"The unplanned sprawl has destroyed our city for years."

He fights the good fight. I like Sam!

Elected? I believe you meant to say inherited the family seat 18 years ago.

Truly, this is the most important issue facing Buffalo and all upstate cities. How do we stop the insanity of developing more land base at the same time that population is shrinking? Of course this is not just a good question for when the population is shrinking it applies all the time. Just think for a minute about the kind of density that Buffalo and the first ring suburbs would have if there had been a growth boundary enacted in the 70's? Clarence, Lancaster, half of Amherst would all still be rural. The city could easily have 150k more people. It's still not to late to make a difference with shaping the investment and development in this county. It would have to come from the County and maybe even the state level. I am really happy to see this happening even at this late date. Congrats to Sam for finally winning a victory here no matter how small.

"From now on, all projects will have to undergo a smart growth witness test. The state agencies involved in funding them will have to ensure that the plans are consistent with smart growth principles and will focus on developed areas."

This is one of those initiatives that I'll have to see to believe. It's a little too nebulous to understand the specifics of how it will actually make a difference at this point. It seems like there can be lots of loop-holes and exceptions made if they grease the right hands. When someone actually says "No" to another Geico-like project in East-Amherst (even though it involves new Jobs), then maybe I'll believe they are serious.

Smart Growth and all its buzzowrds are great ideas in theory but in NYS there are more obstacles to changing the rate and means in which our urbanized areas grow. This SmartGrowth idea seems, like the Framework plan for instance, to be nothing more than the cart before the horse, a plethora of obvious solutions that can't be enacted due to the underlying legal framework of NYS and its individual municipalities.

The problem is, politicians like Hoyt at the state level recognize the issue but have neither the local land use authority, nor the political will to address state constitutional law that rests local control firmly in the lap of individual municipalities.

So it comes down to home rule law. In NYS, each municipality has the legal right to plan, grow and otherwise ignore it's place in a region as a means to better its own stategic position. So you can have priciples and plans (like the Framework) but so long as Lancaster has home rule authority, it will grow as it sees fit to meet the needs of its residents and its tax levy. Same goes with Wheatfield, Clarence, Orchard Park and Pendleton.

The mindset in growth communities is they want the increased taxbase that they assume always comes with growth and groups like the Buffalo-Niagara Builders Association and the Amherst IDA spend a lot of time and money hiring so-called experts to prepare reports to show that growth is a benefit. Sadly, the benefit is to businesses and builders moreso than to the average taxpayer.

The growth issue is particularly problematic in WNY with its declining population. Politicians in the suburbs are uber-competitive for jobs, population and taxes so the last thing they'll willing give up is control over their growth! And based on the dissolution votes in Williamsville and Sloan, residents are not likely to want to give up that control, no matter how badly is should be done.

And sadly, Hoyt's idea a typical political ploy put forth during an election cycle to touch on an issue of importance to feign progress while lacking in detail and actual implementation. Hoyt is famous for the "all talk, no action" NYS politician and has won re-election on "ideas" for years. I seem to recall somie Green Summit in the spring at Buff State a few years back prior to an election cycle that got a lot of pomp and circumstance from Hoyt but after the election, it died as expected once he won.

"The concept of smart growth revolves around" belief that some small class of elites knows better than anyone else where and how people should live.

"The unplanned sprawl has destroyed our city for years," says the guy, but pay no attention to places like Houston.

"Smart growth" only makes housing artificially more expensive in suburbs, rather than removing the things that make it more attractive. Because as "the smarts" all know, if it weren't for market-bending distortions we'd all be living in a cramped 10k/sq mile urban utopia.

Finally, what the fiddlesticks does "witness test" even mean? BRO editors might want to look up the phrase "litmus test" for future reference.

I think what's funny is he says that in front of AARP members, I'd say 3/4 of whom probably either live in the suburbs or a southern state several months of the year. The other quarter probably live in the same home they moved to 50 years ago and have watched their neighborhood take flight around them. Presuming the picture is from when he made that comment.

