If you're a low- or moderate-income home owner and your property needs some TLC, they city may have a program soon to allow you catch up on all that deferred maintenance.
The grant program could help you with home repairs and improves on such things as replacing a water heater, replacing electrical systems or re-roofing.
But first, the city needs to know if you're interested. There will be no grants unless enough property owners step forward and request an application.
City Manager Jason Molino said the city is looking for 40 or more property owners to express an interest in the home rehabilitation.
If you think you might qualify, call Jodie Freese at 345-6333 to request an application.
The application is two pages and the package contains more information on the program. The completed forms must be returned to the consultant reviewing the applications by Jan. 31.
Funding for the program will come from the federal government through the Community Development Block Grant process, but the city must prove there are enough interested and qualified homeowners with sufficient need.
The program is part of the city's wider community building efforts to improve neighborhoods and local home values.
"This is the sort of thing that can be contagious and what we hope is that this will sort of catch on and filter into other areas," Molino said.
The program will provide up to $24,500 per structure. If the homeowner doesn't sell his property within five years, the grant does not need to be repaid.
Homeowners who do sell within that time frame, will be required to repay the grant.
The provision, Molino said, is to lessen the interest of speculators in flipping grant-improved homes, but when funds are repaid, the money will just go back into the grant program to assist other home owners.
Based on previous experience with a similar program on Jackson Street some years ago, Molino is hopeful this program will bring about a broad range of home improvements.
But ongoing success requires sustained effort, Molino said.
"To build on it, you need to continue to do it. It's not a one-time fix," he said.
To qualify, homeowners need to meet specified income criteria. For a sole-occupant, the very low income level is $13,050, and the upper level is $34,800.
The two-occupant range is $14,900 to $39,750, and the scale goes all the way up to eight occupants, with a range of $24,600 to $65,600.
The very-low income qualifiers will receive priority funding if approved. Applicants will be required to provide proof of income.
The federal, state, and local
The federal, state, and local governments need to stop bribing people to stay there. This and other govermnet hand out programs like all the "if you build it they will come" so called business parks, only prolong the agony of a slow painful economic death. Stop depending on the government to take care of everything. Time to pull the plug.
sounds like an easy way for
sounds like an easy way for the city to find out what properties need work without going out to look....the letters demanding repairs will be forthcoming.
I'm a positive person-sounds
I'm a positive person-sounds like a great Idea
If they can bail out the
If they can bail out the banks, then why not help homeowners? Some of us have lived here all our lives and don't want to leave. Should we let our places go to rot because we lost a job or other financial problems due to this economy? Keeping up these houses is a positive for the whole neighborhood, not just the homeowner.
If there is grant money for
If there is grant money for working people to fix their homes, then we need to go get it. If you are qualified for this money, please fill out an application.
Every time I've seen low
Every time I've seen low income properties go through costly improvements, the property just ends up in the same condition that it originally was. The owners of these low income properties do not need their assessments to go UP. They're LOW INCOME and the last thing they need is a higher tax bill.
We simply do not have grant money to be throwing around. The last I heard, the state has a $3billion+ deficit. Which part of "we're broke" do people not understand?
If your checkbook ledger has a negative balance, you don't continue to spend more money which seems to be how the government thinks prosperity works.
This nation shot itself in the foot when manufacturing was sent out of the country. How many support industries have fallen because of the loss of manufacturing? I've worked in factories all of my adult life and those factories supported all kinds of satellite businesses and allowed people to earn decent wages. They were able to support themselves. The economy prospered.
Bottom line
Bottom line Is-Someone-somewhere will get this money--also maybe local contractors will get the bids-Called moving money
Doug is right. We can’t
Doug is right. We can’t control how Albany and the Federal government spend our money but, we are all going to have to pay it back one day. Why should contractors and the business that support them suffer in our area because, we want to put our ideology on display? I don’t believe people should set themselves on fire to make a point.
The other point is that we have more than enough working poor here in our city that need the money for repairs. Better one of our own gets it than someone down in NYC.
