Christine Jung
USP560
Sparks
12/16/13
San Francisco’s Community Benefit District (CBD) Program
Like many cities across America, San Francisco has implemented many revitalization
strategies and policies over the past decades to improve the economic vibrancy of its
neighborhoods and communities. In an era of neoliberalism, the independent sector has assumed
an increasingly significant role in delivering services of all levels that were once provided by the
government. Community Benefit Districts (CBDs), also commonly known as Business
Improvement Districts (BIDs) and Property & Business Improvement Districts (PBIDs), serve as
an example of how community-based organizations have stepped up to administering services to
improve the quality of life and conditions of their neighborhoods and districts. San Francisco’s
Community Benefit District (CBD) program is a public/private partnership between the City and
property and business owners who contribute to the development and promotion of their mixed
used neighborhood through a special assessment to their property or business (OEWD, 2013).
The special assessment provides a stable source of revenue to fund supplemental activities and
improvements in the districts from which they were raised. By examining San Francisco’s CBD
program, we are able to contextualize how this urban revitalization approach reinforces socioeconomic and spatial inequalities in the City.
Whereas neighborhood associations first emerged in suburbs in the 1890s, there is
currently a strong presence of neighborhood associations in urban areas. Poverty became almost
an exclusively urban (and rural) problem by the 1950s as a result of suburbanization. After
World War II the federal government subsidized urban freeway construction, guaranteed low-
1
interest mortgages in suburbs, and sanctioned redlining in cities, which prompted many white
middle-income families to move out of the inner city and into the outlying suburban areas (Katz,
1996, p. 264-265). As result, inner cities saw a drastic reduction in its tax bases, a deterioration
of its housing stock and infrastructure while crime, poverty, and racial segregation increased
simultaneously (Katz, 1996, p. 265). Neighborhood associations in one form or another have in
the last century provided a way for neighbors to build relationships, identify community
problems, and act cohesively to protect and improve their communities (Knickmeyer et al, 2008,
p. 14). In urban areas, neighborhood associations serve not only these purposes but also to
address the social and economic problems of having a large concentration of people with lowincomes, declining businesses, limited work opportunities, and high rates of crime and violence
in their communities. In response, urban neighborhood associations formed as grass-roots
organizations that called for collaboration, cooperation, and participation in self-help
neighborhood projects (Fisher & Romanofsky, 1981, p. 36).
CBDs/BIDs is a recent revitalization strategy and model that did not exist until the 1960s
(OEWD, 2012, p.10). They are an even more recent phenomenon in San Francisco, CA. The
Original Union Square BID was founded in 1999 as the first established CBD in the City. As
mentioned, property and business owners in established CBDs contribute a special assessment to
generate revenue to pay for additional services that are not provided for by the City, such as
public realm cleanliness, public safety, beautification, streetscape improvements, marketing,
district advocacy, promotions, and other economic development activities (OEWD, 2012, p.6).
This model is meant to stimulate economic and community development in depressed or
underperforming commercial regions by attracting pedestrians, commercial activity and new
businesses (OEWD, 2012, p.6).
2
There are currently eleven San Francisco-based CBD/BID districts: Greater Union
Square, North of Market/Tenderloin, Fisherman’s Wharf, Noe Valley, Castro/Upper Market,
Mission Miracle Mile, Central Market, Yerba Buena, Ocean Avenue, Civic Center, and the
Tourism Improvement District. Ten of the eleven CBDs are focused on specific geographic areas
in the City, whereas the Tourism Improvement District was formed to support improvements to
the Moscone Convention Center and increase hotel bookings by promoting San Francisco’s
tourism industry. In 2012, San Francisco’s Office of Economic and Workforce Development
(OEWD) created an impact analysis report to evaluate and measure the impacts that CBDs had
on their districts. From their evaluation, OEWD (2012) found several key findings:

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. The diversity of position
outcomes and trends, when aggregated, serve as a clear demonstration that
CBD/BID services and investments have a measurable impact on higher-level
outcomes.

