Jump to content

Pegula sells land for $1.75 Billion, Will Bid on Bills!

26CornerBlitz
 Share

Recommended Posts

KOKBILLS All Pro

KOKBILLS

Posted
Posted

 

You have to be NEVERGIVEUP who could be Polancarz, Higgins, Jeremy Jr, Terry Pegula, or if my belief is true God is a Bills fan...the man himself.

 

Just Sayin'

 

Well...If God is a Bills fan he either has a real sick and twisted sense of humor, or he's a major masochist...

 

I'm thinking it's neither...

 

And it's a safe bet that if there is a God...he pretty much hates the Bills...And Bills fans for that matter... ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 755
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

thebandit27 Hall of Famer

thebandit27

Posted
Posted

El Pegual is a covert Mexican conglomerate that secretly purchased the Bills a month or two ago...only K-9 knows about it (he made a slip up in the Shoutbox one day and clued a few of us in).

 

Once Jauronimo connected the dots between Harbor Place being merged with the Pearl Street Grill and Brewery to become Pearl Harbor, everything just kind of fell into place.

 

Viva El Pegual!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
zonabb Veteran

zonabb

Posted
Posted

Listen, I was born raised and educated here and my profession and interests focus on urbanization and public policy. I want nothing more than this city and region to rebound but I am so annoyed with the incessant false public discourses suggesting resurgence and that we’ve finally turned the corner. The single variable, likely because it’s the most prominent and visible, that this entire conversation has focused on and this idea being constructed around (pun intended) is construction. Everyone is suggesting that bricks and mortar is proof positive we’ve finally broke away from the shackle of deindustrialization and economic contraction. It’s a very convenient conversation since politicians dated back to the 1950s have suggested growing and building your way out of decline. So politicians have long used their voice to suggest to the populace that growth is good and further that new growth taking the shape of new buildings and investment is our indicator. And that may be true if that growth was not induced by massive influxes of public subsidy to create a market where none actually exists. Canalside…. Massive govt subsidies. Everything Rocco Termini and most other developers touch… massive subsidies. New federal building… all govt money. Any waterfront projects… massive subsidies. Uniland’s new Delaware and Chippewa Building… subsidies they cried about needing to make the project work. The 500 IBM jobs taking over Delaware North’s office when they move three blocks away.. millions in subsidies. Making brownfields shovel ready on Riverbend….. hundreds of millions in govt subsidies. These are the big ones, there are hundreds of small ones that all of the projects, like the magic silver bullet projects from the prior decades (Metro Rail, Main Place Mall, Bison’s stadium….) are nothing without fundamental systemic shifts in public policy at the local and state level. The reason these types of projects never deliver anything but millions to the owners (socialized debt for privatized profit) is because the cost of the subsidies far outweighs the return in the form of jobs. Jobs matter but when many jobs created at places like Canalside and new hotels and other commercial uses are minimum-wage paying services jobs, that have minimal positive impacts. The systemic problems keep these from actually helping because for every new job they create, others are leaving or the hyper-acquisition mentality of large global corporations result in more lost jobs, think HSBC. And guess who will get saddled with millions in subsidies to fix the foreclosed and vacant former HSBC tower because the Urban Land Institute , a pay for membership group of real estate pros, has told the city it needs to help their brethren make this building suitable by throwing millions at it usable. So the govt subsidized Uniland’s project to move Delaware North three blocks and backfilled the vacant spaced with millions more in subsidies and now the govt will eventually subsidize the former HSBC building so that someone can move into it and vacant more space…. And the chain of government subsidized vacancy continues absent any actual economic growth.

 

If anything, the only positive we’ve truly seen is a geographic one. We’ve seen major investment in the city and less in the suburbs, so all we’ve really done is changed the location, which to be sure is good for the city proper. But… we are a region and that as a cohesive agglomeration of cities, towns, and villages has to be measured as one entity in this global economy and it certainly has to be measured as one when considering how this supposed change will be viewed by potential new owners. What these subsidies have done is commodified the city, and Americans love a hot commodity and to talk about it and brag about it and Facebook about it. The city has become that, which wealthy empty nesters who pushed urban sprawl in the 80s, 90,s and 00s, forever impacting this region, now buying city properties with cash. But let’s be clear, again with another misconception, that more of the city remains a weak housing market than not. The entirety of the east side is among America’s most impoverished, segregated, and abandoned neighborhoods in the entire country. Riverside and Black Rock remain areas of minimal interest and investment and continual decline and disinvestment, aside from a few potential corridors. South Buffalo is a neighborhood in transition, with areas of insipient decline and some areas of maintenance but little improvement.

 

Regionally, the older inner ring suburbs and many rural towns and villages continue to experience population loss and aging. Additionally there are major increases in vacant and abandoned properties, cost local govts and the county millions per in lost assessed value and taxes. So all the positives locally (just for Bflo) across a few square miles of the 40+ square miles may come at the cost of the suburbs, just as suburban growth came at the cost of the city.

