Revitalization or Risk? Southern Humboldt Resident Questions Proposed Business Improvement District in Letter
Welcome to our letters to the editor/opinion section. To submit yours for consideration, please send to [email protected]. Please consider including an image to be used–either a photograph of you or something applicable to the letter. However, an image is not necessary for publication.
Remember opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect that of Redheaded Blackbelt nor have we checked the letters for accuracy.
To the Residents, Business Owners, and Community Members of Southern Humboldt,
I am writing to express serious concern regarding the proposed Southern Humboldt Business Improvement District and the long-term impact it could have on local businesses, working families, and the future of Garberville and Redway. We own property in Redway and we shop locally. We operate a business from our home, but our shop is in Redcrest. There are many businesses like ours within this area that do not operate storefronts in town.
Everyone agrees that Southern Humboldt needs revitalization. We all want thriving storefronts, stronger local commerce, safer streets, and a future our children can build upon. But good intentions alone do not justify creating a new financial burden on the very businesses and residents already struggling to survive.
This proposal raises serious concerns about fairness, transparency, representation, and economic reality.
First and foremost, the structure itself is fundamentally unfair. Under the current framework, only a select percentage of businesses — weighted by revenue — would determine whether this proposal advances. In practice, that means a small number of higher-grossing businesses could outweigh the voices of dozens of smaller local businesses that would still be forced to pay into the system. Every business in this community matters, not just the ones with the highest sales volume. A decision that impacts an entire region should not be controlled by a narrow segment of its business owners.
Supporters argue that the district will increase tourism and revitalize Southern Humboldt. But we must be honest about the reality of why tourism declined in the first place.
For decades, Garberville and Redway benefited economically from the cannabis industry long before Proposition 64. Whether people agreed with it or not, that industry brought customers, commerce, jobs, and traffic into our towns. Visitors stopped here because Southern Humboldt had an identity, an economy (jobs), and a reputation that drew people in. Since legalization, a combination of state regulation and decisions made at the county level severely damaged that local industry. Small farmers disappeared. Supporting businesses collapsed. Disposable income vanished from the region. The economic ecosystem that once sustained local commerce and created schools, healthcare, and a community center my wife helped tile, was dismantled.
Now, instead of addressing the root causes of that decline, this proposal asks struggling businesses and local residents to pay more at the register in the hope that tourism will somehow return on its own.
But tourism is not created by adding fees to transactions.
People do not currently stop in Garberville and Redway because there are few reasons left for them to stop. Empty storefronts line our streets. Longstanding businesses have closed. Travelers pass through rather than stay. Adding another cost to purchases will not reverse that reality. In fact, it risks accelerating the problem by pushing consumers to spend elsewhere.
And make no mistake: this cost will be passed on directly to the consumer. Many local residents are driving 40 minutes North to acquire groceries because the local options are already much higher than what is available in Fortuna or Eureka. We try to shop locally as much as possible, but the rising costs locally often force us to purchase from businesses elsewhere.
Over the last several years we have seen downsizing and multiple businesses close because there simply is no longer enough demand for them in the area. Businesses operating on thin margins cannot simply absorb another assessment. Restaurants, small retailers, hardware stores, repair shops, and family-owned businesses already face rising insurance costs, utilities, fuel prices, payroll expenses, taxes, and inflation. Most will have no choice but to raise prices. That means local residents — the very people who make up the majority of customers in Southern Humboldt — will ultimately carry the burden.
At a time when many families are already struggling to afford groceries, fuel, and necessities, imposing another financial layer on local commerce is deeply irresponsible.
There are also legitimate concerns regarding transparency and governance.
If this nonprofit organization intends to collect and manage public-facing funds, the community deserves a detailed and legally binding project schedule that clearly outlines exactly where every dollar will go. Broad promises of “revitalization” are not enough. The public deserves specifics:
- What projects will be completed?
- What are the timelines?
- What measurable outcomes are expected?
- How much will administrative costs consume?
- Who benefits financially?
