The Update Desk: Vending Machine Tax Breaks (Again)

Time for another update on the section 485-a tax exemption New York State offers to developers of historic buildings.

That's the one that's designed to get historic buildings repurposed into mixed use properties and back on the tax rolls. Here's the chronology of my posts on this subject, starting with this Meanwhile Back in Albany post back in July 2018.

Got a vending machine? Get a tax break!  Wouldn't that make a great billboard along the highways leading into all of the cities, towns and villages in upstate New York, instead of those silly signs we have on the Thruway?

Can you imagine anything so silly? Of course you can - it's economic development incentives we're talking about, and we're in New York.

State law created the tax break to help turn old and underused buildings into the kinds of places that filled downtowns in the old days. The idea was to restore the buildings with upper-floor apartments and street-level businesses - restaurants, offices and stores - to bring back the bustle of urban life.  

For Copper Beech Commons, vending machines did the trick. Without the tax break the owner would pay $560,000 a year in property taxes. With the vending machine incentive, the annual bill comes to less than $33,000.  

There were 39 properties in Syracuse getting the 12-year exemptions, the first eight years of which are fully exempt. Many of the properties here do have legitimate commercial enterprises, located in renovated historic properties - others, however, don't have commercial space and/or are in brand new properties built on land where historic structures were demolished.

In August of 2018, I had my first update on this, talking about Copper Beech Commons again.

A small office at the property has been cleaned up, with new doors added, to try and entice a small business to lease the space and preserve the tax break. Why? Well, as city assessment commissioner David Clifford noted,

Vending machines are not a commercial use, especially when they're owned and operated by the building owner. As far as I'm concerned, that's just like having a washing machine in the basement.

The assessors last warned the developer that the vending machines did not count for the exemption four or five years ago, so there should have been no surprise that there could be problems once the last (and only) tenant of the space moved out in 2015.

I wished the developer well in finding a tenant, but

More importantly, I hope we can count on city officials to consistently be good stewards of our tax dollars, and that our legislators can find a way to correct these 'good ideas gone bad' laws...

In the second update, I let you know that the NYS Assembly passed a bill submitted by local Assemblyman Bill Magnarelli to cut opportunities for abuses.  Among the changes?

• limits on the commercial purposes and uses that can quality, and they must be publicly accessible;
• at least 75% of the floor area of an eligible building must be a pure-existing structure;

• annual certification of properties to ensure the developer is in compliance; and

• revoking the tax benefits of non-compliant properties, as well as penalties if someone makes a material misstatement on their application for the tax break.

 And today, we learned (again from reporting by Knauss) that the Syracuse Common Council took action:

The council voted unanimously to amend local law by giving the assessor more explicit authority to reject applications for the so-called 485-a exemption, which the city first adopted in 2010. The amendment specifically aims to exclude projects that involve demolishing old building to make way for new construction. 

You know - projects like those brand new luxury student apartments, for which the developers get around $4M a year in 485-a tax breaks.

The amended Syracuse law says the assessment office should "narrowly construe" the 485-a exemption by excluding "projects that primarily consists of demolition of the existing real property (i.e. 60% or more of the existing building.)"

The second measure passed by the council Monday asks state legislators to further clarify the law on 485-a exemptions. 

This is a good step, even though it will only apply to new development, not the existing abusive properties. Mayor Ben Walsh is said to support the legislation; but won't make a final decision on the bill until after an upcoming public hearing.

Now, if the State Senate can get it passed (fingers crossed), we'll get this fixed for good.

The Update Desk: Fair Redistricting

A couple of updates related to my Grains of Salt post on voters in Syracuse approving a change to the city's Charter to bring us independent, fair redistricting:

First, Syracuse's Common Council President Helen Hudson talked with folks at WAER, our local PBS affiliate, about redistricting in general and what we might expect down the road.

The proposition was approved by a 76% to 23% margin, and Hudson, who says we're long overdue for a redistricting, "appreciates the strong support" the measure received. She gave just one example of  why we need to redraw the maps.

We know within the last twenty years, we've had a really huge influx of new Americans, and most of them are packed into District One, which is overpopulated. So we need to start looking at how we can reshape some of these districts and give people representation.

She also pointed out one of the things that drives people crazy about how districts are drawn: that there are places where multiple councilors represent portions of the same street, making it hard for residents to figure out who represents them - and, I'd add, potentially make it harder for neighborhoods like this have cohesive representation.

Hudson said that the next step is "to engage citizens in public hearings," with the goal of getting input on how the independent commission should be created.

We're going to be looking at civic involvement, how often you voted, demographics, racial makeups... We're going to be looking at a whole gamut of things to ensure that everyone gets the representation they deserve. 

