HAPPY MOTORING

The same can be said if your in the east side.

I totally agree with you. I bus, bike, walk and drive(if i have to) on a daily basis here in Buffalo and its wonderful.
Thats one of the many reasons why I love living in the city.

Yes as long as the gas prices increase gradualy, people *in general* will simply switch to smaller cars before they embrace a high density lifestyle.

On the other hand, a higher cost of transportation could swing a few people to favor a more "urban" setting found in villages and cities. If gas costs 5.00 a gallon, no small car or unknown technology will change the fact that a lifestyle of driving everywhere will have less appeal. It could also foster a more favorable environment to produce goods and services locally instead of importing them from wherever.

http://www.answers.com/topic/subsidy

sub·si·dy

1.Monetary assistance granted by a government to a person or group in support of an enterprise regarded as being in the public interest.
2.Financial assistance given by one person or government to another.

Use of tolls and taxes are using public resources to fund road construction and upkeep. That seems to put publicly funded roads into the above definition of the word subsidy. The fact that this funding source is from tolls, gas tax, stimulus bill etc doesnt make them less of a "subsidy".

Strange that gas taxes are so high in NYS and the teabag crowd never utters a peep in protest.

pitbull>"we have the gas tax money to maintain city roads! Oh wait... we blew that money on suburban sprawlways? The city has to come up with another way to fund road repair? "

No, that's all wrong. The city gets money from gas taxes. It looks to me that the city doesn't use its share of gax taxes to fund street repairs.

In 2008, $50M of the county sales tax was from gasoline (Buffalo News estimate).
http://tinyurl.com/y8hk5ak
"Gasoline tax fuels revenue for counties
Buffalo News, Aug 10, 2008 | by Tom Precious
...Erie County, which imposes the highest levy on gasoline in the state, these revenues increased 37 percent for the first six months, adding nearly $7 million to what motorists have paid so far. If that trend continues... the tax would bring the county $50 million -- significantly more than the $39 million it raised last year. ..."

Erie Co's sales tax revenue was $357M, the city received $68M of that, about 17%. Those are very easy to find online in co and city budgets. 17% of $50M from gasoline is $8.5M the city received... and much did the city decide to spend on street maintenance?

$2.1M says pg 22-25 here:
http://www.ci.buffalo.ny.us/files/1_2_1/Mayor/2008-2009AdoptedBudget/Public_Works_Parks_Streets.pdf

So if the city gets over $8M from gasoline taxes and decides to spend only $2M on streets, whose fault is that? (You might want to ask Mickey why he didn't publicly try to raise the city budget to spend $8M on street work.)

Also, some state spending happens on city roads (Delaware Ave, Main St, Route 5, etc.) which should be funded by state gasoline taxes. The city also takes in millions from parking tickets every year. That money comes from drivers too.

Any defense of your claim that "we blew that [gas tax] money on suburban sprawlways"?

-Yes as demand for services grows so does the cost of government. You have to see that governing a larger, aging city involves more than a newer suburb that doesn’t have the same needs. Yes there have been some public, ugly examples of waste and corruption but I don’t ever remember saying Buffalo was a model for good government.

If demand for services grows then a decrease in population should reduce demand for said services except for programs for the poor. What I am saying is the city spends more to accomplish the same thing as a suburban government. There is much overlap in city gov offices, too much beurocracy. The city government is extremely bloated that it is detrimental to itself. If the city would streamline and reduce many positions it would open up more money for investment. Ever see what a pain in the ass it is to secure a building permit in the city? It is a royal pain in the ass. I have found the suburbs to be much easier, faster and more streamline in their processes.

- Drop in the bucket compared to govt sponsored utilities, roads, homeownership etc. even when you consider the money that was "poured" into fixing city apartments. What good is it to fix an apartment if the feds are underwriting a monumental shift of the marketplace from cities to suburbs?

What good is it to fix an apartment? The government was trying to revitalize the city at the same time. People opted to move to the suburbs instead of living in apartments. That was done by the choice of the people. The gov did not force them to move out of the city. And like I have stated the housing subsidy was available to city homes as well, so there was no coercion.

-That 2nd sentence is 100% false. There were plenty of utopian movements before the new deal to move people out of cities that all failed because the "free market" kept employers and employees in cities.

