Every once in a while, I poke my head in over at BRO to see what’s going on.
Today, I stopped by to check out what their take was on the Outer Harbor project. I had just finished recording a podcast with Rep. Higgins on the issue and went over there to see what “the other half” thought about the issue. I was completely unsurprised to see someone immediately invoke the idea of what “the community wants“.
Higgins should do the right thing for the community, and tell the DOT to hold up the process, give the community the opportunity to bring in one of America’s great boulevard designers (there are at least two prominent boulevard designers in California*), limit the time for a new design to be decided on by the community and the DOT in a joint effort, and I believe the community can get what it wants - an attractive boulevard
The funny thing is, that isn’t what “the community” wants. That is what a small minority wants. The overwhelming majority of this community wants people to shut the fuck up and get something built on the waterfront. They want the Sabres to win a Cup and they want the Bills to stay in Buffalo. They want Labatt’s and chicken wings and they want progress. While the wisdom of crowds is not to be trusted all the time, the process was completed properly and the 20 years that have passed sine the project study began have left us with dead end roads and fences along our outer harbor. To cast the argument of a small minority as “the community” is dishonest.
“The community” had multiple opportunities to comment and get what it wanted. This plan provides for an at grade boulevard and allows for future demolition of the Skyway. There are other plans to connect the inner and outer harbor and those studies are funded and underway.
Let’s address some of the other points, Pundit-Style…
David Franczyk: “They (NYSDOT) are not urban planners, this is not their decision to make,” Franczyk said. ” A consortium of community groups has said what they want. The DOT doesn’t represent policy makers. We should stand our ground.”
If professional credentials, ethics, or results determined one’s right to speak on issues, Franczyk would have been kicked to the curb years ago.
Councilmember Nick Bonifacio said, “The DOT says the debate is over. The debate hasn’t started yet. I have problem with the authority telling us what they want. We need to tell them what we want.”
Actually, the debate is over and it started 20 years ago. The authority is not telling us anything, they are putting forth a plan that has been approved by the community at large. We told them what we wanted and they are building it.
Julie Barrett O’Neill, Buffalo Niagara Riverkeeper’s Executive Director, said, “Most vibrant waterfront communities do not separate people from the waterfront.
How exactly are we separating people from the waterfront again? I’d like to refer Ms. O’Neill to the Fuhrmann Boulevard plan which outlines the accessibility to the waterfront for pedestrians, vehicles, and bicycles. How is going back to the drawing board and perpetuating the current situation for an undetermined number of years going to benefit anyone?
Jim Metzger, Chair of Waterfront Development for the League of Woman Voters said, “Our waterfront, is eight miles of splendor that the rest of the world would cry for. Do it right, do it now, build a boulevard.”
When in doubt, hyperbolize. While the waterfront is a great resource and a foundation for us to build on, I can probably name 100 cities in the world that have similar waterfront infrastructure. We tend to the insular here. Lots of cities have great waterfronts and riverwalks. We’re not that special. Also, they build on their waterfronts. Also, how many cities would cry for eight miles of industrial disaster and remediated brownfields on their waterfront? Lets be realistic.
Jim Rozanski with Partners for a Livable Western New York stood and said, “An aspect of the project that hasn’t been talked about is that impoverished people want to enjoy waterfront too.” He went on to say that a redesign of Route 5 with access to the waterfront would aid in job creation as well.
Really??? Did he need to play the poor people card? How does the DOT plan prevent poor people from utilizing the waterfront? I must have missed the section in the report about “keeping people under the thumb of the man”. Access to the waterfront is not an issue…the NYSDOT plan provides for abundant access to the waterfront. Did these people even read the plan? Also, how does the CNU plan for coffee shops and quaint waterside markets (with no developer) make the waterfront more accessible to the poor? Will buses run to Jefferson and Utica to bring people to the waterfront under the CNU plan while under the current plan, they will be re-routed to Riverside Park? As for job creation, Mr. Rozanski should take a ride up Route 5 to view the millions of dollars of investment into job creation.
