Today's Observer Dispatch editorial, "OUR VIEW: ‘Base’ has come a long way since BRACC," repeats an old "feel good" story of MV EDGE bringing economic "growth" to Rome.
Why repeat this now?
Is it to make us feel better that EDGE marketed the land from underneath some 40 businesses, Not-for-Profits, and even Utica's new police garage to a tax-exempt hospital because EDGE's leader deemed Utica's Columbia-Lafayette a "do over" neighborhood?
Maybe it is to make us feel better when one of EDGE's alphabet-soup of "partner" agencies takes these properties by eminent domain -- and EDGE and its partners can again justify their existence by offering to find their victims new homes?
EDGE has been unaccountable to anyone, yet has such power that it can override local zoning and plans, rearrange streets, and even change a neighborhood's character -- all without public input.
The County Legislature and City Council have been mere rubber-stamps to EDGE's machinations.
While contemplating EDGE's "growth" in Rome let's remember that some of it came at Utica's expense. EDGE's stock in trade, after all, has been to move the economic deck chairs around this region's sinking ship.
Utica seemed to do better at attracting jobs before EDGE was put there to eliminate the "politics and infighting."
Maybe it is time to get rid of EDGE!
Sunday, April 08, 2018
Friday, April 06, 2018
Three Beds? Three Beds!
Three Beds!
That would be the net increase in hospital beds located at the St. Luke's Campus IF the new hospital proposed for Downtown were, instead, constructed on the St. Luke's Campus. This conclusion is based upon MVHS's existing and proposed beds summary tabulated in the DOH's Needs Analysis, below.
.
.
As already explained in "Don't be Misled," there is NO legal requirement that the hospital be built in the City of Utica -- in spite of repeated statements by Mr. Perra and others. [I guess they are following the adage "if you repeat a lie often enough . . ."]
As already made clear in "Downtown Hospital: Locally Hatched and Conceived" the idea of putting the hospital downtown comes from local people: Mr. Brindisi, Mr. Picente, Mr. Dimeo and others -- not Albany.
With a negligible increase of only 3 beds, there is no question that if the new hospital were built at St. Lukes, the finished project would have NO impacts (environmental or otherwise) distinguishable from the hospital already there. No need to change public infrastructure. No need to add water pipes. No need to add sewer pipes. No need to change traffic patterns off campus. NO NEED FOR MORE PARKING!
The more we learn about this project, the more foolish it appears to build it Downtown!
BUILD IT AT ST. LUKES!!!
That would be the net increase in hospital beds located at the St. Luke's Campus IF the new hospital proposed for Downtown were, instead, constructed on the St. Luke's Campus. This conclusion is based upon MVHS's existing and proposed beds summary tabulated in the DOH's Needs Analysis, below.
.
.
As already explained in "Don't be Misled," there is NO legal requirement that the hospital be built in the City of Utica -- in spite of repeated statements by Mr. Perra and others. [I guess they are following the adage "if you repeat a lie often enough . . ."]
As already made clear in "Downtown Hospital: Locally Hatched and Conceived" the idea of putting the hospital downtown comes from local people: Mr. Brindisi, Mr. Picente, Mr. Dimeo and others -- not Albany.
With a negligible increase of only 3 beds, there is no question that if the new hospital were built at St. Lukes, the finished project would have NO impacts (environmental or otherwise) distinguishable from the hospital already there. No need to change public infrastructure. No need to add water pipes. No need to add sewer pipes. No need to change traffic patterns off campus. NO NEED FOR MORE PARKING!
The more we learn about this project, the more foolish it appears to build it Downtown!
BUILD IT AT ST. LUKES!!!
Friday, March 23, 2018
More Population Loss for Utica-Rome Metro . . .
Latest Census Dept. estimates confirm what we've suspected: Utica-Rome Metro continues to lose population . . . Now at only 293,572 . . . down from 293,752 last year, down from 299,397 in 2010, and down from 344,300 in 1972.
THIS is the accurate report card on how well state and local policies are working!
New buildings, new highways, new shopping areas, new college campuses, new "international" airport and "nano" sites, a new hockey team -- and a new hospital -- all give an appearance of success that cannot mask the fact that this region continues to fail.
We are fooling ourselves if we think that repeating the failed policies of the past will produce different results.
We deserve better than appearances.
"Ain't Nothing like the Real Thing, Baby!" - Marvin Gaye and Tammi Tyrell, 1967
THIS is the accurate report card on how well state and local policies are working!
New buildings, new highways, new shopping areas, new college campuses, new "international" airport and "nano" sites, a new hockey team -- and a new hospital -- all give an appearance of success that cannot mask the fact that this region continues to fail.
We are fooling ourselves if we think that repeating the failed policies of the past will produce different results.
We deserve better than appearances.
"Ain't Nothing like the Real Thing, Baby!" - Marvin Gaye and Tammi Tyrell, 1967
Sunday, February 18, 2018
A KISS for Our New Hospital!
Issues can get complicated at times, and the discussion swirling around the new hospital is no exception. Let's Keep It Simple . . .
A KISS FOR THE ENVIRONMENT - The State Environmental Quality Review Act requires government to consider and choose the alternative that minimizes adverse environmental impacts to the maximum extent practicable. You don't need to know environmental science to know that putting the hospital on the St. Luke's Campus is less impactful to the environment than putting it Downtown because less will be disturbed!
A KISS FOR REGIONAL HEALTH CARE - The applicable state law provides for funding projects that "consolidate multiple licensed health care facilities into an integrated system of care..." You don't need to know health care policy to know that going from three health care campuses to four by adding a new one Downtown is the exact opposite of consolidation.
A KISS FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - Regional leaders want the hospital Downtown to spur economic development. You don't need to know economic development theory to know that there is already significant economic activity going on within the Downtown hospital footprint (and if you don't know that, just ask the business people there) and that condemning businesses is the exact opposite of developing them. With the Arterial Project finally behind us, the existing infrastructure and buildings that a hospital would bulldoze are now assets that can be recycled, making the neighborhood prime for business expansion and new investment!
A KISS FOR THE ENVIRONMENT - The State Environmental Quality Review Act requires government to consider and choose the alternative that minimizes adverse environmental impacts to the maximum extent practicable. You don't need to know environmental science to know that putting the hospital on the St. Luke's Campus is less impactful to the environment than putting it Downtown because less will be disturbed!
A KISS FOR REGIONAL HEALTH CARE - The applicable state law provides for funding projects that "consolidate multiple licensed health care facilities into an integrated system of care..." You don't need to know health care policy to know that going from three health care campuses to four by adding a new one Downtown is the exact opposite of consolidation.
A KISS FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - Regional leaders want the hospital Downtown to spur economic development. You don't need to know economic development theory to know that there is already significant economic activity going on within the Downtown hospital footprint (and if you don't know that, just ask the business people there) and that condemning businesses is the exact opposite of developing them. With the Arterial Project finally behind us, the existing infrastructure and buildings that a hospital would bulldoze are now assets that can be recycled, making the neighborhood prime for business expansion and new investment!
Keep It at St luke'S
Wednesday, February 07, 2018
Downtown Hospital: Local Leaders Seriously Out of Touch With Reality . . .
There are a couple stories in the "out of touch with reality" category and they both relate to the proposed Downtown Hospital:
I. Rome Sentinel a couple days ago:
Environmental review process begins on Utica hospital project
While the headline focuses on environmental review, the significance is what was actually done. MVHS applied to the Oneida County Local Development Corporation for financial assistance in the form of $175M of tax exempt bonding and mortgage recording tax abatement in the proposed Downtown Hospital Project. OCLDC unanimously accepted this application. BUT here is the OCLDC's mission statement from its website:
How could OCLDC have accepted MVHS' application given its mission statement? Ignorance? Corruption? Speculative information?
II. WKTV Yesterday:
MVHS Offers relocation assistance to downtown property owners
One Million Dollars sounds like a lot of money until you consider that it will be spread out over many entities. Using the article's number of businesses it will be about $40K each. If spread over all the entities that would be forced to move (although most will simply close) it would be closer to $25K per business. Does that still sound like a lot? How does the total amount MVHS proposes to assist these businesses compare with Mr. Perra's salary for only one year? Does $1M sound so generous now?
We see a lot of leaders in the group who fancy themselves as "economic development" experts -- much like we have elected state officials (including the governor) and various bureaucrats who profess that "economic development" is a priority. But do they really understand what is required to take a concept from an idea to a profit-making business that creates market value and can provide jobs for people?