She noted that folks interested in being on the commission will be able to apply, and said that the City Auditor, with no stake in the district maps, would receive resumes in the interest of keeping this process independent. She also noted that our officials are looking to other cities which have already gone this way for guidance, including Austin, Texas.

Also from our friends at WAER, we've learned that we have our first candidate for the DeFrancisco-Antonacci seat in the NY State Senate.

At an announcement held at Syracuse's Schiller Park, John Mannion announced he will run for the seat. Mannion, you'll recall, lost to Antonacci in a close race to fill the seat after DeFrancisco retired.

I've done it before, you know. A lot of the things in the platform are the same; it has to do with the environment, it has to do with the economics of the region, and education is always going to be important to me. We have have a positive change in the teacher evaluation system, but we still don't have a fair funding formula that's working for school districts. 

It's still not known whether there'll be a special election for the seat, but the Sonofa Gov, Andrew Cuomo, seems to be leaning in that direction, according to this report from one of our local TV stations.

The day after the election, when it appeared that Senator Antonacci would likely win one of the three State Supreme Court seats, Cuomo said that his "inclination would be to call a special election" if Antonacci resigns

He's already got another special election to call -- the one to fill the seat vacated when disgraced Congressman Chris Collins resigned and pleaded guilty in his federal insider trading case. And, it's "most cost effective" to have the special election on New York's primary day, Cuomo suggested, since the polls will be open anyway, and it's possible that the open State Senate seat could be handled the same day.

The problem, of course, is that waiting until April 28th would leave parts of Onondaga and Cayuga Counties without representation during the first four months of the legislative session which amounts to around 70% of the 57-day session. Having it sooner - it could happen sometime in March, I guess, based on the typically difficult rules for special elections, but that would be up to the Governor.

I'll go out on a limb here and suggest that folks in the district would rather spend the money and have someone representing them, than the alternatives: waiting until the session is almost over, or having someone appointed to fill out the term and letting the parties do their primary thing, with winners to face off in the general election in November.

Grains of Salt (v51): Fair Redistricting Matters

Grains of Salt

Last Tuesday, voters in the city of Syracuse approved a proposition that will lead to creation of an independent commission of city residents to handle the Common Council redistricting after the 2020 census.

Many folks are at least tangentially aware of issues with redistricting around the country; for example, the Supreme Court has heard a number of cases over the years, dealing with issues of race, population, who gets to do the redistricting, and whether partisanship is good or bad.

Personally, I'm not a fan of having politicians do their own redistricting; we've seen too, too many times how this works to benefit them and not us. That doesn't mean that all politicians are bad, or self-serving, or more interested in their own longevity - but there's so many examples of exactly that,  like this battle in Pennsylvania, or this one in North Carolina, that I'd rather someone like me tried to figure out. 

The rules for Syracuse that our vote amended say that if any of the five districts falls below 15% or above 25% of the total population, the districts must be redrawn, and any new district must contain between 17% and 23 of the population. The Common Council voted earlier this year to amend the charter to allow for the independent commission, as long as voters agreed.

The Council's decision came after the County Legislature voted against making the same change.  Here's County Legislator Chris Ryan, a member of the Democratic minority, talking to WRVO about the lines drawn years ago:

Our finished product, when we redid the legislative districts almost a decade ago, was seriously flawed, and probably should have been challenged legally. We should lean on our community leaders, our civic groups, academia and people who do this kind of thing, and consult with them, so we can put forth a better product.

Here's what he's talking about, from WRVO's report:

The lines were drawn  to fit more than 27,000 people in a district. 

But the result is a hodgepodge of meandering lines, dividing up the city of Syracuse into nine out of 17 county districts, located completely or partly within the city. Republicans hold a 12 to 5 advantage in the legislature, despite there being more registered Democrats in the County.  

Legislature Chairman David Knapp, while saying the Republicans are "looking at opening up the redistricting process" sometime in the future (and maybe even holding a public meeting), expressed some concerns with having a commission now instead of waiting until after the census.

We just felt it was adding another bureaucratic commission that really didn't have any teeth, to advise a commission that's already in place. In this really highly charged political environment we're in, finding nonpartisan groups is pretty tough these days. 

He's right - we are in a "highly charged political environment " - in part because of things like how district lines are drawn, how that dissuades many voters from participating (at best), and disenfranchises them (at worst). It's also in part because of the distrust of the elected in those who elect them (and conversely); it's also in part because of the assumption that finding nonpartisan people is impossible. I'd say it probably is, if your premise is that you won't.   

We know that redistricting shenanigans have happened here in NY, because former State Senator John DeFrancisco told us so, about not only protecting a political party, but protecting a specific potential future candidate for state office. Take a look at these excerpts from DeFrancisco's book, as reported by Teri K. Weaver of Syracuse.com | The Post Standard.

