Page Seventy-Four

23 MARCH 2006

Rochester: $63 million on a superfluous ferry... and it cries "Poor".

Logo: Rochester DemocratandChronicle.com  

 

   
 
Rochester vs. Buffalo: Dispute over state aid boils over
Robach at center of quarrel at Capitol

(March 24, 2006) — ALBANY — A regional spat erupted Thursday at the Capitol pitting Rochester against Buffalo in a fight over the state's surplus.

In a hot exchange that featured legislators arguing for the microphone and trading rebukes, a Rochester-area senator accused Democrats of undercutting his city. Democrats countered that Republicans were trying to rob Buffalo to pay Rochester.

KARIN VON VOIGTLANDER file photo 2005
Rochester, far from the Albany argument, was at its center.

Peaceful skylines mask a long-standing argument over how local aid in the state budget should be divvied up.

The action centered on Sen. Joseph Robach, R-Greece, who quarreled with Democrats on a panel convened to parcel out the local aid portion of the state budget.

Robach even debated a bit with the Republican panel leader, Sen. Hugh Farley.

And at one point, Robach reached for the microphone and Farley refused to give it up, saying: "Joe, calm down."

At issue was the Rochester delegation's long-standing demand to receive aid at a rate more comparable to Buffalo's. Rochester gets about $271 per resident compared with $433 for Buffalo, $415 for Yonkers and $368 for Syracuse. As part of the 2006-07 state budget, the two houses are talking about boosting aid to municipalities across New York by roughly 18 percent. Lawmakers are attempting to adopt a state budget April 1, the start of the fiscal year.

Robach contended that rather than spread the increase evenly, lawmakers should give Rochester a bigger boost "to address the inequities."

Wanna rumble?
To lighten the intercity acrimony, here’s a tongue-in-cheek list:

We get: $271 per resident in state aid; They get: $433 per.

We have: A ferry for sale; They have: Bridges to Canada.

We have: Shaky finances; They have: a state control board.

We have: J-Mac; They have: J.P.

We have: Garbage plates and white hots; They have: Chicken wings and beef on ’weck.

We have: White-collar smugness; They have: Blue-collar grittiness.

We have: Philip Seymour Hoffman; They have: Vincent Gallo.

We have: Tom Golisano, who made his fortune here; They have: Tom Golisano, spending a fortune there (on the Sabres).

We have: Lake Ontario; They have: Lake Erie.

We have: The Upper Falls; They have: Niagara Falls.

We have: Teddy Geiger; They have: Ani DiFranco.

We have: Garth Fagan; They have: Mark Russell.

We have: One national championship (the NBA Royals in 1951); They have: Four fruitless trips to the Super Bowl (we share the pain).

Democrats said their plan would give Rochester a bigger percentage boost than Buffalo (26 percent compared with 23 percent), although Buffalo would still get $26 million compared with Rochester's $14 million. Republicans originally wanted to increase the three upstate cities by the identical real-dollar amount, $14 million. Later, they amended their offer to $23.7 million for Buffalo, $16.9 million for Rochester.

Democrats said they couldn't go along with that because of Buffalo's fiscal problems — the city is under a state-appointed financial control board.

"If we're going to start getting parochial," said Sen. William Stachowski, D-Buffalo, "then we're not going to be serving the state as a whole."

"That's easy to say when Buffalo gets the most in every (aid) category," Robach shot back. He said he'd "reject out of hand" a plan that gave Rochester and Buffalo equal size increases.

"Buffalo has just laid off a third of its work force," chimed in Assemblyman Jim Brennan, D-Brooklyn. "We're not going to (give) something less to Buffalo."

At one point, Democrats said a previous bailout of Buffalo had led to its high per-capita aid rate and that under their plan Rochester would get one of the biggest percentage increases among municipalities this year.

Farley, R-Niskayuna, Schenectady County, replied: "I understand ..."

"Don't understand!" Robach cut off his GOP colleague, then reached for the mike again.

"Just a minute, Joe," Farley said, waving him off.

Later, voicing a concern of other small-town representatives on the panel, Farley said: "As much as I love you, Joe, we're not going to suck it out from the small cities."