The grant money doesn't
The grant money doesn't exist. It's being borrowed from future tax payers. It doesn't work, never has and never will. The failure to understand this makes me shake my head.
Digging a deeper and deeper
Digging a deeper and deeper hole for tax payers is not the answer. It prolongs the misery and eventually creates an abyss that nobody will ever be able to crawl out of. My fear is that this country is already there. We're already in the bottomless pit.
The bailout for homeowners is
The bailout for homeowners is simple: get rid of the real estate-based tax system. It is wrong to penalize a homeowner who upgrades his or her property and home by raising their taxes for doing so. It is no wonder that people do not keep up their property; doing nothing suppresses a tax increase. Taxes should be based on income- not outcome. Doing away with this punitive and antiquated mode of revenue sourcing would not only result in an aesthetic improvement, it would obsolete a revenue drag: all of the burocracy necessary to support this idiotic tax system.
STAR programs and tax caps only complicate and bandaid a perennial problem. Looking at real property tax from a economic perspective: it is a waste of resources; too much energy goes into managing it compared to the net gain. New York's persistent efforts to hold on to this tax system simply personify the state's inability to get anything done other than maintain the failed status quo. AKA- the state looking out for its own paychecks rather than the well-being of its constituencies.
Interesting Idea C M, I like
Interesting Idea C M, I like it and I couldn't agree more with your last sentence. Also, I'd like to see income taxes go away as well since they are not provided for in the U S Constitution. But then where does the revenue come from? The obvious response is to reduce government across the board and give more responsibility to the counties and municipalities as opposed to the States and Fed. But we all know that'll be a long, long fight. Would you go with higher sales taxes? Not a bad solution. Increase capital gains (provided for in the Constitution) that'll be another long, hard fight. I'd love to see the governments get off the backs of us middle class working folk, I just don't know how to wean our soxiety from everything we expect from our governments. Even my hero, Ron Paul says that it'll take a generation or 2 to get people away from relying on the state to take care of them.
C.M. I hear that argument all
C.M. I hear that argument all the time but, there is a serious flaw in it. Why would someone who makes a higher than average income, who is happy to live in a lower than average priced home continue to live in the area that made the change? You would end up with a community full of retired people and the working poor. Everyone else would move out of town, fast.
Not necessarily Charlie,
Not necessarily Charlie, maybe they would stay and improve their property and maybe even buy some other properties to rent and improve them thereby making the area better and increasing resale and rental worth. If you can buy low, invest some and sell high, why not? Then get another cheap property and do it again.
Dave, I don’t see that
Dave, I don’t see that happening. I can only speak for myself. Most of my friends at work live in Webster. Comparable homes there have twice the cost as they do here. My friends live in homes 2 to 4 times the cost of mine. My income is higher than average but, I am happy to live in a lower cost home because, I would rather live below my means. So, I would be directly affected by a change to the taxing scheme.
If you institute a new taxing method and my taxes where changed to be equal to my income, that new tax scheme could double or triple my taxes. Why would I allow myself to be taxed at that rate? Why wouldn’t I just move to Webster?
C.M..I agree with your tax
C.M..I agree with your tax idea...There is no logical reason why someone who bought a house 40 years ago while they were working.And know that they are retired making less money ,And have the house taxes that keep going up on what the property is worth..I know of a few people who have had to sell there homes because they can't afford the taxes on a house that they own free and clear..something is not right with this picture...So when some grant that comes out to only help 20 homeowners by taking money from other homeowners seems very unfair...Like C.M states if the property taxes weren't so high then maybe all homeowners could do repairs to there house's and not just a choosen few...
Charlie your point of why you live in a home of lesser value is so you don't pay higher property taxes.So someone with a very high income 150,000 dollars,lives in a house thats worth 70 thousand dollars and pays tax on that amount ,and you have some one retire and is on a limited income of say 35,000 dollars but lives in a 200,000 dollar house that they worked hard for to pay off ,should be paying more in propety tax then the person making 150,000..You see nothing wrong with that...Were are the rewards for bettering yourself and your property..Just give more back in taxes..And maybe we all could afford to repair ours houses..
