WNY Anti Development Types Are Causing Povery and Killing the Environment!

[Achbek1]

Western New York Anti Development Types Are Causing Poverty and Killing the Environment!

Don’t get mad at me before you read this but I feel that, in an indirect way, Western New York anti-development types are causing poverty and killing the environment.

How you ask?

Anti-development types cause poverty by blocking new businesses from moving into the city proper and therefore limiting employment opportunities for those who live in the city and lack options for transportation.
Also, when new housing developments that are geared to be owner occupied units are blocked from being built, it causes prospective homeowners who would prefer newer housing to look elsewhere, thereby decreasing the city’s tax base and again furthering economic decline. Members of anti development groups have a consistent record of blocking any development, retail or housing or otherwise, that wants to build within the city limits of Buffalo.

In regard to business, many new businesses would prefer to operate in newer stock property because newer stock property is easier to wire for computers, has more work-friendly layouts and can easily accommodate fire codes and compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act. Older Victorian buildings, while pretty, may not be as conducive to the aforementioned. Also, whenever a developer wants to build a new building within the city of Buffalo, the anti development groups have rallied against them vehemently. Because of this, many developers have abandoned plans to build new businesses in the city and have instead moved to the suburbs where stock property is newer and newer developments, no matter how out of hand they may get, are encouraged. As a result, people who live in the city and who have do not have many options for transportation are left with fewer options for places to seek employment. Therefore, the people who live in the city end up at an economic disadvantage and poverty often ensues. People who live within the city of Buffalo have tremendously higher incidents of poverty according to Census data and rates of disease and health problems according to Erie County Department of Health data. These rates are much higher than in the suburbs. Why? This is because poverty is much higher in the city than in the suburbs. Poverty begins with economic malaise and the social ills and health problems are often results of poverty. According to the past few years’ Erie County Budgets, we see that the highest percentage of county revenue goes to Social Services. This is likely a direct result of the poverty, health and social ills that our county currently faces. Much of these are located within the city limits. If new business developments were allowed in the city the economy within the city could likely improve and therefore poverty rates may decline as job opportunities are available. (Think about people who work for Social Services, one of their responsibilities is to help people on Social Services to find employment. That is hard to do if you clients live in an area where employment opportunities are few. And even if you provide or refer them to job training what good does that do if they cannot travel the far distances to find employment?)


In regard to housing, if anti development types would allow for new housing developments to be built in the city then more people prospective homeowners would want to live in the city and therefore the city’s tax base would grow. Much of the city’s housing stock is old and deteriorating and prospective home buyers take that into account when looking for a home to buy. No one wants to invest in a property that is older and in need of extensive repairs and maintenance. 2000 Census data shows that the highest percentage of the city of Buffalo’s housing units were built in 1939 or earlier. Also it has been heavily publicized in the local news in recent years that many old and deteriorating properties in the city of Buffalo have been bought up by “absentee” or out of state landlords or real estate “flippers” who buy properties cheap and then sell them for a profit. These landlords sometimes take advantage of the Section 8 program and rent out these properties to low income tenants who have rent vouchers, sometimes charging higher rent than what the property may fairly be worth. Old, deteriorating properties are not very appealing to those who would like to invest in owning their own home and therefore these units may fall prey to less than honest real estate investors who will turn the units into rental property. Home buyers may be more likely to choose newer stock housing, which is concentrated more in the suburbs. However, when newer stock housing is built within the city of Buffalo, as in the case with the newer built, large “upscale” models of homes across from the LaSalle train station, these properties apparently sell quickly. The newer homes built in the neighborhood east of Oak street in downtown Buffalo are also mostly occupied.

Often anti-development types are the same as or are associated with the "preservationist" mentality. Many preservationists believe that reusing old buildings is better than building new buildings. This idea works if the old buildings in question have been adequately preserved and if the type of business or housing establishments to be opened in these old buildings fit into the layout of the building. However, not all old buildings meet with today's requirements or what is needed to accomodate computers and safety and accessibilty codes. And many old buildings, no matter how historc, have undergone so much damage over time that they have fallen into disrepair. Unfortunately many "preservationists" cross the line into anti development when they "refuse to let old buildings go" and instead allow new units to be built.

Anti development types may not realize this but their actions are also indirectly causing damage to the natural environment. When businesses and residential real estate developers are consistently driven away from developing within the city, which has a pre-existing infrastructure and public and private transportation layouts, they instead seek to develop in yet undeveloped areas of the suburbs or rural areas. When businesses and housing move out to undeveloped areas of land, a phenomenon known as “sprawl,” this requires “tearing up of the land” and killing off of woodlands and wildlife. Also undeveloped areas of land have no pre-existing infrastructure. New sewer lines and utility connections need to be installed and that requires more “tearing up” of the land. Also, these areas are not often connected to public transportation which requires dependence on cars to get around, which in turn causes air pollution. Perhaps if newer housing was allowed to be built in already existing areas of the city this would be less of a problem. Only to do this, the demolition of older, crumbling housing may be necessary -- something that the "preservationist" segment of the anti development types do not want to allow to happen. Thus the cycle continues...

