168 replies to this topic

[IKnowPhysics]

spndnchz, on 31 July 2012 - 09:45 PM, said:

Public use is what we're looking for.

If that was the stated goal of the City's request-for-proposal, then this should be a slam dunk in the Sabres' favor.  Apartments and office space for rich people on land earmarked for public use?  No thanks, let's get the little kids on the ice for open skate.

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

spndnchz, on 31 July 2012 - 09:45 PM, said:

Remember this is taxpayer land. Public use is what we're looking for.

How much tax money will each bring in then?

[wonderbread]

Ghost of Dwight Drane, on 31 July 2012 - 10:00 PM, said:

How much tax money will each bring in then?

But TPegs will drill a well if he needs money.

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

wonderbread, on 31 July 2012 - 10:20 PM, said:

But TPegs will drill a well if he needs money.

That's the thing....the links don't work so I can't see projected tax income or ROI on any projects.....but by the sounds of it, Paladino's is much better for the city. You want people in those spaces 24/7 who will eat and shop in the city. You want the tax rolls of people spending 300K-1MM on condos. You want to put the retail space on the hook by having residential units.....because the untits get killed in value if the retail fails and vice-versa.

I don't want to pay tens of millions to subsidize a billionaire so some kids can enjoy their hobby and open skate. Plenty of other places to put a rink, but not many landmarks where you can fetch that kind of money on condos in the area. I wouldn't pay to rent a loft downtown....and I wouldn't pay a 50% premium to be on a waterfront, freezing my ass off 8 months a year, but if I already worked there, I would think about buying a condo with food and shops below me and 41 Sabres games a 100 foot walk away from me while a few blocks from the theatre district...instead of driving in from Amherst/etc. like many do.

The city/county/state is already caput. I can get you bonds for 5 cents on the dollar of other ice rinks that have failed.

Either way.....it's the blind leading the "I didn't see nuthin'" leading the Hockey Heaven brigade. It would be nice if some outside forces could see value here.

[qwksndmonster]

Buzzkill.  

I love the rinks, obviously.

It's not said here enough: Pegula's a godsend.  I love that man.

[That Aud Smell]

Robviously, on 31 July 2012 - 08:32 PM, said:

So basically if you're watching a concert, surrounded by thousands of people, and possibly a little buzzed, you don't notice the Skyway as much.  What about the other 99% of the time when its a horrible eyesore?  This is sorta like saying the Sabres shouldn't make improvements around the Arena because if the game is really good, you don't think about the arena so much.

It's obtrusive and doesn't fit any of the new development in the area.  The artist renderings that are honest enough to actually show the Skyway cutting through all the new buildings look awful.  If we ever want the waterfront to look beautiful -- not just OK, but beautiful -- that thing has to go.  And we don't need to replace it.  Traffic isn't a big issue in Buffalo.

You took that bolded point too literally, too strictly. I don't deny that the structure is far from an ideal part of the 'scape at Canalside, but, like I said: Lighter, faster, cheaper -- the success there to date proves that the skyway isn't the impassable obstacle to development and beautification that it was long-assumed to be.

Maybe someday we'll get the hundreds of millions of (billion?) dollars needed to remove the skyway and implement alternate points of access to downtown. Until that time? Full speed ahead, and the next round is on you.

[Robviously]

That Aud Smell, on 01 August 2012 - 05:33 AM, said:

You took that bolded point too literally, too strictly. I don't deny that the structure is far from an ideal part of the 'scape at Canalside, but, like I said: Lighter, faster, cheaper -- the success there to date proves that the skyway isn't the impassable obstacle to development and beautification that it was long-assumed to be.

Maybe someday we'll get the hundreds of millions of (billion?) dollars needed to remove the skyway and implement alternate points of access to downtown. Until that time? Full speed ahead, and the next round is on you.

A billion????  I know this is Buffalo, NY, and we could find a way to screw anything up, but this is basically a demolition project for a one mile stretch of highway.  The only cost estimate I found was $100M, here: http://www.bizjourna...1.html?page=all

The best part of the article is here:

Quote

John Norquist, executive director for the Center of New Urbanism in Chicago and former mayor of Milwaukee, said Buffalo leaders should not resign themselves to the fact that the Skyway will remain.

