By CHAD CAIN
Staff Writer
Daily Hampshire Gazette
NORTHAMPTON — An additional 46 plaintiffs want to join a federal lawsuit filed against the Northampton Business Improvement District.
The federal lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Springfield in March 2013 against the city of Northampton and the BID, argues that a 2012 amendment to a state law governing the districts is a violation of the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights because it forces them to join the BID and pay fees. The three original plaintiffs are asking the court to declare the amendments unconstitutional.
Meanwhile, a Hampshire Superior Court judge has yet to rule on whether the BID was properly created five years ago.
Attorney Alexandra Glover, who represents plaintiffs Alan Scheinman, Eric Suher and W. Michael Ryan, on Monday filed the motion to add the additional 46, then followed that Wednesday with two more motions for a summary judgment and a permanent injunction preventing the BID from collecting fees or putting liens on any properties owned by people who chose not to join.
The new plaintiffs represent 46 parcels within the BID’s boundaries whose owners all opted out of the original BID. They include several prominent property owners include Jordi Herold, Gleason Bros. Inc., Jeff Dwyer, and Richard Zafft, who owns Fly by Night and one other property.
Additionally, Suher is adding five properties he owns downtown that were not part of the original lawsuit. Some of the plaintiffs own multiple parcels through different limited liability corporations or they are listed separately but own property together, which means the plaintiffs are seeking to add fewer than 46 people to the lawsuit.
These property owners and others who originally opted out are now members of the BID, following the organization’s vote to renew this summer. They received their first bills this week.
“I would say that the people who had already opted out found even more motivation to do even more than opting out by joining our lawsuit,” Scheinman said.
He said the additional plaintiffs show that the support for their case goes beyond a few people who question the legality of the new state law that forces them to join and pay fees to an organization they do not want to join.
Harry Miles, a lawyer for the BID, said it will not object to the addition of new plaintiffs. He said the motion would not affect the legal argument the BID, city and the attorney general’s office will make in the case.
“It’s appropriate to add people who have an interest,” Miles said.
The attorney general’s office has joined the case to defend the constitutionality of the 2012 amendments to the state law governing BIDs. Miles said the defendants will respond to the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and permanent injunction regarding the fees, but he has yet to fully read the requests.
In the meantime, Natasha Yakovlev, executive director of the BID, said quarterly bills were sent to the group’s newest members this week and payments are due Nov. 1. She said the BID is in a “waiting mode,” especially when it comes to the local suit in Hampshire Superior Court. A decision in that case is expected at the end of October, long before the federal case will be resolved.
That civil lawsuit involved a week-long trial in early September in which the plaintiffs argued that the city used a flawed process that did not follow state law when it created the BID in late 2008. The city and the BID countered that officials followed the correct legal process in creating the organization.
Chad Cain can be reached at [email protected].
