Quick Takes (v4): Cuomo's ED

Quick Takes

This past Sunday, Post Standard guest columnist David M. Rubin slammed our Sonofa Governor Andrew Cuomo's economic development programs - and the best part was, he used Cuomo's own words.  Take a look:

At least Gov. Andrew Cuomo was correct about one issue in his recent State of the State address: "The cold truth is that this state government shortchanged Upstate New York for many years. And that was short-sighted." 

Indeed, it has been short-sighted - and will continue to be exactly that going forward with the Sonofa Gov.  Why?

Well as Rubin points out, Cuomo proposes specific money for specific projects in NYC. Here are the examples Rubin mentioned:

• billions for the NYC subway system
• billions for a new LaGuardia Airport
• billions for the LIRR and Metro North
• billions for a new rail-tunnel link to NJ
• billions to rebuild Penn Station
• billions to modernize the Javits Convention Center

If I didn't know better, I'd think Cuomo was channeling Carl Sagan. 

For those of us here in the hinterlands, that vast expanse of New York referred to by politicians and reporter as 'Upstate',  though, it's a different story. We don't get a lot of specific handouts from the Gov - instead, we get to have competitions for economic development, competitions that pit region against region, company against company, and that stifle particular industries if they're not in the chosen region as dictated by the Governor's team. 

At the same time as he has held steady (since 2008) the amount of state aid given to municipalities, Cuomo has capped property tax increases and presses for consolidation across the state, as if, Rubin notes, we are to blame for our high taxes. In that, Cuomo ignored unfunded mandates, about which every impacted governmental jurisdiction has been complaining for decades.

But we did get a convoluted, patchwork Thruway toll give-back, to go along with all of the other patchwork plans Cuomo and his predecessors have rolled out over the years.

Like this, my favorite.

Rubin has stirred the pot on this subject before -- my Hell Hath No Fury series recaps his opinions and the reactions to them. You don't have to agree with everything he says, but if you think about the opinions and the responses to them, you might not watch the pretty commercials on the Empire State's glowing economic development programs (one of those which is running in the background as I type this) - the same way again.

And, I think, you'll see that not a whole lot has really changed, no matter how slick the commercials, how glorious the speeches, or how well-packaged the competition plans.

I'll have more on economic development, the SOTS, and the Consensus report in upcoming posts.

Hell Hath No Fury...(Part 3)

...like an economic development project scorned.

In the first two parts, I discussed the reactions of Onondaga County Executive Joanie Mahoney and former Syracuse City Auditor Minch Lewis to a column by SU professor David Rubin, who had a few words to say about how it appears Syracuse is being treated by our Sonova Governor Andrew Cuomo when it comes to economic development cash.  Compared to Buffalo, and to Albany, it seems we're getting a different kind of attention. Rubin feels we're getting short shrift, and wasn't shy about saying so.

Assemblyman William Magnarelli (who happens to be my guy in Albany) represents Syracuse's Northside, Valley, West Side and Eastwood, as well as the towns of Geddes and VanBuren.  He's been in Albany for over a dozen years; he was also on the Syracuse Common Council.  Basically, he's a hometown guy who's devoted much of his life to public service.

He too took exception to Rubin's column, noting that he

was startled to read the column...which painted a misleading, inaccurate and distorted picture of Syracuse and Central New York's economy.

We have cranes in the sky, Magnarelli noted, and shovels in the ground.  He also specifically called out the CNY Biotech Accelerator at Loguen's Crossing, which opened early last year.  So far, that's the only development that's happened at the Loguen's Crossing site, although, according to Magnarelli

In addition to the accelerator, the Kennedy Square neighborhood now has new life, supported by state funds, as it is to be redeveloped with office buildings, residential and retail space...

Some of that remains to be seen -- we still don't know what COR Development and Upstate have planned for the site; we now know that at least for the near term, there won't be a stadium there.