When it was time to redraw state political districts nearly a decade ago, former state Sen. John DeFrancisco rejected an early version of proposed changes to the district he represented.

Why? It left out the town of Onondaga, DeFrancisco writes in his new memoir.

Bob Antonacci, another Republican, lives in Onondaga.

And DeFrancisco, a veteran senator who was then in his mid-60s, was already thinking about who might run for the district when he retired.

“I objected, since Bob Antonacci lived in the town of Onondaga,” DeFrancisco writes in his book, “Never Say Never: Adventures in NY Politics.”

“I wanted to keep open the possibility that he could run for my seat if he was interested when the time came,” DeFrancisco writes.

And that’s just what happened.

Yep -- a proud moment for the double-dipping former Senator, don't you think? The guy who said we needed him more than he needed us?

Granted, I could simply retire and not serve any longer. However, now that Republicans have regained control of the State Senate, Central New York would be better served by my returning to my Senate seat, as a majority member and Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee (emphasis added).

And apparently we'd be better served by having a district map drawn to help get someone somewhere off in the distant future get elected? 

If we needed a reason why we need impartial redistricting in New York, and in Onondaga County, and in the city of Syracuse, I'm not sure we'll find one better than this. Oh -- eventually, Antonacci did run, did win by a narrow margin, and then after less than a year in office, rn for and win a seat on the State Supreme Court bench. So much for DeFrancisco's plan.

Fair Maps CNY obtained commitments from most incumbents and candidates running for city and county 'district' seats to support fair and nonpartisan redistricting, which sets us up well for getting this right after the 2020 census.  

Among the folks signing the pledge? Legislature Chairman David Knapp. 

Grains of Salt (v49): Syracuse Partners with SU on Data Analytics

Continuing the collaboration that is the hallmark of Mayor Ben Walsh's administration, the city of Syracuse and Syracuse University have a new agreement on data-sharing.

The agreement, reported in the Daily Orange, will allow SU students access to municipal data on which they can perform analytics and hopefully identify opportunities.

The article recaps emails with Sam Edelstein,the city's chief data officer, who advised that select data will be shared with the students. The city both collects and creates data, he said, and added

We know that students get great experience working with real data like the types that we collect - and we get the benefit of experts helping us to make sense of the information.

The Common Council approved the agreement at the end of July, after discussion privacy concerns. Councilor Khalid Bey was one who expressed concern, as noted in this report from WRVO.

I'm certainly a person that's for creativity and innovation, but we have to be careful about being creative at the expense of the taxpayer. Hackers are very good. We learned that. I want us to be a little more clear about what we're doing. I can see the value of the exchange. But I thought the downplay on our concerns with security, relative to the data, was a little negligent. 

Even though Edelstein said much of the information is already made public, or could be -  most of it comes from infrastructure projects - Bey is right to be concerned, and the city should take privacy concerns seriously. It's particularly timely, given the recent ransomware attacks on both the Syracuse City School District and the Onondaga County Public Library systems.

No one benefits when these concerns are downplayed, certainly not the administration.

SU will receive only copies of the data, via the cloud, not access to the systems where the data is stored. Edelstein said the city will choose the data carefully, and "is sensitive about what data is presented, especially if it contains personally identifiable information." The Common Council should request regular updates from Edelstein on this.

How might city taxpayers benefit from the new collaboration? Edelstein mentioned dashboards for individual city departments are a possibility' these could complement the city's Performance Dashboard, which gives a whole-city look at things like financial and neighborhood stability and service delivery. l'll talk more about the Dashboard in another post.

I agree with Edelstein on the bottom line here. Again, from the WRVO article,

We just have a lot of information and we're going to collect a lot more of it in the coming years. We will never have the staff to be able to analyze all of it and make the decisions  that we need to make. Tapping into expertise and resources at the university is kind of a no-brainer to me. 

The goal is to have the project up and running this fall.

Grains of Salt (v33): Quietly, A Budget Passes

Grains of Salt

It's almost sad that I'm still catching up on things that happened at home when we were on vacation last month, but it's true.

One of those things that almost slipped by was the passage of the Syracuse city budget, unanimously and with no changes, by the Common Council.

This is in stark contrast to what has happened in the recent past; former Mayor Stephanie Miner's last budget, for example, saw the Council reallocate funding for the Greater Syracuse Land Bank (GSLB) to fund Syracuse Police Department recruits. The mayor's veto of the changes was overridden by the Council - which had a Democratic majority; the mayor was of their own party when all of this happened.