"Buffalo has gotten itself into this bad habit of believing it's not good enough, so let's not do anything good," said Norquist, who in recent years has spoken in Buffalo advocating for the Skyway's removal, often with Higgins at his side.

Norquist said he faced similar issues and arguments with the Park East Freeway in Milwaukee, which was eventually demolished to make way for a more development-friendly boulevard.

"The Skyway is an unnecessary piece of infrastructure," he said. "It doesn't add anything to Buffalo. I would suggest that people in Buffalo get out their pitchforks and torches and demand (to New York Gov. David Paterson) that it come down. As long as the Skyway stands, it will only dampen any future development plans in Buffalo."

He's completely right; this is the Buffalo mentality of "we're poor, we can't do anything right, it's not worth trying, let's just try to live with it."  Why are we so quick to give up?  The cost isn't crazy when you think about how much more we could do with that land and the money we'd be saving from not having to maintain and rehab that structure for decades to come.

Edited by Robviously, 01 August 2012 - 08:29 AM.

[That Aud Smell]

Robviously, on 01 August 2012 - 08:29 AM, said:

A billion????

you're right. forget i said/typed that.

Robviously, on 01 August 2012 - 08:29 AM, said:

The best part of the article is here:

He's completely right; this is the Buffalo mentality of "we're poor, we can't do anything right, it's not worth trying, let's just try to live with it."  Why are we so quick to give up?  The cost isn't crazy when you think about how much more we could do with that land and the money we'd be saving from not having to maintain and rehab that structure for decades to come.

i understand that sentiment, and agree with it ... to a point. what i think is even less productive than that resigned mentality is the state of affairs wherein government leaders, civic leaders, and developers don't do anything with the waterfront while they work their way uncertainly toward the start (let alone completion) of a brass ring project like skyway demolition.

we can still move forward with trying to get the skyway removed (or perhaps somehow re-purposed?); in the meantime, i am glad to see that we are moving on with what can be done in the here and now.

also, to your point about total costs, the $100M figure is interesting. this archived article from buffalo rising

http://archives.buff...yway_eliminatio

(take it fwiw) posited that the cost of demo might be more like $30-$40M. that seems light. the report also stated as follows:

Though the report does not specifically evaluate alternatives to the Skyway, its data concludes that if the skyway were eliminated, traffic could be handled by alternate facilities including the Outer Harbor Parkway which is currently under construction, the planned and permitted Ohio Street improvements and Tifft Street Connector, and the Inner Harbor Bridge which is currently under study.

that also seems a little too rosy and facile. i wonder if the new # -- $100M -- reflects the infrastructure improvements that would be needed to create sufficient alternatives to the skyway.

i won't miss the skyway when it's gone (and it will go away some day); in the meantime, it is not impeding my enjoyment of canalside.

[TrueBluePhD]

Ghost of Dwight Drane, on 31 July 2012 - 10:34 PM, said:

That's the thing....the links don't work so I can't see projected tax income or ROI on any projects.....but by the sounds of it, Paladino's is much better for the city. You want people in those spaces 24/7 who will eat and shop in the city. You want the tax rolls of people spending 300K-1MM on condos. You want to put the retail space on the hook by having residential units.....because the untits get killed in value if the retail fails and vice-versa.

I don't want to pay tens of millions to subsidize a billionaire so some kids can enjoy their hobby and open skate. Plenty of other places to put a rink, but not many landmarks where you can fetch that kind of money on condos in the area. I wouldn't pay to rent a loft downtown....and I wouldn't pay a 50% premium to be on a waterfront, freezing my ass off 8 months a year, but if I already worked there, I would think about buying a condo with food and shops below me and 41 Sabres games a 100 foot walk away from me while a few blocks from the theatre district...instead of driving in from Amherst/etc. like many do.

The city/county/state is already caput. I can get you bonds for 5 cents on the dollar of other ice rinks that have failed.

Either way.....it's the blind leading the "I didn't see nuthin'" leading the Hockey Heaven brigade. It would be nice if some outside forces could see value here.

Do you work for city hall, by chance?  Because this is exactly the type of logic I expect those fools to use.

Do you just dislike Pegula?  

As far as your valuation goes, I just think you're being short-sighted.  It's about attracting people to the area, having something unique and a reason for people to go more often.  Maybe having rinks in the city allow the development of more WNY talent.  Maybe it's a stepping stone to some new programs.  Maybe it helps UB get a D! team if it ever decides to go that route.  The whole idea is to help bring in money from outside the city, from outside the Buffalo area with events, not just recycle money from people who already live here.

