Following a very telling study by UB's Regional Insitute, this Buffalo News article, Public retiree health insurance cost is a fiscal time bomb, paints a very good picture about our future economy here in Buffalo Niagara. But there's one concept that no one in the article is talking about in discussion possible solutions - there are just too many public employees that are receiving generous benefits. It's not solely about the value of the benefits that people are getting - it's about the sheer number of people getting the benefits. And just like an "economic stimulus" that focuses on rescuing people and not creating jobs (i.e. the one that's been passed by the House), if you don't get to the root of the problem you're never going to get out of the mess.
I love the title of the Regional Institute's study: "The end of local government as we know it." That statement should be a roadmap for us to follow as a region - not a prediction of catastrophe. The Institute's work shows how government is smothering personal, consumer and business taxpayers in the Buffalo Niagara region - and will only continue to do so - even more so - in the future. We need a regional overhaul in the way our governments operate.
Of course, major overhaul is not our style, so we should at least be working on baby steps to mitigate what will soon become an unsustainable government. Erie County's new contract with the nurses demonstrates the importance of forward thinking, and is a good example to follow. In November, the Partnership testified on the great potential for public-private partnerships before the NYS Commission on State Asset Maximization. P3s, as their called, are something that we need to take a serious look at utilizing with greater frequency, as they accomplish two things... First, they minimize the personnel costs for which taxpayers are responsible by shifting municipality-provided services to private sector professionals; second, they create private sector jobs - jobs where taxpayers aren't on the hook for a future of retirement benefits.
That's not to say New York State shouldn't be taking a hard look at the generosity of the benefits. But even if concessions are made and agreements are reached, if government continues to grow, we'll just be revisiting the issue over, and over, and over...
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Friday, January 30, 2009
State of the City
I attended Mayor Brown's "State of the City" address yesterday afternoon. It was a good presentation. There was no illusion in the minds of the packed house - the Mayor's speech was a campaign kick-off speech, focusing far more on a review of the last three years rather than a snapshot of the City of Buffalo in January, 2009. Everything was crafted under the message "Buffalo is safer, stronger and smarter," but many of the highlights weren't necessarily new news.
Perhaps the most encouraging piece, however, does speak to where the city stands today, mainly due to these trying fiscal times. The Mayor deserves credit for what his administration has been able to do with the City financially. Buffalo today has a $133 million fund balance, $32 million in a rainy-day fund and has seen three Wall Street upgrades. That's a much better foundation for us to be going into a recession than where we were three years ago. I can't imagine what we'd be looking at if Buffalo was going to be relying wholly on rescue aid from the state in the near future.
On the practical side, under Mayor Brown the city has become a much-improved partner in regards to economic development. It's evident to us at the Partnership that many of the successes he listed in yesterday's speech are a direct result of making the city's economic development functions more transparent with better clarity for those wishing to do business in the City of Buffalo. From the staff level, we've been pleased to work with Janet Penksa, Brian Reilly and the staff at City Hall on a number of initiatives - the annual Regional Agenda, Albany reform issues, Great Lakes issues, the Employer Outreach Program among them. We're still working on strengthening our relationship with the City, but we've come a long way from an economic development philosophy in Buffalo that was based more on politics and patronage than progress.
But, it is a campaign year for the Mayor. The outlook for 2009 - not really through fault of the City's - doesn't look great. I have to imagine that most of us delivering the speech yesterday would've presented things exactly the same way.
Perhaps the most encouraging piece, however, does speak to where the city stands today, mainly due to these trying fiscal times. The Mayor deserves credit for what his administration has been able to do with the City financially. Buffalo today has a $133 million fund balance, $32 million in a rainy-day fund and has seen three Wall Street upgrades. That's a much better foundation for us to be going into a recession than where we were three years ago. I can't imagine what we'd be looking at if Buffalo was going to be relying wholly on rescue aid from the state in the near future.
