Well from appearances Mark did a good thing

[shortstuff]

I totally agree with Poloncarz on this. In fact, I made the very same argument concerning the town IDA requests for student housing in Amherst and Orchard Park yesterday. IDA tax breaks are supposed to be for businesses that create permanent jobs, not for enabling developers to make more money. None of these projects create permanent jobs. Just say "NO!".

I agree with what you stated here Linda. I was surprised to hear that Poloncarz voted NO. I was also glad to hear that he did so with valid reasons. IDA's need revamping, also I am not against possibly having the IDA become a regional agency.

IDA's are to provide incentives in blighted areas whether it is the Empire Zone or the Enhancement Zone that would spurr the stimulation of jobs and or product to generate monies within the community and or nationally/county/state wide.

I am totally in disagreement that IDA's should be used for developers that will turn around and sell/rent the property.

Disclaimer: This is my opinion only

[WNYresident]

IDA's are to provide incentives in blighted areas whether it is the Empire Zone or the Enhancement Zone that would spurr the stimulation of jobs and or product to generate monies within the community and or nationally/county/state wide.

So taking a historic empty building and making it usable in a blighted area isn't worthy? The people who may live in that historic building may need items/services they can buy in that blighted area. Dry cleaning, cleaning services, food, occasional stop at one of Buffalo's fine restaurants and one of many tax payer funded culturals. Any small business catering to those needs may be busier and need to hire people. Stimulation of jobs. I would still charge them property/school taxes though. I could see waving away one shot taxes that wouldn't be there if the historic vintage building was left to rot.

This isn't the same as giving someone a tax break to build brand new upscale apartments on farmland or green space. Or, this isn't the same as taking one business from one of our towns and moving them to a new build because of a tax incentive. A piece of history is being brought back to life in the City of Buffalo.

[buffalopundit]

So taking a historic empty building and making it usable in a blighted area isn't worthy? The people who may live in that historic building may need items/services they can buy in that blighted area. Dry cleaning, cleaning services, food, occasional stop at one of Buffalo's fine restaurants and one of many tax payer funded culturals. Any small business catering to those needs may be busier and need to hire people. Stimulation of jobs. I would still charge them property/school taxes though. I could see waving away one shot taxes that wouldn't be there if the historic vintage building was left to rot.

This isn't the same as giving someone a tax break to build brand new upscale apartments on farmland or green space. Or, this isn't the same as taking one business from one of our towns and moving them to a new build because of a tax incentive. A piece of history is being brought back to life in the City of Buffalo.

It's an INDUSTRIAL development agency. Not an Expensive-Loft-Apartment-for-wealthy-yuppies-dinks-and-hipsters development agency. The purpose is to create jobs, not to help correct a poor business / planning decision by very wealthy developers.

[WNYresident]

It's an INDUSTRIAL development agency. Not an Expensive-Loft-Apartment-for-wealthy-yuppies-dinks-and-hipsters development agency. The purpose is to create jobs, not to help correct a poor business / planning decision by very wealthy developers.

I don't give a crap what you title them. Industrial development agency or "government" agency. In the very end it is still about money Alan.


So your not ok with the Expensive-Loft-Apartment-for-wealthy-yuppies-dinks-and-hipsters but you are ok with Wealthy-yuppies-dinks-and-hipsters who like to go to entertainment venues instead? The purpose is to create jobs, not to help entertainment venues that can't support themselves. Right?

Why are you so dis-respectful of others? "wealthy-yuppies-dinks-and-hipsters"

[WNYresident]

So Alan, why are your "wealthy-yuppies-and-hipsters" worthy of having their entertainment subsidized?

[buffalopundit]

So Alan, why are your "wealthy-yuppies-and-hipsters" worthy of having their entertainment subsidized?

I dunno. You'll have to ask the Legislature, which passed that overwhelmingly.

[buffalopundit]

I don't give a crap what you title them. Industrial development agency or "government" agency. In the very end it is still about money Alan.


So your not ok with the Expensive-Loft-Apartment-for-wealthy-yuppies-dinks-and-hipsters but you are ok with Wealthy-yuppies-dinks-and-hipsters who like to go to entertainment venues instead? The purpose is to create jobs, not to help entertainment venues that can't support themselves. Right?

