Real Estate October 15, 2009 12:01 AM

Condo Record Broken at Waterfront Place

Condo Record Broken at Waterfront Place

A second Waterfront Place condominium sale has broken the $1 million mark.  Surgeon Jeffrey J. Visco purchased the largest penthouse in the Pasquale, Ellicott Development's mid-rise residential tower in Waterfront Village.  The 3,633 sq.ft. three bedroom unit on the 11th floor sold for $1.32 million.  It features 10 to 14 foot ceilings and nearly 800 sq.ft. of patio space.  Visco shares the floor with attorney Stephen Barnes who closed on his unit in August.

Approximately two-thirds of Pasquale's 49 units are sold with several others under lease.   Twenty-one units have closed to date.  Tower residences include gourmet kitchens with custom cabinets and granite countertops, hardwood and ceramic tile flooring, whirlpool tub and steam shower in master bathroom suites, and one or more balconies. Several units on the upper floors have rooftop terraces and many have both water and downtown skyline views.

DSC_0611.jpg

Visco's purchase price sets a record for a condominium in Erie County, but it will be short-lived as sales at the Avant are expected to begin closing late next month.  Eight of Avant's 28 residences are priced over $1 million.  The largest unit with 3,664 sq.ft. is reportedly under contract with a $1.73 million "base price." 

Ellicott Development's plans for a second Waterfront Place tower were recently resurrected, the timing of which is unknown.  Remaining units in the Pasquale are priced from $295,240.

Get Connected: Chris Martoche, Ellicott Development, 716.854.0060 or 716.570.2399 (cell)

DSC_0312.jpg

View image

Comments

Leave a comment

Well, I would say that its definitely time to dust off those plans for the 2nd Waterfront Tower. However, I think future waterfront towers should be located between Niagara Street and the Niagara Expressway instead of between the water and the Niagara Expressway. Future towers could then stretch from downtown all the way to the Peace Bridge.

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Wouldn't that just make them regular apartment buildings? I like the idea of bringing high end condo living into the actual city but I can't see anyone looking for a water front condo that is 10 blocks from the water. Especially between niagara st and the expressway. That would locate them right next to those hud houses off lake view. They would be hard pressed to find people to fill their building.

replied to Christine
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Once the height rises above the Niagara Expressway, then they would have the same views as the Pasquale. The difference is that they would be integrated into the city and the west village causing a much more dynamic impact to the surrounding community than the near gated waterfront community.

You make a good point...regarding the apartment building. In order to get towers on the other side of the Niagara Expressway...they may need to follow the Avant, Statler and others in being both condo and rental.

Remember...the near gated waterfront community is nearly built out but the desire for waterfront condos and rentals will remain. To get the views...the other side of Niagara Expressway is the only option.

Niagara Street will not always be the Niagara Street we know today. Once the near gated waterfront community is built out, then it will only take a few towers on the other side of the expressway to convert Niagara Street to something akin to Elmwood.

replied to jolopy
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Any info on Gates Circle tower? Uniland said they were moving back the timetable and would focus on Avant for now (the GC website now only advertises jobs for the Avant Embassy Suites).

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I heard there was a lot of water damage to the units from the huge rain storm we had several weeks ago. Anyone know any more about that?

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

But Christine who in the world would be buying the units in the second tower, this is Buffalo afterall. (sarcasm)

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I still do not understand the thought process that went into the decision to put tiny tiny little bitty windows into those townhouses. That might have contributed more than a little to the slow sales on those properties.

Hello!? Waterfront? Glass-openness-views!?

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

In a recent interview Paladino was complaining about how the Avant building got tons of free govt money and how his comdos were now in a disadvantaged competition with those of Avant.

Perhaps Paladino could have gotten a little more bacon himself if he constructed something a bit more impressive. Avant is a mixed use building in the city center rehabilitated from a aging, vacant federal building. The Pasquale is a cheap looking new build located on prime waterfront land featuring 1980/90's architecture. The building's less than stunning façade is completely focused on the water, exposing its unsightly derrière to all of downtown.

I hope the new tower, if constructed, is more carefully planned.

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Andrew>"Perhaps Paladino could have gotten a little more bacon himself if he constructed something a bit more impressive."