You fail to take into account that transportation was not as fast, easy or obtainable during those time periods. The automobile was the driving factor for change and sprawl, don’t downplay how the automobile changed this country. When the electric trolley came about cities started to sprawl much farther than they previously had. More modern transportation has led to sprawl of both cities and suburbs. And it wasn’t just government policy changes that molded the suburbs, it was a new ideal that people wanted and craved. You further showed evidence of this by providing the links in your reply. No one would have envisioned a new type of development and tried to implement it without there being a desire for it by the consumer.

- Are you saying that in all of the centuries of western civilization there was no desire by people to own their own home and land? Why did the banks not adopt new loans to meet that demand prior to government guarantees?

You can’t go back centuries. Wealth was not as wide spread as it became post WWII. Also it is not an equitable comparison. Banks have changed greatly over time. There was a housing boom in the 20’s (before the boom of the suburbs). Mortgages at this time were akin to a balloon mortgage, and were usually a 5 year loan. However these loans were rolled over and over effectively creating a longer term loan like we have now. The deregulated excesses of the 1920’s housing market, contributed to the Great Depression and led to the highly regulated mortgage and loan framework of the New Deal. Fannie Mae was not created to expand and sprawl the population but to save the housing market. About one-half of all urban homes were in default, two million construction workers lost their jobs. Fannie Mae was designed to help mortgage lenders gain access to capital for mortgage loans. An important element of this legislation was to make mortgage funds available to more Americans by protecting lenders from the risk of default. In its earliest days, Fannie Mae nationalized the mortgage industry by creating the first mechanism in America for selling individual (FHA insured) mortgages into a secondary market embedded in the balance sheet of the U.S. Government. The formation of this secondary market, increased the supply of money available for mortgage lending and new home purchases. The resulting movement outwards happened about ten years later. This was primarily due to what the people wanted not what was available to them.

- What would I suggest? 1st I would second your idea about the schools. Second, owning + renovating a home in areas of high poverty is a losing investment despite incentives and grants. Maybe a mechanism could be put in place that guarantees property values in blighted areas. Or a homestead program allowing people to "claim" near worthless property on the condition the live there and fix it up. I don’t know how those things could be implemented or if they are possible.

I would agree that something needs to be done. Unfortunately the cost of renovating most of these homes far exceeds the cost of demolition and rebuilding. Also many people want a new home, one that is trouble free in their minds. Many people now do not possess the skills, ability, time or desire to renovate a home making new builds more desirable. I feel the best answer is complete new development in the city by demolition of blighted areas. But then this process gets fought on the premise that is discriminatory to the poor. It is an awfully hard sell to try to get people to move into a high crime down trodden neighborhood regardless of the incentives provided. It takes a very brave soul to try this (Grant St is a perfect example). Most would not because the chances of failure are too great.

- As I said before there are programs that invest in propping up the city but they are in response to public policies that sponsored the exodus and led to a lot of blight and neglect. And yes I understand that people in the city benefit from housing subsidies but a city with a high percentage of renters is going to bear a high percentage of the costs of a program that subsidizes homeownership.

Not necessarily true. Many of the renters in this city are at or below the poverty level. They add a mere pittance to the tax rolls so they are not contributing to the tax dollars going towards subsidies. On the contrary they are taking in more subsidies than they are paying for. I find it entertaining how you downplay city subsidies while talking up suburban subsides. Giving someone a complete free ride on city property taxes is far more subsidy than what is given in the burbs. And as I have said people wanted to get out of the cities, without that any gov. policy would not have had an effect.

- I’m glad some towns have embraced forms of smart growth. However even if developers cover the cost of an entire subdivision there are still other costs including but not limited to police protection(county sheriff), burden on water-sewage, burden on roads leading to higher maintenance costs, upgrades and new road construction etc.

Yes and those other costs are accounted for. And yes the developers do cover the cost; your “even if” is you trying to be misleading. But the increase in tax revenue should (if proper accounting is used) generate more than what is spent. This is in contrast to the city which was running in the red for many years spending more than what they were generating in taxes. As far as the Sheriffs most suburbs are not patrolled by them because they have their own police departments. They focus on the out lying areas of Erie County in the rural areas.

- Again those "wasteful" programs to help the poor and rehab buildings may not be as much had sprawl subsidies not spread people and employers far away from concentrations of poverty. Those are other costs to be associated with govt sponsored sprawl. To me building frivolous infrastructure is a lot more wasteful than adaptive re-use and alleviating poverty.