[WNYresident]

This is a test for quick reply.

[Achbek1]

While I'm being obnoxiously bold, why don't I just throw this in too?

Anti development types are killing people and letting children go hungry!

How? As in the case of the Walgreens... What if some little old lady on Delaware who doesn't have a car needed to get to that Walgreen's to get her medication? Now the drug store won't be there.

What if that Walgreens would have provided a job for a young father with two kids to support, huh? What if he could have got a somewhat decent paying management position at that Walgreens, huh? Now it wont' be there. But that's okay, we'll just put them on Social Services so that more County money can go there...

What about the money that this new Elmwood hotel could bring? What about he spillover money for those "cute and quirky" Elmwood gift shops that the guy who wrote the editorial today was talking about? I'm sure people staying in that hotel would spend their money there. What about the college students living on Elmwood who could work at that hotel? And, oh my! What if Pano's were allowed to expand? Oh no! That might bring more business to the area and more foot traffic for the "cute and quirky" Elmwood gift shops.

But we can't have any of that.

We will still have a city where a SELECT FEW can live the "cute and quirky" Elmwood lifestyle while the rest of the city crumbles and dies and the tax money ends up supporting those who are victims of the SELECT FEW who want to keep things the way they are.

[LHardy]

Nice! Two thumbs up in my book!

[speaker]

I'm for the new hotel!

[Achbek1]

Heck, I could even say that OLD, CRUMBLING BUILDINGS ARE ENERGY WASTERS because they ARE POORLY INSULATED AND WASTE A LOT OF HEATING GAS!

And, maybe many people who live in these old, crumbling and poorly insulated buildings are HEAP recipients who can't afford to pay the gas bill anyhow.

I still think that the city of Buffalo's poverty problem and Erie County's massive use of Social Services should be a tremendous wake-up call to people that changes need to be made.

These preservationist types don't realize that when they are rallying to save their quirky, cute and artsy lifestyles they are actually pushing for decisions that will hurt larger groups of people in the long run. In that sense, the preservationists moves are almost unethical and amoral.

And many of the artsy Elmwood people who I know live off of Elmwood but have high paying jobs in Amherst.

[300miles]

I don't agree with this... and I'll tell you why...

(1) True, preservationist would like to have all historic or architecturally significant buildings saved and reused. BUT, if you look at all the high profile fights where preservationist got in the way of wrecking balls they were never residential buildings. And the buildings being torn down were never to be replaced with residence. In every case as far as I've seen, they protest buildings being torn down for parking lots, or ramps, or for businesses. To tie their protests to houses is such a stretch that I just don't see it.

(2) The idea that it's preservationists fault that have scared businesses off to the burbs because it's too hard to build something doesn't sit with me either. There are a dozen reasons why businesses have fled the city. If Preservation is on that list of reasons I'm fairly certain that it's at the bottom of the list.

(3) you're quick to criticize the "Elmwood Lifestyle"... yet which part of the city is THE most successful, most booming, most population growing? It's Elmwood. Look at all the other business strips throughout the city and what happened to them? Apparently the preservation of that area has it's benefits. Yes?

(4) The death of a little old lady... by the hands of evil Preservationists! because they would not allow a new Walgreens on Delaware. Heh heh. funny. Two points here: the little old lady already shops at the Rite Aid that is RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET from the Walgreens site. I guarentee she did not die for lack of a drug store. Secondly, you do not know that the little old lady wasn't one of the people against the new store. Do you?

[Achbek1]

I don't agree with this... and I'll tell you why...

(1) True, preservationist would like to have all historic or architecturally significant buildings saved and reused. BUT, if you look at all the high profile fights where preservationist got in the way of wrecking balls they were never residential buildings. And the buildings being torn down were never to be replaced with residence. In every case as far as I've seen, they protest buildings being torn down for parking lots, or ramps, or for businesses. To tie their protests to houses is such a stretch that I just don't see it.

(2) The idea that it's preservationists fault that have scared businesses off to the burbs because it's too hard to build something doesn't sit with me either. There are a dozen reasons why businesses have fled the city. If Preservation is on that list of reasons I'm fairly certain that it's at the bottom of the list.

(3) you're quick to criticize the "Elmwood Lifestyle"... yet which part of the city is THE most successful, most booming, most population growing? It's Elmwood. Look at all the other business strips throughout the city and what happened to them? Apparently the preservation of that area has it's benefits. Yes?

