Intl Journal of Public Administration, 29: 5375, 2006

Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN 0190-0692 print / 1532-4265 online
DOI: 10.1080/01900690500408981

Urban Governance and Business Improvement

1532-4265
0190-0692
LPAD
Intl Journal of Public Administration
Administration, Vol. 29, No. 1-3, November 2006: pp. 00

Districts: The Washington, DC BIDs

James F. Wolf
Urban Governance and BIDs
Wolf

School of Public and International Affairs, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University, Alexandria, Virginia, USA

Abstract: Metropolitan areas have increasingly relied on the creation of Business

Improvement Districts (BIDs) as a way to focus on the special needs of retail and
commercial centers. Whether part of the central city or a suburb, these relatively
recent forms of organizations represent a new way to address sub-municipal issues.
As such, they have become an important part of metropolitan governance and admin-
istration. The BIDs also clearly fit within the recent set of ideas represented by advo-
cates of new governance that emphasizes both public/private partnerships and
alternative institutional structures as strategies for addressing problems of metropoli-
tan governance. This article examines four active BIDs in downtown Washington,
DC. It presents the political and economic context of both the creation and operation
of the four BIDs, relates them to new governance ideas, considers the extent that
they have become an institutionalized form of metropolitan governance and finally,
speculates on the extent that they are part of enterprise of public administration and
management.

Keywords: business improvement districts, metropolitan governance, public administration

Often created out of the business sectors dissatisfaction with urban govern-
ments efforts to address their specific concerns, Business Improvement Dis-
tricts (BIDs) have emerged as important actors in a regions governance
processes. BIDs form part of a new approach to urban and metropolitan gov-
ernance often referred to as new governance. Using four Business Improve-
ment Districts located in downtown Washington, DC, this article explores
how they fit into the governance processes of the city and the region. After

The original draft of this paper was presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Society for Public Administration, Portland, Oregon, March 28, 2004.
Address correspondence to James F. Wolf, School of Public and International
Affairs, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1021 Prince Street,
Alexandria, VA 22314, USA; E-mail: jfwolf@vt.edu
54 Wolf

presenting the legal and political context for their emergence, the article
describes the history, mission, budgets and programs of the four. While all
four BIDs share some important elements, they also represent different
approaches for responding to the needs of their communities. In the conclu-
sion, the article returns to new governance and considers ways that BIDs
touch on these issues. Finally, the article considers how BIDs relate to the
enterprise of urban governance and public administration.

NEW GOVERNANCE IN URBAN AREAS: A FRAMEWORK FOR

UNDERSTANDING THE EMERGENCE OF BIDs

The development of BIDs in the urban areas is consistent with a set of new
ideas that have been characterized as new governance by some and others as
new regionalism. Stoker, for example, suggested that a new governance
perspective signifies a move away from seeing governments as the center of
focus to a new process of governing; or a changed condition of ordered rule
or new methods by which society is governed . Governance leads to
outcomes that parallel those of traditional institutions of governance .[1]
This new focus on governance looks to fostering institutions from and also
beyond government, a blurring of responsibilities and boundaries, a concern
for power dependencies among players, and a preference for autonomous self-
government networks of actors. New governance also emphasizes that getting
things done doesnt rest with governments alone.[2]
In much the same way, Rhodes defined governance as consisting of self-
organizing interorganizational networks that maintain independence among
organizations and operate through continuing interactions among network
members. The basis for the networks interactions rests on trust and rules that
are negotiated by network participants.[3] Advocates of new governance par-
ticularly emphasize the role of public/private partnerships for achieving public
purposes. Borrowing heavily from urban regime theory, new governance
focuses on the role of voluntary mechanisms from both government and non-
government sectors for metropolitan cooperation. Some of these partnerships
are more informal networks while others take on more formal characteristic
and structures.[4]
A key ideal of new regionalism, consistent with new governance propos-
als, is that governance in metropolitan areas at all levels need to seek a much
broader variety of organizational arrangements in order to adequately meet the
challenges created by highly fragmented political structures and growing seg-
regation of economic and ethnic groups. New regionalists argue that policy
makers must seek an expanded range of metropolitan government structures
as well as additional procedural options.[5]
While many of the new regionalism ideas focus on governance structures
at the broader urban metropolitan level, BIDs represent attempts to create
Urban Governance and BIDs 55

governance at another scale: the sub-municipal level. Most of the BIDs

quickly can become involved in important metropolitan issues and problems.
They directly affect the viability of retail and other economic activity in a
region. While they work within specific sub-metropolitan areas, they often
become significant political and administrative actors in the metropolitan
regions. This article returns to these issues raised by new governance, and
their significance for public administration in urban areas in the concluding
discussion.

KEY ELEMENTS OF BIDs

Although BIDs do vary in their origins, governance arrangements, organiza-

tional structures, and programs, they also share many important characteris-
tics. In a survey of 264 BIDs, Mitchell found that BIDs were primarily formed
to supplement public security forces, advocate business interests for a specific
area and provide supplemental sanitation work. They are established by local
or state governments and managed by non-profit organizations usually requir-
ing some form of petition process. Practically all get a significant part of their
funding through assessments of owners and tenants in the area. He found that,
in addition to these core characteristics, they generally provide a range of ser-
vices that support business development of members. His survey found that
the BIDs were most interested in the providing the following services:

Capital improvements, such as lighting and landscape

Consumer marketing
Economic development
Maintenance of sidewalks, furniture, lighting
Parking and transportation
Public advocacy
Public space regulationmanaging sidewalks, venders, panhandlers