Ben Walsh, our new and improved mayor, ran as an independent, with strong support from Democrats, and as a collaborative executive willing to work with any willing partners to try and make things better for our city. According to council members, they were brought into the budget process early on, had meetings with the mayor's team, got answers to their questions, and helped craft the budget.  The goal of all of that?  I'll let the Mayor explain:

Our goal when we started this budget process was to make sure there were no surprises in the budget when it reached the councilor members' mailboxes, and I think we achieved that. 

Not only did he invite councilors to participate, he made a budget presentation to them, in person, instead of sending minions to do it for him. That kind of respect and cooperation between City Hall and the chief executive is what we'll need to solve our difficult challenges - something Walsh is not afraid of tackling.

His budget freezes salary increases and non-essential hiring; it also funds new firefighter and police recruits, and restores the GSLB funding, all of which make me happy. We will need to take another $11M from city reserves, and the school district budget, also approved, will tap Syracuse City School District reserves for $14M.

And, also important for us, a plan to have the state's Financial Restructuring Board review spending and operations and provide some non-binding recommendations for city leaders to review and act upon. If we do, there's state money to help implement the changes. I'm hopeful this review, coupled with the efforts of Walsh's Fiscal Summit Advisory Committee (a report is due in time for next year's budget planning), will identify what we can do to right our financial ship and keep the city moving forward.

This non-confrontational budget process is a really good start.

Grains of Salt (v2): This Does Not Compute

A little bit of this and that, from Syracuse and Central New York.

Back in July, the administration of Syracuse mayor Stephanie Miner blocked the Common Council from using the city's computer systems, because the Councilors did not sign the city's new computer use and access policy.

Is anyone surprised that they're still fighting about this?

The policy, which seems similar to the one that many of us who work in the business world sign, is designed to 'encourage' good computer use, discourage personal use of taxpayer assets, and help ensure that the systems are safe from malicious activity.  For example, it discusses hot-button issues such as:

• preapproval of software and hardware used on the system
• protection of trade secrets
• limited confidentiality (administrators can access what you do)
• FOIL and legal discoverability
• passwords are not to be shared and need to be changed regularly
• non-usage rules (porn, love letters, political campaigns, games, solicitations, streaming websites and the like)
• access, including only accessing what you're supposed to
• safeguarding the equipment
• an anti-retaliation provision

While the policy had been in place since 2013, this year was the first time that folks were asked to formally sign and agree to the policy. They had two months to take the momentous step or face the consequences.

One of the issues with the policy, from the Common Councilor's side, is that it doesn't include any provisions for elected officials - everyone is considered an employee, and subject to the same rules, requirements, and oversight.  And that last word -- oversight --is the one that really has everyone up in arms. Here's what the policy says:

Please be aware that City computer, device, and system activity, including but not limited to files accessed, email, and Internet activity may be monitored at any time.  All personnel are advised that the City possesses and may utilize at any time, activity monitoring software capable of capturing keystrokes and screen shots of a member's computer, device, and system activity. Activity reports may be furnished to the user's Department head. 

What this all means, from the Council's perspective (and the City Clerk's perspective, as he's also a non-signer) is that Mayor Miner can have the city's taxpayer-supported IT Department spy on the taxpayer-elected representatives, preventing them from being able to have confidential conversations with city employees, constituents, attorneys, and the like, or that she will make life miserable for them in some other way, shape or form because - well, because she can.

And so since July when many Councilors refused to sign, we've been watching the legal tab run up while they tried to get things worked out. In September, six of the Councilors announced that they were going to pursue a second lawsuit against the city (the first having been thrown out on a technicality) and are authorizing up to $25,000 on top of the "thousands" they've already spent, and on top of the $7K or so that the City has already spent.

That lawsuit was approved by a 5-4 vote.

Folks, this is ridiculous.

Lots of people chomp at the bit when asked to sign policies like this. But for everyone to have their panties in a knot at the thought that the City can fire Common Councilors who misbehave or misuse city assets is nuts.  Stephanie Miner must know she can't do that. The Councilors know she can't do that. Taxpayers know she can't do that.

Equally, everyone knows that the relationship between Miner's administration and the Council -- heck, with lots of people -- has not always been the best. I have friends who I likely can't even pay to say anything good about her -- so it's also understandable that the Council would want some separation between the two sides, and I agree their should be separation.

Even given that, the fact that they can't get out of each other's way to solve this, after several months, is silly.

More importantly, the inability of the two sides to negotiate something as seemingly simple as this does not bode well for their ability to lead us forward. One possible solution would be to have the City Auditor own monitoring the IT policy as it applies to the Council and any other elected officials, and issue an independent report to taxpayers annually(or as issues arise). To me, that makes more sense than the Council investing you guessed it - taxpayer dollars -- to 'Clintonize' the situation and get their own server. There are likely lots of other ideas out there, if anyone was interested.