The truth is, the federal and
The truth is, the federal and state government has already spent vast sums of taxpayer money over the past half-century to revitalize WNY, only to watch the area continue to decay. Future federal spending that tries to revive the area will likely prove equally futile.
In general, when cities shrink, poverty isn’t far behind, for two reasons—one obvious, the other subtler. The obvious reason: WNY populations have fallen because of relocation of industry and drop in labor demand; as jobs vanish, people living in an area get poorer. The subtler reason: declining areas also become magnets for poor people, attracted by cheap housing. This is exactly what is happening in WNY. The influx of the poor reinforces a city’s downward spiral, since it drives up public expenditures (government handouts) while doing little to expand the local tax base.
America’s deserts and mountain ranges aren’t densely inhabited for a good reason: few people want to live in such harsh places. Similarly, young people and firms have left and are leaving WNY for the Sunbelt because the Sunbelt is a warmer, more pleasant, and more productive area to live.
The federal government shouldn’t be bribing people, in effect, to stay in WNY by paying for housing repairs.
Such bribes are notoriously ineffective. Scores of close to worthless urban projects have received government funding not because any cost-benefit analysis has justified them but because of hazy claims that they would make some once-great area thrive again. It’s almost impossible to imagine that the billions already spent on WNY urban-renewal (the mall) projects would satisfy any reasonable cost-benefit analysis for helping to reverse the areas decline. The desire of people and firms to move is just too strong. For the government to tear down old houses and build new ones or repair old houses in a place like WNY is particularly misguided. The hallmark of declining cities is having an excess of housing relative to demand.
Richard, that was a nice,
Richard, that was a nice, intelligent, well-thought out comment. Thank you for that. You make a good point about the declining population here in WNY. I don't believe though, that there is a excess of housing in Batavia or Genesee County. There are some empty houses around, but that's because the banks that own them haven't put them on the market. As for Buffalo and Rochester; different story. Also, when you have a declining population like we have here, we do have to downsize government to match. That is tough, to say the least, noone wants to give up what they have. Not everyone is going to leave here, even if they were able to. I don't think hand-outs are the answer, the bloated government and high taxes are. We could eliminate or cut property taxes, if there were some way to make it up elsewhere. Higher sales tax, flat income tax for everybody, and luxury taxes, and a lot less bureaucracy, then more people can afford to live where they want to.
Charlie, a guy with a higher income might still buy a house in Batavia for the same reason, houses in Webster will still cost more than Batavia without the tax discrepancy.
Oh Richard, I forgot, look at
Oh Richard, I forgot, look at the map Howard put a link to in his post about food stamps a couple of days ago, it shows the varying concentrations of people receiving assistance. Why, if the sunbelt is so great are there more people getting food stamps there than in New York State?
Don't know anything about
Don't know anything about food stamps, but generally speaking the economy is better in southern states with no state income taxes and corporate taxes that favor major corporations that create good paying private sector jobs.
By comparison for decades government schemes to spend money to "stimulate" the WNY economy havn't worked, and the region remains stagnant and moribund.
The economy of Western New York and the cities of Buffalo, Batavia and Rochester are, for all practical purposes, socialist. The private sector is nearly dead, government is the largest employer, and taxes and union membership are the highest in the nation. As a result, economic growth is nil, and the population continues to migrate to the Sun Belt at an alarming rate.
The high rate of public employment requires a substantial tax burden to support it. A 2008 study by the Tax Foundation found that 8 of the top 10 counties in the nation with the highest property-tax burdens were in Western New York. Niagara County was ranked number one, Monroe County number two, and Erie County number seven. But residents here do not merely pay high property taxes; the combined state and county sales tax in Erie County is a staggering 8.75%, and the state levies an income tax that averages 5% as well.
The enormous sums of money flowing into government coffers gives politicians the means to dictate the terms on nearly everything. Almost nothing in WNY is decided solely by market forces in the private sector. Political operatives spend public money at the behest of favored interest groups that keep beggging for bigger pieces of the taxpayers money pie, and consequently nearly every idea for "economic development" "wind farm" or "business park" involves some harebrained scheme carried out by socialist-type planning that invariably fails.