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. After implementing services, crime levels decreased in CBD/BID
regions 68% of the time.

CBDs/BIDs were insulated from the effects of the 07/09 recession. Specially, they
retained more value in their properties, saw less significant reductions in sales tax
3
revenues, and maintained lowered commercial vacancy rates, and maintained
lower commercial vacancy rates than what was experienced across San Francisco.

CBDs/BIDs have raised significant revenues from non-assessment sources. Since
the CBD/BID program was fist established, districts have invested $57.3M in
neighborhood revitalization and economic development.

CBDs/BIDs leverage significant community leadership to support their work.

The scale of CBD/BID operations is correlated with the level of improvement.
(p. 8).
Whereas these findings suggest that the CBD program is successful in revitalizing some of San
Francisco’s neighborhoods, they fail to address how this revitalization model has excluded
certain populations and neighborhoods.
Much of the literature on BIDs concentrate on a few aspects: its public-private
relationship, whether or not they’re accountable, how much of an impact they really have on
their communities, and if so, what types of impacts? Whereas most of the literature focuses on
these prior topics, inequality issues are rarely brought up when concerning BIDs. However, some
research suggests that BIDs reinforce socio-economic inequalities and spatial segregation
through its services and whom they decide to exclude. Security and public safety are noted as
some of BIDs most prominent services. These services have “seamlessly merge with the
revitalization of public spaces that is intended to attracted preferred affluent consumers”
(Lippert, 2012, p. 170). In the process of ensuring that affluent pedestrians enjoy their space
unbothered, “undesirables” like panhandlers, prostitutes, drug dealers, and drunks are removed
from BIDs’ sidewalks (Lippert, 2012). Even businesses that are a part of the BID, but attract
“undesirable clienteles” like bars, clubs, and even coffee shops are often scrutinized and
4
governed by their own security services (Lippert, 2012, p. 172-173). These processes of security
and governing resemble Gilliom’s (2001) idea of welfare surveillance, which will be discussed
later in the paper.
Due to their public-private nature, BIDs are not required to serve everybody nor do they
form in every neighborhood. Lewis (2010) used a case study of Washington D.C.’s BIDs to
examine “how, when, and for whom BID operation ‘works’” (p. 181). Compared to states,
Washington D.C.’s has the country’s highest income disparities and is home to the country’s
poorest poor - the average family income in the bottom quintile is lower than that of any other
states’ (Bernstein, McNichol, and Lyons, 2006). 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 contributes to this divide between neighborhoods and
people (Lewis, 2010, p. 190). Quantitative data on crime, property value, and public image are
often used to measure economic growth, revitalization, and even gentrification in neighborhoods.
Using performance metrics published by D.C.’s BIDs, he found that there seemed to be
substantial evidence of management and growth improvements in their neighborhoods (Lewis,
2010, p. 196).
“Understanding the dynamics of the areas in which BIDs operate is more important for
their role in creating change than the simple adoption of BIDs” (MacDonald, Stokes, and
Bluthenthal, 2010, p. 453). Thus much like Lewis (2010)’s study of Washington D.C.’s and their
BIDs, it is important to understand the dynamics of San Francisco. As discussed in class on
10/14/13, as a part of the War on Welfare, the federal government withdrew its funding from
social services programs, forcing state and local municipalities to pay for them instead. In an
effort to generate funds to provide these social services to the poor, cities across the country
5
adopted an entrepreneurial approach in attracting investment and high-end consumers. 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. San Francisco’s median household income of
$72,947, astounding housing prices, and extremely high cost of living reflect these successes.
Whereas the inner city used to be a place of concentrated poverty, in the case of San Francisco it
is increasingly becoming a place defined by wealth.