Are you seriously saying the govt would give more bacon if it looked better? I doubt that's how it works. Architectural taste of bureaucrats probably isn't a factor in Empire Zone tax breaks.

replied to Andrew
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

You clearly cant read.

I said, "Perhaps Paladino could have gotten a little more bacon himself if he constructed something a bit more impressive. Avant is a mixed use building in the city center rehabilitated from a aging, vacant federal building"

If he built something in the city center out of an aging vacant building he would have gotten some more bacon.

replied to whatever
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Your comment focused almost entirely on appearance ("less than stunning façade", "1980/90's architecture", "unsightly derrière") much more than location.

You said he "could have gotten a little more bacon himself if he constructed something a bit more impressive".

replied to Andrew
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Paladino's residents, some of the richest people in the city, will be receiving 10 year tax abatements... come on...

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

While these people will be receiving a 10 year tax break...the $25K tax bill (will be more in 10 years) will quickly make up for the break.

When most in Buffalo have a property tax bill for $1k-$2k, why is it so hard for people to see the long term gain on these tax breaks. Hell, even with the breaks these units are paying more in taxes for the first 10 years than most of the people who complain.

Would people rather keep the high end real estate out of the city and in the burbs? Ya..that makes a lot of sense.

replied to townline
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

As long as those folks don't all move out to a new tax-free condo after their 10 year tax break is up...

replied to Really?
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Really>"why is it so hard for people to see the long term gain on these tax breaks"

At least two reasons. First, the market demand shows there's no reason to think these waterfront condos or the Avant wouldn't have been built even without corporate welfare handouts. Second, even if they weren't built, the occupants would still be living around here anyway and paying taxes. So what if it's in a burb? So-called industrial development spending should never be used to subsidize any residential.

It's not comparable to companies (Yahoo, Geico, etc. - not hotels or restaurants) creating real job growth here instead of some other part of the country. Corp welfare for those businesses is also very questionable at best, but at least those result in some real long term growth for the area. Building condos and lofts doesn't.

replied to Really?
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

While I agree that ultimately tax breaks might not be needed for these developments, how would anyone know what the market is for these condos if they aren't built and who would have been the first to build them without the incentives and tax breaks? I would like to see ALL new builds in Buffalo get tax breaks. Secondly, IRBs for job creation can run into the billions for some industries. Buffalo's bonding capacity and credit rating aren't likely to be injured by a residential development of this scale. It would be far better not to use that financing for anything but employers but there was job creation in these two projects and rolling those jobs over into new projects is vital now so perhaps this debate can wait until the economy recovers.

replied to whatever
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

My point was that Paladino shouldn't be complaining about the Avant getting government help when his own project is also getting government help, just a different kind.

Dollars and cents, both packages probably make sense in the long run.

replied to Really?
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

@JSmith - It does not matter who lives there in 10 years. The assessment is going to be the same or most likely more and whomever owns the property will be paying the bill.

This is really a program to get more high revenue property on the tax rolls. When a $1M listing in Buffalo is news, which is rather pathetic for a city, you have a problem. If this was done in the 80s or 90s, the city would be cashing in today.

@whatever - Show me in your free market in Buffalo where a 49 unit HIGH END development has been done. In your free market, show me where $30M investments in Real Estate are done with out help on the tax bill. I would love to see you list of projects.

As to your second point, the residents may live in WNY but odds are they would live outside of the city for this price point. If you do not understand the difference of Buffalo collecting property taxes and Clarence...I just do not know what to say.

While this project did not create permanent jobs, it did create some pretty good paying ones while it was under construction. The property itself will produce more tax revenue compared to when it was a lot.

I really find it striking that people do not see the difference between a tax break and aid or grants. This is a NET gain for the city from day one. It would NOT have been built otherwise. The NET gain grows with every year and after 10, it will provide close to $500k in property taxes. I used loose math but I think it makes my point.

Did you look up how much the lot paid before it was built?


@townline - You are right. Help is help regardless of how much or how it is packaged.


replied to townline
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Will there be a Rite Aid or a Dollar Store on the ground level?

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

While penthouses are great, the real story is what's happening with units between $300k and $800k. That's where we might get enough demand for some serious high rise steel and glass. If the Pasquale sells out in this economic climate, and Avant does likewise, surely we can go higher. With the right ammenities downtown, why wouldn't Buffalo amass some of the same textures as Toronto?

