Real Estate August 30, 2011 8:00 PM

Mayor Brown Steps Up: Supports Public Funding for Statler Renovations

Mayor Brown Steps Up: Supports Public Funding for Statler Renovations

Count Buffalo Mayor Brown as impressed with the work Mark Croce has completed thus far at the Statler.  So much so, the Mayor is recommending the use of State funding to assist with the building's exterior repairs.  The $5.3 million would be taken from a $15 million discretionary allocation given to the City several years ago that was earmarked for economic development projects.  Mayor Brown announced his support after a building tour this afternoon.

Croce says he has put $1.5 million of his own money into the Niagara Square landmark over the past few months.  By year's end he expects his investment will approach $3 million as workers continue to refurbish and equip the first three levels of the building for banquet, restaurant and retail space. 

DSC_0845sc.JPGThe State money will be used for exterior repairs and restoration.  It is an endorsement of the building's future and Mark Croce's vision.  It is also a wise investment.  The $5.3 million is about half the cost the City might have had to spend on demolition if the building was abandoned.  Croce estimates that 200 people will be working in the Statler when the first phase of the project is complete and more as additional portions of the building get reused. 

"We're one step closer," says Croce.  "This is real and happening.  We're creating jobs and bringing this icon back to productive use.  The Mayor has confidence in our plan." 

Croce says the schedule for redeveloping the building's upper floors will be market-driven and could be a combination of hotel, residential and office space.  He says a number of parties are interested in space in the building. 

Says Croce, "This money will help leverage future investment."

Statler City Facebook page

View image

Comments

Leave a comment

The plan for the upper floors is still unknown and dependent on market conditions. I wonder if this will ever come to fruition, just like so many other subsidized feel-good projects in Buffalo. It is great that it is being used, but it would be even better if there was a plan in place for all the floors so we don't wind up throwing good money after bad as the years go by.

Didn't we learn anything from Bashar Issa?

Score: -11 ( 31 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I think Croce did learn from Issa. The lessen is not to take on more than you can handle, especially without a plan. I appreciate his candid admission that he doesn't know what he will do with that space yet. It's refreshing that he is at least being straight forward and that he put up a lot of his own money right away and not waiting on the city before starting any work. It sounds like he is competing with the Lafayette, which will certainly keep this interesting at the least.

replied to bobbycat
Score: 4 ( 10 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I wish I could get paid to own property next to city hall.

Score: 6 ( 22 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Glad that this $5M is being earmarked for exterior repairs. While I fully support restoration of the Statler, the buzz seems to indicate that this was a wise investment for Croce. Whether the market conditions prove that the upper floors will turn into commercial or hotel or even residential space, there will likely be a tidy (even if long-term) profit to be made on his investment in the building.

Exterior maintenance of the building is another story. The crumbling stonework that closed the sidewalks a while back is an investment for the city that might not fit into Croce's business plan for quite some time. Glad to see that the city/state's money will be earmarked for a purpose that serves the city, rather than simply helps line the pocket of the investor/developer. Croce definitely deserves to be rewarded for saving the building, but that reward should come from a sound business plan, not a hand-out from taxpayers.

Score: 19 ( 21 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

It's almost surreal that this project is moving forward. I think eventually it will be a huge hit. I could easily see condos in some part of the building, hotel in another, and an up scale restaurant, or two. I attended a work Christmas party at the Statler a couple of years ago, and it really is an amazing building, with amazing historic detailing's. That being said 5.3 million is way to much! Croce has only invested 1.5 million of his own money. For the city to pitch in 5.3 is a little desperate. I wonder how much Karla Thomas blowing Brown in for being a crooked Mayor, has to do with Brown ponying up this large amount of cash. It looks like someone is a little desperate for some positive press.

Score: -3 ( 17 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

We can argue about whether any taxpayer $ the privately-owned Statler is justified for quality of life (keeping a nice interesting building to see for a few more decades), but Croce's claim that "We're creating jobs" looks questionable if he's trying to imply real job growth here.

And not that it matters much which bucket of NYS tax money it comes from, but for honest labeling, doesn't taking $5.3M from "economic development project" funds sound shady? If public $ are to be spent, shouldn't it come out of funds earmarked for preservation? Why not take it from the "$100M" supposedly set aside for the Richardson rather than from economic development money?

What long term jobs are being created due to the Statler that wouldn't be around here otherwise in some less-interesting building?