The panel disbanded after a contentious 45 minutes and consented to have staffs talk about the numbers behind closed doors. Assemblyman Robert Sweeney, D-Nassau County, said he hoped they could reach a compromise but added: "The Senate is saying to us, you've got to take money away from Buffalo and give it to Rochester. We can't do that."

Back in Rochester, Mayor Robert Duffy said he was encouraged by the exchange, "because it shows our delegation is fighting for us." What he didn't like was the characterization that solving Rochester's problems meant taking from Buffalo.

"I have never once asked anyone to reduce aid to Buffalo, or Syracuse or Yonkers and give that to Rochester," Duffy said. He took issue with anyone portraying Buffalo as worse off than Rochester, saying data show Rochester is the most economically depressed upstate city.

"Buffalo's struggles are not worse," he said. "There should be equity in the approach (to state aid), and that's what I've fought for."

YROY@gannett.com     Includes reporting by staff writer Brian Sharp.

This is about as stupid as it gets.   Buffalo's suburb to the east has always had an inferiority complex when it comes to acting like a real city and this latest bit of media tripe is Exhibit A.

Where to start?  First, State Senator Joe Robach -- no stranger to the flairs of a drama queen -- resorts to grandiose blustering in the State Capitol and needs to be reigned in by far more lucid colleagues.  Nice touch, Joe.  We wouldn't be posturing to advance our own personal career goals, now would we?

Next, the so-called 'tongue-in-cheek' comparisons between Buffalo and the attention-starved burg to the east would be humourous except the juvenile and pathetic need to show "we're big boys too" falls on deaf ears.  Buffalonians aren't paying any attention to the whining.

This supposed Buffalo-Rochester competition has been going on for decades except Buffalo hasn't been playing along... it cares as little about Rochester as Toronto does.  Essentially, it's like some child begging for playmates and is duly ignored.

"We have: White-collar smugness"

Maybe that's why nobody likes you??

"Democrats said their plan would give Rochester a bigger percentage boost than Buffalo (26 percent compared with 23 percent), although Buffalo would still get $26 million compared with Rochester's $14 million. Republicans originally wanted to increase the three upstate cities by the identical real-dollar amount, $14 million. Later, they amended their offer to $23.7 million for Buffalo, $16.9 million for Rochester."

OK.  Since we're tossing about dollar figures, the city of Rochester spent $16 million of taxpayers' money to build a lovely ferry terminal which now houses ex-hot dog  and beer nut vendor kiosks.  There's a $42 million ferry now sitting at the Port of Rochester -- and city officials just sniffed at a $30 million offer to buy the ship.  Rochester lost $1 million a month -- a total of $10 million -- on a business which it bought even though it never turned a profit in the private sector.

And now, Joe the Mouth is crying poor because his party is proposing to give Buffalo $6.8 million more than Rochester?  Joe, you're one arrogant boob.   If Joe Robach thinks he's going to advance his career with the support of Erie County voters, he needs to reserve a seat in Reality 101.  Congressional districts aren't drawn according to city boundaries.

Take a look back over these pages and count the number of times I wrote the State would exact its just desserts because of Rochester's foolish spending habits on things like undomed stadiums and a ferry which few needed or even wanted.  Rochester?  You want more cash?  Looks like you're going to have to hold a garage sale and sell a few of your toys.

If Rochester has the cash to buy a failed business, it doesn't need the cash from the rest of the State taxpayers.  It's like a teenager buying a lemon of a Mercedes, then whining they need a bigger allowance than the kids down street.  Nuts to you, Rochester.  The rest of us have to spend according to our income and now -- shock of all shocks -- so do you.

Gee.  We're not smiling quite as smugly anymore, are we?  Let's see you laugh THIS one off, sports.

I'll be watching for the Buffalo News' response to the petulance of the spoiled brats.... if they even care.

Exhibit B:

[News]
Friday   March 24, 2006
 
[Rivera Appeals for More State Funds]
RCSD Superintendent Manny Rivera.

Rivera Appeals for More State Funds

by Rocco Vertuccio

File Photo

Published Feb 27, 2006

The superintendent of Rochester city schools was in Albany asking for more money.

