Vertebrae

Where Art Thou, Optimists?

2006-07-20T19:46:00.000-04:00

From Business First's survey series:

Local Pessimism

Are Western New Yorkers naturally more pessimistic than other Americans?

Yes, pessimism is ingrained here
63%

No, it's about the same here as everywhere else
24%

No, optimism is the rule here
9%

Don't know
3%

Now, the question is: Is this the truth or the perception? Are the pessimists naturally louder with their opinions? Are the optimists too busy running businesses are getting involved in community efforts to complain?

I do not believe we are pessimists by nature; I believe we are pessimists by life experience. We've witnessed the failure of positive change so often we've defaulted to a rather logical and rational assumption that past performance indicates future results. We shouldn't, but it does make sense.

As (and if) the momentum continues on Buffalo's renaissance, the ratio of pessimism to optimism will begin to change. The granddaddy of all Buffalo repeat let-downs--waterfront development--is on track for actual, funded, bona fide development. If this development actually pans out, it will be the turning point in the optimism and faith-in-Buffalo department. I, for one, am optimistic.

Next on the agenda: create an organzation that takes strategic, pre-emptive action on NIMBYs and BANANAs. That should reduce the pessimism drastically.

Baby Steps to Privatization

2006-06-29T20:47:00.000-04:00

United Parcel Service Inc. has inked a three-year deal with USPS to provide domestic air transportation of primarily First Class and Priority Mail starting July 1. Atlanta-based UPS (NYSE: UPS) at first will provide airlift of First Class and Priority Mail volume each week to and from 98 cities, it said. Financial terms were not disclosed.

These sorts of arrangements aren't new; FedEx has had a similar deal with the USPS for several years. The expansion of this public-private alliance might, however, bring us one step closer to the privatization of the United States Postal Service discussed here and here.

Office Space

2006-06-28T22:39:00.000-04:00

Encouraging results of a Business First Survey. Who says everyone hates the city? The fear and loathing has slipped to 56%

If you could choose any Western New York location for your office, which would you prefer?

Downtown Buffalo
44%

Northtowns (Amherst, Tonawanda, etc.)
26%

Southtowns (Hamburg, Orchard Park, etc.)
8%

Eastern Suburbs (Cheektowaga, Lancaster, etc.)
4%

Rural Erie County
2%

Niagara County (Niagara Falls, Lockport, etc.)
5%

Somewhere else
7%

The Imminent Death of Open Competition

2006-06-22T20:59:00.001-04:00

The Erie County Legislature overrode Erie County Executive Joel Giambra's
veto of a controversial amendment Thursday. The vote means union-trained
apprentices must be placed on specific public sector projects.

Ranzenhofer, a lawyer, predicted the law will be challenged in court.
"There will be years and years of court cases over this legislation," he
predicted.

Cynthia Locklear, D-West Seneca, called the law "a Trojan horse."
"It isn't what it says it is," she said. "It is a badly written law. There
are better ways to do it."

I haven't had a chance to read the revisions to the law, but I trust Cynthia Locklear on this one. In principle, it is a very bad idea. Like everything else in Erie County, we'll have to wait and see how much damage it ends up doing.

What it does without question is remind us that this legislature votes with a social agenda that has little to do with saving the tax payers in this region money or building up at least the image of Buffalo business-friendliness. True, this law (if it is deemed to be constitutional) will only impact large contracts with the county, but few contracts are smaller than the $250k threshold. Also, and more importantly, these sorts of laws scare business owners. They create a climate of uncertainty in which no business leader wants to operate. Between this and the health insurance bill being tossed around at the state level, business owners across Western New York have to be wondering what sorts of obstacles will be thrown up next.

Read the Buffalo First article here.

Interesting Ideas- Economist Style

2006-06-22T20:59:00.000-04:00

Bryan Caplan has some ideas worth thinking about at EconLog. My favorites:

3. Feeling good versus getting results. To a large extent, unselfish voting
is (subconsciously?) motivated by the wish to feel like a wonderful person, not
to actually solve problems.

4. Silly beliefs feel good. People feel better about themselves when
they relax normal intellectual standards and believe what "sounds good." It is
hard to see, for example, how boycotting products made in "sweatshops" helps
poor workers in the Third World, but it is more pleasant to embrace this
confusion than critique it.

And finally, the one with the most relevance to Western New York:

7. Unselfish voters with silly beliefs do a lot of harm. Trying to "help people"
before you understand their problems is usually worse than doing nothing at all.

Print that last one on as many index cards as you can. Stamp them ($.24 will do) and mail one per day to each member of the Erie County Legislature until you run out of cards. Then do it all over again.

Market failure: Like the unicorn, it doesn’t exist.

2006-06-21T21:08:00.000-04:00

To say that something failed means it did not meet a standard that it was
designed to or capable of meeting. For example: “a valve failed to open” or “a
student failed a math test.” The free market refers to a group of people
involved in the voluntary exchange of goods and services. It presupposes that
each individual participates to pursue his or her rational self-interest and
that a government exists to protect individual rights, including property
rights. It’s based on the recognition that everyone can benefit from division of
labor and free trade.

A free market doesn’t guarantee that an individual will act in rational
self-interest—errors are possible—only that he or she is free to do so. If a
person fails to act as such, then it’s the person’s failure, not “market
failure.” A free market can’t be expected to do what’s metaphysically
impossible, such as make everyone equally wealthy regardless of ability and
effort, or turn sloth into gold. If a person expects a bicycle to fly, and it
doesn’t fly, then it’s not a “bicycle failure” but a mind failure.

Read the rest of the Capitalism Mag article here.

America's Smartest Cities

2006-06-13T21:45:00.000-04:00

From Business First:

Which community boasts the highest concentration of brainpower -- and therefore
can claim to be America's smartest big city?

Hint: It ain't Buffalo.

Below are the 10 medium communities that lead the brainpower rankings. Each is
followed by its percentage of adults with at least a bachelor’s degree and the
percentage that didn’t go beyond high school.

Buffalo isn't on that list either. I was prepared to be offended upon finding Buffalo on the list of smartest small cities, but we're not on that list either. In fact, Buffalo is nowhere to be found. Either we really are the Forgotten City or we're just not very bright in these parts. The medium sized city list is short, so I'd like to believe we would have appeared on a more comprehensive list.

Charlotte is #6 on the "Smartest Big Cities" list, and the Buffalo-Charlotte connection need not be spelled out here. Since when is Charlotte a big city anyway?

From today's New York Times:

In almost every place upstate, emigration rates were highest among college
graduates, producing a brain drain, according to separate analyses of census
results for The New York Times by two demographers, William Frey of the Brookings
Institution and Andrew A. Beveridge of Queens
College of the City
University of New York. Among the nation's large metropolitan areas,
Professor Frey said, Buffalo and Rochester had the highest rates of what he
called "bright flight."

I'm one of the few citizens who earned a B.A. and an M.A. and returned to Buffalo. My Bright Flight might yet occur, however.

With the high number of colleges in this area producing degree-holders, we should be located prominently on this list. This isn't news to anyone, of course, but the appearance of this study and the NYTs article on the same day serves as a reminder of the work Western New York has ahead. Invisible in one study, unfortunately prominent in the other.

Speaking of Tax Incentives...

2006-06-11T15:42:00.000-04:00

From Forbes, via Out of Control:

[T]targeted tax incentives don't spur real growth. Quite the contrary.
While across-the-board tax cuts expand economic activity, targeted tax
incentives are inevitably financed at the expense of established businesses.
Today's winner of a targeted tax break is tomorrow's victim of a broad increase
in business taxes. Assuming, that is, that this employer sticks around.

Memphis, Tenn.'s Payment-in-Lieu-of-Tax (Pilot) program is a case in point.
For 18 years Pilot has created property tax holidays (of up to 15 years) for
businesses adding jobs in the city. The cost, as measured by local and state
authorities in the last thorough study (for 2002), was 7.4% of property tax
revenue, or $23 million a year.
What does Memphis get for its $23 million?
According to a study paid for by the city, Pilot created 65,000 jobs between
1988 and 2000. But that claim is tough to reconcile with the city's unemployment
rate. In 1990 the rate equaled the national average. Now, at 7%, it's two points
above the national level. Memphis' poverty rate is 21.5%, twice the national
average.

Bi-Partisan Business Hostility in New York

2006-06-11T13:36:00.000-04:00

From the May 11th open letter from the Buffalo Niagara Partnership to George Maziarz (R-Newfane):

On behalf of the 2,500 members of the Buffalo Niagara Partnership, I am
writing to express strong opposition to your proposal (A10787/S7391) to force
companies in New York State receiving IDA incentives to pay workers a "living
wage." IDA incentives exist in New York State to try to offset some of the
sting of the largely state-imposed second-highest cost-of-doing-business in the
United States. Mandating a living wage can negate much of the incentive
benefit, and thus adds yet another burden to existing employers here; it also is
just one more reason why new companies won?t locate here.

The
Partnership agrees that the goal of the public sector, business community and
labor unions should be to attract higher paying jobs for the region - in
fact, that is a mission of our organization. But the answer is not the
living wage political movement, which, added to a long list of other costly
state-mandates, will only encourage more employers to downsize, move away or
shut down operations.

Most independent economists say "living wage
laws" reduce employment opportunities for lower-skilled workers, because
employers will respond by eliminating jobs that do not produce enough profit to
justify the higher wage or by hiring better-qualified workers.

Maziarz continues to blow the myth of republican business-friendliness out of the water. Like county legislators Kennedy, Marinelli, and Holt, Senator Maziarz's intentions are usually somewhat noble "to the people" but misguided. What they all share is a fundamental misunderstanding of how best to solve our economic problems in this region. Maziarz does not normally take the antagonistic "The People" v. "Business" approach to economic policy often taken by the democrats in the county legislature, but intentions aside, a bad idea is a bad idea. It would seem as though a team of economists should be on council to explain these things to lawmakers in New York. New York politics being what it is, we'd end up with state and county lawmakers selecting economists sympathetic to their politics who would give the official Economist Stamp of Approval to ideas such as the apprenticeship law (vetoed Friday), the living wage idea, and the "Walmart" health insurance bill.

Take the necessary steps to create a business-friendly environment and such things as a "living wage" (who decides what's good enough to be considered "living" anyway?) and mandatory health benefits won't be necessary. Western New York residents will have the mobility to change jobs if the conditions within their current employment situation do not meet their life or financial needs. As it stands right now, the notion is that businesses in this area can treat their employees however they please because they know those employees have nowhere else to go. If this is true, it is only because these companies' competition has been driven out of New York by these sorts of proposals in the county and state legislatures.

Chances are good that a healthy number of the businesses left in Western New York are receiving some sort of corporate welfare. As I've said in previous posts, tax incentives would not be needed to keep businesses from moving out of New York if the economic conditions that have driven so many businesses out would change. Add more of these laws to the books, and New York will be dishing out more tax incentives to desperately hold onto the business base we haven't yet lost. There is a direct correlation. Our lawmakers have yet to recognize this.

Development Friendly New York Supreme Court Justices

2006-05-30T19:52:00.000-04:00

We have two State Supreme Court Justices to thank for progress on two Buffalo construction projects: The Uniland project on Delaware and the Seneca Casino.

From Buffalo First:

A judge's ruling has cleared the way for Uniland Development Co. to
re-start construction of its latest downtown Buffalo office building.

State Supreme Court Judge Patrick NeMoyer, late Tuesday afternoon,
ruled that members of the Buffalo Building & Construction Trades Council,
AFL-CIO, could not block workers to the Uniland site, located at 285 Delaware
Ave.

Union workers had been picketing and preventing non-union crews from
entering the site in protest of Uniland's decision to erect the eight-story,
116,590-square-foot building with non-union workers.

Uniland officials, in a statement issued late Tuesday, said they were
pleased with NeMoyer's ruling.
"The positive court ruling reinforces laws
already in place, and continued enforcement will allow work to resume on the
signature building at 285 Delaware Avenue in a safe and productive environment,"
the statement said. "It is encouraging that private investment and new
development will be allowed to continue in downtown Buffalo."

Score one for progress. Don't you wish you could demand a legal injunction every time someone declined to use your services?

Earlier, State Supreme Court Justice Joseph Makowski was able to see through the dubious county lawsuit attempting to block demolision of the H-O Oats grain elevator on the site of the future Buffalo Creek Casino.

I'm virtually neutral on the casino issue, since I believe that economic neutrality will be the result of a casino in Buffalo. It won't save us and it won't destroy us. The endless parade of attempts to block the casino have been thinly disguised as legitimate legal arguments, when in actuality they're simply poorly disguised ideological attacks on gambling. The truth coming out of Niagara Falls, Detriot, New Orleans, and other cities with casinos is that the casinos do not cause major upheavals in social stability or surrounding businesses, but they also don't contribute much to the economy. They do, however, employ a large number of people who do not have many other options, and that will have a greater impact on the quality of life for Buffalo's low skilled workers than all our charitable organizations combined. Build it.

Joel Kotkin's Ersatz Urban Renaissance

2006-05-18T13:19:00.000-04:00

Development trend spotter and user of hard evidence (undoubtedly a unique trait) Joel Kotkin takes a critical eye to the urban renaissance myth sweeping U.S. cities, including our own:

In virtually every region of the U.S., economic growth has been far more
robust in the suburbs than in the cities. Take Philadelphia, whose "center city"
renaissance has become the stuff of urban legend. Over the past decade, the
city, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, has lost 4.4% of its jobs. In
contrast, the surrounding south Jersey suburbs have gained 23.2%. Even more
disturbing, these job losses in Philadelphia and other urban centers have
included those very fields -- finance, professional business services and
information -- which ostensibly would employ the erstwhile members of Dr.
Florida's "creative class." Since 2002 professional business service jobs in
Philadelphia have dropped 2% and financial services by roughly 8.5%. In
contrast, the south Jersey suburbs have enjoyed an 18.7% jump in professional
business service jobs and a 10% increase in finance employment.

As a result, the gain in an affluent population in center city has
clearly failed to revive the economy of Philly's core. Some estimate that since
1990 the number of jobs downtown has actually dropped as much as 15%. So central
city residents increasingly "reverse commute" to where the jobs are, the
surrounding suburbs.

This certainly doesn't bode well for Buffalo, since the prevailing strategy here has been to build more lofts, open more restaurants, and "class-up" our image in hopes of attracting the hip creative class into, or back to, the city. These actions are changing the makeup of Buffalo's population ever so slightly but so far there is no obvious large-scale white collar job creation or retention. The reverse-commuting Kotkin mentions is very real in Buffalo. Amherst still holds the majority of good white collar jobs sought after by the urban creative class.

Philly is only one example of the urban core successfully rebounding in domestic terms like housing, dining, and entertainment while still hemorrhaging jobs. The growing success of the suburbs (not necessarily our suburbs, mind you) does not imply the failure of the city, however. Both can be prosperous (see Chicago in particular) but it will take a change of perspective from urbanists, politicians, residents, and just about everyone else. "The City" as a concept will continue to fail if we continue to define is as narrowly as it has been defined. The urbanists will tell you that a particular aesthetic standard must be met, in addition to high density, walkability, and mixed use, in order to pass the "city" test. As much as you and I might dislike the idea, perhaps the definition of "urban" needs to change. If you ask an economist--and apparently Joel Kotkin as well--the great majority of people want to live in the suburbs for space, privacy, safety, and school quality. It isn't because they like the looks of cheap strip malls (though the readers of Buffalo Rising might beg to differ). Job creation is a whole different topic, but in terms of urban residential renewal, the above issues can be addressed:

1. Space: Buffalo is a very un-dense city. It is a misperception that city lots are smaller than suburban lots, and it is also wrong to conceptualize downtown as "the city" since it is true that in any American city the majority of urban residential density is outside of the central business district. Most new housing in the suburbs is subdivision style, and those lots are getting smaller and smaller and those neighborhoods are getting denser and denser. They have just as few trees as Buffalo lots, if not less, and are just as inconvenient when it comes to plowing in the winter. Perhaps this is a better selling point than claiming that the city has lofts and trendy restaurants.

2. Privacy: Neighbors are equally noisy and nosey in the city and suburbs. If you drive through any suburban subdivision or even older connector streets, the houses are very close together. It would seem as though the city=loss of privacy argument is based on the assumption that all city housing is apartment or two-family style. There are duplexes all over the suburbs. You simply live next to your neighbor instead of above or below your neighbor. The perception of a lack of single family dwellings in the city is false.

3. & 4. Safety and School Quality: These are two areas every city has been struggling with in recent years. They are very real concerns, and very much in the news lately. With McCarthy Gipson and Byron Brown came the zero tolerance law enforcement policy. If you read early content on this site you'll learn that I support total enforcement of the law. Unenforced laws on the books are to the benefit of no one. However, the success of "zero tolerance" is questionable right now due to the laws and crimes they chose to address or neglect. That is a simple policy implementation issue that can be corrected easily by refocusing efforts away from parking tickets and toward violent crime and property damage--the things suburbanites are concerned about when they mention safety.

Buffalo Schools Superintendent Williams jumped headlong into solving the problems plaguing Buffalo public schools. It is going to take some time and the support of the community, but you certainly cannot accuse the man of being disengaged. He has made himself very visible and very accessible. He supports charter schools, which just might be the kind of "crazy experiment" that solves the issues facing public education, and he's shown himself willing to take on the teachers union, which has shown itself to be thoroughly afraid of innovation of any sort.

"The City" can offer residents what they need whether the jobs return to America's urban cores or continue to move to the suburbs. "Reverse commuting" shouldn't be viewed as a negative; outbound commuting will need to be accepted into the definition of "commute" alongside inbound commuting. Mobility and sprawl are here to stay. There will come a point when population, retail, and business balance out across the cities and their suburbs, and the concepts of urban and suburban will become substantively irrelevant. That loss of distinction scares a lot of people, but if urban cores are to remain relevant at all, they need to succumb to economic reality and a broadened definition. If Buffalo and other cities continue to cling to a concept of the urban attractive to no more than 15 percent of the population, our cities will see a real manifestation of the king of all myths- rich and poor with no discernable middle class.

Not all of what Joel Kotkin discusses is relevant to Buffalo's particular situation, but lessons can be learned nonetheless:

The evidence we have today should suggest that a different approach may be
in order. Instead of luring the "hip and cool" with high-end amenities, cities
need instead to address issues that concern businesses as well as working- and
middle-class families. These include such basic needs as public safety,
maintenance of parks, improving public schools, cutting taxes, regulatory reform
-- in other words, all those decidedly unsexy things that contribute to
maintaining a job base and the hope for upward mobility.

Given the growing challenge posed by the emerging boomtowns as well as
the suburbs and exurbs, wannabe "hip cool" cities need to realize they can't
thrive merely as amusement parks for the rich, the nomadic young and tourists.
To remain both vital and economically relevant, they must remain anchored by a
large middle class, and by families and businesses that feel safe and committed
to the urban place.

Don't we know it.
(HT to Out of Control.)

Hydro-Air: Lessons Learned

2006-05-16T19:52:00.000-04:00

From Business First:

Hydro-Air
Components Inc. has turned down an incentive offer from North Carolina and
will remain in Western New York.
Company officials confirmed Monday that the
manufacturer will move from two locations in Hamburg into a 152,700-square-foot
building it will erect in a former Brownfield site being redeveloped in South
Buffalo.

Construction on the $10 million project is expected to
begin in July and be completed by the first quarter of 2007. Hydro-Air, nearly a
quarter-century old, will be eligible for a state grant of $1.2 million and
another $1.61 million in Empire Zone benefits.

This is certainly good news for everyone involved (except Hamburg) and is an economic success story for Buffalo worth touting for some time to come. WIVB reported yesterday (link unavailable) that the Charlotte, NC area economic incentive offered to Hydro-Air was actually larger than what New York was offering, but company officials decided to stay out of loyalty to the Buffalo region.

Hydro-Air should be viewed as a solid case study on Western New York business development for the following reasons:

1. Buffalo Niagara Enterprise is proving its under-appreciated value to WNY

Michael Licata, senior business development representative for the Buffalo
Niagara Enterprise, said of the potential move: "From day one, it was a very
legitimate concern." The BNE helped identify incentives and local sites
available to Hydro-Air during efforts to keep the company here, he said.

Buffalo Niagara Enterprise deserves more credit than it receives for its service to our region. In this and other situations, Buffalo Niagara Enterprise identifies the problem and works with businesses on developing and implementing a solution--just in time for our political leaders to swoop in and take the credit along with more than their fair share of the media coverage. Mayor Brown’s involvement in this has been marginal at best, and even Brian Higgins seems to have played a peripheral supporting role. Buffalo Niagara Enterprise did the manual labor, and they deserve the ticker tape parade.

2. Local companies are looking for reasons to stay
Hydro-Air is a good example of the fact that many companies considering relocation away from New York are doing so in the interest of remaining solvent, and would prefer to stay in Buffalo. North Carolina hasn’t stolen (or almost stolen, in this case) our businesses and residents because of the better weather climate. The business climate in Southern and Western states is famously more comfortable than ours. It is no secret that New York is plagued with high business, income, and property taxes, labor union politics, expensive worker’s compensation, lack of political will to create adequate infrastructure, and State level politics embracing a “profit-is-immoral” philosophy.

Despite all of that, however, businesses want to be here and residents want to be here. The citizens of Buffalo exhibit unmatched hometown pride and loyalty to this region, but that can only continue if you have a job and your employer can make it work here. Hydro-Air should be commended for their smart behavior in seeking out and taking advantage of this opportunity.

3. Empire Zone incentives and Empire State Development Corp. involvement imply a pre-existing business-hostile environment

Local and state economic development officials said they took seriously the
threat of Hydro-Air moving out of state. They assembled an incentive package
that includes making the company eligible for up to $1.6 million in Empire Zone
benefits. Hydro-Air can apply for brownfield tax credits, as well as a capital
grant from Empire State Development worth up to $1.2 million to assist with
construction of its plant.

Tim Doolittle, regional director for
Empire State Development, said the size of the incentive package was crucial to
retaining Hydro-Air. The project also paves the way for reclaiming brownfields
in Buffalo, he said.

See my “NY Loves Business?” post for my thoughts on the necessity for Empire State Development. These sorts of incentive packages would not be necessary if (Western) New York’s economic climate weren’t so hostile. All things considered, however, we should be grateful for these incentives within the current context, but we should also actively be working toward their obsolescence.

4. Brownfield redevelopment tax credits work
This is the third time in less than a year that a major Brownfield Redevelopment has become reality. (See Blue Cross at Gasworks and Cobey Inc. at Lakeside Commerce Park.) Land that would otherwise sit vacant and polluted is being cleaned up and reborn. Companies that might otherwise relocated from the Buffalo region are being given a reason to stay in a business environment that can often be disadvantageous. This program is certainly one of the bigger successes in New York redevelopment history, and a good example of an acceptable tax credit or benefit. We do not have the sort of real estate crunch that exists Downstate, therefore there would otherwise be no incentive for businesses to seek out brownfield sites and they would continue to sit vacant and polluted.

Finally, the successful retention of Hydro-Air is a much-needed shot in the arm to Buffalo’s psyche. Yes we can get things done here, just ignore the Bass Pro situation for the time being. Charlotte, NC lost this round. We can only hope we’ll have many more wins in the near future.

So That's Why James Williams is Doing a Good Job

2006-05-16T15:45:00.000-04:00

In positioning himself as an instigator who can provoke the community to
action, Williams has fashioned himself after an unlikely role model: former Rep.
Newt Gingrich, speaker of the House when Bill Clinton was president, and
co-author of the Republican party's "Contract With America."

"Newt Gingrich raised the issues, and this country started reacting.
And by him raising the issues, he made Bill Clinton a great president," Williams
says, suggesting that by stirring up debate and raising questions, he can make
this community great, or at least considerably healthier than it has been for
some time.

Gingrich also acted as a competitive counterweight to Clinton, as Williams has become to Rumore and the teachers union. Williams has so far been successful at raising issues, providing an alternative vision to Rumore's for the future of the Buffalo Public School system, and supports charter schools and other innovative solutions to public education problems. Williams also is proving that a lot can be accomplished in a few short months of service. Many of us are still waiting for Mayor Brown to prove the same point.

NY Loves Business?

2006-05-14T18:36:00.000-04:00

From New York State's website:

New York State is the Pro-Business, Pro-Growth State

As the world’s eleventh largest economy, New York State is
headquarters for scores of companies and a place where businesses of all sizes
can tap a diversely talented and experienced workforce along with other
resources available in many communities.

With such a wealth of opportunity, we’ve created the ideal business
climate for companies of all types – including new and emerging industries – to
thrive in New York. We are proud of our pro-business environment and our
highly competitive economic incentives.

There also are programs that make starting a business easier and that
can save precious time. One of them is Build Now-NY, which is
pre-permitting dozens of sites across the state and turning business prospects
into clients. With Build Now-NY, the permit to start construction has
already been issued, establishing locations as shovel-ready before a potential
owner ever walks onto the site.

For businesses that want to be up and running as soon as possible,
there is assurance in knowing that an area is immediately available to
them. This positive approach toward a growing business community has
proven to be successful. Since its inception in 1998, the program has
resulted in $600 million in new capital investment, 2.5 million square feet of
developed space and 5,000 new or retained jobs.

I encourage you to explore all the business possibilities that New York
has to offer -- the sites are ready to build now in New York!

Very truly yours,

George E. Pataki
GovernorState of New York

Hey George- tell them about Upstate. Notice how shovel ready sites are the only item for which the horn toots. Many of the regulatory and tax problems facing businesses in New York State can be blamed on the counties, but the costliest ones are purely State issued.

