Hell Hath No Fury... (Part 2)

...like an economic development project scorned.

In Part 1, I talked about Joanie Mahoney's response (referred to as "fire-breathing" by the local paper) to SU professor David Rubin's commentary on how economic development dollars are being shared with Buffalo, Albany, and Syracuse. Rubin included a sharp rebuke to our Sonova Governor, Mahoney, and several Syracuse Common Councilors about the wisdom of the stadium project and/or  the Onondaga Lakefront development plans.

The second person to chime in on Rubin's column was Minch Lewis, our former City Auditor, who rose to the defense of Mahoney, the stadium plan, and the difficulty of doing economic development.

First, on Rubin's criticism of the stadium plan:

...Rubin refers to economic development from stadiums as "mindless pieties." He claims that there is evidence that economic benefits do not flow from stadium development. There are several studies related to public funding for sports facilities.They are concerned with financing for professional sports. But they do not apply to Syracuse where the goal is to support a nationally recognized collegiate athletic program. 

Notice anything? While faulting Rubin for using the 'wrong' studies, Lewis presents no 'right' studies supporting public funding for nationally recognized collegiate athletic programs. Absent any facts to the contrary, wouldn't the studies Rubin references be the current data on which our analysis should be based?

Here's the conclusion from one study I found after a quick search; to Lewis's point, it's not specific to college stadiums, but

There is little evidence of large increases in income or employment associated with the introduction of professional sports or the construction of new stadiums.

Rubin further noted that "it won't take long" to assess the value of the stadium project, pointing out that increased ticket prices for the same number of events played by the same two teams that currently play in the Carrier Dome is not really economic development.

Lewis counters with

In actuality, it would take a long time and is beyond Rubin's and my expertise. Such an evaluation would involve many inter-related economic factors. Simplifying it to "25 events" and an "increased in ticket and concession prices" is a disservice to the community dialogue. 

Again, are we to ignore what's happened on the North Side since the stadium was built?  The Regional Market is booming but NOT during ballgame hours, and NOT because of the stadium. The mall is doing well, but NOT because of the stadium. The community was promised use of the stadium for a number of days a year, for instance for concerts -- and THAT hasn't happened either. No hotels, no restaurants, no cool housing or funky retail, all the promised development and growth from that project? THAT hasn't happened either.

Maybe being downtown would make a difference and give us the opportunity to benefit from all of the spin-off development. That's what everyone thought all those years ago when the Chiefs stadium was discussed and the decision not to build downtown was made.

Maybe COR Development, who is already supposed to be turning the Kennedy Square area in to a mixed-use development in cooperation with SUNY Upstate, really would have built the other stuff that was to go along with the new project. There certainly hasn't been much of anything going on in that area since the announcement of the partnership with Upstate in December 2011.

Upstate and COR do not have specific plans for the site yet, nor a firm estimate of what it will cost to redevelop it...an office building will probably the first project built within the next two years. That would allow Upstate to reduce the amount of office space it leases.  (Dr. David) Smith said he expects the redevelopment to be paid for almost entirely with private funding.  The project will pay property taxes.

Ah - there's the rub.  Private funding and property taxes -- two things that are anathema to developers. Maybe COR will come forward and ask for public money and actually get something moving on that site now?

The second report I found on stadium development offers up a very nice summary of what the pro-funding and anti-funding sides claim about this type of project, and concludes with these cautions:

In negotiating whether or not to subsidize construction of a new stadium, it is important to consider whether or not the proposed stadium is sited and designed in a fashion that integrates the interest of the team, the neighbors, and the city at large. It is also important to ask whether or not this facility might be able to share in some of the infrastructure costs that the city might be ready to spend on projects, and how expenditures on stadium subsidies might integrate with other public interests. With these issues properly addressed, one will be better equipped at deciding whether or not subsidizing sports stadium construction in your locale fits within the greater interests of the constituents at play. 

I get the sense from everything I've read on the proposed deal that the conversations that did occur did not seem to include all of the "constituents at play." Certainly, not bringing in Mayor Stephanie Miner until the conversations were at least fairly well along seems ill-advised from a consensus-building perspective, if not politically incorrect. As I noted previously, I wonder how Joanie Mahoney would have felt had her neighbors all gotten together with a plan to re-landscape her backyard, without engaging her in the discussion.

 If you read this column by Sean Kirst from last June (perhaps he knew more than he let on at the time), you'll see he recommends bringing all of the constituents together, by way of a civic arena panel, to start a long-term discussion on how to more forward. Rubin pointed out that this didn't happen, and he was right.

Lewis went on to blast Rubin for exposing our region's truth: we have infrastructure issues, we have a struggling arts community, we have a number of facilities in need of repair already in our inventory.

Here's Lewis:

Further, statements about the deficiencies of our community's facilities are not smart marketing if we are trying to compete for more external business. The venues that Rubin refers to were state-of-the-art in their design. Along with Symphoria and all our cultural programs, they need additional resources. And state funding should be pursued. But the funds that would support the stadium or concern pavilion would come from a different source . Both should be pursued, not one at the expense of the other. (emphasis added)

Three comments on this:

1. When did it become wrong for citizens to speak openly about our issues? Is that something that only politicians, former politicians or reporters can do?  Are we taxpayers not allowed to comment on the good, the bad and the ugly?
2. Is 'smart marketing' pretending that the customers we're talking to are not paying attention? That they can't read? There's nothing that Rubin put forward that hasn't been said already, many times, by many people, including our own elected officials. 
3. All government funding comes from the same source - taxpayer dollars. You can call them fees, or taxes, or surcharges, or tolls, or special assessments - but they're dollars that people and businesses pay. What bucket they come out of once they get to Albany or Washington doesn't really matter - the 'source' is still us. And we need elected officials, at every level, to be reasonable when spending them. Sometimes that means investing in old things instead of new; sometimes it'll go the other way.

Minch Lewis is a strong supporter of our region - that's clear based on his many contributions to the dialogue  over time. But he's also pointed out Syracuse's economic woes  and those of our regional economy in print.  Is David Rubin not allowed the same privilege?

Here are the final thoughts from our former City Auditor:

In conclusion, there are two lessons in this exercise. The first is that economic development is an extremely difficult task...many economic development projects have been funded in our area. But we still need more... In pursuing those resources our community's dedicated economic development specialists are facing the competitive challenges from other regions that have the same needs we do. Their efforts should be celebrated. Secondly, the community dialogue should be solidly rooted in analysis that is balanced and accurate. Then decisions that determine our future can be made through our official procedures and elected representatives. 

He's right. Economic development is hard, and we are all competing against each other, and we have gotten some projects, and we need to pursue more of them that will promote increased tax revenue (property tax or sales tax), encourage people to live and raise families here, and truly generate or enable additional economic development.

While it certainly bears noting that Mahoney and her team bounced back with the plans for opening up development on the west side of Onondaga Lake, now it will be up to a different set of elected officials - the ones in Albany, not the ones sitting in downtown Syracuse -- to put the proposal through our official procedures and reach a decision on  whether the funding will be approved.

One can only hope that their analysis will be balanced and accurate, and that they at least support those parts of the Onondaga Lake plan that offer the best opportunity for our future:  the $20 million for infrastructure improvements, $2 million for demolishing blighted properties, $1.8 million for road improvements, and the money for waste water treatment. Those are things that will make that part of the county ripe for development in ways that a seasonal amphitheater and water taxis can't.