Dr. Manuel Rivera, along with union leaders, met with legislative leaders Monday at the capital. They were trying to convince lawmakers to increase state aid to the city school district.

Rochester's legislative delegation is optimistic lawmakers will approve about one billion dollars more in overall education spending.

"We want to make sure that goes to help upstate school districts like the city of Rochester,” said Senator Joe Robach. “We are in fierce negotiations to make sure that more money isn’t driven to New York City, but is going to represent the areas we represent, primarily the city school district."

Governor George Pataki's budget does increase overall education spending, but Rochester will get a four percent cut in aid from last year.

So what's the problem here?  Again, when a community spends its cash on unneeded sports venues -- which will sit collecting litter for over half the year -- how crucial can the 'need' be?  The Rochester area has clearly shown it places more importance on 'entertainment districts', catering to porcine sports team owners and pursuing cross lake excursion routes for well-heeled passengers.  No money for education?  Well, OK.  But don't be moaning to Albany that 'life is unfair' and the Rochester area 'needs' a cash infusion.

What Rochester 'needs' is to stop catering to private business concerns which appear to be part and parcel of the local Good 'Ol Boy network.  What Rochester 'needs' is to redirect money to public needs instead of private desires.  That may be part of the reason State legislators are balking at handing over yet more cash to the Rochester area from the rest of the State taxpayers.

"We have: Shaky finances; They have: a state control board."

Keep on smirking, Rochester.  You're well on your way to your OWN state control board.


There's an unsubstantiated rumour floating around that Bay Ferries has bought the ferry.  If this is true, score yet another point for the Canadians.  Not only have they managed to snooker the city of Rochester into a sweetheart of a deal for $3.5 million over 14 years to the Toronto Port Authority, they've copped a ferry at a bargain.

Now THAT'S what I call 'waiting for the chips to fall with open arms'.  The smugness has begun its segue into sheer foolishness. 

Put another way: "A fool and his money are soon parted".

[News]
Friday   March 24, 2006
 
[Ferry Sale Talks Continue]
 

Ferry Sale Talks Continue

 

by Seth Voorhees

Published Mar 23, 2006

Talks continue between the city of Rochester and several parties interested in the defunct fast ferry.

A number of parties have taken a look at the boat, which remains parked at the port of Charlotte.

Several, including British ferry startup Navmed Ltd., are in talks with the city.

Mayor Robert Duffy says his goal is to get the best deal for Rochester.

“I’m interested in one thing,” said Duffy. “Getting the most we possibly can.”

Duffy says having money in hand to pay off some $40 million dollars in debts will reduce the burden on taxpayers.

Duffy thinks a deal to sell the ferry could be worked out in the next 10 to 14 days.

Wonderful!  Most Rochester area residents will probably be delighted to watch the stern of this ship as it sails out of the Port of Rochester... for the VERY last time.

Now if only the financial liability were to disappear as well, this whole embarrassing episode might be forgiven.  Sadly, this is one bill which is going to be around for many MANY years to come.

02 APRIL 2006

The continuing saga of clueless brats.

Logo: Rochester DemocratandChronicle.com
 
Rhinos promise to pay their way
As supporters anticipate stadium's opening, questions remain over public aid

(April 2, 2006) — Despite promises that public subsidies wouldn't be needed, Monroe County taxpayers dole out nearly $1.7 million a year to pay off Frontier Field's debt, and Rochester is trying to sell the high-speed ferry to recoup more than $40 million in public costs.

So here comes another big project and the same promise: The Rochester Rhinos soccer team is set to open PAETEC Park near downtown June 3 and its owners are adamant that the facility will be self-sustaining.

The Rhinos own the stadium, and whether the facility turns a profit or loses money, it will fall to them, said team majority owner Frank DuRoss, a Utica businessman.

What's next
The Rochester Rhinos will open the 2006 season June 3 at the new $40 million soccer stadium near downtown Rochester. Last week, the state Legislature approved an extra $8 million in aid to add luxury boxes, permanent locker rooms and other amenities.

