Editor’s note: This commentary is by Betsy McGavisk, who is a senior at the University of Vermont and co-chair of the UVM Progressives.
[E]arlier this month, Mayor Miro Weinberger proposed a charter change for a Downtown Improvement District (DID) in Burlington, a proposal that mirrors what thousands of cities across America have done to put private interests above the needs of the public. The plan entails privatizing Church Street Marketplace, the public oversight office of Church Street, and expanding its boundaries beyond Church Street’s walkable blocks to the 38 blocks between South Winooski Avenue to Lake Street, and Main Street to Pearl Street. Currently, Church Street Marketplace has a budget of $1 million and is funded by a “tax” levied on the ground-level businesses of Church Street.
The most recent proposal for the DID emphasizes that the new funds will provide “enhanced services” for the businesses paying into the nonprofit organization. These amenities include increased private services (street cleaning, marketing) and private security. While everyone deserves to live in a place that is well-maintained and safe, the proposed funding mechanism for these services may have unintended consequences and begs the question: Will everyone actually will reap these benefits or are individuals being left out?
The intended result of the DID is a return on investment for the business-owners from increased sales and property values. While business owners would be making well-defined payments into this system, Burlington renters will be left shouldering costs in less obvious ways. Property values have risen an average of 15 percent in similar districts, and rent prices inevitably follow. Working-class people get priced out in favor of the wealthy who have more disposable income to spend at the businesses in the DID. Furthermore, DIDs are notorious for increased private policing and surveillance of homeless community members, a problem that will likely be exacerbated as rents (and evictions) increase.
According to the most recently available census data, about 60 percent of Burlington residents are renters, and the housing stock remains tight; Chittenden County’s vacancy rate is a low 1.7 percent. Due to this pressure, landlords can keep prices high, the conditions poor, yet units remain filled. With such a low vacancy rate, landlords can pass off any increased property tax to renters and can hike up rents for being in a more prime area. While homeowners would also likely have to pay increased property taxes, they are otherwise incentivized to favor increasing property values. Homes, typically the biggest assets individuals own, are one of the most common forms of intergenerational wealth — their value generates individual wealth and collateral for loans. Without rent stabilization or a livable minimum wage, 60 percent of Burlington’s citizens will be further squeezed by the proposed DID while homeowners and landlords will benefit.
With such obvious answers to the issue of affordability in BTV, why are our representatives pushing measures that will harm low- and middle-income earners? Despite a population of 60 percent renters, only two of Burlington’s 12 city councilors (approximately 17 percent) rent, meaning renters are underrepresented by over 300 percent in our city’s primary decision-making body. This dynamic is likely mirrored in the Development Review Board and other powerful citywide institutions: These positions are time intensive to serve in, have politicized hiring processes, and have little/no pay. The proposed board of the DID has only three of 13 total positions set aside for residents (not specifically renters). The other positions are set aside for four business owners, five property owners, and one representative from a nonprofit. These positions are inaccessible to working-class residents, but when renters are not intentionally included in the process, it further entrenches a power dynamic that is to their detriment.
The formation of a tenants union, a collective voice for renters, could change the political landscape and demand local accountability to renters. Students and longtime residents of Burlington often find themselves pitted against one another in dialogue on housing in Burlington. Despite the division in Burlington, tenants unions have found success in other college towns (1, 2, 3) and serve as a mechanism to bridge the gap towards a single goal: affordable housing for all residents. Additionally, a union could utilize the existing educational and legal support of other institutions (student legal services, CVOEO) to create a cohesive voice for the 60 percent of people in Burlington whose housing costs are at the mercy of their landlord’s profits.
A UVM study, led by researcher Meredith Niles, recently showed students who move off campus begin to face higher rates of food insecurity. This finding is further supported by data from the 2016 American Community Survey, which shows that well over 50 percent of renters in Burlington are in “unaffordable” (30+ percent of their income) units. Although the DID may become a ballot item, because of the unrepresentative planning process and citywide power structures in place, this proposal demonstrates a lack of prioritization for the majority of Burlington residents. A tenants union would be one huge step in shifting this narrative from one that prioritizes the wealthy property owners, which has been demonstrated throughout the DID planning process, to one that centralizes low- and middle-income Vermonters.