Without those answers, the public is being asked to fund a blank check for a non-profit to provide what the local chamber of commerce should be doing anyway.
There are also ethical concerns surrounding oversight and conflicts of interest. Individuals spearheading this effort should not be permitted to serve on the governing board overseeing the funds. No organization should be allowed to campaign for a revenue stream and then directly control the money collected from it. Additionally, board positions should be strictly limited to one-year terms to prevent consolidation of influence and ensure accountability to the broader community.
Beyond ethics, there are potential legal questions worth examining as well:
- Whether the weighted voting structure fairly represents affected businesses.
- Whether the assessments disproportionately burden certain sectors.
- Whether the proposed benefits are sufficiently specific to justify mandatory collection.
- And whether consumers are being adequately informed that these costs will likely appear in the prices they pay every day.
Southern Humboldt deserves economic recovery. But recovery will not come from creating another layer of cost on a shrinking local economy. It will come from rebuilding opportunities, restoring trust, encouraging entrepreneurship, supporting small business creation, cleaning up our commercial corridors, improving safety, and creating actual reasons for people to stop here again.
The people of Garberville and Redway are resilient. We have survived economic collapse, regulatory upheaval, fires, floods, and decades of neglect. But resilience should not be mistaken for unlimited capacity to absorb more financial pressure.
This proposal asks struggling businesses and working families to pay more while offering uncertain promises in return.
That is not revitalization. That is risk.
Before moving forward with any proposal of this magnitude, the community deserves full transparency, equal representation, strict accountability, and an honest public conversation about the true causes of Southern Humboldt’s economic decline. In my opinion, should this move forward, there needs to be a solid structure in place with the aforementioned specifics in addition to a robust waiver program that would allow businesses that cannot pay anymore to be exempt from the tax. There should also be a significant portion of the collected funds that go into a grant program for the local businesses to apply for. Waivers should not preclude those businesses from receiving funds.
Anything less would fail the very people this effort claims to help.
Honestly, there is much more to say about the local economy and plans for recovery, but this is already a long read. We must protect the economy that is still here and struggling to recover. We must think about the kinds of businesses that would do well here and how to get them here. If we do that while protecting the existing economy then the businesses already here, and the landlords of the buildings they rent, would benefit.
-James Beurer
Join the discussion! For rules visit: https://kymkemp.com/commenting-rules
Comments system how-to: https://wpdiscuz.com/community/postid/10599/
A business decision being made by businesses that are already starting to fail. What could go wrong? They don’t seem to understand that there is nothing to revitalize.
Boom and Bust should be Humboldt County’s motto.
It’s seems fishy to me. Friends of this committee sure seem to benefit off the improvements this infrastructure will being, on others tax dollars. Of course they say “tough it out”! Well intentions, yeah for themselves, disguised as well intentions for everyone one else. This tax can break many businesses and I don’t think they care. It will drop prices more, and they can buy more property for pennies on the dollar.
why won’t BID’s in communities with less than 50 businesses succeed?
Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) in communities with fewer than 50 businesses frequently fail because their small revenue base cannot cover mandatory administrative costs. Additionally, these districts struggle to meet the strict legal formation thresholds needed to begin operating, and they lack the economies of scale necessary to execute meaningful marketing or security initiatives.
The primary barriers to success include:
Crippling Administrative Overhead:
A BID requires a budget to hire staff, manage funds, and handle legal compliance. With fewer than \(50\) businesses, the total assessment pool is too small to cover these fixed operational costs without placing a severe financial burden on the individual merchants.
Lack of Economies of Scale:
Marketing campaigns, district-wide security, and beautification projects require a significant aggregate budget to be effective.
A tiny district will rarely generate enough funds to move the needle on foot traffic or neighborhood vibrancy.
Cumbersome Voting Thresholds:
Forming a BID generally requires petition support or a voting majority (often weighted by revenue or assessed value) from a large percentage of stakeholders. In very small business communities, a single dissenting large property owner or a small group of unengaged owners can veto the district’s formation entirely.
