Could the economy of WNY be improving?

[Kipers Hair]

So, should we raise the prices of homes, rent in WNY to match other regions, too?

 

Would that make you feel better about WNY's economy?

 

Just curious...

724807[/snapback]

 

in no particular order;

 

- Retention of young and upwardly mobile professionals

- Property Taxes that are in agreement with what you get for such high taxes.

- Good paying jobs not tied to a union association

- Stable local government - with the ability to bring in Fortune 500 companies

 

I am assuming you live there - have you not noticed that real estate is catching up to the rest of the world? Granted it is not NYC or LA, nor should it be, but Real Estate in WNY is not the bargain it once was. As this cost escalates - the taxes come along for the ride. It is no longer a great deal.

 

Look - I like WNY as much as the next native, but denying the fact that the economy there is not only stagnant, but declining is blind to the problem.

[vegas55]

Its not about sellouts as far as keeping a franchise. Its all about the local revenue a team does not have to share - luxury boxes, local radio and tv rights etc. Thats what will be the demise of the Bills there - so keep electing the same tax and spend, regulate everything liberals, drive the local economy completely into the ground, and wave bye bye to the Bills. It will be a shame.

[Kipers Hair]

From todays article on Darcy - I thought the comment on NC was relevent to this topic since someone brought up the fact that Buffalo was similar to Raleigh...

 

 

And let's be clear on this. Raleigh, N.C., is not a small market the way Buffalo's a small market. The populations might be similar, but there's plenty of cash flowing throughout the Research Triangle. The 'Canes have room to increase ticket prices. The Sabres must deal with the economic realities of Western New York, oppressive as they are. Free spending would be the surest way to undermine the franchise.

[Ray]

Not nearly as much pricing power in Buffalo when compared to Raleigh and Charlotte. Hopefully that tide will slowly turn.

[Ray]

The Buffalo/Niagara Bills--the Southern Ontario contingent feels much more close to the Bills and the most populated area in Canada becomes bigger Bills' fans. Not as much a stretch to drive right over the border. 5+Million people within an hour of the stadium--plus Rochester. To me that makes a lot of sense if they are thinking of ever building a new stadium

[Pyrite Gal]

-  Property Taxes that are in agreement with what you get for such high taxes.

 

725455[/snapback]

 

Actuslly it is really hard to create a property tax scheme that is in agreement with what you get for the taxes as long as shool funding levels and attendance and taxes are intrically linked to where you live.

 

If you have children you get far more compensation for your taxes than if you are an empty-nester or retiree whose children are out of the house and you do not get the compensation of the daycare and education provided by the public schools.

 

One of the reason why the rate of childbearing has dropped in our society is that as folks (particularly women) are gaining more control over decision on when or whether to have kids, they instinctively are realizing that even with massive subsidy provided by paying for schools, having children is simply a bad financial deal.

 

It is strange that people view it as a great thing when a town attracts new families to move their so the breadwinners can take new jobs, when it is good news economically if it is a "dink" (double income no kids) couple that moves in, but the added costs for providing day care for their 5-18 year old at school while they are at work and the added cost for fire protection, policing, etc. that younger people bring with them make this a really bad economic deal for a community.

 

Municipalities provide for these local services by getting money from propery taxes, but this cost is distributed across seniors. empty mesters or anyone who owns property equally regardless of your use of services if you have no kids or they are gone far in excess to the level of what the municipality provides.

 

You might agree with Hilary Clinton that it takes a village to raise a kid, so this distribution of services is fair even if you do not directly benefit. However, if you take this perspective, it is merely a short jump to providing the same village approach to equalizing all educational spending and access to all kids regardless of where they live.

[stuckincincy]

Actuslly it is really hard to create a property tax scheme that is in agreement with what you get for the taxes as long as shool funding levels and attendance and taxes are intrically linked to where you live.

 

 

726203[/snapback]

 

The tactics by school systems here n Ohio has changed. Their typical thing is to innundate with quarterly referundums for more money - property tax raises- in hoipe of voter fatigue.

 

In its place is are 1 or 2 cent decreases. They do this- because OH state law dictates that once a voted referundum has been duly voted, there is a five-year ban on putting it back on the popular ballot.

 

So they want to safeguard and lock their money in.

 

Your words about school systems and elders rings true. The OH state legislature recently approved a bill - get this - that will provide low-cost loans to seniors so they can pay property tax and avoid losing their home.

[Kipers Hair]

Actuslly it is really hard to create a property tax scheme that is in agreement with what you get for the taxes as long as shool funding levels and attendance and taxes are intrically linked to where you live.

 

If you have children you get far more compensation for your taxes than if you are an empty-nester or retiree whose children are out of the house and you do not get the compensation of the daycare and education provided by the public schools.

 

One of the reason why the rate of  childbearing has dropped in our society is that as folks (particularly women) are gaining more control over decision on when or whether to have kids, they instinctively are realizing that even with massive subsidy provided by paying for schools, having children is simply a bad financial deal.

 

It is strange that people view it as a great thing when a town attracts new families to move their so the breadwinners can take new jobs, when it is good news economically if it is a "dink" (double income no kids) couple that moves in, but the added costs for providing day care for their 5-18 year old at school while they are at work and the added cost for fire protection, policing, etc. that younger people bring with them make this a really bad economic deal for a community.

 

Municipalities provide for these local services by getting money from propery taxes, but this cost is distributed across seniors. empty mesters or anyone who owns property equally regardless of your use of services if you have no kids or they are gone far in excess to the level of what the municipality provides.

 

You might agree with Hilary Clinton that it takes a village to raise a kid, so this distribution of services is fair even if you do not directly benefit.  However, if you take this perspective, it is merely a short jump to providing the same village approach to equalizing all educational spending and access to all kids regardless of where they live.

726203[/snapback]

 

This is a great post. I cannot disagree with your points - I know the tax system is why many seniors/emptynesters relacate to favorable locales.

 

Interesting oxymoron about a community trying to attract dinc's - would be a nice study on the economic realities you outline above.

 

Anyway - the first politician that poses the idea that the transition of the American family from the husband, wife, 1.8 kids, dog and cat to the dinc family as a positive social move would be lynched as a heratic and impeached immediately.

 

For what it's worth, nice post.

[Pyrite Gal]

This is a great post.  I cannot disagree with your points - I know the tax system is why many seniors/emptynesters relacate to favorable locales. 

 

Interesting oxymoron about a community trying to attract dinc's - would be a nice study on the economic realities you outline above. 

 

Anyway - the first politician that poses the idea that the transition of the American family from the husband, wife, 1.8 kids, dog and cat to the dinc family as a positive social move would be lynched as a heratic and impeached immediately. 

 

For what it's worth, nice post.

726243[/snapback]

 

My sense is that the positive is free choice for the individual limited to the degree your choices pretty directly abridge the freedoms of another individual.

 

If this is a guding principle then their certainly should be societal debate about a fundamental issue such as abortion involves abridging the right to life of another individual.

 

However, I would tend to resist the social engineering involved in trying to force folks to have a traditional nuclear family be it those who want to force abortions to keep family size down to 1.8 kids or those who want to restrict access and use of contraceptives so that people have more kids.

 

The amusing thing to me (which is related to but begins to go far from the WNY economy topic so this discussion should probably go to the Politics board where I for one will not actually follow it) is that both the hard left and the hard right seem to want to pursue social engineering to create a world which never existed (definitions of a marriage being a natural thing ignore the fact that nature long pre-dated society and that society created government and legal marrriage) or never will (I think people in general are good, but in recurring episodes such as Hitler in WWII. Pol Pot, Rwanda and the current set-to in the Middle East people are always capable of great evil).

 

The traditional nuclear family which is a tradition that never really existed the way it is talked about is a neat idea which i would pretty much oppose anyone trying to enforce it on the individual or doing much besides advocating it with free speech to bias things to make it happen.

 

I think our problems tend to flow from US society introducing a number of biases into the law which are sold to the voters as supporting family, but then once the breech is opened, the money class of society forces through a bunch of other biases which benefit them as individuals.