The Discussion
Last night was excellent. Thanks to everyone who participated and attended. Thanks also to Canisius for the wonderful work they did with AV, setup, and management of the event. It couldn’t have been more professional. I’d also like to thank a very busy Stefan Mychajliw who gave of his time and skills to help conduct a great program.
The discussion itself was generally civil, sometimes lively, but informative throughout. I think all of the panelists did an excellent job defending and advocating for their respective positions, and the attendees learned a lot.
Scot Fisher, who was heavily involved with the original effort in 2000 to turn the ESD’s generic plan for that location into an historically based one, advocated on behalf of the preservationist position. He stated that he wasn’t against a Bass Pro coming down to that area, per se, but he didn’t understand why it had to be built on that particular spot, thus displacing a public space that was planned-for based on community consensus.
Larry Quinn of the Harbor Development Corporation countered with a couple of points. Firstly, if one reads what was actually being advocated for back in 2000, it was the re-watering of the canal terminus and the restoration of the former street pattern. Both of those are still on track and being constructed. Secondly, preservationist leader Tim Tielman himself said at the time that, ideally there should be a building on the waterfront there that mimics or interprets the old Central Wharf building. Fisher countered that the views of some preservationists may indeed have been that, but that the 2004 Master Plan that calls for the park to be located there came about from public input and reflects the consensus view.
What wasn’t brought up was the possibility that the Harbor Development Corporation would hold similar public information and feedback sessions to those that brought the 2004 plan about. Apparently, those are in the cards.
Free Buffalo’s Jim Ostrowski argued against the use of public subsidies and other money to help this plan along. He argued that Western New York was in its 47th straight year of decline, and it was due to our high taxes and high public spending. Ostrowski also echoed Fisher’s position that the Master Plan was agreed-to, and is being built so why change it now at the 11th hour?
Carl Paladino and Larry Quinn retorted that while Ostrowski was technically correct about the way in which New York manages public money, we need to work within the system we have or else get left behind. Taking public money in order to help a project along - since that’s the way things are done - is not mutually exclusive with advocating that it’s a bad system. Paladino said that people in Albany and New York laugh at us when we reject public money for projects or become so mired in controversy that things never get done (Peace Bridge, traffic to Main Street, e.g.). Quinn also made the point, rebutting the presumption that Dick’s and Gander Mountain don’t take any subsidies, that Gander Mountain and Dick’s wouldn’t be at their locations had it not been for widening, maintenance, and/or construction of the I-90, I-290, Transit Road, Walden Avenue, and other public infrastucture improvements. Furthermore, these stores are in shopping plazas that are nondescript and don’t necessarily bring droves of people to visit and spend time walking around a surface parking lot. If you think the people who built those plazas and malls didn’t get some kind of economic incentives to do it, you’re probably deluding yourself.
Ultimately, however, what I suspected would happen did happen. The four panelists - as divergent as their positions were on the various issues - agreed with each other about 99% of the time. We’re really arguing over a tiny fraction of the overall issue. I told that to WBEN and WKBW, which were both there covering the event. I was asked whether that was typically Buffalo, though - that a project gets mired in the muck over the final details.
I don’t think that’s unique to Buffalo at all. Look at New York’s problems getting a ground zero project done. Look at any large project in any city - you’ll run into lawsuits and disagreement and argument. Look at the Big Dig in Boston - it may be leaking and killing people, but it got funded, built, and finished, and it ran into not a little opposition from neighbors who were looking forward to a decades’ worth of noise, vibration, rats, and traffic disruption. It happens everywhere, all the time. The difference may be that other cities have a larger tax base or a larger, more active, and more generous business community to help move projects along. We have the Partnership.
One thing was not discussed at all last night and that’s partly my fault - the parking ramp. The issue of the proposed parking ramp across from Bass Pro was not touched upon, and I should have included it as a topic for a brief discussion, namely because I think it might be the one item that most people object to, and one that might be most subject to flexibility in terms of location; namely, moving it off the Canal Block and onto, say, the Webster Block.