Like private investors in the stock market, the State is learning the "hard way" (well hopefully it is learning) that merely spending money on what may seem like good ideas rarely produces the anticipated benefits -- as a little "cocktail-napkin" math will illustrate:
So far State expenditures on the Buffalo Billion project have produced a humongous solar panel plant tended to by a skeleton crew -- failure perhaps due to Chinese competition in the industry, but with the potential to turn around not due to NYS policies but with TRUMP's proposal to tax panel imports. $90M was spent on a lighting plant in Syracuse - zero jobs, and a $15M film industry "hub" also in the Syracuse area - zero jobs.
Simply put, there are too many variables to make valid predictions on what particular public "investments" will produce in jobs and economic benefits -- so, should the government even be involved in this?
The bigger question is should the government be involved in destroying "this" - i.e., destroying what we already have?
There is a community of businesses and not-for-profits in the footprint of the Downtown Hospital that will be destroyed (and we know they will be destroyed from all prior government projects that required businesses to "move" -- whether they be arterial projects, urban renewal projects, government office buildings, or Ft. Stanwix National Monument). When you take a business, you take not only all the personal investment and sweat put into the business by the business owners, but also that of all the trial-and-error efforts that came before at that location.
When you take the jobs associated with these businesses, what amount of NEW investment will be required to get EACH of them back? $333,000? $700,000? $19 MILLION? That kind of investing will be needed just to stay even.
What are the chances we will come out ahead?
I. Rome Sentinel a couple days ago:
Environmental review process begins on Utica hospital project
While the headline focuses on environmental review, the significance is what was actually done. MVHS applied to the Oneida County Local Development Corporation for financial assistance in the form of $175M of tax exempt bonding and mortgage recording tax abatement in the proposed Downtown Hospital Project. OCLDC unanimously accepted this application. BUT here is the OCLDC's mission statement from its website:
The mission of the Oneida County Local Development Corporation (OCLDC) is to assist in the enhancement and diversity of the economy of Oneida County by acting in support of projects in Oneida County that create and/or retain jobs and promote private sector investment utilizing the statutory powers of the Local Development Corporation as set forth under the provisions of the of the laws of the State of New York.Isn't the OCLDC Board aware that the hospital consolidation will result in a reduction of hospital jobs? Isn't the OCLDC Board aware that putting the hospital Downtown will destroy private sector jobs and destroy the value of private sector investments in the businesses that will be taken?
How could OCLDC have accepted MVHS' application given its mission statement? Ignorance? Corruption? Speculative information?
II. WKTV Yesterday:
MVHS Offers relocation assistance to downtown property owners
One Million Dollars sounds like a lot of money until you consider that it will be spread out over many entities. Using the article's number of businesses it will be about $40K each. If spread over all the entities that would be forced to move (although most will simply close) it would be closer to $25K per business. Does that still sound like a lot? How does the total amount MVHS proposes to assist these businesses compare with Mr. Perra's salary for only one year? Does $1M sound so generous now?
We see a lot of leaders in the group who fancy themselves as "economic development" experts -- much like we have elected state officials (including the governor) and various bureaucrats who profess that "economic development" is a priority. But do they really understand what is required to take a concept from an idea to a profit-making business that creates market value and can provide jobs for people?
Like private investors in the stock market, the State is learning the "hard way" (well hopefully it is learning) that merely spending money on what may seem like good ideas rarely produces the anticipated benefits -- as a little "cocktail-napkin" math will illustrate:
- The state has spent about $250 million on Utica Nano. Originally it was expected to produce around 750 jobs -- or around $333,000 per job.
- With the site finally in use by Danfoss, it is expected to produce around 350 jobs -- if that company's efforts prove successful -- or around $700,000 per job.
- The actual result so far, however, years after Utica Nano was announced, is about 13 jobs -- or about $19 MILLION PER JOB!
So far State expenditures on the Buffalo Billion project have produced a humongous solar panel plant tended to by a skeleton crew -- failure perhaps due to Chinese competition in the industry, but with the potential to turn around not due to NYS policies but with TRUMP's proposal to tax panel imports. $90M was spent on a lighting plant in Syracuse - zero jobs, and a $15M film industry "hub" also in the Syracuse area - zero jobs.
Simply put, there are too many variables to make valid predictions on what particular public "investments" will produce in jobs and economic benefits -- so, should the government even be involved in this?
The bigger question is should the government be involved in destroying "this" - i.e., destroying what we already have?
There is a community of businesses and not-for-profits in the footprint of the Downtown Hospital that will be destroyed (and we know they will be destroyed from all prior government projects that required businesses to "move" -- whether they be arterial projects, urban renewal projects, government office buildings, or Ft. Stanwix National Monument). When you take a business, you take not only all the personal investment and sweat put into the business by the business owners, but also that of all the trial-and-error efforts that came before at that location.
When you take the jobs associated with these businesses, what amount of NEW investment will be required to get EACH of them back? $333,000? $700,000? $19 MILLION? That kind of investing will be needed just to stay even.
What are the chances we will come out ahead?
Friday, February 02, 2018
Downtown Hospital: What Were the Siting Criteria?
The public has been told several times that the proposed Downtown Location for the new MVHS Hospital was based on criteria supplied by the hospital to ensure that the hospital's needs were met.
Given the large expenditure of Public funds to be spent to implement this project, WHAT, IF ANY, criteria were used to ensure that the PUBLIC'S INTEREST was being protected in the choice of a site?
The Site Study, referred to as a "funnel map" in FOILed e-mails (to "funnel" MVHS' choice to the Downtown Site preferred by our local decision makers?) has never been voluntarily disclosed to the Public, and was not made available to the Public via the FOIL process, meaning that it is still a PRIVATE Study. Who does MV EDGE work for? While it claims to be an "independent" "public benefit" corporation, which "public" is it benefiting? Would there even BE an EDGE but for the Oneida County taxpayers and its relationship with County government? Could MV EDGE have gone as far as it has in advancing the hospital project WITHOUT THE AGREEMENT OF COUNTY GOVERNMENT?
Since the Site Study has not been made public, and there has been no articulation in any of the FOILed E-Mails between County Government, other officials, and EDGE that anyone insisted on any particular criteria to protect the Public Interest, IT CAN BE PRESUMED THAT NO CRITERIA TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST WERE APPLIED TO THE SITE SELECTION PROCESS.
The FOILed e-mails make perfectly clear that the Governor was already committed to a new hospital in the Utica area, that MVHS was "guided" to the Downtown Site by EDGE, and that Mr. Brindisi, Mr. Picente, Mr. Palmieri, and others who were intimately involved with this choice, made no attempt to even ascertain how an improper siting could adversely affect the Public, much less than insist on criteria to protect the Public Interest. Instead . . .
WHO LOOKED OUT FOR THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST IN SITE SELECTION????
Given the large expenditure of Public funds to be spent to implement this project, WHAT, IF ANY, criteria were used to ensure that the PUBLIC'S INTEREST was being protected in the choice of a site?
Under what circumstances would placing this hospital downtown be acceptable? In other words, what criteria should our de facto regional planning agency, MV EDGE, have used (but did not) during site selection to protect the PUBLIC's Interest? Here is my personal list (and you may have more):
- ZERO impact to the local taxpayers -- i.e., no money for parking garage, replacement of police garage, environmental remediation, site assembly and preparation, and no net removal of properties from the tax rolls (e.g, if $2M of properties come off the tax rolls in the CoLa neighborhood, then an equal amount of properties must be placed ON the tax rolls (perhaps at the St. E. Site.))
- ZERO impact to existing businesses - no business losses, no job losses, no loss to personal wealth -- and that the businesses' existing/reasonable potential plans for expansion be accommodated.
- ZERO impact to the street grid. -- i.e., NO closures that would negatively change street circulation and make Utica's street grid less navigable or would make anyone's property more difficult to access.
- TOTAL consistency with not only the letter but the VISION for Utica's downtown as OFFICIALLY ENACTED in the Zoning Ordinance, the Existing Pattern of Development, Gateway District Regulations, and the Utica Master Plan.
- A demonstration that the Downtown Site better meets the specific criteria of Public Health Law Sec. 2825-B (the criteria for the grant) than the MVHS "back-up" site on the St. Luke's Campus.