It’s not to say that San Francisco does not have its share of poor neighborhoods. As
discussed in Burgess’ (1925) essay, “The Growth of the City: An Introduction to a Research
Project”, cities and its zones are divided geographically by labor, economic, and ethnic groups.
The poor and minorities lived primarily in the slums and ghettoes. San Francisco’s urban
landscape is no different. Neighborhoods that have been historically industrial areas, like
Bayview-Hunters Point, is not only home to the City’s largest African American population but
also a population that is much likely to be on public assistance and/or lives in public housing
compared to the rest of San Francisco’s neighborhoods.
Throughout this course, we have learned about and discussed how the idea of the
“undeserving” poor was and continues to be reinforced by negative social perceptions about
oppressed groups such as women, minorities, and the poor. During the Cold War, the traditional
authoritative breadwinning male and domestic female defined gender roles for men and women.
However, minorities were paid lower wages than white workers and untrained African American
and Latino workers were usually the first ones get laid off, so minority women did not have
leisure to be housewives like their white middle-class counterparts (O’Conner, 2001, p. 101102). The poor were found to be lacking of the “middle class personality” of being achievementoriented, acquisitive, individualistic and fixed on the future (O’Connor, 2001, p. 106). Since only
6
upwardly mobile middle-income families could nurture this type of personality among their
children, poor mothers were blamed for raising their children “wrong”. Social scientists like E.
Franklin Frazier reported that “structural deficiencies of the lower-class family” of having a
working mother who could not properly nurture her children and the absence of an authoritative
breadwinning father contributed to delinquency among black youth (O’Conner, 2001, p. 109).
The term “matriarchy” refers to the black breadwinning female, who was seen as deviant and to
blame for African Americans’ low socio-economic status. These common beliefs failed to
acknowledge that poor and minority mothers could not afford to be housewives and raise their
children in the fashion of white middle-income mothers. Similarly, these groups could not afford
or were not allowed to move out of the inner city due to their lack of wealth, racially restrictive
covenants or both.
Spatial segregation is apparent between urban cities’ different socio-economic and racial
groups. As certain groups are seen as undeserving of aid and relief, so are the neighborhoods
they inhibit. In disadvantaged neighborhoods like San Francisco’s Bayview-Hunters Point, there
is more blight, crime, violence, and gang activity while there are less job opportunities, wellperforming schools, and other social capital and material resources. Residents experience
poverty generation after generation because of their lack of access to these resources. As result,
Bayview-Hunters Point remains one of the most marginalized neighborhoods in San Francisco.
More often than not, these impoverished neighborhoods do not have established CBDs, although
they would seemingly benefit the most from CBD’s supplemental services, such as improved
public safety, economic development, investment and improvement in the neighborhood’s
physical environment among other things. The Bayview Merchant Association, a member of the
San Francisco Council of District Merchants’ Association (SFCDMA), is the only local
7
merchant association in the Bayview-Hunters Point neighborhood (Bayview Merchant
Association). Similar to CBDs, Bayview Merchant Association strives to draw in economic and
community development by uniting its members through coordinating meetings, projects and
special events, keeping its members informed through community meetings, events, and various
job opportunities, and serving as a central voice by promoting its members’ interests through
local government advocacy and multiparty marketing campaigns (Bayview Merchant
Association). However, unlike CBDs, the Bayview Merchant Association does not levy a special
assessment on the community’s properties and businesses. It is likely that many of the
neighborhood’s residents, who are low-income or on fixed income, and businesses can’t afford
to pay the special assessment. As a key finding brought up in OEWD’s (2012) Impact Analysis
of San Francisco’s CBDs/BIDs, “The scale of CBD/BID operations is correlated with the level
of improvement, in that districts with greater resources are more likely to significantly influence
outcomes” (p. 20). This finding would suggest that wealthier neighborhoods with CBDs will
continue to improve, whereas low-income neighborhoods will continue to decline or stay as
blighted and crime ridden as they have for the past several decades.