Here's my answer to Richard
Here's <a href="http://thebatavian.com/blogs/howard-owens/more-evidence-favorable-busin… answer to Richard from a couple of months ago</a>.
Richard lost that argument then and I see now point in engaging with him now.
I'm with you on the aspect of
I'm with you on the aspect of us people who work in the marketplace having to continually pay more taxes in order to support government workers. That doesn't make me very happy. I'm not so sure that the economy in the southern and western area of the country is all that great right now. 2 years ago, you'd have been right, now, not so much. WNY didn't really experience much of the boom years, probably because of all the things you've pointed out. But then we didn't have far to fall like a lot of the country. We got our problems to be sure, but we also have water!!!
Richard lost that argument
Richard lost that argument then and I see now point in engaging with him now.
Not arguing Howard just providing the facts.
And the facts is that WNY has been losing the agrument for over 50 years.
Over five decades of government public spending -- on office towers, sports arenas, urban renewal, and other idiotic government schemes-- failed to halt Buffalo's population decline from a high of 585,000 in 1950 to under 290,000 today. The surrounding area has not fared much better; census data shows that the Buffalo-Niagara Metropolitan Statistical Area lost 51,000 people since 2000. Ditto for Rochester; the city's population fell from 328,000 in 1930 to 219,000 in 2000.
Sorry Howard
But you can try this to futher reinforce your head in the sand misguided state of denial.
OK now ready just close your eyes real tight and scream DOES NOT.
As Elmer Fudd would say Howard - which way did day doe?
Take a look at this:
Take a look at this:
http://www.bls.gov/bdm/bdmstate.htm#NY
Go to any state and click on the first table "Private sector gross job gains versus gross job losses" I went to NY, Texas (for you Richard) Georgia and N Carolina, because I have heard for a long time how great the economies there are. All 4 states have lost more than they gained in 2009, but NY's is a lot more moderated than those 3 anyway. Also, you can go to a section regarding hours and earnings
http://www.bls.gov/sae/saeaepp.htm
and see how much more a worker in a specific industry makes in NY versus the 3 aforementioned states. I looked at construction, because that's my industry and a worker makes a lot more $ here than in TX, GA or NC. My point being, it isn't that much better,(if at all) anywhere else. Except for the weather and taxes. Also, our unemployment rate is lower than in the south and west.
Come on Dave, For 2009 New
Come on Dave, For 2009 New York is more "moderate" because there are far fewer private sector jobs to loose to begin with, resulting from previous steep declines over decades not just one year. For example I worked as a consultant in Kodak during the early 80's. At that time over 80,000 people worked at Kodak Park ("Mother Kodak" we called it). How many people work at the park now?
Most construction jobs in Texas are filled by non-union mostly Mexican labor force.
Well like I said earlier we
Well like I said earlier we didn't have as far to fall. As far as construction laborers, I'd rather have union local boys who are invested in the community working on a job than "guest workers". NY , WNY and Genesee County has it's problems, but all is not lost.
Richard, Kodak's a poor
Richard, Kodak's a poor example for you to choose. The problem with Kodak isn't WNY. It's digital disruption.
And basically, if you look at the history of industry loss in WNY, the problem really hasn't been the taxes, the government, or the climate -- it's been disruption. Industries change and businesses die. As I've said before, normal business cycles.
There is a problem with WNY not replacing those dying industries, and a good deal of that has to do with a lack of local entrepreneurial spirit to create new industries (and some of that is driven by the business climate created by a dysfunctional Albany), but the FACT of the matter remains that Batavia specifically and WNY remain a GREAT place to work, live and do business. If you would pull your head out of the sand, you would see that. It's a FACT that most of the people who live and work here recognize. That's why we're hear and you're not.
If you want to be taken seriously, move back here, otherwise you're just a grumpy wannabe who misses home.