"We are proud of our pro-business environment and our highly competitive economic incentives." I never thought I'd read a statement like that in reference to New York. Unfortunately, not a single word of it can be supported with evidence.

The fact is, offering shovel ready sites and providing subsidies to a very small number of pet projects--many of which are dubious in nature (see the Atlantic Yards fiasco in Brooklyn)--does not imply or equate to a business friendly environment. New York City is successful for reasons other than the State's "business friendliness," and the biggest flops and fiascos going on in NYC (Ground Zero development, Atlantic Yards) have the State's hand firmly implanted in the project. Upstate is self explanatory.

Here's the copy from a different NY Loves Business page at the site, with the same headline:

Companies from across the State, across the nation and around the world are
expanding their operations and investing their futures in New York. The business
community's renewed confidence in New York is real proof of our strengthened
economy and pro-business, pro-growth commitment. Our policies of cutting taxes,
controlling spending and eliminating red tape are working.

In just seven years, we have created an exceptional business climate
that is making a positive impact on business location and expansion decisions.
These and other major strides will continue. I remain committed to pursuing the
policies that have transformed New York into a national leader in creating
business opportunities and jobs. We invite you to choose the great Empire State
and watch your company prosper!

It is true that Pataki's hands are often tied since he's not the one writing the regulations and tax code that affect business in New York. He's also in the unfortunate position of being our state's official spokesperson, which puts considerable pressure on his staff to create messages that paint New York as a good place to do business while excusing him from responsibility for New York's world renowned shortcomings. Notwithstanding, these constaints do not excuse Pataki or his staff from the obligation to accuracy and the burden of supporting evidence. The best thing you can do in support of business, New York, is to get out of the way.

Register Your Vote

2006-05-14T10:55:00.000-04:00

From Business First's Business Pulse Surveys:

What's the biggest reason why New York's taxes remain so high?

New York has greater needs than other states do
New York offers better services than other states do
The governor and state legislature don't monitor spending
Special-interest groups rule the state
Voters demand extra services that they don't like paying for
Some other reason
Don't know

Comments:

Take the survey here.

Join the Club

2006-05-11T20:04:00.000-04:00

Buffalo Niagara Partnership has some interesting items on the agenda:

Small Business Development Council Panel Discussion
"How government decisions - at all levels - affect small business"

Thursday, May 18, 2006
12:00 p.m. - 1:30 p.m.

Location: Buffalo Niagara Partnership, 665 Main Street, Suite 200
Phone: 716 852-7100 ext. 470
Fax: 716 852-2761
Registration Information

The Partnership's Small Business Development Council will host a panel discussion: "How government decisions - at all levels - affect small business," a discussion on what is currently being done to help the local business community, and what is on the horizon. The panel discussion will be followed by a Q & A session with members.
Confirmed panelists for the discussion are: NYS Assemblymembers Robin Schimminger and Mark Schroeder; Erie County Legislator Kathy Konst; City of Buffalo Council President David Franczyk; and Amherst Supervisor Satish Mohan.
For further information, or to register, please contact the Partnership's Small Business Development Manager, Tracey Houston, email: thouston@thepartnership.org, phone: 852-7100 ext. 470.

Too bad these things aren't open to the public. The colleges in the area rarely have events as interesting looking as the ones hosted by BNP.

The End of the Temporary Victory for Open Competition

2006-05-11T18:58:00.000-04:00

"Erie County lawmakers took a major step Thursday afternoon towards enacting a controversial mandate that will require construction industry contractors working on county-funded projects to hire on-site employees who have passed a state certification program."

Business First is reporting that the bad-idea apprentice program constrution mandate has passed 10-5 in the country legislature. The fact that this was even up for vote again slipped my notice until today, but if the lack of coverage in other news outlets is any indication, it slipped everyone else's notice too.

Private sector groups say the law will hurt the construction industry and drive costs upwards.

"I can't see why anyone would be against this law because it helps women, minorities and the youth of our region," said Legislator Tim Kennedy, D-South Buffalo.

Well, Mr. Kennedy, see the line above your perplexed quote. Whether the results Kennedy claims will occur actually do so remains to be seen, but either way this mandate (if they are able to override Giambra's expected veto) creates yet another hoop through which New York businesses must jump. The good news is that it applies only to $250K+ construction contracts with Erie County and leaves private contracts alone, for now. It will indeed drive up costs, as nearly all mandates do, and if nothing else proves once again that legislators do not do their homework before trying to save us from perceived danger. (See this Business First report about New York State attempting to regulate amusement park ridership.)

Mike Ranzenhofer adds some sense to the brew:

Clarence Republican Legislator Michael Ranzenhofer, one of five lawmakers who opposed the law, said he fears it will only drive up the cost of county projects.

"We will no longer be awarding bids to the lowest contractor," he said. "This law restricts competition and it doesn't give anyone a fair shake."

'Nuff said.

Schumer's Classic Logical Fallacy

2006-05-09T22:34:00.000-04:00

Asked whether American consumers would lobby Washington to break up oil companies, Schumer said Americans would look at the price at the pump.

"If the price is $3.50 or something like that a gallon? The chances are good," he said.

OK. If an antitrust investigation of the oil industry will appease the public, go for it. (Shouldn't Mr. Spitzer be all over this?) It's just our tax dollars being thrown around. By this logic, we'd need to go after the five or six major cell phone service providers left in the nation. There have been some major mergers in that industry as well, and prices continue to go up, not down. Where's the outrage?

U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer said Monday he is filing legislation that will make the General Accounting Office study the feasibility of breaking up the biggest oil companies as a way of getting more competitive fuel pricing in the United States.
Schumer said five "vertical" petroleum companies -- meaning they drill for the oil, refine it and deliver it to the consumer -- engage in anti-competitive pricing practices that has customers of all five reeling from gas prices well over $3 a gallon.

He estimated that it might take the GAO about nine months to study the issue and whether competition would be created for fuel pricing if the mergers were undone. Schumer said pricing -- and the industry's receptiveness to getting serious about alternative energies -- would look a lot different if there were 20 oil companies operating vertically rather than five.

I don't believe this is a trust issue, but I will credit Schumer with understanding that monopoly is a bad thing. It'd be nice if he and his colleagues could see government that way. However, this semi-attractive red herring--slash--ad populum appeal does not address the reasons for high gasoline prices.

[Digression: Where the hell are the oil industry spokespeople? They are doing a colossally terrible job of managing this issue and the reputation of the industry they represent. They can afford to be louder than windbag politicians, even in a hostile media environment.]

On a happier note, Schumer also plans on doing what he should be doing--pushing government to adapt to the situation.

Schumer called on the Internal Revenue Service to increase the rate it sets for reimbursing workers for the on-the-job use of their automobiles. Self-employed workers and government workers use the rate, but private industry frequently adopts the same schedule.

Schumer urged the IRS to take the current 44.5-cent-a-mile reimbursement rate and increase it to 60 cents a mile. He also called for people to be able to file for higher deductions for the traveling they do for charities. Those expenses can currently be deducted at a 14-cent-a-gallon rate.

Now if he would stop poking private enterprise with his stick, I'd afford him a sliver of respect.

More on Economic Illiteracy

2006-05-09T21:53:00.000-04:00

Hamburg's Town Board came to their collective senses this week and rescinded the misguided Exxon-Mobil boycott. I can't help but think that this is a prime outreach moment for the economics departments at UB and Buff State. There are some profs at each institution who would be perfect for the job of explaining basic economics to the WNY public in some sort of public lecture series. Judging by the dirth of media consultants in each economics department, however, I'm guessing they don't want the job.

With that option off the table, I propose we give the job to Craig at Northcoast.

So you bought your house in Clarence twenty years ago. You paid $100,000
for it then, but now the kids are gone and you want to sell it and move into
something smaller (a loft in downtown Buffalo no doubt.) Houses on your
street now sell in the $150,000 range and that's what you decide to ask.
Are
you price-gouging? Is that $50,000 profit just an unearned
"windfall?"
That's
what the politicians claim that gas-station owners are doing. Those
bastards buy gas and raise the price before they've sold it!
YOU: "But
Craig, that's different," you say.
NCO: "How so," I retort.
YOU: "Because
gasoline is a necessity. It really should be regulated by the
government."
NCO: "Oh?" I inquire wonderingly. "But housing is
certainly more of a necessity than gasoline. If I can't put a roof over my
chilren's heads then we'll have nowhere to live."
YOU: "But the gas station
owner is in business.
"NCO: "Oh. You mean that he's trying to make a profit
and that's wrong."

Narrative is a powerful communication tool. Just ask Aristotle.

The third option is to republish this little piece of gold by Max Schulz in leaflet form and place under every windshield wiper this side of the Genesee River.

Worse, a Congressional Research Service study determined in 1990, the tax reduced domestic oil production between 3 percent and 6 percent annually, and increased America’s oil imports from between 8 percent and 16 percent. As the report concluded, “This made the U.S. more dependent upon imported oil.”

It isn’t difficult to figure out why the tax failed. It gave companies a disincentive to invest in domestic oil exploration and production. Why invest billions in risky projects to develop resources in places like the Gulf of Mexico’s deep waters if you are going to be punished for success?

Exxon Mobil just announced quarterly earnings of $8.4 billion. That’s a lot of money, but it comes on an astounding $89 billion in revenues worldwide (only a quarter of which comes from the United States).
Exxon’s profit margin is less than 10 percent. Is that a windfall? If so, what about the profits earned by Fannie Mae (51 percent profit margin), Legg Mason (37.7 percent), or Citigroup (32.2 percent)?

The entity truly earning windfall profits from oil is government. According to the Tax Foundation, since 1977 governments have collected “more than $1.34 trillion, after adjusting for inflation, in gasoline tax revenues — more than twice the amount of domestic profits earned by major U.S. oil companies during the same period.” That doesn’t include almost a trillion dollars more in corporate income taxes.

Those “profits” earned by government have come without having to risk capital, to answer to shareholders free to take their money elsewhere, or even to satisfy customers.

The more you know...

Hamburg's Kathy Hochul: The Face of Economic Illiteracy

2006-05-02T13:46:00.000-04:00

Hamburg, NY (WBEN) - Hamburg councilwoman Kathy Hochul says the town is hoping to make a statement to big oil companies by targeting one of them with a gas boycott.
She says town vehicles will not be refilling gas tanks at any Exxon-Mobil stations, and they are urging residents to do the same. Hochul tells WBEN's Neil McManus they don't want to hurt small business people, but want to send a message to the major oil companies, which are reporting record, multi-billion dollar profits.

Oh, Kathy, Kathy, Kathy. As I said below, pandering is entirely within the job description of our political leaders. Apparently, economic idiocy is as well.

The interesting aspect of this story is that Blackwell's Mobil station in Hamburg has recently decided to drop the Exxon-Mobil affiliation due to high franchise prices, and another up the street is closed for rebuilding, which is coinciding with the construction on Route 20. It would be difficult to partake in the boycott even if one wanted.

Economic Literacy

2006-04-30T21:18:00.001-04:00

As the price of a gallon of gas inches ever closer to the price of a gallon of orange juice, Colin McNickle of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review writes cogently about economic ignorance from a non-economist perspective.

Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell last week, in a pandering and populist
made-for-re-election moment, had the gall to stand in front of a gas pump in
Harrisburg and say "There is no excuse for this -- absolutely no excuse. It's
embarrassing." He wants a "windfall profits tax" to curb oil industry
"profiteering."

What there really absolutely is no excuse for is a person in such a
position of power and influence being so ignorant of fundamental economics and
even history.

After the oil and gasoline price spikes of a quarter-century ago, Jimmy
Carter and Congress, also prophets of pander, got their "windfall profits tax."
It was scrapped in the late 1980s as the disaster it was, having reduced
domestic production and, by an even greater percentage, increased our foreign
oil imports.

Pandering is entirely within the job description of our political leaders, however I'd expect the media to be playing at least a marginally educational role in the midst of this "gas crisis." Our local media cannot be counted on to play that role. Instead, they hang around gas stations waiting to interview economically ignorant motorists because in television news, the "human element" is more interesting than the facts.

Take, for instance, the motorist interviewed by WIVB recently who said (and I paraphrase), "It just seems like they raise the price whenever people are going to be using more gas, and lower it when they aren't. It just seems fishy to me. It's just wrong." Actually, it's just the law of supply and demand from a middle school economics lesson.