On the practical side, under Mayor Brown the city has become a much-improved partner in regards to economic development. It's evident to us at the Partnership that many of the successes he listed in yesterday's speech are a direct result of making the city's economic development functions more transparent with better clarity for those wishing to do business in the City of Buffalo. From the staff level, we've been pleased to work with Janet Penksa, Brian Reilly and the staff at City Hall on a number of initiatives - the annual Regional Agenda, Albany reform issues, Great Lakes issues, the Employer Outreach Program among them. We're still working on strengthening our relationship with the City, but we've come a long way from an economic development philosophy in Buffalo that was based more on politics and patronage than progress.
But, it is a campaign year for the Mayor. The outlook for 2009 - not really through fault of the City's - doesn't look great. I have to imagine that most of us delivering the speech yesterday would've presented things exactly the same way.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
It's Baaaaack!
For the past few years, the bill number A.8703 has been ingrained in our minds - the infamous Hoyt IDA "reform" bill. Well, just like when you change your bank ATM pin number and have trouble forgetting the old one, we have a new bill number for this year - A.3659. Learn it, memorize it, burn it into your brains. While the bill text hasn't been filed yet, we hear it's identical to last year's bill.
Problem is, this year there's another number to pay attention to, as well - S.1241. That's the Senate version of the same bill, introduced by Senator Thompson. We live in a different New York State now - the previous Senate Majority was effective in halting this damaging bill. We're only just finding out what the agenda of the new Senate Majority is. It's the same deal as before - legislation that would impose wage mandates on companies receiving IDA incentives, essentially eliminating the benefit of the incentives.
It befuddles us that the two sponsors of this bill come from a region of the state where the legislation would have the most dire impact on job creation - already has, actually, as in the political battle over the state-imposed wage requirements the bill is trying to introduce, over $112MM in projects in Erie and Niagara Counties have languished. Can't somebody from downstate - where wage mandates don't seem to be an issue - carry the water on this one, so Buffalo Niagara doesn't have to wear it?!
The important thing for everyone to remember - and, actually, take the President's lead on it - is that the economy needs to be the absolute focus right now. Not special interest paybacks that will only serve to make things worse. The government should be doing what it can to promote job creation - not the opposite, such as raising the cost of doing business. The Business Council of NYS released this week its latest job statistics for NYS and the report says that private sector job creation needs to be top priority. (We won't even get into the fact here that taxpayer-funded government and educational and health services jobs GREW in the past 12 months while private sector employment plummeted - that's a whole blog in itself. We sure have a handle on "reform" in NY!).
These bills will once again be at the forefront of our "playing defense" advocacy efforts this year - definitely with an increased and more emphatic effort, as all signs point to support in the State Senate. We do, however, look forward to hearing someone try to justify how in this horrific economy wrecking a valuable economic development tool like the IDA is a smart move.
Problem is, this year there's another number to pay attention to, as well - S.1241. That's the Senate version of the same bill, introduced by Senator Thompson. We live in a different New York State now - the previous Senate Majority was effective in halting this damaging bill. We're only just finding out what the agenda of the new Senate Majority is. It's the same deal as before - legislation that would impose wage mandates on companies receiving IDA incentives, essentially eliminating the benefit of the incentives.
It befuddles us that the two sponsors of this bill come from a region of the state where the legislation would have the most dire impact on job creation - already has, actually, as in the political battle over the state-imposed wage requirements the bill is trying to introduce, over $112MM in projects in Erie and Niagara Counties have languished. Can't somebody from downstate - where wage mandates don't seem to be an issue - carry the water on this one, so Buffalo Niagara doesn't have to wear it?!
The important thing for everyone to remember - and, actually, take the President's lead on it - is that the economy needs to be the absolute focus right now. Not special interest paybacks that will only serve to make things worse. The government should be doing what it can to promote job creation - not the opposite, such as raising the cost of doing business. The Business Council of NYS released this week its latest job statistics for NYS and the report says that private sector job creation needs to be top priority. (We won't even get into the fact here that taxpayer-funded government and educational and health services jobs GREW in the past 12 months while private sector employment plummeted - that's a whole blog in itself. We sure have a handle on "reform" in NY!).