- Being outside the now infamous "RED" evacuation zone extending 1/2 mile from active railroad tracks - to ensure that if the unthinkable unlikely event of a hazardous rail accident were to occur, it would not require evacuation of the region's ONLY hospital.
Since the Site Study has not been made public, and there has been no articulation in any of the FOILed E-Mails between County Government, other officials, and EDGE that anyone insisted on any particular criteria to protect the Public Interest, IT CAN BE PRESUMED THAT NO CRITERIA TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST WERE APPLIED TO THE SITE SELECTION PROCESS.
The FOILed e-mails make perfectly clear that the Governor was already committed to a new hospital in the Utica area, that MVHS was "guided" to the Downtown Site by EDGE, and that Mr. Brindisi, Mr. Picente, Mr. Palmieri, and others who were intimately involved with this choice, made no attempt to even ascertain how an improper siting could adversely affect the Public, much less than insist on criteria to protect the Public Interest. Instead . . .
- They applied their personal notions of what would be "best" for Utica, rather that accept the guidance of Utica's officially enacted planning documents.
- They applied their personal notions of what would be "best" for Utica: that it would be OK to burden local taxpayers with this project, that it would be OK to cause losses to business owners and their employees, and that it would be OK to disrupt traffic patterns.
- They applied their personal notion that it would be "best" for the hospital to be Downtown without EVER considering the STATE's GOALS and criteria.
- They even went so far as to determine that it would be OK to place what will be Greater Utica's ONLY hospital within an evacuation zone should an unlikely and unthinkable event happen.
WHO LOOKED OUT FOR THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST IN SITE SELECTION????
Thursday, January 18, 2018
Downtown Hospital: A Serious Miscalculation . . .
It should now be pretty clear from the e-mails previously posted that the idea of placing the new hospital Downtown originated with our local officials (elected and unelected): NOT Albany (the Governor's Upstate czar did not like the idea) and NOT the MVHS Board (they had to be "steered" to Downtown and cajoled with promises that Downtown would be made cost "neutral" compared to the St. Luke's site (i.e., Taxpayers would pay for any additional costs)). So how did we get to where we are now?
Governor Cuomo originally wanted to advance two new state of the art hospitals to demonstrate how health care could be streamlined: one Downstate in Brooklyn, one Upstate in Oneida County.
Mr. Brindisi, to his credit, lobbied for language to ensure that the new "Oneida County" hospital would be convenient to Utica's poor. The legislature's attorneys inserted the "largest population center" language to achieve that objective.
However, they said neither "Downtown Utica" nor "City of Utica," nor even "largest population city" nor "largest population municipality," which would have forced the hospital into Utica. That would have been risky for site selection considering that Utica is only 17 square miles in size. The use of the word "center" does NOT confine the site to one in Utica.
It should not take a rocket scientist to figure out that the Governor not only wanted to improve healthcare, but also to demonstrate to the nation that he could accomplish something good for the public. The insistence of Mr. Brindisi, Mr. Picente, Mr. Dimeo, Mr. Palmieri, and the other usual suspects that the hospital had to go Downtown to accomplish "economic development" (NOT a consideration under the hospital legislation) not only places at risk completion of the hospital, but the Governor's reputation as well.
When the only poll that was taken demonstrated that half of the respondents were against placing the hospital Downtown, why would the Governor want to support that? The Governor wants to be known for accomplishing something good, not causing public controversy. A state-of-the-art hospital should not be controversial, but placing it Downtown has made it so.
Insisting that the hospital has to go Downtown is a serious miscalculation by our local officials. You have to question "What were they thinking?".
Governor Cuomo originally wanted to advance two new state of the art hospitals to demonstrate how health care could be streamlined: one Downstate in Brooklyn, one Upstate in Oneida County.
Mr. Brindisi, to his credit, lobbied for language to ensure that the new "Oneida County" hospital would be convenient to Utica's poor. The legislature's attorneys inserted the "largest population center" language to achieve that objective.
However, they said neither "Downtown Utica" nor "City of Utica," nor even "largest population city" nor "largest population municipality," which would have forced the hospital into Utica. That would have been risky for site selection considering that Utica is only 17 square miles in size. The use of the word "center" does NOT confine the site to one in Utica.
It should not take a rocket scientist to figure out that the Governor not only wanted to improve healthcare, but also to demonstrate to the nation that he could accomplish something good for the public. The insistence of Mr. Brindisi, Mr. Picente, Mr. Dimeo, Mr. Palmieri, and the other usual suspects that the hospital had to go Downtown to accomplish "economic development" (NOT a consideration under the hospital legislation) not only places at risk completion of the hospital, but the Governor's reputation as well.
When the only poll that was taken demonstrated that half of the respondents were against placing the hospital Downtown, why would the Governor want to support that? The Governor wants to be known for accomplishing something good, not causing public controversy. A state-of-the-art hospital should not be controversial, but placing it Downtown has made it so.
Insisting that the hospital has to go Downtown is a serious miscalculation by our local officials. You have to question "What were they thinking?".
Saturday, January 13, 2018
Downtown Hospital Revelations: Vass Blog's Take
Michael Vass did a great job comparing statements in FOILed e-mails on the hospital with what was published in local media at the time. Well worth reading!
Backroom wheeling and dealing in Utica may affect NY-22 and other elections
Backroom wheeling and dealing in Utica may affect NY-22 and other elections
Monday, January 08, 2018
Downtown Hospital: Locally Conceived & Hatched . . .
There should be little doubt where the idea of placing the hospital Downtown originated and how that decision was made . . .(click images to enlarge) . . .
[Updated 1/13/18 to add bold quote in 4th box down]
[Updated 1/13/18 to add bold quote in 4th box down]
[Updated 1/13/18 to add bold quote in 4th box down]
"I
think downtown should be looked at first."
|
|
"Scott
needs this for his board and help build consensus on a site
option ... we need to know if we can make case for a downtown
site and in the process include it as part of the URF stragegy"
|
|
"Scott
sent me an email and made it clear that he has to evaluate sites
and cannot automatically go to a downtown site without having
looked at other sites"
|
|
"We need to make sure that [Director of Upstate Revitalization Richard] Tobe sees this as transformational. He is the only person I have talked to date who pissed on this as a project. . . . My whole thought process in bringing Elan on board is to make sure that we guide siting decision in
favor of downtown."
|
|
"HE was not that enamored . . . . he was also not impressed . . . None of that impressed him."
|
|
"I
spoke to Scott last week and relayed my preference for a downtown
site. I know he has a Board to deal with but I hope he impresses
upon them that a downtown site is preferable."
|
|
"Would you like me to reach out to Scott to ensure that he understands direction . . . ?"
|
|
"I feel like walking away from this whole thing and telling the community and hospital if you don't want this thing downtown then good luck at St Luke's and don't come see me for one ounce of state support."
|
Tuesday, January 02, 2018
Maybe we should call it the "Screw - U District?"
Happy New Year, folks, and welcome to "business" as usual in Utica and Oneida County with another speculative "Public-Private" scheme!
Twenty Eighteen kicks off with another forward looking editorial from the OD that is heavy with excitement but light on facts: "Nexus Center good way to begin new year."
The editorial cites Utica's central location and alleges a "need" for such venues to conclude that the center could "play a major role in economic development."
Twenty Eighteen kicks off with another forward looking editorial from the OD that is heavy with excitement but light on facts: "Nexus Center good way to begin new year."
The planned development of the Nexus Center -- a tournament-based sports and recreation hub -- on the a 1.9-acre site just east of the Aud will be one more thing to keep the downtown renaissance moving forward. . . .That is all we are told about the financing. What we are not told is (1) that the Aud Authority has a limitation on bonded indebtedness of no more than $2,000,000 meaning the project will likely require County taxpayers to back the venture much like they did with the Aud expansion; (2) that the Aud Authority is still being involuntarily subsidized by the customers of the Mohawk Valley Water Authority (MVWA) to the tune of $732,000 annually as a matter of state law with mandated increases into the 2030s; and (3) that ownership by the Aud Authority means that another 1.9 acres of prime Downtown Utica property will be permanently removed from Utica's tax rolls.
. . . It’s likely be funded through public and private funds. . . .
The editorial cites Utica's central location and alleges a "need" for such venues to conclude that the center could "play a major role in economic development."
