The Chestnut Hill Bid Director Survey

By Author: allan
Total Articles: 365
Comment this article

The Chestnut Hill Business Improvement District Management Corporation—as indicated in the bylaws (see Figure 1)—shows that a community coalition as well as PPP was intended by including both public and private sectors. According to the results of a 2009 Chestnut Hill BID Director Survey that addressed the government' BID relationship, the director indicated that the partnership was not as strong as it could be, particularly with the local government. Elected officials, including the city council and the mayor's office, appeared not as Thomas Sabo Charms responsive as its administrative departments (such as the streets, commerce,and police departments).

In some ways, this makes sense because the BID's administrative ties with functional aspects of government service departments align with the need to produce enhanced service results in the same areas. Also, the political nature of the BID encourages restraint from direct political structures out of a sense of laissez faire support and a desire not to meddle unless needed or ...
... requested. This may be naive—and not the best policy.

However, the BID director indicated that communication and contact with city agencies is either nonexistent or minimal. One survey question inquired into the following items:
How contact information for city agencies is distributed.
How agencies track complaints from individual merchants or property owners.
Whether there is a systematic way to follow-up on reported issues or problems with city agencies.

This particular survey question may have been interpreted as a required contact rather than a means of recognizing public responsibilities. Nonetheless, it suggests that the BID may see itself as independent from public processes.

The independence issue indicates erosion, rather than an expansion, of the partnerships between public, private, and civic agents. This issue was also apparent in the interviews and points to a common problem of a poor understanding of social capital in the success of BIDs. It points to a problem in developing an effective PPP: Is the government trusted?

Another survey question asked: "In general, how effective is the City of Philadelphia in assisting and coordinating the activities of BIDs so as to maximize their effectiveness?" The overwhelming answer was "very ineffective." Maybe this distrust is a result of a sense of political instability, change, or the tactics of government. It may be a reflection on the municipality's policy toward public-private partnerships, with authority being less network-oriented (horizontal) than principal agent-oriented (vertically).

BIDs, as PPPs, require a change in this type of administrative policy. As indicated by Bonnie Green-berg, president of the Chestnut Hill BID, "I do believe that our PPP relationship is not a collaborative one and because of this, progress is made more difficult."

The BID seems to have operated as a complimentary rather than collaborative entity. Although a better understanding of the organizational structure of Chestnut Hill might explain things, the BID seems to be guided by political compromise rather than a collaboration to integrate and enhance local management capacity or challenge local business leadership to step up to public accountability.

There is no doubt the BID has caused more integration among community groups, but fragmentation also has Thomas Sabo Earrings occurred in administrative roles and the city's expectations. The community's organizational practices also seem to support fragmentation in favor of maintaining traditional boundaries and political expediency over exacting a transformation of new community leadership promised by the BID.

Fragmentation may have a negative connotation in the context of discussing BIDs, because they are not designed to support exclusion or fragmentation. If exclusion and fragmentation or compromise and poor collaboration occur, the BID understandably suffers.