You say there's plenty of other places to put rinks, I say there's plenty of other places to put condos.  There's a ton of office space already, and more could easily be developed.  If the Paladino proposal gets it, it's just another example of Buffalo leadership thinking small and short-term, rather than big and long-term.

[sabills]

Some new info/pics. The whole presentations are on the city's website if you're interested in watching them.

http://www.buffalori...-two-weeks.html

[PromoTheRobot]

In the meantime let's take proposals from artists who want to use the Skyway as a backdrop for an art installation.  Maybe string LEDs and make it a video sculpture or something.

PTR

[That Aud Smell]

PromoTheRobot, on 01 August 2012 - 09:26 AM, said:

In the meantime let's take proposals from artists who want to use the Skyway as a backdrop for an art installation.  Maybe string LEDs and make it a video sculpture or something.

PTR

sorta in the same vein:

http://www.ranwebber...ay_Project.html

[MattPie]

That Aud Smell, on 01 August 2012 - 10:09 AM, said:

sorta in the same vein:

http://www.ranwebber...ay_Project.html

You know, at first I thought it was crazy, but I did walk across the Brooklyn bridge a couple weeks ago. If there was something interesting on either end...

[BuffaloSoldier2010]

Is that proposal suggesting we completely decomission the highway as a traffic bearing roadway? Or just add pedestrian functionality and an asthetically pleasing (at least better than is right now) facade to an already existing highway?

If that thing ever goes through, it could become one of those iconic buildings you associate with their cities IMO

Edited by BuffaloSoldier2010, 01 August 2012 - 10:20 AM.

[LabattBlue]

Ghost of Dwight Drane, on 31 July 2012 - 10:34 PM, said:

That's the thing....the links don't work so I can't see projected tax income or ROI on any projects.....but by the sounds of it, Paladino's is much better for the city. You want people in those spaces 24/7 who will eat and shop in the city. You want the tax rolls of people spending 300K-1MM on condos. You want to put the retail space on the hook by having residential units.....because the untits get killed in value if the retail fails and vice-versa.

I am not sure condos in this space is going to be a retail make or break.  There are plenty of condos down by the Erie Basin Marina, and they can't/won't support one restaurant that has gone from Crawdaddys to Shanghai Reds to Templeton Landing, and is still empty most days.  There are plenty of downtown opportunities for developers who want to build condos.

I'd give Pegs the first chance.  Who knows, if successful, he may be willing to invest in other Canalside ventures.

[weave]

PromoTheRobot, on 01 August 2012 - 09:26 AM, said:

In the meantime let's take proposals from artists who want to use the Skyway as a backdrop for an art installation.  Maybe string LEDs and make it a video sculpture or something.

PTR

Wonder if they'd consider that guy who did the Blue Lightning project in Delaware Park back in the early 90's?

[ROC Sabres]

That Aud Smell, on 01 August 2012 - 10:09 AM, said:

sorta in the same vein:

http://www.ranwebber...ay_Project.html

That's actually a pretty awesome concept.

[IKnowPhysics]

TrueBluePhD, on 01 August 2012 - 08:58 AM, said:

Do you work for city hall, by chance?  Because this is exactly the type of logic I expect those fools to use.

Do you just dislike Pegula?  

As far as your valuation goes, I just think you're being short-sighted.  It's about attracting people to the area, having something unique and a reason for people to go more often.  Maybe having rinks in the city allow the development of more WNY talent.  Maybe it's a stepping stone to some new programs.  Maybe it helps UB get a D! team if it ever decides to go that route.  The whole idea is to help bring in money from outside the city, from outside the Buffalo area with events, not just recycle money from people who already live here.

You say there's plenty of other places to put rinks, I say there's plenty of other places to put condos.  There's a ton of office space already, and more could easily be developed.  If the Paladino proposal gets it, it's just another example of Buffalo leadership thinking small and short-term, rather than big and long-term.

You and I are on precisely the same page, with one exception: the Ruff's System thread taught me not to engage him.  Don't subsidize housing for rich people, subsidize something that people can use, something that draws lots of people.  The increased crowds will bring the money.

I wonder if the size of Pegula's investment is enough to raise the eyebrows and curiosities of other potential investors.  It certainly sets a good example.

