Buffalorising has been redesigned.

Forgive me for skepticism, but I personally have worked with the BERC in the past and consider them an anti-business development agency. We too had looked into business loans through BERC, as our company was a tenant of a BERC property. Basically they served as a go between for the SBA. They were completely no help what-so-ever! We had more confrontations with their staff than cooperation and eventually washed our hands of them altogether.

This was several years ago and it was run by a different director, so I would certainly give the new director benefit of the doubt regarding new vision or initiatives, but does the BERC have any lending power at all? Do they even influence the lending process? This was not the case a few years ago. Besides bringing borrowers and a few staregic lenders together, what exactly do they help?

Brian
Your comments are so valuable. What is so important in Buffalo is for the population to really listen to the small business owners and take what they say seriously. There are so many people with opinions out there, and so many government organizations supposedly "helping" but so many of them are really just created as political appeasement to public outcry, and then they end up staffed with people who aren't necessarily the most competant, aware, or committed to the stated goal.

There really needs to be a forum for small business owners to be heard loud and clear, and everything else in the region's priority system should really fall below their needs.

Small business needs heard and addressed first = job growth & success for everyone - including "the arts"

Hopefully the region can get out of the "secure government job" mentality...

Brian -

Wanamaker acknowledged the criticisms from past BERC administrations, and from what I've heard from people who've worked directly with this new BERC administration, they've had nothing but good things to say. I have one friend who was able to secure financing from the BERC is about 2 weeks. That's damn good for any kind of entity - governmental, bank, whatever.

Like with most things in life, it's about leadership. That BERC didn't work in the past is no big surprise; indeed, much of city government didn't work. From what I know, Wanamaker has made significant strides forward in a short period of time, and the new BERC is helping small businesses get the money they need to grow.

Econ 101 - I'm not sure what your point is other than 'small businesses matter.'

It was actually a Jubilee

I too have tried to work with someone from BERC and she has never returned my phone calls or emails. This made me believe this group (as much as the other local organizations in this town) to be unprofessional and lack real business skills. Good luck!

BERC, which is important for entrepreneurs to realize, is one of many entities providing some type of service to entrepreneurs in the City of Buffalo. MicroBiz Buffalo through its collaborators provides a full range of sevices, including loans to entrepreneurs -- start-up and existing. Such services include low-cost classes to help entrepreneurs understand the value and importance of writing a business plan, and to introduce them to the concepts included in a business plan and to work with them to develop the tools necessary to develop a winning business plan. Collaborators include the Small Business Development Center at Buffalo State College, the Women's Business Center at Canisius College, BERC, SCORE, The Enterprise Center, Child & Family Services Ways to Work Loan Program, The Westminster Economic Development Initiative, The Enterprise Center, The Massachusetts Avenue Project, The Old First Ward, the Center for Sustainable Communities and Civic Engagement at Daemen College, and The Jeremiah Partnership.

Well, the fact that they exist as in government capacity and we still have the BNP, BNE, and probably a few other "business development" type agencies hurts its credibility. What is the point of the BERC? If these groups would simply join to become ONE organization with a common goal of promoting the economy of our area on all levels, then some of us might come around.

It's hard to argue the point about "secure government" jobs, when you see 3 organizations with 3 different leadership roles, staff, and expenses that could easily be consolidated and should be consolidated. Well that's my regionalism rant of the day!

Good point Brian. I'd also like to know why we have Buffalo Place, Queen City Hub working to improve downtown and yet, we still have no retail and an over all plan for downtown in place! And why do have the Buffalo Niagara Partnership and The Buffalo Convention & Visitor's Bureau BOTH promoting this region. Why can't they combined together into ONE Group seems how they both do the same line of work.
We have way to many different groups doing the same work in this town. Makes no sense what so ever.

Doesn't BERC own the Market Arcade Building? So where are the retail stores in there? Only thing public in there is the CEPA Gallery and Info Center, a deli that is never open but takes over half the first floor and Non-Profit offices fill the rest of the building. I thought when this building re-opened, that it was going to be used as it was and intended to be..A Public Building with retail use? Hmm, good job as always BERC?