The mix of services varies for each BID, but most offer a combination of the
activities listed above.[6]

OVERVIEW OF WASHINGTON, DC BIDs

Currently, four BIDs operate in the District of Columbia. They are contiguous
and encompass most downtown areas. Founded in 1997, the first and the larg-
est is the Downtown BID, which serves the area around the old retail section
of the city and is located about seven blocks north and west of the U.S. Capi-
tol. The Golden Triangle BID, founded shortly after the Downtown BID, is
adjacent to it on the west and situated in the area a few blocks directly north
56 Wolf

and west of the White House. The third BID, the Georgetown Partnership,
covers the area west of the Golden Triangle BID, extends to the Potomac
River, and serves the historic Georgetown community. Finally, the Capitol
Hill BID, which began operation in 2003, serves the area directly east of the
Downtown BID.
The four BIDs provide many of the same services and share important
organizational features. Each reflects the distinct character of the areas they
serve. The data presented about these BIDs come from several sources:

1. interviews with key professional staff from each of the four BIDs,
2. interview with a District of Columbia official responsible for on-going
relationships with BIDs,
3. reviews of the relevant parts of the District of Columbia Code, and
4. BIDs published and website reports.

The Political and Economic Context

The creation of the BIDs in the District was prompted in large part by the dif-
ficulties that business development efforts faced as a result of a weak city
administration. One member of the BID executive staff who was deeply
involved in the initial phase of District BIDs, believes that the impetus for the
creation of BIDs came principally from the sense that the city government was
a failed government. During the early 1990s, the District government was
essentially put in receivership due to its financial and programmatic incompe-
tence. Two powerful City Council members and staff in the Mayors office
were instrumental in supporting the legislation permitting the Downtown
BID. Once this legislation was passed for the first BID, the creation of the oth-
ers was not difficult. However, each of the BIDs had special circumstances
that energized various business and community groups to form a BID (See
Table 1.).

The Legal Framework

The District of Columbia Council approved the creation of BIDs by passing

legislation that permitted the Downtown BID in May 1996. The law has been
amended to permit the establishment of the three additional BIDs. The legisla-
tions sections include provisions for establishing the BIDs, the application
process, requirements for the board of directors and officers (qualifications
and expenses), methods for establishing by-laws and amendments, and the
process for expanding the geographic area of BIDs. There are very detailed
provisions for these steps. Each time, special amendments to the code speci-
fied to the status, powers, and responsibilities for the new BID.[7]
 Table 1. Summary of District of Columbia BIDs

Downtown BID Golden Triangle BID Georgetown BID Capitol Hill BID

Environmental Large mix of commercial, Mainly commercial. Stable commercial, retail and Mixed economic groups Small
Conditions retail and residential residential in one area and commercial/retail units
new large-scale develop-
ment in another
Operating Culture Corporate Business/ Business Business/Community Business/Community
Community Non-profit Organization Partnership Partnership
Number of Parcels 690 315 512 540
Date of Start 1997 1997 1999 2003
Mission A safe, clean, attractive, The Golden Triangle Clean, Safe and Accessible We pledge to: Clean, Help,
and user-friendly down- is the premier Beautify, Improve, Defend
town that establishes the business location Capitol Hill
center of Washington as in the heart of the
the premier business, Nations Capital.
cultural, and entertain- The Golden Trian-
ment destination in the gle Business
region, and contributes Improvement Dis-
to the perception that trict is the vision
downtown Washington is and the leader-
a world-class ship which cre-
destination. ates and delivers
services that
assure the contin-
ued success of
the business
community.

57
(Continued)
 Table 1. (Continued)

58
Downtown BID Golden Triangle BID Georgetown BID Capitol Hill BID

Major Programs 1. Public safety 1. Service area by 1. Transportation and parking 1. Consumer marketing
2. Cleanliness, uniformed management services 2. Maintenance
maintenance, hospitality and 2. Street services program 3. Public space regulation
and beautification maintenance (public safety and 4. Social services
3. Place making ambassadors maintenance) 5. Public advocacy
4. Homeless services 2. Collect trash, 3. Streetscape improvements 6. Safety
5. Transportation clean streets, and 4. Marketing and promotion
6. Hospitality remove debris
7. Economic development Monitor status of
street furniture,
lights, etc.
3. Sponsors two
homeless and
outreach workers
4. Partnership with
policing agencies
Budget $9.1m in 2002 $2.7m in 2002 $3.2m in 2002 $.6m in 2003
Revenue $6.9m from BID $2.7m from BID $.2m from assessment $.6m from assessment
assessment assessments $1m from FTA grant
$1.8m from GSA contract $.9m from fares
$.54m from Hotel Tax $.06m rent contribution
$ .6m from tax exempt
properties contribution
(MCI and Convention
Center)
 Staff 85 FTE 3 In-house FTE 4 In-house FTE 6 In-house
25 in HQ 60 with on contract 10 FTE on contract with 16 on contract with social
100 in Street with cleaning cleaning agency service non-profit agency
agency
2 FTE with homeless
org.
Delivery Strategy In-house delivery All but three street Primarily contract for street Primarily contract for street
services positions services services
contracted out.
Two FTE position
supported at social
service non-profit.

