DN Editorial: New Neighborhood Improvement District gets hearing

ON THE SCARE-O-METER, one thing trumps any Zombie invasion or vampire infestation, and that's the prospect of a property -tax increase.

The fear of having anyone pay more property tax is the looming monster that has, in fact, contributed to our broken property tax system; the fact that fixing it will likely change people's tax bill has kept the unfair and flawed status quo in place for years past its expiration date.

Now, the same fears are driving a discussion about a proposed Neighborhood Improvement District (NID), which will be taken up Thursday by City Council.

Using the successful Center City District as a model, this NID would add a tax surcharge to residents of the Callowhill-Chinatown North neighborhood to pay for improvements like street lighting and trash cleanup. Other improvement districts draw heavily on businesses for support; this is the first that will tax a large number of residents. That's probably why there are some fireworks surrounding the intiatitive. Councilman Frank DiCicco who represents the district, has addressed some objections; those changes will be the subject of Thursday's 1:30 p.m.hearing.

While this tax would target a particular neighborhood, the hearing should be of interest to all residents, because a question that naturally arises is "if lighting and cleanup aren't covered by property taxes, what the heck is?" That's not to say we oppose the NID idea, but if property taxes no longer cover basic services, we should have a clear idea of what they do cover, and how that redefines our expectations of government.

It's fair to wonder if this NID is yet another workaround to compensate for the failings of the property tax system; if so, wouldn't it make sense to make any improvement districts temporary until full valuation is put into place? That assumes that one of the goals of fixing the property-tax system is to better cover city services.

All that said, the NID, since it was generated from members of the community, could be a creative way of thinking about how we take care of our city, a block at a time.

The heat in this debate has also generated a mistaken notion that this tax would be used to fund the transformation of the Reading Viaduct into a park. That's not the case, which is a good thing, since the creation of public space should include the public at large, not just individual neighborhoods. The Reading Viaduct Park idea is a good one, and the city should continue exploring creative ways to make it a reality.

We hope it ultimately comes under the custody of the Parks and Rec Department, since that department is charged not only with administering our parks, but adding a layer of protection for our public spaces. If Thursday's hearing helps people understand this distinction, all the more reason to attend.