Author Blog: The Formation of Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) in Low-Income Immigrant Neighborhoods of Los Angeles

This is an author-produced blog post to introduce upcoming Urban Affairs Review articles. This article is now available in OnlineFirst
*****

The Formation of Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) in Low-Income Immigrant Neighborhoods of Los Angeles






Wonhyung Lee
Assistant professor, School of Social Welfare, 
University at Albany, SUNY



Business improvement districts, or BIDs, are local organizations that aim to revitalize commercial areas. BIDs are self-help organizations in which property or business owners collect funds to improve and promote their retail corridors <!–[if supportFields]>ADDIN CSL_CITATION { “citationItems” : [ { “id” : “ITEM-1”, “itemData” : { “DOI” : “10.1177/0739456X05279276”, “ISSN” : “0739-456X”, “author” : [ { “dropping-particle” : “”, “family” : “Hoyt”, “given” : “Lorlene”, “non-dropping-particle” : “”, “parse-names” : false, “suffix” : “” } ], “container-title” : “Journal of Planning Education and Research”, “id” : “ITEM-1”, “issue” : “2”, “issued” : { “date-parts” : [ [ “2005”, “12”, “1” ] ] }, “page” : “185-199”, “title” : “Do Business Improvement District Organizations Make a Difference?: Crime In and Around Commercial Areas in Philadelphia”, “type” : “article-journal”, “volume” : “25” }, “uris” : [ “http://www.mendeley.com/documents/?uuid=4237ce98-1789-4f36-8da0-647199544cc4&#8221; ] }, { “id” : “ITEM-2”, “itemData” : { “DOI” : “10.1177/1078087410378844”, “abstract” : “Business improvement districts (BIDs) constitute a relatively new\nmode of urban governance in which business and property owners pay\nsurtaxes for collectivized, privatized maintenance and development\nservices in their respective neighborhoods. Although they are typically\nconsidered an innovative means of improving urban areas\ufffdor at the\nvery least a benign intervention of business owners to draw new consumers\ufffdthe\ncase of Washington, D.C., shows that BIDs are also an increasingly\nentrenched neo-liberal institution promoted by state restructuring\nand interurban competition. Given local conditions, such as a permissive\nlegislative environment and fragmented governance, the proliferation,\nsize, and influence of D.C.\ufffds BIDs pose concerns about institutional\naccountability, socioeconomic inequality, and sustainability of services.\nUsing a mixed-methods approach that integrates urban governance theory,\nperformance metrics, and interviews with BID and D.C. government\nofficials, this study finds that Washington\ufffds BIDs have promoted\nrevitalization but also pose concerns about limited public accountability,\nexacerbated socioeconomic and spatial inequalities, and further retreat\nof the municipal government.”, “author” : [ { “dropping-particle” : “”, “family” : “Lewis”, “given” : “Nathaniel M”, “non-dropping-particle” : “”, “parse-names” : false, “suffix” : “” } ], “container-title” : “Urban Affairs Review”, “id” : “ITEM-2”, “issue” : “2”, “issued” : { “date-parts” : [ [ “2010” ] ] }, “page” : “180-217”, “title” : “Grappling with Governance: The Emergence of Business Improvement Districts in a National Capital”, “type” : “article-journal”, “volume” : “46” }, “uris” : [ “http://www.mendeley.com/documents/?uuid=5c079703-f34d-45fd-b0dd-acd92f1fa844&#8221; ] }, { “id” : “ITEM-3”, “itemData” : { “author” : [ { “dropping-particle” : “”, “family” : “Houstoun”, “given” : “Lawrence O.”, “non-dropping-particle” : “”, “parse-names” : false, “suffix” : “” } ], “edition” : “2nd”, “id” : “ITEM-3”, “issued” : { “date-parts” : [ [ “2003” ] ] }, “publisher” : “Urban Land Institute”, “publisher-place” : “Washington, D.C.”, “title” : “BIDs: Business Improvement Districts”, “type” : “book” }, “uris” : [ “http://www.mendeley.com/documents/?uuid=726adc39-0c81-453b-a978-c56c29567a26&#8221; ] }, { “id” : “ITEM-4”, “itemData” : { “author” : [ { “dropping-particle” : “”, “family” : “Briffault”, “given” : “Richard”, “non-dropping-particle” : “”, “parse-names” : false, “suffix” : “” } ], “container-title” : “Columbia Law Review”, “id” : “ITEM-4”, “issued” : { “date-parts” : [ [ “1999” ] ] }, “page” : “365”, “publisher” : “HeinOnline”, “title” : “A Government for Our Time? Business Improvement Districts and Urban Governance”, “type” : “article-journal”, “volume” : “99” }, “uris” : [ “http://www.mendeley.com/documents/?uuid=51c9ced1-730b-4a40-a9d6-16f9068266d2&#8221; ] } ], “mendeley” : { “formattedCitation” : “(Hoyt 2005; Lewis 2010; Houstoun 2003; Briffault 1999)”, “manualFormatting” : “(Briffault 1999; Houstoun Jr. 2003; Hoyt 2005; Lewis 2010)”, “plainTextFormattedCitation” : “(Hoyt 2005; Lewis 2010; Houstoun 2003; Briffault 1999)”, “previouslyFormattedCitation” : “(Hoyt 2005; Lewis 2010; Houstoun 2003; Briffault 1999)” }, “properties” : { “noteIndex” : 0 }, “schema” : “https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json&#8221; }<![endif]–>(Briffault 1999; Houstoun Jr. 2003; Hoyt 2005; Lewis 2010)<!–[if supportFields]><![endif]–>. The collected funds are used for street cleaning, beautification, or security reinforcement in a designated boundary. BIDs have clearly demonstrated benefits for promoting commercial areas over the last two decades. Large and small, BIDs have multiplied rapidly: from about 400 in 1999 to about 1,000 in 2010 across the United States <!–[if supportFields]>ADDIN CSL_CITATION { “citationItems” : [ { “id” : “ITEM-1”, “itemData” : { “author” : [ { “dropping-particle” : “”, “family” : “Cook”, “given” : “Philip J”, “non-dropping-particle” : “”, “parse-names” : false, “suffix” : “” }, { “dropping-particle” : “”, “family” : “MacDonald”, “given” : “John”, “non-dropping-particle” : “”, “parse-names” : false, “suffix” : “” } ], “container-title” : “Economic Journal”, “id” : “ITEM-1”, “issued” : { “date-parts” : [ [ “2011” ] ] }, “page” : “445-462”, “title” : “Public Safetly through private action: An economic assessment of BIDs”, “type” : “article-journal”, “volume” : “121” }, “uris” : [ “http://www.mendeley.com/documents/?uuid=19a383ad-54c8-4a4c-8960-87d875fd1222&#8221; ] } ], “mendeley” : { “formattedCitation” : “(Cook and MacDonald 2011)”, “plainTextFormattedCitation” : “(Cook and MacDonald 2011)”, “previouslyFormattedCitation” : “(Cook and MacDonald 2011)” }, “properties” : { “noteIndex” : 0 }, “schema” : “https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json&#8221; }<![endif]–>(Cook and MacDonald 2011)<!–[if supportFields]><![endif]–>. BIDs are sometimes referred to as community improvement districts (CIDs), special improvement districts (SIDs), or special services areas (SSAs) contingent on the state legislature.