Sprawl has its roots in racism, greed, and ignorance of the real cost to society and the environment. The advocates of this lifestyle continue to pretend it is about "personal freedom" and "choice" when in reality it is driven by a base instinct of one group feeling they are entitled to more than others. It will take a major shift in values to slow or stop this modern and unsustainable way of life.

Sally - no one is forced to live in a densly populated environment. You can choose to live wherever you want. There have always been plenty of options around here, or anywhere else for that matter. The problems arise when new subdivisions add to the areas infrastructure requirements (more roads to plow, sewers to maintain, electricity, cable etc) which over time can increase the societal burden and create inefficiencies. No one is saying an owner can't generally do what he wants with private land...

Also I want to point out a common misconception about the area's population trends. Everyone assumes it to be "declining" - well if you are talking about the City of Buffalo, that's certainly true. But if you look at Erie county over the past 40 or 50 years the population is largely unchanged.

Centralized planning will solve all our problems.

Sam in the photo:

"It's this big, like the suckers you remember from Crystal Beach."

Given the economic contraction and parallel run up of energy costs, I think Sam's legislation - albeit well intended - is 20 years too late. The two principal factors fueling sprawl - abundant supplies of low cost capital and cheap gasoline - are rapidly on the wane. This by the way, is not just a Buffalo phenomenon but a national one, too.

Buffalo is among the least-sprawled per capita metro areas (#67 of 83 biggest U.S. metros, ranked from most to least sprawling) according to an objective anti-sprawl organization.
Pg 32 here
http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/sprawlindex/MeasuringSprawl.PDF

Shouldn't our politicians and cheerleaders be bragging about that - like happens for low housing prices and rising housing prices?

So for Hoyt to say in the article's first paragraph "sprawl has destroyed our city for years" sounds strange.

According to Hoyt, Buffalo is now in a "destroyed" state?

It's both destroyed and having a renaissance at the same time?

And sprawl caused one and not the other?
Even though this Buffalo is among the 20% least-sprawled metro areas in the U.S.?

Yes people vote with their fee to move to suburbs, exurbs and small towns. A big reason is the lower taxes since new development dont have to deal with legacy power, telephone, water, sewar, road, bridge, etc...but lets not fool ourselves to thinking that our competent local government is putting all their eggs into infrastructure investment to serve the public good.

The recipe for job creation is not a difficult one: Direct the majority of taxpayer money as an investment into infrastructure that supports private sector business growth while keeping taxes low.

Lets mention the other reason just to be honest. Urban government is expensive because Albany political party patronage demands it, because voting civil servant unions (including teachers unions demand it) demand it, because voting minorities demand government patronage jobs based on statistical representation and party payback rather than merit...while city services stink to high hell...most of which can fly under the radar of suburbs, exurbs and small towns.

If the money saved by limiting sprawl just goes into a general fund so where it gets siphoned off by reducing Albany matching funds for mandates, unions, emergency demolitions, more affirmative action based hiring instead of merit based hiring then you just wind up with a more expensive city. Detroit is an enormously expensive city to run but it is not a successful or prosperous city!!!!

Perhaps BuffaloRising should step forward in an educational role and give the bullets of what this smart growth legislation can and cannot do!!!

Poodle,

the thrust of your replies focuses on the fact that the sprawl we see today is not the result of 'market-forces' but through the directed efforts (planned) of various levels of government. Be is UB or AIDA or ECIDA, I don't disagree. In fact, I agree that if sprawl wasn't subsidised and planned, it would be significantly less of a problem than it is today. Furthermore, if underwritten cost of sprawl were paid by the consumer, I would bet that the Chris Collins/Lees of the world would move back into the city (Lincoln Parkway?) should Gasoline be allowed to hit $5+ per gallon. In that circumstance, I would bet they would do so willingly. But that is a straw man argument because we both know that Government intervention, both in international markets directly and our foreign policy more generally, delay that eventuality. So, give the failure of previous planners, what makes you believe that this time around, central planners will have complete information is make every decision efficient and optimal?