Rand on the Silver Screen

2006-04-30T21:18:00.000-04:00

From the Toronto Sun:

After a few failed attempts to bring to life Ayn Rand's sci-fi novel Atlas
Shrugged, a deal has finally been signed to adapt the book for the big screen,
Variety reports.
The 1957 novel revolves around the economic collapse of the
U.S. sometime in the future.
Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt, both fans of the
book, are reported to be interested in playing the lead roles of Dagny Taggart
and John Galt.
For several years, attempts have been made to bring it to the
big screen with Clint Eastwood, Robert Redford and Faye Dunaway all originally
attached to it.
Too soon to get excited about this film, since nothing is for sure in la la land until filming begins. The silver lining in the unfortunate casting of Pitt and Jolie (neither of whom are particularly bad actors, I suppose) is that this film will surely receive wide release and enough hype to ensure mass exposure to Rand's works and ideas. It could also turn into a kitschy "married stars" disaster. Let's hope for the former.
More

Oil

2006-04-14T11:01:00.000-04:00

When will the American public reach the point of taking some action about the
outrageous gasoline prices? Surely there is someone or some group that would
have the capacity to organize a grassroots movement to stop this rape of
America.

Rape of America? Meanwhile, demand continues to climb and supply continues to be threatened. There'd have to be zero demand from the American driving public for this to be classified as rape.

The economic argument has been made clearly at Cafe Hayek and elsewhere and does not need to be repeated. However, this sort of thing isn't helping the image of Big Oil. A public relations campaign would be a waste of time (see BP's "Beyond Petroleum" campaign) but perhaps some carefully constructed shareholder relations would keep the angry mob at bay.

Crook on Capitalism

2006-04-14T10:38:00.000-04:00

And it gets better, because this infinitely complicated, decentralized system
has an obvious affinity with personal liberty, in a way that a centrally
directed system never could. Market exchange, after all, is voluntary;
under central planning, you are told what to do—or else. Europe's
newcomers from the former Soviet empire need no reminding of this. But
people in Western Europe and the United States, who never had to endure the
alternative to a market economy, see little or no force in the connection
between economic and political liberty. Often it seems
that those in the West who are most concerned with defending political or civil
freedoms are least concerned with the economic kind, even to the point of being
outright opposed to them. They argue as though political freedom is the
real thing, whereas economic freedom is merely a cloak for injustice. In
the end, as socialism in practice showed, the two are indivisible.

Cafe Hayek has highlighted Clive Crook, former editor at The Economist, now working at The Atlantic. Some of his lectures can be found here. The passage above was taken from his critique of Hollywood's take on capitalism, though this paragraph is substantial enough to stand without the context.

Don't Blame Me: I Voted for Helfer.

2006-04-14T10:15:00.000-04:00

Judy Einach is catching some grief for her (painfully honest, accurate, and warranted) blog comments about Mayor Brown's first 100 days.

Mayor Brown continues to be as evasive as possible on issues. He juggled the
whole ticketing period never really saying anything. He missed great media
moments and botched others. He suddenly finds the casino deal troubling, a no
brainer position I thought during the campaign and long before! He appears to be
a follower, not a leader.

Regardless of how much you might disagree with Einach's politics--as I do--she's right. Brown is a doorknob. That was obvious from the get-go. Einach has also demonstrated a dedication to the city of Buffalo that the rest of us could hardly match, particularly the do-nothing political opportunist running our city. Sadly, he will continue to be a do-nothing and continue to fail when it comes to demonstrating leadership. Also not the greatest of leaders, at least Masiello raised his voice and got red in the face once in a while.

Bauerle is owed a nod for discussing this today.

Urban Renewal: Same Story, Different City

2006-04-09T12:51:00.000-04:00

This From Reason's Out of Control:

Bob Manley on the problems of revitalization
Bob Manley was a land-use
attorney in Cincinnati with a passion for cities and urban revitalization. I met
him more than 15 years ago after he read some of my writings on enterprise
zones. I recently asked him a couple of questions about the politics and reality
of revitalizing cities. Below is his response which I thought included a
richness we rarely see in public policy discussions these days.

For example, the first big project was to demolish the “West End.” This was
a neighborhood where my family lived 150 years ago. After World War I, it was
largely vacated by whites and occupied exclusively by blacks. The buildings were
fine old buildings, just as solid and durable as the 1882 building in which my
office is located, or the 1885 building in which I live. Because the
neighborhood was black, it was easy for the white majority to assume that the
declaration that it was a slum was a valid declaration. The Deputy Commissioner
of Buildings for Housing Inspection warned that to disrupt this dense population
of black households without arranging suitable alternative housing for them
would create chaos in the City. He almost lost his job for that. The City
Traffic Engineer cautioned that the plan that called for the consolidation of
six or eight city blocks to create superblocks that would serve as pads for
multi-story factories would create a traffic pattern that would be difficult for
drivers to navigate. Nonetheless, the West End was torn down and the superblocks
were created. Of course, after World War II, there has never been a multi-story
factory built. The superblocks are grossly underutilized to this day.

The City of Cincinnati did project after project and
they all turned out to be economic failures. As far as I can tell, the
only time that it was submitted to the voters was in the case of the athletic
stadiums. The vote was taken on whether or not to authorize the bonds to build
the first combined football/baseball stadium. That stadium was financed by the
issuance of industrial revenue bonds by the County. The revenue was a lease to
be signed by the City of Cincinnati. Thus, the County owned it, but the City
operated it and paid rent to redeem the bonds. The stadium was demolished to
make way for the two new stadiums before the stadium bonds had been halfway
redeemed. The second vote was to raise the sales tax 0.05% in order to issue
bonds backed by sales tax revenues to build the two new stadiums. Aside from
those two situations, all of our eminent domain urban renewal mistakes were made
without voter approval.

Just substitute "Cincinnati" with "Buffalo" (or Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Detroit...) and you've got the standardized death of Northeastern and upper Midwest urban centers over the past several decades. We've been lucky to avoid eminent domain abuse in Buffalo as of late, but that could be due to our political leaders' lack of motivation, or the lack of developers interested in large projects. The new round of urban renewal sweeping through Buffalo (and picking up momentum every day) is a bit more organic and light on the "grand scheming" of the 1950s and '60s. Bass Pro and the casino might be the exceptions.

I've railed against excessive public input in private development projects in the past. The Elmwood hotel development is probably an example of "sufficient" public input--just enough to keep the community in the loop and not so much that it killed the project. After reading the above (red) paragraph and thinking more about the Buffalo Creek Casino and Bass Pro, I should clarify that my stance is very different when public money is involved. Bass Pro is the perfect example of what Mr. Manley is discussing above: Public money being used for urban renewal projects without any sort of public input, with public officials ad-libbing as economists and business developers.

If our local leaders can be armchair economists, then--in the spirit of following the lead--the rest of us can as well. My guess: If there were really a large market here for Bass Pro, the company wouldn't have needed a large bribe in order to locate here. In other words, if the Buffalo market were a profitable business opportunity for Bass Pro, they would have been eager to bear the entire cost of the project in order to reap the rewards. The only exception might be the public infrastructure around the auditorium. It would certainly seem as though someone taught Bass Pro how to play the Northeast Urban Renewal Game, and now they are preying on our desperation.

Mass. Universal Healthcare Act Commentary Roundup

2006-04-06T10:55:00.000-04:00

An Act PROVIDING ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE, QUALITY, ACCOUNTABLE HEALTH CARE

Whereas, The deferred operation of this act would tend to defeat its purpose which is forthwith to expand access to health care for Massachusetts residents, increase the affordability of health insurance products, and enhance accountability of our state’s health system, therefore it is hereby declared to be an emergency law, necessary for the immediate preservation of the public health and convenience.

Full text of the Act can be found here, for those of you with a legislative jargon fetish.

I have not read it yet so I will refrain from commenting on the specifics of the law. I suppose I'd have my free market advocacy membership card revoked if I weren't outraged by the very notion of a law mandating health insurance. On the surface it does seem as though the cost-burden is being spread even to those who do not need or want health insurance, and seems to leave little room for health savings accounts as a legal alternative. There is no opt-out, even when you can afford to pay your medical costs out of pocket as many surely can in the wealthy state of Massachusetts. I'm withholding thorough reaction for now, but I do have a comment or two about what The Others are saying:

Businessweek does a reasonably good job of reviewing the bill.

George Reisman at Mises Blog:

If that were not enough, the article actually talks of part of the cost of the
bill being apportioned to the government. That’s what allegedly helps to make
the bill so affordable: the government will pay part of its cost. The article’s
actual words, which bear repeating, are “apportioning the cost among businesses,
individuals and the government.” This treats the government as some kind of rich
fairy godmother, who is helping to take care of her people. And to be sure that
this claim is not lost, the print edition of The Times brazenly states this
fable in a callout set in large, bold type: “A health care plan paid for by
businesses, individuals and the government.” One of the
surprises apparently in store for many people in Massachusetts is going to be
learning that whatever is paid for by their government is going to be paid for
by them.
The article makes clear that those who have not purchased
medical insurance, because they think it’s too expensive, but who are
nevertheless deemed capable of “affording” it, are going to have it rammed down
their throats. It will be illegal not have medical insurance.

This is such a basic tenet that it is shocking how few people actually understand this. The answer to this charge has thus far been that the government-funded portion of this mandate reportedly will come from current Medicaid funds, but this neither guarantees tax stagnancy or prevention of tax expansion to pay for the growth of the program, and either way it is still being subsidized with tax dollars.

A great comment left at Mises:
Mark my words: the inevitable failure of this plan will be cited as evidence for why we should have a national health insurance plan.
Any apparent success before its inevitable failure will be cited as evidence for why we should have a national health insurance plan.
Any possible third scenario will be cited as evidence for why we should have a national health insurance plan.

From CATO (Michael Tanner):

Proposals for achieving universal health insurance coverage are once again
receiving serious attention. Among the ideas attracting bipartisan support is an
individual health insurance mandate, a legal requirement that every American
obtain adequate private health insurance coverage. People who don't receive such
coverage through their employer or some other group would be required to
purchase their own individual coverage. Those who failed to do so would be
subject to fines or other penalties.

Link to the full policy report

This commentary from the Washington Post:

The mandate is good policy. Individuals who don't buy insurance forgo routine
and preventive care, but they still get free access to emergency rooms, which
they may use to seek treatment for non-emergency ailments. Forgoing preventive
care is bad for an individual's health, but it's also harmful to others. The
cost of "free" emergency-room treatment is passed on to insured patients via
higher premiums.

This is assuming that those who don't buy insurance are always poor and get free access to emergency rooms. The phrase "mandate is good policy" makes me shudder, and as far as I know most individuals can decide for themselves whether they need preventive care. Lawmakers need not intervene.

Over at North Coast, Craig provides this analysis:

I still think that mandatory health insurance coverage is a sensible policy. But
wouldn't it be tempting to skip buying car insurance if that wasn't mandatory?
And since hospitals are required to provide care for free to the uninsured in
some cases then it's clear that the rest of us end up paying for it -- further
driving up costs.
But Massachusetts has diluted its wisdom. Of course, the
indigent will continue to receive their health care for free under Medicaid.
And, it must be said, that will serve as an incentive for some to make
themselves appear indigent (under-the-table employment for example) in order to
qualify for the free version of the now-required insurance. Not a lot of people,
perhaps, but undoubtedly some.

Ultimately the cost is designed to be
borne by business. Imagine, for example, that you're a small businessman (or
businessfemale) who's currently paying $1000 per employee for annual health
insurance benefits. If times get tough (or if you're just greedy,) wouldn't you
rather pay the state's $295 finefee? Yes, you would.
And it doesn't take
doesn't take a psychic to figure out that the state will soon get wise to that
ploy and raise the fine, um, fee to oh, I don't know, $1000 per employee. In the
end all businesses will effectively be required to provide health insurance to
all their employees. That, according to many, is good social policy but it's a
disastrous economic plan.

I'm not sure I agree with the first sentence, or the analogy in the second. Other than that, however, I have the same concerns about the effect on business and the "foot-in-the-door" quality of the mandatory $295 fee. I am also willing to entertain the notion that middle class individuals might make themselves appear indigent to take advantage of the subsidized care, though I wouldn't expect this problem to be any more widespread than the current food-stamps abuse issues.

This statement: "And since hospitals are required to provide care for free to the uninsured in some cases then it's clear that the rest of us end up paying for it -- further driving up costs." brings to mind the idea that perhaps we aren't doing an adequate job of addressing the reasons healthcare is so expensive to begin with.

Making everyone pay whether they want to (or need to) or not will not automatically address rising healthcare costs. In fact, it might encourage cost increases in order to take advantage of the capitve audience.

Finally, BuffaloPundit had this to say:

This actually tracks pretty closely what many European countries already do -
require people to obtain medical insurance, and providing assistance to those
who can’t readily afford it.

A couple of years ago, Massachusetts taught
us that permitting same-sex marriage would not lead to any sort of disaster
whatsoever. Will the Bay State teach a similar lesson when it comes to universal
health coverage for citizens?

BuffaloPundit leans left, which I'm willing to forgive since he does a good job of covering the goings on around Buffalo (and he was kind enough to add me to his blogroll), but I have to take issue with both statements.