All politics is local, they say - and if this is the example our local leaders set, it's no wonder people choose not to vote. If we want that to change, we need situations like this to change. It's time for everyone to get over themselves, solve this problem, and get back to work.

Making Lemonade

A million times, I think I've heard the old saying "when life hands you lemons, make lemonade."  Well, I think we have a chance to do that.

Below is the email I sent to the Home Builders & Remodelers of CNY, Mayor Miner's office, and Common Councilor Helen Hudson, asking them to consider tackling a 'rebuild' project in Syracuse this fall, since the Parade of Homes has to be postponed until next summer.

The article mentions that the HBR is looking into doing some other event, and I hope they'll consider my idea (or part of it, or something similar).  After all, among the objectives of the organization is this:

to bring together the best and most reliable industry associated businesses, for the purpose of raising the bar of professionalism and customer service, and moving towards the goal of affordable housing for everyone in CNY. 

I have long maintained that a Parade of Homes in the city, not with brand new houses, but with a similar economic investment, could completely transform a neighborhood.  Pulling together all of the many resources available here, from the HBR to the Land Bank  to the myriad branches of government and even local organizations and businesses would be a challenge, but the reward - a renewed neighborhood, increased tax base, and a chance for existing homeowners to benefit as well - should be worth it.

Here's hoping that this time, with a basket full of lemons, we get enough lemonade to go around.

I read on Syracuse.com this evening the unfortunate news that this fall's Parade of Homes at Cranebrook is being delayed until next summer because site work could not be completed timely. 

 As we know, many people look forward to the Parade each year, most for decorating but some for the opportunity to get their dream home. And I know the charities that staff the volunteers for each of the Parade homes may also feel the pinch with the delay. 

Appreciating that, I would say that while this is a setback, perhaps it's also an opportunity to follow the old adage and make some lemonade out of lemons.

 Could this be the chance we've been waiting for to connect the HBRCNY and the City of Syracuse, not in traditional 'Parade' sense, but through a blitz rebuild Parade?  A chance of a lifetime for an urban neighborhood?  A chance for people to shine who usually don't get the spotlight? 

I encourage you to read my blog post on having a Parade of Homes in the city -- not on the outskirts of the city limits, but smack dab in the heart of the city, in a city neighborhood that could use some help and attention. A neighborhood like Skunk City. 

I think this could be a great opportunity, with the creativity, energy, and know-how that the Home Builders, City Hall, and Common Council can bring to the table.  

Thanks for your consideration.  

Stay tuned.

The Update Desk: Parking Scofflaws

Seven months ago, I did an update on the decision by the City of Syracuse to hire a private contractor to track and 'boot' the cars of parking scofflaws.

The Syracuse Common Council had just approved a contract with PayLock, a New Jersey company that had been providing the boots all along, to try and track down cars owned by the some 20,000 or so scofflaws.  Any thought of offering an amnesty program, something which had been suggested by Councilor Jake Barrett, had been turned down.

From June 20th through September 30th, PayLock booted over 1000 cars which led to payment of over $360,000 in fines, according to a recent article. That's about triple the booting and about double the fines compared to last year, when the work was handled by the Syracuse Police Department.  And as I noted in the prior posts, the SPD has more important things to do than boot cars (on overtime, no less). Another local media report says PayLock is averaging about a boot an hour, using their system of scanners to identify bootable vehicles, and a computer to confirm that the outstanding tickets have not been paid.

I hope that folks within the city government and, frankly, local businesses, continue to look for similar opportunities to save taxpayers money and increase revenues for our financially-challenged city.

Tossing the ED coin: Tails, You Lose

As I noted the other day, economic development is like a coin toss – sometimes business win, like The Sound Garden did, and sometimes they lose.  And businesses aren’t the only winners and losers – people like you and me can win or lose depending on how the deals go.

Take, for example, the businesses along Syracuse’s Connective Corridor, who had the threat of having to pay special maintenance fees to keep the Corridor looking in tip-top shape hanging over their heads for a while.

What is the Connective Corridor?  Well, it’s kind of hard to describe.  It's a vision, more than anything else. It's over $40 million in grant money, spread over multiple phases, to make a 'connection' between Syracuse University and Syracuse, the city.  Here’s the official description:

The city of Syracuse is home to three major universities, more than 30 art and cultural venues, and shopping centers all within close distance to one another.  In the coming months and years, nodes of the Connective Corridor will be stitched together and showcased with new urban landscapes, bike paths, imaginative lighting, public and interactive art, signage, and way finding systems.