Howard we actually kind of
Howard we actually kind of agree my point is that continued government spending is not the answer. Since the 1950s, the federal government has showered billions upon billions of dollars on WNY's failing cities, seeking to revitalize them. The spending reflected a natural, humane impulse with little consideration for returning industry to the area. But none of it worked. Continued Government spending on idiotic schemes is not the answer. Private industry is.
Richard, in some sense we
Richard, in some sense we agree. Urban renewal was a major set back for Batavia. The private sector will also do a better job than government.
But like Charlie said, I don't see much point in ideologically opposing every grant program the city goes for. My preference would be, get government out the of the way -- lower taxes, fewer regulations, and I bet WNY would thrive.
But things are not as dire as you make them out to be, and that I emphatically disagree with you on and will continue to argue against it.
I would much prefer smaller state and federal governments, but for so long as I'm paying for these behemoths, I would rather see Batavia trying to do what it can with MY TAX MONEY than see that money go to NYC or North Carolina or Texas. What advantage is there for me to pay all these confiscatory taxes (and with the CDBG money, we're talking federal money, not state; income tax, not property tax) and have that money flow to Texas or NYC when there is a use for it here. And I would rather pay for some low-income homeowner here to get a new roof than some Wall Street banker getting a bailout.
The government situation is pretty screwed up, but there is a lot of reason to believe in Batavia. It isn't in my nature to throw in the towel just because things are hard -- things are hard every where and no place is perfect.
Maybe this program will work, maybe it won't, but I like the direction of Molino's thinking about trying to improve the quality of life in Batavia, especially since it isn't all just about spending and enforcement, but actual community building (see post I put up an hour or so ago).
At the onset of the Great
At the onset of the Great Depression, Buffalo had 573,000 inhabitants, making it the 13th-largest city in America. In the 75 years that followed, this once-mighty metropolis lost 55 percent of its population, a decline most dramatic in its blighted inner city but also apparent in its deteriorating broader metropolitan area,
WNY is one of the 20 most quickly deteriorating regions in the nation.
Twenty-seven percent of WNY's residents are poor, more than twice the national average. The median family income is just $33,000, less than 60 percent of the nationwide figure of $55,000. Upstate NY's collapse—including troubled New York cities like Buffalo, Syracuse and Rochester—seems to cry out for a policy response.
So Local politicians are evaluated and elected based on how much government funding they can beg for and get their crooked hands on to use on a myriad of ill concieved "if you build they will come projects."
But maybe just maybe the government should just butt out stop trying to prolong the agony and let the region finally just die a natural death.
Richard, WNY is not going to
Richard, WNY is not going to die. That's BS.
And, the median income in GC is $40,542. The national average is $41,994.
The cost of living index is 86 (national average is 100).
11.9 percent of the population lives below the poverty level, compared to 14 percent for NY. Nationally, the cyclical poverty rate fluctuates from 13 to 17 percent.
Unemployment in GC is much lower than the state and the nation.
WNY in general and GC specifically are in a very strong position and is no where near dying and there is no REASONABLE expectation to expect it to die.
Richard, Why are you so
Richard,
Why are you so against the City of Batavia. What did it do to you?
I've never read so much hate and wishing ill will on a community as you spew in every post.
So, you don't like Batavia. What reason do you have to knock people, here, who love this city and want to see it survive and prosper. You may not be one of them, which is your choice. But, what possible reason do you have for wanting it to fail?
Look at this map. It shows
Look at <a href="http://www.dailyyonder.com/files/images/2008PovertyCountiesMapfour.jpg"… map</a>.
It shows percentage of populations living below poverty level county-by-county (just the rural counties).
Red is a higher level of poverty, and green is a lower level.
I see lots of red and pink in Texas. None in WNY (unless you count the Southern Tier). Genesee County is a nice shade of green.
Yeah, that Texas economy is cooking along so much better than WNY's. In fact, quite a bit of red and pink in those sunny southern states Richard thinks are so superior.
This country (state, county,
This country (state, county, etc.) is so concerned with hiding revenue sources. The aim: keeping taxpayers ignorant of how much tax they pay out. The various sales taxes, fees, income taxes, tariffs, and property taxes nickel and dime us to death. I recognize that I have to pay for public services like road maintenance, schools, law enforcement, defense, the FDA, fire departments. It's a complex world, and I defer to those civic agencies that act on my behalf, allowing me to exist with a semblance of peace.