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

With some improvements to Lafayette square, mainly cleaning out the homeless and the Hotel Lafayette, the parking lot facing Broadway between Washington and Ellicott St would be PERFECT in my opinion.

The curved lot because of the bend in Broadway would create a great facade if they used the same lines.


Heck, it could even drive a redevelopment of the hotel. How cool would that square be then.

replied to sonyactivision
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

These projects would not get built without the tax incentive. In fact the 3 other proposed townhouse/condo complexes still have not been built even with the tax benefit! Second, there is a tax, the houses immediately pay the taxes on the price of the undeveloped land, which is about $2000 per year (still more than most city residents pay.)
Lastly, a poster commeted on the size of the windows being "tiny," which is not accurate. The windows are apporoximately 4 feet high, the problem is they look small because of the amount of brick on the front of the building, likely due to the high ceilings. The builders should have broken up the facade with coining or other work to make the front more interesting.

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

hmmm, pasquale, still sounds like an old meat market on the west side.

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Next time you wonder why your insurance (health, auto, property, etc.)cost so much look to the grand Pasquale for your answer. Your premiums are becoming unaffordable so that personal inury attourneys and physicians can live in the penthouse. Enjoy.

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

sony>"how would anyone know what the market is for these condos if they aren't built?"
There's no way to predict for sure how many of anything will be sold, how soon, and for how much. That's true with or without giving special targeted gifts to Paladino and other developers and a select few occupants of condos or lofts.

sony>"who would have been the first to build them without the incentives and tax breaks?"
We'll never know.

sony>"I would like to see ALL new builds in Buffalo get tax breaks"
How is that better than using the same cost of that to lower the tax rate for everyone in the city? Why shouldn't it be equitable to all city residents?

edmd>"These projects would not get built without the tax incentive"

Maybe yes, maybe no. Just because anyone says it wouldn't be built doesn't mean it wouldn't.

The it-won't-happen-otherwise argument is used by many recipients of Empire Zone gifts. There's a much bigger number of local businesses and residents who aren't in Empire Zones and have to pay their full share.

Even if this project of Paladino's wasn't built, the wealthy local surgeon and Mr. Barnes would still be in the local market for a $1M+ residence. Obviously they liked the idea of living near the water. Perhaps market demand from them and others might motivate a different developer to build near there. Or maybe instead they'd buy or build a $1M home near Lincoln Pkwy or Tillinghast.

Why should average taxpayers across the city have to make it a little cheaper for Barnes and Paladino? Why single out a select very small percent of rich people and give them very targeted gifts using public money? It doesn't add long term jobs or real growth.

edmd>"3 other proposed townhouse/condo complexes still have not been built even with the tax benefit"
If there's not enough market now for 3 more, that doesn't mean there wasn't enough market for one.

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Seriously?

There are countless opportunities for development in the COB. Countless. However, they are just empty buildings or empty lots. If there was a buck to be made in the free market...it would be made. A way to figure out how much of a free market for development there is in Buffalo is to count how many out of town developers do business in Buffalo. It will not take you that long to figure it out.

To say the two who purchased these condos would have just looked in Buffalo is silly. You also forget to mention that these are new construction. For some, new construction is a MUST when looking to buy. How much high end new construction has happened in Buffalo in the last 30 years? How much has happened in Clarence? Without the tax breaks, high end buyers choose the burbs every.single.time.

The average taxpayer across the city is NOT making it cheaper to buy. Nothing is coming out of your pocket. All that is happening here is less is being paid in taxes for a period of time. The NET gain of this property is STILL MORE then what was being paid when it was a lot.

They are not using public money. They are being allowed to pay less for a period of time before they pay SIGNIFICANTLY more.

The class envy of some people is just crazy. Almost everything that people like to brag about in Buffalo today, was left behind by the rich of yesterday.

The Albright-Knox Art Gallery was a gift. Kleinhans Music Hall was a gift. The Buffalo Zoo, started as a gift. All of the Frank Lloyd Wright gems that people in Buffalo love to brag about...left behind by the rich.

So tell me...in the last 50 years since it has become so fashionable to rail on the rich in Buffalo and in turn drove them out of the region, just what has been left behind?

