Syracuse Suburban Sprawl, good or bad? (New York, Manlius: insuring, buying, theatre)

[jrice]

Originally Posted by CUPlanner

Several people on this thread and on the Syracuse forum in general seem very focused on building new office buildings and improving the skyline. While this might be a plus for the city's image, it doesnt really address any of the issues affecting the city nor does it solve them. True economic development, the kind that really brings in money, creates jobs and transforms a city, starts with improving the quality of life and increasing the amenities both in the city and in the surrounding region. No one who is thinking of relocating their company here or setting up headquarters here is going to be overly impressed by the presence of a few new shiny ornaments on the city's skyline. What brings people here, just as in every place else, is the lifestyle and the quality of life offered, the substance rather than the shiny veneer. Money that would be spent on building these new buildings, which I guarantee you would sit mostly vacant and be terrible investments, would be better devoted to community development, education, urban design, etc., things that benefit current residents as well as attract new ones and their employers.

I agree and disagree. The thing that would bring business back here would have to start with tax breaks

[CUPlanner]

I agree and disagree. The thing that would bring business back here would have to start with tax breaks

Thats the old way of thinking, the type of thinking that envisions Syracuse as a company town, home to big plants and production facilities (a dying breed in America). As someone who is involved in economic development, Im not going to say that tax breaks dont play a big part in the process because they are huge in sweeting the pot and making a project more viable, but what sparks the initial attraction to an area for people and brings them to the negotiating table is the quality of life in the area. Anyone, anywhere can offer some nice tax breaks and accelerate the "race to the bottom," (which a site in New York would probably lose anyway due to overall higher costs, not just higher taxes). Quality of life and the aesthetic beauty of an area is the hook that catches the eye of many, many executives these days. Companies are looking to invest when they open a new office or build a new facility, and locating in an area that offers good amenities and high quality of life is a sound investment because it improves their own quality of life, helps lure in top new talent, and will probably have a decent terminal value if and when they decide to sell and move.

[RollsRoyce]

Originally Posted by CUPlanner

Thats the old way of thinking, the type of thinking that envisions Syracuse as a company town, home to big plants and production facilities (a dying breed in America). As someone who is involved in economic development, Im not going to say that tax breaks dont play a big part in the process because they are huge in sweeting the pot and making a project more viable, but what sparks the initial attraction to an area for people and brings them to the negotiating table is the quality of life in the area. Anyone, anywhere can offer some nice tax breaks and accelerate the "race to the bottom," (which a site in New York would probably lose anyway due to overall higher costs, not just higher taxes). Quality of life and the aesthetic beauty of an area is the hook that catches the eye of many, many executives these days. Companies are looking to invest when they open a new office or build a new facility, and locating in an area that offers good amenities and high quality of life is a sound investment because it improves their own quality of life, helps lure in top new talent, and will probably have a decent terminal value if and when they decide to sell and move.

Along those lines, Syracuse needs to make Hancock Airport more competitive in order to attract commerce and prevent the leakage of passengers to neighboring upstate cities Although the nearly decades long impasse between the city and two suburban townships and the ESM school district is near resolution, the Common Council is dragging their feet on the airport authority and renovation plans. Further, the airport authority will need the blessing from the state which given New York's current budget crisis is not a priority. Although Syracuse will never be a viable candidate for a Fortune 500 company HQ due to it's smaller size, many medium sized companies make headquarters decisions based on the affordability of airfares and non-stop flight connections to major cities. Hancock Airport almost consistently has higher airfares than Albany, Rochester, and Buffalo. To be fair, cheap airfares do not guarantee an influx of new companies and economic growth. Airfares in Buffalo are among the lowest in the country, however the local economy continues to be hobbled by structural issues and a sinking population. If Syracuse is going to retain companies like Sensis, Anaren, Inficon, SRC, and Welch Allyn as well as attract more knowledge-based jobs, the cost of airfares must be lowered.