Cynthia Van Ness of Buffaloresearch.com made the point that the dead space surrounding Route 5 lends itself to a poor image of the city, “People think their cities are in terrible shape because they see then from the highways, which create dead space on either side,”
She’s absolutely right. The current outer harbor is a drag on the self image of the city. Which is why it is imperative that we get to work on filling it with parkland, improved access, jobs to the south, and at grade boulevards…just as it is spelled out in the NYSDOT plan.
So, I was a bit harsh in my critique, but the tone of my commentary is based upon the intellectually dishonest rhetoric that is poring out of these people who seem to always have a firm grasp on what “the community” wants.
Build it.
11 Comments
I was so incensed when I read that last night just moments after listening to Higgins’ podcast. There are so many lies and so much rhetoric being flung around over this - they’re all taking a huge page from Tim Tielman’s massive Disingenuous Tome.
Geek hit the key point here - these people are not the community, they are a community. I’ve given up believing that their opinion holds any more weight on a project than anyone else’s because they live in the same, randomly drawn municipal district as the task at hand. One side of their mouth begs for regionalism while the other side wants to keep total control of their little area. It doesn’t work both ways.
Someone should definitely do a study on this.
I just found your site after linking here from BRO in the Higgins post. Gotta tell ya, after reading through all the articles on your frontpage, you might be the most well informed blogger in the area, Common sense abounds here, compromise runs rampant, and you seem to have a handle on how to fix the problems. This site is a great resource for people lost in the sunny optimism and cognitive dissonance of BRO and the continual negativity of The Buffalo News.
Thank you.
Good analysis. Actually the DOT has had quite a few public meetings on all the proposed southtowns’ roads for over a decade. This proposal has basically been on the books for years. These proposals have been vetted by the users of the road for some time, and especially by those in the neighboring communities (Ohio Street neighborhood and Lackawanna).
The other thing that ticks me off is the assertion that development has been slowed solely because of the road. Almost all development has been held back because (1) the NFTA has controlled an important part of the waterfront (that also was environmentally contaminated) and (2) the other land, especially near the old Hanna Furnace site, is also environmentally contaminated.
Developers don’t develop on a contaminated brownfield, but will if it is cleaned. That is what is happening at the new Lakeside Commerce Park and the NFTA land that is being cleaned.
The most important thing to spur development is tearing down the Skyway and building an at-grade lift bridge crossing. That will make the difference.
I think that part of the fear and trepidation on the part of all these groups is that we still don’t have a complete picture of how this road system is going to work. What will replace the skyway? Where are the at-grade bridges to connect the Inner Harbor and the new Fuhrman going to be placed? I was glad to hear Brian on the podcast report that the studies for all of this is well underway.
No one has voted on this so can we stop pretending that anyone knows what “the community” thinks.
If you want to know what the community thinks, go to Wal-Mart and see what the masses are buying. Or go to houses with “for sale” signs and ask them what state they moving to.
But this is politics so it’s one small group against another small group spending other peoples’ money. So let’s talk about the merits.
I’m knee-jerk against Higgins on this. I find he’s a reliable barometer of error on public policy. (Granted, I also I saw what’s his name’s presentation to the Council and loved it.)
My favorite was the poor people card. Maybe they should build HUD housing on Tift Farms…Classic
Chris,
Consider this for me would you…
As a member of the aforementioned “Waterfront Coalition”, I apologize for the disjointed and sometimes hyperbolic nature of SOME comments from SOME commenters on my side of this question in all the various forums. Harvey has a reasonable take on this on Pundit’s page and I am glad that you are reasonable in your approach which is why I would rather carry this on here. Pundit has not taken the time to address any of the reasonable comments like mine on his sight. He has thus far only seen fit to have fun with mocking the easily mocked.