What’s that mean?  Well, there’s been a lot of work done along East Genesee Street, University Ave, and part of Fayette Street.  Traffic patterns are different; new lighting has been put up; bike lanes are in; there’s a lot of color coordination – and to be honest, it looks pretty good. There’s been a lot of talk about the giant red benches in the park on the 700 block of Genesee, and more about the cool sidewalk at Syracuse Stage. Overall,  things seem to be looking up. 

And the  work means there’s now a need to maintain all of this connective tissue, as it were. Businesses along the Corridor were notified recently that the Syracuse Common Council was

considering a proposal to merge properties along the Connective Corridor into the Downtown Special Assessment District (DSAD). Since the district was created in 1976, downtown businesses have paid an extra fee on their taxes for maintenance and other services provided by the nonprofit Downtown Committee of Syracuse. It would be the first expansion of the special district.

That fee, for the Connective Corridor businesses, would have been more than $28 per foot of frontage; about $149,000 would have been raised from around 50 businesses in the area. The money was to have been used to add a couple of dedicated maintenance folks to keep the Corridor in shape.  

There were some businesses that were OK with the fees, but certainly for many of the smaller businesses along the way, the fee would have been very hard to bear, and hard to pass on to customers as well.

One of the big concerns mentioned in the many news stories on this was that the businesses were not aware the fees would be charged when the Corridor work was finished – it was one of those out-of-the-blue things that get sprung on businesses all the time in the form of regulations, fees, special charges, and so on.  And for businesses that were there before the connectivity vision was floated, well, this was seen as a slap in the face.

In the end, the Council voted down the proposal, leaving the DSAD intact (and actually downtown, some would say) -- and leaving the Connective Corridor maintenance-free.  So that would seem like the businesses won, right?  And their customers, folks like you and me, we won too, right?

Well, not exactly.

Listen to Norm Swanson, a long-time local developer; he has three businesses that would have collectively contributed around $22,000 to the fund had the proposal gone through.

Maintenance is everything. Maintenance is taking the money that’s been invested and almost multiplying it. As you continue to put the money back in and keep it fresh, this is what brings new business to locate there.

 

You know he’s right, don’t you?   

You can see it, every day, all around the city.  You can even see it along the Connective Corridor already. This picture taken by Dave Tobin of The Post-Standard last October, shows one of 19 lights that had been damaged even as work was nearing completion.

Next time you’re out and about, look around. Look at the condition of our highway ramps,something local columnist Sean Kirst puts into words so well. Look at parking lots and sidewalks; look at lighting. Look at signage, and plantings, and paint jobs and store windows.  Heck, even look at your own neighborhood. 

Can you honestly say that maintenance doesn’t matter?   No, Swanson’s right: maintenance is everything. 

We won't live or shop where it's a mess, and businesses don't want to move into neighborhoods that are a mess, filled with broken lights and trash and weeds higher than the red park benches... we know this, because we pass by places like this every day, and cringe. We pass by, literally, and take our business elsewhere.

The bottom line is, once these projects take off, it's in our best interest to see them through -- and that means maintaining them when they're done.  And it would certainly help if those in charge have the foresight, going forward, to figure out a way to ensure that after the opening celebration, there's a way to keep the project going on a day-to-day basis.

Unless someone – SU, or the Common Council or the Mayor or the Downtown Committee or the businesses themselves - come up with the money that’s needed to keep the Corridor looking good (and if that means adding a few cents to all of our tax bills, that's OK too), it will go the way many of our other economic development projects: the initial investment is made, but we don't realize the end result we thought we were going to get.  

Tails, you lose.

Tossing the ED Coin: Heads, You Win

I’m talking about economic development, folks, not erectile dysfunction. That's a whole nother post entirely.

Let me tell you, economic development happened here in Syracuse the other day.  Not the traditional, ‘give a company a boatload of tax breaks and hope’ kind, but the real, every day kind that happens in cities all across the country, on a very regular basis. 

There are two sides to the economic development coin – and as with most coin tosses, one side is good for someone, the other less so.  When the coin was tossed here, we saw both winners and losers.

You may have heard the tale of The Sound Garden, the downtown Syracuse staple, home to concert tickets, vinyl music, and other second-hand entertainment.  Part of a two-store chain (the other’s in Baltimore), at Sound Garden they buy yours, you buy theirs – CDs, albums, games, movies, the whole gamut. It’s a funky vibe like no other in Syracuse; they have a devoted following (my Albany brother-in-law can't visit Syracuse without making a pit stop there, for example); they're in Armory Square -- so you'd think they had it all going on, right?

Well, not so fast.