Hey guys,

You might want to get a handle on some facts. The Buffalo Niagara Partnership is a private organiztion - it's not a government agency. And in addition to 'promoting' the businesses of the region, it provides fairly valuable Chamber of Commerce-like services like access to cheaper health insurance for smaller companies.

The BERC is a governmental agency and its role is to provide small businesses with efficient access to capital.

Buffalo Place is a private entity with a narrow focus on downtown Buffalo.

It's easy to snipe and say "there are too many agencies" and "get them together and make them efficient," but in the instances pointed out, none of it makes any sense. Try to understand a little about the topic before jumping on the cliche button with both feet.

Just because something is said a number of times, does not make it a cliche. And even if it could be argued that way, it's irrelevant if the the cliche is true. A cliche is about how you say something, not about what the veracity of the statement. The truth is that there are too many agencies, too many government employees, too many politicians and too much patronage in WNY, and NY in general.

The point is to set priorities, get them in order, and accomplish the most important ones first. Especially if they are root causes of problems in the area. Tackling problems in order, by their importance and impact, makes sense and provides the most effective and successful results. It's about return on investment of every kind. Investment of dollars, investment of thought, investment of focus. If you put that investment in the right things, the positive results are multiplied. The smartest investments return the largest results for the level of effort (or money) put into them. The worst investments result in very little growth, or negative growth. That last outcome sound familiar? There is no other way to say it other than such outcomes are the results of poor investment.

So I'm saying to change the old ways and put the time, effort, energy and money in to a new model that provides the strongest return possible.

So Tom, that's my point. I'm saying that in the heirarchy of priorities, yes, before arts, culture, swanky bistros, coffee shops all the rest, the voice of small businesses must rule. Otherwise it's all basically rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic, to use another cliche.

We do not need public supported jobs and corporate welfare, that is what caused the decline of Buffalo. Less is more. Setting priorities was mentioned in a previous post. Buffalo's priority should be reducing taxation, government jobs and corporate welfare.

That would accomplish more to revitalize the city than politically connected agencies. Increasing the wealth in the private economy is the key to growth, not the consumption of wealth by government.

So you've gone from cliches to pablum. Nice.

And your point that positive return on investment is good doesn't quite rise to the level of Econ 101 - i think that was covered in 8th grade. What you say "So I'm saying to change the old ways and put the time, effort, energy and money in to a new model that provides the strongest return possible," do you really thing you're saying anything? If there is no one on the planet that would disagree with your statement, the statement isn't worth much. It is, in fact, pablum.

Mike in WNY - did someone on here speak up in favor of more public supported jobs and "corporate welfare," or do you just like arguing against straw men?

The BERC uses a revolving pool of capital to provide liquidity to small businesses. That's a fairly straightforward economic proposition - much like SBA programs. You're not calling programs like that "corporate welfare," are you?

Hennessey:

I disagree with your assessment. Something does not need to be government "run" in order for it to be considered political. Those are all political organizations. They certainly do not fund themselves. The burden for the cost to run each, trickles down to you and me one way or another.

My point is that one vision, one voice for one common goal is stronger and more cost effective than all these. I've seen it work in Cleveland and Detroit. In Cleveland, their "chamber of commerce" is strong and powerful. They provide real power for their members including buying power for low cost health care, and they even have the ability to sell utility services at a discount due to their buying power amongst other REAL rock solid benefits.

Detriot's chamber is one of the largest lobbyist groups in the entire state. The rival the big auto makers in town with their unified clout. When I last visited their they had a staff of 5 people working solely on legislative initiatives to present to the department of transportation that would help several of their trucking/shipping members. I attended a networking event that had over 100 exhibitors and several thousand members and guests.

Each had elements of all our different organizations working under the main entity. Much more powerful, credible, and effective ....period!

Hennessey may have had a point about my argument being pablum. A fitting word... maybe its back to pablum for Buffalo until she starts to grow like she should.

But yeah, I probably could have been more focused on making my comments directly relevant to this particular post and included something less... fundamental and basic ... in my message.

Econ, sometimes fundamentals and basics are in short supply around here so don't feel too bad when you include those.

