
ECHDC Approves Union Workforce

Comments
Leave a commenti thought with all the govt $$$, it would at least have to be a prevailing wage job anyway.
Given that the work is prevailing wage anyway, I fail to see how a PLA will create a cost savings. Unless, of course, the Building Trades intended to make it cost more if they didn't get their way.
"...the project will be devoid of construction site jurisdictional hindrances and potential lockouts or strikes."
PLA's are blackmail.
"Unless, of course, the Building Trades intended to make it cost more if they didn't get their way."
That's happened a lot around here.
http://www.buffalonews.com/cityregion/niagaracounty/story/945240.html
"Union organizer’s days of intimidating are over
Local 17 official takes felony plea
By Dan Herbeck February 04, 2010
When it came to intimidating non-union workers and construction companies, labor organizer James L. Minter III knew how to play hardball.
One day in January 2003, according to federal court papers, Minter walked up to an official of an Alden construction company and told him: “We’re going to destroy you and your machine. You’re not going to work in Buffalo.”
Four days later, Minter tried to run another official of the Alden company off the road at several different locations in Buffalo. And one day after that, an excavator that the company used was heavily damaged when sand was poured into the engine.
...The illegal tactics by Local 17 added millions of dollars to the costs of construction projects in the region over a 10-year period, according to federal officials.
Members of the local have been involved in disputes with non-union contractors at many major construction sites in the region, including Ralph Wilson Stadium, Roswell Park Cancer Institute and Buffalo State College. ...."
I think there was also a similar conviction a few years ago for violence against non-union contractors working on the new Uniland office building next to Ch 2 on Delaware.
A reason to be happy? I cannot blame the unions for their action, after all they will be provided "stimulus program" jobs. Not that this is part of the Obama stimulus program but the expenditure of public tax dollars at a time of declining consumerism with a sharp drop retail spending is totally foolish. I love to listen to the political economic developers who have all been around for the last thirty years telling us how successfully they are going to spend yours and mine tax dollars on this shopping mall. When the president asked to the politicians to develop infrastructure jobs that would create a better community I did not think that he meant "shopping malls." Only in Buffalo could something as foolish as this take place. If you want to read another opinion on this project read Mark Goldman's article in the Buffalo News editorial page on @-16-2010, oldman: Canal Side Project lacks a plan to make it work
By Mark Goldman
Updated: February 16, 2010, 1:00 pm /
Published: February 16, 2010, 12:30 am
Ihave serious reservations about the Erie Canal Harbor Development Corp.’s plan for the Canal Side Project. The plan, created by leading national and local architects and marked by exciting architectural details, is deeply flawed.
Despite excellent design details — low, brick buildings, attractive cobblestone streets, quaint canals lined with cafes, heated street furniture and signage designed by Disney — the plan, costing close to $500 million in public funds, is not supported by any demographic or economic data that makes any sense.
At a time when most of our stores and restaurants—even those operating in such proven destinations as Hertel, Elmwood and Allen — are struggling to survive; when major cultural institutions like the Buffalo Philharmonic Orchestra, the Albright-Knox Art Gallery, the Buffalo & Erie County Historical Society and the rest are straining with ever- shrinking revenue; when our public schools, even those recently remodeled with almost $10 billion in state funds, are terminating teachers and programs, it is unconscionable that we would consider the kind of public support that the Canal District project requires, particularly since the plan has no business plan.
There are no pro-formas, no income expense statements, nothing that makes the stunning drawings and rhetoric seem real. Retailers — restaurant and other street-based business owners —require a steady, regular and daily clientele. None of them would ever considering locating (unless given generous subsidies) in a destination-driven location like the Canal District. Buffalo does not need, in the words of one of the architects, another “great spot.” We have more than enough of them already and most of them do not have the traffic they need to survive.
Given our demographic and economic realities, the development corporation’s plan cannot succeed. What if we do build it and nobody comes? The plan has no exit strategy — no way to mitigate the vast expenditure of public dollars, no way to reuse the buildings should their intended uses fail.
Will we continue, in some desperate effort to save our investment, to shovel more money at it? Will we let it die a natural death, leaving a huge monument, however beautifully designed, to yet another generation’s unfilled dreams for the waterfront? It’s time to stop the kind of planning that is focused on fantasy and not the realities of our time and place.
If we don’t, this plan will further damage the fiscal health of our community. Worse, it will add to the cynicism that already afflicts a citizenry overburdened by publicly funded projects for which there is little demand. The Canal Development Corp’s plan for the waterfront is the wrong plan, in the wrong place and at the wrong time. I strongly urge that we reject it. Let us instead reexamine the district within the context of our existing resources and realities.
Mark Goldman is a business owner who has written three books on Buffalo.
I used to think that Tim Tielman's vision of an Erie Canal Museum site was silly. Now his idea appears 100% sensible, compared to this huge cash-grab of a disaster. I believe Mr.Tielman has divorced himself from this mess.