People like to rail on people like Paladino as to what he says and does...but the guy is putting his money out there. He is not in Chicago telling people how they should build things in Buffalo. He is not working a government job, counting the days to his pension and bolting to Florida. He is not letting the average Buffalo taxpayer pay his tab.

If you do not like what he is doing...do it better.

If you want a reality check, make some calls to developers are the US and ask why they are not looking at Buffalo. Wake up for Christ sake.

replied to whatever
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Ill add to that. Subsidies and tax breaks are nothing new. If it were not for massive government handouts in the mid 20th century, there would be no suburs, or at least the ones we have today.

Me, Id rather see easier access to tax breaks for people who rehab existing homes but seeing this development happen in the Downtown core is still great news. Ill take 10 more.

replied to Really?
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Not only that, we wouldn't have the development in the deserts or the southern US. Without tax incentives and subsidies, we wouldn't have a fraction of the companies in Buffalo that made us what we once were. We wouldn't have the majority of development projects that have taken place in Buffalo the past few decades.

replied to Armchair MBA
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Yes Buffalo has benifited from govt investment throughout our history(see Erie Canal, Niagara Power Project etc.) We have also been negativly impacted by policies ecouraging investment away from cities and from the Northeast. The few token programs to encourage inward investment do not come close to making up for this.

You mentioned the South and Southwest, Think of how a smaller city in the 50's like Phoenix, LA, LV etc. benifited from pubic incentives to construct newer, automobile influenced built environments. Think of how older, industrial towns that were for the most part, built out, were denied these investments and or were negatively impacted by them (urban highways, urban renewal etc). This was compounded by the fact that people living in these older cities were paying for their own undoing through their tax dollars. I wonder if city residents resisted public investments toward suburbanization and southern, western migration the way suburbanites today complain about their tax dollars being spent in the city?

Empire zones and other relatively small govt programs are not enough to reverse these trends. The way to get investment directed inward to older cities is to incentivize rehabilitation,"urban friendly" new construction, and brownfield remediation to the point where it is cheaper than building outward. If we just wait for the so called "free market" to do so, it will never happen.

Sounds like socialism? Well if the US can subsidize corn to the point where a 64oz big gulp and a 10 lb bag of Doritos costs less than a handfull of tomatos, we have already embraced forms of socialism.

replied to O'Brien
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I'm confused about your post. Suburban people got tax breaks to move out of the city? When did that happen and why didn't everyone know about this? Were all the suburbs under an Empire Zone arrangement like the one that Brian Davis lives in? I never heard about this for suburbanites until now.

replied to Armchair MBA
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Yes the burbs wouldnt be possible without heavy interference by government with the "free market".
Here are a few examples:

WPA-built roads, sewers, bridges etc in mostly unsettled areas. This set the table for later mass migration outward.

FHA- artificialy affordable mortgage rates drove demand for new construction of single family homes. Since land was too scarce in the city, this took place in the burbs.

GI Bill- (servicmens settlement act) govt guarantee of mortgages for returning vets further enhanced the market for single family homes.

Interstate Highway Act- construction of mega expressways made mass settlement outside the central city possible as well as compromised strong city neighborhoods.

Urban Renewal Act- layed waste to acres of mixed use city property for low income housing and "shovel ready sites" creating a suburban, low density environment in the previously vital inner city.


For better or worse, at some point government decided that it was better to develop our society in a low density manner rather than continue the natural path of concentration in urban centers. The suburban environment you see today is the result of growth by government design and not "the free market".

I point this out because many believe the comparably tiny programs that encourage investment in the city on par with socialism without realizing the role govenment has in creating the suburban environment.

replied to similitude
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Let's keep things in perspective... The WPA was a program that reached far beyond the building of roads and sewers, and was not created to develop rural land into housing communities. The focus at the time was developing universal access to services for all Americans, not just the rich who could live in the city. In the 1930s, the country was much different than it is today, at that time it was the rich and elite who lived in the cities, while the poor farmers and workers lived outside. Things changed as manufacturing brought more people into the ciy and increased density of population. When things started to decline in the cities, the people of means left for, as you might say, greener pastures.