Los Angeles has the second largest number of BIDs in the United States, second to New York City. As of 2014, more than 40 neighborhoods of Los Angeles have formed BIDs over the last 15 years and reported positive results in trash or graffiti removal and security reinforcement. As BIDs have spread over Los Angeles, however, several neighborhoods have shown slow progress of BID formation effort according to the Los Angeles City Council file records. Such neighborhoods could not form BIDs for longer than five years, which far exceeds the average of 18 to 22 months taken in other neighborhoods in Los Angeles. The neighborhoods that show slow BID formation are overall lower-income neighborhoods with higher concentration of foreign-born populations <!–[if supportFields]>ADDIN CSL_CITATION { “citationItems” : [ { “id” : “ITEM-1”, “itemData” : { “author” : [ { “dropping-particle” : “”, “family” : “Lee”, “given” : “Wonhyung”, “non-dropping-particle” : “”, “parse-names” : false, “suffix” : “” } ], “id” : “ITEM-1”, “issued” : { “date-parts” : [ [ “2014” ] ] }, “title” : “Critical Perspectives on Local Governance: The Formation of Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) in Low-Income Immigrant Neighborhoods of Los Angeles”, “type” : “thesis” }, “uris” : [ “http://www.mendeley.com/documents/?uuid=2718c359-e989-4be3-9734-86a08f5cebda&#8221; ] } ], “mendeley” : { “formattedCitation” : “(Lee 2014)”, “plainTextFormattedCitation” : “(Lee 2014)”, “previouslyFormattedCitation” : “(Lee 2014)” }, “properties” : { “noteIndex” : 0 }, “schema” : “https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json&#8221; }<![endif]–>(Lee 2014)<!–[if supportFields]><![endif]–>. The slow, if not failed, attempt to form BIDs requires special attention considering that the areas without BIDs can experience a lack of services and may suffer from the influx of undesirable elements from nearby areas with BIDs as they may push those elements outside their boundaries <!–[if supportFields]>ADDIN CSL_CITATION { “citationItems” : [ { “id” : “ITEM-1”, “itemData” : { “DOI” : “10.1080/01900690500409088”, “ISSN” : “0190-0692”, “abstract” : “Abstract This article explores the issue of BID performance measures with the goal of enhancing their capacity as diagnostic and prescriptive tools. We examine the different kinds of performance measures in the context of BID designation and evaluation, paying attention to the needs of the varied stakeholders invested in BID performance. We develop a typology of the different kinds of indicators that are most appropriate for the mission and land uses within BIDs and discuss ways to institutionalize the use of these indicators. This research is based on survey data and case studies of the City of Chicago’s Special Services Areas (SSAs) as well as an extension of theory in public administration on the appropriate use of performance measurements. We find that Chicago SSAs rarely evaluate their performance in a systematic manner. When they are required to do so, they tend to rely on subjective appraisals by stakeholders with conflicts of interest, confuse outputs with outcomes, and assume that renewal applications are accurate proxies of stakeholder satisfaction.”, “author” : [ { “dropping-particle” : “”, “family” : “Caruso”, “given” : “Gina”, “non-dropping-particle” : “”, “parse-names” : false, “suffix” : “” }, { “dropping-particle” : “”, “family” : “Weber”, “given” : “Rachel”, “non-dropping-particle” : “”, “parse-names” : false, “suffix” : “” } ], “container-title” : “International Journal of Public Administration”, “id” : “ITEM-1”, “issue” : “1-3”, “issued” : { “date-parts” : [ [ “2006”, “1”, “1” ] ] }, “note” : “doi: 10.1080/01900690500409088”, “page” : “187-219”, “publisher” : “Routledge”, “title” : “Getting the Max for the Tax: An Examination of BID Performance Measures”, “type” : “article-journal”, “volume” : “29” }, “uris” : [ “http://www.mendeley.com/documents/?uuid=a19bfe6e-bef3-45ea-bad8-48cf59f4de32&#8221; ] }, { “id” : “ITEM-2”, “itemData” : { “ISSN” : “1749-8198”, “author” : [ { “dropping-particle” : “”, “family” : “Hoyt”, “given” : “Lorlene”, “non-dropping-particle” : “”, “parse-names” : false, “suffix” : “” }, { “dropping-particle” : “”, “family” : “Gopal-Agge”, “given” : “Devika”, “non-dropping-particle” : “”, “parse-names” : false, “suffix” : “” } ], “container-title” : “Geography Compass”, “id” : “ITEM-2”, “issue” : “4”, “issued” : { “date-parts” : [ [ “2007” ] ] }, “page” : “946-958”, “publisher” : “Blackwell Publishing Ltd”, “title” : “The Business Improvement