Syracuse needs to get rid of the 1950s mantra that a 1,200 person factory will solve the region's problems. The prospect of an Indian factory that produces a $2,000 piece of junk gives me little excitement. While these jobs will be good for the chronically underemployed and laid off NPG workers, this will do nothing to address the brain drain and dearth of high paying professional jobs. Although local economic development officials should try to retain what's left of the local manufacturing base, Syracuse needs to embrace the Life Sciences arena (ie. Biotech, nanotech, etc). Although the push for "Green Jobs" propogated by local politicians sounds warm and fuzzy, the availability of stimulus money and funding from other sources to subsidize the cultivation of this industry will be highly competitive. Syracuse has a poor history of securing its fair share from the state. Buffalo, Rochester, and Albany have received far more per capita in economic development money since the beginning of the Pataki Administration. Since headquartering the upstate office of the Empire State Development Corporation in Buffalo, Syracuse has received a paltry amount of assistance. Further, the former leader of Rochester's primary economic development organization is now managing Empire State. Since this change of leadership, a disproportionate amount of funding has flowed to Buffalo and Rochester at the expense of Syracuse. Although Syrracuse's cluster of clean tech firms and presence of SUNY ESF should be leveraged, this cannot be the only focus. Although the prospect of jobs that require little education and will seemingly pay a union-like wage are sexy to the populist fringe constituency and powerful union PAC's, the long term viability of such jobs is unknown and is very likely to be outsourced to lower cost locals.

Developing biotech firms and fully funding the CNY Biotech Center would have given Syracuse a better chance of addressing the brain drain and repolishing the Salt City's rustbelt image. Unfortunately, Ithaca, Buffalo, and Albany are light years ahead with the growth of stratups and Centers of Excellences (Bioinformatics and Nanotechnology) that are more likely to spinoff enterprises. If the Biotech Center would have been built when it was proposed in 2002, the area could have developed a niche in the life sciences.

[jrice]

Originally Posted by CUPlanner

Thats the old way of thinking, the type of thinking that envisions Syracuse as a company town, home to big plants and production facilities (a dying breed in America). As someone who is involved in economic development, Im not going to say that tax breaks dont play a big part in the process because they are huge in sweeting the pot and making a project more viable, but what sparks the initial attraction to an area for people and brings them to the negotiating table is the quality of life in the area. Anyone, anywhere can offer some nice tax breaks and accelerate the "race to the bottom," (which a site in New York would probably lose anyway due to overall higher costs, not just higher taxes). Quality of life and the aesthetic beauty of an area is the hook that catches the eye of many, many executives these days. Companies are looking to invest when they open a new office or build a new facility, and locating in an area that offers good amenities and high quality of life is a sound investment because it improves their own quality of life, helps lure in top new talent, and will probably have a decent terminal value if and when they decide to sell and move.

I believe that the city as it is now is viable and attractive enough for most businesses to come to. We already boast an excellent quality of life, not just the city but the entire county. But alot of businesses wont come here because its too expensive to do so when compared to other states. Its not an old way of thinking when you project potential profits, especially now when the economy is in a downturn. Higher corp/business taxes make a state seem pretty unattractive when a company is looking to either startup in or create a satellite location. And I dont see how offering tax incentives is a race to the bottom as you said. Higher taxes has been one the main contributing factors to this states (and city) decline in business operations

[jrice]

Originally Posted by RollsRoyce

Along those lines, Syracuse needs to make Hancock Airport more competitive in order to attract commerce and prevent the leakage of passengers to neighboring upstate cities Although the nearly decades long impasse between the city and two suburban townships and the ESM school district is near resolution, the Common Council is dragging their feet on the airport authority and renovation plans. Further, the airport authority will need the blessing from the state which given New York's current budget crisis is not a priority. Although Syracuse will never be a viable candidate for a Fortune 500 company HQ due to it's smaller size, many medium sized companies make headquarters decisions based on the affordability of airfares and non-stop flight connections to major cities. Hancock Airport almost consistently has higher airfares than Albany, Rochester, and Buffalo. To be fair, cheap airfares do not guarantee an influx of new companies and economic growth. Airfares in Buffalo are among the lowest in the country, however the local economy continues to be hobbled by structural issues and a sinking population. If Syracuse is going to retain companies like Sensis, Anaren, Inficon, SRC, and Welch Allyn as well as attract more knowledge-based jobs, the cost of airfares must be lowered.

Syracuse needs to get rid of the 1950s mantra that a 1,200 person factory will solve the region's problems. The prospect of an Indian factory that produces a $2,000 piece of junk gives me little excitement. While these jobs will be good for the chronically underemployed and laid off NPG workers, this will do nothing to address the brain drain and dearth of high paying professional jobs. Although local economic development officials should try to retain what's left of the local manufacturing base, Syracuse needs to embrace the Life Sciences arena (ie. Biotech, nanotech, etc). Although the push for "Green Jobs" propogated by local politicians sounds warm and fuzzy, the availability of stimulus money and funding from other sources to subsidize the cultivation of this industry will be highly competitive. Syracuse has a poor history of securing its fair share from the state. Buffalo, Rochester, and Albany have received far more per capita in economic development money since the beginning of the Pataki Administration. Since headquartering the upstate office of the Empire State Development Corporation in Buffalo, Syracuse has received a paltry amount of assistance. Further, the former leader of Rochester's primary economic development organization is now managing Empire State. Since this change of leadership, a disproportionate amount of funding has flowed to Buffalo and Rochester at the expense of Syracuse. Although Syrracuse's cluster of clean tech firms and presence of SUNY ESF should be leveraged, this cannot be the only focus. Although the prospect of jobs that require little education and will seemingly pay a union-like wage are sexy to the populist fringe constituency and powerful union PAC's, the long term viability of such jobs is unknown and is very likely to be outsourced to lower cost locals.