"Progressive" thinkers often turn to Europe for inspiration, and it is frequently stated in a matter-of-fact style that implies that if Europe is doing it, it must be a good idea. The socialized healthcare in the UK, Europe, and Canada has serious flaws that we wouldn't necessarily repeat in our own version of socialized healthcare, but that we should at least ackowledge before assuming they do things the "right way."

Also, same-sex marriage in Massachusetts has certainly not led to global collapse, but it is also not costing anyone any money. Mandatory health insurance is a different, and costlier, situation. One progressive social policy success does not imply future social policy successes.

Tuesday Humor 4.4.06: L'irrationnalité française Encore

2006-04-04T20:08:00.000-04:00

If this is a protest about a new labor law, what's with the gay pride flag and peace sign?

Of course a law addressing the French youth unemployment problem is a bad idea. If more of them were working, they wouldn't have time for such highly productive passtimes like kicking in glass doors and rioting.

Visit politicalcartoons.com

Monday Outrage 4.3.06

2006-04-03T12:00:00.000-04:00

Castle Coalition's Eminent Domain Abuse Map. Scary.

I also stumbled upon this frightening stance from Buffalo Rising. How did this post escape comment?

Amherst's Preventive Rezoning

2006-04-02T10:51:00.000-04:00

Amherst's rezoning plan should attact the attention of the Castle Coalition, or at least the Reason Foundation for its brazen disregard for private property. Without giving Walmart or the developer a chance to address the water control issues, Amherst is downzoning the Millersport strip of land in question to residential in an effort to prevent the Walmart Supercenter from becoming reality.

The town board should have simply voted no on the proposed Walmart rather than permanently devaluing the property owner's land by preventing him from ever selling it for any commerical purpose. It is a sort of reverse eminent domain situation, and equally alarming. His "just compensation" will not come, unless of course he sells the land for a massive subdivision that should (if anti-Walmart politics are not at play here) raise the same concerns. Stay tuned. I suspect this wouldn't have happened had the project been another mega-church with mega-parking lot.

Link Pool

2006-03-30T20:47:00.000-05:00

The Angry Economist's pithy summation of what the rest of us are thinking: Go Away, Elliot

So when he says that he "believes that government should have no higher priority
than standing up for New York State's economic future." you know that means that
he wants to spend our money to help us. I have a better idea: I want to spend my
money to help me, and I don't need any busybody telling me how to spend my own
money.

Speaking of spending our money, here's Charles Murry's Plan to Replace the Welfare State

Instead of sending taxes to Washington, straining them through bureaucracies and
converting what remains into a muddle of services, subsidies, in-kind support
and cash hedged with restrictions and exceptions, just collect the taxes, divide
them up, and send the money back in cash grants to all American adults. Make the
grant large enough so that the poor won't be poor, everyone will have enough for
a comfortable retirement, and everyone will be able to afford health care. We're
rich enough to do it.

Or we could just stop taxing in the first place.

Hit & Run brings to our attention a study that shows that men and woman both seek out news that will act to regulate their mood, but men seek out news that will inflame their anger and women do the opposite.

When men and women are angry, they both choose the news media articles they read
with the goal of regulating their moods, a new study suggests. But, in some
circumstances, men choose to read articles that will fuel their anger, while
women choose articles that will dissipate it.

Which is why I continue to follow news about French reluctance to embrace flexibility.

The delusion is that preserving France as it is, in some sort of formaldehyde
solution, means preserving jobs for life. Students, as well as unqualified
suburban youngsters, do not today face a choice between the new, less protected
work contract and a lifelong perch in the bureaucracy. They, by and large, face
a choice between already unprotected short-term work and no work at all. And the
reason for this, which is also the reason for France's intractable mass
unemployment of nearly 10%, is simple: those permanent life-time jobs are so
protected, and hence so difficult to get rid of, that many employers are not
creating them any more.

Here's a pre-protest article from Capitalism Magazine on immigration that--brace yourself--includes evidence to support a position! I can't say I agree with Mr. Brockerman, but I applaud him for including a fact or two in his argument.

We're all victims. But you knew that already.

The moment is close when the United States will be composed entirely of victim
groups. For the last year, the press has sounded the alarm about a new gender
crisis in education: boys reportedly make up a declining portion of applicants
to, and students within, colleges. More than 56 percent of undergraduates are
women; two-thirds of all colleges and universities report receiving more
applications from girls than from boys, according to a recent New York Times
op-ed. The implication is obvious: we—the federal government, state bureaucrats,
and the endlessly expanding diversity industry—need to do something! Even New
York Times columnist John Tierney, ordinarily a ruthless debunker of big
government, called last week for the federal Department of Education to
“figur[e] out how to help boys reach college.”

Speaking of victims, Mises Blog on Collectivism and Socialist Anarchism.

On Why I Loathe Blogger

2006-03-28T20:56:00.000-05:00

My Tuesday Humor post had much more to it than it does now. I went in to make a minor edit and Blogger destroyed the other half of the post, never to be recovered. Sorry. I'm too tired to fix it, which is unfortunate because I made a few good points in that post.

Vertebrae will be moving to a new service sooner rather than later. Blogger is damn near worthless.

More France Bashing

2006-03-28T17:34:00.001-05:00

I've been annoyed by this France/Apple iTunes story since last week. Even more irritating than the original issue is the fact that some rather high profile American techie types agree with the French legislature on this issue.

The French have done it again. In an attempt to update copyright laws for the 21st century, lawmakers in France have thrown a giant spanner in the works of the nascent online digital music business. Late on Mar. 21, the lower house of the legislature, the Assemblé National, passed a law that will require sellers of digital-music players and online music services in France to open up their technical standards and become entirely interoperable. The law, passed by the National Assembly by a vote of 296 to 193, requires companies that sell digital-music files in France to open up their digital rights management systems so that the files can be played on any device. The law, if ultimately enacted, may set the stage for Apple to shut down its digital-music sales operations in the country, though Apple hasn't said one way or the other if that is the case.

The analogy isn't perfect, but I can't help but wonder why no one is concerned about that fact that you can only use Playstation games with a Playstation, you can only use Xbox games with an Xbox, you can only use Glade Plugins with a Glade Plugin, and so on. This is hardly a copyright issue. Musicmatch, mp3.com, Amazon, and others have all used digital licensing to limit use or reproduction of songs purchased from their stores. Off the hook they are, and it would seem that Apple iTunes is the digital music version of Walmart when it comes to being singled out for business practices also used by many of its competitors. (Myspace also comes to mind when it comes to being singled out for practices also used by competitors.)

I own a non-iPod .mp3 player and I buy all of my music from iTunes. With converters available and burning to CD and re-ripping onto your computer, there are ways to play songs purchased at iTunes on a non-iPod without government intervention destroying yet another company. France is on a roll this week.

Government Transparency & Free Markets

2006-03-28T17:34:00.000-05:00

This short but sweet piece from Econlog was worth lifting in its entirety:

Transparent Government and Libertarianism
Arnold Kling

Will Wilkinson writes,
"[There is ] a big principle-agent/incentive compatibility problem between representatives and the citizens they represent. Politicians want to get re-elected. If they can subsidize interest group A at group B’s expense without group B really noticing due to the hidden transfer, then that will sound like a real winner to a politician. Which is just to say that the incentives politicians face encourage them to violate the very conditions of transparency and public justification that make their coercive powers legitimate. That sounds like a problem to me."

Many on the left oppose transparency of the sort that Wilkinson advocates. They say, for example, that if Social Security or Medicare were understood as transfer programs, then those programs would be unpopular and the indigent elderly would suffer.

Wilkinson's point is that stealth transfers violate democratic principles by allowing political elites to do in the shade what they could not get away with in the sun. I am not sure that he has a viable solution to this problem, or that there is one.

This piece led to the discovery of Will Wilkinson's blog (link above). I didn't know he had one. He and I share at least one alma mater; free pat on the back to anyone who guesses which one on the first try.

He concludes his post with this intesting idea:

Here is a hypothesis for debate: The cause of classical liberalism as a really
existing possibility for political reform has been harmed by bundling free
markets with a ban on transfers. This package deal has influenced people who
think justice requires transfers to eschew free markets. If we had spent the
last forty years hammering away at liberal fundamentals like transparency and
generality instead of the natural right to not be taxed, our society would now
be closer to the free market, limited government ideal.

Hmm....

Tuesday Humor 3.28.06: French Irrationality Edition

2006-03-27T23:10:00.000-05:00

Riots in the birthplace of Reason.

Alright, perhaps I am looking for amusing irony where there is none, but it's all I've got this week. Nothing struck me as particularly humorous since last week's Tuesday Humor, but you can always count on the French to be an endless source of regretful hilarity.

Monday Outrage: Human Lives, $37.50ea.

2006-03-27T13:38:00.000-05:00

I have decided to compliment Tuesday Humor with Monday Outrage, in the interest of balance. The first edition will include a virtually ignored news story that leaves open many questions. From WIVB-TV:

(March 27, 2006) - - A Dunkirk woman has been spared serious charges for a crash
that killed two people.The Chautauqua County District Attorney's office has
decided not to pursue more charges against 26-year-old Rachael Zielinski.She was
convicted last month of running a stop sign and will have to pay a $75
fine.Investigators say Zielinski's truck collided with another vehicle last
August in the town of Arkwright.68-year-old Douglas Bigelow and 69-year-old
Tenny Bigelow of Forestville died in the accident.

That's it. WIVB seems to be the only source covering this story. I wish WIVB had, oh I don't know, asked why she won't be facing more charges after running a stop sign and killing two people? This sounds an awful lot like our Orchard Park Olympian who ran a stop sign last June and killed a mother of four, and then went on to be treated like the victimized local hero. He also didn't face further charges.

Tuesday Humor 3.21.06: Cultural Hysteria Edition

2006-03-21T14:06:00.000-05:00

See more here.

And We're Bickering about a Four Story Hotel on Elmwood

2006-03-20T19:53:00.000-05:00

Big step for 2,000-ft. spire
City planners Thursday cleared for takeoff a new architectural landmark on the city's lakeshore, a 124-story, 2,000-foot-tall building described as a celebration of Chicago's history and spirit, especially its willingness to take a chance on a half-a-billion-dollar investment.

The commission vote and past praise for the building uttered by Mayor Daley make City Council approval of the project a foregone conclusion. But while it has passed its political and planning checkpoints, the project now faces its financial test.

Notice how in Chicago, building projects need to face the political, planning, and financial checkpoints. No "angry mob" checkpoint in sight. Meanwhile in Buffalo, a four story hotel that will surely augment the aesthetic and economic picture on Elmwood was met with a public protest over the weekend. I forgot to drive by and scream, "Get off my lawn!" but judging by the relative lack of media coverage, the protest wasn't very big and probably not worth a drive-by verbal assault.

Let The Market Handle It!

2006-03-20T19:21:00.000-05:00

To recommend the market, in fact, is to recommend letting millions of creative people, each with different perspectives and different bits of knowledge and insights, each voluntarily contribute his own ideas and efforts toward dealing with the problem. It is to recommend not a single solution but, instead, a decentralized process that calls forth many competing experiments and, then, discovers the solutions that work best under the circumstances.

This process is flexible and it encourages creativity. It also denies to anyone the power to unilaterally impose his own vision on others.

While declaring "Let the government handle it" comes across as a solution, it's no such thing. Instead, it is merely a sign of a simple and baseless faith -- a simple and baseless faith that people invested with power will not abuse it; that political appointees possess or will find better answers than will millions of people pursuing solutions in their own ways, and staking their own resources and reputations on their efforts; that only those 'solutions' that are spelled out in statutes and regulations and that have officials paid to implement them are true solutions.

Solutions to complex social problems require as many creative minds as possible -- and this is precisely what the market delivers.

An unusually poetic post from Don Boudreaux at Cafe Hayek. This is the most clear and concise justification for libertarian free market thought I've heard in a long, long time. Even Big Government leftists and spendthrift Neo-cons ought to respect this justification.

Upstate Job Loss Fatigue

2006-03-20T19:03:00.000-05:00

Job growth upstate last year was less than one-seventh of the increase nationally. Put another way, for every two jobs that were added upstate, 15 were created across the United States.

Upstate's economy has been struggling for a long, long time. Over the last 15 years, for instance, the number of jobs upstate has grown by a measly 4.2 percent, less than a fifth of the 21.9 percent increase nationally.

That's a lot of numbers, but they tell an important story. People follow jobs, and unfortunately, the job growth numbers show that upstate New York is creating just a fraction of the opportunities that are found in the rest of the country.

The reporting on job and population loss in Upstate New York has become as hackneyed as the reporting on house fires and traffic accidents. The matter-of-fact manner in which this troubling subject is covered has led to a considerable amount of resigned apathy in the Buffalo area. "I'll stay here until I lose my job" has become the new Western New York motto. The assumption that life will work itself out that way for many people isn't unwarranted, unfortunately. The other unfortunate reality is that the most highly motivated individuals are most inclined to work for change in a community or in their governance, but Buffalo's most highly motivated have used that motivation to relocate several states away instead.