These sprawl subsidies like I have said were not exclusive to sprawl but pertained to the city as well. What you find as frivolous can be determined to be necessary. Like your frivolous highways. We need them whether you like it or not. Without them we would not be able to move goods or services around which would decrease the economy and further the poverty in this country.

¬- The "aim" is irrelevant when observing the damage urban highways have inflicted on cities. The 50s era concept of helping the city by destroying large portions of neighborhoods, waterfront and downtown should be rejected based on the overwhelming physical evidence in the city of Buffalo.

In regards to Buffalo yes damage was done by incorporating highways in the city in the manor in which it was executed. However highways in cities were and still are needed. Other cities have successfully integrated highways within the city. They do provide a quick way in from the suburbs but they also provide for a quicker away around a city. You cannot look at just the City of Buffalo in regards to highways you have to look in a much broader sense.

-Costly, suburb benefiting highway projects are implemented with little debate while rapid transit languishes. Bridge and road construction projects are viewed as progress while programs to help cities are viewed as waste.

This area's rapid transit is lacking no doubt. But 529 million in the late eighties was not costly? There also isn’t the population needed to justify a huge influx of rapid transit. Many cities have spent far more on rapid transit than highways connecting suburbs. Look at Boston and the amount of money they have spent boring holes through the earth for new rapid transit. You seem to have a general distaste for all highways. If they are built in a city it’s damaging, if they are built outside a city it is waste. We need highways period there is no getting around that.

- Then why are their still costly sprawl subsidies in place such as the toll barrier relocation, Transit road widening etc.? Let people move where they want but until our region needs more room stop sponsoring sprawl.

The toll barrier is paid for from the collection of tolls. It is a subsidy. The region has needed to sprawl in part due to the lack of nice housing in the city. Also many people do not want to own a multiple unit home (it can be a huge headache) and prefer a single family home.

- If there were no 33, 90, widened Transit Main housing subsidies etc. there would be no (town of) Clarence, period.

You have further demonstrated your lack of knowledge of history. If there wasn’t a town of Clarence there would not have been a City of Buffalo. The town of Clarence is in fact older than Buffalo and once included the area that is Buffalo today. Clarence was fairly populated in the late 19th century and had a good amount of industry in the form of mining and brick kilns. As this industry declined Clarence started to opt for housing to sustain its existence.

- The above mentioned sprawl ways were pretty expensive and were also built with far more subsidy money.

Again an argument based on assumption not fact.

- I never denied I prefer city living. I think it is wasteful to spend so much public money to enhance sprawl when there are more practical needs. I find it frustrating when people downplay the role of government in the suburban sprawl. Suburban "prosperity" is simply shifting more prosperous elements of the region into separate municipalities. Do you think people who settled Clarence were prosperous as a result of moving there or were they well off in some other part of the region? Shifting resources away from problems associated with concentrations of poverty creates the illusion that they are "prosperous" and leads to the very real govt enhanced "downward spiral" of the city and older burbs.

More practical needs? In your opinion. Shifting more prosperous elements. Yes the prosperous do not want to live in impoverished areas. There has always been and always will be affluent areas and poverty stricken areas. I find it frustrating when you downplay the amount of subsidy Buffalo receives. What resources are being shifted? What is wrong with providing some money to affluent areas? If you do not continue to invest in the affluent areas they will eventually decline. Many parts of Buffalo were more affluent but a lack of proper management and investment led to those areas decline.

- Through ignorance the city went along with Urban Renewal but i dont think they had much to do with housing manipulation and red lining and public highways that drove suburbanization. To say the city was responsible for their undoing is oversimplification to the point of being false.

Creating mortgages as they are today and tax deductions is not housing manipulation. I have shown you that. Also all this was available to city, suburban and rural housing. I you offer the same thing to all there cannot be any manipulation.
Poor planning by the City has led to the decay it is in. Yes some of the blame can be laid upon the state and feds but it was the City making the final decisions. The feds and state provide funding for certain projects with stipulations but the city does not have to apply for those funds or go along with any of the plans that funding would provide. They do it because if they don’t they would not get the funding at all. So yes the city has a final say in many decisions that led to its downward spiral. It also was fighting a losing battle due to the ideal of what the suburbs would provide over the city.