These bills will once again be at the forefront of our "playing defense" advocacy efforts this year - definitely with an increased and more emphatic effort, as all signs point to support in the State Senate. We do, however, look forward to hearing someone try to justify how in this horrific economy wrecking a valuable economic development tool like the IDA is a smart move.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Stimulus?
I've been a little confused lately about what's happening in Washington, so I went to dictionary.com and looked up the word "stimulus." Here's the #1 definition: "something that incites to action or exertion or quickens action, feeling, thought, etc." When I think about an economic stimulus, I picture something that incites the economy to action or exertion. But what we're seeing coming out of the "stimulus" bill is not that.
In fact, while there's talk today of removing it from the bill, $200 million for family planning services was included in the stimulus package. Without getting into the politics of family planning, can anyone really justify that a $200 million investment in it will stimulate the economy? Whether it gets pulled out of the bill or not, the fact that such an expenditure is even included in the conversation raises an awful lot of questions about how Washington defines the word "stimulus."
All along (until the bill was actually presented, at least), there has been recognition that the stimulus the American economy needs is the creation of jobs. That's it - jobs. The infrastructure package of the stimulus bill is a good start, but even the "safety net" provisions in the legislation - while it's certainly important to react on behalf of many families going through hard times - are not economic stimulus if they're not creating jobs for people in the near future. It's a "band-aid" approach at a time when that's exactly the opposite of what is needed.
The stimulus bill keeps being likened to the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956, which "paved the way" (pun intended) for the creation of the Eisenhower Highway System. Here's President Eisenhower's thoughts on his "stimulus plan" from his 1963 memoir, Mandate for Change 1953-1956: "More than any single action by the government since the end of the war, this one would change the face of America. ... Its impact on the American economy—the jobs it would produce in manufacturing and construction, the rural areas it would open up—was beyond calculation." (http://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/03may/05.htm)
Do you think anyone in Washington will be able to make a similar statement about this stimulus plan? Let's hope so - because it's the statement that needs to be made.
In fact, while there's talk today of removing it from the bill, $200 million for family planning services was included in the stimulus package. Without getting into the politics of family planning, can anyone really justify that a $200 million investment in it will stimulate the economy? Whether it gets pulled out of the bill or not, the fact that such an expenditure is even included in the conversation raises an awful lot of questions about how Washington defines the word "stimulus."
All along (until the bill was actually presented, at least), there has been recognition that the stimulus the American economy needs is the creation of jobs. That's it - jobs. The infrastructure package of the stimulus bill is a good start, but even the "safety net" provisions in the legislation - while it's certainly important to react on behalf of many families going through hard times - are not economic stimulus if they're not creating jobs for people in the near future. It's a "band-aid" approach at a time when that's exactly the opposite of what is needed.
The stimulus bill keeps being likened to the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956, which "paved the way" (pun intended) for the creation of the Eisenhower Highway System. Here's President Eisenhower's thoughts on his "stimulus plan" from his 1963 memoir, Mandate for Change 1953-1956: "More than any single action by the government since the end of the war, this one would change the face of America. ... Its impact on the American economy—the jobs it would produce in manufacturing and construction, the rural areas it would open up—was beyond calculation." (http://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/03may/05.htm)
Do you think anyone in Washington will be able to make a similar statement about this stimulus plan? Let's hope so - because it's the statement that needs to be made.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Ballast Waters
Last year, the Partnership joined with a number of chambers of commerce throughout the Great Lakes region to create the Great Lakes Business Agenda - a collection of economic development priorities identifying the Great Lakes region as an economic entity. The coalition spent last year fine-tuning the document before presenting it to Great Lakes congressional representatives in September. We're returning to Washington in three weeks for another lobbying visit.