[d4rksabre]

BuffaloSoldier2010, on 01 August 2012 - 10:19 AM, said:

Is that proposal suggesting we completely decomission the highway as a traffic bearing roadway? Or just add pedestrian functionality and an asthetically pleasing (at least better than is right now) facade to an already existing highway?

If that thing ever goes through, it could become one of those iconic buildings you associate with their cities IMO

Looks like it's a "reuse" plan, where the Skyway would not longer be a roadway, just an elevated platform for shopping, dining, etc.

It's honestly a really great idea.

[IKnowPhysics]

I like the reuse plan for the sky way.  Innovative, forward-looking.  Transforming the top deck into park space is in line with Buffalo's great park heritage.  But invariably, the quite-high volume of 43000 vehicles per day, 2800 of which are trucks, needs a suitable alternative- that's the heart of the challenge.

[d4rksabre]

IKnowPhysics, on 01 August 2012 - 11:36 AM, said:

I like the reuse plan for the sky way.  Innovative, forward-looking.  Transforming the top deck into park space is in line with Buffalo's great park heritage.  But invariably, the quite-high volume of 43000 vehicles per day, 2800 of which are trucks, needs a suitable alternative- that's the heart of the challenge.

There have been other plans around that suggest it's completely possible to manage that load with a street level boulevard. The question is whether that would contribute to the waterfront or actually take away from it.

[TrueBluePhD]

Shame some of these reuse proposals weren't approved and ready to go a few years ago, might have been able to nab some "stimulus" money to help fund them.

[That Aud Smell]

Quote

IKnowPhysics, on 01 August 2012 - 11:36 AM, said:

the quite-high volume of 43000 vehicles per day, 2800 of which are trucks, needs a suitable alternative- that's the heart of the challenge.

d4rksabre, on 01 August 2012 - 11:39 AM, said:

There have been other plans around that suggest it's completely possible to manage that load with a street level boulevard. The question is whether that would contribute to the waterfront or actually take away from it.

this is my understanding. if the question were simply tearing down the elevated roadway, we could've done it a long time ago. the wrench in the gears is how to handle and accommodate the traffic that relies on the skyway.

[d4rksabre]

That Aud Smell, on 01 August 2012 - 11:48 AM, said:

this is my understanding. if the question were simply tearing down the elevated roadway, we could've done it a long time ago. the wrench in the gears is how to handle and accommodate the traffic that relies on the skyway.

And also the cost of teardown/construction.

At some point maintaining the skyway becomes a sinkhole of taxpayer money. A study published some time ago laid out some pretty staggering numbers. It will have to be decommissioned in the next 50 years. The question is if the city will be ready with a plan and execute before it's too late.

[Spndnchz]

d4rksabre, on 01 August 2012 - 11:53 AM, said:

And also the cost of teardown/construction.

At some point maintaining the skyway becomes a sinkhole of taxpayer money. A study published some time ago laid out some pretty staggering numbers. It will have to be decommissioned in the next 50 years. The question is if the city will be ready with a plan and execute before it's too late.

ROFLMAO

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

weave, on 01 August 2012 - 10:30 AM, said:

Wonder if they'd consider that guy who did the Blue Lightning project in Delaware Park back in the early 90's?

Dude.....Green Lightning......turn in your Buffalo Man-card!

[apuszczalowski]

d4rksabre, on 01 August 2012 - 11:53 AM, said:

And also the cost of teardown/construction.

At some point maintaining the skyway becomes a sinkhole of taxpayer money. A study published some time ago laid out some pretty staggering numbers. It will have to be decommissioned in the next 50 years. The question is if the city will be ready with a plan and execute before it's too late.

That cost is basically free if you just stop maintaining it for a few years.......

[d4rksabre]

spndnchz, on 01 August 2012 - 12:05 PM, said:

ROFLMAO

Pegula for Mayor?

apuszczalowski, on 01 August 2012 - 12:22 PM, said:

That cost is basically free if you just stop maintaining it for a few years.......

Correct.

[TrueBluePhD]

apuszczalowski, on 01 August 2012 - 12:22 PM, said:

That cost is basically free if you just stop maintaining it for a few years.......