59
60 Wolf

The legislation is notable for its permissive character in establishing and

monitoring of BIDs. Once the enabling legislation is passed, the DC govern-
ment cannot turn down an application, provided the proposed BID application
process is followed. The Mayor certifies that the process has been followed,
and if the Mayor does not do it within a certain time, the BID application is
approved. The District law also requires BIDs to submit a report after five
years. This review must report on their first five years of operation and any
new goals and objectives. They must submit it to the Mayors office or desig-
nee. There is also a 25-year sunset provision.
The code defines BIDs as follows:

Business Improvement District or BID means a defined geographic

area in the District in which the preponderance of activity carried out is
commercial or industrial in nature, which does not include any part of
an existing BID previously established pursuant to this subchapter, and
which area consists of not less than 5 contiguous blocks (or the maxi-
mum number of contiguous blocks in cases where there are fewer than 5
contiguous blocks), or noncontiguous commercial blocks within a gen-
erally recognized single neighborhood; provided, that noncontiguous
blocks are not wholly located in an area that is not part of the general
BID area.[8]

The DC law does not stipulate a specific non-profit form, only that the
BIDs must follow the laws of the District creating the BIDs and that they
must be a non profit corporation under the laws of the District and not
part of the DC government. All four BIDs have been established as non-
profit 501(c)6 entities. This is a more permissive form of incorporation than
a 501(c)3 non-profit but does not offer the same the tax benefits as the
501(c)3 form.
The law is also permissive with regard to functions a BID can undertake.
The services mentioned in the law include generally any kind of activity that
will improve the economic viability of the area. However, these activities can-
not create any negative impact on a neighboring residential area. Similar to
BID enabling laws elsewhere, a BIDs services may augment, but cannot
replace, governmental services customarily provided in the regular course of
the Districts operations.[9] Its activities can include but are not limited to the
following programs that BIDs normally provide:

Seasonal promotions such as festivals and special displays

Enhanced maintenance and improvements to public space, including side-
walks, parks, and plazas
Marketing and procurement activities in support of tourism, job creation,
business attraction, development, efficiency, and retention
Retail, restaurant, and arts promotions
Urban Governance and BIDs 61

Services to improve public safety and transportation, such as providing

shuttle buses, community service representatives acting as goodwill ambas-
sadors, and private security services
Development of special signage and storefront and commercial building
facade improvement programs.[10]

The legislation then states that a BID may do anything else that is consistent
with the activities listed above.
If the parcel occupant is an owner or a tenant, they are members of the
BID. Once a BID is established, owners and tenants cannot opt out of the dis-
trict and all must pay the assessments. Residents cannot be members. This
does not mean that community groups can not be involved in the BID activi-
ties. However, at least 51 percent of the governing board must be owners or
tenants. In several District BIDs, resident groups and community non-profits
sit on the board as non-voting ex-officio members.
The legislation also specifies processes for changing the BIDs basic stat-
utory requirements including fees, governance structures, and boundaries.
This goes through essentially the same process for getting approval of the BID
in the first place. Most changes must be passed as amendments to the legisla-
tion that created the specific BID.

Approaches to Organization/Culture and Delivery of Services

The Downtown BID model is most comprehensive in terms of organizational

structure and range of activities. The founders formed the large stand-alone,
non-profit community organization. The concept of corporate community
non-profit best fits this model. The Golden Triangle BID values its business
management strategy. It seeks a lean flexible organization at the center aug-
mented by extensive out-sourcing. The Georgetown BID works in a stable
business community. It supports the business in a manner appropriate to a
well-established historic district and is involved with the residential commu-
nity. At the same time, it has taken on substantial program administration
activities, particularly a transit operation. Finally, the Capitol Hill BID, the
newest BID, operates primarily at the street level. It combines business sup-
port with an active social service component. It is heavily involved with
police and social service units of District government.

Accountability

The major line of accountability for all four BIDs is through the normal link of
non-profits to their boards of directors. Each of the BIDs vary in how much
involvement non-tenants or owners have on the boards. The three smaller
62 Wolf

BIDs work primarily at board level. However, the larger Downtown BID cre-
ated a smaller executive group that has more direct oversight and support
responsibilities than the larger board of directors.
The accountability for the performance of the BIDs through the District
government is benign. The BIDs do have to submit a five-year report and the
DC government can review any proposal to change the assessment rate. Nei-
ther the BIDs nor the District employee who is the official contact with BIDs,
however, see accountability to the District as a major issue. All emphasized
that as long as minimum criteria for performance are met, the District govern-
ment does not get involved. This minimal level of oversight applied to all
BIDs. It appeared to the researcher that unless some special complaints were
raised, this benign approach to accountability to the public agency will con-
tinue. The District government employee reported that the issues of BIDs are
normally non-controversial and that everybody seems happy with BIDs
emergence. He did not foresee any need for more active oversight processes.

A CLOSER LOOK AT EACH BID[11]

The four Washington, DC BIDs offer an opportunity to see both similarities

and differences among central city BIDs. While all are nested in the single
political context of the District Government, each represents different micro-
contexts with special histories and leadership as well as social and economic
challenges. Consequently, they vary in scope of resources, stated missions,
activities, and approaches to providing services.