I have no children, yet I pay school taxes. I concede that an educated population is preferable to an unskilled one. I don't support our involvement in Iraq or Afghanistan, but I concede that the nation needs to provide for its "Defense." I have never applied for Social Service benefits, but I concede that those who are unable to support themselves should not be without food, clothing and shelter. I don't eat meat, but I concede that federal meat inspectors are important.
My point is, regardless of my direct benefit from various government programs, I value the function of government acting on behalf of its citizens and I am willing to invest in the provision of those services. I do not, however, favor being robbed by those who have assumed the mantel of deciding how much I am REQUIRED to invest in government.
I am a firm supporter of a flat tax. I see no reason why an individual levy of 14% can't keep this nation, state, local agencies and schools in operation. That's 14% tax on earnings for everyone- no deductions, no credits, nothing off the top. Do away with all other taxes; no sales tax, no property tax, no bed tax- just one tax to fund the whole shooting match. Everyone paying the same percentage.
C.M., I've always kind of
C.M., I've always kind of liked the idea of a flat tax. I remember Jerry Brown campaigning on it when he ran for president (now he might become governor of California again, which is kind of cool).
But I also think all taxes should be collected locally -- local jurisdiction control the revenue, and set the tax rate. In my scheme, the local taxing authority would be required to send 25 percent of what it collects to the state. The state would send 25 percent of what it collects to the Feds. So if a local jurisdiction decided it needed $75 million to operate, it would set a tax rate that would ensure $100 million in revenue.
As part of this scheme, there would be no state or federal mandates on local jurisdictions. Many of the current state and federal agencies would disappear, devolving to local jurisdictions. Local jurisdictions would decide how much, for example, it wanted to spend on social services and education.
And maybe revenue wouldn't be an income tax. Maybe it would be a sales tax, or a property tax. Or a mix. The local jurisdiction (meaning ultimately the voters) would decide. Taxation with real representation (as opposed to the essentially no representation we have today).
Wild idea that will never happen, but I like it because it would choke off these ever growing bureaucratic behemoths. It would throttle state and federal government growth based on what local voters were willing to pay for because voters wouldn't grow their own local governments more than they were willing to be taxed. And since state and federal government would have no power to tax (and we'd ban borrowing and debt), the feds, for example, would have to live within whatever budget was provided by the revenue stream that started at a local level.
I just called a penalty on
I just called a penalty on myself and deleted one of my own comments because it was about a person and characterized him in a less than favorable light. I shouldn't have posted that. Nobody complained, but it struck me this morning -- that really isn't appropriate.
good call, Howard, be true to
good call, Howard, be true to yourself. I like the tax idea you propose, I wouldn't mind paying taxes as much if it were controlled more locally. The flat tax on income is really the only fair way to do it.
Howard- I would play golf
Howard- I would play golf with you anyday..honor is a big part of the game
Bud, I used to play golf by
Bud, I used to play golf by the rules, and I walked. I wanted to be a serious golfer. Then I realized, I'll always suck at this game -- why not just have fun. I barely keep score any more and damn straight I improve my lie. I want to have fun, not punish myself because I suck. Just saying :)
Now, if we played competitively against each other, I'd make sure we were following the same rules, but short of competition, I just want to relax and have a nice die.
And I ride in a cart now.
As previously stated: Come
As previously stated:
Come on Howard nice try with the rural counties only poverty map. You know how big Texas is there's more horny toads in those counties than people. The Texas economy leads the nation.
The economy of Western New York and the cities of Buffalo, Batavia and Rochester are, for all practical purposes, socialist.
The private sector is nearly dead, government is the largest employer, and taxes and union membership are the highest in the nation. As a result, economic growth is nil, and the population continues to migrate to the Sun Belt.
The high rate of government employment is the only reason that unemployement is lower in Genesee County and this will continue to require a substantial tax burden on the remaining citizens to support it. Until eventually the government will have to downsize, eliminate departments, cut jobs, and lower taxes.