Parking aside, I am more convinced now than ever that the Bass Pro addition to the Canal Side plan, together with the additional three large city blocks’ worth of development, is the right thing to do. It is consistent with what used to be at that location historically. Its affect on the 2004 Master Plan’s vision is minimal. The street grid remains intact. There will be public open space. There will be a museum. The ruins remain. The canal terminus remains watered. Public access to the water’s edge is maintained.
But beyond that, Bass Pro is a proven draw. Fisher and Ostrowski raised the spectre of Bass Pro closing sometime in the future. That is possible, for sure - but never in its history has Bass Pro ever closed a store. Ever. Bass Pro doesn’t go around building hundreds of stores per year like a Best Buy or a Kohls. It opens, at most, tens of stores per year - often times the number is in the single digits. People who come to Bass Pro are enthusiastic about the outdoors and come with money to spend. Sure, we could plop a big box Bass Pro out in Cheektowaga, but those people won’t then trek downtown for anything. Bass Pro doesn’t select sites willy - nilly. It vets and re-vets where it will go, and it wants to go to Buffalo.
We often make the mistake in this community of compartmentalizing ourselves as if we are the center of the universe and nowhere else exists. Much like the supposition that Buffalo is unique in its never-ending litany of unfinished projects, we tend to think negatively about a project such as Canal Side given the fact that WNY is such a low-income, depressed area compared with other parts of the country. Well, first off unemployment here is under 5%, and people certainly have enough money to support their hobbies - witness the packed marinas, the boats on trailers, bikes or skis on roofs, and other recreational activities that are evident during the year. Furthermore, we’re on the border with Canada. We’re 1 1/2 hours from Toronto - the largest city in Canada, and one of the wealthiest. You’re an Ontarian looking to go to a Bass Pro - do you go to Vaughan, which is in a nondescript mall 20 miles north of downtown, where you have to pay 15% sales tax? Maybe, since it’s on the 400 on the way to the lakes. But maybe instead you want to stop at a winery on the peninsula, check out the casinos in the Falls, and see this new harborfront development Buffalo has, with a Bass Pro that takes Canadian money at almost par and has a sales tax of 8.75%. It’s a destination.
And Bass Pro brings other retail development. If our downtown, which is dead after 5pm, wants a shot in the arm, a Bass Pro combined with the overall Canal Side project is just about every modern innoculation wrapped into one. Build the four-block project and watch it expand off into the Cobblestone District, and up a re-trafficked Main Street. Frankly, I think that the Canal Block doesn’t need open space at all. It should have buildings, buildings, and buildings - as many of which as possible can generated sales tax, property tax, and bed tax revenue for the community.
The Canal Side Plan should be brought to the public for comment and input. Suggestions should be taken and addressed. The new plan should comply with all applicable regulations and statutes. Then, it should be built.
You can see Channel 7’s coverage here. WBEN’s is not online, but Steve Cichon did a great piece on it that I heard this morning. The Buffalo News article is here. This also may be of interest.
thestip Says:June 21st, 2007 at 10:38 am
Great analysis, and spot on. I also agree that there should be no “greenspace” in the Canal district, just public water access via boardwalks, etc. The Canal District was full of two and three story buildings creating a lively, dense district, and a large open space will not help to restore that. The more density the more likely it will be successful.
mike hudson Says:June 21st, 2007 at 11:07 am
well done, alan. congratulations.
TseTse Says:June 21st, 2007 at 1:01 pm
Great article. Good thing Buffalo now has an independent media, because the Buffalo News column was pathetic.
Buffalo Blood Donor Says:June 21st, 2007 at 2:17 pm
As optimistic as all four panelists were about the need for timely development of Canal Side, I was dismayed by Fisher’s insistence on the (historically irrelevant) park, a park that would essentially be adjacent to the Erie Basin Marina. I did not fully appreciate the direction he was coming from, as it seemed contradictory at times.
You summarized the event well. Thank you.
BBD
Ethan Says:June 21st, 2007 at 2:28 pm
WKBW managed to recap the whole thing without mentioning WNYMedia.net
Bastards!
jen Says:June 21st, 2007 at 7:45 pm
Maybe I missed it mentioned above, but how many people showed up to listen?
Buffalopundit Says:June 21st, 2007 at 7:46 pm
Somewhere between 150 - 200.
Al Says:June 21st, 2007 at 7:48 pm
Buffalopundit’s recap lost me when he (she) chose a side of the issue to back. Independent media? Don’t think so……..
Hawk (Not Hank) Says:June 21st, 2007 at 8:15 pm
Al:
I should let him (not her) speak for himself, but BP is a blogger/columnist. I don’t think he has ever claimed to be independent and un-biased. If you read this site quite a bit he is definitely biased. I look at him as the Donn Esmonde of the buffalo internet: a columinst, not a reporter.
BP: Seems like it was a nice event. Wish I was there. Damn family responsibilities!!
TseTse Says:June 21st, 2007 at 8:53 pm
AL: Independent is not synonymous with unbiased. Independent - As in 1)not subject to control by others 2) Not looking to others for one’s opinions.
STEEL Says:June 21st, 2007 at 11:05 pm
So basically the so called preservationists are fighting to keep a park in the plan that has no basis in history?
Just who was a part of the “consensus”?
Buffalopundit Says:June 22nd, 2007 at 5:44 am
Buffalopundit is a man.
Buffalopundit writes an opinion weblog. Everything in here represents my opinion. Occasionally I will delve into factual recounting of events, but I do not post that here. I always include my opinion because that’s what I do here.
If your conclusion differs, then my opinion should not under normal circumstances affect yours. Pretend the piece stops when my opinion rolls around and give me the kudos I so richly deserve.
Mike In WNY Says:June 22nd, 2007 at 7:19 am
The “preservationists” are fighting to keep a plan on track that is underway that was reached after holding public hearings and the conclusion of a lengthy law suit. Adding Bass Pro to the mix will delay the project and necessitate further environmental studies, add millions of dollars to the cost to taxpayers and delay the completion of the project. Also, the FTA has stated it will withdraw $14 million in federal funds already approved because Bass Pro violates that plan that was approved for funding.
Larry Quinn, the ECHDC and Bass Pro are the obstructionists standing in the way of the timely completion of the project.
Al Says:June 22nd, 2007 at 9:27 am
Well, call me old fashioned…or just old…but the trappings of wnymedia mimic a news outlets format. I guess the lack of a “just the facts” report coupled with a report that says up front it is an opinion confused me. The truth be known, no communication…verbal or written from one individual to another is devoid of some distortion…either unintentional or with a purpose. After watching the tv report on ch 49, I expected the followup article to attempt to stay the middle course. Same news outlet…same editorial framework.
Now, I’m not angry…I guess the lesson here is, I should have gone to the discusion on the 21rst and heard it firsthand…there is no substitute.
starbuck Says:June 22nd, 2007 at 12:17 pm
I agree with their opposition to retail subsidies, but why do supposed libertarians Mike in WNY and Jim O. support the “current plan”?
That seems to me a big waste of my tax money - creating publicly funded green space - just what we need - more land sitting around on welfare to pay more public employees to maintain.
And Mike, since when is the withdrawal of “$14 million in federal funds already approved” a bad thing?
Wasteful federal pork spending is good all of a sudden?
Just because some pblic hearings were held years ago, that makes the “current plan” a good idea?
Mike in WNY Says:June 22nd, 2007 at 12:43 pm
Starbuck, I was framing my opinion within the context of the current debate. In a perfect world I would prefer no public subsidies at all for the project.
The original approved plan is the lesser of two evils considering that this project is moving forward at this time.
Rus Thompson Says:June 22nd, 2007 at 1:05 pm
I am so happy I attended the event, it was very informative and I thought the debate lively at times. The idea of building this to replicate the original Wharf inspired me. When we look close at the plan now it is beautiful and will be an asset to the rebuilding of not only the waterfront but a boost to the economic development of down town Buffalo.
