0
What's with the BIA?
07 August 2010
What's up with the BIA these days? As a previously ardent supporter of the BIA, the organization's latest moves have both confounded and bothered me. I'm still a supporter of the downtown merchants, but my respect for the executive has dropped a few notches of late. *
The first issue was, of course, the patios. Rather than stand up for its members who really, really didn't want to have to move - or face the excessive costs and liability - the BIA executive chose to go against them and side with the move to the curbside. It didn't help them earn respect that they made this choice before they even spoke with the restaurant owners, and even after they had, refused to budge in their position. Nor that promises to come up with a financial solution never materialized.
That created a contentious split between the executive and many of its members. I've heard some pretty vituperative comments about the BIA executive this term, and even today when we walked downtown and visited several stores I got some sharp comments about the distance between the executive and the needs of the members.
Only last week, council learned in a letter from BIA chair, Geoff Shearer, that the BIA was pulling out of an agreement that it signed with the town to pay a large portion of a project that it had initially agreed to support. Aside from the legal question of whether they can do so without facing a court challenge from the town, one has to wonder about both the timing and the reason for such an abrupt announcement. The letter we got was the first time council even heard about a problem.
Which, it seems from today's Enterprise-Bulletin story, is a turf war, between town and BIA staff. The town and BIA were to equally share the costs of the project. Now the BIA has said the town has to foot the entire $150,000 bill.
I want to know if the BIA can be held accountable for its share and if the town has to take legal action to procure it, rather than foist the $75,000 cost on the taxpayers. I suggest we stop paying the BIA's bills until this is resolved.
And I want to know why no one on the BIA executive bothered to mention to council that there was a problem. Our BIA rep, Councillor Jeffrey, never even hinted that this was coming forward or that there was any problem. I hate being blindsided like that. Now we're in a head-butting situation and whose responsibility was it to inform council a problem was developing?
A person was hired to coordinate this project last month, and shortly after that commitment was made, we received Shearer's letter saying the BIA wasn't going to pay its promised share. If the BIA had issues, why were they not presented before the hiring? Why tell us after the fact?
Why Shearer wants to "sit down with Mayor Chris Carrier to resolve the latest tempest to affect the relationship between the BIA and the municipality" (as the EB notes) rather than deal with council as a whole, is beyond me, too. It seems more likely to create antagonism by doing so, rather than coming forward to council as a whole.
According to the EB, Sheared said, "day-to-day management of the position would be done under the auspices of the BIA; somehow the position suddenly fell under the responsibility of the town's economic development department. The BIA also expected that as lead applicant for the funding, it would also be involved in the hiring process. "We started to realize we were being pushed out of the process," he said. "
Shearer has some salient points and valid concerns about whose responsibility this position is, but unless he approaches council as a whole, he's not likely to find much sympathy from some of us, especially after breaking the agreement without even warning council beforehand.
"I think this can still be worked out." Shearer told the EB. Not, I suggest, if he insists on dealing alone with the mayor and ignoring the eight other directors. Council as a whole, after all, determines policy and direction, and directs staff, not the mayor. The fallacy that the mayor can do so alone - or should be approached alone - doesn't speak well to the relationship between council and the BIA for future efforts.
~~~~~
* As a sidebar for downtown merchants: the BIA is YOUR organization. YOU elect the executive, and your executive sets both the rates you pay and the goals for the year. If you don't like it, why not run for a seat on the board and see what you can do to change things? The BIA executive could easily decide to cut BIA taxes by half or less - all it takes is an executive with the determination to cut costs. In fact, why not put forward a slate of candidates for reform and reductions?
That created a contentious split between the executive and many of its members. I've heard some pretty vituperative comments about the BIA executive this term, and even today when we walked downtown and visited several stores I got some sharp comments about the distance between the executive and the needs of the members.
Only last week, council learned in a letter from BIA chair, Geoff Shearer, that the BIA was pulling out of an agreement that it signed with the town to pay a large portion of a project that it had initially agreed to support. Aside from the legal question of whether they can do so without facing a court challenge from the town, one has to wonder about both the timing and the reason for such an abrupt announcement. The letter we got was the first time council even heard about a problem.
Which, it seems from today's Enterprise-Bulletin story, is a turf war, between town and BIA staff. The town and BIA were to equally share the costs of the project. Now the BIA has said the town has to foot the entire $150,000 bill.
I want to know if the BIA can be held accountable for its share and if the town has to take legal action to procure it, rather than foist the $75,000 cost on the taxpayers. I suggest we stop paying the BIA's bills until this is resolved.
And I want to know why no one on the BIA executive bothered to mention to council that there was a problem. Our BIA rep, Councillor Jeffrey, never even hinted that this was coming forward or that there was any problem. I hate being blindsided like that. Now we're in a head-butting situation and whose responsibility was it to inform council a problem was developing?
A person was hired to coordinate this project last month, and shortly after that commitment was made, we received Shearer's letter saying the BIA wasn't going to pay its promised share. If the BIA had issues, why were they not presented before the hiring? Why tell us after the fact?
Why Shearer wants to "sit down with Mayor Chris Carrier to resolve the latest tempest to affect the relationship between the BIA and the municipality" (as the EB notes) rather than deal with council as a whole, is beyond me, too. It seems more likely to create antagonism by doing so, rather than coming forward to council as a whole.
According to the EB, Sheared said, "day-to-day management of the position would be done under the auspices of the BIA; somehow the position suddenly fell under the responsibility of the town's economic development department. The BIA also expected that as lead applicant for the funding, it would also be involved in the hiring process. "We started to realize we were being pushed out of the process," he said. "
Shearer has some salient points and valid concerns about whose responsibility this position is, but unless he approaches council as a whole, he's not likely to find much sympathy from some of us, especially after breaking the agreement without even warning council beforehand.
"I think this can still be worked out." Shearer told the EB. Not, I suggest, if he insists on dealing alone with the mayor and ignoring the eight other directors. Council as a whole, after all, determines policy and direction, and directs staff, not the mayor. The fallacy that the mayor can do so alone - or should be approached alone - doesn't speak well to the relationship between council and the BIA for future efforts.
~~~~~
* As a sidebar for downtown merchants: the BIA is YOUR organization. YOU elect the executive, and your executive sets both the rates you pay and the goals for the year. If you don't like it, why not run for a seat on the board and see what you can do to change things? The BIA executive could easily decide to cut BIA taxes by half or less - all it takes is an executive with the determination to cut costs. In fact, why not put forward a slate of candidates for reform and reductions?
