BuffaloBill Posted August 17, 2009 Posted August 17, 2009 New condos include tax breaks If Buffalo is ever going to get past its reputation as an industrial age relic of a city then leveraging its waterfront and other lifestyle advantages are key to rebirth. I am mystified at the tone of this article and the comments that follow. This development is awesome and if it took handing out tax breaks to get it done then so be it. I frequently travel to Vancouver. IMO it is a city that has done a masterful job of revitalizing its core and leveraging its waterfront. They have also attracted a lot of clean and high tech jobs. People from all over the globe are buying condo’s there. I am not suggesting that the same will happen for Buffalo (relative to scale). However, on a smaller scale it could. People love to live near or have recreation near water. It is not out of the realm of possibilities that people from elsewhere could buy waterfront property in Buffalo to live for part of the year. One factor reducing the likelihood of this is a property tax structure that does not lend itself to the concept. Instead of arguing the “rich get richer” maybe there should be some joy in the fact that people who could afford to live elsewhere have elected to stay in Buffalo. Imagine the uplift to the image of the city if developments of this nature along with retail, nice looking commercial and entertainment venues sprouted all along the waterfront. Buffalo should leverage a key asset.
Chef Jim Posted August 17, 2009 Posted August 17, 2009 Well it is quite unfair especially at a time when the state could use the funds. I'm not saying giving a tax break is a bad idea but this does seem to go a bit too far. Seven years of no taxes and then three of reduced? How about seven years reduced and then re-evaluated after that? And this coming from someone who is all for tax breaks.
BuffaloBill Posted August 17, 2009 Author Posted August 17, 2009 Well it is quite unfair especially at a time when the state could use the funds. I'm not saying giving a tax break is a bad idea but this does seem to go a bit too far. Seven years of no taxes and then three of reduced? How about seven years reduced and then re-evaluated after that? And this coming from someone who is all for tax breaks. Why not take the long term view? The city is far better off attracting or retaining residents who have net worth high enough to buy condos or houses that relative to the rest of the market are high in price (I know in SF a $500k - $750K condo is common if not cheap on a relative basis). My point simply is - applaud the development and do what you can to attract more. If the city looks more pleasant from the waterfront (like it does in Vancouver) then this is a huge lift to the city overall. Buffalo could market the hell out of this if it was done well. Also, part of my argument is that Buffalo's tax structure overall creates too much of a burden on development and potential residents. What about the step forward if Buffalo could attract people from hot climates (like Dallas for example) to come live and work for 5 or 6 months out of the year (a reverse snowbird influx). My wife and I are working towards an arrangement of this nature. However, under the current scenario Buffalo and NYS with its oppressive tax situation is not likely to be our primary place of residence. I could name a dozen high net worth couples here in Dallas that would love a summer home in a city with a milder climate, access to the water, arts, food and intellectual resources. Buffalo could be exactly that if it changed its thinking and urban planning to cater to such people. Certainly not "the" answer to renewal but could be one of many solutions.
Jim in Anchorage Posted August 17, 2009 Posted August 17, 2009 Vancouver= Pacific ocean. Buffalo=lake Erie. Gentleman please the comparison is absurd.
BuffaloBill Posted August 17, 2009 Author Posted August 17, 2009 Vancouver= Pacific ocean.Buffalo=lake Erie. Gentleman please the comparison is absurd. I was not comparing one to the other - I simply said Vancouver has done a magnificent job of leveraging its assets and revitalizing the city. I suggested Buffalo could learn from this. I agree that Vancouver's access to the Pacific is a huge advantage but they also maximized it by creating tax incentives for the cruise industry. Buffalo does not have a trump card of this magnitude to play. However, with a little creativity and thought they could arrest the outflow of current population and bring in partial year residents that contribute to the local economy. Also look at the point of the post - people need to stop bein naysayers about positive developments in Buffalo if they want to stabilize the economy and population.
bdelma Posted August 17, 2009 Posted August 17, 2009 Foresight. It takes alot time to get things rolling there. Maybe the regions doesn't like change as quickly as other regions.