(4) The death of a little old lady... by the hands of evil Preservationists! because they would not allow a new Walgreens on Delaware. Heh heh. funny. Two points here: the little old lady already shops at the Rite Aid that is RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET from the Walgreens site. I guarentee she did not die for lack of a drug store. Secondly, you do not know that the little old lady wasn't one of the people against the new store. Do you?

I respect everything you have said and I took the time to reflect on all of your statements. I do not want to come across as cold or insensitive to preservation or promotion of the urban lifestyle. It's just that I have seen so many things that make me think that preservationism should not be such a one sided deal. Yes, Elmwood and the areas immediately off of it are thriving and property values are getting higher. Yet move a few blocks away from each of those areas and you have poverty. Cross Main Street, past the thriving Allentown area, and you have the poverty of the East Side. Head a few blocks back from Elmwood's arsty district and you have the poverty of the Lower West Side. When I talk about the prosperous Elmwood Village types being a select few, I mean that these are the people who are often financially well off who are living the urban lifestyle by choice and who can afford, literally AFFORD, to say, "I want my neighborhood to look pretty because that is what works for me." The people living further from the prosperous, historic and artsy districs of Elmwood, North Buffalo and the Delaware District have not been as vocal in the preservationist movement, at least not from what I have heard. Look at the dollar store that opened up on South Elmwood, that seems to be doing very, very well there. I have a feeling that it serves a lot of customers from the Lower West Side as well as the young, college age Elmwood and Allentown residents (who may never admit to shopping there.)

You say, "In every case as far as I've seen, they [the preservationists] protest buildings being torn down for parking lots, or ramps, or for businesses." Unless this is a typo, protesting buildings being torn down to build a new BUSINESS is exactly what I mean! Protesting a new BUSINESS, which brings money and employment to the area just DOES NOT MAKE SENSE TO ME! Look at what has gone on with the old, abandoned AM&A's buildign as an example. There have been COUNTLESS proposals for what could be done with that site and it has met with a ridiculous amount of opposition. I have heard that they were even thinking of putting a SCHOOL there. Who would protest a SCHOOL? I worked in downtown Buffalo for a number of years and on my lunch hour I was always saddened by how desolate and barren downtown Buffalo is.

Also, in regard to tearing down old buildings for parking ramps, sad to say it but cars are the way of the world now. We just have to accept it. The old buildings built long ago were built before cars as we now them now existed. If having more parking available means that more people will be able to work and conduct business in downtown Buffalo is it really that bad?

And another thing that confuses me with the preservationists, a few years ago I came across a flyer passed out by the preservationists for a something along the lines of "historic walking tours of Buffalo." One of the tours was about "Buffalo's department stores" or something to that effect. The sad thing is, it was a walking tour of old, boarded up and vacant buildings that used to be stores 50 years ago. Who would want to look at that? I think the preservationists romanticize the past too much. Because the places that they are romanticizing USED TO BE NEW. It's almost a psychological thing when one can't let go of the past. That's why I often compare members of these groups to a lonely old bachelor who hasn't gone on a date in years and is wallowing away because he is still hung up on his high school girlfriend. It's just not healthy to want to live in the past.

And again, looking at the numbers tells you a lot. The poverty, the blight the social problems and the people fleeing the city. Something is wrong.

I am not saying that we should turn all the historic districts of Buffalo into one big Wal Mart. I appreciate also that preservationists claim to be more friendly toward new developments if they follow and "urban friendly" model, but as in the case of the Elmwood hotel, they are against this too. The track record of the preservationists speaks for itself: they have protested EVERYTING. Good or bad, EVERYTHING.

But the bottom line is, the health of the area depends on the ECONOMY. As cute at these Elmwood and other artsy areas are with all of their gift shops and cafes, they do little to help the economy of the city as a whole. They may help their immediate areas, but the sad fact is much, too much, of the city is still suffering. New developments, business or residential, would likely help the city get back on its feet. New businesses create new jobs which could lower poverty and help the economy. New housing brings in a greater tax base. We need NEW. Because right now, as the numbers and statistics show, trying to save the old just isn't doing it.

[ForestBird]

You use 'preservationist' as if it is some sort of religion; it isn't. I like the style of many old buildings, but not all of them. I support the reuse of old buildings whenever possible, but not all of them. I and many of my neighbors are happy to have that hotel built on Elmwood, even though some old houses will be demolished.

You are painting with a very wide brush.

[Achbek1]

You use 'preservationist' as if it is some sort of religion; it isn't. I like the style of many old buildings, but not all of them. I support the reuse of old buildings whenever possible, but not all of them. I and many of my neighbors are happy to have that hotel built on Elmwood, even though some old houses will be demolished.