The Downtown BID

The area that eventually became the Downtown BID was located in the heart
of what was the major retail section of downtown Washington prior to the
1960s. All the large department stores had their flagship stores in the area. By
the time of the urban disturbances in April 1968, this area had already begun
to deteriorate. This decline continued through the 1980s. New development
bypassed the area and was taking place out in the suburbs or in other areas
west of the old downtown around K Street between 16th Street and Georgetown.
Construction of the early sections of a mass transit system, the METRO, laid
the foundation for what would eventually become a major economic rebirth of
this section of downtown. The new MCI center, an arena for major league
hockey and basketball teams home games under the ownership of Abe Polin,
became the most visible signal that the area between the White House and
Union Station was about to take off.
In the late 1980s, a group named the Downtown Partnership studied the
feasibility of creating a BID in the area. However, John Wilson, a powerful
Urban Governance and BIDs 63

DC councilman, opposed BIDs and his committee prevented the legislation

from getting to the City Council. In 1991 and 1992, the legislation was sent
to a different committee for review. A BID enabling bill was passed but
declared unconstitutional. By this time, the idea of BIDs had supporters in
the City Council and the Office of the Mayor, and shortly thereafter, the city
attorneys wrote legislation that could withstand a constitutional review.
However, the legislation remained in limbo. The Downtown Partnership,
which included the key developers for the area, continued to lobby for the
creation of a downtown BID. With the cooperation of the District Govern-
ment and voluntary contributions the effort to create the Downtown BID
was kept alive.
Opposition came from some several groups. Some property owners, most
notably the large parking lot owners, opposed the idea because of cost. Also,
some of the community leaders opposed what they saw as a private govern-
ment. Some residents thought that the business would exclude residential
development.
In 1994, Herbert Mills founded the Interactive Downtown Task Force
that was made up of key business leaders in the area. This group put up
$50,000 and recruited national and local retail leaders operating in the area
to join them. The District government supported but did not lead the group.
Mills brought in a group facilitator to get the group started and set up task
forces to organize the process for establishing a BID. Another group was
set up to lead the implementation and came up with the conceptual plan. In
January 1997, the group received additional support of $250,000 from 13
key business leaders in the area. It was considered risk money. If the BID
was launched, the 13 leaders would get their money back. They were able
to get the approval of the required 51 percent of assessed value and twenty-
five percent of individual property owners. This petition effort was not as
difficult as might appear, because the parcels were large, and therefore, the
proposal only required support of a fraction of total parcels. The group
quickly passed this threshold, and was able to complete the petition in two
months. After more than 15 years in the making, the Downtown BID was
launched in 1997. It took only one year once the District passed the
enabling legislation.[12]
At the time, the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA), a large
presence in the area, used the good neighbor policy of the Clinton Administra-
tion that encouraged federal agencies to be an active part of the BID. GSAs
participation was important because, it would include the Federal Triangle, a
significant amount of real estate.
The mission statement of the Downtown BID captures its sense of itself
as being at the heart of downtown DC. It seeks a safe, clean, attractive and
user-friendly downtown that establishes the center of Washington as the pre-
mier business, cultural and entertainment destination in the region, and con-
tributes to the perception that downtown Washington is a world-class
64 Wolf

destination.[13] The Downtown BID, the largest of the District BIDs, also
provides the widest range of program and services. They include:

A public safety program that provides for over 100 street safety and mainte-
nance workers (SAMs), and that works closely to connect the large number
of public and private safety and crime prevention organizations operating in
the areas.
A cleanliness, maintenance, and beautification program that provides for
SAM workers to do street cleaning and graffiti removal
A place making program that includes street landscaping, signage, and other
physical amenities
A homeless services outreach program that employs case-workers to get
homeless in transition programs
A transportation services program that produces guides for parking and mass
transit and, in collaboration with local public and private organizations, pro-
vides alternative transit services to relieve commuter travel and free up more
opportunities for commercial parking during the day and evening.
Marketing and communications efforts that produce special materials and
events
Economic development initiatives that include collecting data and preparing
materials to encourage development.

The BID is currently proposing a major transit program that would involve the
creation of a Transportation Management Association. The idea is to reduce
the number of commuter vehicles during the work-day and to increase parking
for retail operations.
With a budget of slightly over $9 million in 2002, the Downtown BID
operates the largest BID organization in the District. As with most BIDs, the
Downtown BIDs revenue comes primarily from assessments on building and
hotel rooms ($ 7.5 million). Its other key source of revenue is from a GSA
contract which reimburses the BID for the same services provided to other
business tenants in the area ($1.8 million).
Unlike other BIDs in the District of Columbia, the Downtown BID does
not contract for its safety and maintenance function with a private firm. The
Downtown BID delivers these services directly. At one time the Downtown
BID did outsource portions of the work, but changed its practice and now
delivers services directly. It has over 125 employees (85 FTE). This includes
100 sanitation and safety workers. Its headquarters staff supports many func-
tions of most large business/community non-profits including planning, pro-
gramming and public affairs. The BID is very aware of its position as an area
that includes major national and local business organizations. It presents itself
to the public as an organization with substance, and the offices have a corpo-
rate feel. The leadership actively engages in building relationships with the
key business and political leaders of the community.
Urban Governance and BIDs 65

Golden Triangle BID

The Golden Triangle BID serves an area immediately west of the Downtown
BID. This area of the city was the first to benefit from an office boom during
the 1970s and early 1980s. It features modern 10 story side-by-side office
buildings along with several hotels. It has no residential section. Founded in
1997 shortly after the Downtown BID, the Golden Triangle took a different
approach to getting launched. The initiative for creating the BID came from
six local property owners. They hired a law firm to complete all the necessary
legal and organizational work. The firm took the account on a contingency
basis, to be paid only if the BID was successfully formed. The District Gov-
ernment was not that involved. These business leaders kept the councilman
informed, but not much more. The business leaders and law firm worked with
the city to the extent that it had to go through the process and meet legal
requirements and the legislation approved.
The early backers were the principle building owners of some of the larg-
est properties. While the proposal did not generate any concerted opposition,
selling the idea did take considerable effort. The process for creating the BID
took about one year.
The stated mission for the Golden Triangle area is to be the premier
business location in the heart of the Nations Capital. The Golden Triangle
Business Improvement District is the vision and the leadership which creates
and delivers services that assure the continued success of the business com-
munity. It operates on a budget of $2.7 million, practically all of which
comes directly from the assessments of BID members. It sees itself as an orga-
nization that serves the business community so that they can be successful. Its
programs reflect this ideal. The goals include providing hospitality, cleaning
and promotional services that supplement basic services provided by the city
of Washington. The goals also state that the BID seeks to stimulate busi-
ness, attract tourism, encourage cultural activities and to support these activi-
ties through communication and promotional activities, and to provide a
welcoming, safer, and cleaner well managed Golden Triangle neighborhood.
The four main program areas of this BID include:

Ambassador program including uniformed hospitality and maintenance

ambassadors who receive training offering information, responding to
safety and emergency problems, and forwarding information to appropriate
agencies
Clean Teams that collects trash, operates cleaning machines, remove graffiti
within 24 hours, provide landscaping, maintenance of public furniture and
fixtures, remove general debris from sidewalks, and report and track light-
ing problems
Outreach program that sponsors two homeless and outreach workers in part-
nership with a coalition of community groups
66 Wolf

A BID safety council that partners with policing agencies to educate local
business, provide information, and pressure the city for services.

The operating philosophy and strategies of this BID reflects an identity

that values, above all, competently managed services. It values being lean,
flexible, and efficient. Operating more like a network organization than a stan-
dard hierarchical one, it sees itself very much as a private business organiza-
tion, and tries hard not to see itself as part or, even in much of a partnership,
with city bureaucracy. Its organizational approach is to contract for everything
possible. While it has 64 FTEs working on BID projects, over 75 percent of
the budget and 90 percent of personnel work through contracts with outside
organizations. Close attention is given to training these workers to measure up
to the standards specified by the BID. Rather than offering its own programs
for homeless populations, it pays for two social workers that are part of a local
community service agency.

Georgetown BID

The Georgetown BID has its own special character that reflects the kind of
area it serves. The historic Georgetown area has long been a stable community
consisting of a large number of retail and restaurant establishments along two
main streets and an established high-income residential community. In the last
two decades, more intense commercial and residential projects have been built
along the Potomac River.
The Georgetown Business and Professional Association (GBPA), now 25
years old, did what the BIDs did before the Georgetown BID was established.
The interest in a BID was advanced in part by the creation of the Downtown
and Golden Triangle BIDs. In addition, some of the members of the GBPA
had experience with New York City BIDs and this heightened their interest in
establishing a Georgetown BID. Max Berry, a leader in the Association was a
key person in this movement. The GBFA paid for the start up costs, including
an interim staff, and worked to sell the BID to these different communities. As
was the case with the other BIDs, the District government did not play any
significant leadership role in getting the Georgetown BID established,
although critical political support did come from two key councilpersons.
It took almost three years and three rounds of petition to get the required
support from the different communities in Georgetown. This delay was caused
in part by the presence of two different business groups in the area. The group
south of M Street and the Potomac River included large developers of newer
projects while those north of M Street were mostly smaller, often long-
established business. The big developers were worried that they would get
substantial tax liabilities. To meet this objection, the BID legislation contained
a provision that the basis for the fees would be capped for five years, except
Urban Governance and BIDs 67

when a business was sold or substantially upgraded. The legislation allowed

for a five percent annual increase, but the Georgetown BID has deliberately
avoided this option.
The Georgetown BID had an operating budget of $3.2 million in 2002. Of
that amount, only $1.2 million came from assessments. The rest of the funds
came from a transit operation that includes a federal grant and income from bus
fares. The Georgetown BID is the only one of the four BIDs in the District with a
significant transportation role. It operates a Shuttle Bus Program, and is funded
as a reverse commute program under the federal welfare reform program. The
program was directly funded by the Federal Transit Administration, and consti-
tutes the largest element of the BID activities. The BIDs programs include:

Transportation program. In addition to the transit bus operation, the BID

provides parking and tourist information.
The Street services program. Includes a public safety and maintenance pro-
gram supported by Public Safety Guides who work with the police to report
issues. They also manage trash receptacles, clean sidewalks daily, and
remove graffiti.
Street improvement activities. The BID secured a $9 million grant from the
District government to fund streetscape improvements. Once completed, the
BID will manage the improvements.
Marketing and promotion activities for its merchants in the area.

The BID works with a staff of 14 persons. Four work full-time with the
BID and the other are on contract with Service Group Inc., a maintenance firm
that works with a large number of BIDs in the country. The Service Group
Inc. is preferred because the BID believes that the contractor and its employ-
ees understand that they are working in public space, and that they know how
to work with the public.
Several community groups sit as non-voting members on the board of
directors. This involvement from the community groups reflects the particular
culture of Georgetown: informal, community-based, and comfortable. The com-
munity groups are influential and active in all of Georgetown activities, includ-
ing the BID. The neighborhood advisory groups and Georgetown University
Hospital are very active participants with the BID. There is a very active e-mail
list among citizen groups and the BID is closely involved with this process.
While there is active neighborhood involvement, there is not a great deal of
involvement with the DC government outside of the streetscape grant.