The government should stop bribing people to stay there with these government funded jobs programs, grants, funding and hare brained business park schemes.
Howard, I have no problem
Howard, I have no problem with the locality collecting taxes and dividing revenue uphill- frankly I don't care who does it, or how the pie is divied up. Fairness and transparency is the aim. I doubt, however, that the IRS would be eager to hand over its roll in tax gathering.
...And I campaigned for Brown when he ran in 1992. He would have won Genesee County in the NY primary if not for Tsongas re-establishing his run after dropping out. Jerry took every democratic district in our county with the exception of one City of Batavia district that put Tsongas ahead by three votes. I would have managed the sole win for Jerry in NY. I took his campaign to every district in the county- primarily touting his flat tax proposal. It was quite a thrill up to the last vote being tallied. ...Wish I had a picture of my Ford van with Brown painted on the sides and the speakers on the roof- sort of a Blues Brothers image :). Half the appeal was knowing that one candidate actually campaigned in the county. Since the campaigns only target undecided voters in key states, New York is sadly ignored.
The myth that taxes and
The myth that taxes and unions drove business to the sunbelt is due for refutation. It may be a factor, and southern states have skewed their tax laws to cater to such migration. The truth is that the migration began with the oil embargo in the 70s. Businesses recognized that energy costs were skyrocketing, and relocated to minimize heating and transportation expenses.
Prior to that, businesses like Kodak might move their headquarters to other states to advantage tax breaks, but kept their manufacturing plants in the northeast. The new trend is overseas manufacturing- which should come as no surprise- no amount of economizing will make an American worker competitive with third-world wages under a dollar an hour.
I have a soft spot for
I have a soft spot for Governor Moombeam ... thanks for sharing.
Somebody should do a comprehensive study of all the manufacturing businesses left NY. Catalog why they left.
I can only cite anecdotal evidence, but all the ones I know about it had nothing to do with the government or unions. It was either changes in the competitive environment or mergers/acquisitions.
And most of the industries that located to the southern states to take advantage of their (in my view, immoral) tax incentives were overseas companies, such as Toyota.
Most of the rust belt industries that have depleted the area over the years have been companies that were disrupted in some way -- steel companies that couldn't compete with mini-mills, Kodak that couldn't compete in a digital world, auto plants that failed to adapt to changing consumer demand, etc. Most of these failures are a failure of business not of government or even unions (other than unions tend to exacerbate the tendency of middle management to fight disruptive change).
Where the government causes problems is the high taxes and highly regulated environment make it much, much harder for new business start ups to replace the manufacturing companies that have left.
Established companies can and do adapt to growing regulation and taxes (as Chapin demonstrates), but those twin evils become a great barrier to entry for new businesses.
Even so, there are new businesses starting here and no reason to believe more can't be coaxed along.
Taxes, Unions, Public
Taxes, Unions, Public Employees:
Some interesting figures...
Union members/represented by union by state-
Alaska: 284,000 or 48.2% of total workforce
Texas: 9,899,000 or 10.1%
Arkansas: 1,154,000 or 13.2%
Hawaii: 556,000 or 13.2%
New York: 8,150,000 or 50.5%
Washington: 2,874,000 or 41.3%
Public (state employed) employees by state:
Alaska: 55,000
Texas: 630,000
Arkansas: 131,000
Hawaii: 135,000
New York: 547,000
Washington: 277,500
Median Household Income by state:
Alaska: $63,217
Texas: $46,853
Arkansas: $40,507
Hawaii: $64,193
New York: $50,927
Washington: $58,460
Avg. State Taxes by state:
Income Tax Sales Tax Property Tax
Alaska: None local only local 1.8%
(Note- Alaska runs on oil revenue, Federal funds and investments)
Texas: None 6.25% local 2.57%
Arkansas: 1 - 7% 6% local .88%
Hawaii: 1.4 - 8.25% 4% county .4%
New York: 4 - 6.85% 4% local 1.76%
Washington: None 6.5% state/local 1.13%