FHA and GI Bill were used to purchase existing houses when they were first enacted. The plan to increase home ownership worked so well that new houses needed to be built. Many of our suburbs were created from the housing shortages and price inflation that these acts created. Take a look at the first middle class neighborhoods in Amherst, Kenmore, Cheektowaga, etc and you will see the houses that people were purchasing. These are not the McMansions that we love to associate with the suburbs.

IHA was enacted as a response to gaps in our national defense after WWII. The Government determined that it took too long to mobilize troops and machinary in our country, they identified that the rail roads were insufficient and too open to attack to meet the goals of this program. The end result may have been an easier commute for suburbanites, but at the time it was enacted, car ownership was far from universal and interstate travel was not as common as it is today.

Urban renewal was done in response to the decline of urban areas, not to further this decline. This is a good example of where government intervention to fix one problem creates many more.

The great thing about these programs is that we have replicated them during various Presidential adminstrations, under a variety of different names. When Obama, Bush, or Clinton enacts a law similar to ones that were previously proposed, many are optimitic that things will be different this time. The end result is that we make some progress on fixing the initial problem, but create new problems in the process. Look at what the Community Reinvestment Act did to the inner cities that it was created to help? We made home ownership easier to reach for lower income families, and many of them left the city for the burbs, spurring even more suburban growth. The policies that we created, once put into the free market, have a vastly different result than what was initially intended.

replied to Armchair MBA
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

O'B>"Let's keep things in perspective... The WPA was a program that reached far beyond the building of roads and sewers, and was not created to develop rural land into housing communities."

Yes but having federal funded roads and sewers in the outlying areas made it cheaper to develop the burbs. A publicly funded foundation to suburban growth.

O'B" >"The focus at the time was developing universal access to services for all Americans, not just the rich who could live in the city. In the 1930s, the country was much different than it is today, at that time it was the rich and elite who lived in the cities, while the poor farmers and workers lived outside. Things changed as manufacturing brought more people into the ciy and increased density of population"

Yes and no. Yes the city was the center of wealth and poverty was in rural areas where Mcmansions now stand. But it was not as simple as rich in the city and poor outside. Industrializtion happened long before the 1930s and it resulted in a city where poor, working class, and rich lived together. In Buffalo's case this pattern dates to decades prior to industrialization when the canal was the center of commerce and population. Proof of this exists in older parts of Buffalo, like Blackrock where you see a large house next to a couple of small cottages, next to an apartment building and up the street from industry or rail. The upper and middle classes didnt leave the city until suburbanization was well under way.

O'B"FHA and GI Bill were used to purchase existing houses when they were first enacted. The plan to increase home ownership worked so well that new houses needed to be built. Many of our suburbs were created from the housing shortages and price inflation that these acts created."

True, but there are other ways or alleviating housing shortages than building outward. The natural or "free market" way of doing this would be to build up in the form of high rises or other multi-family units. This would not have required the massive subsidy that built the 50s suburbs. Think of the outrage today among taxpayers if public officials proposed spreading large quatities of the population outward into farmland. ...Oh wait we do do that now only for some reason the taxpayer advocacy types cant or dont "obstruct" this.
You are right that the 50s burbs were working class. This may explain why vested interests in the city went along with all of this since they were still the center of wealth and industry. They didnt think those would follow the middle class out of town too.

O'B"IHA was enacted as a response to gaps in our national defense after WWII. The Government determined that it took too long to mobilize troops and machinary in our country"

Yes. This is one example of govt thinking it was in our best interst to spread out. In the sence that our cities were more resistant to attack and people and equipment could be moved fast, suburbanization was a success. Im sure after Ike saw those compacted Euro cities bombed to pieces he was motivated to design America to be resistant to a similar fate.
However, like national defense was used to justify outward sprawl, environmental concerns, urban decay, public health, and social dicrepancies could to justify inward incentives.

Again, the only reason I made mention of this is some feel that growth outside the city, regardless of if it is funded by a government agency is "free market capitalism" where development in the city is often looked at a "politically motivated marketplace manipulation".

replied to O'Brien
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

There's no good reason to give Steve Barnes a special property tax break or subsidy that extremely few other people around here get. I don't blame Barnes for taking it, but there's no logic to it being provided to him.