District Model: A Balanced Review of Contemporary Debates”, “type” : “article-journal”, “volume” : “1” }, “uris” : [ “http://www.mendeley.com/documents/?uuid=c5e81607-bde6-4054-8c4e-f7acbf927f93&#8221; ] }, { “id” : “ITEM-3”, “itemData” : { “DOI” : “10.1177/1078087410378844”, “abstract” : “Business improvement districts (BIDs) constitute a relatively new\nmode of urban governance in which business and property owners pay\nsurtaxes for collectivized, privatized maintenance and development\nservices in their respective neighborhoods. Although they are typically\nconsidered an innovative means of improving urban areas\ufffdor at the\nvery least a benign intervention of business owners to draw new consumers\ufffdthe\ncase of Washington, D.C., shows that BIDs are also an increasingly\nentrenched neo-liberal institution promoted by state restructuring\nand interurban competition. Given local conditions, such as a permissive\nlegislative environment and fragmented governance, the proliferation,\nsize, and influence of D.C.\ufffds BIDs pose concerns about institutional\naccountability, socioeconomic inequality, and sustainability of services.\nUsing a mixed-methods approach that integrates urban governance theory,\nperformance metrics, and interviews with BID and D.C. government\nofficials, this study finds that Washington\ufffds BIDs have promoted\nrevitalization but also pose concerns about limited public accountability,\nexacerbated socioeconomic and spatial inequalities, and further retreat\nof the municipal government.”, “author” : [ { “dropping-particle” : “”, “family” : “Lewis”, “given” : “Nathaniel M”, “non-dropping-particle” : “”, “parse-names” : false, “suffix” : “” } ], “container-title” : “Urban Affairs Review”, “id” : “ITEM-3”, “issue” : “2”, “issued” : { “date-parts” : [ [ “2010” ] ] }, “page” : “180-217”, “title” : “Grappling with Governance: The Emergence of Business Improvement Districts in a National Capital”, “type” : “article-journal”, “volume” : “46” }, “uris” : [ “http://www.mendeley.com/documents/?uuid=5c079703-f34d-45fd-b0dd-acd92f1fa844&#8221; ] } ], “mendeley” : { “formattedCitation” : “(Caruso and Weber 2006; Hoyt and Gopal-Agge 2007; Lewis 2010)”, “plainTextFormattedCitation” : “(Caruso and Weber 2006; Hoyt and Gopal-Agge 2007; Lewis 2010)”, “previouslyFormattedCitation” : “(Caruso and Weber 2006; Hoyt and Gopal-Agge 2007; Lewis 2010)” }, “properties” : { “noteIndex” : 0 }, “schema” : “https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json&#8221; }<![endif]–>(Caruso and Weber 2006; Hoyt and Gopal-Agge 2007; Lewis 2010)<!–[if supportFields]><![endif]–>.
This research thus examines how BID formation efforts unfold in poor immigrant neighborhoods in Los Angeles, and more specifically, how the neighborhoods that struggle with BID formation differ from the ones that have successfully formed a BID.  I present a comparative case study of two adjacent low-income immigrant neighborhoods, one with slow BID formation and the other with successful BID formation: MacArthur Park and the Byzantine Latino Quarter, respectively. In both neighborhoods BID formation is active on paper; however, MacArthur Park has not been able to establish a BID over the last several years, whereas the Byzantine Latino Quarter succeeded in establishing a BID in 2003 and renewed it in 2014. The data for this study were collected during a year-long field research in Los Angeles from April, 2013 to April, 2014. Three types of data—interviews, archival records and documents, and observations—were collected to understand the BID formation processes in MacArthur Park and the BLQ.
This study found that while the two case study neighborhoods share common challenges as a large number of commercial vacancies, a high turnover rate, and insufficient funding and staff, the BID formation efforts in MacArthur Park and the BLQ evolved differently with respect to community resources and organizing processes. The factors that may have contributed to the successful BID formation in the BLQ include the presence of invested and persistent community stakeholders, strong organizational resources, residents’ participation and activism in local community development, and an awareness of demographic change and openness to multiethnic groups in the neighborhood. On the other hand, MacArthur Park showed relative absence of grassroots leadership, partnership organizations, venues where residents can participate in community affairs, and an explicit goal or direction to embrace multiethnic groups in the neighborhood.