Well, there's still the cleanup in the aftermath...unless you think a pile of rubble is more attractive than the skyway...which may be a reasonable position

[apuszczalowski]

Ghost of Dwight Drane, on 31 July 2012 - 10:34 PM, said:

That's the thing....the links don't work so I can't see projected tax income or ROI on any projects.....but by the sounds of it, Paladino's is much better for the city. You want people in those spaces 24/7 who will eat and shop in the city. You want the tax rolls of people spending 300K-1MM on condos. You want to put the retail space on the hook by having residential units.....because the untits get killed in value if the retail fails and vice-versa.

I don't want to pay tens of millions to subsidize a billionaire so some kids can enjoy their hobby and open skate. Plenty of other places to put a rink, but not many landmarks where you can fetch that kind of money on condos in the area. I wouldn't pay to rent a loft downtown....and I wouldn't pay a 50% premium to be on a waterfront, freezing my ass off 8 months a year, but if I already worked there, I would think about buying a condo with food and shops below me and 41 Sabres games a 100 foot walk away from me while a few blocks from the theatre district...instead of driving in from Amherst/etc. like many do.

The city/county/state is already caput. I can get you bonds for 5 cents on the dollar of other ice rinks that have failed.

Either way.....it's the blind leading the "I didn't see nuthin'" leading the Hockey Heaven brigade. It would be nice if some outside forces could see value here.

I actually agree with you on this, although I'm not surprised that the majority would side with TPs idea, no matter what it would be. Either option is really subsidising rich investors.

[That Aud Smell]

Quote

d4rksabre, on 01 August 2012 - 11:53 AM, said:

And also the cost of teardown/construction.

apuszczalowski, on 01 August 2012 - 12:22 PM, said:

That cost is basically free if you just stop maintaining it for a few years.......

d4rksabre, on 01 August 2012 - 12:23 PM, said:

Correct.

TrueBluePhD, on 01 August 2012 - 12:26 PM, said:

Well, there's still the cleanup in the aftermath...unless you think a pile of rubble is more attractive than the skyway...which may be a reasonable position

while this exchange amuses me, the reality is that tearing down the skyway will be a fairly costly project. as funny as it is, benign neglect would accomplish nothing. and you can't just detonate the thing -- there's all sorts of stuff around/below the structure that needs to be protected.

i recall hearing a figure of $15-$18M for the refurb work that was done on the skyway from around 2004-2007 ( ). the thing is, it's much easier to get those kinds of maintenance funds from the gov't(s) than it is to get (even slightly) larger amounts for more ambitious, game-changing plans.

[apuszczalowski]

TrueBluePhD, on 01 August 2012 - 12:26 PM, said:

Well, there's still the cleanup in the aftermath...unless you think a pile of rubble is more attractive than the skyway...which may be a reasonable position

You could call it art because of the way it piled up as it fell and it becomes an attraction/landmark

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

TrueBluePhD, on 01 August 2012 - 08:58 AM, said:

Do you work for city hall, by chance? Because this is exactly the type of logic I expect those fools to use.

Do you just dislike Pegula?

As far as your valuation goes, I just think you're being short-sighted. It's about attracting people to the area, having something unique and a reason for people to go more often. Maybe having rinks in the city allow the development of more WNY talent. Maybe it's a stepping stone to some new programs. Maybe it helps UB get a D! team if it ever decides to go that route. The whole idea is to help bring in money from outside the city, from outside the Buffalo area with events, not just recycle money from people who already live here.

You say there's plenty of other places to put rinks, I say there's plenty of other places to put condos. There's a ton of office space already, and more could easily be developed. If the Paladino proposal gets it, it's just another example of Buffalo leadership thinking small and short-term, rather than big and long-term.

So you want the taxpayers to front more money to a guy worth $5 billion to build his team a practice rink?

UB has land out the wazzoo up in Amherst. You can build a rink there for pennies and have all your Amherst/Williamsville/N.Buff Soccer/Hockey moms right around the corner if you need more precious ice time. Dozens of public funded sports facilities fail....with the same gradiose hopes as this one. Minnesota just built a rink for $26 million and they are ready to default a little more than a year later. In the past I have seen rinks and complexes get restructured at pennies on the dollar and the municipalities taking a hit in credit rating when they don't step up and make bondholders whole. If they don't float bonds....it's tens of millions out of taxpayers' pockets......if they do issue them and something goes bad, not only are you on the hook for tens of millions, but imagine your borrowing costs go up 1/2% on everything you issue because of a failure. That could cost the city/county $5 million a year going forward.