bbb Posted August 17, 2009 Posted August 17, 2009 Vancouver= Pacific ocean.Buffalo=lake Erie. Gentleman please the comparison is absurd. We had friends in from San Francisco that we took down to the waterfront and they were amazed at how pretty it is........It may not be quite the Pacific, but it sure is nice, and not absurd
Jim in Anchorage Posted August 17, 2009 Posted August 17, 2009 I was not comparing one to the other - I simply said Vancouver has done a magnificent job of leveraging its assets and revitalizing the city. I suggested Buffalo could learn from this. I agree that Vancouver's access to the Pacific is a huge advantage but they also maximized it by creating tax incentives for the cruise industry. Buffalo does not have a trump card of this magnitude to play. However, with a little creativity and thought they could arrest the outflow of current population and bring in partial year residents that contribute to the local economy. Also look at the point of the post - people need to stop bein naysayers about positive developments in Buffalo if they want to stabilize the economy and population. I agree the waterfront is a positive for Buffalo. But expecting a "we summer in Buffalo" crowd is a bit much.
DrDawkinstein Posted August 17, 2009 Posted August 17, 2009 I agree the waterfront is a positive for Buffalo. But expecting a "we summer in Buffalo" crowd is a bit much. given it's history, yes. but it is hard to deny that Buffalo would make a great place to spend the summer months if you know the city and arent prejudging it. funny thing is, this weekend a bunch of friends were just discussing how the mega millions is up to $170million and we all agreed if we had the money, we would spend our summers in Buffalo. no doubt, it's a pipedream to think the city could attract such a crowd. but you gotta aim high. as opposed to aiming for the bottom of the Erie Canal which is where the local politicians have been driving the area. i dont think it's THAT ridiculous of a goal.
Fingon Posted August 17, 2009 Posted August 17, 2009 The last thing Buffalo needs are wealthy people. We should have put the money into social services for the poor. That's the REAL way to increase economic development.
BuffaloBill Posted August 17, 2009 Author Posted August 17, 2009 I agree the waterfront is a positive for Buffalo. But expecting a "we summer in Buffalo" crowd is a bit much. Really? why? Water recreation Arts Parks Architecture Access to other natural beauty (Niagara Falls, Letchworth) Intellectual activities or the possibility thereof (presence of universities and Chautauqua Institute) Nearby wine region Museums Access to Canada Some infrastructure is already there. I agree that Buffalo is not yet ready for primetime in many ways but I go back to planning and incentives to get there.
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 17, 2009 Posted August 17, 2009 Vancouver= Pacific ocean.Buffalo=lake Erie. Gentleman please the comparison is absurd. BINGO! BFLO is now on a dead end of a waterway and has been going on 50 years now. What brought BFLO to commercial prominence was the terminus of the Erie canal (break in bulk). Since 1959 (Seaway), everything goes around BFLO... Who wants to turn up a dead end? One thing made BFLO: geography. And one thing killed BFLO: geography. BLFO is geographically irrelevant. It is sad to say that. Name one other place where that has happened to it (with regards to geography) as it happened to BLFO? I always bring up Chicago because it is the anthesis of what happened to BFLO. In Chicago, the backbone is still what brought it commercially into prominance... The water, now mix that in with air and rail and the area is still very much geographically relevant as it wa in the 1800's. Remember what the real estate agent says? Location, location, LOCATION! Even worse now (BFLO's situation) that our transportation systems have become even more streamlined. Not much commercially uses the Great Lakes WaterWay anymore (not open 365) and when it does, again even more so reason to bypass BFLO. What I am saying is that there is no commercial viability to BFLO. Who wants to live there when there are so many nicer areas to live?... Even around the rest of the Great Lakes. You still need commercial viability. Now here is a thought. Think of BFLO as a Newburyport, MA... Then again, even they were in a better situation since ther was some history to preseve... You just can't recreate history like theyt are doing in Canal District... Well, you can... But the feel is just not there IMO.
DC Tom Posted August 17, 2009 Posted August 17, 2009 Really? why? Water recreation Arts Parks Architecture Access to other natural beauty (Niagara Falls, Letchworth) Intellectual activities or the possibility thereof (presence of universities and Chautauqua Institute) Nearby wine region Museums Access to Canada Buffalo, New York. The only place in the world that lists the ability to go elsewhere as an attraction.