This research demonstrates that community organizing capacity and characteristics can change the course and outcome of BID formation. The stories of MacArthur Park and the BLQ show that BID formation is a complex process that depends not only on the economic characteristics of properties and property owners, but also on various social and political aspects of communities and the process of community organizing. This study provides a strong support for some of the criteria identified in previous research for successful community organizing and development, including internal leadership, grassroots community organizing, and strong and direct ties with various human and organizational resources <!–[if supportFields]>ADDIN CSL_CITATION { “citationItems” : [ { “id” : “ITEM-1”, “itemData” : { “DOI” : “10.1177/10780870122184876”, “abstract” : “The notion of community capacity building is both explicit and pervasive in the rhetoric, missions, and activities of a broad range of contemporary community development efforts. However, there is limited clarity about the meaning of capacity and capacity building at the neighbor-hood level. The author suggests a definitional framework for understanding and promoting community capacity, explores the attempt to operationalize a capacity-building agenda through the examination of two contrasting case studies within a multisite comprehensive community initiative (CCI), and suggests some possible next steps toward building community capacity through social change efforts such as CCIs. “, “author” : [ { “dropping-particle” : “”, “family” : “Chaskin”, “given” : “Robert J”, “non-dropping-particle” : “”, “parse-names” : false, “suffix” : “” } ], “container-title” : “Urban Affairs Review “, “id” : “ITEM-1”, “issue” : “3 “, “issued” : { “date-parts” : [ [ “2001”, “1”, “1” ] ] }, “note” : “10.1177/10780870122184876 “, “page” : “291-323”, “title” : “Building Community Capacity: A Definitional Framework and Case Studies from a Comprehensive Community Initiative “, “type” : “article-journal”, “volume” : “36 ” }, “uris” : [ “http://www.mendeley.com/documents/?uuid=62ff7c88-5430-48ce-93c4-72a4b4a9fde0&#8221; ] }, { “id” : “ITEM-2”, “itemData” : { “author” : [ { “dropping-particle” : “”, “family” : “Peterman”, “given” : “William”, “non-dropping-particle” : “”, “parse-names” : false, “suffix” : “” } ], “id” : “ITEM-2”, “issued” : { “date-parts” : [ [ “2000” ] ] }, “publisher” : “Sage Publications”, “publisher-place” : “Thousand Oaks, CA”, “title” : “Neighborhood Planning and Community-Based Development: The Potential and Limits of Grassroots Action”, “type” : “book” }, “uris” : [ “http://www.mendeley.com/documents/?uuid=6a034953-cbab-4a62-86dc-c85b1beb2bc0&#8221; ] }, { “id” : “ITEM-3”, “itemData” : { “author” : [ { “dropping-particle” : “”, “family” : “Smock”, “given” : “Kristina”, “non-dropping-particle” : “”, “parse-names” : false, “suffix” : “” } ], “id” : “ITEM-3”, “issued” : { “date-parts” : [ [ “2004” ] ] }, “publisher” : “Columbia University Press”, “publisher-place” : “New York”, “title” : “Democracy in Action: Community Organizing and Urban Change”, “type” : “book” }, “uris” : [ “http://www.mendeley.com/documents/?uuid=940ed794-252f-4d3a-b2fd-6100c3de7598&#8221; ] }, { “id” : “ITEM-4”, “itemData” : { “author” : [ { “dropping-particle” : “”, “family” : “Dreier”, “given” : “Peter”, “non-dropping-particle” : “”, “parse-names” : false, “suffix” : “” } ], “container-title” : “Cityscape”, “id” : “ITEM-4”, “issue” : “2”, “issued” : { “date-parts” : [ [ “1996” ] ] }, “page” : “121-159”, “title” : “Community Empowerment Strategies: The Limits and Potential of Community Organizing in Urban Neighborhoods”, “type” : “article-journal”, “volume” : “2” }, “uris” : [ “http://www.mendeley.com/documents/?uuid=fb2504b8-5070-4cf5-b3cf-079031e25f1c&#8221; ] } ], “mendeley” : { “formattedCitation” : “(Chaskin 2001; Peterman 2000; Smock 2004; Dreier 1996)”, “plainTextFormattedCitation” : “(Chaskin 2001; Peterman 2000; Smock 2004; Dreier 1996)”, “previouslyFormattedCitation” : “(Chaskin 2001; Peterman 2000; Smock 2004; Dreier 1996)” }, “properties” : { “noteIndex” : 0 }, “schema” : “https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json&#8221; }<![endif]–>(Chaskin 2001; Peterman 2000; Smock 2004; Dreier 1996)<!–[if supportFields]><![endif]–>.