Score: -4 ( 22 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

you make cogent points, as always, Whatever. I agree with you. Call a spade a spade. This is a preservation outlay (one I think is perhaps defensible as such, though I usually bristle at any subsidies at all), but this project is not jobs creation. They money should come from the appropriate budget.

replied to whatever
Score: 0 ( 6 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Thanks, Bini. While I'm against public $ for private projects, I realize there's a lot of public support for things like corporate welfare and subsidies for old buildings.

But NYS should at least make it more organized and let choices be by locally-elected legislatures instead of letting mayors decide unilaterally or anonymous unaccountable bureaucrats deciding. A total amount of state $ for privately-owned old building subsidies could be set aside each year in the state budget, then divided up per municipality based on something like population size and % of old buildings. Then each city and town would decide how to spend it every year (and should have to match a portion with local tax money, maybe 10%).

If from its allowance, if Buffalo's city govt decided the Statler should get $5.3M and the Livery should get $3M, then (if there's at least that much $ available) so be it. But it would be deciding among all potential old building projects here once a year, similar to how city capital budget projects are prioritized.

(No way to prove, but I'd bet the guess is right in BurchJP's comment that Mayor Brown announced this to change the subject from things like Karla T, the asbestos indictments, etc. If so, it was very smart of him politically. Statler funding will be popular with some progressives who are often critical of him.)

replied to biniszkiewicz
Score: 3 ( 7 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

If We, as taxpayers, and hence, "the government", contribute our hard earned money into such things that directly benefit PRIVATE (as opposed to solely PUBLIC) entities, then if/when such projects make money, such contributions should be considered as loans, and such public contributions should be FIRST in line for immediated repayment WITH INTEREST. That would only be fair.

Such programs have been used in Hawaii, due to the extreme high cost of property, to encourage home ownership for residents, as opposed to speculative investment, especiatlly by out-of-state entities, and when such time comes that the owner who behefited from such loans choosesz to sell, the state is payed back first, with the Owner getting only what's left over in the sale proceeds.

replied to whatever
Score: 3 ( 3 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

JMarko, I agree with you that govt loans to a handful of politician-chosen businesses aren't as bad as giving public grants to them. However, I'm also against loans. I don't know why it's so radical to say public $ should be used only for publicly-owned purposes (of which there's much need around here), but apparently now it is. -shrug-, I suppose.

replied to JohnMarko
Score: 1 ( 1 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I would argue that there is job creation for the new businesses that will operate here once some of these projects are completed such as the restaurants, lounge and banquet space. Not to mention keeping construction workers busy / employed during the winter months is helpful to that industry, not to mention and local vendors selling materials.

As for public money being spent here, I know we would all like to see 100% private investment but with this particular building (and location) I think it's critical to the public image & perception to show that downtown Buffalo is not a sinking ship and development is happening. That to me is worth the investment.

replied to biniszkiewicz
Score: 0 ( 4 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

bteeth>"I would argue that there is job creation for the new businesses that will operate here once some of these projects are completed such as the restaurants, lounge and banquet space"

I would argue the portion of the Statler's restaurant/banquet/lounge customers who come to NYS only because of the Statler can be considered as creating long term job growth in NYS thus justifying a claim of "NYS economic development". But I'd bet that portion will be big enough to create almost zero jobs.
And customers who'd eat here anyway but decide to eat/drink in businesses at the Statler instead of in Bambino, or The Eights, or Mothers, or Pearl St Grill, etc., and so on, aren't the same thing.

Quality of life helper in this part of NYS to see people eating/drinking in the Statler? To some people, yes.
Job growth (other than temp construction)? Very doubtful. Probably more like job moving-around from some businesses to others. That's fine when resulting from private competition but not the same when tax $ are diverted from public needs to make it happen. True growth would need a bigger number of eaters & drinkers.

replied to brownteeth
Score: 1 ( 1 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I am not suggesting an earth shattering amount of jobs but any jobs added are a plus. Not to mention having that many more people working in the downtown core adds density, especially after 5 pm.

As for temporary construction jobs, well all construction jobs are temporary. I work in commercial construction and if we do not continue to get contracted for new projects than our whole company would shut down eventually. So keeping const. workers going on new projects is vital to this industry, especially during the slower winter months.

I would venture to guess that many weddings being booked here are from out of towners or ex-pats too so having them spend money here is helpful to the city at large when you account for hotels, meals, shopping, etc.

Like I said, this is not going to save Buffalo but it's a very critical peice to the puzzle. Especially when it comes to reversing the image of Buffalo being a boarded up ghost town. Having events and lights on at night in the Statler helps change the vibe downtown after 5pm. That alone is worth $5.3 million in my opinion.