Sam Hoyt, on the other hand, does disagree with us. According to Sam (and the title of this article), UNPLANNED sprawl has destroyed Buffalo. Again, I believe that facts to be on your side in this argument. Which leads to this question: Is Sam Hoyt deliberately misrepresenting the facts in order to push his preferred outcome? Or, is he, oblivious to the fact, just an idiot?

Ineffective, unresponsive, party-line politicians have destroyed our city for years.

The suburbs are a symptom a larger problem with the city. We need to stop blaming the residents and start looking at those who have made the short-sighted and self-serving decisions that made Buffalo a laughing stock for decades. I don't blame people for trying to find a better life than what the City of Buffalo offers, one where they have a responsive and successful school district, responsive police department, good stewardship of tax dollars, and a direction and plan for the future. We have a long list of ineffective mayors and public officials who are not responsive and are more focused on their own professional careers than the good people of Buffalo.

Take a look at Karla L Thomas as a prime example of why Buffalo is failing. There are dozens like her in this administration and past administrations. You can defend her if you want, but I think that she, and most of Brown's cronies, have caused irreparable damage to Buffalo and have held the city back from significant growth and improvement. The same goes for Masiello, Griffin, Makowski, and Sedita. These 5 mayors represent almost a half-decade of decline for the city through a half-decade of corruption and scandal.

FYI if you knew the author she is from a town of less than 1000 people and appreciates her "space". Knowing a background and what the author is trying to portray would make you sound a lot smarter. Try it next time!

Catering to his contiguency. Since he represents them, it sounds like a great platform to win re-election, at which point, the intern selection process (if he could) would be the most interesting part of his next year.

@20 years in Albany..it takes time..holy crap, with pols like these and a NYS government like ours....forget about it.
Why do we sprawl?
A few years ago some wannabe running for office, no doubt the great salary and perks for accomplishing nothing, came to my door...wondered how worried i was about crime.
I wasn't expecting a cop on my porch each night..what I was worried about was being able to live in the city and send my children to a good school. That is why moms and dads leave the city...
In those days if you couldn't get your kid in one of the "good" schools and couldn't pay for the private then sprawl looked pretty good.
You are tied to a region because of employment and then worrying about your kids.
The BPS has gotten a lot better in the last several years and w/o Williams,contraveries and all, I doubt it would have moved forward and more parents would be fleeing.
As for Sam I Am...well he has championed Charter Schools which may or may not make or break whether parents decide to stay in the city.
But the bottom line is he talks the talk and the voters accept it and vote the same ole same ole for a guy who has been part of the problem for years..but then again that is how the system works in NY..be part of the political hacks and be safe.
I lived in a state w/open primaries and the crap we see going on in NY just never got to this level of sound bite. Vote for me because for the last 20 years I kind of wanted to make changes...but well, staying in office was more importent with that paycheck and per diem and all those perks the "little" people can only get at my clambake....
I love NY.

Sprawl has its roots in racism, greed, and ignorance of the real cost to society and the environment. The advocates of this lifestyle continue to pretend it is about "personal freedom" and "choice" when in reality it is driven by a base instinct of one group feeling they are entitled to more than others. It will take a major shift in values to slow or stop this modern and unsustainable way of life.

How much of the current relocation in the city and migration to the suburbs / other states is driven by these same factors? Is a family that moves from the Ken-Bailey area to the University Heights, then to North Buffalo racist because they are trying to outrun the crime and decay? Is the lower-middle class family that moves from Buffalo to Cheektowaga racist and entitled?

The basic instinct is to provide the best situation for your family. Is a family that wants to put their child in the best school possible "entitled and racist", or are they doing what they feel is best for their family.

Should a family that has been a victim of crime take a moral stand and stay where they are, or should they follow their basic instinct to protect their children by moving away from the danger?