When someone does not even have the most basic facts correct how can you take anything he writes seriously. Mr Goldman is so far off base that it is obvious he pulled his numbers out of his backside. $500 million public dollars on Canalside. Seems a bit hard to spend $500 million in public dollars on a project with a total price tag of $315 million dollars. The public dollars involved are south of $150 million. Then he says #10 BILLION in public dollars spent on public school building. retty close, this buffoon was only off by ( billion. If he can't get such basic published facts straight why would anyone think he has a clue about the struggles of any local businesses. The man has no cred.
A couple of incorrect dollar figures won't negate the fact that there is no market for retail down there, nor that building a new "destination" makes any sense when downtown retail is dead. The Pedestrian Maul was a BOMB? Yes. Okay, so let's build ANOTHER one 1/2 mile south. Brilliant strategy!
"The public dollars involved are south of $150 million"
That's wrong too, although not by as much as Goldman's number. The most recent public estimate is $154M of public spending, including $46M for parking ramps and $35M for the Bass Pro store.
http://www.buffalonews.com/cityregion/buffaloerie/story/936555.html
If we apply your own standards to your comments, you have "no cred" either because you make numerical mistakes sometimes too as we've seen in your comments. We all get numbers wrong sometimes, including Goldman.
ForestBird said it well. The wrong figure doesn't change the points made in Goldman's op-ed. It's a very bad use of $154M.
Myself, friends, family and others I talk to about this project are extremely excited.
I can't wait for it to be complete. I can't wait to spend my winter weekends skating on the canals and warming up in a nearby cafe. I can't for all the summer activities that will take place at this site.
I foresee nothing but great things from this development.
Now, let's get it going and completed so we can enjoy it while we're young.
The following is a response I got from the ECHDC regarding Mark Goldman's opinion.
ECHDC's board anticipates issuing an Op-Ed in the near future
regarding the project. It will not respond directly to Mr. Goldman's piece; however, it will touch on many of the points in question,
including discussing the planning and analysis undertaken for the overall plan.
Thanks for you continued interest.
Sincerely,
-ECHDC
I think littleacorn, mark goldman, and forestbird, should suck a big one! I you don't like it it, then MOVE! LEAVE! Its people like you who have no faith, no positive ambitions and nothing but negative energy to anything that represents our region and beloved city of Buffalo. Let it grow, and grow with it, or move on and grow elsewhere. Period.
"Adolph1933" said: Love it or Leave it !!
Yes, of course. Your way or the highway. Defeatists will not be tolerated. Off to the camps!
Well the way i see it there are two things that can actually happen. By the time this project is actually complete the country will be back on the upswing and going strong and this project will work out great, or the whole country will be in the crapper and it wont matter anyways. Depends on what sort of 'change' we see out of the losers running this country, D&R's.
You don't leave something you love because it's being ill-served. Well, maybe YOU would, because you think that's an option.
Why non-unionized work is never an option is beyond me...F'ing racketeering
The signing of a PLA will doom this project to failure and most of us won't even realize it until it is completed. It will be completed WAY over projected cost and state taxes will continue to rise.
Right out of the blocks this project spits in the face of private business that happens to be the current and future backbone of this little city. When will we learn.
I guess this is further proof that there is a brain-drain to the Southern States.
Hardly believable!
I would just like to know why noone is marketing our already vacant structures to National Retailers and Restaurants??? Why start from scratch when our downtown is already READY for these kinds of businesses. Look at the buildings along Main Street, some are 3-4 stories high and VACANT, the 500 block can be a mix of great eateries and retailers, the Theater District is just screaming for Theme Restaurants and unique retailers that will draw customers in when Theaters are not showing anything.
I'm all for the Canal District to be a success, but what about the spin offs? And after it's done, who will then market the REST OF DOWNTOWN to complete the vibe????
'I would just like to know why noone is marketing our already vacant structures to National Retailers and Restaurants???'
Why do you continue to ignore the many comments that have been written in reply to this question that has been asked by you and others on BRO? Your enthusiasm for Buffalo is great, but there has to be a sense of facing reality in order to confront the challenges.
It's because proposed developments in Buffalo take years to complete.
There is something to be said for being nimble and reacting quickly. The development community takes notice of such things. In any economic environment, quick turnarounds attract attention, as opposed to studies, public meetings, lawsuits and delays.
My point being, I would like to know why we don't have a Marketing Group promoting the center of downtown to retail and restaurants? This was suppost to be the goal of Buffalo Place, but have somehow taken their aim at just downtown events/festivals and street cleaning. Now we have an Erie Canal Harbor Group, working with the city, the state, and developers to lure major retailers, restaurants, workers, hotels, ect. to our waterfront. GREAT! But, what about the rest of downtown that already has the spaces available? That is my point. After the Canal District is filled in, will we see a spin-off to the rest of Downtown? Or will it be soley a seperate district and see the rest of the city ignored or under seperate marketing as we already cleary see?
Funny how North Buffalo somehow attracts so many more retailers than Downtown. That district must have a great Marketing Group.
The type of retail (mainly big box) in North Buffalo wouldn't work downtown, has nothing to do with marketing. Downtown should concentrate on entertainment, restaurants, bars, and housing. This is one area that downtown has a clear advantage, the density and quality of the built environment cannot be equaled anywhere else.