A major focus of the agenda is the bi-national relationship between the United States and Canada when it comes to economic development and it symbiotic nature - we need them as much as they need us. In fact, the Brookings Institution's "A Vital Connection" report says that Canada is the leading market for 39 of the 50 U.S. states, and is a larger market for U.S. goods than all 25 countries of the European Community combined (whose population is more than 15 times that of Canada).
Enter New York State (foreboding music)... Governor Paterson recently proposed changes to New York's ballast water provisions that supersede federal regulations (see the Partnership's letter in opposition). Ballast is water carried in unladen ships to provide stability - and can be a haven for "stowaway" organisms that don't belong in the Great Lakes (remember zebra mussels?). Typically, the goal is to discharge ocean water before entering the Great Lakes.
However, NY's proposed stringent regulations present a problem for Canadian Great Lakes shippers, which, while classified differently never leave the Great Lakes. The proposed regs impose requirements that are 100 times greater than the International Maritime Organization’s for ballast water transfer. The Canadian Shipowners Association reports that out of its domestic fleet of 68 ships, only 18 have certifications to meet the NYS regulation. If these proposed changes happen, it will severely roadblock the state's trade with Canada.
Which wouldn't be a problem were it not for nearly 500,000 jobs in New York State that are supported by U.S.-Canada trade, and for our own region's thriving logistics industry sector. Albany seems to want to step out in front of the rest of the nation (i.e. RGGI) on environmental issues that, while certainly noble, will further our state's uncompetitiveness. Which is why we stay on top of this stuff.
A major focus of the agenda is the bi-national relationship between the United States and Canada when it comes to economic development and it symbiotic nature - we need them as much as they need us. In fact, the Brookings Institution's "A Vital Connection" report says that Canada is the leading market for 39 of the 50 U.S. states, and is a larger market for U.S. goods than all 25 countries of the European Community combined (whose population is more than 15 times that of Canada).
Enter New York State (foreboding music)... Governor Paterson recently proposed changes to New York's ballast water provisions that supersede federal regulations (see the Partnership's letter in opposition). Ballast is water carried in unladen ships to provide stability - and can be a haven for "stowaway" organisms that don't belong in the Great Lakes (remember zebra mussels?). Typically, the goal is to discharge ocean water before entering the Great Lakes.
However, NY's proposed stringent regulations present a problem for Canadian Great Lakes shippers, which, while classified differently never leave the Great Lakes. The proposed regs impose requirements that are 100 times greater than the International Maritime Organization’s for ballast water transfer. The Canadian Shipowners Association reports that out of its domestic fleet of 68 ships, only 18 have certifications to meet the NYS regulation. If these proposed changes happen, it will severely roadblock the state's trade with Canada.
Which wouldn't be a problem were it not for nearly 500,000 jobs in New York State that are supported by U.S.-Canada trade, and for our own region's thriving logistics industry sector. Albany seems to want to step out in front of the rest of the nation (i.e. RGGI) on environmental issues that, while certainly noble, will further our state's uncompetitiveness. Which is why we stay on top of this stuff.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Propaganda vs. Sound Arguments
It's discouraging sometimes that bad legislation gets passed not because of sound arguments but because of sheer momentum. We're working very hard to make sure that doesn't happen with the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA).
Here's a very good radio show on EFCA from yesterday featuring Ken Adams, President of the Business Council of NYS and a union labor attorney, Matthew Tulley. It's long (almost an hour), but a good listen for some education on the issue.
Pretending for a moment that the majority of the callers to the show were not "plants," let's analyze some of the arguments.
Ken Adams was very consistent throughout the entire hour - the business community's message is that employees deserve to have their decision whether or not to organize remain a personal one through secret ballot. Simple. To the point. American.
Here are some comments on the other side from the show:
"Employers hire legal teams to coerce employees to not vote for the union." This comment was incidentally corrected by the union labor attorney on the panel.