Utica Comets President Robert Esche has said that revenue would be based on out-of-towners coming here. The planned three sheets of ice could also be converted into lacrosse and soccer fields, he said earlier, so the complex could be capturing all sports, truly built around recreation, tournament-based play. He estimated it would mean roughly 300,000 to 350,000 out-of-towners coming to the area per year.If this is true, then why isn't the Comets organization building this facility with its own money, and keeping the property on the tax rolls? It seem that, again, money from MVWA customers and the credit of county taxpayers are being lent to a private venture.
In addition to creating an enterprising new venture in the city, this project also will eliminate a major downtown eyesore next to the vibrant Adirondack Bank Center auditorium. Demolition of Tartan has been scheduled, and depending on the weather, Annese said, it could be gone by the AHL All-Star Classic later this month. Previous asbestos contamination was abated when Bowers Development acquired the property last year -- and Bowers will pay for the demolition, Annese said.What are we to make of the fact that Bowers acquired the property and performed asbestos abatement just to sell it to the Aud Authority and pay for demolition a year later? It is doubtful that Bowers is being an altruistic angel. There is a story there that the OD is not telling us. Regardless, elimination of a Downtown "eyesore" is again an excuse for government to get in bed with a private enterprise.
The center is a key component of the proposed U District, first mentioned by Oneida County Executive Anthony Picente in his 2017 State of the County message.Maybe we should start calling it the "Screw-U District?"
Friday, November 24, 2017
A Turkey Day "Turkey" from the O.C. B. of L.
A Turkey Day "turkey" for you . . . According to WKTV:
"The Oneida County Board of Legislators approved to keep funding fixes to the county's sewer district on Wednesday."
The legislators may approve the funding, but they do not provide the funding, which ultimately comes only from the sewer rate payers in the Greater Utica area.
"The decision did not require much debate, as the county is under a consent order from the state's Department of Environmental Conservation to fix the sewer infrastructure."
This decision is the latest reflection of a 50-year-old flawed "regional" set-up, relatively recent Suburban/County law violations, a rushed 2007 signing of the consent order, and, maybe the wrong solution.
Half of the legislators who oversee the district and set sewer rates are unaffected by it. Because it costs their constituents nothing, there is no incentive for them to understand sewer district issues. Almost half of the other half represent the suburbs which were able to expand their tax base more cheaply due to the law violations. These folk will not be inclined to place the true cost of a solution entirely on the jurisdictions that benefited. The remainder are the outnumbered Utica legislators who would have to make an extra effort to study and understand that their constituents are the ones getting screwed.
If you want to understand in depth what has happened, start with "Sewer Incompetency and Irresponsibility," follow the links therein, then search this blog for "consent order."
In a nutshell, owing to the make up of the BoL, there has been no accountability for the bad decisions that led to the consent order, and no accountability for the bad decisions that followed. Expect more of the same.
"The Oneida County Board of Legislators approved to keep funding fixes to the county's sewer district on Wednesday."
The legislators may approve the funding, but they do not provide the funding, which ultimately comes only from the sewer rate payers in the Greater Utica area.
"The decision did not require much debate, as the county is under a consent order from the state's Department of Environmental Conservation to fix the sewer infrastructure."
This decision is the latest reflection of a 50-year-old flawed "regional" set-up, relatively recent Suburban/County law violations, a rushed 2007 signing of the consent order, and, maybe the wrong solution.
Half of the legislators who oversee the district and set sewer rates are unaffected by it. Because it costs their constituents nothing, there is no incentive for them to understand sewer district issues. Almost half of the other half represent the suburbs which were able to expand their tax base more cheaply due to the law violations. These folk will not be inclined to place the true cost of a solution entirely on the jurisdictions that benefited. The remainder are the outnumbered Utica legislators who would have to make an extra effort to study and understand that their constituents are the ones getting screwed.
In a nutshell, owing to the make up of the BoL, there has been no accountability for the bad decisions that led to the consent order, and no accountability for the bad decisions that followed. Expect more of the same.
Friday, October 13, 2017
Counterpoint to a Counterpoint . . .
A few days ago on the Utica Phoenix site, Marques Phillips offered a "Counterpoint" to Cassandra Harris-Lockwood's earlier post "Going to the Hospital." Mr. Phillips essentially believes that opposition to a Downtown Hospital is motivated by an anti-Utica bias (my words). Here is a full response:
Mr. Phillips' "Counterpoint" claim that opposition to
placing a new hospital in Downtown Utica is based on a notion that
"Utica isn't good enough" easily avoids important matters that Uticans
should think about. It also avoids the possibility that hosting the
facility may not be such a good deal: that Regional decision-makers
have found yet another way to dump costs associated with a regional
facility onto the backs of beleaguered Utica Taxpayers. There is little
dispute that we can use a new facility. The relevant questions are
"Where is the best place? And for what purpose?"
No
comfort is taken from the fact that a "professional firm" was hired to
survey different sites. That firm is Mohawk Valley EDGE: a regional
"economic development" agency supported with our tax dollars that is
also a "private" entity, shielding its activities from public scrutiny
and making it difficult to know whose interests it serves. EDGE has
seemingly made an industry of using public grants for "make work"
projects, often moving facilities from Point A to B with little to no
sustainable increase in jobs. Its efforts have often been to the
detriment of Utica. It has induced sprawl and has frequently required
massive infusions of local dollars for new infrastructure, which the
public will have to maintain forever. The Downtown Hospital appears to
follow the same "M.O." When it proposed Downtown as a possible hospital
site, EDGE ignored the Utica Master Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Gateway
District regulations (the will of Utica's people). It literally
marketed to MVHS the properties of individuals and businesses without
their knowledge, as well as blocks of city street pavement without the
public's knowledge. Whose interests did these actions advance? Why did
EDGE presume it could market private property? Why did it presume that
it had the authority to make Utica planning decisions and change Utica
traffic patterns?
Public
Health Law Section 2825-b supplies the grant for new hospital
facilities. Its sole purpose is to strengthen and protect continued
access to health care services by funding projects that "consolidate
multiple licensed health care facilities into an integrated system of
care..." Several things suggest that officials are using the state's
money to advance a local private and/or political agenda rather than the
foregoing. Although the site determination held the greatest
consequences for the public both under this law as well as for other
reasons, EDGE offered Downtown to MVHS with NO PUBLIC INPUT. Afterward,
the discussion of alternate sites, particularly those that have bearing
on the law's purpose, has been deemed "out-of-order" because Downtown
was "a done deal." EDGE's studies, which supposedly compared alternate
sites, have been kept out of public view. MVHS/EDGE/local officials have
given the public no compelling health care-related reason to place the
project Downtown, while at the same time claiming that doing so would
somehow economically transform Downtown (which is not a consideration
under the law). Hospital officials are on record saying that they were
told that they HAD to choose Downtown or there would be no state money.
Since the legislation out of Albany does NOT expressly limit sites to
ones within Utica, EDGE/local officials appear to have conditioned their
assistance upon MVHS placing the facility Downtown rather than its
"back-up site" on the St. Luke's Campus -- and for purposes other than
those in the law.
Placing
the hospital Downtown will clean-up a handful of blighted buildings,
giving an appearance of "success" while generating years of "progress"
reports that will boost the media image of the politicians. It may also
temporarily benefit some Utica-based trade unionists during the
construction phase. However, belief that a Downtown Hospital would spur
economic development nearby is not credible because (1) hospital
complexes are largely self-contained with exhausted employees wanting to
go home after their 12-hour shifts, (2) earlier urban renewal projects
that concentrated employees into new office buildings failed to spur
other development, and (3) no studies have been offered to demonstrate
successes from this approach.
Wherever
the project is located, it will DECREASE hospital beds and jobs because
those are MVHS objectives of consolidation. Placing the project
Downtown, however, will additionally eliminate most of the jobs
associated with the 40 businesses that will be taken. Prior local
projects show that taking businesses causes most of them to permanently
close because the business owners' private wealth that is destroyed by
the wrecking ball is only partially reimbursed by the "market value"
received for real property. The spectacle of our government officials
actually cheering the destruction of private jobs -- for whatever reason
-- sends a chilling message to would-be investors in Utica.