Again, N. Buffalo's retail isn't all big-box. There's a lot of smaller stores too. N.B. has even attracted some to move from Elmwood Village. It doesn't have trendy upscale national retailers, but many of those won't come to WNY at all or if they do only to Galleria.
I'm not saying N.B. is a retail Mecca, but compared to downtown it has more stores of all sizes.
It must be that N.B. has a good Marketing Group to attract all those stores and Downtown doesn't. What other explanation can there be?
Demographics? I'm so sick of that lame excuse. Why should that matter? What does it even mean?
What else? Convenient free parking near the stores? Total coincidence. There's no such thing as free parking anyway. All parking spaces steal our historic and natural resources. The spaces in N.B. are repressive subsidized thieves, not free in any way. They should get no credit.
Ikea? Maybe it's part of the problem. Reginald's comment below makes a convincing argument. The mayor should try calling them again.
When is the protest to demand a Marketing Group for Downtown? KarlMalone should organize something. Or maybe someone should start a Facebook group to demand a DT Marketing Group.
demographics, demographics, demographics, demographics, demographics, demographics, demographics, demographics, demographics, demographics, demographics, demographics . . . did I mention demographics?
Keep dreaming, Lego.
Ikea,
Ikea ikea ikea, ikea ikea. Ikea ikea, ikea ikea ikea ikea, ikea ikea. Ikea, ikea ikea ikea ikea ikea ikea ikea. Ikea ikea ikea ikea.
Ikea ikea ikea. Ikea, ikea ikea:
1) Ikea
2) Ikea
3) Ikea
Ikea, ikea ikea ikea, ikea ikea. Ikea ikea, ikea ikea ikea ikea ikea ikea ikea ikea. Ikea ikea ikea, Ikea ikea ikea ikea. Ikea ikea ikea, ikea ikea.
Ikea,
Ikea
Church of Freemarketology
Demographics, Supply and Demand, The Free Market,
Freemarketoloy, Freemarketology, Freemarketology, Freemarketology, Freemarketology, Freemarketology, Freemarketology, Freemarketology, and Freemarketology.
1.The
2.Church
3.of
4.Freemarketology
Keep dreaming indeed. Projects like this can't be planned since they are above the capabilities of human beings. They drop out of the sky as blessings from the "free market" as long as we make the gods "Supply" and "Demand" happy with offerings of demolitions, free parking, off ramps and deregulation to let our noble captains of industry run wild. Then, and only then, the "invisible hand" will just build things for us. Its that easy!
My point is that without people (lots of them) who have lots of disposable income, the free market won't bring in the national chains some covet so.
I'm against this boondoggle of a project, yes because of subsidies. I do believe we should pay more attention to free market forces. This subsidized silver bullet is destined to fail, imo, precisely because it relies so heavily on government handouts instead of marketplace realities. These types of projects can certainly be planned, and be successful, if the underlying conditions make business sense. They cannot succeed, however, if they ignore demographic realities (at least without massive public subsidy, which I do oppose).
The market is hardly magic. But certainly neither is government planned retail. Here's a challenge: name a retail development, government conceived and constructed, which has succeeded in the marketplace.
Good points. I'm against it too but more so because I think the project would be more effective and unique if they put that money into the hands of smaller, local entrepreneurs instead of a few big chains.
As far as the demographic conditions, there are not a lot of people living in the immediate area but I don't think that is a big problem since it seems to be geared toward motorists who would come in from all over the region. The area around the Eastern Hills Mall was still mostly farmland and open space when it was built but that didn't matter because people drove to it.
As far as your last question, it is hard for me to think of a similar sized retail project that does not rely on some sort of subsidy direct or indirect. The Walden Galleria for example is possible partly because it sits on a vast network of publicly funded highways and near residential neighborhoods that required subsidies to exist. That is one thing I don't get in this debate. Why are subsidies for certain parts of our lifestyle acceptable and others (steering retail downtown) are not?
I'm all for transparency in government funding and user fees to pay for most services, as well as cleaning up your own mess as opposed to the taxpayer doing it. You reference subsidized roads; I wish that all roads were paid for by fuel taxes (or vehicle taxes), instead of funding coming from general tax revenues. Then the users would pay and the rest of us wouldn't. That would help support market forces as the buyer (road users) would be forced to pay the true costs of their purchase.
Government should not subsidize industrial disposal of hazardous material, either, for that matter. Manufacturers and other industries should not be able to displace costs associated with their processes (say, like the coal industry filling valleys with discarded mountain tops and arsenic or the Tonawanda Coke facility spewing its carcinogenic smoke into everyone else's environment).
And I, like you, wish that government investment in this particular project was geared toward smaller users. I'd go for the government building the roads and sewers, etc. Create a street pattern and dictate whatever design standards and building and usage parameters we want, then sell off plots of land to various individuals for the development of a new neighborhood conforming to those parameters. I think such a new neighborhood would have more appeal and sustainability than the current silver bullet vision without the need for future big dollar cash infusions as the incarnation grows stale (which I suspect this will need in 15-30 years), and without unfairly competing with non subsidized businesses.