"The unions are declining because they're having difficulty organizing companies - and this is one way to help the unions continue to grow." We've yet to hear anyone note that there's a possibility that decline is caused by ineffectiveness... Point in question, in a NY Times article of January 9 regarding EFCA, union leadership discusses labor's benefit if Wal-mart (as an example) and its 1.4 million employees organized - $500 million in new dues. Sadly, little has been said about how Wal-mart's employees would see better days once they've signed the union card. That's reasonable, because no one's under the illusion that focus of this legislation is the employee.
"The only people saying they don't want this are the employers." Check again - secret ballot is a right that Americans hold sacred from their first student council election in elementary school.
We've heard nothing but propaganda. We - with Ken Adams at the Business Council, the U.S. Chamber and other business organizations nationwide - will continue to make what we believe are sound and logical arguments regarding EFCA in defense of employers and employees.
Here's a very good radio show on EFCA from yesterday featuring Ken Adams, President of the Business Council of NYS and a union labor attorney, Matthew Tulley. It's long (almost an hour), but a good listen for some education on the issue.
Pretending for a moment that the majority of the callers to the show were not "plants," let's analyze some of the arguments.
Ken Adams was very consistent throughout the entire hour - the business community's message is that employees deserve to have their decision whether or not to organize remain a personal one through secret ballot. Simple. To the point. American.
Here are some comments on the other side from the show:
"Employers hire legal teams to coerce employees to not vote for the union." This comment was incidentally corrected by the union labor attorney on the panel.
"The unions are declining because they're having difficulty organizing companies - and this is one way to help the unions continue to grow." We've yet to hear anyone note that there's a possibility that decline is caused by ineffectiveness... Point in question, in a NY Times article of January 9 regarding EFCA, union leadership discusses labor's benefit if Wal-mart (as an example) and its 1.4 million employees organized - $500 million in new dues. Sadly, little has been said about how Wal-mart's employees would see better days once they've signed the union card. That's reasonable, because no one's under the illusion that focus of this legislation is the employee.
"The only people saying they don't want this are the employers." Check again - secret ballot is a right that Americans hold sacred from their first student council election in elementary school.
We've heard nothing but propaganda. We - with Ken Adams at the Business Council, the U.S. Chamber and other business organizations nationwide - will continue to make what we believe are sound and logical arguments regarding EFCA in defense of employers and employees.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Laying out the WHTI rules
We worked so hard so long on the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI) issue that I have to share this ad we came across in Conde Nast Traveler magazine. If you remember a couple years back - before WHTI was delayed until June of this year - one of our biggest concerns was how the new policy was being communicated. Or, wasn't being communicated, to be more accurate. There was great confusion over what documents were required to cross the border into Canada, and when they were going to be needed. We did our best as an organization to get the word out locally, but it didn't account for those regional travelers perhaps looking at Buffalo Niagara as a destination.
So, it's good to see some proactive efforts by Washington to let people know what's going to be required of them starting this summer. It was a great victory to get Enhanced Driver's Licenses to be accepted as valid ID for CanAm border crossing - but the most important thing that can happen for the sake of cross border commerce AND for border security is widespread education on the new rules.
So, it's good to see some proactive efforts by Washington to let people know what's going to be required of them starting this summer. It was a great victory to get Enhanced Driver's Licenses to be accepted as valid ID for CanAm border crossing - but the most important thing that can happen for the sake of cross border commerce AND for border security is widespread education on the new rules.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
The Big Day
Without reiterating the importance and historic nature of today, it's important to note what the Obama presidency will mean to our efforts at the Buffalo Niagara Partnership, and our work in building the Buffalo Niagara regional economy.
Immediately, we hope that the President's transportation infrastructure economic stimulus plan can become a reality, though the industry seems to be saying that the plan unveiled by the House last week is not all it was cracked up to be. It is unfortunate that in trying fiscal times the sense from Washington is that bailing out states that refuse to reform their costly ways is preferable to putting people to work - and we'll continue to make that point with our reps.