The
economy of Utica and the region depends on the viability of its small
business sector. While most small business start-ups fail, chances for
long-term survival are improved if they are located in a "hub" with
other businesses nearby. Utica cannot lose 28 acres of its Central
Business District to a medical campus without threatening its future as a
place for small businesses to start and grow. This is a Regional loss
because suburban locations would be hard pressed to match the advantages
found in Utica's CBD for low costs, pre-installed infrastructure, and
close proximity to other businesses. This is particularly true now in an
era where investing in Downtowns has again become fashionable. It is
also particularly true for the Columbia-Lafayette corridor between Baggs
Square and the Brewery District because the choicest properties in the
latter neighborhoods have already been snapped up for redevelopment.
Placing
the hospital Downtown threatens Utica's future financial stability.
Ninety plus parcels will be permanently removed from the tax rolls,
while municipal services will be extended to new, non-paying
facilities. Uticans will have their taxes raised to cover (1) the lost
property taxes and service extensions, (2) the lost sales taxes from
taken businesses, (3) the City's share of a new parking garage, (4) a
substantial portion of the County's share, (5) replacement of the police
garage, and (6) costs for brownfield and infrastructure remediations.
EDGE's balance sheet that purports to show that local taxpayers can
afford the project leaves out many of these costs but includes
speculative revenue from new medical office buildings -- speculative
because the buildings are not currently proposed and because it is
unlikely that medical providers who built new facilities in places on
and near the St. Lukes' Campus, in South Utica, and in the Utica
Business Park will abandon those investments just to be near the new
Downtown Hospital.
Lastly,
moving the hospital from the St. Luke's Campus to Downtown will HARM
local health care by increasing the distance to the medical providers in
the aforementioned places. How does moving the hospital a couple miles
away from its rehabilitation facility and skilled nursing home on its
current campus foster "an integrated system of care?" Mr. Phillips'
argument that the existing St. Luke's facility must be closed while a
new hospital is built on that campus is belied by the fact that several
wings were added to the existing facility over the years with no
interruption in service.
In
sum, placing the new hospital facility in Downtown Utica will harm
Utica, Uticans, Utica businesses, and local health care. It is time to
focus on the purposes of the legislation and build where more grant
money will go toward health care. Build the new facility on the St.
Luke's Campus.
Thursday, September 07, 2017
Come Together ... Right Now . . . For the Hospital . . .
| St Luke's Campus vs | Downtown Utica |
| → Site already owned by MVHS with plenty of expansion room and is
almost shovel since it is served by newer public infrastructure. → Conveniently located near the center of Greater Utica's population, shares a campus with a Rehab facility and Nursing Home, and is close to newly established private medical facilities on French and Burrstone Roads and in the Utica Business Park (the region's existing "medical district"). → No property or sales tax losses. → No private sector job losses → No change in land use. → No street grid disruption. → No added burdens on the taxpayers. → Preserves the opportunity for traditional, incremental economic development Downtown which is consistent with the Utica Master Plan and is already remaking Downtown Utica. |
→ Cost of Property Acquisitions, Environmental Remediation
and infrastructure revisions. → Cost of a parking garage and new police garage (and maybe more) → No room for future expansion without impacting others. → Loss of Property Taxes 90+ parcels → Loss of the Sales Taxes, Private Sector Jobs, and “Sweat Equity” from 40 businesses → Inconvenient location, especially for nursing home patients, and is far away from existing private medical offices and facilities. → Incompatable land use with the surrounding neighborhoods. → Street closures will make Downtown Utica less friendly for businesses remaining behind. → Speculation that it will spur Downtown development by persons with a track record of failure. |
When you do a side-by-side comparison of the two sites, the choice of putting the new hospital facility Downtown makes no sense and deserves the opposition it has received.
When you read the legislation which created the grant that is driving the new hospital, the St. Luke's Campus seems tailor-made to the law's description of the project's location and its objectives. Choosing the St. Luke's Campus will save money, be easier to implement, and be a better fit for health care.
Mohawk Valley EDGE made a serious miscalculation when it steered the MVHS board to the Downtown Utica site with NO opportunity for public input. Objections would have been obvious years ago. EDGE appears to have been thinking of its own interests (or the interests of certain local politicians) rather than regional health care needs.
MVHS needs to focus on its mission to provide the best possible health care for the region and should not be distracted by the myriad issues attached to a Downtown Utica site. MV EDGE, Oneida County, and the City of Utica need to stop trying to force the new facility into Downtown Utica and instead focus on how they can help MVHS best meet the grant's criteria at the St. Luke's Campus.
Choosing to put the new hospital Downtown is dividing the community. Putting it at the St. Luke's Campus is something everyone can get behind.
Let's come together to support the New Hospital on the St. Luke's Campus.
Thursday, August 17, 2017
Downtown Hospital Deja Vu . . .
For those on Facebook, Robin Raabe had a thought provoking post a couple days ago detailing her experiences running a business during the Arterial project as indicating what Downtown businesses will face during a hospital construction project.
A number of us fought the Arterial project because of the permanent erosion of the tax base (70+ parcels off the tax rolls), closure of businesses, permanent closure of Sunset Ave and Warren St. as cross streets, and the construction of a wall across the neighborhood. No one wanted to listen, especially the City Council. Their fear of losing a $60M project proved greater than their fear of dividing a neighborhood, making the local street grid more difficult to navigate, losing businesses and jobs, and decreasing the tax base.
The same Dynamics appear to be in play now with the Downtown Hospital -- magnified five fold.
Fear of losing the project is going to drive the decision-making.
"We have been stunted in our growth, we have lost 20-30% of our customer base & sales . . . For the betterment of the City with the Arterial Project, we had become on the verge of collateral damage in the face of progress. As a stand-alone business surrounded by road work, noise, dirt, road closures, re-directs, & general lack of accessibility, we have been at the brink of non-existence. We know that additionally, there are no less than 3 other small businesses directly affected by the road work. Think of that.. this is "just road work". What will 8 plus years of building a hospital/ parking garage/ traffic pattern routing, and more do to the businesses surrounding the proposed work area, let alone the 40 plus businesses that will be sacrificed for the job."It was deja vu listening to the Common Council the other night claim they "had not made up their minds" on the hospital and offered to meet with representatives of the No Hospital Downtown and Better Utica Downtown groups to understand their concerns. We heard the same things when the Arterial was under consideration.
A number of us fought the Arterial project because of the permanent erosion of the tax base (70+ parcels off the tax rolls), closure of businesses, permanent closure of Sunset Ave and Warren St. as cross streets, and the construction of a wall across the neighborhood. No one wanted to listen, especially the City Council. Their fear of losing a $60M project proved greater than their fear of dividing a neighborhood, making the local street grid more difficult to navigate, losing businesses and jobs, and decreasing the tax base.
The same Dynamics appear to be in play now with the Downtown Hospital -- magnified five fold.
Fear of losing the project is going to drive the decision-making.
Tuesday, July 25, 2017
A Pig in a Poke . . .
The City of Utica is being threatened: "Warning to city: No garage, no new hospital"
The Downtown Hospital is not only in material conflict with the Utica Master Plan and various pieces of legislation over the years that established the community's character, it will open a whole Pandora's box of impacts that may make the Downtown site for the new hospital unpalatable. Will sanitary sewers and water lines designed to handle loads from a grid of small customers be able to handle the load from one or two large users? Will existing storm sewers be able to handle the quick runoff from acres of new parking lots? Will hazards to human health be created by the destruction of many old buildings? Will the blockage of streets create traffic congestion, air pollution, and inconvenience for people not going to the hospital -- and possibly lead to business decline and blight elsewhere? Will the change in land use from tax-paying small businesses to tax-exempt large institution make city services financially unsustainable? What will happen to the two hospital sites that will be left behind? Will they become blighted like the Psych Center did? Who will pay to mitigate the various adverse impacts? City taxpayers? Water users? Sewer users? An EIS now will help to answer these questions.
Asking the City to make a decision on the garage now without an EIS is asking it to make a decision blind.
MVHS' "back up" site at St. Lukes has plenty of room for the new hospital in spite of a small federally-regulated wetland. Numerous large construction projects have occurred over the years there with no disruption in hospital services. No change in community character will occur by constructing the new hospital there, and no businesses will be booted out. There will be no loss in tax base. No streets will be blocked. Considering that there has been a decline in beds at St. Luke's, adding the activity currently at St. Elizabeth's would appear to be only an incremental increase in use over what had previously been at St. Luke's. Simply put: the St. Luke's site is practically "shovel ready." It makes no sense to put the new hospital elsewhere.
The Downtown Hospital is a "Pig in a Poke" -- and the taxpayers and water/sewer rate payers will be left holding the bag.