It was good to see you there Pundit and every one else, I couldn’t believe as soon as I walked in the door I knew so many people I knew.
For the first time in all of this planning I saw something I really like. Paladino and Quinn made some great points in using Tax dollars to help fund this. Our tax dollars have been used for years to build infrastructure, expand and widen roads so other stores could occupy land on either side of them.
The other thing about Bass Pro getting rent free for years seems to be a dead argument as they have agreed to pay 300,000 a year with a lease. I say build it and start now. I am done listening to dead end plans and the lack of leadership in this county and city.
I am going to do a post on this and have been telling everyone I run into about the project that now must happen.
Jim Ostrowski Says:June 22nd, 2007 at 4:32 pm
In answer to starbuck–this is from a very long post from earlier:
This is really a no-brainier. The existing plan is:
(1) already in progress
(2) costs far less and
(3) is more market friendly.
The Bass Pro proposal is
(1) not nearly a done deal
(2) extremely expensive
(3) hostile to the free market and
(4) destructive of the plan to re-create the historical canal zone to the best of our ability in these times.
Those who favor corporate welfare think they’re smarter than the market, that amazing repository of the creativity of humanity. I think the free market is smarter than they are. Let the market decide how these parcels are used, or not used. In the days when the market made these calls, Buffalo rose up to be one of the most powerful economic centers on earth.
Let’s not let another group of obstructionists delay progress on the waterfront, particularly to repair a plutocrat’s bruised ego.
More–
http://blog.freeny.org/?p=2018
Starbuck Says:June 22nd, 2007 at 4:57 pm
Mike and Jim,
Thanks for the replies. I can’t think of any previous example of libertarians saying “Let’s publicly support the least of two awful evils, since a good solution has no serious chance of success”. Isn’t one of the things you admire about Ron Paul that he’s willing to stand on principle and not just chose between practical popular alternatives?
Seems to me the “first plan” has costs that could be being swept under the rug, such as taxpayer funding to maintain that green space park thing, whatever they call it, forever until the end of time.
I’ll accept your estimate of $96 million as a good estimate of the “new plan” price tag to the taxpayers.
How much lower is the taxpayer cost of the “first plan”?
And are those costs only the upfront price tags?
Over the next 20 years, how much extra would the green space plan cost to pay public employees to maintain yet another park?
As we’ve seen with county takeover of city parks, it’s very easy to underestimate the longer term cost of paying public salaries, benefits, health care, retirement, etc. to maintain parks.
If we add those costs to the cost of the first plan, and then offset the $96 million by higher sales tax revenues over that same 20 year period, do the costs of the two plans narrow down much closer together as compared to just looking at the relative upfront price tags?
Finally, one last question: why specifically should it matter so much which plan is “currently underway”?
FWIW, I hate both plans and support a third way: stop the current plan its tracks and put the land up for sale to the highest bidder. I think Ron Paul would agree with me and holler at you guys a lot for so easily supporting a plan that burdens the taxpayers with more parkland on valuable land that could easily be used for some private sector purpose.
Buffalo Amy Says:June 22nd, 2007 at 5:16 pm
congrats BP to you, wnym and the coalition for an excellent, thought-provoking event. great discussion between the 4 panelists - lively, as we’d expected! and a great crowd…that stayed the duration…
TseTse Says:June 22nd, 2007 at 5:38 pm
I guess the FREE MARKET did quite a number on the city of Buffalo with all the retail moving out to the suburbs.
Jim Ostrowski Says:June 22nd, 2007 at 6:17 pm
Starbuck, there’s two options on the table. One is market-friendly, the other is not. You can go promote anarchocapitalism if you think that will sell in Buffalo. It’s not so much that I support the existing plan but that I oppose the new proposal for all the reasons I stated. If that new proposal is defeated, the existing plan, already substantially executed (sunk costs) simply wins by default.
Jwalker Says:June 22nd, 2007 at 6:36 pm
There is another option. Let the voters decide in a referendum which option they prefer. …Probably the one where they put the domed football stadium right over the comercial slip.