Bini>"I'd go for the government building the roads and sewers, etc. ... then sell off plots of land to various individuals for the development of a new neighborhood conforming to those parameters. I think such a new neighborhood would have more appeal and sustainability than the current silver bullet vision without the need for future big dollar cash infusions as the incarnation grows stale (which I suspect this will need in 15-30 years), and without unfairly competing with non subsidized businesses."
Even if that's better than the silver bullet corporate welfare mess Jordan Levy, Larry Quinn and our politicians are pushing through (yeah Bison716, I should be thrown out of the city for disagreeing with you - got it), would even that be the smartest use of public $ in the city?
The whole city annual budget for road work is under $5M. That's for the whole city, all 9 council districts combined, - including streets, curbs and sidewalks.
It would be better to direct however many public $ that are to be spent in the city on streets, sewers, etc. into its existing districts.
Goldman's op-ed said it well: "...Retailers - restaurant and other street-based business owners - require a steady, regular and daily clientele. None of them would ever considering locating (unless given generous subsidies) in a destination-driven location like the Canal District. Buffalo does not need, in the words of one of the architects, another “great spot.” We have more than enough of them already and most of them do not have the traffic they need to survive."
I buy that. I liked Goldman's piece and I agree with him. Hadn't considered the city's annual budget for road work, but you're right: $5m does seem a bit low. And yes, I would favor repairing/upgrading our water/sewer system as opposed to subsidizing what feels to me like a money pit in the making (see: Hyatt) here at the waterfront.
One reason I really dislike the big box destination orientation of the waterfront plan is because the bigger they are, the harder they fall: in the event of the failure of an anchor tenant, the perception of doom hanging over the city will be magnified (see: Statler).
If we were instead to develop that real estate over time (as the waterfront condos were built over decades) in a more urban, mixed use context than they (we could dictate whatever design parameters we desired. If we chose, we could stipulate that everything had to look appropriate for the Buffalo canal district, circa 1800-1900, no larger than 'x' square feet, built to the sidewalk, mixed used, whatever). we sell off the lots--the revenue from selling the lots ought certainly recoup the expense of the road/sewer/utility connections). If it took a while for the neighborhood to gain momentum, that would be okay. The outcome would be more organic and sustainable, I say. And it would add something more interesting to the urban fabric, less Disneyesque, and less dated, so to speak.
I hope I'm proved wrong. I hope Bass Pro, et al, become a magnet for suburbanites to rediscover Buffalo, a sustained focal point for downtown renewal. I've been wrong before.
Eastern Hills Mall is a bad comparison to Canal Side. When built EHM's location wasn't far from growing middle class areas. Also, it's a huge indoor shopping center which is what a lot of people want - especially around here when the busiest shopping season has cold weather. The govt didn't directly fund construction of EHM store buildings and parking as is being planned for CS. The EHM owners took a risk based on long term trends they saw. If they asked for public funds to build stores and parking, I'd bet there would have been opposition too.
pitbull>"The Walden Galleria for example is possible partly because it sits on a vast network of publicly funded highways and near residential neighborhoods that required subsidies to exist".
And in the city of Buffalo, there's also publicly-funded highways and streets, and residential city neighborhoods eligible for subsidies such as mortgage tax deductions, outside government aid to cities, and so on.
Whatever>"Eastern Hills Mall is a bad comparison to Canal Side."
Is it? It wasnt far from residential developments by way of car but it certainly wasnt (still isnt) in walking distance to very many people. There may not be enough people in walking distance from canal side, but by car it is easily accessible to the entire region. Both sites benifit from the proximity of public highways although it will be easier to access CS by other modes of transit than EHM. Judging by the emphasis on parking by the CS people Id say demographics of the immediate area are borderline irrelevant.
Your issue seems to be that this idea was hatched by government planners and is not the brainchild of the private sector. Is that really so bad? Are private developers, motivated by their company's bottom line and not the greater good of the public, the only ones allowed to influence what our city looks like? It it okay for the government to build highways and manipulate the housing market to steer development outward but not to take smaller steps to steer development inward?
My issue is not simply that BanalSide was 'hatched' by government planners, but is also being subsidized and underwritten with government (re: MY) money. But I guess I need to stow my complaints away because this project serves 'the public good.'
What is the 'public good' being served here? Is it the $62 Million we are giving to Bass Pro Co. (privately held by John L. Morris)? Is it the loan guarantees we are taking on for Benderson Development (Privately held by the Benderson Family)? Is it the $150 million dollars to restore streets and infastructure while the rest of city ages and crumbles? I bet that 'public good' money could do a lot more public good if spent on, say, down grading the 198 to a parkway.
I will say this about the magic of government planning. Buffalo is going to have a MUCH nicer bait shop than the 'free market' would ever give us.
But that could be said about any government project. I dont like MY tax dollars going toward a lot of things that you may see value in. As far as the public good, many people see value in a vibrant downtown and a shopping-entertainment center. If a significant amount of others agree than I dont see any problem having the govt provide financial assistance to make it work. Other levels of government spent plenty to steer retail and residential development away from downtown in years past.