On the positive side, the timing for the implementation of the Great Lakes Business Agenda - a collaborative effort among chambers of commerce from throughout the Great Lakes region - couldn't be better. There is high hope that a president who understands the challenges and opportunities of the "rust belt" Great Lakes economy will be of great benefit to the region.
On the negative side, President Obama said in his campaign that one of his top priorities was the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act, which I've covered extensively in this blog. This "game changing" legislation would seriously hamper our ability to implement a pro-business legislative agenda at any level of government. Our hope is that given the reins of an executive, the new President will take into consideration the damage that some of the items he may have supported as a candidate/legislator would cause, and act accordingly (there are rumblings that he's doing so).
Those are a sampling of issues, and certainly there are more that we as an organization will be monitoring. As we all know, there's a big difference between candidacy and incumbency, and we'll look forward to President Obama defining the political landscape in the early days of his presidency.
Immediately, we hope that the President's transportation infrastructure economic stimulus plan can become a reality, though the industry seems to be saying that the plan unveiled by the House last week is not all it was cracked up to be. It is unfortunate that in trying fiscal times the sense from Washington is that bailing out states that refuse to reform their costly ways is preferable to putting people to work - and we'll continue to make that point with our reps.
On the positive side, the timing for the implementation of the Great Lakes Business Agenda - a collaborative effort among chambers of commerce from throughout the Great Lakes region - couldn't be better. There is high hope that a president who understands the challenges and opportunities of the "rust belt" Great Lakes economy will be of great benefit to the region.
On the negative side, President Obama said in his campaign that one of his top priorities was the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act, which I've covered extensively in this blog. This "game changing" legislation would seriously hamper our ability to implement a pro-business legislative agenda at any level of government. Our hope is that given the reins of an executive, the new President will take into consideration the damage that some of the items he may have supported as a candidate/legislator would cause, and act accordingly (there are rumblings that he's doing so).
Those are a sampling of issues, and certainly there are more that we as an organization will be monitoring. As we all know, there's a big difference between candidacy and incumbency, and we'll look forward to President Obama defining the political landscape in the early days of his presidency.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Why "Boot Camp"?
Why did we choose to name our advocacy training program "Advocacy Boot Camp"?
Open the newspaper or switch on the 6:00 news... We're at war.
No, I'm not talking about what's going on in the Middle East - I'm talking about the reality of what the business community is facing in a decidedly anti-business political environment. As the nationwide economic crisis rears its ugly head, what are the solutions that are being presented by state governments? Raise taxes? Put more of a burden on employers and families? Economists are worried that the diametrically opposed philosophies of Washington and the states on how to deal with the recession could actually undermine the federal effort to create jobs.
It's not a stretch to reference "war," and describe our everyday efforts as "battles." Think about some of the things we're opposing here at the Partnership:
In NYS Comptroller Tom DiNapoli's report issued today, he said, "We have to use this crisis as an opportunity to fix what’s been broken for so long." That echoes our message - one that we've been trumpeting for "so long." The political will to change has not been there so far, in fact, with the examples above, it often appears that our elected leaders are headed in the opposite direction.
As a result, we're at war. Join us for "boot camp."
Open the newspaper or switch on the 6:00 news... We're at war.
No, I'm not talking about what's going on in the Middle East - I'm talking about the reality of what the business community is facing in a decidedly anti-business political environment. As the nationwide economic crisis rears its ugly head, what are the solutions that are being presented by state governments? Raise taxes? Put more of a burden on employers and families? Economists are worried that the diametrically opposed philosophies of Washington and the states on how to deal with the recession could actually undermine the federal effort to create jobs.