"I would never go to the city and ask for any operating subsidies," DuRoss pledged last week.  (Whistling in the wind.)

But some Rochester leaders fear the stadium, like other public projects, will end up on the public rolls.
Others question why taxpayers are funding a stadium when a private company will reap the financial benefit.

About 78 percent of the $40 million stadium project is being built with taxpayer money, including an added $8 million in state aid announced last week.

Rochester Mayor Robert Duffy — who shut down the debt-burdened ferry on his 10th day in office — is cautious of big promises attached to public projects. Although he supports the Rhinos stadium, he warns that it may one day seek city subsidies — but that the team should not expect a bailout.

"What people should be prepared for always is that preliminary projections often change when reality sets in," Duffy said.

"So as much as these figures are being put forth that it would not require a subsidy, I think we have to expect at some point, not that it would get one, but you may see the operators of the stadium come and ask for one."

Richard Barone, a member of Irondequoit Citizens for Better Government, said public money should go toward needs such as lowering taxes and hiring more police. The new stadium, he said, is "a nice thing, but what percentage of all the people in this county will benefit by this?"

DuRoss would not disclose financial projections but said, "The expectation is that, long term, this will be a good investment" for team owners.

Supporters say that making Rochester a two-stadium city will boost the area's quality of life, so it's worth public funds. (The Bullsh*t Meter just spiked.)

"It's been a long time waiting," said season ticket holder Derek Joseph, 35, of Phelps, Ontario County. "This will be one of the premier venues in the country for soccer."

Rhinos' advantages

Rhinos owners insist this project is different from Frontier Field or the ferry, citing:

  • The Rhinos — which average close to 10,000 fans a game, usually tops in its league — expect an attendance boost with the new stadium, which is more fan-friendly for soccer than their prior home at the baseball-designed Frontier Field. Ticket prices — which will range from $9 to $26 a game — will be comparable to former prices at Frontier.
  •  

  • A professional lacrosse team and a women's soccer team, also owned by the Rhinos, will play there. And the stadium is expected to attract more high school events, concerts and band competitions than Frontier. The Drum Corps Associates world championships, for example, will be held at PAETEC Park over Labor Day weekend, and is expected to draw 14,000 people.

     

  • Because of the state aid, the Rhinos are getting a stadium with low debt. Whereas Frontier Field opened in 1996 with $20.6 million debt and the ferry had about double that, the Rhinos have only a $6 million loan. That will make it easier for the Rhinos to stay in business.

    "From that point of view, the taxpayers are well protected, and there is a risk and a reward for us operating the stadium," said team co-owner Steve Donner, who also owns the Rochester Americans hockey team.

    Although the team initially pledged to pay for most of the stadium itself, the state aid on the front end may ultimately prevent subsidies down the road, officials said.

    "The very thing that makes this controversial is what is going to improve the likelihood of it being successful," said former county Legislator Mitch Rowe, a former city aide who helped craft the stadium deal.

    Investing in an asset

    Soon after the Rhinos' inception in 1996, the team angled for its own stadium, arguing that the diamond-shaped Frontier Field wasn't conducive to soccer. The Rhinos' owners also said they wanted a bigger piece of game revenues, which at Frontier Field were split in a complex arrangement with the county and Red Wings.

    A new stadium also will bolster the team's chances of entering Major League Soccer, the sport's top league, owners have said. The team currently plays in the lower United Soccer League's First Division.

    In 2000, the state Legislature secured a $15 million grant for a $48 million stadium deal that included more than $26 million in bonds to be paid by the Rhinos and $7 million from Monroe County through an increase in the hotel-motel tax.

    But the Greater Rochester Sports Authority, an entity formed by the state to oversee the soccer stadium and Frontier Field, never approved the bond sale, deciding that the team wouldn't have the financial ability to pay it off. And the county, under Executive Jack Doyle, also pulled out of the deal.

    The team then had to scale back. The Rhinos settled on a 12,500-seat, horseshoe-shaped stadium off Oak Street, about a half-mile from Frontier Field. The Fairport-based PAETEC Communications Corp. bought the naming rights.