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

As long as the money goes into the building facade and shores it up for years then it is a worthy investment.

Score: 10 ( 14 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Buffalo was going GAGA over BassPro and willing to throw 10s of millions without question. Why give Croce such a hard time? He is actually doing something, will it be successful I hope so. At least he is doing something and putting up the cash to do it. It’s about time we are getting honest developers that believe in this place. But, we all still whine about pennies compared to letting this place rot and tearing it down.

Score: 17 ( 23 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

bung>"GAGA over BassPro and willing to throw 10s of millions without question"

Without question?
There was tons of questioning about Bass Pro subsidies all along. So much that it became clear public opinion was strongly against it, and eventually even some politicians caught on and started opposing it. They (BP) were willing to spend a lot of their own cash too.

bung>"still whine about pennies"

Is $5.3M really just pennies for Buffalo?
It's more than the city is spending this year for work on streets and sidewalks across the whole city, all nine Council districts combined.
http://www.buffalonews.com/city/article17031.ece
"$4.8 million for citywide repairs of streets, curbs and sidewalks."

And yet here $5.3M of public $ to the Statler, in addition to last week's report of over $3M of public funds to Savarino for 14 new apartments in the Livery, ... and next week...?

replied to bung
Score: -1 ( 11 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

great job. the argument that it is too much money to give croce, i think is baseless. Although its more money he put in at the moment, it is more than definitely a worthwhile investment for a 100 million dollar project. Great move by Mayor Brown.

Score: 6 ( 10 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment


Each and every dime that is granted to these vital building projects, (and I am for It with restrictions) should be a lean on the property for when they are sold, that the Grant is paid back. Just as the pail out monies were needed to be paid back. Then the monies could then go on to fund other projects in the future and revolve, this would ensure future funding for other restoration needs!

Score: 13 ( 15 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I agree

replied to timatbuffalo
Score: 1 ( 3 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I support the funds, because, frankly, the numbers just don't work (larger discussion: sprawl, disinvestment, etc.) However, just like the Federal Govt did with the car companies, the Public should be a stakeholder and when/if the building is resold and turns a profit, that money could be put into another property.

I would be scratching my head if I were Rocco, however.....why doesn't he receive the same deal?

Score: 2 ( 10 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Rocco wouldn't be the only one scatching his head. Bashir and Jerry Bucheit (previous owner who sold to Issa) might scratch their as well. And owners of many other downtown buildings which will have to compete with the Statler probably don't think it's such a fair deal, either.

The countervailing argument, though, is that any of the others could have bought the Statler for pennies, too. It was likely from the outset that some gov't cash would prime this pump. The other developers still stayed away in droves.

If this is all the gov't input he gets, it's probably 5% of the total rehab cost. That I could live with pretty easily. It's a great save for the community. If Croce comes back to the table again and again, however, a la Paul Snyder, with that I would have an issue.

replied to Travelrrr
Score: 3 ( 5 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I would also argue that Statler's competitors actually benefit from an occupied Statler's. The more business activity going on there, the more for everyone. It is not a zero sum game when the region is growing, and I Hope this is a sign that the region is indeed growing again.

replied to biniszkiewicz
Score: 7 ( 7 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Um, what has become of Croce's plans for his boutique hotel....absolutely nothing has been done on this project for months....feedback, please..ty!

Score: 7 ( 7 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Every street on which I drive every day, from home to stores or work or wherever, is crumbling. Street trees dead, dying, missing ... a thousand things on which the City should be spending money and effort, but there's no money for that. Glad to see there's public money to hand out for free to someone who doesn't even own property in Buffalo (look up his name - nothing). How's your tax bill, people? My assessment went up 20%, and the water bill 35%. Let's give some more gifts to save worthless buildings, shall we?

Make LOANS at the same rates banks will make, not gifts. If a business isn't worthy of a loan, it is worthless.

Score: -3 ( 11 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I agree. One could also argue that spending money on the Niagara Medical Campus is money that could be spent on repairing streets or providing other basic city services. Or that money spend on advertising Buffalo for tourism is a misallocation of funds.

But if the city spends money that actually increases its tax base and promotes the local economy, it will return substantially more in taxes over the years, and those taxes can be used for basic city services.

Now, I'm not saying this is a sure thing, but we should acknowledge that sometimes it is actually wise to invest in the future.

replied to ForestBird
Score: 3 ( 7 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Giving money to a 'medical campus' IS a waste, yes - especially when every new building results in the closing of a neighborhood medical facility. Moving every hospital and clinic from places where people live to some remote, downtown ghetto is NOT a good idea. I do not look forward to how many people will die in the extra 20-30 minutes it'll take to get them to that "campus", when they might have been saved at Millard Fillmore. Lives are being traded for dollars.