Capitol Hill BID

The Capitol Hill BID is the newest of the four District BIDs. The BID area
includes property located immediately east of the Downtown BID and starts at
68 Wolf

Union Station and extends southeast toward the Anacostia River. Much of the
character of this BID is captured by the BID office that is located in a trailer
on the Union Station Parking Garage property. It has a gritty street-level
quality. Unlike the Downtown and Golden Triangle, there are few large own-
ers. It is located around the U.S. Capitol complex of buildings but, unlike the
Downtown BID, the federal government does not participate in BID activities
nor does it contribute financial support.
Proponents of creating this BID INC both merchants and professional
people in the area. Like the Georgetown BID, the Capitol Hill BID experi-
enced difficulty getting the idea accepted by the community. Also, like the
Georgetown BID, it was an existing business group. The economic develop-
ment committee of the Hill Business Association took the lead to get the BID
established. George Didden, the current president of the BID, was president of
a small local bank, National Capital Bank President, and along with a few
other business persons pushed for the BIDs establishment. The District Gov-
ernment did provide the necessary liaison to move legislation through the leg-
islative process, but as with the other BIDs, the District government was not a
significant actor in the BIDs creation.
The area served by the Capitol Hill BID has the largest mix of commer-
cial and residential groups. The Capitol Hill area is the only area among the
four BID areas left with substantial problems of housing and commercial
areas in need of re-development, and includes lower economic residents. This
BIDs mission statement reflects these conditions: We pledge to: Clean,
Help, Beautify, Improve, Defend Capitol Hill. While it may not be intended,
the defend phrase is clearly a distinctive one compared to the other three
BIDs. The area has a rougher edge and its operation encounters difficult
social and economic challenges. A visit to the offices of the BID also gives the
impression of a BID much more down in the trenches than the other three.
The initial budget for 2003 was $ 600,000. The programs include:

Capital improvements including street improvements, lighting, street furni-

ture, and tree protection
Planning for street, traffic, sidewalk, and recreational facilities
Consumer marketing through promotion of festivals, events, maps, and
newsletters
Economic development, including marketing and economic research, facilitat-
ing development planning, preparing documents needed for public decisions
Maintenance including trash collection, graffiti removal, sidewalk cleaning,
snow shoveling, and tree trimming
Security efforts, including security guards, electronic security, and collabo-
ration with local police.

The District government does play an important role in the BIDs safety and
cleanliness program by providing indirect support for this BIDs unique
Urban Governance and BIDs 69

approach to securing and paying for its workers. The District has a contract
with a New York social rehabilitation group, Ready, Willing and Able. This
non-profit organization recruits homeless people from the area to enter a reha-
bilitation program. As part of this program, Ready, Willing and Able contracts
with the BID to provide 16 workers. This involvement by Ready, Willing and
Able is made possible by an agreement the District has (including financial
support) to bring the non-profit into the District. This is important for two rea-
sons. First, it is an intensive social service program for homeless in the area.
The services include providing living, social services, and employment oppor-
tunities. Second, the cost of the workers salaries is supplemented indirectly by
the Districts contract (approximately $150,000) with Ready, Willing and
Able. It also employs six personnel that work directly for the BID.

CONCLUSION: BIDs, GOVERNANCE, AND PUBLIC

ADMINISTRATION

The review of the four BIDs in the District of Columbia raises important ques-
tions concerning their role in urban governance and also how they relate to
new governance ideas. First, in what ways are they consistent with new gover-
nance preference for public/private partnerships? How do they differ from
ways that local governments have traditionally worked with business and
community groups? Second, do they represent an enduring alternative struc-
ture to the traditional governmental actors in metropolitan areas. Put another
way, what is the level of institutionalization of the BID organizational form?
Finally, how do BIDs fit into public administration at the municipal and met-
ropolitan levels? What is the nature of their publicness? The responses to
these questions can indicate if and how BIDs are on their way to becoming
important partners in metropolitan governance.

What Kind of Public/Private Partnerships Do BIDs Represent?

Enthusiasts of urban regime theory and new governance emphasize the use of
networks of public/private partnerships to enhance metropolitan governance,
and BIDs may be an ideal form of such public/private partnerships. Each of
the Washington, DC BIDs is a network of businesses supported by guaranteed
financial resources and competent professional staffs. Each pursues a broad
menu of services that complement urban governments programs. The busi-
ness partners work together, with local governments and other community
groups to address crime, transportation, environmental and human service
issues.
Davies and Skelchers distinction between policy partnerships and
implementation partnerships[14,15] offered a useful framework for examining
70 Wolf

the nature of BID partnerships. Some of the Washington BIDs do periodically

get involved in traditional policy advocacy and participate with the district in
policy development, which fits the model of a policy partnership. This seems
particularly true of the Downtown BID. It is large, has an extensive program,
and represents important business groups in the community. The Downtown
BID is willing to take on more ambitious projects that require extensive policy
development and close cooperation with the District political and agency lead-
ers. A projected transit project is an example of a BID acting as part of a pol-
icy partnership.
Once established, however, the four Washington, DC BIDs more often
resemble implementation partnerships than policy partnerships with the Dis-
trict Government and its agencies. Apart from the marketing and promotional
activities that resemble traditional merchants associations, most of their work
involves direct contact, or at least implicit coordination with local govern-
ments. The major elements of their work constitute on-the-ground manage-
ment partnerships. All four BIDs operate clean and safe street program using
street-level workers. Three are involved in programs for the homeless by
either providing direct services or working with district and other non-profit
agencies. Each BID cooperates with the District police department to work on
reducing crime in their areas. The Georgetown transit directly administers
grants from the U.S. Department of Transportation. In each of these cases, the
BID is part of an implementation partnership with either the District or federal
government as well as with other not-for-profit organizations.
At one level then, these BIDs have become vital and strong actors in the
business/local government partnership. At the same time, however, the rela-
tionship of the BIDs with the District government seems both more complex
and to some extent less of an actual partnership than an ideal new governance
model might suggest. The kinds of working relationships between the BIDs
and the District Government are still emerging. Ambiguity and apparent con-
tradictions are part of the relationships. This is in part because the partnerships
seem self-consciously distant. This distancing operates from both sides. The
BIDs professional staffs, particularly the executive directors, seem to eschew
any close identification with the District or other governmental institutions.
Most see themselves as part of the private sector and not part of government.
This creates a sense of distance from government agencies. While this may be
due in part to efforts to enhance legitimacy in the business community, this
identity does minimize the partnership with government and emphasizes the
partnership among the business organizations themselves. Each BID execu-
tive emphasized the non-profit and private quality of their organizations.
Professional BID leaders noted that they were not hampered by the constraints
that local governments face, and didnt think that they were extensively
involved with the District government. These BID leaders noted that their
efforts were not governmental and they avoided being identified as part of a
government project.
Urban Governance and BIDs 71