Why are you so dis-respectful of others? "wealthy-yuppies-dinks-and-hipsters"

What's disrespectful about that?

The IDA hands out money and incentives as an unelected, barely accountable state agency. The legislature subsidized the culturals, and if you don't like it, you have every ability to elect a new legislator/ure.

[WNYresident]

What's disrespectful about that?

The IDA hands out money and incentives as an unelected, barely accountable state agency. The legislature subsidized the culturals, and if you don't like it, you have every ability to elect a new legislator/ure.

Your attitude apparently of people who in some cases work their asses off to make money.

"Expensive-Loft-Apartment-for-wealthy-yuppies-dinks-and-hipsters"


So you think it's ok to subsidize their entertainment but then complain if someone wants to take a historic vintage building, bring it back to use, add some commerce to the surrounding businesses where that historic building is and perhaps give them less driving distance to go to the subsidized entertainment venues Mark pushed through to get support for votes?

[buffalopundit]

Your attitude apparently of people who in some cases work their asses off to make money.

"Expensive-Loft-Apartment-for-wealthy-yuppies-dinks-and-hipsters"


So you think it's ok to subsidize their entertainment but then complain if someone wants to take a historic vintage building, bring it back to use, add some commerce to the surrounding businesses where that historic building is and perhaps give them less driving distance to go to the subsidized entertainment venues Mark pushed through to get support for votes?

The purpose and creation of an IDA is separate and distinct from the cultural funding you're comparing it too.

And yes, I think that the arts deserve public funding, but that private development of expensive loft apartments doesn't. One exists to make art, the other exists to make money.

[WNYresident]

Or one exists to help a dying city reclaim some of the historic buildings to full use and to increase the population of our city.

The arts were funded. Just not every "non-profit" that had their hands out. You use the term cultural/arts to include entertainment venues. You should not do that. I'm just pointing out how hypocritical you sound.

[Dougles]

What's disrespectful about that?

The IDA hands out money and incentives as an unelected, barely accountable state agency. The legislature subsidized the culturals, and if you don't like it, you have every ability to elect a new legislator/ure.

Wait doesn't the town, city, county and state vote to fund those IDA's?

[WNYresident]

Wait doesn't the town, city, county and state vote to fund those IDA's?

Get with the program. WE FUND THE IDA's... We fund them to give our money away and to give away revenue we would normally collect.

[buffalopundit]

Or one exists to help a dying city reclaim some of the historic buildings to full use and to increase the population of our city.

The arts were funded. Just not every "non-profit" that had their hands out. You use the term cultural/arts to include entertainment venues. You should not do that. I'm just pointing out how hypocritical you sound.

It'd be hypocritical if I was favoring, say, Paladino's Bellisario over Baynes' building at issue here. But I'm not. I'm saying that you're comparing apples to oranges. Again.

Frankly, the idea that these lofts are going to be rentals makes it even more offensive.

[bluethunder]

So an empty rundown building will look better to you?? As far as some logic goes on here I guess construction workers should be left out when it comes to tax breaks etc. because they are not permanent? Pretty stupid logic considering they build stuff and once its done they move to another project. What do you want them to do keep working on the same building even if its done? There are building material distributors, electricians, plumbers, carpenters, drywall guys, framers, roofers, I guess your only concerned about the top1% the developer? Pretty asinine if you ask me!!! No wonder this area is meesed up with this kind of thinking!! Mark probably voted no because the unions weren't getting anything out of the deal!

[WNYresident]

So an empty rundown building will look better to you??

This is what I'm trying to figure out. I really don't like corporate welfare but in some cases I can see value restoring Buffalo's Vintage Historic buildings if it would attract people with MONEY to live in the city. Those people with MONEY can spend it at local business and the entertainment venues (culturals) Alan seems to favor. I still think the building owners should pay real property/school taxes but waving away one shot taxes/fees seems fine. You would not collect those if the building sat empty.

I want to know why the 1% who go to plays/shows can have that subsidized with physical funds but the 1% who are restoring a historic building preserving our fine architecture that makes Buffalo unique can't have some one shot taxes waved away.