Vulnerability to Attrition:
When a commercial district only has 40 to 50 businesses, the closure of just a few shops can devastate the BID’s budget and trigger an immediate financial crisis.
For smaller communities to succeed, they often have to rely on alternative funding models, such as voluntary merchant associations or tapping into local municipal revitalization programs offered by bodies like the California Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development.
I agree with every word. There are only a few people who might benefit from this proposal. In this small comunity, we all know who they are. This is a grift a la MAGA. Kind of embarrassing
Very well written. It conveyed empathy, clarity, respect and aligned with reality.
With that being said, will the SHBID Steering Committee (Southern Humboldt Business and Visitor’s Bureau) be willing to debate all that was stated, without demeaning the letter writer and adhere to the points made in this letter to the editor?
I have proven myself not to be an expert on local business sense but one thing that repeats itself as I look at Garberville’s vacant storefronts is this: who needs them?Why not tear most of them down and create some open space? Travelers temporarily escaping the urban and suburban rat races might enjoy some open space to walk the dog, breathe some air, and rest their weary bones. Put smiles on their faces by being an oasis of peace. Admit that the boom days of logging and fishing and dope growing have passed and the market for hapless entrepreneurs has dwindled and maybe they will open their wallets to support worthy sidewalk endeavors.
“Do commercial property owners in a tiny town that envision a Business Improvement District have delusions of grandeur?”
“Wanting a Business Improvement District (BID) in a small town is not inherently a delusion of grandeur, but it is a massive gamble.
BIDs are essentially self-imposed tax surcharges where commercial property owners pool funds to pay for collective services like streetscaping, marketing, or security.
The vision becomes a “delusion” only when proponents ignore their town’s economic realities.
Here is a breakdown of why this vision can succeed—or backfire spectacularly.
When a BID Makes Sense
Filling Municipal Gaps:
In tiny towns, city budgets are incredibly tight. A BID lets property owners take control and fund amenities (e.g., holiday lighting, flower baskets, better trash collection) that the local government simply cannot afford.
Centralized Marketing:
It effectively pools resources to promote the town as a unified destination, which is particularly useful for tapping into regional tourism.
Unified Representation:
It gives small-town commercial owners a single, powerful, organized voice to negotiate with local government and developers.
When the Vision Becomes Delusional
The Scale Mismatch:
The most successful BIDs are in dense, high-volume urban corridors (like those managed by the International Downtown Association) where large budgets yield high returns.
In a tiny town, the assessment pool might be too small to fund meaningful capital improvements, resulting in high administrative fees eating up all the money.
Ignoring the Math:
If a downtown suffers from empty storefronts, a lack of local foot traffic, or limited industries, a BID won’t magically solve it.
You cannot tax your way into prosperity if the local economy is structurally struggling.
Forcing Compliance:
A BID requires a majority vote of property owners to pass, meaning smaller merchants or existing tenants who don’t want to pay the extra fees can be forced to shoulder the costs.
Unrealistic Tourism Expectations:
Proponents sometimes assume a BID will transform their quiet town into a bustling, Disney-esque tourist destination.
If the geographical location or local attractions don’t naturally support heavy tourism, a BID will fail to conjure it out of thin air.
A BID is not a magical fix, but rather a tool meant to amplify existing momentum.
If a small town has a strong, naturally occurring base of retail or tourism and the property owners are deeply aligned, it can be an excellent management tool.
If it is used as a desperate attempt to force a struggling rural economy to look like a booming metropolis, it frequently leads to wasted resources and fractured community relations.”
Let’s be realistic…
______________________________________
“When are BID’s destined to fail if Non Profit administration eats up too much of the collected funds?”
“Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) are destined to fail when administrative and overhead costs exceed 15% to 20% of total collected assessments.
When overhead eats up too much revenue, BIDs fail because they can no longer deliver the visible services (such as security, sanitation, or marketing) that property and business owners are legally mandated to pay for.
BIDs face a critical tipping point in the following scenarios:
Visual Deterioration:
BIDs fundamentally rely on a “fee-for-service” contract.