There also appears to be distancing from the District government perspec-

tive. The benign relationship between the District government and the BIDs,
particularly as they relate to formal accountability, suggests less of an active
partnership and more of a hands-off oversight relationship. To a consider-
able extent, the District Government shows no intention of playing the active
accountability role that the enabling legislation allows, and perhaps for that
reason, both sides appear to minimize the various accountability mechanisms
requiring periodic reporting and review of the BIDs.
At the same time, and somewhat paradoxically, the relationship between
the BIDs and the District agencies represent less of new governance and public/
private partnerships than might first appear. In a very real sense the BIDs act
as extensions of local government activities that, for one or another reason, the
city government does not provide. The BIDs programs extend, become part
of, or complement routine local government services. They act more like aux-
iliaries to the government agencies than full partners in governance. Public
safety committees with local police working with BID workers exemplify this
element of their work. Other programs could just as easily be local govern-
ment activities, including graffiti removal and sidewalk maintenance. At best,
these relationships represent more a low-level governance. Other activities
represent even a more direct involvement of BIDs as agents of government
programs. The Georgetown transit program funded by welfare reform funds
illustrates this approach. The Capitol Hill BIDs public safety program and
contract with Ready, Willing and Able brings it very close District agency
programs. From a local governments perspective, the BIDs could be seen as a
smart local government management strategy more than any kind of public/
private partnership among equals.
All this suggests that the partnership relationship that finally emerges
between the BIDs and the District agencies is still in a state of development. In
all likelihood, the partnerships will continue to exhibit characteristics of imple-
mentation partnership, autonomous business network organizations, and exten-
sions of local government. What is not yet clear is the relative emphasis of these
different elements in the relationship between the BIDs and the District.

Do BIDs Share Core Elements, and Is an Institutionalization Process

Occurring?

The four BIDs share a set of role identities, a cultural element, and programs
operating strategies that are consistent with Mitchells framework for character-
izing BID organizational cultures he finds elsewhere.[16] These include:

Entrepreneurial. An emphasis on program growth and risk-taking

Managerial. An emphasis on business-like efficient and effective providing
of BID services
72 Wolf

Urban Policy Makers. An emphasis on the BID as an important player in the

policy arenas of local government and a willingness to try to influence poli-
cies and a play leadership role
Community/Business Partnership. An emphasis on the BID as part of the
broader community, and willing to be involved in various community issues
and efforts.

These elements are present in all four BIDs, even though each BID empha-
sizes different elements. The Golden Triangle embraces the managerial ele-
ment more than others. This BID prides itself on an efficient business-like
operation and on not being hampered by bureaucratic barriers. The Downtown
BID plays more of a policy-maker role. It is involved in large development
and transportation policy issues that go beyond the specific concerns of the
BID area. The Georgetown BID is characteristic of the community/business
partnership approach. It is actively involved in the various community net-
works and recognizes that in an established stable community, it must work in
concert with other community groups. It is most difficult to identify what
Mitchell calls the entrepreneurial element. This seems to operate most heavily
in the early stages of a BIDs development. As they develop their agendas and
programs, they need to concern themselves more with the other three elements
that focus on these on-going activities.
Beyond the four District BIDs, Business Improvement Districts have
begun to look somewhat similar throughout the country. So, while there are
some program differences among the DC BIDs, each can refer to similar
BIDs in other cities who act as referents for how they think about their
organizations and programs. Houstons survey of BIDs illustrated many
common features. His findings suggested a merging of BID types as they
involve structures, programs, and operating strategies.[17] This tendency of
BIDs to resemble each other is reflected in the four District of Columbia
BIDs. Throughout the country, BIDs appear to be in the early process of
institutionalization as an urban governance organizational form. BIDs are
copying each others approachesa critical dimension of institutionaliza-
tion.[18] Through the work of the International Downtown Association, con-
ferences, professional contacts among BID professionals, and creation of
best practices among BIDs, the forms and processes adopted by BIDs
are converging. The emphasis on the legitimizing myths of being private
and not government, of being capable and non-bureaucratic and, offering
value for the dollar all offer legitimacy in the BIDs institutional urban
environment.
Hoyt and her colleagues at MIT have also suggested that BIDs are
becoming institutionalized at an international level. They identified substan-
tial number of BID and BID-like organizations in Canada, Britain, New
Zealand, and South Africa. Overall, she identified over 800 BID organizations
in these countries.[19]
Urban Governance and BIDs 73

The range of programs varies to some extent, but increasingly they cluster
around public safety, marketing, transportation and sidewalk cleanliness. This
creates a common framework that BIDs use to make sense of their work and
use to create operating strategies. The extent and persistence of this mimick-
ing (isomorphic) behavior[20] will determine in large part the future develop-
ment of these forms of urban governance.