Magnarelli pointed out that under the Cuomo administration, Central New York has received over $264 million, through the Central New York Regional Economic Development Council (REDC):

• In 2011, our region received $103.7 million, including $3M for the Inner Harbor, $3M for the Syracuse Center of Excellence, $1.95M for the Biotech Center, and smaller amounts for 71 other projects across the region.
• In 2012, we got $93.8 million; big winners were an expansion of the Syracuse Community Health Center ($3.1M), development of the Sibley's building, a key property connecting Armory Square and Salina Street ($2.5M); LeMoyne College medical product development labs ($2M), the Inner Harbor (another $1.5M), and Kennedy Square/Loguen's Crossing (another $1M).
• In 2013, the award was $66.9 million. Among the larger projects are new facilities for Inficon ($3M), renovations of the vacant NYNEX building across from City Hall ($2.5M), the Inner Harbor ($1.3M), an expansion for GA Braun ($1.5M), the Inland Port project ($1M), a warehouse on the Near West Side ($1M), expanded facilities for Hanford Manufacturing ($1M). There were also a number of smaller awards. 

In the overall scheme of things, 264 million bucks is a lot of money to get in a short period of time, and it's a good thing that we're getting it.  Being a top performer two years out of three, some key opportunities for local businesses, and additional funding for some of our better known project like the Inner Harbor and, again, Loguen's Crossing, the proposed home for our no-longer-likely stadium project -- these are all good things. 

But Rubin's point was about the apparent disparity between what we're getting here and what the other areas are getting.  In that regard, here's how Buffalo and Albany did over the past three years:

• In 2011, $100.3M to Buffalo, and $62.7M went to Albany
• In 2012, $52.8M to Buffalo, $50.3M to Albany
• In 2013, $60.8M to Buffalo, $82.8M to Albany

So, $213.9M to Buffalo, and $195.8M to Albany -- looks like were the big winner right?  Well, no.  The REDC money is in addition to to the Buffalo Billion and the Albany nanotech investments which are in the same billion-dollar neighborhood. Doesn't that look like a disparity?

Magnarelli went on to talk about the Lakefront plan, calling it "visionary" when it's really not. It's not completely without benefit -- there's a lot of money for infrastructure to help attract new businesses to the area -- but it does allocate about half of the money on a seasonal concert arena (think OnPAC, like CMAC or SPAC).  That, too was one of Rubin's points. Is a new concert venue (and a fair-weather one at that) going to help drive our economy forward, given the current state of our cultural affairs? It's a valid question.

We are making some progress, to Magnarelli's point - but like Minch Lewis before him, and Joanie Mahoney before him, he faults Rubin for not being a joyous go-along.

There are cranes in the Syracuse skyline, shovels in the ground in the Inner Harbor and a new energy. And for much of this, we can thank the state for its focus on this region. Instead of complaining and distorting the facts, we should be working together to build on the progress and continue to bring vital investments to Syracuse and Central New York. 

It's good to celebrate opportunities that are coming our way, but it's also good to maintain a healthy skepticism when politicians start throwing around tax dollars. It's good to get the dollars, but it's also good to challenge our leaders to make sure we're getting the most bang for those bucks.

The underlying theme that ran through all three parts of this series was the criticism that Rubin took for offering an opposing and, admittedly somewhat sarcastic, view on economic development in our area. He brought no shame or harm to our community by saying what he said, but instead got people talking, the dissenters and champions alike. I'd hazard a guess that more people heard of Loguen's Crossing in the past two months than at any time other than the first couple of days after the project was announced a few years back.

But in the final analysis, doesn't if feel a little like our politicians are afraid that Rubin's column may have had the potential to shut off the tap for Syracuse and Central New York, to damage our chances for future projects funded by Albany's largess?

I hope that's not the case -- because if it is, we are in much worse shape than Rubin ever imagined.

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.

Hell Hath No Fury... (Part 1)

...like an economic development project scorned.