If stakeholders do not see tangible improvements on the streets (e.g., cleaner sidewalks, fewer security issues), they will view the BID as a tax rather than an investment.
Loss of Stakeholder Buy-In:
High administrative costs lead to plummeting morale.
Business owners will refuse to support the BID’s renewal and often mount active campaigns to dissolve the district, as BIDs frequently require reauthorization every few years.
The Mission Drift Dilemma:
When excessive funds are diverted to executive salaries, office space, or consultant fees, the core purpose of the district is abandoned.
This creates a highly toxic dynamic where the BID operates to sustain itself rather than to boost local commerce.
To avoid this, standard financial guidelines:
Program Services (Direct Impact):
At least 80% of the budget should go directly toward physical improvements, maintenance, and district events.
Management & General:
Administration, salaries, and insurance should be capped at 10% to 15% of the budget.
Fundraising/Outreach:
The remaining 5% should be utilized for stakeholder communication and program expansion.
You can read more about what makes these public-private partnerships effective via the Federal Highway Administration’s BID Fact Sheet.”
______________________________________
Let’s not kid ourselves…
“In california are BID’s financially unrealistic in tiny, economically challenged, unincorporated areas?”
“Yes, Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) are often financially unrealistic in tiny, economically challenged, unincorporated areas.
BIDs rely on pooling mandatory assessments from local properties or businesses. Without a high density of thriving businesses, the financial burden placed on a few struggling operators becomes unsustainable.
The Core Financial Challenges
The Tax Base is Too Small:
BIDs are designed to provide supplemental services (such as marketing, private security, and street cleaning). To generate enough revenue to hire contractors or staff, the assessments on individual businesses can be prohibitively high if there are only a handful of participants.
Prohibitive Formation Costs:
Establishing a BID requires paying for specialized economic consultants, legal fees, mapping, and ballot administration. In unincorporated areas like Southern Humboldt, these upfront costs are difficult to absorb without municipal subsidies or grant funding.
Strict Legal Constraints (Proposition 218):
Under California law, a BID’s assessments are not taxes; they are fees that must directly correspond to a “special benefit” received by the assessed business or property.
If the local economy is depressed, it becomes incredibly difficult to prove that an assessment will result in a measurable, proportional economic return.
Unincorporated Hurdles:
While a county can technically create a BID, it requires the authorization of the relevant Board of Supervisors.
Unincorporated areas lack a dedicated city council and a built-in municipal tax base, making it much harder to leverage public resources or city-owned property to jumpstart the district.
Alternative Approaches
Because BIDs may not be viable, many economically challenged unincorporated communities in California (such as those in rural Northern California) turn to other avenues:
Nonprofit Associations:
Many communities establish 501(c)(6) nonprofit business or merchant associations instead of a mandatory assessment district.
This allows for voluntary membership, localized marketing, and the ability to apply for state or federal economic development grants that are otherwise unavailable to unincorporated areas.
Community Benefit Districts (CBDs) or Tourism Improvement Districts (TIDs):
In certain regions, it is more practical to establish CBDs or TIDs.
TIDs, for example, place an assessment on short-term lodging (hotel/motel stays) to draw in outside tourism dollars rather than squeezing local, brick-and-mortar storefronts.
How can a community thrive when you have no money coming into it? The answer is you can’t. You better move because the counties promise of building a new economy is a joke. They are the people that destroyed the economy. ITS OVER FOR HUMBOLDT.
Just so you know, the Humboldt Lodging Alliance is already promoting Southern Humboldt. Will all that stop if SHBID starts?
https://www.discoversouthernhumboldt.com/
https://www.facebook.com/DiscoverSouthernHumboldt
The clown show already have a non-profit that can apply for any grants they want. What have these clowns done in the last 5 years since starting this
I get that this BID reads like grant mooches looking for a pay day, but then there’s that county who cried “no” problem. How is this public “no” different from the last “no” or the “no” before that? In the County-of-No on the Lost Decades Coast where there’s been no commercial development for 10+ years because of the perpetual public “no”, why would anyone believe this “no” isn’t just another knee jerk “no” like all the rest?