“If there’s no garage, there’s no downtown hospital,” Steve DiMeo, president of Mohawk Valley EDGE, told Utica Common Council members at a meeting of the Economic Development Committee Monday.As yet no Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Downtown Hospital has been produced.
The Downtown Hospital is not only in material conflict with the Utica Master Plan and various pieces of legislation over the years that established the community's character, it will open a whole Pandora's box of impacts that may make the Downtown site for the new hospital unpalatable. Will sanitary sewers and water lines designed to handle loads from a grid of small customers be able to handle the load from one or two large users? Will existing storm sewers be able to handle the quick runoff from acres of new parking lots? Will hazards to human health be created by the destruction of many old buildings? Will the blockage of streets create traffic congestion, air pollution, and inconvenience for people not going to the hospital -- and possibly lead to business decline and blight elsewhere? Will the change in land use from tax-paying small businesses to tax-exempt large institution make city services financially unsustainable? What will happen to the two hospital sites that will be left behind? Will they become blighted like the Psych Center did? Who will pay to mitigate the various adverse impacts? City taxpayers? Water users? Sewer users? An EIS now will help to answer these questions.
Asking the City to make a decision on the garage now without an EIS is asking it to make a decision blind.
MVHS' "back up" site at St. Lukes has plenty of room for the new hospital in spite of a small federally-regulated wetland. Numerous large construction projects have occurred over the years there with no disruption in hospital services. No change in community character will occur by constructing the new hospital there, and no businesses will be booted out. There will be no loss in tax base. No streets will be blocked. Considering that there has been a decline in beds at St. Luke's, adding the activity currently at St. Elizabeth's would appear to be only an incremental increase in use over what had previously been at St. Luke's. Simply put: the St. Luke's site is practically "shovel ready." It makes no sense to put the new hospital elsewhere.
The Downtown Hospital is a "Pig in a Poke" -- and the taxpayers and water/sewer rate payers will be left holding the bag.
Monday, July 17, 2017
The Aud: Still Using Your Money . . .
Saturday's OD celebrated "Multimillion dollar Aud renovations adding suites, boxes, restrooms." It is good to see the Aud brought up to current standards. We can be excited by its modern design and amenities and take pride in having a facility that competes with the best of them in the American Hockey League (AHL). But there are still some troubling aspects to this deal that we need to think about.
First, it was disappointing that the construction started with no renderings in the media (until now), no public outreach, and little opportunity for public engagement and involvement over the 3+ years the project was being considered (see Aud Authority Minutes). The Aud is, after all, (1) a building paid for by the Utica taxpayers, (2) an engineering landmark with its cable-suspended roof, and (3) involuntarily subsidized by the customers of the Mohawk Valley Water Authority (MVWA) to the tune of $732,000 annually as a matter of state law with mandated increases into the 2030s. Reports by Aud Authority accountants make clear that the Aud cannot survive without this subsidy.
Second, luxury suites may be a staple of the AHL, but they seem out of touch for an area that has been in decline, bears some of the highest levels of taxation in the country, and where water-users have no choice but to pay for this. Like the County's luxurious terminal at Griffiss for the owners of private planes that taxpayers are paying for, it seems that average Joes and Janes are expected to pay for the accouterments of our local elite.
Third, when we were lucky enough to get information on the financing of the project, we were not given the full story. The OD reported the project as being "helped" by a $5.5M County bond plus a state grant. The Sentinel reported that
Read the Board of Legislators' resolution authorizing the bond and County Executive's cover letter (at left). The letter makes one believe that the project is needed to meet building codes and that the suites, etc. are just thrown in as extras. The debt limitation isn't mentioned. The resolution does not mention payments from the Aud Authority at all, but instead speaks of an annual assessment on "lots and parcels of land within said District" without ever identifying the lots, parcels or "District." Is this just poor draftsmanship, or concealment?
Fourth, the Aud Authority's contracting day-to-day management functions to people who also USE the facility may have allowed a conflict-of-interest.
It seems that we have created a local government structure which responds more to special interests than to the average person.
First, it was disappointing that the construction started with no renderings in the media (until now), no public outreach, and little opportunity for public engagement and involvement over the 3+ years the project was being considered (see Aud Authority Minutes). The Aud is, after all, (1) a building paid for by the Utica taxpayers, (2) an engineering landmark with its cable-suspended roof, and (3) involuntarily subsidized by the customers of the Mohawk Valley Water Authority (MVWA) to the tune of $732,000 annually as a matter of state law with mandated increases into the 2030s. Reports by Aud Authority accountants make clear that the Aud cannot survive without this subsidy.
Second, luxury suites may be a staple of the AHL, but they seem out of touch for an area that has been in decline, bears some of the highest levels of taxation in the country, and where water-users have no choice but to pay for this. Like the County's luxurious terminal at Griffiss for the owners of private planes that taxpayers are paying for, it seems that average Joes and Janes are expected to pay for the accouterments of our local elite.
The county executive explained it is cheaper for the county to borrow the money than if the Aud obtains the funding on its own. Payments to the county by the Aud will cover the debt service, he said.We are left with the impression that the County got involved to save the Aud money. We are not told that the Aud Authority has a limitation on bonded indebtedness of no more than $2,000,000 which this project will easily exceed. So the County is assisting the Aud in exceeding its debt limit! To make matters worse, official documents on the subject seem to be written to conceal this fact.
Read the Board of Legislators' resolution authorizing the bond and County Executive's cover letter (at left). The letter makes one believe that the project is needed to meet building codes and that the suites, etc. are just thrown in as extras. The debt limitation isn't mentioned. The resolution does not mention payments from the Aud Authority at all, but instead speaks of an annual assessment on "lots and parcels of land within said District" without ever identifying the lots, parcels or "District." Is this just poor draftsmanship, or concealment?
Fourth, the Aud Authority's contracting day-to-day management functions to people who also USE the facility may have allowed a conflict-of-interest.
It seems that we have created a local government structure which responds more to special interests than to the average person.
Sunday, July 02, 2017
NYSDOT-Utica FAIL!
No doubt NYSDOT will claim that we experienced an "unprecedented" storm event to excuse the flood-FAIL near the newly opened Court St. interchange yesterday where cars were literally abandoned in 4' of water and people had to be rescued with ladders. Maybe the storm event WAS unprecedented. . .
But FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION when you are talking about THE main N-S traffic artery in Utica.
Those poor people in cars on the Arterial entered a flood zone and were TRAPPED there. They could not turn around against oncoming traffic, access to the lanes going in the opposite direction was blocked by a Jersey Barrier, and cross-streets had been cut off.
The City of Utica and its Common Council is as much to blame as the State. Only worried about securing the $63M project, they allowed the State to further disrupt Utica's street grid -- a grid with built-in redundancies so that when one street is blocked for whatever reason you can simply go over a block to use the next one.
Luckily no one died this time.
Time for the State to stop ignoring the negative impacts its projects have on City Streets. (Your proposed 5-S remake is a bunch of the same garbage, NYSDOT!)
Time for the City to stop worrying about losing the $$$ value of State projects, and to start defending its street system, and the interests of its residents and businesses. (Allowing the cut-off of streets crossing 5-S further damages the grid and makes businesses that much harder to get to).
City and State need to stop operating as if they are in separate silos.
But FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION when you are talking about THE main N-S traffic artery in Utica.
Those poor people in cars on the Arterial entered a flood zone and were TRAPPED there. They could not turn around against oncoming traffic, access to the lanes going in the opposite direction was blocked by a Jersey Barrier, and cross-streets had been cut off.
The City of Utica and its Common Council is as much to blame as the State. Only worried about securing the $63M project, they allowed the State to further disrupt Utica's street grid -- a grid with built-in redundancies so that when one street is blocked for whatever reason you can simply go over a block to use the next one.
Luckily no one died this time.
Time for the State to stop ignoring the negative impacts its projects have on City Streets. (Your proposed 5-S remake is a bunch of the same garbage, NYSDOT!)
Time for the City to stop worrying about losing the $$$ value of State projects, and to start defending its street system, and the interests of its residents and businesses. (Allowing the cut-off of streets crossing 5-S further damages the grid and makes businesses that much harder to get to).
City and State need to stop operating as if they are in separate silos.
Thursday, June 29, 2017
Don't Be Misled!
It has been a burning contention of some "Downtown Hospital" proponents that the proposed new hospital MUST be in Utica or even in Downtown Utica or the area would lose the $300M grant from the State.