That being said, your side has not answered the legitimate concerns I and others have raised:
1) On the appropriateness of fighting this fight at this late time - You (your side) don’t differentiate our specific gripes from the public input that was made previously. Are you suggesting that our vision is not legit because it wasn’t chosen by the DOT or that we didn’t coalesce behind it 20, 10 or 2 years ago. I would hope that the merits and not the effectiveness of a grassroots campaign are what you would base your case on. Many a bad planning mistake have been made in the face of inadequate opposition. Besides, have you never heard of a government agency making a bad decision? Granted you don’t think this is a bad decision. We happen to think there is a better one. Which leads to my second point…
2) I secretly won’t be sad if my side loses this campaign!!! The current plan is not a doomsday scenario - I just believe it has several worrisome inconsistencies, may be a waste of very scarce infrastructure money if my side is right and it wastes a once-in-a-century opportunity to lay in place permanent infrastructure that maximizes development value (density). That being said, I don’t believe we will see the population growth necessary for a high quality, high density development on the outer harbor that a boulevard would make more likely. Density is hard to sell to most people accustomed to sprawl that isn’t too inconvenient like it is here in WNY. The argument for a boulevard and density is a long view of what a city should be. Buffalo won’t likely see the growth that justifies such density for 2 decades (unless oil and car transport becomes utterly un-affordable sooner which is a possibility). So if I lose, we will see suburban-style medium density development on the outer harbor. Not the end of the world since it is in the city instead of in Wheatfield. Were high density to happen it could compete with my beloved West Side for the limited number of people that are attracted to such density. I am being parochial in this selfish concern which acts as a consolation should the greater good that I am currently campaigning for not happen. Suburban-ish condo development would greatly prop up the city tax base. Not a bad outcome in the short term. Us urbanists believe that such a thing should not happen in the city though, due to the walkability factor. But that train has left the station and it will be a long time before it makes a return trip.
3) What about the orphaned and redundant highway section that will remain with standard-access roads on both ends eating up excess land once the skyway is torn down. In other words a highway to nowhere from nowhere. How is this useful and appropriate???? Not a soul in any forum has uttered anything on this after I have asked multiple times. Can you or someone please tell me something on this other than: ” we will undo it later cuz lots of money will be floating around to undo mistakes in the future…” But seriously, Higgins wants to replace the skyway with at grade type bridges that connect to the street grid of downtown. And the 3 miles of highway eating up valuable land will…..??? Apparently we need it for the trucks, because they can’t use Route 5 through Lackawanna because it isn’t a highway and never will be - except that they already do and always have. The suggestion that trucks aren’t compatible with a multi-way boulevard is ridiculous. Happens all over the world.
4) Major inconsistency in your argument that the NFTA is to blame for lack of progress on the Outer Harbor yet it is urgent we change the road now without delay!!! So which is it? The road or the land ownership? You and Pundit argue ownership and I concur. So how is a delay of 1 year in the start of road construction a big deal then? Yes, Fuhrmann Blvd is not perfectly convenient but plenty of people seem to use it just fine to get to the various places they want to go. Does this constitute an emergency where all further discussion of a potentially better outcome must be squashed? I swear I heard this argument on the Inner Harbor. Most would say that the interative process there has led to a much better plan for everyone. Maybe we should learn something there…
If I get any answers, I have more. And don’t knitpick the precision of the wording - sticking to the main points is more useful for civic engagement. I am disappointed when Pundit - whom I hope chimes in here finally - spends time on the chafe of people’s arguments and not the wheat.
Jeff,
That was a very thorough response, one I don’t have time to give a respectful answer to this evening as I am working. However, I will respond in kind in the AM. Thanks for your input and I look forward to continuing the discussion.
Chris
Hi folks, I’m somewhat computer adverse but would like to add my two cents to the ongoing discussion on Southtowns Connector/Route 5/Waterfront. I attended most all of the 12 plus years of the Southtowns Connector study and I can guarantee you that that process was so flawed as to be laughable. Many times the attendees would be old people who were concerned with things like “who will pay for cutting the grass in the medians?” or tree-huggers worried about the flora and fuana at Tifft farm. As for the DOT taking serious comments seriously they did not! (See my comments on record in the final report). While the most recent attempt at improvment (Fuhrmann Blvd) is not seriously flawed I believe that until and unless we have a comprehensive plan for the entire waterfront area we will eventually run into an expensive or impossible “do-over” not to mention that progress would be much easier and faster if we could somehow arrive at a consensus plan and stick to it! Come on its not that hard to do and we need not have all the financing in place to begin; we simply need the will to keep going forward. Why won’t the political powers agree to such a thing? Just asking. It would make a lot more sense than relying on Brian higgins’ “instincts” as the Buffalo News recommended. What happens if he gets hit by an NFTA bus? We all like to see “progress” but if you dont have a decent plan on something like this it will take longer if not forever and take alot more money besides.