The difference is those "publicly-funded highways" were built to enable sprawl and add value to suburbia while destroying and devaluing city neighborhoods.
As for mortgage interest deductions, we have been down this road before, lower value city homes and their lower income owners cannot take of advantage of this giveaway. This program is the largest transfer of wealth in America and benefits only the middle class or above. I would think with your anti subsidy and free market leanings the mortgage interest deduction would trouble you. It is just a form of welfare, given to those without need, and as a price support to the housing market.
I always thought that our interstate highway system was built to stimulate interstate commerce and to improve our military defenses. I had no idea that they were built to enable suburban sprawl and to spite the cities. Who knew?
The 190, 198, and 33 were not "built to stimulate interstate commerce or to improve our military defenses", they were built for the convenience of suburban commuters. Route 5, the 990, and the 400 were also built for the same reason.
The INTERSTATE 90 is the only highway that fits your description.
The 90 is part of the original system and plan; however the other ones you mention are generally extensions of this system. The same system exists in most other cities, both failing and successful.
Do you believe that the City would be better off today if we didn't have these highways? What are your thoughts on closing some of them? I recall Chris69 used to advocate for ending the '33' at the '198' and returning the traffic to surface streets. Do you think this will help to stop the destruction and devaluation of the city neighborhoods, or is it too late?
The damage has been done but removing the waterfront section of the 190 and downgrading the 198 to a parkway would open up our riverfront to developement and greatly improve the quality of life for city residents.
Are there any organizations actively working on eliminating the 190? What would that do to the Peace Bridge and local neighborhoods? Would we want that traffic diverted to Porter and Niagara? If not, then what is the alternative, direct all trucks and non-resident cars through Niagara Falls?
Will we be better off with an overburdened Niagara Street traffic pattern, with more trucks and cars idling at stop lights along that stretch? I think we might be shifting the problem instead of solving it.
There have been some proposals to move the 190 inland along the rail corridor to open up the waterfront for developement. The 190 south of the 198 would remain unchanged, no problem for the Peace Bridge.
I have been looking online and called City Hall, apparently there are no formal initiatives or groups taking up the fight to remove the highways. There is a group protesting the downgrade of the 198; however the nice woman at City Hall did not know their name from memory.
Care to start this?
A lot of people and businesses want to be in burbs. In Erie Co, the 70% who don't live in the city are taxpayers too. They make at least 70% of highway funding contributions coming from here. It seems fair if they pay most of the taxes that they receive most of the highway spending. Highways connecting city and burbs go both directions anyhow. So, every bit as much as they serve burbs they can also serve city residents and city businesses.
I'd favor eliminating mortgage deduction, but higher housing values in burbs happens because that's were people who can afford it choose to live. People who want to have expensive homes in the city receive the same subsidy.
I don't think city residents get much benefit from highways that have disrupted their neighborhoods. Many in the city don't even own a car and many such as myself rarely use the highways. That is not true of our suburban neighbors, they depend on those roads to enable their lifestyle.
We can agree on the interest deduction, wether city or suburb, as ReginalQMerriwetherIV points out, a very regressive tax.
BRLifer>"I don't think city residents get much benefit from highways that have disrupted their neighborhoods. Many in the city don't even own a car and many such as myself rarely use the highways."
"Many" don't own a car, and many others do. City residential streets are full of parked cars every night. If official figures are accurate, by far most city residents aren't below the poverty line.
Route 5 and the Skyway are useful for going between S Buffalo and the western half of the city. The 33 is useful for city residents going to/from the airport, or the Galleria, or onto the Thruway to points east and west. The 190 is useful for city residents going to/from N. Falls, the 190 and 290 for to/from Tonawanda or Amherst. Even people who don't drive those benefit because city stores where they shop and businesses where they work make use of highways for efficiently transporting goods to/from the city. As you've said, most urban poor have jobs.
While it might upset you that suburbanites also use the highways, many city residents and businesses do as well.
Regardless of who uses them, there is clearly a negative impact to the "host" neighborhood that had an expressway crammed into its street grid. Suburban highways are more benign because they are built over vacant land and development follows afterward from a safe distance. So generally speaking, expressways have had a negative impact on previously constructed city neighborhoods while adding value to suburban areas.
So what is your solution? We want to close the highways, and we need to reduce the size of the other highways, because they are tools of the demon suburbs. What is your solution to getting around in the city? What do you propose we remove and retain, best case scenerio?
My solution? Well, as BRL pointed out, much of the damage is done. We could start by not demolishing, then rebuilding frivolous highways that outlived their intended use. The 198 seems to be the most redundant of these roads and would be a good candidate for downgrading to a 30mph street.
http://www.ci.buffalo.ny.us/home/newscalendar/scajaquada_corridor_study
Do you know of any groups that are actively pursuing the downgrade of the 198? We discussed the removal of the toll booths for decades until we finally got the right people to take it up with Albany, and I think we need the same coordination for the 198.
The other side of this, is are we prepared to take on the additional traffic on other streets? The 198 offers convenient and quick transit, that when downgraded will not offer an advantage over taking Amherst, Hertel, or Main Street. I think we have the available capacity, although we are probably removing a positive aspect of quick travel through the city, given that it is a good idea. Let's get it done.