    According to the Rhinos and state documents obtained by the Democrat and Chronicle, the stadium project is expected to cost about $40 million:

     

  • Empire State Development, the state's economic development arm, says the state is paying $15 million. In the 2006-07 state budget approved Friday, state officials agreed to an extra $8 million, in addition to $4 million already promised, for new amenities, including a video scoreboard, about 20 luxury boxes, permanent locker rooms and new stands, bringing the total seats to about 17,000.

     

  • The city is paying about $4 million for road improvements around the stadium, Rochester officials said.

     
  • The Rhinos are paying $6 million through a private bank loan, which is guaranteed by the team. DuRoss said he personally has put in about $2 million more.

     

  • The stadium's concessionaire, yet to be announced by the team, is spending $1 million to build concession booths in exchange for a larger cut of sales revenue, DuRoss said.

    The Rhinos initially agreed to not seek state aid above the initial $15 million, yet most state lawmakers still back the project to help a struggling part of the city and to provide a new entertainment venue.

    Assemblyman David Gantt, D-Rochester, has warmed to the stadium, saying that taxpayers have greater protection with PAETEC Park than they did with Frontier Field.

    "The local taxpayer got had on Frontier Field," he said, but with the soccer stadium, "we kept the Rhinos off the local taxpayers' backs."

    Worst, best cases

    But what if the Rhinos or its league goes belly up? Will the stadium end up in the public's lap? The city and the state have tried to guard against that, according to documents obtained by the Democrat and Chronicle. In a signed agreement, the Rhinos must play all its home games "at the premises for a minimum of 10 years."

    Otherwise, DuRoss and state officials said, the Rhinos would be required to pay back the state money. Rhinos owners said that because of Frontier Field's financial woes and annual city subsidies for the Community War Memorial at Blue Cross Arena, this stadium was under greater scrutiny.

    "I understand the skepticism that people may have because of other major capital projects," DuRoss said. "But this project is so different because of the private financial commitment."

    In another important deal, the state required the Rhinos to lease, not buy, the 15-acre city-owned site for $1 a year for 45 years. The lease gives the city a level of control, such as requiring approval of any ownership change. DuRoss owns 50 percent of the team, Donner 40 percent and former general manager Chris Economides 10 percent. ("Here we go again.")

    After the land lease runs out or is terminated early for some reason, ownership of the stadium could revert to the city or the Rhinos could have to demolish it and restore the property "to a condition able to be developed," the lease states.

    Were the city to take ownership, it would get a facility with little or no debt, unlike Frontier Field, Rhinos owners argue. But some critics say that with Frontier, the facility is county-owned, so the public could benefit if the stadium were to turn a profit. The county's debt at Frontier will be paid off in 2024.

    Assemblyman Joseph Errigo, R-Conesus, Livingston County, said he's troubled by the ratio of public to private dollars in PAETEC Park. "I don't think we can keep giving people with ideas, as good as they may be, money to fund these projects."

    Booster, not panacea

    Built on a former contaminated industrial site, the stadium is bringing new investment to the neighborhood. About 300 construction workers have been on the project. About 636,000 visitors will come to the stadium through 65 events each year, Rhinos owners estimate. ("Estimate"?  Based on what?)  And the Rhinos will pay about $600,000 a year in property taxes.

    "It's a wonderful asset for the neighborhood," said John Lippa, head of the Lyell Avenue Business Association.

    Still, many economists warn that publicly funded stadiums shouldn't be viewed as economic saviors. "The public sector doesn't invest in a stadium to make money," said Tim Chapin, a Florida State University professor of urban planning. "What you are doing it for is the quality-of-life issues."

    Said City Councilman Bill Pritchard: "If a stadium was the panacea of economic success in a neighborhood, why isn't the area surrounding the old Red Wings stadium on Norton Street thriving?"

    Pritchard said taxpayers should get discounted tickets because of all the public money put into the new stadium, and because the profits will go to the Rhinos, not residents.

    But for Rhinos fans, the argument for the stadium is simple: If the state money isn't invested here, it will go to another project in another city. So shouldn't Rochester get its piece?

    "It's something that people have been dying for for years," Mark Pallo, 32, a Rhinos season ticket holder, said of the stadium.

