1. + San Francisco’s Community Benefit District (CBD) Program Christine Jung, PA800 Capstones Course

2. + Introduction to Business Improvement Districts Business Improvement Districts are public/private partnerships between government, property and business owners Property and business owners pay special assessments to create a stable revenue source for the provision of supplemental activities and improvements within district boundaries Supplemental services include, but are not limited to: public safety, public realm cleanliness, beautification, marketing, advocacy, and economic development Emerged as a revitalization approach in the 1960s to address the declining urban center, especially in the downtown areas Popular urban revitalization strategy and approach

3. + Introduction to SF’s CBD Program San Francisco has its own version of the business improvement district model – Community Benefits District (CBD) program There are currently 12 CBDs in San Francisco Neighborhood Specific: Castro/Upper Market, Central Market, Civic Center, Fisherman’s Wharf, Mission Miracle Mile, Noe Valley, Ocean Avenue, North of Market/Tenderloin, Union Square, and Yerba Buena City Wide: Tourism Improvement District

4. +

5. + SF’s CBDs Cont. Through its 2012 Impact Analysis, the Office of Economic and Workforce Development (OEWD) found: Following service implementation, on average, CBDs/BIDs outperformed citywide trends on the majority of studied indicators, including public realm cleanliness, public safety, and economic resiliency On average, CBD/BID-maintained streets were found to be cleaner than similar commercial streets located in the same Supervisorial District CBDs/BIDs have experienced declining crime prevalence similar to current citywide trends CBDs/BIDs were insulated from the effects of the 07/09 recession The scale of CBD/BID operations is correlated with the level of improvement

6. + Literature Review Public/Private Partnership – Neo-liberalism BIDs perform and function a lot like government (i.e. ability to tax, provide traditionally governmental services, etc.), but are not a part of government structure Issues of Accountability Are BIDs accountable because of their public/private nature? With governing body, required reports (i.e. financial audits, performance reports), and policies that govern BIDs, they are held democratically accountable

7. + Literature Review Cont. Impacts of Business Improvement Districts Performance metrics published by D.C.’s BIDs show substantial evidence of management and growth improvements in their neighborhoods (Lewis, 2010) It is hard to exactly measure the impact of business improvement districts because there is often a presence of other economic development agencies, not to mention private sector initiatives (Mitchell, 2001).

8. + Literature Review Cont. Socio-Economic and Spatial Inequality Lewis (2010) looked at Washington D.C.’s BIDs and its socio- economic and spatial inequality Although he carefully points out that BIDs are not the exclusive cause of D.C.’s inequalities, their ability to raise revenue in neighborhoods that have groups of willing business owners who can afford the assessment tax contributes to this divide between neighborhoods and people (Lewis, 2010, p. 190).

9. + San Francisco, CA San Francisco has become very successful in marketing itself off as a place to live for the well off and a place for companies to be headquartered (Reflected by housing prices & median income) However, neighborhoods are still divided by socio-economic and racial groups Ex. Bayview-Hunter’s Point Home to SF’s largest African American population More people living in public housing and/or on public assistance Bayview Merchants Association

10. + Issues with CBDs The independent sector is not responsible for acting in the best interest of everybody CBDs are not established in every neighborhood SF’s Office of Workforce and Economic Development found that districts with greater resources are more likely to have higher improvement/revitalization outcomes Suggests that wealthy neighborhoods will continue to revitalize whereas the City’ and County’s more marginalized neighborhoods will continue to decline

11. + Conclusion: Things to Think About While CBDs are not solely responsible for the disparities between San Francisco’s neighborhoods, they do not alleviate the problem After carefully evaluating San Francisco’s CBD program, there seems to be a need for more pro-active progressive government involvement in urban revitalization while promoting community members’ levels of participation Future Research: How can local government and neighborhood associations revitalize communities that need the most help?