All city property onwers should pay the same rate - Pitbull in North Buff, Barnes on the waterfront, and Councilman Brian Davis on Hickory St (who also lives in an Empire Zone tax free new build house). As it stands now, among those three only Pitbull will be paying the full rate any time soon. Apparently he doesn't mind, but maybe some of his neighbors do.

http://www.buffalonews.com/home/story/637358.html

" ... Last year, Davis faced criticism when it was disclosed that he was paying no property taxes on his house on Hickory Street because it is located inside an Empire Zone. Houses in the zone can apply for a seven-year waiver on property taxes, which in this case, save Davis and his wife $2,800 a year.

Davis in 2004 voted to extend the life of the zone. Six months later, his fiancee bought a lot on Hickory from the city, then sold the vacant lot to Savarino Construction Services, which in turn constructed the house and then sold the house and lot back to her in August 2006 for $181,000. The Davises now reside in that house.

Davis has denied any conflict of interest. Savarino, who did not return telephone calls seeking an interview, is one of the city’s most active developers and a major contributor to Brown’s 2005 mayoral campaign. ... "

Great system you guys like so much. Btw, it's not too early for you guys to start your Xmas shopping for Paladino, Barnes, and Davis. The special tax breaks are nice, but a little impersonal. They'd probably welcome more gifts to thank them for being here.

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

What no xmas gift for me?

replied to whatever
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

@whatever, The tax incentive was available to you, as well every one else in buffalo who wanted to buy one of these units. There was no discriminating as to who was allowed the abatement. You seem to think it was a conspiracy to give tax breaks to specific people. You can still get this same deal in fact, as the article states that not all of the units are sold at the moment.

replied to whatever
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Wow. Somebody gamed the system? Really? That's never happened before. Frankly, I agree with you that all property owners should pay the same tax: zero. If the city can condemn and seize so many houses, they can zero out property and other taxes and support their services from the sale of those suddenly incredibly valuable plots of land. That's what Hong Kong does and there's some evidence that that has worked well for them. Meanwhile, back in the real world, Dr. Visco just paid $1.32 million for a penthouse in Buffalo. The taxpayers didn't pay that money, Dr. Visco did. He could have bought a very nice mansion out in Clarence but chose instead to live in the city. Call it what you want, I call this a win.

replied to whatever
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Wouldn't it be better to do something with the Niagara Section of the thruway, uniting downtown with the waterfront instead of trying to work around it?

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Wouldn't it be better to do something with the Niagara Section of the thruway, uniting downtown with the waterfront instead of trying to work around it?

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

sony - It's up to the doctor to choose where he wants to live, but he should pay the same property tax rate as others in the location he chooses. I don't see how that's such a radical concept.

pitbull - Haha nope, for consistency you should buy Xmas gifts for Barnes, Davis, and your buddy Carl.


blohard>"The tax incentive was available to you, as well every one else in buffalo who wanted to buy one of these units. There was no discriminating as to who was allowed the abatement."

blohard - It isn't a conspiracy, although there's some insider politics involved in the program. Have you ever seen a map of the Empire Zone boundaries? Don't you think they get adjusted to benefit some well-connected people? Some aspects of the Brian Davis deal also sound strange.

Anyhow, individuals aren't the main point. It's inherently corrupt because it involves politicians giving steep subsidies to a very small select few property owners instead of more equitable reductions to the whole set of property owners across the city.

While you're correct EZ's aren't limited to certain individuals, it's misleading for you to imply everyone could take advantage. It's probably under 1% of city property owners who are given quite a few years of not having to pay a city tax bill at all while the other 99% have to pay up in full or else they get their property seized and auctioned off.

All property owners in Buffalo can't possibly take advantage of it. For one thing, the EZ program would quickly run out of money if they all did, and for another thing they probably couldn't even all fit within the EZ boundaries!

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

The point I was trying to make earlier was that if the burbs could grow out of public policy than so can the inner city. I dont like the idea of Barnes etc. getting a huge break but I like the idea of giving incentives to develop inward. Forget the high rise and Mr Davis's house, the EZ and similar policies on the books could be used to make existing homes and brownfields marketable again.

