River City Company Responds to Lawsuit Seeking to Halt the Business Improvement District

0

CHATTANOOGA, Tenn. (WDEF) — A plaintiff in the lawsuit against the City of Chattanooga over the Business Improvement District, is hoping to stop the process from going forward.

But the River City company is trying to keep that project on track.

- Advertisement -

Charles Paty, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the City of Chattanooga over the Business Improvement District, or BID, says he might have supported it….. if it had been done just by the City.

“I have a philosophical difference, that people who work for their money, shouldn’t, should NOT be required to turn it over to other private entities to spend as they see fit,” said attorney Charles Paty, with Paty, Rymer & Ulin.

Paty says “private taxation” and spending authority – and lack of public accountability, are his main concerns.



“We elect city government representatives, state, federal, and they are the ones in charge of our tax dollars. If we do not like what they do, then we can vote them out of office. This board that has been set up, they are being picked by I don’t know who, I have a suspicion it might be River City, in conjunction with some other people who want this, and they’ll put the board members in who they want in, and then it’ll be self perpetuating,” said Paty.

The River City company, a non profit agency working to develop downtown, issued this statement today:

“Despite recent challenges to the BID by a few, the organization of the Business Improvement District, along with forming a board of directors will continue as planned over the next few weeks, and the board of directors will decide the next operational steps for the Business Improvement District.”

An earlier effort to put that plan in place failed. Paty says that the city council should have waited a year before voting on it again.
Paty says he plans to ask a judge for an injunction against the plan being implemented.

A spokesperson for the City of Chattanooga says they typically don’t comment on active litigation.