NYS has shrunk in population and yet we still has the same number of "representatives" in Albany. They gerrymander the districts so they can guanartee their re-election. And when they are done making sure they have the right balance of voters in their districts you realize that cities like Buffalo aren't represented by anyone who has a wholey vested interest in seeing the city succeed...go figure.
Keep them down on the farm, tell them how you are striving to make their lives better, tell them how hard it is to accomplish anything in Albany.
But don't remind them of the 90+K/year + 200+/diem + all those campaign funds you can raise and keep for those wonderful pork barrell(patronage jobs)/fun(d) raising events you can hold.
Human instinct it to fight or flee...but w/our politicians there is no fight...they mean so well for us little folks....re-eelcet them and they will keep trying...for another 20 years...maybe by then you will flee and they can BS the next sucker with a clambake...

props to hoyt & paterson. he became a way better governor by not running for governor.

my only nano-quibble is how sprawl is always characterized as 'unplanned.' actually, 50-60 years ago, the entire nation adopted zoning codes, building codes, highway standards, discriminatory mortgage practices, and other policies that were designed to produce transit blvd. everywhere. it became illegal to build anything like elmwood avenue or allentown.

sprawl was a conscious, deliberate, and highly planned land use pattern. and as j.h. kunstler always says, it was the largest mis-allocation of resources in the history of our country.

Three times the stuff same amount of people paying for it. It's that simple. All you here people whine about,high taxes. Duh

Its fitting that the "dey took are jabs!" South Park episode is on the same day this article gets written.

Those NYS bastards! Dey took are burbs!

Dey tuk r burbs!

Derke dewwwww!

Look Buffalo was strong when the entire metro population was within the city limits, then people started to flee to lower tax suburbs initially Kenmore, Lackawanna, Blasdell, West Seneca, Cheektowaga, etc.

Now sprawl is repeating the scenario with the population of Erie County escaping into Niagara County, Olean, Genessee, Wyoming and Chatauqua.

Now if the future of Erie County goes the way of the City of Buffalo then fuh-gedd-abowd-id!

Alot of people move to the suburbs simply for better schools......bring back NEIGHBORHOOD SCHOOLS and youll bring back families!!!

Regardless of what he says is causing it, I'm still surprised none of you are offended about a prominent person like Hoyt proclaiming to the media that Buffalo is "destroyed". Many of you complain when Forbes magazine says something like Buffalo is dead or destroyed.

What message is it to expats considering moving back? Who wants to move back to a place someone as perceptive as Hoyt says is destroyed?

Far fetched as it may be, what if some company is considering moving jobs to here because of historic tax credits - what will they think when they see one of our best and brightest saying Buffalo is destroyed?

Is the point that you guys hate Clarence and Lancaster more than you love Buffalo? So announcing to the world that Buffalo is destroyed is fine as long as it's said in a way that's dogging our neighbors who live a few miles away from the city?

I feel like I'm on some web page searching for the magical, hidden link that brings up "the finger". Someones gotta come up with a better way to display replies.

A single family home needs to be assessed at least $150,000.00 to fully cover survives it uses. Water line, sewer line, street and maintaince… You keep building homes without population growth you depress home prices, requiring more tax dollars, State and federal (still your tax dollars) to subsidize the unsustainable growth. Source for the $150,000.00 was said by the mayor of Lockport. The only politician I have ever heard to come out and say something like that. Like him or not. Seven lane intersections (Main and Transit or Wehrle) they didn’t show up there for free.

NY Adopting Smart Growth is a great idea. Erie county should also wake up and follow in the New York's footsteps.

Are you ready for some commentary from the sticks?

My family has lived in the (once) rural area of West Falls and Colden since coming to the United States in the early 20’s (paternal side) and 50’s (maternal side). My father used to tell me stories about the areas on Transit now buried under parking and empty concrete boxes that were home to family farms and wooded spaces. He warned me that someday even the home he and I grew up in would succumb to this mindless expansion. I didn’t believe him. How could our road, which saw more traffic in the summer in the form of tractors than anything else, be turned into a multilane high speed route?