Think of how few houses we would have to tear down if we could encourage re-use with a 10 year break for anybody rehabing and living in one of these vacant places? Neighborhoods would get rebuilt, the environment would improve, and the money not collected in those 10 years would e made back through a revitalized city. It sounds ambitious but not nearly as ambitious or expensive as traditional suburbanization.

replied to whatever
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

ILPB - I agree that public policy could be used to improve the city, but it is going to be a challenge. The policies and laws that you cited above were enacted universally, not as a policy for suburban development. If you enact a law or policy today, it is also going to have to be available to all, not just those who live, work, or want to live and work in the city. When we say that public policy built the suburbs, that may have been the end result, but it wasn't the intent. What you are asking for is a law or policy that intentionally favors the urban environment over the suburban environment, and I don't think this will fly with most of the tax payers in WNY.

The Empire Zones and tax credits are available for suburban, rural, and urban development. We may be able to sway Albany and Washington to create more in the city, and I think that would be great.

The thing I take issue with is the notion that the government is creating suburban sprawl as some sort of conspiracy against the cities. The power and wealth of America has shifted from the cities to the suburbs for a reason, people left the cities for a reason, as stated on many, many, many threads. People live in the suburbs because that is their preference, others live in the cities because that is their preference. Granted, some people do not have a choice in the matter, they live where they live out of necessity and circumstance. The State of NY, Erie County, our Federal Government, etc, are not asking people to move as far away from the city as possible, people are demanding it. They want to get away from others, they like their little refuges in South Boston and Wheatfield, where it is quiet and isolated. Others like to live in the small villages like Snyder, East Aurora, Clarence Center, where it is somewhat quaint and safe. Others like the planned suburban developments, and others like the city. It is great that we have ample choices on where to live, work, and play.

replied to Armchair MBA
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

O'b:"I agree that public policy could be used to improve the city, but it is going to be a challenge. The policies and laws that you cited above were enacted universally, not as a policy for suburban development. If you enact a law or policy today, it is also going to have to be available to all, not just those who live, work, or want to live and work in the city. When we say that public policy built the suburbs, that may have been the end result, but it wasn't the intent. "

It will be a long, complicated, and expensive process. The policy changes i mentioned happened over a period of aprox 30 years and it will take longer than that to roll back their impacts. I too feel laws favoring development in the city would be a tough sell. Everyone though has a vested interest in a healthy metro otherwise they wouldnt live here. Even WNYs most inward thinking suburbanite enjoys the benifits of living in a metro area at times. The key is convincing these people and others that inward development is in their best interest.

O'B:"The thing I take issue with is the notion that the government is creating suburban sprawl as some sort of conspiracy against the cities. The power and wealth of America has shifted from the cities to the suburbs for a reason, people left the cities for a reason, as stated on many, many, many threads. People live in the suburbs because that is their preference, others live in the cities because that is their preference."

i dont think it was a conspiracy to create the suburban growth/urban decline system we have today. Looking at history, decision makers initiated the outward development process in the name of economic development, national security, jeffersonian ideal etc. I think these policies were enacted with the intention of making both places thrive in harmony. The city vs suburb discrepancy we see today is an unintended consequence of those decisions.

I dont think though suburban growth is a manifestation of people choosing to live outside the city. Lots of taxpayer money went into influencing that choice.

Its hard to choose a cape cod over a flat without the govt subsidizing your mortgage.

Its hard to choose a home in Cheektowaga without govt paying for utility lines, water, paved roads etc.

Its hard to choose to live outside the metro or own a car without the govt building a network of highways allowing you to drive to work, shop or recreation.

If you put enough subsidies into it, you can give people the choice of living on the moon.

There are many reasons why it is in our best interest to steer growth inward. One of which is the fact that we pay to keep the outward development sytem going. Every time you fill up the tank you are contributing to the sprawling road system that is being built even though there is no growth.

When the canal side stuff was posted a few weeks back, someone was upset because their utility+tax burden was going up to develop this tiny piece of dowtown. I wonder if he knows a LOT more of his money is being used to develop Clarence, Lancaster etc.

replied to O'Brien
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

ILPB - I understand where you are coming from, but keep in mind that the infrastructure of the city was created under the same conditions and for the same reasons as the infrastructure in the suburbs. If you are a lover of the urban environment, then you might condemn the development in the suburbs without realizing that you are criticizing the same things that made the city possible. The same is true for the suburbanites who criticize development in the cities. We need urban, suburban, and rural options; I take issue with the notion that one is superior to the other for whatever reason. We paid for city development at a time when many people were livng in small villages and towns, like Williamsville, Clarence, East Aurora, Medina, etc. We put tax dollars in to expanding the city, creating roads and power lines that serviced a few industries in the city, building sewers and waterlines that pulled water from rivers that were once used to irrigate farmland, and dumped sewage into the same rivers downstream. To some, the city was what we now consider the suburbs to be. In time, things will shift again.