Developing biotech firms and fully funding the CNY Biotech Center would have given Syracuse a better chance of addressing the brain drain and repolishing the Salt City's rustbelt image. Unfortunately, Ithaca, Buffalo, and Albany are light years ahead with the growth of stratups and Centers of Excellences (Bioinformatics and Nanotechnology) that are more likely to spinoff enterprises. If the Biotech Center would have been built when it was proposed in 2002, the area could have developed a niche in the life sciences.

Correct. I would rather have 12 businesses move in here each employing 100 people than 1 company employing 1200 for a number of reasons, one being when you spread out the industries you limit the risk of a downturn in one sector impacting the community

I also agree about the biotech center. This city has great ideas (sometimes) but **** poor execution

[ckhthankgod]

Originally Posted by jrice

Correct. I would rather have 12 businesses move in here each employing 100 people than 1 company employing 1200 for a number of reasons, one being when you spread out the industries you limit the risk of a downturn in one sector impacting the community

I also agree about the biotech center. This city has great ideas (sometimes) but **** poor execution

I agree with the multiple companies too.

I also think that the area needs to have more of a regional mindset in terms of getting metro colleges involved in urban and economic development. Within an hour of Syracuse, there are some of the best schools in the country and others that have programs that can help improve the urban and economic landscape here. I think that is why the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill area of NC is still hot right now. They utilize their higher education institutions to help encourage growth in innovative ways. So, maybe getting schools like SU, Colgate, Cornell, Ithaca College and the many SUNY schools, as well as the smaller private schools to form a regional research incubator to come up with more ideas and ways to improve on the economic/job situation in the area.

[bellafinzi]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Park

Comments?

Sure, your ignorant and simple-minded critique of the city looks to be rooted in hearsay rather than fact. Moreover, both of you (Bellafinzi and grdnrman) write as if you have no concept of the federal transportation policies that have subsidized suburban development since the Eisenhower administration. You ignore a larger trend in society that is moving away from autocentric, unsustainable modes of development, and you cannot articulate any true reasons for espousing your beliefs which run counter to this movement.

Why the personal attacks?

You assume wrong.

I know of the said federal transportation policies. I've never stated that the government doesn't subsidize suburban development. It does....all over the country. Not just here.

[bellafinzi]

My point is very simple.

Efforts to drastically suppress growth in the suburbs (of Syracuse) will hurt Syracuse's economy.

Reread my past posts explaining why.

[CNYDC]

Interesting article in the Washington Post today about Pittsburgh (timed to coincide with the G-20 summit there) and the impressive strides that the city has made since the steel industry evaporated. I think it hits on two key points relevant to this thread: 1) Pittsburgh has effectively shifted and diversified its economy, leveraging its key assets (universities and healthcare -- sound familiar?) ; 2) It has focused on the redevelopment of its downtown as a means of attracting and retaining new residents and businesses. Note that there is no mention of the quality or livability of its suburbs.

washingtonpost.com

[Cleveland Park]

Mea culpa; I did not mean for that to seem like a personal attack. I do think, though, that there is very little (aside from what JRice contributes) praise for the suburbs for their inherently good qualities -- most of what I read on here boils down to "The suburbs are great because they are the alternative to that hell-hole that is inner-city Syracuse."

It doesn't say much for the suburbs if their only merits are comparatively better to a contrived straw-man of an inner city that doesn't really exist for anyone who's familiar with it. I'm sure many of us would appreciate it if you refrained from disparaging the city, especially when the negative claims about the city aren't even remotely true.

Remember, there are people who use this forum as a reference in choosing a new home. Not only is it unfair to mislead people in portraying the city as a dump, but it also perpetuates the stereotype that Central New Yorkers are bitter and negative. Further, if Syracuse is a dead place, the suburbs will be quick to follow. There are very few successful regions of the country that have no strong economic center. It is in everyone's -- urbanites and suburbanites -- best interest for the city of Syracuse to be the best it can be, and it's in no one's interest to portray it dishonestly.