Life was simpler then. There wasn’t all this concern about memes and editorial slants and stuff. It my days, if the paper made a mistake, we didn’t care. They’d run a correction two weeks later, stuck way back on page 10 in small type, and that made everything OK. Back in 1943 we thought Dewey was president for at least a month. When we learnt it wasn’t so, we just said, “Flobble-de-flee!” ’cause we were idiots and we didn’t know what else to say! And that’s the way it was and we liked it!

Life was a carnival! We didn’t need internet web sites for information. In my day, if there was snow outside, you tuned into WGY and listened to Don Weeks read the school closings for a half an hour. If you got distracted and weren’t listening when they got to your county, well too bad! You had to wait through an hour of cheesy 70’s music and then listen to it all over again. And that’s the way it was and we liked it that way!

Word-Press???  Flobble-de-flee! In my day, we believed everything Dan Rather said and never thought for a second he might be biased. We just believed whatever we were told because we were illiterate and ignorant and we didn’t know any better! Just a bunch o’ Cro-Magnons, gettin’ our news two days late, not knowin’ who’s president, listening to the school closings for hours, believin’ everything without question and that’s the way it was and we liked it! Weeeeeeee LOVED IT!

Please note, this was not written to offend any of my friends working in the “old media” industry :  )

Studies of dissolution options showed that while village residents may have realized an annual tax savings of between $145 to $242 (per $100,000 assessed value), town residents could have seen anywhere from a $48 decrease to a $137 increase. The amount of savings depended on whether a resident utilized municipal sewer and water services, and also on the availability of funds from NY State’s Aid and Incentives to Municipalities (AIM) program. AIM was designed to help communities who decide to dissolve/consolidate with additional funding. However it seems that the actual availability of these funds was so questionable, that scenarios with and without this funding had to be considered.

A key issue in this situation was whether Epcor Power LP, which is part of a large transnational corporation and operates the Curtis-Palmer Hydro plant, would discontinue certain funding that they had been providing for the village or possibly challenge their tax assessment. It appears that this was a serious concern, based on past attempts by the company and the failure of Epcor to assure the panel that it would not seek to decrease their funding. The possibility was deemed great enough to include the scenario in the study (although the language in the study seems to downplay the risk), which showed that village residents could see an annual $445  increase in taxes (per $100,000 assessed value) if Epcor was successful in reducing their funding after the dissolution.

Given all these factors, the village panel charged with studying the idea actually recommended against dissolution  in November 2010. Village officials, including the mayor, also recommended against dissolution. Nevertheless, village officials were not opposed to holding a referendum on the proposal, but they also indicated they didn’t want to rush to a vote either. However, it appears that a well-organized citizen’s group gained the necessary number of signatures to petition for a vote in January anyway.

It’s interesting to note here, that there are two types of actions that citizens can petition for – dissolution or consolidation. Since the citizen’s group petitioned for dissolution of the village, only the village was required to vote, even though it was clear that the town would be affected considerably by this action. If the referendum had passed, the town would have been forced to accept a de-facto consolidation.

So one has to wonder, what was driving this “citizen’s group” to push through this referendum given the very real possibility that dissolution would have raised taxes for both village and town residents, and the very real possibility that the greatest tax savings could end up going to a large transnational corporation?

For a change of pace, I’ve decided to boil down some of the various strategies that I’ve picked up on through past blog discussions and put them into a  few polls. Feel free to comment on the various strategies and suggest new ones if you wish.

Here’s some stats on the housing situation in Amsterdam from the Comprehensive Plan. They are from 2000, but I think they can at least give us a little perspective on the situation.

Also,  a lot has written recently on the issue of buying a home vs renting a home. Here’s a good article (with good counter-points in the comments) which shows how home ownership rates and consumer sentiment toward home ownership have both been falling. I think it’s worth considering that even if the economy begins to improve, we may be seeing a cultural shift away from settling down permanently, and more toward remaining mobile. However, we’ve also discussed that owner occupied, single family homes are needed to stabilize our neighborhoods.  This new trend may have to be factored in as we discuss the best strategy for Amsterdam’s housing situation.
Take Our Poll Take Our Poll Take Our Poll

On one hand, I think a merger could very well benefit some types of businesses. My own experience of being a member of the COC from 2008 through 2010 was positive and beneficial experience. By attending  a small fraction of the available networking events (such as mixers, grand opening events, business expo), I gained five new clients, with an additional two clients gained directly from COC referrals. The amount of business I gained from those seven clients far exceeded the cost of membership. In addition, having the opportunity to participate in COC sponsored mentoring workshops at the middle school and high school were highly rewarding for me personally. Being that my service (web site design) was in demand by many businesses, the COC was a great “marketplace” for my business. Access to a larger market, for the same price, would certainly benefit a business such as my own.