As a person that can usually find humor in just about anything, what has happened to Southern Humboldt can only bring a tear to my eye. The big problem that we are facing is that we are running out of other people’s money.
In early 1964, when I first started working in the local economy, the sales tax was 3 percent. There was very little government regulation. The hospital was privately owned. There were numerous restaurants, service stations, bars, car and truck dealers. All the waitresses wore white uniforms. We had a furniture store and several hardware stores, plus two dairies. Not to mention, flower boxes lined the streets.
There was no need to travel out of town for anything. If you needed anything that you couldn’t find locally, it could always be gotten from the Montgomery Ward Catalogue.
It was embarrassing to accept welfare… Then it happened. We found that we could have all kinds of good stuff if we just raised the taxes, formed taxation districts, built roads with gas taxes and road taxes. We could have just about anything with enough other people’s money.
Now we have all these expenses, But all the smart people with other people’s money left. They didn’t just stop at the county line, they even left the state.
Then we stopped all those greedy businesses that wanted to come to Humboldt and build a business… How dare they! And then they wanted to take out that two foot diameter redwood tree in Richardson Grove so efficient trucks could get through. The nerve!
Now we want an “assessment” on local people to encourage folks with other people’s money to come visit us.
My wife and I closed our business, I am now working full time on regaining my sense of humor.
So let me ask the $64,000 question Ernie; if you were still in business in Garberville, would you be onboard and all in for this SHBID?
Ed, sorry for the late reply.
My answer would be that “I couldn’t care less what they do”, because nobody has ever listened to any good advice that I have ever given.
Ye shall reap as ye shall sow.
Southern humboldt was rapidly becoming a retirement community. I.E Shelter cove. Retirees were buying up the cheap land and making plans to move here. There was a plan to build a retirement community at the back end of the West coast road in Redway. Complete with housing, medical care and in home care. Similar to what McKinlyville is trying to do now.
When the welfare class of people started moving here and growing marijuana, the retirees sold their land and canceled their plans of coming here.
They supplanted the timber industry and any other business that tried to move here.
Ernie, you are selling yourself short, people I know listen to what you have to say, and can appreciate your sentiment. However, I was looking for a yes or no answer. But you did avoid the question in prolific fashion. Thank you for all the years of business and community service…
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Anybody else fondly remember the tree growing in the middle of Wilder Ridge Road?
I do – the day after the parcel sold the county cut it down.
I remember it.
I also remember the tree in the middle of the road near New Harris.
I often wondered if they could make two separate north and south lanes through the trees in Richardson Grove. Nawww… just kidding.
Shbvb and the chamber of commerce have been getting a majority of the county’s TOTax to the tune of a quarter million a year. Creating yet another organization and throwing even more money at it seems like a money pit.
In hard times it seems like we should be consolidating and trying to be more efficient with what we have.
Southern Humboldt is struggling.
Ace and Dazey’s have closed down.
We have shops sitting empty up and down Garberville.
We actually don’t have any anchor store, a store with mega corporate backing and it shows.
1) maybe an abandonment fee for retail shops sitting empty without a for lease or for sale sign.
Tourist will never stop if the shops are closed. Lower the rent and get stores open again.
2) Humboldt County should be investing in a county wide ad campaign for all of our towns. If every small town promoted Humboldt on its own we would be wasting money. A centralized campaign works best
3) Humboldt County also needs to step up and have a welcome sign entering Humboldt from all directions. South on the 101 and way up north. A welcome sign on Hwy 299 and Hwy 36.
Let tourist know they have reached Humboldt
4) Events are huge, car shows, dog shows, marathon thru the redwoods are all epic solutions.
5) Taxing locals will only kill southern Humboldt and force the majority of it’s residents to shop north in Eureka. Prices are all ready high for our small town.
Good luck everyone and think outside the box. We need to come up with something.