If the Statler or any other downtown building is a wise investment, it/they do not need free money from our taxes. When people come begging for freebies, the public purse should be SHUT. If Croce wants to BORROW and pay interest, he should seek a loan, not a hand-out.

replied to Rand503
Score: -12 ( 20 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

ForestBird, I dont know which is more wrong, that you think investing in businesses to expand your tax base and development is a bad idea, that you think the medical campus is a ghetto, or that you think its just a hospital and not a diverse center of research, education and health care. These types of development and dedication to developing your urban core are what make cities great.

replied to ForestBird
Score: 7 ( 9 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Forest>"in the extra 20-30 minutes it'll take to get them to that "campus", when they might have been saved at Millard Fillmore"

Not true. Not even close.
Sisters Hospital is a 3 minute drive from where Millard/Gates is. Emergency patients can be taken to Sisters where there's a full emergency room.
3 minutes - maybe even faster for an ambulance. Not 20-30 minutes.

Also, it isn't even 20-30 minutes from Millard/Gates to Buffalo General either. It's under 2 miles, a 6 minute drive.

replied to ForestBird
Score: 2 ( 2 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

ForestBird,

Your comment about the neighborhood medical facilities closing isn't entirely true. As was the case in the late 1990's/early 2000's, the closures of Buffalo Columbus, Sheehan, Lafeyette, St. Francis,OLV,& Deaconess Hospitals did not have adverse effects on the health of the city and/or region as a whole.

The fact is with advancements in prehospital care, specifically EMS, transport times within the city (which generally are under 9 minutes) isn't room for concern. I agree with you that closures have effected wait times, but in the same breathe that is specifically and intertwined with the fact that many people do not have primary care physicians.

Where we don't agree is the fact that one "mega" complex is a bad thing. It's not. Childrens Hospital SHOULD be at the Medical Campus. The current site is landlocked, old with crumbling infrastructure, and needs to be moved.

Patients benefit too. For example, if your a patient at Children's and are going for chemotherapy @ Roswell Park, that equals an ambulance transport to and from. So, that in fact costs the patient MORE on their health insurance premium. This type of incident happens all the time. Patient's who are at Kenmore Mercy, are transported via ambulance to Buffalo Mercy for cardiac related surgeries and procedures. These are just examples.

We all remember the debacle with the helicopters at Childrens. Remember the neighborhood complaints with noise? These are sick/critical patients being transported. Remember Children's is a regional asset, and international w/ Canadians.

One needs to only look at the Strong Hospital complex, or what I believe the Buffalo Niagara will become, Cleveland Clinic. Medical is the one good industry we have, let's tout it!

replied to ForestBird
Score: 5 ( 7 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I'll be honest and say I never would of believed this building to be worked on so quick. I thought it would stay boarded up for another few years like his other buildings near by. GLAD to see he's proven me/us wrong and doing great work on it. Can't wait to hear/see hotel and living spaces as his next phase.

Score: 6 ( 6 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

What is this "Give" garbage? Lend, okay. Give? For free? NO!

Score: -1 ( 11 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

This is a typical government Grant, handout, investment, call it what you like. The funds invested here are designed for urban development. If Croce didn't get this 5M than another developer would. It cannot be used to repair streets or schools, there are other programs for that. So if the Mayor has about 20M in this fund and this project gets 5, I'd say that is ok. What is transparent is Brown's not so coy way of pretending to do his diligence by waiting to hand out the money until he see the entire plan, like Croce and he did not already know that this was part of the deal from the begining.
What is totaly amazing is our two historic hotels downtown, Lafayette and Statler are being renovated simultaneously after decades of watching them wither. Did anyone seriously think that this was ever going to happen...at the same time no less. The action at the Lafayette is a bit more impressive but it is all great.

Score: 9 ( 13 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Does anybody know if tax breaks going forward (PILOT maybe?) were given to this project? If not, then that $5.3 will be recouped quickly. Also, what is the building currently assessed at, and will the City reassess it after the rehab is complete? If so, then this is a very good investment.

Score: 1 ( 3 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Love that second pic! Looks like SOMEONE was up on 18...

Score: 1 ( 1 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Im always curious all these investments are great but what if the casino indian owners decide to put gas stations, cig factories, hotels on their land? I live in the city and I still think that casino was a bad idea losing tax money and control of a part of the city. Just seemed to desperate thinking during those Masiello days. Can anyone tell me how the casino is going to do anything for the city growth or income ? Im not against gambling either. Just way to much of it.