When we focus on only our own self interests and agendas, we tend to limit our options and fail to see the bigger picture.

replied to Armchair MBA
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I hear ya. You are correct in saying the city benifited from govt subsidy. Where would be be without the state funded Erie Canal? And yes, at time it grew at the expense of the rural villages. I would argue the level of govt involvement in the centralization process was no where near suburbanization.

For the sake of the bigger picture though, we now have the advantage of seeing all of the consequences of a central vs de-central development strategy. Providing the choice of sprawling outward has created some serious social, environmental, economic and sustainablility issues. I guess the question is if creating an economy and a way of life that is dependant on autos and new home construction worth the negative impact it creates for society as a whole. I would say no but Im sure a vast majority of voters would disagree. They would do so because many probably dont see the big picture from their suburban lifestyle.

That was the point for bringing up governments role in suburbanization. That and the fact that many of these types will stand smugly on their soapbox badmouthing coamparably tiny investments in the city while waving the "free market"
and "anti-government" flag. They will say the city ought to get its act together like my burb but not realize their burb is the product of much larger government investment that in many ways makes it hard for the city to clean up its act.

replied to O'Brien
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Again, you have to look at both sides of the argument. Many would argue that the city creates more social, environmental, and economic concerns than the suburbs, and that the suburbs have successfully corrected many of these issues that the cities have failed to address. Take crime as an example, it is difficult to argue that the city is safer than the suburbs in any respect. The crime is lower, people feel that the police force is more responsive and more accountable than the city. Same goes for government, many feel that the city government is more corrupt and less responsive than what they have in the cities. There are deeper social and cultural issues in the cities that have yet to be addressed. For all the changes in social consciousness and the new urbanism movement, the cities have done little to change from business as usual. Corruption is common place at all levels of government, but it seems to be more accepted in our local city government. I read it here all the time, we complain about the contradictions and hypocrisy, the lack of response from City Hall, the misguided decisions that we are powerless to reverse, the failure of our schools, the unaccountability and disappearance of Brian Davis, the selective policing, and the list goes on and on.

What would happen if we put a stop to development outside the city? Do you think that people would choose to relocate on the East Side? I am still waiting for anyone to raise their hand to say that they would be willing to move to the Kennsington / Bailey area, if they had a choice to live elsewhere in the city.

People are generally looking out for their own interests (and the interests of the family) first. They will leave the city for the suburbs to put their kids in better schools, or pull them out of BPS to place them in private schools. Why? Because it is less risky and better for their children's education. This behavior hurts the Buffalo Schools, but few would blame the parents for making this decision. The same is true for moving your family out of the city. If your house is robbed or a member of your family is mugged, you will question whether or not you did enough to prevent it, and weigh the risks of it happening again. When it happens a second or third time, when the police do not respond to the complaints with urgency or interest, then people decide to move elsewhere. If we want people to live in the city, then we need to fix the city.

In a very simplistic and overstated way, the suburbs are a threat, and we have not adequately responded to this threat. In much the same way that the legacy automakers failed to respond to the threats from Honda and Toyota until they lost significant market share, then decided to run a campaign stating that buying a Honda or Toyota was bad for America, they fought for tougher restrictions on imports, and yet the superior product still won out. The fact is that as a city, we have failed to respond, we are trying the emotional approach and it won't work. If we are truly honest, we will see that the suburbs are not in competition with the city for much, they are now in competition with each other, and the city isn't even in the race. We have to do what we can to get back in the race, and that is not done by moving the goalposts. Let's mobilize the city residents to take real action, instead of blaming our problems on someone else. This is the only thing that is going to make the city a better place to live. We need to clean up our act before we expect anyone to take us seriously again.

replied to Armchair MBA
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Leave a comment

Buffalo Rising Poll