            Furthermore, this study expands the current theoretical and empirical understandings of multicultural and multilingual community organizing by providing an actual case of organizing process in which multiethnic community stakeholders cooperate in order to achieve a collective goal. Furthermore, the BID formation process in the BLQ suggests challenges with multicultural and multilingual organizing, which include territorial competitions over ethnic identity, knowledge gap among various ethnic groups, and thus their unequal participation in local governance. These issues create room for discussing communicative, collaborative, pluralistic, and participatory planning models <!–[if supportFields]>ADDIN CSL_CITATION { “citationItems” : [ { “id” : “ITEM-1”, “itemData” : { “DOI” : “10.1177/0739456X0001900406”, “abstract” : “While studies undertaken by communicative planning theorists provide valuable\n               insights into everyday planning practice, there is a growing debate around the\n               need for greater acknowledgement of relations of power and inequality. In\n               particular, communicative planning theory has tended to obscure planning’s\n               problematic relation to the state. This paper opens for debate conceptions of\n               public discourse in planning that, on the one hand, draw on Habermas’s notions of\n               communicative rationality, but on the other, fail to critically examine his\n               positioning of these in opposition to state and economy. It is argued that the\n               implications of critiques of Habermas’s ideas may involve questioning the very\n               possibility of communicative planning itself. “, “author” : [ { “dropping-particle” : “”, “family” : “Huxley”, “given” : “Margo”, “non-dropping-particle” : “”, “parse-names” : false, “suffix” : “” } ], “container-title” : “Journal of Planning Education and Research “, “id” : “ITEM-1”, “issue” : “4 “, “issued” : { “date-parts” : [ [ “2000”, “6”, “1” ] ] }, “note” : “10.1177/0739456X0001900406 “, “page” : “369-377”, “title” : “The Limits to Communicative Planning”, “type” : “article-journal”, “volume” : “19 ” }, “uris” : [ “http://www.mendeley.com/documents/?uuid=de325102-b879-4c6b-b5b7-88d77197287b&#8221; ] }, { “id” : “ITEM-2”, “itemData” : { “DOI” : “10.1177/14730952030022002”, “abstract” : “This article presents a personal review by the author of Collaborative Planning:                    Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies, published in 1997. It explains how                the book came to be written and makes some comments on the various criticisms it has                attracted. The first section introduces key experiences that fed into the book                followed by a brief summary of the key ideas that underpin its arguments. In                reviewing the critiques, the article focuses in particular on the treatment of                `context’, the emphasis on `process’, the use of `social theory’, and `power’, and                the development of `institutionalist’ analysis. This is followed by a comment on the                normative biases in the work. In conclusion, the author makes a plea for continuing                attention to the complexity and diversity of urban governance contexts and the                importance for practical action of grasping the particularities of situated                governance dynamics. “, “author” : [ { “dropping-particle” : “”, “family” : “Healey”, “given” : “Patsy”, “non-dropping-particle” : “”, “parse-names” : false, “suffix” : “” } ], “container-title” : “Planning Theory “, “id” : “ITEM-2”, “issue” : “2 “, “issued” : { “date-parts” : [ [ “2003”, “7”, “1” ] ] }, “note” : “10.1177/14730952030022002 “, “page” : “101-123”, “title” : “Collaborative Planning in Perspective”, “type” : “article-journal”, “volume” : “2 ” }, “uris” : [ “http://www.mendeley.com/documents/?uuid=8830ee31-ccf0-4464-b336-433edebc7e0c&#8221; ] } ], “mendeley” : { “formattedCitation” : “(Huxley 2000; Healey 2003)”, “plainTextFormattedCitation” : “(Huxley 2000; Healey 2003)”, “previouslyFormattedCitation” : “(Huxley 2000; Healey 2003)” }, “properties” : { “noteIndex” : 0 }, “schema” : “https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json&#8221; }<![endif]–>(Huxley 2000; Healey 2003)<!–[if supportFields]><![endif]–> for multiethnic communities.
