Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Where did you see that in my post? That wasn't even mentioned. I said that Upstate's agricultural aspect also may play a part as to where NYC gets some of their food from and that it relies on Upstate for water and power, which are facts. So, how did those statements get taken to a place of the first question you asked?
Those things have no relation whatsoever whether a place stays unified or not. None of them provide a good rationale why upstate and downstate should be unified, as per the original post you quoted.
Those things have no relation whatsoever whether a place stays unified or not. None of them provide a good rationale why upstate and downstate should be unified, as per the original post you quoted.
I never said that. I just said that those things shouldn’t be taken for granted. Sure, NYC could get them from another state, but if they want true independence, which may not even be an issue, they might as well stay with the current situation.
Downstate and Upstate are so different in numerous ways, just like almost every other state has a vast difference between its premier city/cities and its more rural/smaller city regions. However, the dichotomy of NYC MSA to Upstate is the most drastic IMO. Parts of Upstate NY are still dealing with Rust Belt economics and rural poverty, while the NYC MSA is one of the most important in the world and easily the most important in the Western Hemisphere. Treating both of them the same at the state level is not beneficial to either. What's good for one is not good for the other. I.e. taxing NYC-area residents the same level as Upstate residents is ludicrous. Upstate would do quite well IMO if the taxes were much much more lower. It has a lot going for it as a region, but NY taxes are not helpful to a suffering region. If there was a way to tax Upstate differently than Downstate, it would benefit the entire state.
There are some differences in terms of taxation such as NYC(and Yonkers) having a city income tax that other places in the state do not have.
Also, Upstate’s GDP is actually in the 15-20 range or so currently, which may surprise some people. So, it isn't like Upstate would be on the low end in terms of state GDP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...es_by_GDP#List
There are some differences in terms of taxation such as NYC(and Yonkers) having a city income tax that other places in the state do not have.
Also, Upstate’s GDP is actually in the 15-20 range or so currently, which may surprise some people. So, it isn't like Upstate would be on the low end in terms of state GDP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...es_by_GDP#List
With this said, I agree that Upstate could lower taxes by consolidating/sharing services that are duplicated in many municipalities.
AFAIK, property taxes in Upstate NY are quite high compared to similar parts of the country. Lower property taxes and better incentive for business could definitely make Buffalo and Rochester into great cities again. But yes, you're right, it's not entirely economically depressed. It has some extreme rural poverty, but the cities have tons of potential that could benefit from different economic policies. When revitalized to their full potentials, Upstate NY cities could be some of the best small/mid-size metro areas in the country. Albany and Buffalo have good urban bones. Can't comment on Rochester. Buffalo has decent public transit AFAIK with a light rail even and its 4am last call could attract young people.
Each city has a good university too. Buffalo has UB. Rochester has RIT and University of Rochester. Syracuse has Syracuse U and Le Moyne. Utica has Hamilton and Colgate nearby, and Utica College in the city but I'm not sure if it's good or not. Albany has Rensselaer, SUNY Albany, and Skidmore isn't all that far away. Then Ithaca and Cornell. SUNY Binghamton. Poughkeepsie has Vassar and Marist. There are plenty of young and well educated people in Upstate that are likely just up there for college and then heading back to the NYC Metro or out of state.
Upstate has tons going for it, but isn't able to capitalize on it. Would the higher taxes really mean that much that people are sticking around and businesses aren't moving there?
AFAIK, property taxes in Upstate NY are quite high compared to similar parts of the country. Lower property taxes and better incentive for business could definitely make Buffalo and Rochester into great cities again. But yes, you're right, it's not entirely economically depressed. It has some extreme rural poverty, but the cities have tons of potential that could benefit from different economic policies. When revitalized to their full potentials, Upstate NY cities could be some of the best small/mid-size metro areas in the country. Albany and Buffalo have good urban bones. Can't comment on Rochester. Buffalo has decent public transit AFAIK with a light rail even and its 4am last call could attract young people.
Each city has a good university too. Buffalo has UB. Rochester has RIT and University of Rochester. Syracuse has Syracuse U and Le Moyne. Utica has Hamilton and Colgate nearby, and Utica College in the city but I'm not sure if it's good or not. Albany has Rensselaer, SUNY Albany, and Skidmore isn't all that far away. Then Ithaca and Cornell. SUNY Binghamton. Poughkeepsie has Vassar and Marist. There are plenty of young and well educated people in Upstate that are likely just up there for college and then heading back to the NYC Metro or out of state.