There's been a flurry of public hand-slapping in response to the opinion expressed by SU professor David Rubin that Syracuse is getting the short end of the stick when it comes to Governor Cuomo's economic development handouts.  County Executive Joanie Mahoney (in part 1), former City Auditor Minch Lewis (in part 2), and State Assemblyman William Magnarelli (in part 3) have all chimed in.

Now I'm going to.

Rubin noted in his column, A Tale of Three Cities, that there seems to be quite a difference in what's happening in Buffalo and Albany compared to what's going on here in Syracuse and Onondaga County. Personally I didn't think the column was negative (although it did have a bit of sting). I agree with Rubin, looking at the Buffalo Billion particularly, that it seems we're not being offered (or else we're not taking advantage of) similar opportunities.

Rubin chastised Mahoney and Cuomo, as well as some members of the Common Council, for the stadium plan, and supported Mayor Stephanie Miner in her decision to say no. He also had some thoughts about the 'replacement plans' for the development along the west side of Onondaga Lake, with the amphitheater being the centerpiece of the project.

All of Rubin's attempted wit or sarcasm aside, even if  Mahoney disagrees with him, which she does, strongly, is this really the reaction you'd expect from someone in her position?

Public service is not easy...I think I speak for many when I say the abuse we take when we put ourselves out there to help our communities is annoying. The negativity is loud and you are just one of the many naysayers who stand back and throw stones from afar. Instead, why don't you pitch in to help? If you think you have ideas worth considering, why don't you throw your hat in the ring and get involved? Your column has caused real harm, not only to Syracuse University but to our entire community. I think you owe an apology to the members of the City council you insulted, to the Governor, to your employer and our entire region for your irresponsible words...

Those comments came at the end of her scathing reply to Rubin; here's the end of his response to Mahoney:

I am a columnist. Columnists and journalists "get involved" by asking questions, stimulating debate, and adding to the marketplace of ideas.  That is our role in a democracy. I would of course serve Onondaga County and the City of Syracuse in other ways if asked. I have never been asked (and I guess that option is now pretty much dead)...

I'm hoping that she at least cracked a smile at that last part. At the same time, I wonder what wrath might rain down upon my head for being a citizen with an opinion?

How exactly did Rubin's column cause real harm?  His words did not bring about the end of the stadium deal; nor did they cause any businesses to pack up and leave, nor did they likely scare any businesses away from coming here. In his commentary,I don't think he exposed a single fact or opinion that can't be found in a casual review of comments in any local media outlet's discussion forums. Truth be told, he was much kinder and gentler than many of those who comment anonymously.

His words will not have any impact on the proposed project for development on the west side of Onondaga Lake.  Those plans, considered visionary by some, are actually reflective of all of the ideas that have been tossed around since the 1920s. I'd suggest that the inability of government, businesses, and civic leaders to get a plan implemented over the past eight or nine decades, as well as changing winds of fortune, the global economy, free trade, climate change, rock and roll, and Miley Cyrus have done far more real harm here and elsewhere than Rubin's words earlier this month.

And those words certainly haven't damaged SU's reputation in any way. As the home of the Newhouse School,  SU should support not only Rubin's right to express his opinion, but also understand that not all of their 1,100 or so full- and part-time faculty would agree with the plan to move out of the Carrier Dome and into a challenged area of the city. I suspect many of the 21,000+ students and thousands of alumni - or current ticket holders for that matter - also weren't consulted and might also express disapproval, if given the forum Rubin has.

We can't all be politicians, but we are all entitled to our opinions. And in my opinion, throwing stones at someone for throwing stones is, well, kind of silly. I'm glad Rubin didn't apologize; had he, I wouldn't have accepted it.

I wish that Joanie Mahoney - someone I've supported in every election where I've had the opportunity - might consider apologizing to him and the rest of the people in this community who, like Joanie, have staked a claim here and who, like Joanie, want to make this a better place to live.