School patrols of students conducted by the schools have greatly reduced loitering and truancy in the area. Local solutions to local problems are what work the best.

Police response time has always been acceptable. If there were an alternative service patrolling the area, I believe there is a real danger of the police relying on it, and applying their coverage elsewhere. At the BVBA meeting on September 15, Mr. Zielinski pointed out that the advantage of a private service was that they could be at a certain location at a pre-arranged time dictated by the BID board. I don't know about Mr. Zielinski, but I'd prefer to have the police going where the crime is instead of keeping appointments. Why doesn't Mr. Zielinski trust his own city's police department?

The Planning Commission would be voting in the interest of the citizens of Bay View by voting "NO" on Bid #44.