Don't be misled!
Here is the relevant portion of the actual legislation with the operative words put in red-bold:
Don't be confused by the words "located in the largest population center in Oneida County." Apply a little common sense (and maybe a common rule of statutory construction).
"Expressio unius est exclusio alterius" or "expression of one thing is the exclusion of another." Every word of a law is presumed to have been used for a purpose and every word excluded from a law is presumed to have been excluded for a purpose.
The legislature was geographically specific when it referred to "Oneida County," so if it wanted to limit sites to "Downtown Utica" or the "City of Utica," it would have said so. Since it did not, the legislature clearly intended to NOT limit sites to Downtown Utica or Utica. The legislature did, however, intend to limit sites to "the largest population center in Oneida County" as opposed to all other population centers.
Imagine that you have a large map of Oneida County and a bunch of push-pins. You stick a pin in the map where each person in the county lives (about 230,000 pins!). You would notice several groupings of pins -- population centers -- and that the largest grouping would be over southeastern Oneida County. THAT GROUPING represents the "largest population center of the county." With about 60,000 pins in Utica; 20,000 in New Hartford; 20,000 in Whitestown; 10,000 each in Marcy and Deerfield; and none to the east of Utica (because that would be off the map), if you were to pick out the middle of that grouping it would probably fall somewhere just west of Utica . . . perhaps near the St. Luke's Hospital Campus!
If anyone wants to actually do this map exercise to determine the middle of the largest population center, be my guest and send me a picture of it! The simple point I want to make is that the location specified in the law includes the St. Luke's Campus and that the Campus is convenient to everyone in the area.
So, if a public or hospital official or anyone else tries to tell you that the grant will be lost if the hospital is not located in Downtown Utica, you now know better. They are either deliberately trying to mislead you to achieve purposes outside the scope of the legislation or they themselves have been mislead. The purpose is neither "economic development," nor "blight removal," nor "Downtown revival," nor "infrastructure repair," nor any other "purpose" that could be remotely claimed to justify tapping into the tempting big pot of money, but, rather, "strengthening and protecting continued access to health care services in communities."
One group that appears NOT to have been misled is the MVHS Board. They had the presence of mind to designate the St. Luke's Campus as their "backup" should the Downtown site prove infeasible -- an acknowledgment, as the applicant for the funds, that the St. Luke's Campus both qualifies under the law and meets their needs.
Once the true costs of the Downtown site become known (site acquisition; condemnation/legal proceedings; historical/environmental/archeological studies; asbestos removal and other remediation; water/sewer line replacement; designing and constructing a facility within the architectural/historical context of Utica; etc.) and are compared with the practically shovel-ready St. Luke's site, it should be concluded that choosing the St. Luke's site would produce more healthcare "bang for the buck" and best promote the purposes of the state's legislation.
MVHS is urged to obtain an estimate of the true costs of the Downtown site ASAP before proceeding further, and to obtain it from a contractor having no connection with EDGE, the project, or anyone else from the region who may have something to gain from placing the project downtown.
Don't be misled!
Don't be confused by the words "located in the largest population center in Oneida County." Apply a little common sense (and maybe a common rule of statutory construction).
"Expressio unius est exclusio alterius" or "expression of one thing is the exclusion of another." Every word of a law is presumed to have been used for a purpose and every word excluded from a law is presumed to have been excluded for a purpose.
The legislature was geographically specific when it referred to "Oneida County," so if it wanted to limit sites to "Downtown Utica" or the "City of Utica," it would have said so. Since it did not, the legislature clearly intended to NOT limit sites to Downtown Utica or Utica. The legislature did, however, intend to limit sites to "the largest population center in Oneida County" as opposed to all other population centers.
Imagine that you have a large map of Oneida County and a bunch of push-pins. You stick a pin in the map where each person in the county lives (about 230,000 pins!). You would notice several groupings of pins -- population centers -- and that the largest grouping would be over southeastern Oneida County. THAT GROUPING represents the "largest population center of the county." With about 60,000 pins in Utica; 20,000 in New Hartford; 20,000 in Whitestown; 10,000 each in Marcy and Deerfield; and none to the east of Utica (because that would be off the map), if you were to pick out the middle of that grouping it would probably fall somewhere just west of Utica . . . perhaps near the St. Luke's Hospital Campus!
If anyone wants to actually do this map exercise to determine the middle of the largest population center, be my guest and send me a picture of it! The simple point I want to make is that the location specified in the law includes the St. Luke's Campus and that the Campus is convenient to everyone in the area.
So, if a public or hospital official or anyone else tries to tell you that the grant will be lost if the hospital is not located in Downtown Utica, you now know better. They are either deliberately trying to mislead you to achieve purposes outside the scope of the legislation or they themselves have been mislead. The purpose is neither "economic development," nor "blight removal," nor "Downtown revival," nor "infrastructure repair," nor any other "purpose" that could be remotely claimed to justify tapping into the tempting big pot of money, but, rather, "strengthening and protecting continued access to health care services in communities."
One group that appears NOT to have been misled is the MVHS Board. They had the presence of mind to designate the St. Luke's Campus as their "backup" should the Downtown site prove infeasible -- an acknowledgment, as the applicant for the funds, that the St. Luke's Campus both qualifies under the law and meets their needs.
Once the true costs of the Downtown site become known (site acquisition; condemnation/legal proceedings; historical/environmental/archeological studies; asbestos removal and other remediation; water/sewer line replacement; designing and constructing a facility within the architectural/historical context of Utica; etc.) and are compared with the practically shovel-ready St. Luke's site, it should be concluded that choosing the St. Luke's site would produce more healthcare "bang for the buck" and best promote the purposes of the state's legislation.
MVHS is urged to obtain an estimate of the true costs of the Downtown site ASAP before proceeding further, and to obtain it from a contractor having no connection with EDGE, the project, or anyone else from the region who may have something to gain from placing the project downtown.
Wednesday, June 28, 2017
Economic Nonsense and Keeping Up Appearances
On Monday "No Hospital Downtown" and "Better Utica Downtown" sponsored a symposium called "Battle for Our City" which featured the presentations of two planners from Strong Towns and Urban3 [video links will be posted if they become available]. Too bad only one elected official (Mike Galime) out of dozens of our area officials saw fit to attend.
From the County Executive, Mayor, Assemblyman and Senator on down, they passed on a golden opportunity to learn something about economic development and economic reality from nationally renowned experts.
Per WKTV, Mr. Picente wasn't interested, stating:
So far Downtown Hospital proponents from MVHS, to political officials, to EDGE and various consultants have shown the public NO model with real numbers to demonstrate that placing a hospital downtown will generate a positive economic return for the City of Utica. Like the now decaying "urban renewal" projects that traded hundreds of old revenue-generating going businesses for new revenue-consuming public buildings and subsidized housing, the public is given only the appearance of a positive outcome while actually suffering negative economic consequences.
What we do know about the Downtown Hospital is that about 40 going businesses will be taken. These are not just any businesses but Proven Winners because they beat the 1-in-5 odds of surviving 5 years to actually last decades -- businesses who pay their taxes and provide jobs -- businesses which should be cherished, not pushed aside, in spite of their modest appearance, because they produce a positive economic return for the city. Based upon the numbers of what happened in Rome when land was taken for the "Fort" and "Living Bridge" projects, Utica would be lucky if even 4 of these businesses remain in town following the project. Their property taxes, sales taxes, jobs and income will be forever lost to the local economy and replaced with a decrease in hospital jobs (because hospitals are consolidating) and virtually ZERO taxable value and revenue (because the hospital is tax exempt). Utica will give up in perpetuity the chance of ever generating revenue over the entire 34 acres to be taken. Utica taxpayers will be particularly hard hit because Utica will be responsible for police and fire protection of an additional hospital campus (because the others aren't going to disappear overnight). With no plans for the two campuses to be left behind, the potential for long-term blight (like that experienced at the CNY Psychiatric site on York St. after most of its facilities were closed) will be visited on two good neighborhoods. There is already talk about saddling taxpayers with a $41 Million parking garage. You can be sure that when ancient water lines, sanitary and storm sewers prove to be inadequate, the costs of improvements will be passed on to the local rate-payers in the form of higher water bills.
