Preservation Tax Credit Program Remains Broken

We should also add to the list the funding that Higgins voted away on projects.

Even worse is most of the people responsible for this will be reelected, by a wide margin next time around.

It is one thing to get shafted by a elected official. But to reelect these same people..over and over and over again..is simply pathetic.

nyc is different - real estate downtown is so in demand their historic projects will go fw regardless, the credit is gravy (and immaterial compared to the $ amount of the projects). the impact is felt 10x upstate

nys "suffers", upstate is devastated - what a terrible argument - {deleted- flaming}

Kind of like putting on a new Paul McCartney CD knowing he is capable of greatness but always being disappointed by the new CD in the end.

Paul, my main point is against the false promise that these tax credits will cause economic growth. Tt's a much b.s. as those who said Bass Pro (or Ikea, H&M, Whole Foods, etc.) would be growth. If advocates would simply say "we like old buildings" or "we like trendy retail", I could respect their views even if I disagree that their likes deserve funding.

But to answer your question, a few ways off the top of my head (although no guarantee it would protect the Lafayette in particular).

First, it does happen sometimes even with the status quo. For example, when New Era decided to put their corporate HQ in Buffalo they chose to rehab an old building - without state tax policy changes Rocco says is needed for the Lafayette.

Next, (unlikely, but) if NYS changed governing to lean less left and start promote more long term real economic growth in this region and state, some more businesses might want to use old buildings here. Not all new or growing businesses want old buildings, but some portion does. Even attracting real growth that doesn't directly use old buildings can indirectly improve chances of some more being saved by growing overall demand here.

Also some buildings can be protected by the nonprofit private sector. The Central Terminal group for example, and foundations like O'Shei, etc. In a very few cases of significant buildings, some government spending could be justified - perhaps some minimal spending on the Richardson Towers for example to keep them standing, although I wouldn't go so far as to fund some crazy uses of them.

Last, I'd remind myself as Steel has said - not everything can be saved - not all churches, not all downtown buildings, not all hockey auditoriums, not all houses... nothing lasts forever.

longgone>"So maybe having a flower shop in the Lafayette might not look like that big of a deal when you isolate it. But when you look at a bigger picture...roses."

long, even in biggest picture, buying flowers at the Lafayette instead of the store already on Washington St downtown, or on Grant, etc. - isn't any better for the region or state. A new store deserves success if customers prefer it, but the economy sorts that out. Looking just at the Lafayette new retail might look like "roses", but that ignores reduced spending elsewhere.

Anyhow, if someone wants to open a flower store or bar downtown, there's plenty of vacant space if the Lafayette isn't available.

Only growth of non-retail businesses can result in more customers living here, or people alrady here having more disposable income. Same for residential. Shifting from Buffalo's residential hoods isn't necessarily positive. There's disagreement over what portion would move downtown from burbs vs. city - but regardless, Lafayette rehab won't cause any person or business to move to WNY or NYS. But some do move here for jobs at HSBC, etc., which raises demand (at least slows shrinkage of demand) for residential and retail.

About hotels, I don't know if extra guests from 3000-person events that would come to Buffalo but bypass it now would be enough to make real economic impact. If hotel rooms are on average 40% or so vacant, that sounds like more rooms usually will take customers from those already here. Maybe very rare exceptions for huge events.

Steel>"property tax on the Lafayette Hotel would quadruple at minimum if it was renovated. The sales tax would grow"

If the Lafayette's occupants would be here otherwise in different buildings, and their customers would be spending the same money here anyhow just in different buildings - then what would make the county's or state's total tax base (property or sales) grow at all?

Steel>"If you think there is a glut of hotel rooms in Buffalo"

This says in the first half of 2010, the occupancy rate here was 58%, meaning on average 42% glut. Maybe July and August have more demand than the other 10 months.
http://buffalo.bizjournals.com/buffalo/stories/2010/07/19/daily14.html?surround=lfn#ixzz0uIexeJDr
"For the first half of the year, hotel occupancy in Buffalo and Erie County increased 1.2 percent, rising to 58.1 percent from 57.4 percent in the first six months of 2009."

I didn't suggest outlawing new hotels. If Rocco and Croce and Snyder, etc. want to open new hotels, they should open some and pay their taxes.

Whatever>"But what's the great economic benefit to Upstate? If it's so important, shouldn't they be able to easily say what it is?"

Greater efficiency through higher density. More people living in neighborhoods where automobile transportation is an option rather than a requirement means less need for infrastructure upkeep, sprawl subsidies, environmental remediation etc. The preferred model of building outward and letting the central city rot is wasteful, expensive, and harmful to the environment.

Whatever>" Nowhere near enough to make this tax credit legislation have great economic benefit to Upstate by reducing spending on sprawl as your comment claimed - which is only a very small portion of spending anyway."

You are overstating the negatives historic tax credits while downplaying the costs of the sprawl alternative. Remember, in most cases, the $ the state and fed forgives to provide incentive for rehabs would not be collected had the work not been done. That doesn't sound like much to spend to make the region more cost efficient, accessible, and cleaner. Sprawl subsidies like construction of extravagant highways, needless roads and utilities require millions in cash for both their construction and infinite upkeep and encourage more sprawl by steering people to now crowded rural areas.

As I have stated, and you alluded to earlier, what side of the sprawl vs rehab debate one takes is rooted in personal preference. I can understand those advocating government direct money away from rehabs towards various sprawl subsidies may like depending on their car for everything, equate the argument to an irrelevant notion of patriotism, or just think a detached home or mall is prettier than a multi-family dwelling or commercial district. But that preference alone is not a good enough reason to continue such an inefficient and expensive "growth" model.