As a teen I started to see the old farmers die off and their families, no longer interested in that life, sell off the property. Some remained farms, but more oft than not, the land was subdivided into smaller “country” plots or, even worse, subdivisions. Soon our country road was no longer good enough for those that wanted to get from here to there at a desired speed. The road was widened and the speed increased from 35 miles per hour to 55. My childhood home was now mere feet from a speedway.

The farms that remained have suffered. Neighbors, who willfully sought the pastoral life of the country, found that tractors are loud and slow and manure stinks. Laws (and the subsequent dollars expended to get them passed) had to be erected to protect farmers and their livelihood – but even these have proved too weak. The farms continue to be swallowed.

As a child of the boonies on the doorstep of the Queen City, I have always admired what it represented. Being an architecture junky, going in and walking about its neighborhoods and visiting its beautiful parks was always a treat. Being a lover of the arts and music, visiting the galleries and being a loyal customer of its shops (oh, Home of the Hits how I so miss you) became a ritual. I am torn. The thing is, I am of this soil out here and I always will be.

The small towns, their way of life, and the culture that developed in them are at peril just like the city. Uncontrolled greed, materialism, and just plain ignorance to the waste of sprawl (so aptly described in other posts) have ruined this area. I do not damn people for seeking what makes them happy and I know that change is inevitable, but we need to do this with intelligence and unity. Being the polar opposite of an area like the DC/Baltimore corridor, we do not have the nearly limitless wealth or economic growth to sustain this expansion. We need to have a unified plan. We need to recognize that sprawl is not beneficial to ANYONE – urban, suburban, or rural resident.

I have always loved the City of Buffalo and Western New York. There is something in this area that never gets out of your system no matter how far away you go or for how long. I was away for nearly 10 years, but, as I started to have a family of my own, I was drawn back here. Experience has shown me that this area, as jacked up as so many things are, affords a certain lifestyle and attitude I found lacking elsewhere. It’s disheartening there is such a long history of neglect here that it has almost become cultural to throw one’s hands up in the air in disgust and then point fingers at each other.

The unmitigated hate that seems to be sprinkled (more oft poured) in people’s posts concerning the artificial division of city and suburb/elsewhere makes me want to shit. In fact, I wipe my ass with the whole nonsensical affair. There is no agenda or conspiracy on either side of city lines (at least not one that involves 99% of the people in those areas as participants). Until we, the people, choose to change the course of the ship by supporting legislature that encourages a unified plan of action, the heart of the region – the City of Buffalo – will continue to die and the rest of the body of WNY will be gobbled up and eventually spit out by the cancerous monster called sprawl.

This is great news. It may not be a silver bullet or the absolute cure, but it is a step in the right direction. Other cities and regions which have adopted similar programs/legislature have reaped the benefits (it often takes years, if not decades).

Now we need to encourage industry and businesses to move back to the City and WNY . . . how to do that is anyone’s guess.

Repeal of the mortgage interest deduction would be a first step to limit sprawl. The deduction will cost us 110 Billion in 2010 with 1/2 (55 Billion) claimed by just 10% of taxpayers making over 100K per year. The deduction is not available to 65% of Americans that file using the standard deduction and is of little value to those below 50K per year (4% take advantage) or those making 50K-100K per year (22% take advantage).
Originally the deduction was intended to increase the level of home ownwership but other countries have equal or better rates without this deduction negating this claim. Time to stop enabling the wealthiest among us with this giveaway and use those lost dollars to improve the situation for the other 90% of Americans.

Maybe we should take a look at the anti-sprawl, reuse of existing infrastructure argument at the national level.

Maybe the answer for the country is to stop allowing growth and development in the southeast and southwest states at the expense of the midwest and northeast "rust belt" states.

If we are serious about sprawl at the local level, then maybe we should begin to look at it from a national level, after all those people who leave Buffalo each year leave behind unused infrastructure, vacant houses, underutilizde roads, etc. Maybe the answer is to stop all suburban and urban development in places where people want to live in the south and southwest, and let them remain where they are.

I read most all of the 81 comments.