Score: 1 ( 3 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I would think it to be one more entertainment option keeping or drawing people into the city, especially tourists and visitors. Hopefully that will also mean more business for other hotels, restaurants and bars downtown as a result. I don't think it would be a destination on its own though.

replied to chetroia
Score: 1 ( 3 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Leverage this money, with additional money reallocated from UB 2020 to move the Law School into the Statler, and switch ECC money used in their Amherst expansion into locating ECC classes here too.

Score: -3 ( 5 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I wouldn't give this money without stipulations and recapture agreements for the money. He needs a plan for the entire building, rehabbing the first and 18th floors only for restaurant business is not acceptable.

Score: 1 ( 1 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Putting UB Law into the Statler would most likely result in the loss of the beautiful public spaces and banquet rooms that the hotel currently has.

UB is moving to the South Campus, according to the long range plan, and I think that's great.

Score: 2 ( 2 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Sorry, keep it simple, but this building in no way can be converted to classroom space. That's wishful thinking, but physically impossible. The lower floors have public uses planned already which will bring more activity and money than classroom space. The upper floors are completely inappropriate: big wide posts everywhere, low ceilings; the floors don't convert to open spaces. The idea of bringing the law school here was floated and investigated and quickly dismissed as completely untenable.

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


UB Law is moving to the South Campus.

Score: 1 ( 1 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Seems to me the city should be getting options on a couple of floors to sell off later if/when this venture becomes profitable. It would cost Croce nothing and give the city a shot at recouping some cash in the long run. Even the feds got GM stock in that bailout. No brainer?!?!?

Score: 1 ( 1 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

This is a net postive. As other governments are contracting because of bloated budgets Buffalo has money to spend. Invest it now when others don't have the ability to.

The mayor should be out looking for companies to poach out of other areas.

I have no problem with the money being spent on this project. It is a symbol of innovation and should be kept. Once the parking gets figured out and the bridge to the convention center is made this building will be a cash cow.

Score: 3 ( 3 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

"The $5.3 million is about half the cost the City might have had to spend on demolition if the building was abandoned."

I think this sentence is really the crux of the matter for me. The $11 million of demolition money would probably have to be city money as well, as it's probably easier to get state money for redevelopment of a historic building than just to create a parking lot. And then we would be left with a parking lot assessed at a few hundred thousand dollars, rather than the tens of millions the building will be worth when fully restored.

I do like the idea others mentioned of having it be a no-interest loan that needs to be paid back when the building is sold, rather than an outright grant, though.

Score: 7 ( 7 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment


The funding is not coming from the City, but from the State Dormitory Authority.

Score: 1 ( 1 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

So how is the Curtiss Building coming? Hope the Statler does not become another project that Croce doesn't finish. Didn't he get a million in aid on the Curtiss? Don't forget he also asked for millions to build a parking ramp with 4 stories of offices on top. Whats up there? Agree with those who say the public should become a stakeholder in return for the 5 million. Most projects receive public aid in the form of tax breaks. This is an actual cash $$ infusion. Wasn't Croce one of the people that cried foul on the Donovan Bldg? That comes across as being a little greedy.

Score: 2 ( 4 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I wonder how many bids would have come in on the statler if the city had said up front they would contribute the estimated cost of demolition towards the project?

Score: 2 ( 4 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I hear the Curtis is still in motion however the Statler has his full attention. Last word is he has evry intention of developing a high end boutique hotel there however it might require a concept shift from banquets, to more restaurant and bars as the Statler has pretty much taken the lead in the banquet area.

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

If only he would partner with an actual real estate developer who could get the projects done. It's clear that the real interest is in the restaurant/banquet side which is Croce's forte. These are large buildings and the bulk of them must be something other than restaurants. It's hard to have mid and high-rise buildings that are empty except for the ground floor and it seems like this is getting short shift compared to the restaurant and catering business.

replied to The Boss
Score: 1 ( 3 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Just look at how much money was going to go to the BIG GIANT FISH STORE on the waterfront...I think it was something like 35 million. What a lucky break for Buffalo. So there is 15 million waiting for development purposes in limbo and 5.3 million of it is going to a very good development project. Smart thinking finally.