It's not a stretch to reference "war," and describe our everyday efforts as "battles." Think about some of the things we're opposing here at the Partnership:
- A slew of proposed taxes and fees coming from Albany on everything from health insurance to trout fishing - rather than wholesale changes in the way Albany operates;
- An IDA bill that would inflict wage mandates on any companies receiving IDA incentives - a frightening foray into government dictating to private business how they spend money and the nature of their relationship with their employees;
- A federal bill - Card Check - that would provide a much easier path to organization of private companies' employees by revoking secret ballot rights.
In NYS Comptroller Tom DiNapoli's report issued today, he said, "We have to use this crisis as an opportunity to fix what’s been broken for so long." That echoes our message - one that we've been trumpeting for "so long." The political will to change has not been there so far, in fact, with the examples above, it often appears that our elected leaders are headed in the opposite direction.
As a result, we're at war. Join us for "boot camp."
Monday, January 12, 2009
Sometimes you win...
The New York Times has a thing for Buffalo. Over the weekend, the Times listed Buffalo as one of the "44 places to go in 2009" - recommended 37th out of the 44. Of course, in classic John Stevens-American Idol style, we Western New Yorkers have gotten ahold of the feature and have recommended Buffalo up to #6 on the chart (click on "Reader Recommendations"). And this isn't just a list of possible regional destinations - they've listed ideas from all over the world. It's good company.
It's amazing the number of lists that we make. Even more amazing is the variety of lists. You have to keep a tally of good ones versus bad. Here's a sampling from the last couple years (I'm stealing some of this material here from Dr. Rudnick's remarks at the Business Council's Annual Meeting this past September):
It's amazing the number of lists that we make. Even more amazing is the variety of lists. You have to keep a tally of good ones versus bad. Here's a sampling from the last couple years (I'm stealing some of this material here from Dr. Rudnick's remarks at the Business Council's Annual Meeting this past September):
- One of America’s Top 10 Fastest-Dying Cities (see our response to this one!) AND the nation’s 5th best mid-sized market for relocating families;
- The nation’s 2nd poorest city AND the country’s 5th fastest growing real estate market;
- Second in the nation for most expensive places to heat a home AND fourth in the nation in housing affordability;
- The 3rd cleanest city in the nation AND among the worst for allergies; and finally,
- The 3rd most “miserable” sports city in America AND among the top 25 cities nationwide for cultural activities.
The Times has helped us start off 2009 well. Maybe it's a sign of good "lists" to come.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
No State of Upstate
Governor Paterson made a special announcement yesterday that he will not be presenting a "State of Upstate" address this year. How's that great '80s song go? "Don't know what you've got 'til it's gone..." We'll find out.
The governor's reasoning is sound enough - it's not just Upstate, but all of New York State that's in an economic mess. To a great degree, a separate speech written just for Upstate was symbolic. It certainly made us all feel good. And it came with the (proposed) $1B Upstate Revitalization Fund. Well, there's no $1B forthcoming this year, so for the governor to produce a speech just for the purposes of identifying Upstate as an entity - his alternative to hold a series of town hall meetings through Upstate (Buffalo's tentatively scheduled for Feb. 18) seems like a more beneficial course of action.
Of course, from our perspective, we've spent the last three years (and how many before that) with Unshackle Upstate pointing out the challenges that Upstate businesses face. And believe me - we're not going to begrudge Downstate if the reforms we propose help them too - which we believe they will. In fact, in a response to the governor's budget proposal last month, Unshackle Upstate reminded him that there are many possible reforms on the table that would create jobs, spur private sector investment and cut the cost of NYS government for taxpayers. And - as is the governor's stated goal - they are changes that would benefit every region across the state.
I suppose that using circular logic that the governor's making special mention of not having a separate Upstate address - with a specific justification for not doing so - is symbolic in itself. It's still positive attention. In the end, a speech doesn't create jobs.