Businesses are attracted to areas of population growth, not population decline. The population of Upstate New York will continue to decline with the decline of viable job opportunities. And the cycle continues.

Two Libertarians' Experience with Organ Donation

2006-03-19T18:27:00.001-05:00

After spending so much time thinking renally, Virginia's husband Steve even came up with his own elegant little market solution to the fatal organ shortage. Citizens who give an organ get a holiday from federal taxes for a year. High earners pay lots of tax, and low earners pay next to none. As Postrel points out, the holiday idea is therefore less vulnerable to the usual criticism that organ dealing exploits the poor.

The kidney holiday sounds quirky enough to also appeal to the philanthropist, who tends to want two contradictory things: the satisfaction of giving and the sense that he really is getting something out of it.

Read the full article here.

My My Our Government is Big (and Expensive)

2006-03-19T18:27:00.000-05:00

Are you getting your piece? See the full size version here.

Temporary Victory for Open Competition

2006-03-16T17:40:00.000-05:00

Instead of the inevitable vote to override County Executive Giambra's veto of Tim Kennedy's (D-South Buffalo) "apprenticeship bill," the county legislature sent it to the committee on economic development. I'm guessing they suddenly didn't have the votes to override. Time is up, the veto will stand, and apparently Joel Giambra is still capable of sound decision-making here and there.

The law would have required contractors bidding on Erie County projects to provide apprenticeship programs approved by the New York State Department of Labor. Kennedy has said that this isn't a "union vs. non-union issue" but either way it would effectively push many contractors out of the game. Kennedy said today that this fight isn't over, despite the fact that it was popular with no one, it was vetoed, and similar bills have failed elsewhere.

He certainly has some sort of agenda, though I'm guessing it isn't the one he discloses in this news release. The fact that social engineering is his disclosed (rather than disguised) agenda speaks volumes of the political climate around here. This news release escaped my attention when it was issued but deserves some close attention now.

Let's dissect.

"Kennedy provides opportunity for future labor workforce Passes Local Law mandating apprenticeship worker training programs" The headline alone is perplexing. It implies that Kennedy believes young laborers will not learn the trade they've entered without legislative interference (has this ever been an issue before?), and that job opportunities would not otherwise exist for skilled laborers. I have no idea how the certification process works through the State Labor Department, but I suspect it is just as lengthy and convoluted as any other process that originates or passes through Albany. All those young workers who could have been working with a contractor on a county project (on the job training, the old fashioned way)will instead sit on the sidelines waiting for said contractor to be certified by the DOL. I don't know what percentage of overall contracts are with the county as opposed to city or private, but the instant reduction in competition this law would have created would certainly not boost labor job growth in Erie County.

Erie County Legislator Tim Kennedy recently ensured the threatened future of our labor workforce by sponsoring the Law known as "Erie County Workforce Development and Diversification Apprenticeship Training Program." Threatened future of our labor workforce? By who's account?

The program will provide New York State certified educational programs that combine classroom work with structured work experiences to train workers for highly skilled jobs in the construction sector. Isn't ECC already doing this sort of thing?

"The benefits of this program will provide a solution to the threat of the depletion of our current workforce due to the retiring of our baby boomers," Kennedy said. "This program will provide the young laborers of today the necessary skills to provide the quality work needed for tomorrows future." Ok. A plausible and reasonable expectation. However, why is a law necessary? Contractors who want to stay in business will figure this out on their own. They don't need the county legislature telling them how to run their business by threatening to cut them out of the bidding. Local businesses of all stripes face enough challenges as it is without new legislation making it yet even harder to do business here, with the county or just in the county. There are enough free market incentives for contractors to acquire young (cheap) labor that we probably don't need to worry about this retiring baby boomer red herring.

Kennedy stated this program would come with many benefits that include being a source for economic benefit to the community as a whole, providing stable employment opportunities for our youth through a structured high quality-training program. This just defies economic logic.

"Without such programs local construction companies will not have an available pool of skilled workers," Kennedy said, "Contractors will be forced to bring in workers from out of the area on construction projects in the Inner Harbor Project and the Medical Corridor. Tax dollars flowing out of our area is not good for our economy." Really? Why are we assuming that there will be skilled workers elsewhere but not here? If this is still the retiring baby boomer argument, I'd hate to be the one to inform Kennedy that baby boomers exist and retire elsewhere in the country. If we're experience a skilled labor shortage due to veterans retiring, so is everyone else. I don't believe this is the case. Any hypothetical shortage of young laborers cannot be solved with a mandated apprenticeship program unless you are forcing into these programs young people who never intended on a life as a laborer.

Contractors will also reap the benefits of paying apprentice labor up to 50 percent less than fully trained workers, resulting in cost saving on the bottom line. The only non-fully trained laborers making the same amount of money as fully trained laborers are unionized laborers. This is the rationale for a free labor market--you get paid what you are worth based on your skills, not based on the fact that you belong to a union (whether you are worth the pay or not). Kennedy's mandate would bar from the bidding many construction companies who are already reaping the benefits of paying less to less skilled workers. The law would effectively solve a non-problem and "create" a "beneficial" atmosphere equal to what we already have.

"With the baby boomers currently dominating the construction trades retirement will create a shortage in the industries skilled workforce," Kennedy said, "Within the next decade, 185,000 new workers must be trained to offset expected retirements. Worker Training Programs will ensure there are an adequate number of skilled workers in the construction trade." So why does it have to be a county mandate? This illustrates how little faith our local government has in private enterprise to solve its own issues.

The final issue thrown into this news release deals with women and minorities. This is where the social engineering gets strange. "Women and Minorities are under represented in the construction trades because of lack of skills," Kennedy said, "This legislation would be a gateway for women and minorities, creating more opportunities for them and providing the necessary skills to gain employment." How? There is no guarantee that women and minorities would be hired. Is this to imply that Kennedy plans on getting into the job placement industry as well? Again, ECC is already offering this sort of training, and it is open to women and minorities. What happens after that is up to the construction companies and labor unions. The training that really counts is on the job, and this law would not guarantee a job to anyone.

The short answer to the vetoed county legislature and to Tim Kennedy about this bill that he claims isn't dead yet? Stop interfering in private enterprise and start listening to the people you represent.

Tuesday Humor 3.14.06

2006-03-14T16:20:00.000-05:00

"BOCES substitute makes principled stand
Switches to food stamps instead of shopping at Wal-Mart"

Today will be the first installment of Tuesday Humor at Vertebrae. This article from New York Teacher, a publication of the "seriously, we don't have any leftist agenda" New York State United Teachers union, of which I am a proud non-member.

In fear of ruining the punchline, I will quote some of the funnier segments:

The shawl he has wrapped around himself on this winter day, he says simply, doubles as a blanket.
"I do whatever it takes to survive and live a socially conscious life," said Powell, who has a tepee in his yard.

Shopping at Wal-Mart? This is a place that encourages employees to get social services because it does not provide adequate health insurance or wages; sells goods made in sweatshops; and upsets entire communities by undercutting the downtown stores, then raising its prices when the locals go out of business.
"I don't like what Wal-Mart stands for," Powell said, noting the mega-chain's scanty health insurance for staffers. "Because of all those things they can lower the prices." [Not exactly, but we'll play along.]

He and his partner agreed to go on food stamps for their family rather than shop at Wal-Mart any longer.

Carner-Shafran said she became more vigorous in opposing Wal-Mart after watching a film at NYSUT headquarters last year that demonstrated the social ills that come from the invasive retailer.
"It further made me understand that I have to tell everyone I know," she said. "I talk to Jack all the time about social issues ... Maybe someone that shops there can hear that if this young man can do it, maybe someone else can stop doing it, too. He's leading the way."

So, voluntarily going on food stamps to protest the fact that Walmart "forces" people onto public assistance? Clever. Have you tried getting a steady job, perhaps?

Thank you New York Teacher for keeping us abreast of the important educational issues going on in New York State.

Social Entrepreneurship & Privitization of the Welfare State

2006-03-12T18:50:00.000-05:00

"No matter whose priorities prevail in this year's budget debate, it is a certainty that the federal government will continue to devote billions to activities known as "social services." These include support for everything from foster care to drug abuse prevention; indeed, the Administration for Children and Families alone supports no less than 60 such programs at an annual cost of nearly $13 billion, in addition to the cash welfare payments it handles.

But should this role be considered beyond debate? It is a question worth pondering today because of a historic confluence of circumstances: an impending wave of charitable giving at an unprecedented level; long-term projections of federal deficits, undermining the assumption that social programs can best be funded by government; and a new generation of so-called social entrepreneurs, looking to try creative approaches to help those in need, and to do so on a large scale.

This record of government-provided services plays out today in a dramatically changing environment for philanthropy. In recognition of the wealth of soon-to-retire boomers, the Boston College Center on Wealth and Philanthropy estimates that philanthropic giving will total some $6 trillion between 2003 and 2050. Already, over the past 10 years, there's been an 88% increase in the number of foundations. Over the last decade there has been a 67% growth in the overall number of U.S. nonprofits.

Meanwhile, a wave of capable persons has come forward to establish effective new social service organizations, based on new ideas and with little or no government support. Indeed, it can be argued that we are now in an unprecedented period for the emergence of such people, who have started new types of job training, mentoring and immigrant-assistance efforts. The term "social entrepreneur" -- for those who establish such organizations -- has entered the language and become current on college campuses, where courses and research centers (Harvard, Duke, Stanford) on the topic have been established."

Read "Privatize the Welfare State" here.

Free Market Walking Tour of Chicago's Loop

2006-03-12T14:25:00.000-05:00

"The central business district of Chicago has a very interesting history from many perspectives. Other guides cover much of that history in an admirable way. However, what tends to be left out are the present-day market institutions and the economic history, specifically the free-market history."

Take the Heartland Institute's Walking Tour of Chicago's Loop here.

This is an interesting economic-historical perspective on Chicago's central business district. Infrastructure is the star of this particular virtual walking tour.

Chicago was my home before returning to Buffalo. I plan to do some kind of comparative analysis of the two cities in a future post. Both had very similar histories and economic development to a certain point at which the two followed drastically different trajectories. There are lessons to be learned by closely examining Chicago.

Time to Debate National Youth Service?

2006-03-11T15:25:00.000-05:00

Craig's answer is, "Um, no. It's not." I concur. It might help to read the Galloway article before reading my post.

"Let’s talk about this. Let’s argue over it. Let’s discuss not only the
benefits of citizenship but the obligations and responsibilities as well. Let’s
not sit mute and happy while a million volunteer troops do all the suffering,
serving and dying on behalf of all the rest of us. Let’s find some brave souls
in Congress willing to drop a bill in the hopper and scare all the rest of
them."

No. This debate has been settled at several points in our history, most recently with the creation of an all-volunteer military. Our youth are more valuable to us when we follow the laws of comparative advantage--each individual contributing from within his or her own area of skill or expertise. What good is it to us if a young person with dreams of becoming a heart surgeon is forced to put off his education for two years in order to fumble his way through military assistance or cleaning up national parks? That is two less years of highly skilled service to patients down the line. How much good would said young surgeon-to-be serve to the military (in wartime or peace) over the course of two years? You need to train. That takes time. Young surgeon-to-be would be at the point of mastering miltary service right when the mandatory service period would come to an end. We would now have a military staffed with a never ending cycle of unskilled rookies. Not safe, not smart. Vietnam was our lesson in unskilled military.

"While our leaders enjoy the convenience of a professional volunteer
military at their command, they have also discovered that people cost money.
Recruiting, training, equipping and keeping men and women in uniform is
expensive, even when our Army has been whittled away to only 10 divisions."

I might be misunderstanding this, but it sounds as though Galloway is implying that 100% mandatory youth service would be more affordable than a trim, responsive, volunteer military. Throw this in to the mix...

"The young would be offered a choice of where and how they served: the Peace
Corps, a medical aid corps to work in our hospitals and health institutions, an
education corps to help in schools or a recreated Civilian Conservation Corps to
repair and rebuild our national parks, which are in desperate disrepair after
decades of mismanagement and over-use."

...And the cost goes even higher. Unless, of course, Galloway is also implying that the cost burden of transporting yourself to these locations and supporting yourself while serving would fall in the laps of individuals and their families. When I was of "mandatory youth service" age, I was helping support my family. What would they have done if I had been required to not only leave the family, but the family (on top of losing an earner) had been required to pay for my plane ticket to Guatamala to serve in the Peace Corps? It becomes clear with these two passages that he means unpaid mandatory service (military or otherwise), and I believe we were involved in a little civil dispute in the 1860s that had something to do with mandatory unpaid service to others.