Meanwhile, MVHS' 64-acre St. Luke's Campus has plenty of room for the New Hospital and is served by major 4-lane traffic arteries, a new co-generation facility, and relatively new water and sewer lines. Parking is already on site and would only have to be incrementally augmented. No businesses would be taken, no revenue would be lost to local government, no private jobs would be lost, and one less site would be abandoned to potential blight. Since the site is already owned by MVHS and nearly shovel-ready for expansion, more money from the state's $300M gift can go toward a better hospital and equipment. The need for taxpayers or rate-payers to kick in extra money to improve public infrastructure will be virtually eliminated. Furthermore, the St. Luke's site has already been approved by the MVHS board as its "backup," eliminating the argument that the site does not meet MVHS' needs.
Simply put, placing the New Hospital Downtown as opposed to St. Luke's campus makes no economic sense. It buys less healthcare, while putting Utica at risk.
Where are the economic models for the "U-District" and Harbor Point? Uticans are presented with pictures of dazzling buildings and promises of attracting tourists, but what will Uticans pay? Pay to build, pay to maintain, pay to protect? And what will they receive in return? Will revenues cover costs? Where is the math? The fact that these projects do not happen without the public risking substantial funds suggests that maybe the math does not work. If private ventures have only a one in five chance of financial success, why should we expect that government officials can do better? Maybe it would be better to leave the "U-District" and Harbor Point as is, undeveloped, and wait for development to come the old-fashioned way -- the way Utica was originally built -- the way Utica became wealthy at one time: through trial-and-error efforts by entrepreneurs risking their own money. They are already doing it in Baggs Square, and are prepared to do it within the Downtown Hospital footprint.
The Downtown Hospital, U-District, and Harbor Point -- like the old Urban Renewal Project #1 -- are more about keeping up appearances than real economic development.
From the County Executive, Mayor, Assemblyman and Senator on down, they passed on a golden opportunity to learn something about economic development and economic reality from nationally renowned experts.
Per WKTV, Mr. Picente wasn't interested, stating:
"Mohawk Valley Health System made a decision on the location of a new hospital in conjunction with the state, county and city, and I have always supported that decision. While I respect the opinion of others and their right to oppose that decision, the point of debating its location has passed. All of this energy would be better spent working together so that we can see a new hospital and new development in downtown Utica."
The fact there was never a point when the public was allowed to debate the hospital's location (even though the public will have to live with that decision for the next 60 years) is concerning enough. However, after seeing the presentations, it became abundantly clear that to proceed on this and other "silver bullet" projects (like the "U-District" and Harbor Point) in ignorance of strategic pieces of information would recklessly expose the City of Utica and its taxpayers to a risk of financial harm. Simultaneously, the lack of this information denies Utica, its taxpayers, and entrepreneurs opportunities of significant returns for modest investments.
Through a series of examples using actual data from cities across the continent, including Syracuse and Rome, the planners demonstrated that large-scale economic development projects often leave their communities in worse shape financially because the revenues from the new projects may not cover the costs of the projects or their maintenance. They also demonstrated through calculating taxable value and jobs on a per-acre basis that "poor" or even "blighted" areas of communities often have more value than areas of booming new development because they produce more revenue than they consume. This hidden value can be multiplied many fold by encouraging more private investment with things as cheap as new sidewalks, lighting, and street trees. For example, on a per acre basis, Armory Square is much more valuable than Destiny USA, which has extensive non-productive parking lots.
Regarding the Downtown Hospital (but applicable to other projects, too) the planners urged decision-makers to ask "Where is the model?" and to "do the math."
So far Downtown Hospital proponents from MVHS, to political officials, to EDGE and various consultants have shown the public NO model with real numbers to demonstrate that placing a hospital downtown will generate a positive economic return for the City of Utica. Like the now decaying "urban renewal" projects that traded hundreds of old revenue-generating going businesses for new revenue-consuming public buildings and subsidized housing, the public is given only the appearance of a positive outcome while actually suffering negative economic consequences.
What we do know about the Downtown Hospital is that about 40 going businesses will be taken. These are not just any businesses but Proven Winners because they beat the 1-in-5 odds of surviving 5 years to actually last decades -- businesses who pay their taxes and provide jobs -- businesses which should be cherished, not pushed aside, in spite of their modest appearance, because they produce a positive economic return for the city. Based upon the numbers of what happened in Rome when land was taken for the "Fort" and "Living Bridge" projects, Utica would be lucky if even 4 of these businesses remain in town following the project. Their property taxes, sales taxes, jobs and income will be forever lost to the local economy and replaced with a decrease in hospital jobs (because hospitals are consolidating) and virtually ZERO taxable value and revenue (because the hospital is tax exempt). Utica will give up in perpetuity the chance of ever generating revenue over the entire 34 acres to be taken. Utica taxpayers will be particularly hard hit because Utica will be responsible for police and fire protection of an additional hospital campus (because the others aren't going to disappear overnight). With no plans for the two campuses to be left behind, the potential for long-term blight (like that experienced at the CNY Psychiatric site on York St. after most of its facilities were closed) will be visited on two good neighborhoods. There is already talk about saddling taxpayers with a $41 Million parking garage. You can be sure that when ancient water lines, sanitary and storm sewers prove to be inadequate, the costs of improvements will be passed on to the local rate-payers in the form of higher water bills.
Meanwhile, MVHS' 64-acre St. Luke's Campus has plenty of room for the New Hospital and is served by major 4-lane traffic arteries, a new co-generation facility, and relatively new water and sewer lines. Parking is already on site and would only have to be incrementally augmented. No businesses would be taken, no revenue would be lost to local government, no private jobs would be lost, and one less site would be abandoned to potential blight. Since the site is already owned by MVHS and nearly shovel-ready for expansion, more money from the state's $300M gift can go toward a better hospital and equipment. The need for taxpayers or rate-payers to kick in extra money to improve public infrastructure will be virtually eliminated. Furthermore, the St. Luke's site has already been approved by the MVHS board as its "backup," eliminating the argument that the site does not meet MVHS' needs.
Where are the economic models for the "U-District" and Harbor Point? Uticans are presented with pictures of dazzling buildings and promises of attracting tourists, but what will Uticans pay? Pay to build, pay to maintain, pay to protect? And what will they receive in return? Will revenues cover costs? Where is the math? The fact that these projects do not happen without the public risking substantial funds suggests that maybe the math does not work. If private ventures have only a one in five chance of financial success, why should we expect that government officials can do better? Maybe it would be better to leave the "U-District" and Harbor Point as is, undeveloped, and wait for development to come the old-fashioned way -- the way Utica was originally built -- the way Utica became wealthy at one time: through trial-and-error efforts by entrepreneurs risking their own money. They are already doing it in Baggs Square, and are prepared to do it within the Downtown Hospital footprint.
The Downtown Hospital, U-District, and Harbor Point -- like the old Urban Renewal Project #1 -- are more about keeping up appearances than real economic development.
Monday, June 19, 2017
vs. Downtown Hospital: Grassroots Mobilization!
Per WIBX: "No Hospital Downtown Group To Hold Event On June 26th"
There is also another group that holds regular open meetings on the topic of improving the Columbia-Lafayette Neighborhood, BUD: Better Utica Downtown.
These developments are really something new for Utica. Instead of complacently swallowing what politicians and our regional "elite" want to shove down the public's throat, the public is organizing itself and fighting what it knows is a bad idea. And it is arming itself with professional help.
Welcome to the New Utica: being rebuilt by its people, one step at a time.
For the latest on this event and more, check out No Hospital Downtown, and BUD.
The group opposed to putting a hospital in downtown Utica will be holding a day-long event next Monday, June 26th. It’s being called “Battle For Our City” and will include public two sessions at the Radisson Hotel from 9:00 to 11:00 and 2:00 to 4:00. Two internationally acclaimed urban planners from Urban 3 and Strong Towns will share their knowledge of city and neighborhood development.In addition, the Landmarks Society will be conducting "Walks and Talks" in the Columbia-Lafayette Neighborhood (the site of the proposed hospital) at 6PM.
There is also another group that holds regular open meetings on the topic of improving the Columbia-Lafayette Neighborhood, BUD: Better Utica Downtown.
These developments are really something new for Utica. Instead of complacently swallowing what politicians and our regional "elite" want to shove down the public's throat, the public is organizing itself and fighting what it knows is a bad idea. And it is arming itself with professional help.
Welcome to the New Utica: being rebuilt by its people, one step at a time.
For the latest on this event and more, check out No Hospital Downtown, and BUD.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)