Score: -3 ( 3 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Nick, what project(s) has Mark Croce not got done. He has saved and developed 3-4 forgotten buildings on Franklin Street and he his going to town on an almost lost iconic structure, something apparently nobody else had the kahunas to tackle. The Curtis is going to happen but give the guy a break, he has set a very agressive schedule for himself. Expect a hotel partner at the Statler at somepoint after he completes his first phase.

Score: -2 ( 4 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Have any of those involved anything other than restaurant/catering operations? Tax credits and complex financial dealings? I'm not trying to take away credit from him, but he's been sitting on Curtiss for over two years and now is taking on an 18-story building with no track record of completing anything half this size.

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

regarding croce's jobs claim: granted, developers often inflate the numbers, but for heaven's sake, a lot of skilled tradespeople will be needed to rehabilitate the statler and they won't be unpaid volunteers! those paychecks will circulate back into the community as they purchase goods & services. preservation = jobs.

Score: 0 ( 2 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

"those paychecks will circulate back into the community as they purchase goods & services"

Some temp construction jobs, yes, of course. It goes without say that some $ would be moved from all taxpayers to workers who fix up the Statler, and then into the economy. But no matter how NYS spent the $ it would "circulate back into the community", as long as it was spent here.

There's even many ways it could be spent by paying construction workers other than to work on one privately-owned building.

For example - paying workers to repair more streets & sidewalks in many parts of Buffalo that badly need it. Or paying workers to remove those 10 or so won't-be-saved boarded up houses on Grant between Forest and Buff State that sit vacant for years it seems waiting for arsons. Or upgrading neighborhood playgrounds across the city. Or fixing roofs of city-owned buildings for sale such as Fairfield Lib so they're more likely to be bought. Or....

replied to grad94
Score: 1 ( 1 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

great ideas. i am all for them.

but it may be possible that these funds cannot be used for each and every one of those purposes. i don't know one way or the other, but i kind of doubt that the state hands out unrestricted funds any more.

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

"it may be possible that these funds cannot be used for "

grad, the $5.3M is from one of the NYS agencies that don't have much transparency, so the full conditions of what that agency decided it can be used for don't seem to easily findable online. (Which raises side issues - all public spending decisions should be more transparent, and why should "dormatory agency" funding be made available at a mayor's discretion for so-called economic development on private property. NYS agencies really should be reigned in.)

However, from this excerpt of the conditions reported by the BN, it sounds like there's some flexibility in how the $ can be spent. Actually, nothing in the excerpt looks especially relevant to a building like the Statler, so this use of the $ might be a stretch they're letting the mayor do. If they're giving him flexibility to use it for the Statler, it's possible they'd have also allowed the more public examples across the city such as I listed before. Dorm Agency members might not even much care how Buffalo uses the $, who knows.

http://www.buffalonews.com/city/article541089.ece
"... The money that Brown was talking about was allocated to the city through the State Dormitory Authority under the 2008-09 State Capital Assistance Program for "neighborhood renewal," an agency spokeswoman said Wednesday.
The money could be used "to help clear blighted properties, expand development sites throughout the City of Buffalo, stabilize neighborhoods with housing initiatives targeted to middle- and upper-income housing and provide funding for low-income housing rehabilitation," according to a funding summary document for the allocation. ..."

replied to grad94
Score: 1 ( 1 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I'll add to that list of examples with some other causes that you have championed here in the past:

...or building roads to nowhere, utility connections for private subdivisions, nationalized mortgages, or using public money to pay wealthy homeowners to buy over-sized property.

It's interesting that you have pushed against this project here under the guise of fiscal responsibility, the "political motivations" of decision makers, and the line you draw between direct and indirect subsidies to developers. Yet you didn't utter a peep on the issues of massive direct and indirect sprawl subsidies and equally "politically motivated" sprawl development in the >100 comment Kunstler thread.

Talk of a preservation success story draws your ire, but similar issues in sprawl discussions are somehow exempt from this criticism. It seems like you turn on the subsidy rhetoric for projects that don't fall in line with your values but not for publicly funded development that you like.

replied to whatever
Score: -1 ( 1 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Armchair>"causes that you have championed here in the past"

Let's take these one at a time and separate out your lying from your misleading generalizations.

Armchair>"building roads to nowhere"
What's any example(s) of a particular road-to-"nowhere" you claim I've championed?
And what do you mean by "nowhere"? Are you saying a road can be to nowhere if it's often full of traffic? Why would many cars often drive to nowhere?