Syracuse has an updated law on the books that requires second-hand stores to log all of the used items they purchase, and provide reports to law enforcement. They are also required to hold items for seven days before re-selling them, and only stay open until 8PM. The point of the law, which was changed last summer, was to better allow the Syracuse Police Department to track down 'stealers-sellers', the people who rip off the big box stores and dump the merchandise wherever they can, and to make it harder for them to make their quick buck by instituting the early closing time on merchants who sell used stuff.

The consequence was that it also cracked down on music collectors and funky people.

The logging and reporting part that was a big issue for Sound Garden.  With over 40,000 used items purchased each year, the costs of implementing a computerized system for tracking and reporting, and to hire the two full time employees to do that work, were prohibitive.  

Bryan Burkert, Sound Garden's owner, and Jake Barrett, head of the Common Council’s Public Safety Committee, butted heads in talks to get a compromise deal worked out. Burkert preferred a total exemption from the law, something he says other cities routinely give record stores. Barrett (the same guy who wondered if we needed to be a little kinder and gentler to parking scofflaws), offered concessions on hours of operation and a two-day reduction in the hold period, but wasn’t going to go any further. After things fell apart, Burkert announced that he would close his Armory Square shop and find someplace else to do business, outside the city limits.

Sadness hung over the store; the entire process, played out in the press, left a bad taste in our collective mouths. Surveys were circulated, a Facebook fan page was born, and just about everyone waited to see what would happen when the lease was up.

When all seemed lost,  Mayor Stephanie Miner and Councilor Khalid Bey (in a past life, he was a hip-hop star known as The Most Talented) worked out a compromise with Burkert and his local attorney that would allow Sound Garden to stay open later than 8PM Thursday, Friday, and Saturday, and require them to only log the first five items they purchase in any single transaction and summarize the rest. For their part, Sound Garden will continue to get a copy of a photo ID for all transactions, which should help Syracuse’s Finest track down people who steal items from one store and resell them at another. The compromise was approved unanimously by the Common Council yesterday. 

And so Sound Garden, Armory Square, small business owners and funky people everywhere, call it in the air.

Heads, you win.

Are You Alarmed? I Am

My Sweet Baboo and I disagree on the recent proposal from the City of Syracuse to assess a $50 annual fee for homeowners and businesses with alarm systems.  He's against it, and I'm perfectly OK with it, because I believe we need to start being reasonable if we're to make a dent in solving our city's problems.

The alarm proposal, if passed, would mean that something like 10,000 people and businesses with alarms would have to pay the fee, after exemptions for over those over 65 or disabled. As proposed, the $50 would be charged to the 86 alarm companies that have systems in Syracuse, who would pass the charge on to folks like us..

Our home is in The Valley - North Valley, or NoSen (north of Seneca Turnpike) to be precise.  My Baboo bought the house back in the late 80's. The neighborhood is fine - we're near Meacham Field, there's a Christian school just down the block, single family homes on both sides of the street, and we've got two awesome ice cream places and a few restaurants within walking distance. 

Ten years ago, when we got together, I asked if we could have an alarm installed, not because "the police don't do their jobs" as some people have suggested on discussion forums, but for the peace of mind that having the system brings. In that time, we had one incident of someone taking stuff out of unlocked cars (we were dumb and it cost us $16), and the time when an idiot threw a small rock through our front door, in a clear case of mistaken address identity.

Shortly after having the alarm system installed, I was at work and received a call from ADT telling me that the alarm was going off at the house and that the police had been dispatched.  I raced home  to find everything locked, just as we left it. Two or three days later, the same thing -- call from alarm company, race home, no issues.   I started feeling a little antsy that the Syracuse Police Department would not think highly of us if this continued.  We had ADT come back out, make some tweaks, and we were fine for quite a while. 

I think there may have been one other random false alarm tied to the front door (as the first two were) over the years, and then a situation last year, when we were at dinner and got a call from ADT that the alarm was triggered on the back door; again, the police were sent and fortunately nothing was wrong.

So, over the course of 10 years, we've had four false alarms at our house, all of which resulted in police being dispatched to wander around the house, find everything secure, and leave. And therein lies the issue; take a look at the most recent data: 

• In 2011, Syracuse police responded to 2,635 residential alarms, of which 83% (2,183) were false alarms.
• On the business alarm side of things, there were 7,088 calls, only 14%  (995) were false alarms.

Is a dollar a week too 'alarming' an insurance policy for potentially taking the police away from more important things to come and check out my house, which is almost always going to be a false alarm? I don't think so, and that's what I told my Baboo.

Here's what does alarm me, however: Syracuse has had an alarm fee law on the books for years -- since the mid-1990s  -- and has never implemented it.  Why?  Because they couldn't figure out how to, or because they didn't have the courage to enforce it.

