Update Friday 13 February. Proposals for the Business Improvement District in Rye have been rejected after a ballot of the town’s shops, pubs, restaurants and companies.
179 votes were cast in the vote. 63 in favour. 116 against. Over a hundred votes were not submitted
A larger amount of the rateable value in town was cast in favour of the proposals, but to make the BID happen a majority of votes AND rateable value was needed to be in favour.
Reaction next week in Rye News.
Original story: Rye businesses will find out on Friday 13 February if they will have to contribute to a controversial new levy. A ballot to decide on whether the Rye Business District (BID) proposal goes ahead closed at 5pm on Thursday.
The Rye BID could raise £90,000 annually for town centre improvements and tourist promotion over five years. The charges qualifying businesses would be made to pay, if the proposal is approved, are based on each firm’s rateable value.
Around 290 of the town’s shops, pubs, restaurants and businesses took part in the postal vote.
Supporters say the BID is the only way to improve Rye town centre in the face of local government cutbacks.
Opponents say a BID is unnecessary, another financial commitment in a tough economic climate, and a tax they will be forced to pay even if they disagree.
For the BID to be approved, the vote has to be won by both a majority of yes votes and a majority of the businesses rateable values.
The postal ballot was organised by Civica who provide election services for Rother District Council. The returning officer is RDC’s chief executive, Lorna Ford, who will announce the result.
If approved, Rye BID would come into force in April this year.
Rye News will have the result as soon as it is announced, with more details and reaction next week.
Image Credits: Sue Forman , RDC .
I understand the results are in.
179 votes cast.
63 in favour of BID.
No vote has the majority.
If you minus the 11 votes given to Rother and the Town Council, this is a whopping majority saying no. The question now needs to be asked, why were businesses not listened to during the early stages, that could have prevented £63k of public money being spent on a consultation?
Why did it take so long for the result to be revealed?
By simple votes it was 35% yes
But by rateable value it was 56% yes.
It is incredible that they did not simply speak to local traders, to test the waters. I did, and I knew straight away it was a flop.
Therefore it seems that Rye “Levelling Up” money has been squandered on a pointless exercise.
A short quick check with tradespeople here would have shown that it wouldn’t wash.
Is there an analysis of the money spent on this failed exercise? If so, will it be published in Rye News?
Timothy Gorman seems to have got hold of the wrong end of the BID stick. Unless he spoke to all 290 ‘traders’ within the BID boundary he could not possibly have come to the conclusion that it was a flop. Perhaps he did go the extra mile and do this – we don’t know. There were clearly some who supported it so my assumption is he did not speak to them ‘to test the waters’ or if he did, he ignored their views. To get actual evidence on support or otherwise for options to improve the economy and the experience of visitors and shoppers then there has to be a full consultation process. That has to be based on proposals put forward by the ‘traders’. That is what happened. This was without doubt the most comprehensive, long-lasting consultation and review process I have ever seen – at any level (national and local government and private sector). You have to have been living under a rock for two years not to know exactly what those options were, how to debate, speak to an actual human, be a trader who was unaware, ‘test the waters’, and offer counter proposals. The plan itself was radically changed half way through because of what businesses said they wanted, and didn’t want. Choosing not to engage is, of course, a perfectly valid option. But pre-judging it is just putting a finger in the air. ‘Levelling up money…squandered..’? This money was provided by central government precisely to enable a process that would determine the views of businesses. You can’t decide the outcome on a whim and a few chats. That’s diktat and unprofessional. Businesses made their views known democratically and the outcome is clear. It was turned down. Analysis of the money spent? Of course there will be. For transparency, yes I am married to one of those who led this process but I have no vested interest in the outcome. However I do care about ill-informed commentary and supposition, and the unpleasantly accusatory and personalised way some of the negative arguments have been framed.
To respond to Steve Axbey the rateable value in favour derived from no more than 15 businesses, representing less individuals as some businesses had more than one vote.
This is a win for small businesses and start ups in Rye. One less thing to pay for. No surprise that big businesses, who had the most to gain, mostly voted for the BID. As Timothy Gorman and Kevin Cheesman have said seems like a lot of money was wasted on this propaganda exercise to try and get the BID passed.
If £63k was available to spend on the BID, why wasn’t that money just invested in Rye? It was clear from the outset that most of the smaller businesses were against having additional costs imposed on them.
There seems to be a misconception from some commenters that the money could have been spent in some other way for Rye’s benefit. To use Tim Gorman’s phraseology a “ short quick check” will reveal that central government would only allow the money to be spent in the way it was, it would not have been given for any other reason.
However this is spun, the BID result represents a huge failure by its proponents, the Rye Chamber of Commerce. Yes, the £60k derived from government levelling-up funding was earmarked to be used for a BID feasibility study. But this is still £60k of wasted public money because — as people have pointed out — RCC should have and could easily have “tested the waters” before securing the money. How difficult would it have been to have sent a letter or emailed the 290 businesses outlining the BID concept and briefly explaining how the levy would work? At the same time that support was sounded out, businesses could also have been asked for ideas/options for ways to spend the levy. A follow-up email could have gauged support. All of this could have be done by emails or letters sent to the businesses at very little cost. It’s not rocket science. Government funds are public money, we all pay for it. In granting the £60k, government surely has an expectation that some simple ‘research’ is done into whether a BID would be welcomed by local businesses (otherwise it’s wasted money) and that the BID feasibility study is put to public tender, so on and so forth. “A full consultation process” costing £60k was in no way needed and it’s ludicrous to suggest it was the only way to learn people’s views. No matter the efficiency of the consultation process, it was an abject failure, largely because it was aimed at a ‘yes’ vote rather than being impartial and it couldn’t overcome small business’s worry that they were being tapped for yet another tax and for outcomes they didn’t really need. I’d argue that testing the waters before thousands of government money are spent is a necessity, not an impossibility — and I think government would support that view.
Perhaps the £60k would have been better spent on the toilets opposite the station!