And Hennessey, about this...
BERC uses a revolving pool of capital to provide liquidity to small businesses. That's a fairly straightforward economic proposition - much like SBA programs. You're not calling programs like that "corporate welfare," are you?

... I for one would defnitiely call SBA programs corporate welfare.
In what way is that description inappropriate?
SBA programs use tax money I was forced to send to Washington to subsidise other people's business well-being.
Translations: "business" => "corporate"; "well-being" => "welfare"

Just because a business is small enough to qualify for the Small in SBA does not mean they are not already much better off financially than I am, yet they can get my tax money to subsidise their pocket book. I don't mean for that to sound like complaining - that's really not my point, I know tax money goes to a huge range of purposes and that's life. But we should call a spade a spade, and the SBA is certainly one example of corporate welfare. As with all welfare programs, sometimes there ends up being a long term societal benefit to a particular business having been helped and other times it turns out to have been flushing money down a toilet.

Small businesses are in no way morally superior to medium or large businesses (who also receive corporate welfare, I'm well aware). Obviously the goal of many, if not most, small businesses is to grow enough to become a large business someday.

Yes SBA -

By your translation, every government initiative is 'welfare' - either corporate or individual.

Firemen? Your tax money providing well-being to individuals (and in some cases businesses) in the form of fighting fires.

FDA? Your tax money providing well-being to individuals in the form of drug testing before they come to market.

By including everything, your definition offers no value whatsoever. Of course, when the term 'corporate welfare' was invoked against the BERC in this thread, it was meant in the most pejorative of senses. It wasn't a literal translation of the words "corporate" and "welfare."

The connotation of "corporate welfare" is distributing tax dollars to companies thta neither need nor deserve them. That isn't what the BERC does. Not even close.

If, however, you'd like a pat on the back for correctly defining the words "corporate" and "welfare," consider it done. Hats off.

Hennessey, your comparison to firemen is total baloney.

Hard to believe this should even need to be explained, but ok, here goes:

Fire departments, police, FDA, snow plowing, etc. are government services provided to all citizens.

It's a totally different situation when a relative handful of private corporations (even "small" ones) receive taxpayer subsidies for the purposes of enhancing their own corporate profits, as happens with the SBA.

Again, I'm not saying welfare programs are always bad - just that we should be honest and call them what they are. Any govt programs to financially benefit some designated portion of citizens who meet some bureaucratic criteria of "need" are of course examples of welfare programs. (What's your definition?) Those are not the same thing at all as fire, police, FDA, snow plowing, etc.

It's also very different from cases in which the govt pays tax money to companies in return for some products or services. SBA spending of tax money on load subsidies or otehr services is not for anything returned back to the govt, it's much more like social engineering or redistribution of wealth. The SBA has been characterized for years by many economic experts as a corporate welfare. I'm surprised you never heard those characterizations, but maybe you did and just disagree.

CNN money mag web site last summer did a big article about SBA as corporate welfare. Online at:
money.cnn.com/magazines/fsb/fsb_archive/2006/06/01/8378595
Excerpt:

The agency's primary victims are the entrepreneurs who don't use SBA loans but face competitors who do, and so enjoy lower interest rates and longer repayment schedules. "The SBA is in the discrimination business," Jonathan Bean--a professor at the University of Illinois at Carbondale and the author of Big Government and Affirmative Action: The Scandalous History of the Small Business Administration--recently told the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. "It takes wealth from all taxpayers and awards loans and contracts to [relatively few] small and minority business owners."
Despite its history, the SBA boasts two powerful constituencies. Banks profit from small-business loans that pose little risk because taxpayers guarantee up to 85% of the principal amount. These guarantees represent some $70 billion in potential taxpayer liabilities, a risk that banks would otherwise assume. And in recent years bankers have built a multibillion-dollar industry by securitizing SBA loans and trading them on the open market.
The SBA also enjoys reliable backing from legislators, who are always looking for ways to channel pork to a few favored constituents--in this case, the tiny percentage of business owners who benefit from SBA loans and programs--while pleasing the banking industry. "The SBA is a big corporate-welfare program," says economist Véronique de Rugy, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute who recently called for the agency's abolition.