In terms of the Peace Bridge, will we be solving one problem by creating another? Will we open the waterfront access by putting a lot of trucks and cars on Prospect and Niagara streets? Will local residents prefer this to the current highways?
why not just shut the peace bridge down as well. That would solve that traffic issue.
There was an extensive study conducted in 2005 so by the tollbooth time frame, we are half way there. They looked at keeping it as is, a mild downgrade to a 45mph expressway and a more radical downgrade to a 30mph city street. They examined cost and environmental issues for the three options but did not recommend any alternative.
Personally, I think the 30 mph option would be the best as far as Delaware Park, various colleges, and the immediate neighborhoods are concerned so that should be the best option. If people need to get across the region in a hurry they could take the Youngman or 190. Depending on what time of day you use it, the 198 isnt very "express" anyway.
I once the 198 is downgraded then we can look at ways to do the same thing on the 190 without disrupting peace bridge traffic.
Pitbull - I am not disagreeing with you at all, the problem that I see is that no one is leading the charge to have these highways downgraded. We have a feasibility study done, but we did one of those on the toll booths in the 80s and again in the 90s. It is classic paralysis by analysis. We need someone, who truly believes that this is the best thing for Buffalo, to take this up as a cause. That person has to be passionate enough to persuade our political officials and local residents to pay attention to this cause.
The same is true with the Skyway. If we want it taken down, then we need to band together and unify to increase awareness and to incite outrage at their current condition.
I believe in the cause, but I am not passionate enough about it to lead the charge.
Would you be willing to take up this fight?
I think the project is further along than you think. This is from the city's website under "next steps":
"The NYSDOT will begin the next phase of Design within the next few months. Environmental review is part of this process and there will be plenty of opportunity for the public to provide further input."
If they are moving forward with design work and an environmental impact study, Im guessing they didnt pick the "do nothing" option. Id be interested to see if they chose a mild downgrade or the 30mph version.
That same update has been up for more than a year, it is like the "be back in 5 minutes" sign on the door of the now vacant liquor store on Jefferson. That sign has been there for the past 7 or 8 years, but no one cares that the five minutes is up.
I think we need someone to pick this up as a private effort to push the city, state, and others into action. The New Millennium Group was running with this back in 2001/2, but we haven't heard much from them recently.
We are nearing a decade since the initial study was completed, and yet nothing is really happening. I wonder if it is really that important to anyone?
There were just recently (in the last couple of months) several public meetings on this project. I think it is definitely moving forward, although I too would like to know which groups are actively pressuring the DOT towards this upgrade (I know the Olmsted Parks Conservancy is very supportive of this plan). I am sure the DOT will not choose to upgrade it to a parkway out of the kindness of their hearts without serious pressure from the citizenry. (And I'm sure it would really help if City Hall took a strong and outspoken stance on the issue as well.)
Jsmith - I have contacted City Hall about this and they do not have any active meetings scheduled to discuss the downgrade of the 198, or major changes to our other highways and bridges, in the near future. The only thing on their radar is the Peace Bridge plaza project.
Who is going to step up to take the lead on this?
I was part of an effort to relocate the 190 along the rail corridor through Black Rock and Riverside. The first attempt was before the roadbed reconstruction in the early 90's and since then the cause has been taken up by various neighborhood groups and the Campaign for Buffalo. It is a rather large undertaking but I believe the potential for riverfront redevelopement will eventually be recognized and exploited. Too much prime real estate wasted on a highway.
Of course some city residents use highways and derive some benefit from them but the negatives far outweigh the advantages. As I stated, highways enable suburbia, they could not exist without them, we in the city would be just fine, highways are not necessary for most of us.
I agree that the Home Mortgage Interest Deduction is a regressive tax that benefits those who can already afford it. The feedback this market distortion produces, however, isn't a city/suburb divide. Regardless of where you house is located, the HMID acts as a price support for home owners, doesn't increase rates of home ownership (it's original goal), is a regressive tax, and enables homeowners to borrow money for consumer spending against an asset, which both sidesteps consumer lending requirements as well as underwrites an increasing debt load on housing assets.
Should a house and it's owner end up underwater, the HMID will only serve to ensure that the water is deeper than it would have been without HMID.
Good points.
"Lower value city homes and their lower income owners cannot take of advantage of this giveaway [the Home Mortgage Interest Deduction]. This program is the largest transfer of wealth in America and benefits only the middle class or above"
Wrong, so wrong. This program does not benefit only the middle class or above. It benefits ANYONE who decides to be a homeowner. You do not have to be middle class or above to make that decision. As a matter of fact, we have government programs in place to help lower-income Americans achieve the so-called American dream of home ownership. One example of this is the New York State Down Payment Assistance Program. "The American Dream Down Payment Act" is a down payment assistance initiative that allows grants to be given to participating jurisdictions to assist low-to-mid-income families and uniformed employees such as, policemen, firemen, sanitation, maintenance workers, and teachers who are employees of the participating state to achieve homeownership. The problem is, home ownership comes with a miriad of responsibilities. The first of which is maintaining a relatively good (or "fair") credit rating in order to obtain the mortgage. There are government-sponsored classes available to help people learn how to achieve a decent credit score for people who didn't already understand how it works. Then once home ownership is accomplished, there is ongoing maintenance. We have government programs, that help low-income homeowners maintain their homes. HEAP, for example, pays for things like new windows, furnaces, insulation, etc. So home ownership is not something just for the wealthy. Higher income Americans pay plenty of income taxes to help pay for these programs to help lower income Americans buy homes. You can only lead a horse to water, but you can't make him buy a home to take advantage of the Home Mortgage Interest Deduction, "the largest transfer of wealth in America" according to Blackrocklifer. Anyone can get on board with it if he or she is motivated enough to do so.