At least in Paladino's proposal, you have $30-$50MM worth of condos you can tax at $1.5 million a year. You still have the retail and the hotel as revenue options. He isn't asking for extra money to build a bridge to the arena and extra parking spaces for a direct revenue source to an existing means of income. His group would be on the hook to get deals done.

Like I said upthread......I wouldn't be surprised to learn Pegula gets this thing no matter what and Paladino is just waiting for the right reason to "go away".

[TrueBluePhD]

Ghost of Dwight Drane, on 01 August 2012 - 12:38 PM, said:

So you want the taxpayers to front more money to a guy worth $5 billion to build his team a practice rink?

UB has land out the wazzoo up in Amherst. You can build a rink there for pennies and have all your Amherst/Williamsville/N.Buff Soccer/Hockey moms right around the corner if you need more precious ice time. Dozens of public funded sports facilities fail....with the same gradiose hopes as this one. Minnesota just built a rink for $26 million and they are ready to default a little more than a year later. In the past I have seen rinks and complexes get restructured at pennies on the dollar and the municipalities taking a hit in credit rating when they don't step up and make bondholders whole. If they don't float bonds....it's tens of millions out of taxpayers' pockets......if they do issue them and something goes bad, not only are you on the hook for tens of millions, but imagine your borrowing costs go up 1/2% on everything you issue because of a failure. That could cost the city/county $5 million a year going forward.

At least in Paladino's proposal, you have $30-$50MM worth of condos you can tax at $1.5 million a year. You still have the retail and the hotel as revenue options. He isn't asking for extra money to build a bridge to the arena and extra parking spaces for a direct revenue source to an existing means of income. His group would be on the hook to get deals done.

Like I said upthread......I wouldn't be surprised to learn Pegula gets this thing no matter what and Paladino is just waiting for the right reason to "go away".

The bolded statement really sums it up for me.  You're fundamentally against giving money to Pegula.  

Serious question:  are you OK with the taxpayers fronting $200 million to billionaire Ralph Wilson for stadium upgrades?

Edit:  To expand upon this a little, subsidizing people/businesses to build something is just how the system works.  Would you be against giving tax breaks to a company to build a new regional headquarters in the area if it created a few hundred jobs, just because the company technically doesn't need the tax breaks?  Realistically it's just how things get done.

Oh, and pretty sure you over-estimated Pegula's net worth by about $2 billion.  http://www.forbes.co...errence-pegula/

Edited by TrueBluePhD, 01 August 2012 - 12:49 PM.

[apuszczalowski]

TrueBluePhD, on 01 August 2012 - 12:44 PM, said:

The bolded statement really sums it up for me.  You're fundamentally against giving money to Pegula.  

Serious question:  are you OK with the taxpayers fronting $200 million to billionaire Ralph Wilson for stadium upgrades?

Ralph doesn't own his stadium, the county/government owns it and its part of their lease agreement.

If TP had nothing to do with the project and say for example, it was Quinns proposal to build the TP Proposal against Paladino, would everyone here still be in favour of it?

[weave]

Ghost of Dwight Drane, on 01 August 2012 - 12:19 PM, said:

Dude.....Green Lightning......turn in your Buffalo Man-card!

Apparently there is only two of us the even remember that little mess so I think I can be forgiven for forgetting the exact name of that excapade.  

[TrueBluePhD]

apuszczalowski, on 01 August 2012 - 12:53 PM, said:

Ralph doesn't own his stadium, the county/government owns it and its part of their lease agreement.

If TP had nothing to do with the project and say for example, it was Quinns proposal to build the TP Proposal against Paladino, would everyone here still be in favour of it?

And Pegula doesn't own the Webster block, the city does.  The upgrades that were part of the Bills lease agreement were already finished.  They want another ~$200 million for more upgrades to go along with a new lease agreement.  

Yes, I would still be for it.  Quinn sucked at running the Sabres, but he was very effective at getting other things done.  Another part of my support for the Sabres' proposal is I have faith it will actually be done, whereas I have less faith that Paladino's will be completed--he has other properties he doesn't do a whole lot with.

[apuszczalowski]

TrueBluePhD, on 01 August 2012 - 12:56 PM, said:

And Pegula doesn't own the Webster block, the city does.  The upgrades that were part of the Bills lease agreement were already finished.  They want another ~$200 million for more upgrades to go along with a new lease agreement.  