 

And by the way, the data matters to, which no one every discusses because that takes work, knowledge and may actually debunk the public misconception of what’s actually happening. Just so we’re clear, from 2010 (last complete census) to 2012, the city lost another 0.7% of its population (-1,926) The county has seen a minor jump in population….from 919,040 to 919,086 (+46) (these are estimates so they could be over it under-estimated). Which means even with population decline Buffalo it’s still increasing slightly in the suburbs… but everyone is moving into the city I thought? If it weren’t from the massive influx of refugees into Bflo for its cheaper, low quality housing in many areas, the loss would be worse.

 

All we’re doing right now is throwing massive money at systemic problems… bad business climate, poor investment in human capital, bad infrastructure, high energy costs, etc… rather than just fixing the problems so that moving forward the incentives to move here are because we have a good business climate, an educated work force, great infrastructure to create a business and lower energy costs that Vegas and Phoenix (yes, with NF right here, we pay more for electricity than desert cities).

 

Why? Politicians love to cut ribbons and tout “accomplishments” on the campaign trail and people vote for it, devoid of any understanding of the reality. My money is on continual economic stagnation coupled with massive public investment and more gentrification in the city and decline in the suburbs, recreating the urban decline in the suburbs and switching the massive costs of that decline geographically. Then, because the voting power remains in the suburbs (about 70/30), politicians will reverse course to get votes from the suburbs and throw massive money their way again.

 

I’m not a pessimist, I know the challenged and the reality and don’t have the luxury of blind loyally and the religious fervency displayed by those who just want to believe so bad and don’t want to have an honest conversation based in reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TXBILLSFAN RFA

TXBILLSFAN

Posted
Posted (edited)

Great post and compelling argument, however, I would disagree on one point, your last one. The public believing and having as youcall it "religious fervency" does matter. Why ? Because it creates energy, a buzz and strong public awareness. Part of a politician's job is to SELL the community, but also to sell those outside a community or their area. Creating strong PR for Buffalo or WNY will attract other businesses outside the area into WNY, and that, while a net zero to the country as a whole is a net positive to WNY.

 

The other phenomenon that I'd like to raise is the reality of the concept of a "tipping point", it does exist, but is difficult to determine, by that measure what I mean is that smart money follows the first mover money, so as investments in Buffalo continue,while subsidized at the start, will eventually require less and less subsidy.

 

There are no guarantees this will work, but, government has an obligation to try, in a responsible way to make it work. At this time, I think what Buffalo is doing is responsible, while I'm not sure it will work (as you point out), I think it's an effort that has merits.

Edited by TXBILLSFAN
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MarkAF43 Veteran

MarkAF43

Posted
Posted

Listen, I was born raised and educated here and my profession and interests focus on urbanization and public policy. I want nothing more

 

 

This is a lot of words. I'm sure there are good points, and some people will disagree with, but it's way too long for me to read the whole thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bbb Hall of Famer

bbb

Posted
Posted

This is a lot of words. I'm sure there are good points, and some people will disagree with, but it's way too long for me to read the whole thing.

 

That first wall of words called a paragraph just ruled it out for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SRQ_BillsFan RFA

SRQ_BillsFan

Posted
Posted
Great post and compelling argument, however, I would disagree on one point, your last one. The public believing and having as youcall it "religious fervency" does matter. Why ? Because it creates energy, a buzz and strong public awareness. Part of a politician's job is to SELL the community, but also to sell those outside a community or their area. Creating strong PR for Buffalo or WNY will attract other businesses outside the area into WNY, and that, while a net zero to the country as a whole is a net positive to WNY.

 

The other phenomenon that I'd like to raise is the reality of the concept of a "tipping point", it does exist, but is difficult to determine, by that measure what I mean is that smart money follows the first mover money, so as investments in Buffalo continue,while subsidized at the start, will eventually require less and less subsidy.

 

There are no guarantees this will work, but, government has an obligation to try, in a responsible way to make it work. At this time, I think what Buffalo is doing is responsible, while I'm not sure it will work (as you point out), I think it's an effort that has merits.

 

I also think there is also a perception with the "new" that Buffalo may finaly be taking off. When outsiders come to visit will they be more impressed with the new development or that stagnant city of 10 years ago? In the meantime the city gets to enjoy and take advantage of things that did not exist 10 years ago. Simply put I would rather spend a night at the new Marriot than the old Statler Hilton.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CodeMonkey All Pro

CodeMonkey

Posted
Posted

I also think there is also a perception with the "new" that Buffalo may finaly be taking off. When outsiders come to visit will they be more impressed with the new development or that stagnant city of 10 years ago? In the meantime the city gets to enjoy and take advantage of things that did not exist 10 years ago. Simply put I would rather spend a night at the new Marriot than the old Statler Hilton.

I can believe that as long as they didn't look too close. It's the "lipstick on a pig" argument. The pretty exterior doesn't mean much if the underlying root cause economic issues aren't addressed.

I'm not saying they can't be or even aren't being addressed by someone, but simply putting up some new buildings in and of itself is not going to do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...