Ohmygoodness, armyof100clowns (comment #81)! My dad used to tell the same stories of the same location as your dad! For myself, its scary to know that in my own lifetime, what used to be rural became semi-urban in such a short time; just one person's (mine) childhood to young adulthood memories.

And now, those burbs are going up for grabs.

"Sprawl" is a dead issue.

"Losing population" is a lie.

Downtown Buffalo already is not the hub it once was and there is no going back.

The TRUE VALUE of a house is only what it COST TO BUILD IT. There was a time, now finished with, when a house built for $20,000 sold for $90,000 and most recently reached as high as $120,000. The raising of price, coinciding with the rises in income, are now over with.

Taxpayers (those AARP people in the above picture) are actually the last of the taxpaying breed. (Taxpayers also tend to be live-in homeowners, making live-in homeowners a fading breed.)

Nowadays, a house that is fifty years old (built for $20,000) is an old house that will be selling for its TRUE VALUE, if that. (Every city, town, village and even the most rural hamlet has them.)

Nowadays, the buyers of those houses, both city and suburbs, are absentees. Absentees rent to tenants. Tenants, for the too most part, have no interest in ownership. Those tenants, also known as transient tenants, are responsible for a rapid and non-stop growth in population.

Just one way that growing transient population will be spreading into suburban and rural areas is through what State funding, big box stores and public transportation have in common. And, no, it no longer is about funding more buses so suburbanites can get INTO the city.

And, the kind of college education that WILL lead to a paying job better than taking out a tuition loan then becoming a clerk in a store, is a government job involved in taking good care of those transients.

(Doesn't BRis have a filter for "damn", "shit" and "ass" anymore?)

About sprawl (so as to stay on topic): Those who have been paying everyone's way, the working classes and those of retirement age, are dwindling.

The 'way' that the above mentioned have paved has made it easy for an enormous underclass of non-achievers to spread; those underachievers are the ones who are sprawling just the same as a wildfire "sprawls".

Very many of the working class and retirees in WNY have young people who come out of college and have to take low-paying jobs to have any kind of income. Low pay does not pay a mortgage. HOUSEowners know that.

Seriously, trying to solve Buffalo's problems won't work using patterns that have disolved.

Most interestingly, along with jobs that involve caring for the "poor" (and also the elderly, as long as the elderly can still afford it on their own dime, or as the elderly are forced into poverty) will grow.

Jobs in veterinary/(poochie) services will thrive! While many networking, software and data services will continue to go out-of-country.

Meanwhile, does anyone notice how many roofs everywhere need to be replaced? If any city, town, village or hamlet DOES manage to preserve existing housing stock, that's a job that needs to be placed on every official list of future "supply and demand"!

First, second, third mortgages, tuition payback; I am touching lightly here. EVERY still functioning large institution is aiming for rhyme and reason and not finding any.

Sprawl is moot. The Buffalo we have today will not resemble the Buffalo of the future.

Reggi-Q>"What is both GOOD and RIGHT is not for development to shift where you believe it will be best suited, but where an individual can choose to live where is best for them."

In a perfect world that would be great. The problem is taxpayer financed individual choice is for a large house on a multi-acre lot is having a negative impact on the air we breathe, the water we drink, the ability to produce food, older neighborhoods, marginalized people, and so on...

Ideally smart growth puts the cost of the sprawl on those who choose to live that way. If people have to add the cost of roads, sewer etc to their farmland patio home, there will be less people less people to "choose" this lifestyle because it will be cost prohibitive.

As far as "shifting development to where (I) feel it will be best suited", you have to weigh somebody's "choice" against the negative impacts to the community that that choice will lead to. This is a free country but it isn't anarchy.

This is not 'nam this is planning there are rules.

Growth,
1) Developers buy large tracts of wetlands
2) Sues the town till he get what he wants ( change in zoning from wetlands to residential)
3) Town that is GA GA over development bows down to developers
4) Twenty years later homes start sinking into the swamp that was always there
5) Taxpayer stuck with the bill
6) Not Smart Growth

We need a new Walmart