The governor's reasoning is sound enough - it's not just Upstate, but all of New York State that's in an economic mess. To a great degree, a separate speech written just for Upstate was symbolic. It certainly made us all feel good. And it came with the (proposed) $1B Upstate Revitalization Fund. Well, there's no $1B forthcoming this year, so for the governor to produce a speech just for the purposes of identifying Upstate as an entity - his alternative to hold a series of town hall meetings through Upstate (Buffalo's tentatively scheduled for Feb. 18) seems like a more beneficial course of action.
Of course, from our perspective, we've spent the last three years (and how many before that) with Unshackle Upstate pointing out the challenges that Upstate businesses face. And believe me - we're not going to begrudge Downstate if the reforms we propose help them too - which we believe they will. In fact, in a response to the governor's budget proposal last month, Unshackle Upstate reminded him that there are many possible reforms on the table that would create jobs, spur private sector investment and cut the cost of NYS government for taxpayers. And - as is the governor's stated goal - they are changes that would benefit every region across the state.
I suppose that using circular logic that the governor's making special mention of not having a separate Upstate address - with a specific justification for not doing so - is symbolic in itself. It's still positive attention. In the end, a speech doesn't create jobs.
Monday, January 5, 2009
Some IDA Projects Continue to Languish
Absent from Governor Paterson's budget proposal last month was a measure that the statewide business community was hoping he would include - the extension of civic facilities authority for IDAs. It has now been a year that the IDAs have not been able to issue tax-exempt bonds for "civic facilities" projects - such as schools, hospitals and senior homes (examples in Buffalo Niagara include projects at Children's Hospital, D'Youville College and Tapestry Charter School). The New York State Economic Development Council estimates that over $2B in civic facilities projects are on hold statewide (ECIDA tells us over $100MM in Erie County; NCIDA says $12MM in Niagara County). You want to talk about an economic stimulus package that will put people to work?!!! Let's get $2 billion in projects across the state moving without spending a dime of taxpayer money!
The sticking point: There's a labor-backed bill that is perpetually introduced by Assemblyman Hoyt that does extend the civic facilities component of the IDA legislation, but also does a lot of other things to the IDAs. Among those "other things" are wage mandates - prevailing wage on all IDA-incentivized construction projects, and "living wage" on all companies receiving IDA incentives. It is very important to economic development in New York State - particularly Upstate - that the civic facilities piece be extended without the wage mandates attached. While the Partnership has engaged in the statewide effort to see these projects move forward, we have been firm in our opposition to the mandates.
Both labor and the business community essentially want the same thing - people working in good-paying jobs in a thriving economy. But from an economic competitiveness standpoint, trying to create personal wealth legislatively sends a clear message to businesses that government is going to be an imposition. IDA incentives were created to be a way around the high taxes and burdensome regulations in NYS. Using them as control over how private sector businesses operate is a mistake - one that will continue to drive jobs away.
We will continue to advocate for the extension of the civic facilities - but not at the expense of giving control of private sector business decisions such as wage rates to government.
The sticking point: There's a labor-backed bill that is perpetually introduced by Assemblyman Hoyt that does extend the civic facilities component of the IDA legislation, but also does a lot of other things to the IDAs. Among those "other things" are wage mandates - prevailing wage on all IDA-incentivized construction projects, and "living wage" on all companies receiving IDA incentives. It is very important to economic development in New York State - particularly Upstate - that the civic facilities piece be extended without the wage mandates attached. While the Partnership has engaged in the statewide effort to see these projects move forward, we have been firm in our opposition to the mandates.
Both labor and the business community essentially want the same thing - people working in good-paying jobs in a thriving economy. But from an economic competitiveness standpoint, trying to create personal wealth legislatively sends a clear message to businesses that government is going to be an imposition. IDA incentives were created to be a way around the high taxes and burdensome regulations in NYS. Using them as control over how private sector businesses operate is a mistake - one that will continue to drive jobs away.
We will continue to advocate for the extension of the civic facilities - but not at the expense of giving control of private sector business decisions such as wage rates to government.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)