Upstate has tons going for it, but isn't able to capitalize on it. Would the higher taxes really mean that much that people are sticking around and businesses aren't moving there?
Well, I think lower taxes would actually increase the development and job growth that has been steadily coming to Upstate. I think the lower overall cost of living due to the lower home prices has helped to keep that portion of the state from major population losses/relatively stable. For instance, look how high the Upstate NY areas are on this list: https://www.nahb.org/research/housin...ity-index.aspx (click on the 4th section under Current Data). What helps is that family median income is still higher in relation to median home prices in the area. So, if you can get a solid job, your opportunity to buy a home in those areas is pretty good and helps a little bit.
Depends on where. Let's not tell lies, now. A lot of NY is pretty much like any other rural area in the country, bumpkins, cousin kissers, try-hards, and all. I know. I grew up with them.
Yeah sure, there are plenty of areas with high education and middle class majorities but... it's a varied state.
You're both right, to be totally honest.
There has been an upsurge in very elegant and cool businesses and restaurants in Sullivan county. Farm-to-table gourmet eateries, new bakeries, downtown revivals, and the place is dotted with designers, musicians, professional people from Manhattan. I went into a bar in Callicoon Center last time I was up there and I thought I was in a West Village jazz club. Many young people are renting in the city but buying homes up in the mountains. I find the local people smart and charming. Yes, there are trashy parts, but there is a new breed of entrepreneur that is changing the area.
Location: Appalachian New York, Formerly Louisiana
4,409 posts, read 6,539,156 times
Reputation: 6253
Quote:
Originally Posted by roskybosky
There has been an upsurge in very elegant and cool businesses and restaurants in Sullivan county. Farm-to-table gourmet eateries, new bakeries, downtown revivals, and the place is dotted with designers, musicians, professional people from Manhattan. I went into a bar in Callicoon Center last time I was up there and I thought I was in a West Village jazz club. Many young people are renting in the city but buying homes up in the mountains. I find the local people smart and charming. Yes, there are trashy parts, but there is a new breed of entrepreneur that is changing the area.
Sounds nice and all, but be careful of the thin line between "sophisticated" and "pretentious try-hards".
Kinda shocked there's any economy at all in Sullivan county these days. Good to hear, at least. Not sure how I feel about Sullivan being taken over by NYC folk though. Kinda wish they'd stay downstate. They almost always bring their bad city attitude with them, can't even be bothered to wave.
What you mention is true just due to the simple fact of population distribution and Downstate is centered around the arguably the most important city in the world. However, as mentioned in a previous post, there are things that Upstate provides to Downstate by way of water, agriculture and tourism opportunities, among other things.
Add to this hydroelectric power. I have a book onhand here somewhere that was published in Ithaca (upstate represent!) which provides a breakdown of NY's power sources, percentage-wise. I wanted to consult that to see what percentage of the total pie was provided by hydro...unfortunately, I can't locate the book at the moment, but I do have this via google:
'New York City gets about 10% of its electric- ity [sic] from hydropower, from plants as far away as the US / Canada border.'
The 'plant as far away as the US/Canada border' is this one, just north of Niagara Falls city limits and about as far from NYC as one can be while still in New York State:
Given that Robert Moses was an NYC planner and did upstate cities (among others) no favors with his ideas, I think that's a debt that downstate still owes to upstate, heh.
I’d move up your Erie Canal ranking observation to “the Erie canal was the most important that NYC grew so rapidly in the 1800s. New York created for itself what its two main rivals couldn’t offer: access to the burgeonung markets in the west. The Erie Canal is the real reason for NYC’s ascendency to the top
And it wasn’t just Philly and Boston that were the big losers with a he construction of the Erie Canal. New Orleans was a big loser as well because without he canal, goods could not have gotten from the transappalachin west to the northeast seaboard. Instead everything would have had to go through the portvof New Orleans
New York was the biggest winner of all. Another winner: Chicago which was pretty much the New York chosen locale for the Great Lakes, Erie Canal, Hudson, Mohawk, Atlantic route
Good stuff to both you and LINative. I'll drink a Hayburner IPA from Buffalo's Big Ditch Brewing Co later in honor of this post ('Clinton's Big Ditch' being an early, derisive nickname for the Erie Canal).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