Syracuse has had a law on the books since 1995 requiring alarm owners to pay $30 a year. The 1995 law has never been enforced, city officials said. If it had, the city would have collected roughly $4.5 million over the past 18 years, The Post-Standard estimates, based on a 1995 projection made by city officials... City hall officials can’t say with certainty why the 1995 law was never enforced. But they surmise that the city never established an efficient mechanism for collecting the fees, which were supposed to be paid by residents and businesses.

It boggles my mind why Syracuse doesn't collect the money they're allowed to collect.  We are a city with a huge financial issue, and yet we leave millions on the table every year, through lackadaisical enforcement (as with the parking scofflaw program), through a lack of creativity or efficiency in enforcing laws that get passed, which is apparently the case here, or because of a lack of courage on the part of the people we elect to manage the city. 

On the alarm fee proposal, I'd keep it in place for residences, but would not charge businesses unless the false alarm rate exceeds a certain percentage, because statistically the vast majority of those are 'real' calls, not wastes of law enforcement time and effort.

And, as to the issue of efficiently collecting the fee, why not try billing people for it on their tax bills. The City Finance Department knows how to send those out, right? Have a programmer add a line for 'residential alarm insurance' and call it a day.

Again, we need to be reasonable if we're going to keep our city afloat financially.

We can start by having the Common Council get over their fear of upsetting anyone, by having the city enforce laws on the books, and by having city residents pay our fair share of reasonable fees -- in this case, about a dollar a week -- so that less reasonable fees don't end up on the books.

Amnesty? Shamnesty!

The Syracuse Common Council, long referred to as "Syracuse's greatest deliberative body" by the late Post-Standard columnist Bob Haggart, could have voted this week on whether to hire a company to boot the cars of parking scofflaws. But they didn't.

Some history: Syracuse started booting cars back in 2008; to receive the yellow boot, a person has to have three delinquent parking tickets, each at least 90 days old.  In 2008, there were 12,819 boot-eligible vehicles, owing $4,800,000; by 2012, there were 19,457 vehicles owing $7,900,000, according to a published report.

Here's a story from July of 2008, touting the benefits of the new booting program:

Since Syracuse's booting law took effect Jan. 1, the city has taken in $2,186,000 in parking tickets, surcharges and late fees, said Richard Scheutzow, director of the city's Parking Violations Bureau. The city is on track to top $4 million this year, more than twice the amount collected in any year during the past decade...  The bulk of the revenue comes from people paying their tickets voluntarily or through a collection agency, Scheutzow said... It's clear that fear of the boot is driving scofflaws to haul themselves in to the parking bureau before they are caught, Scheutzow said. The increase in parking payments started in October, when the impending booting law was announced, and it has held steady since then. Scheutzow and city police agree that the booting effort has increased compliance with parking laws and payment of parking tickets. "It's working out fantastic," said police Lt. Joe Sweeny, who oversees the booting program.

Since 2008, revenues from the booting program have fallen significantly. Part of  that was because having police officers cruising parking lots looking for boot-able cars was not an effective use of their time; it became even a less effective use of taxpayer dollars when the Police Department starting having officers handle the scofflaw cruises primarily on overtime. Mayor Stephanie Miner ended the overtime booting in 2011.

So now Pay Lock, the company that has provided the boots from the beginning, wants to take over the whole program, including the scofflaw cruises, for 28% of the take. They'd have people on the streets seven hours a day, five days a week, and the city would not be on the hook for salaries and benefits. And, with the increased effort, the city would see an additional $630,000 more than is being collected today.  Seems hard not to like this idea, doesn't it?

But then, there must be delieration, because it is the Common Council after all.  Deliberation including discussion on whether we need to have an amnesty period before changing the program. 1st District Councilor Jake Barrett offered this:

Maybe there's a fairness issue. We're changing the system. Let's give them a chance to pay.

Um, the people who need to get the boot have ignored at least three parking tickets for at least 90 days each.  They've been notified. They owe the city almost $8,000,000. The city is in dire financial straits.  Do we really need to consider an amnesty program because we're "changing the system" and being more aggressive in collecting the millions of dollars that these folks owe? 

And on the subject of amnesty, let's go back again to July 2008; here's one last comment from the article on the booting program.

Scheutzow  said that, given the success of the program, the city will never again need to offer a parking amnesty program to violators. The last amnesty in 2003 forgave late fees and penalties and brought in more than $1 million.

We don't need to, and cannot afford to, forgive a few million bucks to be kind to scofflaws.  What we do need to do is get back to the aggressive enforcement and revenue collection. 

Here's hoping the Common Council votes to approve the contract with Pay Lock at the earliest opportunity, April Fool's Day, and that Pay Lock gets to work as soon as possible.

Fools they would be if they do otherwise.