For practice, this research suggests important prerequisites for low-income immigrant neighborhoods to achieve BID formation and further community development. As demonstrated by the case of the BLQ, BIDs can serve not merely as an economic development strategy but also as an intermediary path for community development in inner city neighborhoods that struggle with poverty and other social problems. And yet, some of these neighborhoods may be stuck in the BID formation processes and at risk of economic marginalization when they lack community capacity and resources. These areas need alternative or more incremental approaches to strengthen collective action to improve the local commercial districts. Public officials and community organizers can assist the community building efforts by identifying organizations that can best serve the local need, investing in leadership training, developing partnership organizations, and holding educational sessions or social events that can raise awareness of collective problems and diversity in the community.
References
<!–[if supportFields]>ADDIN Mendeley Bibliography CSL_BIBLIOGRAPHY <![endif]–>Briffault, Richard. 1999. “A Government for Our Time? Business Improvement Districts and Urban Governance.” Columbia Law Review99. HeinOnline: 365.
Caruso, Gina, and Rachel Weber. 2006. “Getting the Max for the Tax: An Examination of BID Performance Measures.” International Journal of Public Administration 29 (1-3). Routledge: 187–219. doi:10.1080/01900690500409088.
Chaskin, Robert J. 2001. “Building Community Capacity: A Definitional Framework and Case Studies from a Comprehensive Community Initiative .” Urban Affairs Review 36 (3 ): 291–323. doi:10.1177/10780870122184876.
Cook, Philip J, and John MacDonald. 2011. “Public Safetly through Private Action: An Economic Assessment of BIDs.” Economic Journal 121: 445–62.
Dreier, Peter. 1996. “Community Empowerment Strategies: The Limits and Potential of Community Organizing in Urban Neighborhoods.” Cityscape 2 (2): 121–59.
Healey, Patsy. 2003. “Collaborative Planning in Perspective.” Planning Theory 2 (2 ): 101–23. doi:10.1177/14730952030022002.
Houstoun, Lawrence O. 2003. BIDs: Business Improvement Districts. 2nd ed. Washington, D.C.: Urban Land Institute.
Hoyt, Lorlene. 2005. “Do Business Improvement District Organizations Make a Difference?: Crime In and Around Commercial Areas in Philadelphia.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 25 (2): 185–99. doi:10.1177/0739456X05279276.
Hoyt, Lorlene, and Devika Gopal-Agge. 2007. “The Business Improvement District Model: A Balanced Review of Contemporary Debates.” Geography Compass 1 (4). Blackwell Publishing Ltd: 946–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-8198.2007.00041.x.
Huxley, Margo. 2000. “The Limits to Communicative Planning.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 19 (4 ): 369–77. doi:10.1177/0739456X0001900406.
Lee, Wonhyung. 2014. “Critical Perspectives on Local Governance: The Formation of Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) in Low-Income Immigrant Neighborhoods of Los Angeles.”
Lewis, Nathaniel M. 2010. “Grappling with Governance: The Emergence of Business Improvement Districts in a National Capital.” Urban Affairs Review46 (2): 180–217. doi:10.1177/1078087410378844.
Peterman, William. 2000. Neighborhood Planning and Community-Based Development: The Potential and Limits of Grassroots Action. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Smock, Kristina. 2004. Democracy in Action: Community Organizing and Urban Change. New York: Columbia University Press.


 Questions for the author may be referred to: http://www.albany.edu/ssw/wonhyung-lee.php

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s