"With fewer than 1 percent of Americans saddled with the responsibility of
protecting and defending the other 99 percent — most of them oblivious to the
pain and pride and selflessness that military service entails — it seems clear
that something is not quite right here."

Again, they volunteered.
"They would owe two years’ service in one of those fields, and upon
completion of honorable service would be entitled to a two-year free ride in any
college in the country that would accept them.

If they chose to serve in the military, their tour of duty would be
four years, and upon finishing that tour they would be owed a four-year,
expenses-paid scholarship to any college accepting them.

Sure it would cost taxpayers money. But it would pay incredible
benefits in making certain that everyone in the future America has made a
substantial contribution to our freedom and welfare. It would change our country
just as GI Bill education benefits changed a generation coming home from World
War II."

OK. Galloway is willing to admit that this will indeed cost taxpayers money. That issue is settled. The free socialized higher education issue in the first two passages does not need my attention--this idea's ill-conception is self evident.

Cafe Hayek had something to say about the issue of, "everyone in the future America...a substantial contribution to our freedom and welfare" (I cannot find the link). It was something along the lines of, "why is military service and non-profit volunteering considered the only contribution to nation or community?"

The point is, when you allow individuals to decide for themselves the maximum utility of their skills, we end up with profitable, efficient, well-cared for communities and nations. Forcing a programming nerd to (awkwardly) wield a gun instead of designing software or machines that might save lives is not the most logical or efficient way to organize a society. We've seen this over and over in socialist/communist nations. Some people are suited to military or community service (in its commonly accepted definition), and some people are suited to learning how to cut you open properly to save your heart from dying. I consider the later a service to society far greater than requiring young heart surgeon-to-be to clean up national parks. Galloway apparently does not see skilled, economic, or voluntary contributions to society as valid options. It also seems as though he threw in the community service afterthought to avoid being dismissed as a draft proponent, a position popular with...no one.

The "obligations and responsibilities" of citizenship are as follows (This is not a complete list, but it has given me a theme for a future post):

1. Take responsibility for yourself and your actions. Figure out what you are good at, and pursue it in order to earn a living and contribute to our society. Don't expect others to see you as their burden.

2. Your right to vote implies the right to complain, however, no voting=no complaining. If you see a problem noteworthy enough to complain about, develop a solution and present it to others. Otherwise, learn to live with the issues about which you wish to complain.

3. Act only in such a way that treats others not as means to and end but as ends in themselves. This was Kant's catagorical imperative, and a concept Ayn Rand held central to human ethics. I think they were on to something.

Respect my autonomy and I will respect yours. True citizenship or service to others does not come by force.

Gentrification Case Study

2006-03-10T20:37:00.000-05:00

"The assumption of many at the symposium seemed to be that renovated buildings and new construction will displace longtime residents. But there's no evidence for this. One of the few rigorous studies of gentrification, Lance Freeman and Frank Braconi's Gentrification and Displacement (2002), found that improving housing and neighborhood conditions encourages the stability of low-income households, more than offsetting any dislocation from rising rents."

This article about reinvestment in Harlem can be found in the Manhattan Institute's Center for Rethinking Development February newsletter. If it isn't currently relevent to Buffalo, it will be soon.

It is worth a careful read to spot the similarities between Buffalo and Harlem. This is quickly turning into a real estate development site and I hadn't intended on that. I promise more non-development posts in the near future.

Development: Gates Circle to Gain New Condos

2006-03-10T08:47:00.000-05:00

The Buffalo News and WBEN are reporting that Gates Circle's Park Lane Restaurant will close at the end of 2006. The property has been (or will be) sold to Uniland and will most likely be reborn as high rise luxury condos. The details sound very sketchy right now. Stay tuned.

We'll see whether this project is terminated by Old Buffalo protests or endless public meetings on the issue. The Elmwood Village Hotel project is dying a slow death, as is my faith in Buffalo's abilty to embrace change.

WBEN--out of form--sounded very negative about this project. They focused on the memories people have built at this restaurant (which, by the way folks, will not be wiped from your mind if the restaurant disappears) and the fact that there are already some condos in that neighborhood (as if that is reason not to build more--it is a popular neighborhood afterall). There was very little in the tone of the report to suggest that this might be good for Buffalo's tax base or image.

On Inequality

2006-03-07T18:16:00.001-05:00

"We are never so unequal, or so oppressed, as when we give a dictator the power to equalize us."

Don Boudreaux at Cafe Hayek links to this David Schmidtz article and provides an abstract:

"In a race, equal opportunity matters. In a race, people need to start on an equal footing. Why? Because a race’s purpose is to measure relative performance. Measuring relative performance, though, is not a society’s purpose. We form societies with the Joneses so that we may do well, period, not so that we may do well relative to the Joneses. To do well, period, people need a good footing, not an equal footing. No one needs to win, so no one needs a fair chance to win. No one needs to keep up with the Joneses, so no one needs a fair chance to keep up with the Joneses. No one needs to put the Joneses in their place or to stop them from pulling ahead. The Joneses are neighbors, not competitors."

I would add the following excerpt to the "good quote" pile:

"Suppose we have a certain moral worth, and nothing we could do would ever make us more worthy, or less. In this case, we might turn out to be of equal worth. Now suppose instead that, along some dimensions, our worth can be affected by our choices. In that case, presumably there never will be an instant when we are all equally worthy along those dimensions."

You can read the whole piece at CATO Unbound.

*Update: Russ Roberts' "blogoff" about inequality at the Walstreet Journal's Econoblog can be found here. Good stuff.

Reason Foundation Recognizes Buffalo

2006-03-07T18:16:00.000-05:00

Reason Foundation's "Out of Control" blog has thrown some attention our way. Unfortunately, this attention is highlighting a problem we'd rather not broadcast. There is a one-word solution Buffalo's aging, leaking water system dilemma: Privatize. A leaky water system--even as extreme as ours--is not a politically expedient issue, therefore there is little incentive for City officials to solve this problem. This problem is literally underground, and will stay there.

Speaking of privatization, this CATO report about the USPS is an interesting read.

And the Market Responds...

2006-03-06T23:10:00.000-05:00

Businesses along the Elmwood Strip are giving discounts to customers who have received parking tickets. Pano's is offering a free glass of wine, Casa de Pizza is giving 10% off all orders, and the men's suit shop (the name escapes me) is offering $35 off all suits--the equivalent of one Buffalo parking ticket. If healthy competition exists on Elmwood, other businesses should follow suit (no pun intended). It is encouraging to see local businesses responding effectively to this situation.

An update on my last parking post--apparently Buffalo has some street parking "dashboard receipt" machines in the city core that accept cash, credit and debit. I've never seen them, but WBFO reported on their existence and the upcoming expansion of this program in the near future. Ask and you shall receive.

Indoctrination: Whatever happened to teaching kids to stay on task?

2006-03-02T19:29:00.001-05:00

Everyone has surely heard about the Colorado geography teacher suspended for "slamming Bush" (which was the least troublesome of what he did) after a student recorded a class. This is the same story I linked to last Thursday in Capitalism Magazine. Took the world long enough to catch on.

Rush's stand in Roger Hedgecock played the tapes in their entirety today. Most in the media are leaving out the part about capitalism being evil and at odds with human rights, which is the part on which they should be focusing. I've made my views on indoctrination in education clear throughout this site. The question no one is asking, however, is:

Why is a geography teacher teaching politics instead of geography? Whatever happened to staying on task?

Law: Buffalo Ticket Blitz

2006-03-02T19:29:00.000-05:00

I stand behind my original position on the parking ticket situation, and it sounds like Bauerle and Sandy Beach agree for the most part. I disagree with the motivation for this police action--if it is indeed an old fashioned hissy fit--but my blanket position on laws is if they are not going to be enforced (100%) they should be taken off the books. Let's move beyond all that. Some quasi-free market solutions to parking in the city are out there, and now is a good time to discuss them. Beyond the privately owned parking lots and garages, there are solutions to street parking issues currently in use in other cities.

1. Resident parking permits: Chicago, New York, LA, and many other large cities offer (or require) resident parking permits in order to park on the street in neighborhoods. Wrigglyville in Chicago is the area with which I'm most familiar when it comes to resident parking. While I was living in Chicagoland, there was a lot of noise in the media during every Cubs home game because residents were "renting" their resident stickers to Wriggly Field visitors, causing the sort of police ticket blitz we're currently seeing in Buffalo. I certainly would not condone that sort of entrepreneurial spirit--er, lawbreaking--but a resident permit system in Buffalo would certainly solve some issues. I live in the Elmwood Village and I am lucky enough to have off street parking. Most of my neighbors do not and are frequently irate about the "tourists" taking all the parking spots. Requiring resident stickers would solve that problem. Unfortunately, residents would obviously be required to pay City Hall for the permit. Here’s what Oakland is doing.

2. Business subsidized street parking: Allow business owners to purchase the street parking in front of their business. I cannot find evidence of this going on anywhere in the country, but I suspect it is. Business owners would purchase or rent the parking from the city, providing free parking for customers and a steady stream of revenue to the city without needing to pay as many meter maids (or under-performing cops). Something similar is happening in Lansing, MI. If Lansing is doing it, we can do.

3. Modernize: Our parking system is horrendously outdated in Buffalo. Check out what Milwaukee is doing. Our signs don’t match our meters, many of our meters are broken, and they only take change. Chicago was installing a brand new citywide street parking system as I was leaving. Centralized machines were installed on most major streets around the city at which you could pay with cash, debit, or credit. You were given a parking receipt, similar to what you receive in pay lots, and you placed it on your dashboard. Feeding a meter is very “old Buffalo.”

These ideas would do little to solve the problem of cops on a rampage, but they would cut down on illegal parking and would make a visit to the city easier for the suburbanites who frequently cite “parking” as their reason for avoiding visits to the city.

Development: Elmwood Hotel Fiaso Brewing

2006-02-28T21:49:00.000-05:00

Savarino has released the redesign for the Elmwood hotel but they don't seem to be online yet. (Is Buffalo Rising asleep at the wheel today?) If recent history is any indication, this is one redesign down, several more to go.

It dawned on me this evening that the local broadcast news has quite a bit to do with these development "controversies" that seem to, er, develop. For reasons I have yet to fully comprehend, I often have WKBW on while I prepare dinner. Tonight, they talked up the hotel "controversy" while interviewing two "opponents," neither of whom seemed particularly passionate about their opposition. Perhaps they are the only two who would go on camera, or perhaps this "controversy" isn't as spectacular as the local broadcast news had hoped. WIVB was a bit more responsible in their coverage of the public meeting last week, held--ironically--at the current home of the Burchfield-Penny.

The complaints against the hotel project have so far been mostly irrational, entirely manageable, and generally expected. It would be nice if WKBW and the others would use their influence to help the citizens of Buffalo to recognize positive development when it occurs (...like this hotel project) rather than ignite avoidable "controversies." The former doesn't make for good television, but this hotel actually being built would be enough news to keep the broadcast newsies busy for weeks.

Economy: Radio Economics

2006-02-28T20:06:00.000-05:00

[If Apple allowed links to its images, I wouldn't have needed to violate copyright in order to have this iPod photo here.]

I am still alive, folks. I've had my head buried in several different projects this week. Here's something to keep you busy for a few hours. The list of podcasts focused on economics and business is growing daily. If anyone out there knows of any worth a listen, let me know. As of yet, it appears there are no Buffalo business podcasts. Like with the housing boom, Buffalo will catch on sooner or later.

I don't have time for real blogging this eve, but some updates on my previous posts:
1. Parking in the city: My parking post was written before it became obvious that this was an old fashioned hissy fit from the police union.
2. The Elmwood hotel project: heh. Read this post again. What a shame this is turning into. I vote for a city-wide wager on whether this project will go forward.
3. Check in with North Coast about preservationist mentality in Buffalo.

Indoctrination: Not just for college campuses anymore

2006-02-23T18:27:00.000-05:00

This kind of indoctrination is by no means restricted to Overland High School. School teachers, at all grades, often use their classroom for environmental, anti-war, anti-capitalist and anti-parent propaganda. Some get their students to write letters to political figures condemning public policy the teacher doesn't like. Dr. Thomas Sowell's "Inside American Education" documents numerous ways teachers attack parental authority. Teachers have asked third-graders, "How many of you ever wanted to beat up your parents?" In a high school health class, students were asked, "How many of you hate your parents?"

Public education propaganda is often a precursor for what youngsters might encounter in college. UCLA's Bruin Standard newspaper documents campus propaganda. Mary Corey, UCLA history professor, instructed her class, "Capitalism isn't a lie on purpose. It's just a lie," she continued, "[Capitalists] are swine. . . . They're bastard people."

If you've read my On Vertebrae post, you will understand why I find this story from Walter E. Williams at Capitalism Magazine noteworthy. Again, old news, but relevant.

Here's more in that area of interest. Don't let anyone who works at a an educational institution define academic freedom for you.