You are painting with a very wide brush.

I apologize. I do not mean to paint all preservationists with a broad brush. I am just criticizing those who have a knee jerk "don't do it" reaction to any kind of development.

I admire those like yourself who are willing to compromise and welcome new development in the city. Like you said, save some of the old but allow some new in also.

[WestSideJohn]

Could you give an example of an area that has no access to a drugstore/pharmacy? I'm having a tough time believing anyone living in Buffalo would die because they live too far from a pharmacy.

Here's another way of looking at the preservation issue. Buffalo is in a tough place right now. As much as we love this city, we have to face some facts when it comes to the advantages we bring to the table. One of those advantages is world-class architecture that nearly every other city in America (with the exception of NYC and Chicago) would kill for. We've got it. We should be capitalizing on it, not tearing it down.

Besides, it's not (usually) an either/or situation. There's plenty of land in Buffalo, so I don't see how fighting to keep an old building from demolition means that a particular project needs to be shelved.

The world isn't just black and white... it's millions of shades of grey, and millions more colors. Preservation doesn't mean blocking progress.

[Achbek1]

One of those advantages is world-class architecture that nearly every other city in America (with the exception of NYC and Chicago) would kill for. We've got it. We should be capitalizing on it, not tearing it down.

But I have a sneaking feeling that NYC and Chicago have plenty of NEW structures intermingled with the old structures. And both cities probably have large, national chains operating alongside of smaller, "quaint" types of establishments. And I'll bet that both cities have at many points chose to knock down those buildings that are beyond repair to make way for new businesses rather than let those buildings sit vacant.

A lot of Buffalo's pretty old buildings are vacant. The Atwater House, the Richardson Complex, the notorious Grain Elevators, the Central Terminal, the AM&A's building, I could go on. Vacant buildings do not help the economy. And those buildings, no matter how pretty, are mostly vacant because the states they are currently is are so bad that no businesses would want to move into them.

[Linda_D]

Achbek, you are dead on! I'll add a few additional thoughts.

First off, opposition to chain stores and fast food restaurants is elitist myopia, and this is especially true along the Elmwood Strip. Not everybody wants (or can afford) to dine at a nice restaurant all the time. Everyone has to shop for light bulbs and band-aids and shampoo. Despite the dogma, chains/fast food and eclectic shops (thank you, biker!) can co-exist. The trick is to work with City Hall to get strict neighborhood zoning and require all new businesses to work within that zoning framework. That means chains are welcome -- if they fit their establishments into existing buildings or build ones that fit into the character of the neighborhood. That's the best of both worlds, and those chains would provide a level of stability in the area that you don't find with many local small businesses that last a few years and then close.

Secondly, cities are about diversity, where rich and poor, new immigrant and Mayflower descendent, black, white, and Hispanic, old and new, rub up against each other frequently. I see a dismaying trend among many urbanists to pay lip-service to diversity while attempting to enforce a type of conformity suburban towns would envy. This conformity is marked by disdain for the automobile; a dislike for newer single family homes with garages and yards (the kinds of homes that families would like); a romantic view of the joys of living above a bar or restaurant or next door to a convenience store; and a disregard for people who can't afford to live in pricey rehabs or stately Victorians.

[WestSideJohn]

Yes, New York City and Chicago both have an incredible amount of new architecture, from small-scale right on up to skyscrapers of incredible height. Speaking purely in terms of architecture, both of these cities have found a great balance between cherishing the old and embracing the new. That helps make them both exciting, vibrant cities. And of course, money helps.

But once again, it's simply not an either/or situation. Buffalo has plenty of land for new builds, and we have plenty of old buildings for rehabilitation. Our architecture is an enormous asset that will draw people to Buffalo from all over the country if we play our cards right.

Look around at the various places in the United States that people want to travel or move to. All of these locations have something going for them that makes people want to be there. If they're smart, they play it up. If they're not smart, they tear it down. Would Las Vegas outlaw gambling? No way. Would Orlando let Disney World fall into disrepair? No way. Would San Antonio tear down the Alamo to build a casino? No way.

There are obviously obstacles preventing Buffalo from being an attractive tourist destination/place to move. We can't afford to lose what advantages we do have.

Now. About that pharmacy...

[WestSideJohn]

First off, opposition to chain stores and fast food restaurants is elitist myopia, and this is especially true along the Elmwood Strip.

I disagree. I lived right on Elmwood Avenue for about ten years, and for the most part people I know welcome chains that integrate themselves into the neighborhood fabric rather than simply plopping down the same cookie-cutter unit as they have in Tucson and Peoria or Spokane. If given the choice, I think most people in the Elmwood area would prefer a locally owned business to a chain, but any chain that shows respect for the character of the neighborhood would be welcomed with open arms.