As a board member at Neighborhood Housing Services for many years I am well aware of the programs for low income home buyers. These programs are chump change as compared to the mortgage interest deduction which is as I stated, the largest transfer of wealth in America. As a portion of GDP the mortgage interest deduction is larger than all other entitlement programs combined.
Low income earners do not qualify since their income and mortgage interest is not large enough to itemize deductions.
You can itemize deductions if the total of specified payments made during the year exceeds the standard deduction for your filing status.
If the standard deduction is greater than the amount paid, then it doesn't make sense to itemize because it's more advantageous to use the standard deduction. Would you say that the people who exercise their option to take the standard deduction are also recipients of a welfare payment? Because that includes just about everybody who works.
"As a portion of GDP the mortgage interest deduction is larger than all other entitlement programs combined."
In 2004 the U.S. Social Security system paid out almost $500 billion in benefits. By dollars paid, the U.S. Social Security program is the largest government program in the world and the single greatest expenditure in the federal budget, with 20.8% for social security, compared to 20.5% for discretionary defense and 20.1% for Medicare/Medicaid. Social Security is currently the largest social insurance program in the U.S., constituting 37% of government expenditure and 7% of the gross domestic product and is currently estimated to keep roughly 40% of all Americans age 65 or older out of poverty.
The home mortgage interest deduction subsidizes homeowners at the rate of $100 billion per year.
I stand corrected, As a portion of GDP the mortgage interest deduction is larger than all other welfare programs combined. Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid should not be included as you pointed out.
Everyone in America is subsidized one way or another. My point is that the more affluent fail to acknowledge their own more costly entitlements but are quick to criticize the poor.
Nearly everyone in American pays taxes and expects the government to be good stewards of our money. I don't see getting money back that you paid in as a subsidy or welfare. I could see that argument if you were taking out more than you are putting in, but I don't believe that is the case here.
Most people criticize the poor only when the poor are taking out more than they contribute. This is usually the crux of their argument or contempt for the poor.
I think most middle class and upper class citizens don't have a clue as to just how much their lifestyle is subsidized. The taxes we pay in this country are far lower than most all other developed nations. Our tax code and government spending favors the more affluent yet they are the biggest whiners.
Can you define government subsidy for me? I believe you may be confusing government services and tax credits with a full government subsidy.
I don't think most middle class or upper class citizens have a clue how most of their taxes are spent and where the money they pay goes to. I doubt most poor know that either.
I really dislike it when you use broad statements like "biggest whiners" to categorize an entire segment of the population. America has whiners in every socioeconomic group, especially the poor. I know you have that chip on your shoulder about the wealthy and the suburbanites, but you don't have to be so blatant about it all the time.
For me, a subsidy is any time a citizen avoids paying their fair share of taxes or any taxpayer money is spent to enable the lifestyle of a select group.
I didn't mean to imply all of the affluent are big whiners, just that many complain without recognizing the benefits they receive from our government.
I'm not sure how you define wealthy, but the upper 50% of the wage earners pay 97% of all tax collections, and the lower ones only 3%. At the very top: the top 1% of earners pay 37% of all taxes paid, the next bracket 2-5% accounts for another 20%. So about 57% of taxes are paid by the top 5%. Who is not paying their fair share, beside the 3% who receive the majority of the benfits (social security, medicare, etc.)
We (not poor people) are paid a salary that has been built around the amount left over after taxes. We all know that our gross is meaningless, our net is what matters and we are compensated accordingly. Those with large salaries have proportionally larger amounts of discretionary income, the working poor have little.
I am part of that 50% that pays 97% of all taxes yet I feel fortunate and have much more than I need.
Who said "we" you are putting words in my mouth, please stop. The top 1% of earners pay 21.20% of all taxes paid at an average rate of 24%, the top 2-5% of earners pay 14.55% of all taxes at an average of 18% (Top 5% pay 36% of all tax) The bottom 50% pay 3% of all tax collected at an average rate of 2.98%.
You are saying the upper middle and weathy ***** about taxes the that the tax code favors them yet they pay all the taxes, they deserve to *****. They actually deserve to be subsidized the most! Read the Consitution, ain't no hand outs guarenteed in it. On a different note: you have a nice house btw, i like picture and the color.
Did you restore the home from the bare bones or just rehab a healthy structure. Like to hear the story.
Always like rehab stories, especially the mistakes, since I've made millions on my structures.