Individualism: Liberals & Conservatives

2006-02-23T16:17:00.003-05:00

Liberals believe individualism is bad and people should sacrifice
themselves to the collective, be that the community, the state, the nation, the
world, or Mother Earth.

Conservatives believe that individualism is bad and people should
sacrifice themselves to God, to religious institutions, and to any government
that speaks and acts on behalf of God.

I believe that individualism is good and that each man is an end in
himself, not an object of sacrifice. The government’s job should be to ban all
sacrifice and to protect people from those individuals and institutions which
demand sacrifice.

Interesting article from David Gulbraa at Capitalism Magazine dealing with the similarities in attacks on individualism from both sides of our fictitious political dichotomy.

Economy: Manhattan Institute's Albany Inc.

2006-02-23T16:17:00.001-05:00

More recently, however, the New York State economy has been far from imperial.
Between 1979 and 2004—a period that saw two sustained U.S. economic booms—New
York created new jobs at less than half the national pace,[2] underperforming even the “old and
cold” states of the upper Midwest.[3] New York’s share of total U.S.
personal income dropped by nearly 10 percent during the same period, and its
share of all states’ economic output dropped by 12 percent.[4]

This is an interesting read in case anyone hasn't stumbled upon it yet. Old news, but interesting read.

Addendum 3: Yet More on Development & Preservation

2006-02-23T16:17:00.000-05:00

This post on Buffalo Rising is a perfect illustration of what I was discussing below. I wonder who this Edward fellow is throughout the comments section there...

You can see that I was clearly outnumbered on the preservation issue. Perhaps I didn't make my arguments as strongly as I could have, but nevertheless there was a clear and present collective mentality in those comments and my views on private property were not popular.

I do tend to come across as monolithic in my views on private property, development and preservation, but it is only because I care as deeply about the city of Buffalo as do the anti-development commentors on Buffalo Rising. We don't want to send the message to outside developers, "If you want to do business here, you will need to submit to the whims and demands of the angry mob." That is NOT the way to attract the kind of money needed for these preservation projects or any other sort of development.

The difference between my positions and theirs is that I actually understand and address the economic aspects of these issues. "Buffalo" as a community, as a concept, as a business, and as a home needs to take as many steps as necessary to remove the obstacles to development within city limits. This does not mean we need to agree (at the political and community level) to every Walgreens or demolision for surface parking project that comes up. It does mean that we need to be more case-by-case when it comes to architectural preservation. The commentors disagreed with the idea that preservation requires a close examination of the pros and cons of each individual project--they just simply scream "STOP TEARING DOWN OUR CITY" and other irrational, emotional comments along those lines. This blanket, "nothing can be torn down ever again" attitude is destructive to the growth of Buffalo. Sometimes compromise is necessary.

You can read the rest of what I had to say on this issue at the Buffalo Rising post.

By the way, it isn't just Buffalo in this situation, as is evidenced here. This is not a trivial subject. If handled improperly, it could render many buildings and the land on which they sit, essentially useless.

CHARACTER: Individuality, Discipline & Potential

2006-02-17T20:40:00.000-05:00

Adrian Savage has some interesting posts over at The Coyote Within concerning the importance of being yourself and the role of self discipline in reaching one's potential.

A portion of each:

"The forces of the status quo—of conformity—have been strong again recently. Maybe that's why there seems to be an upsurge in interest in self-development. When the outside world is intent on forcing you into a bland, acceptable mold, people naturally turn elsewhere to find an outlet for what matters most: their own uniqueness. There will never be anyone else like you in the future of the universe. There has never been anyone exactly like you since human life began. That's why being yourself is more important than anything else; certainly more than the fear that traps people into conforming."

"It's not fashionable to say this, but what matters most is dull, boring self-discipline. Doing what needs to be done, regardless. When the initial excitment fades, as it surely will, it's the only thing that will carry you on to success.
In whatever you do, career or academic work, you need self-discipline: you need to keep on getting it done, regardless of whether you feel "inspired" or excited that day. Ability and drive will help, but they're way less important. Feelings aren't what matter. Decisions you act on count for much more."

His post about the damage done from outside pressures is also interesting:

"Living from the outside in is letting the outside world—society, corporations, politicians, the media, other people of every kind—decide the direction and value of your life. It's the cause of most of the boredom, dissatisfaction and emptiness people feel, and that we've foolishly come to accept as a natural part of the human condition....This world is full of people who feel empty inside. They reckon their lives have no meaning and make little impact on anyone. They haven't achieved anything important. When they're gone, they know people will quickly forget them. They don't matter. They aren't having fun. Who the hell put them here anyway? And can they sue?"

I don't know too much about Adrian Savage, but I've found that the running theme in his writing seems to be personal accountability and responsibility for one's life and its contents. It is always nice to find that people still believe in those things as desirable character traits.

CITY: Casino & Preservationists

2006-02-16T21:05:00.000-05:00

Craig and I are on the same wavelength today. His post explains.

Addendum: Buffalo Rising Commentators

2006-02-16T15:38:00.001-05:00

Perhaps I spoke too soon. At last check, the comments under this post on Buffalo Rising were not angry, reactionary, preservationist in tone, or fearful of this new development. In fact, they were incredibly optimistic and positive for the most part.

Look closer. It is because the development agency will be holding an open meeting for residences and business owners to learn about the project and voice their concerns. I enjoy informational meetings about new developments in my neighborhood just as much as the next guy, but the assumption that the neighborhood has a "right" to dictate the design or implementation of any project is deeply disconcerting. That is generally what these meetings turn into.

Savarino Construction-the developer-has already established themselves as a good neighbor by designing a building that fills a need in the neighborhood while fitting in aesthetically. When these decisions are reached by the owner rather than imposed on the owner from an outside force, it is a good thing. I think this owner is opening itself up to some hurt by inviting the public to voice "concerns." The locals won't be staying in this hotel (and most won't be marching around in front protesting), so perhaps attention and efforts could be focused more profitably on prospective customers. Ah- I've caught myself telling them how to run their business. Perhaps my neighborhood is rubbing off on me more than I thought.

Addendum 2: Preservation, Development, and Property Rights

2006-02-16T15:38:00.000-05:00

Craig's post about the hotel project is similar to mine. I suppose I should have checked in with North Coast before posting. We differ noteably on the issue of the community being heavily involved in development issues. Looking at the comments (about the qualitative differences between this project and the Walgreens CircleGate fiasco) under his post reminded me that I promised a post on the Preservation mentality in Buffalo.

The Preservation Coalition is credited with saving Shea's (Amen), the old post office, now home to ECC (Amen), the Richardson Complex, or what remains of it (Amen), among other notable achievements. I applaud them for those successes.

However, they are also somewhat responsible for the ridiculous outcome pictured above. No, that's not an Alamo replica on display on the front lawn of an office complex. It is the sad, unecessary, purposeless remains of the Gasworks building on the site of the Bluecross development. I'm not sure what bothers me more- that the Gasworks facade was left standing as evidence of the fact that we can't let go of any old structure, however dubious its historical distinction, or the fact that Bluecross was required to work this facade into their design, resulting in a glass structure with a stone zit on its face. Let go of the historically dubious facade and allow development to occur. The same goes for H-O Oats on the site of the future Buffalo Creek Casino. Unless there is a private developer willing to convert the grain silos into something of real utility, let them go.

I also believe that we can chase away an ill-conceived project without pretense of preservation. The Walgreens in the Gates Circle stretch of Deleware is a good example of this. Walgreens, in direct opposition to the common image of a blood-sucking corporate demon, got the message that the neighborhood that would supply their shoppers didn't like the idea, and will now reinvest their efforts elsewhere. It also helps that the property owner on that plot of land wasn't moved by the offers made by Walgreens. Hurray for private property. Let's be glad that eminent domain didn't creep into the equation.

Looking for a good example of the pretense of preservation as a form of progress-impediment? H-O Oats is one. The Pano's/Atwater House situation is another, and a damn shame for property rights. Pano Georgiadis owns the property. He wants to expand. The Atwater House is not currently a protected landmark, nor does it warrant such designation. Preservation is the goal of obstructionists in this case, however. The real issue here is with the same angry mob I mentioned in my Burchfield-Penny post below wanting design control over private property. He'd add more parking. They think parking is ugly. They'll rush to get this house put on some historic places register to prevent Pano from investing in and managing his private property as he sees fit. It is sickening.

Every building cannot be saved, and it is foolish to thin out resources in this way. Focus on the true gems like Sheas. If saving the building is an excuse to prevent economic development or exercise of private property rights, then it is not only foolish, but criminal as well.

Back to Craig's post about the hotel--he's simply anticipating the same predictible behavior I was anticipating by expecting outrage over the razing of four (historically insignificant) structures to make way for real private development in this neighborhood. We are of one mind on seeing this behavior coming from a mile away. So far, we're both wrong in this case. I'm hoping for the day that we would automatically be wrong in thinking that development will be chased away by excessive preservation.

CITY: Buffalo Rising's Socialist Readership

2006-02-14T16:06:00.000-05:00

I've been reading Buffalo Rising daily since returning to Buffalo last year. I applaud the dedication of these folks and the beautiful design and photography found on the site. I agree wholeheartedly with the basic premise of Buffalo Rising, which is to promote all things excellent about the Queen City. The optimism is infectious.

That is why I am frequently annoyed with the comments section in the posts, particularly the "City" tab. Here's how it generally plays out: Buffalo Rising brings to our attention some exciting new development such as a new Burchfield Penny Art Center, new construction on Elmwood, or the unbelievably good news of New Era Cap Company's move to and modernization of the horrifying Federal Reserve compound on Delaware. This is quickly followed by pessimistic, cynical, anti-business, planned-community type responses from many readers. Scroll through the comments to read about how BPAC shouldn't be allowed to build the museum they want at the corner of Elmwood and Rockwell because it doesn't fit the angry mob's idea of good urban design. Read about how the new apartment building on Elmwood is too "suburban" and that "we" should have a say in the matter. Read about how New Era shouldn't be "allowed" (by whom, exactly?) to "deface" the fortress they are moving into (bringing along 300+ jobs to the city) by modernizing it with an inviting glass atrium. Private ownership and property rights don't seem to mean much to these folks. Instead, we are expected to have public meetings on every development plan, or worse- get the Preservation Coalition involved. They will be the subject of a separate post soon.

I understand that comments sections are for--commenting--whatever the nature of the comment might be. I am not allergic to open discussion. I suspect I'll get some interesting comments on this site as soon as I get readers. The point, however, is that those commentators represent a large segment of this (Elmwood Village) neighborhood in which I live. Real economic progress in the city isn't going to occur if that urban planning, can't-build-it-unless-we-approve-the-urbanness-of-the-design mentality is allowed to flourish. It is a foregone conclusion in Buffalo that these commentators are the same noisy, annoying protesters that will crowd these sites, BPAC especially, demanding to be included in the planning. Planning.

Yes, the new BPAC building is unspectacular. Too bad. The museum commissioned the design of a building that would suit its needs, and accepted this design for a reason. Imposing external, "community-sanctioned" (which community, I might ask?), New Urbanism design rules on them is socialism fair and square.

The tempting response to those who want to stand in the way of every development project that isn't sanctioned by the Preservation Coalition, Forever Elmwood, or any other group with control issues is: "Mind your own business." Unfortunately, they genuinely believe this is their business.

CITY: Ticketed for Parking Illegally?

2006-02-14T15:05:00.000-05:00

Ever unceremoniously, my first real post on Vertebrae shall deal with parking in the City of Buffalo.

"Buffalo police officers issued 5,610 tickets in January, compared with 1,920 during January last year, according to a report Sunday in The Buffalo News.
While Buffalo Police Benevolent Association President Robert Meegan insisted that the increase is due to a new "zero tolerance" law enforcement campaign, some officers, who declined to be named, told The News that part of the crackdown is related to frustration over a wage freeze.
A half-dozen motorists interviewed along Elmwood and Hertel avenues Sunday had a variety of opinions about the ticket blitz..."

Or perhaps it is because they have finally stopped ticketing arbitrarily around the city? I used to live in Elmwood/Cleveland Spot Coffeeland. I received several tickets over the course of my stay in that neighborhood, I'll admit, mostly for failing to move my car on Mondays and Thursdays at the appropriate time (or doing so too early). I paid the tickets knowing I had screwed up. Hmmm, consequences. I'm sure the rest of the neighborhood didn't appreciate it when my car was the reason the street wasn't plowed properly, and I always acknowledged that.

Mayor Brown's 10 second soundbite allowance on WKBW had him declaring his befuddlement over the situation. The source of his confusion was unclear, but it is also irrelevent. There should be no confusion- if we are going to bother with parking regulations and meters, they should be enforced 100%. Not once in a while as lip service to the rules but as genuine action so as to allow the rules to serve the purpose for which they were written. Interviewees' shock and horror over being ticketed for failing to feed their meter or for parking in a no-parking zone is the source of my befuddlement.