To What Extent Are BIDs and Their Programs an Integral Part of Urban
Public Administration?

This writer agrees with those who see BIDs as part of the public administra-
tion enterprise at the municipal and the broader metropolitan levels. Despite a
preference by BIDs for developing a private sector identity, BIDs, neverthe-
less, are deeply embedded in urban governance processes on the sub-municipal
level. As Hawkins, Percy, and Montreal have argued, BIDs have become
nested governance organizations and are part of intergovernmental systems.[21]
The compacts are officially sanctioned intergovernmental agreements
involving state government as well.[22] The very creation of these units has a
heavy state component and reflects the results of a negotiated process
between property owners and renters, on the one hand, and the city and state
officials, on the other.[23] In very real ways, they are an integral part of local
governance and the delivery of governmental services. In addition to their cre-
ation that requires both state and usually local government action, they are
usually reviewed periodically by local government oversight bodies, their fees
are collected through local governments, and they often cooperate with and
supplement government services. Their members must pay fees based on gov-
ernment assessments. In many instances they share authority with public
agencies as well as deliver services.
Beyond their founding, Briffault argued that the separation of the public
from the private often seen by some promoters of BIDs is exaggerated. He
notes that BID activities promote:

the publics use and enjoyment of the streets, parks, squares and
other public spaces that are at the heart of urban living, BIDswhatever
their place on the public-private continuumcan enhance the public
environment and contribute to an enrichment of the public life. First,
BIDs are public entities. Their most critical power, the power that dis-
tinguishes them from chambers of commerce and downtown business
partnerships and that is most responsible for their effectiveness, is the
public power of coercive taxation a power generally wielded by
municipalities on the BIDs behalf. BIDs are created by public govern-
ments in a process in which their boundaries, programs, finances and
governance structures are shaped by government decisions. The best
74 Wolf

argument for exempting BIDs from one person, one vote is that the dis-
tricts are subordinate to city governments. So, too, one of the reasons
BIDs have succeeded in repelling state constitutional challenges to their
assessments is the state court practice of deferring to city decisions con-
cerning assessments. The successes of BIDs in raising funds and deliv-
ering services are as much a testimony to the ingenuity of the public
sector in designing public institutions and enabling them to secure new
resources for the support of public amenities as evidence of the sup-
posed superiority of private.[24]

Ultimately, BIDs are part of urban governance and public administration.

They have a special quality because they are public entities but they are man-
aged by private non-profit entities. Their emergence presents many opportuni-
ties for addressing persistent urban problems. While, from a legitimacy
concern, BIDs may opt to emphasize the private and business non-profit ele-
ments of their identity, the enterprise of urban governance will be advanced
when this new governance form is also placed within a public administration
context.

REFERENCES AND NOTES

1. Stoker, G. Governance as Theory: Five Propositions. International Social

Science Journal 1998, 50 (155), 1719.
2. Stoker (1998).
3. Rhodes, R. A. The New Governance: Governing Without Government.
Political Studies 1996, XLIV, 652667.
4. Stone, C. Regime Politics; Kansas University Press: Lawrence, Kansas, 1989.
5. Wheeler, S. M. The New Regionalism: Key Characteristics of an Emerg-
ing Movement. Journal of the American Planning Association 1994, 68
(3), 267278.
6. Mitchell, J. Business Improvement Districts and the Management of
Innovation. American Review of Public Administration 2001, 31 (2),
201217.
7. District of Columbia Official Code 2001 Edition, Division I, Government
of District, Title 2. Government Administration, Chapter 12. Business
and Economic Development, Subchapter VIII. Business Improvement
Districts. http://dccode.westgroup.com/home/dccodes/default.wl.
8. District of Columbia Official Code (2001).
9. District of Columbia Official Code (2001).
10. District of Columbia Official Code (2001).
11. Source: The sources for the details about the BIDs presented in this
section came from the individual BIDs reports and websites unless other-
wise noted.
Urban Governance and BIDs 75

12. Source: Downtown BID staff member interview.

13. Source: Downtown BID documents.
14. Davies, J. S. The Governance of Urban Regeneration: A Critique of the
Governing Without Government Thesis. Public Administration 1999,
80 (2), 301322.
15. Skelcher, C. Community Networks in Urban Regeneration; Rowntree
Foundation: York, England, 1996.
16. Mitchell, J. Business Improvement Districts and the New Revitaliza-
tion of Downtown. Economic Development Quarterly 2001, 15 (2),
115123.
17. Houstoun, L. O. J. BIDs: Business Improvement Districts, 2nd Ed.; The
Urban Land Institute in cooperation with the International Downtown
Association: Washington, D.C., 2003.
18. Scott, W. R. Institutions and Organizations, 2nd Ed.; Sage Publications:
Thousand Oaks, California, 2000.
19. Hoyt, L. M. The Business Improvement District: An Internationally Dif-
fused Approach. Cambridge, Massachusetts; Department of Urban Stud-
ies and Planning, Massachusetts Institute of Technology: Cambridge,
Massachusetts, 2003.
20. Scott (2000).
21. Hawkins, B. W.; Percy, S.; Montreal, S. Residential Community Asso-
ciations and the American Intergovernmental System. Publius 1996, 27,
6174.
22. Briffault, R. A. Government for Our Time? Business Improvement Dis-
tricts and Urban Governance. Columbia Law Review 1999, 99, 365.
23. Baer, S. E.; Marando, V. L. The Subdistricting of Cities: Applying the
Polycentric Model. Urban Affairs Review 2001, 36 (5), 721723.
24. Briffault (1999).