Though the Erie Canal Harbor Development Corporation (ECHDC) may be reluctant to hear concerns about the canal side project, Buffalo’s Common Council has been eager to receive advice from the local experts which make up the Canal Side Alliance about concerns over the $300 million development project. The public hearing on Tuesday was the latest effort by the Council to take on the project for further study, and entertain both supporters of the project, as well as those community members with legitimate questions.
The majority of people who spoke at the hearing were in favor of negotiations over a community benefits agreement (CBA). Many people highlighted the merits of green building design in terms of both protecting the environment and reducing costs. A few mourned the lack of an incorporation of historical appreciation in the design. Many more expressed concerns over the importance of a public investment in ensuring good quality jobs that pay a decent wage. Some were against the project entirely, mentioning alternative development strategies that have been followed in cities like Pittsburg, PA, where public spaces lined with small shops and vendors revitalized their waterfront and made the entire city flourish.
And then there were individuals like Carl Paladino, a major local landowner, who lambasted the CBA as a form of socialism. According to him, taxpayers who were doling out hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies and were asking for decent wages or building standards had no right to do so. Such conditions eliminated “competitiveness”. Susan Davis, CEJ ally and economics professor at UB was astute to point out the easily recognizable irony of businesses asking for huge subsidies and then complaining about socialism. She said that really, these folks just don’t want to pay taxes or contribute to the local tax base. Instead, they push for tax-exempt publicly financed bonds. Her comments were met with loud applause.
The hearing really became interesting when ECHDC Vice-President Larry Quinn took the microphone. Playing down the controversy surrounding the project as simply a “failure to communicate”, he said that the corporation is fulfilling everything which would be in the CBA already, voluntarily, and they plan to submit their own agreement to the Common Council soon, without community input. His promises, which have yet to be substantiated, included Gold-LEED building standards (the highest level of green building), $20 million for the historical district, and a continued importance placed on minority hiring (which has been at 50% so far). Of course, we have don’t know which building or buildings he is referring to that will be Gold-LEED constructed, and the historic district development which includes fake waterfalls and previously non-existent canals was described by one person who testified as inappropriate and a gross misrepresentation of Buffalo’s history. Quinn also repeated claims that Bass Pro is the greatest and best anchor store in the country, which, as has been well-documented through a Public Accountability Initiative report, is a far cry from reality.
If there is a failure to communicate, as Quinn suggested, perhaps it has to do with a misunderstanding among much of the public of what a CBA actually is. A CBA is simply a set of legally binding standards for a development project that is borne out of negotiations between community groups and a development corporation. It is a mechanism for ensuring that public investment of money creates a benefit for the public, as well as private businesses. Typically included in a CBA are green building standards, local and minority hiring practices, and local business ownership.
Interestingly, the only item that CBA opponents mentioned was the issue of living wages, as if that was what the CBA was solely about. In addition, these same people who were against the living wage provision seemed to have the misconception that living wages would apply to small businesses, and thus made the argument that there is no way that small businesses could be competitive under a CBA. Again, however, the truth is a far different matter. In the initial CBA that CEJ has submitted, living wage requirements would only apply to businesses that hire 20 or more employees, making sure that only those businesses with very large payrolls would have to pay more than the minimum wage. Under such a living wage requirement, small business would actually benefit by becoming more competitive.
The Common Council is still in the process of coming to a decision in regards to the transfer of city land to the ECHDC for the project. Council members in attendance mentioned needing to do more research into both how CBA’s have worked across the country, as well as the types of waterfront development plans which have been successful and the lessons to be learned. The council has already agreed to withhold transfer of the land until ECHDC meets with the Canal Side Alliance to negotiate terms of a CBA. Based on statements made by ECHDC at the hearing, Council Member LoCurto who chaired the hearing noted that the sides don’t appear to be too far apart, which makes it very frustrating that they won’t meet. Of course, the “they” he was referring to is the Harbor Corporation, which refuses to meet with CEJ and the Canal Side Alliance.
The majority of people who spoke at the hearing were in favor of negotiations over a community benefits agreement (CBA). Many people highlighted the merits of green building design in terms of both protecting the environment and reducing costs. A few mourned the lack of an incorporation of historical appreciation in the design. Many more expressed concerns over the importance of a public investment in ensuring good quality jobs that pay a decent wage. Some were against the project entirely, mentioning alternative development strategies that have been followed in cities like Pittsburg, PA, where public spaces lined with small shops and vendors revitalized their waterfront and made the entire city flourish.
And then there were individuals like Carl Paladino, a major local landowner, who lambasted the CBA as a form of socialism. According to him, taxpayers who were doling out hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies and were asking for decent wages or building standards had no right to do so. Such conditions eliminated “competitiveness”. Susan Davis, CEJ ally and economics professor at UB was astute to point out the easily recognizable irony of businesses asking for huge subsidies and then complaining about socialism. She said that really, these folks just don’t want to pay taxes or contribute to the local tax base. Instead, they push for tax-exempt publicly financed bonds. Her comments were met with loud applause.
The hearing really became interesting when ECHDC Vice-President Larry Quinn took the microphone. Playing down the controversy surrounding the project as simply a “failure to communicate”, he said that the corporation is fulfilling everything which would be in the CBA already, voluntarily, and they plan to submit their own agreement to the Common Council soon, without community input. His promises, which have yet to be substantiated, included Gold-LEED building standards (the highest level of green building), $20 million for the historical district, and a continued importance placed on minority hiring (which has been at 50% so far). Of course, we have don’t know which building or buildings he is referring to that will be Gold-LEED constructed, and the historic district development which includes fake waterfalls and previously non-existent canals was described by one person who testified as inappropriate and a gross misrepresentation of Buffalo’s history. Quinn also repeated claims that Bass Pro is the greatest and best anchor store in the country, which, as has been well-documented through a Public Accountability Initiative report, is a far cry from reality.
If there is a failure to communicate, as Quinn suggested, perhaps it has to do with a misunderstanding among much of the public of what a CBA actually is. A CBA is simply a set of legally binding standards for a development project that is borne out of negotiations between community groups and a development corporation. It is a mechanism for ensuring that public investment of money creates a benefit for the public, as well as private businesses. Typically included in a CBA are green building standards, local and minority hiring practices, and local business ownership.
Interestingly, the only item that CBA opponents mentioned was the issue of living wages, as if that was what the CBA was solely about. In addition, these same people who were against the living wage provision seemed to have the misconception that living wages would apply to small businesses, and thus made the argument that there is no way that small businesses could be competitive under a CBA. Again, however, the truth is a far different matter. In the initial CBA that CEJ has submitted, living wage requirements would only apply to businesses that hire 20 or more employees, making sure that only those businesses with very large payrolls would have to pay more than the minimum wage. Under such a living wage requirement, small business would actually benefit by becoming more competitive.
The Common Council is still in the process of coming to a decision in regards to the transfer of city land to the ECHDC for the project. Council members in attendance mentioned needing to do more research into both how CBA’s have worked across the country, as well as the types of waterfront development plans which have been successful and the lessons to be learned. The council has already agreed to withhold transfer of the land until ECHDC meets with the Canal Side Alliance to negotiate terms of a CBA. Based on statements made by ECHDC at the hearing, Council Member LoCurto who chaired the hearing noted that the sides don’t appear to be too far apart, which makes it very frustrating that they won’t meet. Of course, the “they” he was referring to is the Harbor Corporation, which refuses to meet with CEJ and the Canal Side Alliance.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment