Page
Seventy-Four
23
MARCH 2006
Rochester: $63 million on a superfluous
ferry... and it cries "Poor".
| |
|
Rochester vs. Buffalo: Dispute
over state aid boils over
Robach at center of quarrel at Capitol
Yancey Roy
Albany bureau
(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]](titler_News.gif) |
Friday
March 24, 2006 |
| |
|
![[Rivera Appeals for More State Funds]](RiveraAlbany.jpg) |
|
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]](titler_News.gif) |
Friday
March 24, 2006 |
| |
|
|
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.
|
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?