So that one needs clarifying. Then it's all downhill from there.

armchair>"utility connections for private subdivisions"
You've claimed outer ring suburb utility connections are unfairly funded somehow due to costs not being directed to developers or new customers out there. I've responded that I'm not aware of any utility-critic politicians claiming that or proposing laws to stop it, nor have I ever seen reports of the Public Service Commission which heavily regulates utilities saying there's a problem. I'd wonder why Buffalo's NYS Assembly members never made an issue of it with the PSC if there's some big injustice happening, or why Cuomo or Spitzer as very pro-urban, utility-critical Attorneys General didn't make an issue of it as they did so many things. The silence all this time about it from pro-urban Sen Schumer is puzzling too.
If you can link to objective sources backing your claim, you should. Maybe some learning can happen. But I won't accept just your say-so when that's all I've seen.

That said - I've never "championed" anything about utilities. Questioning your claim isn't at all the same as championing or favoring something. Can you link to anywhere I've "championed" anything about utility connections as you said I did? I'll be very surprised.

Armchair>"nationalized mortgages, or using public money to pay wealthy homeowners to buy over-sized property"

That looks like a total lie from you. I never championed anything that can be called nationalized mortgages. I'm against the Fannie/Freddie subsidies. And if you're referring to the mortgage income tax deduction, I've consistently, repeatedly opposed it. I've said it should be repealed, and never "championed" it as your b.s. claims I did. I have once in a while mocked how it seems to be blamed on here for anything up to and possibly including global climate change and Norwood's kick going wide. Obviously that isn't the same as me "championing" it, and to the contrary I've clearly opposed it as a policy many times here.

Wow, that comment was awfully inaccurate even beyond your usual when you write about me. Nice job!

replied to The Kettle
Score: 2 ( 2 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

You're not fooling anybody here. You take a token stance against some sprawl subsidies, for the sake of pretend objectivity, then cheer on their impact. You saying sprawl subsidies should be abolished, while pushing the lifestyle they create, is like saying animals shouldn't be killed but everybody should eat meat.

Bla bla bla Spitzer... bla bla bla Schumer... bla bla bla Cuomo bla bla bla NYS Assembly.

Instead of trying to drag your favorite politicians into every conversation, you ought to explain your inconsistent stance on development subsidies. That or just put your anti-urban bias on the table instead of pretending it doesn't exist.

replied to whatever
Score: 0 ( 2 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Arm>"You're not fooling anybody here"

Anybody here? You're more than entitled to your views, but you don't seriously think you speak for everybody "here", do you? Wouldn't that be arrogant?

Arm>"You take a token stance against some sprawl subsidies, for the sake of pretend objectivity,"

Token stance? I'm against all deductions and tax credits for everybody everywhere - urban, suburban, rural.
How is that token or pretend? Seems pretty consistent. Why try to focus blame on me for alleged consequences of some things I'm against? Shouldn't your attacks be against people who actually favor the mortgage tax deduction, etc.?

Funny how some people who criticized or questioned Statler funding on here are politely ignored by you, letting them say their view without you making up lies about their past statements....
....yet you rudely criticize me for supposed results of policies I'm consistently _against_, mis-stating my past positions without apologizing whan I call you on it and ask for examples - insulting my integrity by saying my consistently stated views are "pretend" just because you say they're pretend. Seriously, I've never said anything like this about anyone on a blog and probably never will again, but what a jerk for not being at least respectful of views different from your own.

Welcome back, by the way.

replied to The Kettle
Score: 1 ( 1 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Whoa there. This isn't about anybody being rude, singling you out, state Dems, or the President of the US. People should expect and welcome there ideas being challenged without taking it as a personal slight.

I was being critical of you and like minded commenters' ideological inconsistency not your worldview. It is one thing to come out in the open and say you like sprawl development and dislike urban revitalization for reasons a b and c. It is something else to hide these feelings, select seemingly objective criteria, and apply it to one side of the argument and not the other.

For example, the focal point of your criticism for the Statler, and other projects based on urban high-density development, is usually based on government spending to manipulate the private sector, shifting population from one place to the other, and misappropriating money that could be used on more "real" needs.

When the topic changes to sprawl development, these principals are tossed out the window and your argument shifts to freedom of choice, validating public spending to stimulate private development by citing desire for sprawl living, and mocking those who feel differently.

Why don't you argue the same points on both issues? You could apply the "real needs" stance to question why the county should be building roads in under-developed areas. Or you could use the choice line to justify subsidies for downtown rehabs based on the clear and strong demand for this living environment.

At the very least, you could mock the loons who poor bash and make strange connections to historic tax credits and forcibly moving people out of their suburban bliss. Much the way you mock those who rightfully connect policy driven auto-centric development to environmental consequences.