BuffaloBill Posted August 17, 2009 Author Posted August 17, 2009 Buffalo, New York. The only place in the world that lists the ability to go elsewhere as an attraction. Keep in mind if Canada were a "state" or some other form of border it likely would not be listed as such. Also, Toronto is considered a world class city so why shouldn't Buffalo lean on its access to it? This is not unlike other major cities in the NE playing up their access to NYC.
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 17, 2009 Posted August 17, 2009 given it's history, yes. but it is hard to deny that Buffalo would make a great place to spend the summer months if you know the city and arent prejudging it. funny thing is, this weekend a bunch of friends were just discussing how the mega millions is up to $170million and we all agreed if we had the money, we would spend our summers in Buffalo. no doubt, it's a pipedream to think the city could attract such a crowd. but you gotta aim high. as opposed to aiming for the bottom of the Erie Canal which is where the local politicians have been driving the area. i dont think it's THAT ridiculous of a goal. Still there has to be a backbone to the waterfront... The Niagara section of the Thruway dissects it (sorry personal and historical beef). The problem is that for years BFLO destroyed its backbone chasing and "Jonesing" with what other areas were attempting to do. The area and waterfront is unrecognizable for much in any way, shape, or form. Again... First and foremost, traffic patterns around the waterfront have to be addressed!
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 17, 2009 Posted August 17, 2009 Keep in mind if Canada were a "state" or some other form of border it likely would not be listed as such. Also, Toronto is considered a world class city so why shouldn't Buffalo lean on its access to it? This is not unlike other major cities in the NE playing up their access to NYC. And there in lies the geographical conundrum for BFLO. What opened Toronto to the world, closed BFLO to the world. You don't think they knew that when the Seaway and Welland improvements went in during the Eisenhower administration? Sure hindsight is 20/20, but there were forces in place back then predicting the death of BFLO as a viable city... They were just scoffed at.
DC Tom Posted August 17, 2009 Posted August 17, 2009 Keep in mind if Canada were a "state" or some other form of border it likely would not be listed as such. Also, Toronto is considered a world class city so why shouldn't Buffalo lean on its access to it? This is not unlike other major cities in the NE playing up their access to NYC. Yeah, I hear Massachusetts is getting ready to unveil a new "Come to Boston and visit NYC!" campaign.
BuffaloBill Posted August 17, 2009 Author Posted August 17, 2009 Yeah, I hear Massachusetts is getting ready to unveil a new "Come to Boston and visit NYC!" campaign. that's pretty funny - seriously However, you fail to recognize that the ease of travel and accessibility of the cities that lie between Boston to DC corridor has been a source of leverage in the challenge to diversify economies and slow population declines. Buffalo is a city that is a shadow of its former self. If it wants to stop the decline or even try to reverse it it must play off of every advantage it has. When was the last time you drove from Niagara Falls around the lake to Toronto? There has been impressive econmic and residential expansion over the very period when the opposite has been true in Buffalo. Buffalo would be foolish not to try to figure out how to best tap into this and become the US extension to the "golden horseshoe."
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 17, 2009 Posted August 17, 2009 Buffalo is a city that is a shadow of its former self. If it wants to stop the decline or even try to reverse it it must play off of every advantage it has. Won't reverse it. Tom's off the mark with two players like BOS and NYC and equating them to BFLO and TOR. That is why I mentioned an area like Newburyport, MA (in relation to BOS). That would be the role that BFLO could play in relation to TOR.
BuffaloBill Posted August 17, 2009 Author Posted August 17, 2009 Won't reverse it. I tend to agree with this if for no other reason Buffalo has a long uphill climb due to weather. It is hard to sell 5 months of tough weather. However, water and moderation of temperature in the summer months are advantages that may play to some audiences. In some ways, the heat here (Dallas) in the summer months is every bit as oppressive as winter. The prime difference is that while uncomfortable at times the heat does not prevent you from getting out (you do not get snowbound). However, even if by perception (for those that want to debate global warming - an issue I am not looking to get into) even the natives here will tell you that it is getting hotter and they are looking for ways to "get out" and away from it (Colorado is the prime destination for many). Water supplies that can't sustain population growths are also coming into play. Don't forget Buffalo, outside of taxes, is also becoming an affordable city to live in. This is a factor than drove many people south (to sunbelt cities) to begin with. Personally, I highly doubt I would be entertaining any sort of return ther myself if I were not from the region. To be honest, if the Bills leave I still may not return.
Recommended Posts