As discussed, cities turned entrepreneurial to fund social services to the poor after the
federal government withdrew its funding for such programs. In its success of being an
entrepreneurial city, San Francisco is able to afford a much more comprehensive arrangement of
social services than many other cities. However in the process of drawing in wealthy residents
and businesses, the City has ironically displaced many of its poorer residents who could no
longer afford to live there in the process of gentrification. This is reflected neighborhoods’
changing demographics, such as the Mission District, and the City’s declining African American
8
population, which represented 7.8% of the City’s population in the 2000 U.S. Census but only
represented 6.1% in the 2010 U.S. Census (U.S. Census 2000 & 2010).
Furthermore, there are issues associated with the programs related to topics discussed in
class, including surveillance of those who accept services and a bias selection of who can receive
services. Gilliom (2001) discussed welfare surveillance extensively in Chapter 1 of his book.
Although methods of welfare surveillance have changed over the years, the purpose of welfare
surveillance has not. It continues to be a process used to determine whether or not a family is
available for assistance (Gilliom, 2001, p. 20). Like elsewhere, in San Francisco welfare and
social service delivery only happens after a family or individual passes the “means test” of
eligibility. Welfare surveillance is problematic because not only does it reinforce our perception
about the poor based on partial knowledge, it also forces recipients to become the stereotype in
order to receive aid. Aside from reinforcing historical perceptions and stereotypes of the poor,
welfare surveillance treats the poor as irrational children even when it is motivated by good
intentions. Take for example the Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development’s
(MOHCD) Below Market Rate (BMR) Ownership Program. Through MOHCD’s BMR
Inclusionary Housing Program, the City requires some developers to sell or rent 12% or more of
units in new developments at a “below market rate” price that is affordable to lower or middleincome households. As part of the application process, BMR household members are required to
complete a first-time homebuyer education workshop before they can apply for a unit. During
one of our class discussions, it was brought up that the government sometimes acts as a parent
who assumes that the poor cannot be rational and therefore must be watched carefully. Although
the required workshop may be beneficial to applicants, the requirement also coddles them and
9
fails to give them the autonomy to make their own choices and mistakes as other homebuyers in
the market.
The growing presence of community organizations and non-profits in the realm of
welfare and social service administration and delivery has also led to selection bias of recipients.
Neoliberalism emerged in the past few decades with the call for the end of big government. Its
impacts are far reaching beyond neighborhood and city limits. Hyatt (2001) noted:
What has changed is the way in which neoliberal social policies have defined the role of
the state, away from its older stance of providing “a safety net” for the poor and basic
services for the citizenry at large and toward the notion that it is now the primary job of
the state to “empower” the poor, and other citizens as well, to provide for themselves and
for their communities’ own needs (p. 207).
The CBD program embodies the neoliberal approach as community members and businesses
organize themselves to provide services that the City used to be responsible for. However,
because the independent sector is not held accountable for acting in the best interest of
everybody, there is bias selection of who and where it serves. CBDs, for example, are not
established in every district and neighborhood in San Francisco. They are established in
neighborhoods that can afford to raise a special assessment for supplemental services, which in
turn draws in more revenue for the district because of property price and revenue increase. Thus
state withdrawal of public resources reproduces inequalities between neighborhoods and their
residents, between the “deserving” and “undeserving”.
After carefully evaluating San Francisco’s CBD program, there seems to be a need for
more government involvement in redevelopment and urban revitalization while maintaining
community members’ current levels of involvement or even promoting more. Neoliberal
governance has masked the withdrawal of public resources and resources. Although the
independent sector has become an integral part of the social welfare system, it alone cannot
10
address the complex problems associated with urban poverty. Similarly, although CBDs and
BIDs play an integral role in urban revitalization, they should not be expected to serve as agents
of larger systemic social problems related to poverty, unemployment, and crime because they are
limited in resources and their potential outcome. This is reflected by MacDonald, Stokes, and
Bluthenthal’s (2010) study and analysis of Los Angeles’ BIDs, in which they concluded that
“few BIDs have the scale of operations, staff, or budget to create systematic change” (p. 453).