Karl- You must have missed my story here on BRO. See Black Rock Restoration, Jacob Smith House and Tavern posted on February 15th.
So your idea of a subsidy is a tax benefit or tax break, based on what their 'fair share' should be. I think that is the same argument that many of the middle class are making about the poor, only in reverse. They are claiming that the poor are not contributing their fair share to the system, either in terms of taxes or labor. When someone contributes more than they recover, and sees someone else taking more than they contribute, they tend to complain. Right now the main complaint is that the middle and upper classes continue to pay more and more, but receive fewer services; meanwhile the poor continue to receive the same amount or more from the government.
I don't work to pay for someone who doesn't, is the basic argument that most people have. I am reading your last comment as follows: The poor do not have as much discretionary income as the rich, so they need to have more to make up the difference. This is done by taking the discretionary income from the rich and giving it to the poor. Is that right?
That top 1% have 38% of the wealth, the top 1% of households are worth an average of 10 million. The bottom 40% have less than 1%, the bottom 20% are worth about 5 thousand apiece.
This isn't natural selection, this is the result of manipulation and exploitation.
BRL - So what is your plan to 'correct' this. Significantly increase the taxes on the top 1% and distribute that to the bottom 40%, how much of a tax increase would this involve?
They richest pay 35% tax on their income, and standard taxes on investment gains, marginal taxes, etc. What is fair and correct in your eyes? Increasing the tax to 40% or 50%, while the lower income brackets pay 15% or less. When this has been done in the past, the rich tend to take a more conservative and long-term approach to investing, which usually decreases the total tax collected on investments sold.
I can see what you are seeing, it is not "fair" or equal to have a minority worth over $10M a piece, while 20% are worth under $5K a piece, but what is fair to all involved? Would it makes sense to reduce the richest to under $10M a piece and increase the poorest to say $10K a piece. What have we gained by doing that?
Don't waste your time. You will make more progress discussing marriage equality with the Pope. Blackrocklifer has his mind made up that the poor are just victims of a massive conspiracy to keep them poor. He will soon ejaculate the tired left-wing socialist rhetoric about the haves and have nots. Just warning you in advance.
Jimmy- the poor are victims, people like yourself are either too far removed from the reality or unable to empathise with the less fortunate.
We need to pay all working Americans a living wage and increase the size of the middle class. We were headed in that direction in the 50's and 60's but have continually lost ground since. Concentration of wealth at the top has been the result of 40 years of driving down wages at the bottom.
This post began with the ECHD and the PLA agreement. Comments on the project had to do with the government subsidy for a shopping mall. My belief and supported by experts is that we are moving into a time of economic uncertainty, especially in commercial real estate. The fact that our politically hired economic developers think that we are able to swim upstream against the national economic currents makes me classify them as delusional. You can read what the experts are saying in,Commercial Real Estate: More Trouble Ahead
Posted By David Kotok On February 26, 2010 (3:30 pm) In Real Estate, Think Tank
“Between 2010 and 2014, about $1.4 trillion in commercial real estate loans will reach the end of their terms. Nearly half are at present “underwater” – that is, the borrower owes more than the underlying property is currently worth. Commercial property values have fallen more than 40 percent since the beginning of 2007. Increased vacancy rates, which now range from eight percent for multifamily housing to 18 percent for office buildings, and falling rents, which have declined 40 percent for office space and 33 percent for retail space, have exerted a powerful downward pressure on the value of commercial properties.
“The largest commercial real estate loan losses are projected for 2011 and beyond; losses at banks alone could range as high as $200-$300 billion. The stress tests conducted last year for 19 major financial institutions examined their capital reserves only through the end of 2010. Even more significantly, small and mid-sized banks were never subjected to any exercise comparable to the stress tests, despite the fact that small and mid-sized banks are proportionately even more exposed than their larger counterparts to commercial real estate loan losses.”
We have extracted these two paragraphs from the executive summary of the February 10, 2010, Congressional Oversight Panel’s Special Report entitled “Commercial Real Estate Losses and the Risk to Financial Stability.” This 190-page document is packed with vital and detailed information. Find it at: http://cop.senate.gov/documents/cop-021110-report.pdf .
I would guess that Benderson has structured his part of the agreement so that any cash flow emanating from leases, management etc. will minimize the potential losses from his investment when this project crashes.
Leave a comment
Sponsor
Recent Comments
Sponsor
Interested in advertising on BuffaloRising?
E-mail John C. Powell
or call John at 716.602.0200




It is refreshing to see the ECHDC moving in the right direction. It is also refreshing to see the media (BRO) reporting the benefits of cost savings from using Union craftsman. There is way too much Union bashing in the news these days, it is good to see reality given a chance for once.
Because union labor has always saved money on large public projects. Just look at how much the Metro came in under construction.
The savings does not come from labor.
Read:
"In exchange for this requirement and the adherence to certain dispute resolution services and labor rules, the project will be devoid of construction site jurisdictional hindrances and potential lockouts or strikes."
Not like this is a shocker. I was expected by almost everyone. Just comical to think that some people actually think a real savings will be had.