STEEL Says:June 22nd, 2007 at 9:15 pm
How is the existing plan substantially executed? I see none of the proposed quaint fake little historic buildings in place. I do not see the non-historic water edge plaza in place. I do not see the recreated historic roads in place. Who is going to pay for these things? How are these things market friendly the Bass Pro plan? Who are the tenants of the non Bass Pro plan? How is Bass Pro destructive to recreating a historic canal zone. (By the way you can not recreate history though many do try to rewrite it) It is either historic or it is not. Aside from the rehabbed canal slip there is absolutely nothing historic about the site, except if you consider the mid century Skyway historic.
Jim Ostrowski Says:June 22nd, 2007 at 9:26 pm
Go down to the waterfront as I did to prepare for the debate with plans in hand (as a last minute substitute on the panel). There is a plan posted and there are workers executing it. The contracts were signed long ago. The existing plan creates seven or more parcels for future development as the market dictates. Much work has been done and is evident.
Can’t recreate history? Those who support this bloated new corporate welfare project are trying to re-create the last 47 years of Buffalo’s sad history.
(Government shouldn’t build football stadiums either.)
Jwalker Says:June 22nd, 2007 at 9:37 pm
Like I said let the public decide what should be built when and where. Put it to a referendum. If they want a football stadium, they should have a football stadium. One Man one vote. It’s called the democratic process, or does that fly in the face of Buffalo’s self annointed aristocracy.
Mike in WNY Says:June 23rd, 2007 at 9:29 am
TseTse, there is no way you can say that the free-market drove retail out of the city. Buffalo is noted historically for having a terrible inspection and licensing process that discouraged businesses from locating in the City. The same government drove the residents to the suburbs also. Forced busing was a huge mistake that cost the city a tremendous amount of population.
Jim Ostrowski Says:June 23rd, 2007 at 10:24 am
My latest salvo:
http://blog.freeny.org/?p=2023
starbuck Says:June 24th, 2007 at 6:06 pm
Jim, if work underway is applicable to common aspects of both awful plans, old and new, then that’s irrelevant to the preference you’re pushing of the old awful plan over the new awful plan.
Your characterization above of the old/current plan as “market-friendly” seems very misleading.
I just found it on the web, the December 2004 version, 43 pages - and it’s overflowing with government dictates on architeture, government funded green space park land, government funded museums, on and on. Money money money, and it’s NOT private sector investment.
Yes, that plan does show some parcels set aside for future unspecified development — but it does NOT preculde future corporate welfare for those, nor does it preclude indefinited govt ownership of those!
And anyhow the new awful plan also has some parcels for future unpsecified development so that seems like a wash also.
Here’s the link:
http://www.nylovesbiz.com/pdf/erie/Final_Master_Plan_Report.pdf
If the old plan would remove all greenspace parkland and any museums (unless fully privately funded), and if it would add a proviso against any corporate welfare in the set aside development parcels - and preclude govt ownership of those parcels (in other words, have firm dates for auctioning them off with no strings attached) - then with those major changes it could resonably be described as “market friendly”.
Otherwise, as is it looks very “big government friendly” to me, not “market friendly”.
You should withdraw the “market friendly” description and just say it’s marginaly less market-hostile than the new awful plan, and also lose the argument about “work already in progress” unless any substantial part of it would need to be un-done by the new awful plan.
Regarding which plan will be more expensive to taxpayers in the long run, I don’t know how anyone can determine that unless they’d account for many factors such as long term maintenance of the green space park land and the relative economic activity. If there’s any serious figures accounting for things like that, it might be interesting to see.
I’d like to know why the new plan couldn’t be modifed to subract out all corporate welfare but still allow private sector development on all the land down there, without the govt owning any of that land in the long term, and without mandating architecture styles or anything for that matter other than very minimal zoning restrictions.
Jim Ostrowski Says:June 24th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
I’m not withdrawing anything. And you should quote people correctly. I wrote “more market-friendly” and that is true.
And the Bass Pro plan is more expensive by many tens of millions of dollars. There is green space in each plan so that’s a wash.