As illustrated by this paper, the City’s current form of neighborhood revitalization
reinforces socio-economic and spatial inequalities by excluding neighborhoods that would
benefit most from revitalization and displacing certain socio-economic and racial groups.
Only the government can address this need for systematic change in how we view and treat the
poor. In class, a commonly proposed way to get rid poverty is to give the poor substantial
amounts of money with no strings attached. Similarly, the City can help establish CBDs in its
impoverished neighborhoods by giving them money equivalent to the special assessment amount
and allowing them to spend it however they want, as long as it follows the program’s regulations
on how the money can be spent. This recommendation is only the start of redefining our current
model and definition of urban revitalization and how it can look like with a poor population. In
terms of revitalizing neighborhoods, there remains much research to be done on how to
implement strategies to help retain neighborhoods’ poor populations during the process of
revitalization and post-revitalization.
11
References
Bayview Merchants Association. (n.d.). Mission statement. Retrieved from
http://www.bayviewmerchants.org/about.html
Bernstein, J., E. McNichol, and K. Lyons. 2006. Pulling apart: A state-by-state analysis of
income trends. Retrieved from Washington, DC: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities’
Website http://www.cbpp.org/files/1-26-06sfp.pdf
Burgess, E. (1925). The growth of the city: an introduction to a research project.
Fisher, R. & Romanofsky, P. (Eds). (1981). Community organization for urban social change.
Westport, CN: Greenwood Press.
Gilliom, J. (2001). Overseers of the poor.
Hyatt, S. B. (2001). "From citizen to volunteer: Neoliberal governance and the erasure of
poverty" from New Poverty Studies: Ethnography of Power, Politics, and Impoverished
people in the United States. NY: New York University Press
Katz, M.B. (1996). In the shadow of the poorhouse. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Knickmeyer, L., Hopkins, K., & Meyer, M. (2003). Exploring collaboration among
urban neighborhood associations. Journal of Community Practice, 11(2), 13-25.
Lewis, N. (2010). Grappling with governance: The emergence of business improvement districts
in a national capital. Urban Affairs Review, 46(2), 180-217.
Lippert, R. (2012). ‘Clean and safe’ passage: Business improvement districts, urban security
modes, and knowledge brokers. European Urban and Regional Studies, 19(2), 167-180.
Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development. (n.d.). Inclusionary housing bmr
ownership program overview. Retrieved from San Francisco’s Mayor’s Office of
Housing and Community Development website:
http://www.sfmoh.org/index.aspx?page=268
MacDonald, J. , Stokes, R. , & Bluthenthal, R. (2010). The role of community context in
business district revitalization strategies. Public Performance & Management Review,
33(3), 436-458.
O’Connor, A. (2001). Poverty knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Office of Economic and Workforce Development. (n.d.). Community Benefit Districts.
Retrieved from San Francisco’s Office of Economic and Workforce Development
website: http://www.oewd.org/Neighborhood-Revitalization-Community-BenefitDistricts.aspx
12
Office of Economic and Workforce Development. (2012). Impact Analysis of San Francisco’s
Property & Business Improvement Districts (CBDs/BIDs). Retrieved from San
Francisco’s Office of Economic and Workforce Development website:
http://www.oewd.org/media/docs/CBD%20docs/CBD%20BID%20Eval%20Report%20F
Y%2012-13.pdf
Sparks, T. (2013, Oct 14). Lecture 7. Address at the HSS Building, San Francisco State
University, San Francisco, CA.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: 2000 Census 2000
Summary File 1 (SF 1) 100-Percent Data. [Fact sheet]. Retrieved from
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk
U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). San Francisco. Retrieved from: U.S. Census Bureau’s State &
County Quickfacts website: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html
13