Yes, I would still be for it.  Quinn sucked at running the Sabres, but he was very effective at getting other things done.  Another part of my support for the Sabres' proposal is I have faith it will actually be done, whereas I have less faith that Paladino's will be completed--he has other properties he doesn't do a whole lot with.

I know Pegula doesn't own teh webster block, but he also isn't currently leasing it from the City either. So in negotiations the Bills are asking that part of the lease agreement includes renovations, they still don't own the stadium themselves, so your saying that Ralph should have to pay to upgrade something he isn't the owner of? Would you pay your own money for repairs and upgrades to an apartment or condo you are renting/leasing or would you tell the owner that they should be paying to upgrade things?

Yes paldino has some properties that he hasn't done anything with, but he also has stuff that he got done, it all depends, like almost all developpers, on the roadblocks in place holding them back. If his proposal is approved, I would have just as much faith in him getting it done as I do TP doing it because when developpers get approvals to do what they want that helps them make money, they do it. This is a high profile, big reward investment, without any roadblocks, it will get done.

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

TrueBluePhD, on 01 August 2012 - 12:52 PM, said:

The bolded statement really sums it up for me.  You're fundamentally against giving money to Pegula.  

Serious question:  are you OK with the taxpayers fronting $200 million to billionaire Ralph Wilson for stadium upgrades?

Edit:  To expand upon this a little, subsidizing people/businesses to build something is just how the system works.  Would you be against giving tax breaks to a company to build a new regional headquarters in the area if it created a few hundred jobs, just because the company technically doesn't need the tax breaks?  Realistically it's just how things get done.

Oh, and pretty sure you over-estimated Pegula's net worth by about $2 billion.  http://www.forbes.co...errence-pegula/

You can give money to Pegula...but let's call it what it is......A practice rink and enhancements to his money making operation under the guise of "Yeah! Hockey Rink for the people!"

Show me numbers......show me how this is going to benefit the community and the taxpayers. Why do you need 2,000 seats for some kiddies coming down for a 2 day tourney?

I've shown you estimated numbers and reasons why Paladino's proposal makes more sense......show me with concrete examples how Pegula deserves extra money from tax payers leaving him with no incentive to sell residential units that are tied to retail space? If Paladino fails.....he is F'd. If Pegula fails.....he has free ice rinks, parking spaces, and ramps to add to his Sabres revenue stream.

The taxpayers already ate Tens of millions when debt was forgiven and Golisano bought the team. And that was for an actual Hockey Heaven NHL Team Arena. Now we are dealing with add-ons and pie in the sky hopes that thousands will nring their children downtown to iceskate each day.

There are plenty of other ways for Pegula to get involved downtown without adding a burden to taxpayers in such a great amount. I am not opposed to him getting the site, in fact if he gets it there is a better chance of completion. I want to see HARDCORE projections......and there is no way I would give him more money than the other project.

If the Sabres were smart, they would concentrate on a smaller project in Amherst. Partner with UB, get a practice rink minutes away from where most of the Sabres live, add hotel and conference space and do it on free land, saving the state, county, and city money and adding an asset that could grow the school in term of sports and recognition. Then everyone wins in this.

[TrueBluePhD]

apuszczalowski, on 01 August 2012 - 01:03 PM, said:

I know Pegula doesn't own teh webster block, but he also isn't currently leasing it from the City either. So in negotiations the Bills are asking that part of the lease agreement includes renovations, they still don't own the stadium themselves, so your saying that Ralph should have to pay to upgrade something he isn't the owner of? Would you pay your own money for repairs and upgrades to an apartment or condo you are renting/leasing or would you tell the owner that they should be paying to upgrade things?

No, I don't think Wilson should pay for upgrades to a facility he doesn't own, but at the same time I don't think it should necessarily be included in the lease agreement either.  Are the upgrades necessary?  If they increase profitability, who gets that money?  The Bills or the taxpayers who paid for the damn thing?  But I don't think that's what Drane was getting at anyway.  My reading of his comment was he's opposed to subsidizing a billionaire, and the county absolutely subsidizes the Bills.  If I'm wrong on that I'm sure he'll be happy to correct me.

Oh, and I still think building more office space is a terrible idea and a complete waste of investment.