So, the existing plan costs $46 million, much of which is already spent. The Bass Pro proposal adds many tens of millions on top of that.
Jim Ostrowski Says:June 24th, 2007 at 10:23 pm
The existing plan:
“The full build out of the site will be dependent upon
the economic well being of Buffalo and the
identification of additional funds as well as
developers who might be interested in
developing one or more of the development
parcels.”
Here, corporate welfare is neither mandated nor ruled out. In the Bass Pro proposal, it’s in for sure. I’m against the proposal that rules it in.
Jim Ostrowski Says:June 25th, 2007 at 11:26 am
When I mention how we are falling behind China of all places, it seems to fall flat in Buffalo. Perhaps this will help:
http://www.theatlantic.com/slideshows/made-in-china/
starbuck Says:June 25th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
Jim, I did quote you exactly correctly from what your wrote toward me in 2nd sentence of your comment 6/22:
Jim Ostrowski Says:June 25th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
First I said “more market-friendly, then I said “market-friendly” in comparison to the other. You’re implying that I believe the existing plan is a free market paradise which is obviously absurd. This is Buffalo! When I say “market-friendly,” I am referring to the fact that the plan does not dicate who is going to get those parcels. If we follow the City Charter (and assume the city owns those parcels), they will and should go to the highest bidder.
Starbuck Says:June 27th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
Ok I see where you said that in previous comment, but I didn’t misquote you.
Anyhow, the idea that under the current/previous awful paln those parcels will go to the highest bidder is obviously not how it works in real life here as Quinn has shown us in his awful new plan which is oibviously not offering the store parcel to the highest bidder.
As you said “This is Buffalo”. It will still be Buffalo if the current/previous awful Tielman/Esmonde big govt plan is implemented as is, so there’s zero reasonable expectation those parcels will be sold in a “market freindly manner”, nor does that plan promise or even imply that outcome.
In fact, in the quote YOU pulled from it, if implies the opposite!
As you quoted from it above:
Key phrase in the above:
identification of additional funds as well as developers ” who…
Not “…additional funds from developers…”, it says “…additional funds as well as developers who…”.
This strongly imples that those funds are expected to include sources other than developers.
Hmmm I wonder what those sources will be???
starbuck Says:June 27th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
Ok here’s my sharpened position on this, on which Jim and everyone should now please just unite behind and rally around:
I’ll fully oppose the new awful plan of Quinn/Rich if and only if as part of its blockage, the following three changes are made to the current/previous awful plan of Tielman/Esmonde to make it seriously “more market friendly” than the new plan (due to all the remaining govt spending and planning it still won’t be “market friendly”, but with these three changes it could then be reasonably called “more market friendly”):
Change 1: Add wording to state all development parcels are to be sold to the highest bidder within two years, without any government mandates of how the land is to be used - other than public safety restrictions.
Change 2: Add wording to forbid corporate welfare from any government for any activity on development parcels included in the project, prohibiting within the project bounds any taxpayer subsidy to any business regardless of size.
Change 3: Change designation of the water-adjacent “public space” (I won’t call it green space) to make it an additional development parcel required to to be sold to the highest bidder for any commercial purpose.
If however, people somehow fail to see the clear wisdom of my demands and the above three changes are not made, or at least something close (hey I’m reasonable), then I think the current/previous awful plan is very likely to soon lead to a comparable amount of corporate welfare and non-free-market allocation of parcels as does the new awful plan. (See comment above.) In that case, if we’re gonna have corporate welfare and non-free-market allocation of the parcels anyhow, then I’d say let’s go with the plan that uses the water-side parcel for at least some private sector economic activity instead wastefully leaving it open and publicly owned as Tielman and his people seem to want.
In order of Least Bad to Worst:
1.) Current/Previous Plan Modified with 3 Changes Listed Above
2.) Current Awful Quinn/Rich Plan
3.) As-is Current/Previous Awful Plan
Buy Watch » Blog Archive » The Discussion Says:January 2nd, 2008 at 11:50 pm
[…] Original post by Buffalo Pundit […]