Why Ken Briggs Opposes Easton's Downtown Improvement Tax

It's hard for me to think of any program has been more successful for Easton than the Main Street Initiative, as well as the City's smiling Ambassadors, who do it all, from weeding flower beds to giving directions. It's hard to deny that these two programs are largely responsible for Easton's metamorphosis from dying urban core to re-energized river town. But as funding sources dry up, there's some controversy over a proposed neighborhood improvement district that would foot the bill for these enterprises.

According to The Express Times, 550 taxable properties in this district will be assessed 6.95 mills, which will lead to a property tax increase in this area.

Is it worth it?

Hey, I don't live there. But author and Lafayette College Adjunct Professor Ken Briggs does, and given me an advance copy of his remarks to Easton City Council.

"I’m here this evening to oppose the proposal to impose a special tax on those of us property owners who have been targeted as allegedly living within the Downtown Neighborhood Improvement District.

"My reasons for opposing this tax include the following three conclusions:

"* The process is un-democratic and arbitrary. Though apparently sanctioned by the state, it seems likely to be judged illegal. The boundaries that designate the Improvement District have no credible basis. They are drawn without sufficient rationale. So far as I’m aware, nobody on the city council lives within this so-called district and therefore wouldn’t be subject to the added tax. Yet the council presumes the authority to levy a tax on other citizens, a minority singled out for a special burden without their consent. This is patently unfair in my opinion, and runs against democratic principles.

"* The proposed tax isn’t tied to services provided and unjustly aids a special interest. While I applaud the Ambassadors, for example, the program has no bearing on my existence such that I feel responsible for purchasing it as a service. The council has every right to make me pay for services in connection with my decision to set up a fruit stand in the Circle, but would result from my choice. By contrast, dictating that I must pay for services I haven’t chosen or from which I don’t benefit is coercive. If those who profit from the improvement want services such as the Ambassadors for themselves, they should pay for them.

"* The proposed tax, to my way of thinking, further divides the city of Easton. The city is already sorely split economically, socially and racially. The proposed tax worsens this situation by asking me and others outside that special interest to subsidize its free enterprise zone that includes downtown business and high-end development and College Hill. It is a strategy designed to enhance an island of affluence with scant regard for sea of struggling residents who surround it. There is no serious attempt to look at improvement of Easton as a whole. The prosperity project, self-serving as it is, has a right to exist and pursue its ends, but I don’t believe I should be asked to support an enterprise that isn’t concerned for greater Easton. How is it possible to claim that the city is undergoing revival, for example, when virtually no living wage jobs are being created and profits are mostly in the hands of non-residents? The proposed tax would in my opinion further fracture the city’s social fabric and increase alienation.

"I take my position because I care about the ideals embodied in the Declaration of Independence that was read in this place when the ink upon it was barely dry – and in the belief that the major improvements taken by this city ought to serve the common good rather than boost the fortunes of the few. I hope that the limited scope of development will be expanded through the auspices of the many good people in this city. Improvement only means success if and when a rising tide indeed does lift all boats."