    "It's a win-win. It's not just for the Rhinos fans. It's going to be a great venue for a lot of events. I think that's what people fail to see."  (No Mark; it IS for Rhinos fans... let's not be disingenuous.   The rest of us are just as happy to use Frontier Field, the Blue Cross Area, Highland Bowl, Genesee Valley Park, Fauver Stadium, the Eastman Theatre, the Auditorium...)

    JSPECTOR@DemocratandChronicle.com

  • Bullsh*t.  Pure, unadulterated bullsh*t.

    "The new stadium, (Richard Barone, a member of Irondequoit Citizens for Better Government) said, is "a nice thing, but what percentage of all the people in this county will benefit by this?"

    DuRoss would not disclose financial projections but said, "The expectation is that, long term, this will be a good investment" for team owners.

    Supporters say that making Rochester a two-stadium city will boost the area's quality of life, so it's worth public funds."

    Here's something for Rhinos fans to chew on.  As a proud member of the First Nations who resides in the Rochester area, I want to see a Native Centre built in the area which will serve the needs and desires of the local Aboriginal population.  The centre must have capability to handle a cultural event such as a powwow as well as provides office, small retail, educational and a residential facility for Native elders.  Estimated price tag?  $40 million for the structure including land, improved infrastructure services and parking facilities.

    "...what percentage of all the people in this county will benefit by this?  ...will boost the area's quality of life, so it's worth public funds"

    Legal and ethical considerations aside, why shouldn't the local Aboriginal population tap into the public funds which were only feasible because the very ancestral territory of the Haudenosaunee were... uhhh.. 'appropriated' by the non-Native invaders settlers?  The Rochester area sits smack dab in the heart of traditional Seneca Nation homelands.

    $27 million from the State, $4 million from the city of Rochester and $9 million from the Native corporation which would run the Native Centre would equal the setup being shoved down the throats of the local taxpayers by a bunch of boys playing their games. 

    Benefits?  Well, maybe the local people of the First Nations might start to enjoy the same standard of living their non-Native counterparts have come to expect.  The Rochester area might serve as a forerunner of enlightened and pro-active community support of the Native people residing within their locality so that other regions could use such a scenario as a model to make amends and/or correct inequities. 

    The centre could provide a venue to jumpstart Native businesses, address health and social issues, improve the quality of life for one of the most disadvantaged segments of the population and act as a catalyst to educate locals on the history and heritage of the First Peoples of this land.  I'd say those were compelling benefits "worth public funds".

    Would it happen?  No, of course not.  It's fine and dandy to claim the 'benefits' of a sports venue are "worth public fund(ing)" as long as it serves the desires of a select few in the local Good 'Ol Boy network.  Like pigs to a public trough, the fat pampered money-hogs wallow up and toss out wildly exaggerated 'reasons' why they should get the cash... as long as it benefits them.  And the soft-headed locals eat it up with not so much as squeak.  That's is, until the thing goes bust and THEN listen to the noisy groundswell of I-told-you-so's (like the ferry fiasco).

    "(Team majority owner Frank) DuRoss would not disclose financial projections but said, "The expectation is that, long term, this will be a good investment" for team owners."

    OH.  WELL, then.  THAT makes all the difference in the world, doesn't it?  As long as it's the team OWNERS who see a good return on their 'investment' (using the taxpayer's -- not their -- money) I guess that means the public has no say in the matter.


    You Toronto people see what I mean about the sheer gullibility of the local population?  Is there any wonder why redundant, privately-owned businesses in this area are able to roll the dice with public money?  If the business venture falls on its face, the loss and risks are automatically assumed by the public... not the fat balding nimrods who came up with the idea.  Sweet deal, huh?

    Yet all the while, the spoiled and privileged locals clench their little hands and stamp their little feet and whine pitifully that they aren't getting their share of the State largesse.   As governor of this state, I think I might be inclined to tell the Rochester area to go... fool... themselves.

    The rest of the state taxpayers have been... fooled... enough by the Rochester area.

    And that, Gentle Reader, is how I feel about PaeTec Park.  Any questions?