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

"you didn't utter a peep on the issues of massive direct and indirect sprawl subsidies and equally "politically motivated" sprawl development in the >100 comment Kunstler thread."

The 94th comment (not > 100) of Kunstler thread says its comments are turned off the BR admin.
http://www.buffalorising.com/2011/09/the-geography-of-nowhere.html#comment-77071
If true, nobody's been able to utter peeps in that for a few days.

People moving to outer ring burbs doesn't seem to me much different than when people in the 1800s & 1900s populated midwest and western parts of the U.S. They didn't all truly need the space. They had freedom to move, some wanted to for many different reasons, and it was controversial at times. And yes, some public spending shifted from where they were before their move to where they went, and publicly funded roads and infrastructure got built out there as the # of taxpaying residents/businesses grew out there.

Spending for public roads should be as proportionate as feasible to where taxpayers are located and where they drive. I think the NYS DOT tries to account for that in traffic analysis before deciding projects, but there's no way to remove all subjectivity. There will always be debates about what they decide.

Anyhow, other than desire to find fault with me, I don't see what the sprawl debate has to do with the distinction between public spending on private property vs. public property. As I wrote, the Statler handout could have been spent in the city on more publicly-owned things.

Armchair>"Talk of a preservation success story draws your ire"

Nope, I expressed no ire, just polite disagreement about public policy. To see real ire, here's a good example from today in a speech declaring "war" on Republicans during Obama's introduction. Now that's ire.

Time will tell, but it seems early to call the Statler a success story if it stays mostly empty for the long run and receives this and future public handouts. See nick's comment which might not bother you because he wrote it but if I wrote the same maybe you'd say I'm full of ire.

If or when the Statler ever becomes a preservation success, I won't have a negative attitude about that aspect. Just like I won't have negative views of Gigi's or Empire Grill if they have profit success over competitors even though I disagreed with the govt giving public $ to them. I wouldn't have disliked Bass Pro either even though I was against handouts to them. Blame should go to givers, not askers and recipients.

replied to The Kettle
Score: 1 ( 1 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Opps, sorry for duplicate below - I clicked back arrow by mistake and text reloaded.

BR - feel free to delete the repeat.

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

Whatever> "People moving to outer ring burbs doesn't seem to me much different than when people in the 1800s & 1900s populated midwest and western parts of the U.S."

Agreed. That effort was also driven largely by massive public spending, especially in the booming south and southwest. It would be tough to live in these places without the massive federal investment in irrigation, flood control, and hydropower (to go along with highway, housing, and other infrastructure programs).

Thanks for the welcome by the way. Ive been here all along but have made an effort to stay out of the comment section.

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

The city should really negotiate to get something in return for these funds, I agree. Perhaps free office space for city services once it is open.
If there is to be a hotel there, then the city should get lots of free rooms, and those rooms should be used not for the mayor's mistresses, but for out of town investors. This way, the city can invite people and have a large part of their expenses paid for, and they get to stay in an historic rehab.

Really -- did no one think to even ask for anything in return?

Score: 1 ( 1 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Its absolutely a good investment for the city and taxpayer dollars. Yes its a pittance compared to demolition but demolition would be a huge mistake for downtown. The statler is a major footprint downtown that a replacement would not match.

They are doing it absolutely correct. Get people into the public spaces on the first 3 floors and use the public spaces to finance the redevelopment of the upper floors.

The neighboring Federal Courthouse will leverage many changes.

I still think the idea of UB Law students residing at the Statler is a big benefit (2 blocks from light rail) and across the street from courts and government buildings.

Score: -2 ( 4 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Having gone to law school, I can assure you that there is little benefit for students to be next to courts and gov't buildings. There is a small percentage that does a legal clinic in their third year, and it might be helpful for them, but even then, they can still easily get there from the South campus, or even the north.

replied to paulsobo
Score: 5 ( 5 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

All these comments and still nothing about a viable use for the upper floors of the Statler.

I guess building additional hotel rooms would be a good idea but that would end the challenge against hotel rooms at the Casino.

Score: -2 ( 4 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Croce’s feasible, sensible, straightaway movements are building a solid foundation for the Statler’s rebirth.

The continuance of its crumbling state would not have benefited the City or its taxpayers.

Go Croce!

Score: 1 ( 1 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I love what Mayor Byron Brown has done for Buffalo. The turn around of the city has been remarkable while he's been in office. The Medical Complex, the Larking Building and First Niagara, Saint Vincents charter school, and now the Stateler. How great is it to live in Buffalo right now!!!!

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

Leave a comment