However, the perception that the COC is oriented toward and primarily benefits larger businesses is one that continues to persist. I remember one  event I attended. There was a small sub shop opening up on Market St in Amsterdam. The grand opening event was promoted by the COC just the same as any other event. When I showed up, however, it was only me, COC President Deborah Auspelmyer (who I give credit for consistently having a genuinely positive and welcoming attitude), and maybe 1 or 2 other COC officers. The storefront was very neat and the quality of food was really good. But the business community just didn’t show up for this. I ordered from the shop several times after that, but unfortunately the quality seemed to decrease each time and eventually the shop went out of business months later.

Such is life, obviously some business plans just don’t work out. Perhaps the business struggled to attract traffic and rather than increasing their efforts to market their good product, they opted to skimp on their ingredients, thus creating a death spiral for the business (which is a lesson for Amsterdam in itself). But either way, this appears to be a case where this particular business owner’s COC membership did not help much at all. Perhaps a larger turnout at their grand opening would have given them the jumpstart they needed to remain a viable business.

So I think with a merged Fulton/Montgomery County Chamber, we will see a benefit to well-established, larger, regionally oriented businesses and organizations, as well as for smaller “business to business” vendors looking to market their products or services to other businesses. However, I don’t see the merger as being at all beneficial to newer, smaller, restaurants, retailers, or other local services (ie exactly the types of businesses that we need to revitalize our downtown area, Market Hill area, or other neighborhoods.) In fact, I think these types of small businesses will find it even harder to see a return on an investment in a COC membership as grand openings for these are going to get increasingly lost in an even larger events calendar.

Perhaps a more locally oriented organization is needed to supplement the Chamber in promoting and helping smaller businesses in the city of Amsterdam? I know such organizations have existed before and haven’t continued, but maybe it’s time to try again? I’d be glad to hear other viewpoints in the comments section!

Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays and Happy New Year to everyone reading the Pars Nova blog.

A special thank you to all those who contributed regularly to the discussion this past year:
(Roughly ordered by frequency of posts)

Diane Hatzenbuhler
Robert Purtell
Gerald Skrocki
Flippin
Karin Hetrick
Ann Thane
Rob Millan
Bill Wills
Charlie Kraebel

Thank you for caring about our community enough to debate the difficult issues in a public forum. I’m looking forward to another year of  challenging conversation!

News Story: Amsterdam Downtown Mixer A Success
Recorder: Print it
Fox: Where’s Amsterdam again?
YNN: Ho hum

News Story: Trade Center Pillar Arrives in Amsterdam
Recorder: Print it
WNYT: Pass
WTEN: European News?

News Story: Man Drops Pants in Target Parking Lot in Amsterdam
Recorder: Print it
Fox: Juicy!
WRGB: Shocking! We’ll run  it.

News Story: Riverlink Park in Amsterdam hit by Vandals
Recorder: Print it
YNN: So sad, we’ll run it!
WNYT: Details at eleven!

Real Estate agent: There’s a beautiful house available in Amsterdam for a great price
Prospective home buyer: I’ve heard Amsterdam is a crime-ridden dump
Real Estate agent: I really don’t know much about Amsterdam
Prospective home buyer: What else do you have?

Mayor Thane: Amsterdam is a great place to live with many aspects that would be attractive to businesses and homebuyers. Let’s develop a marketing strategy that promotes the positive aspects of Amsterdam to the rest of the region

Recorder EDITORIAL  1/18/09:  All the roads in Amsterdam need to be fixed first, only then can we market the city
Recorder EDITORIAL  2/15/09: The city is not enticing to anyone. Put the marketing plan on hold until we can offer more
Recorder EDITORIAL 1/21/10:  Even if you get someone to visit Amsterdam, they’ll run away once they see it.
Recorder EDITORIAL  4/25/10:  It’s not the Mayor’s job to market the city, it’s not what she was elected to do
Recorder EDITORIAL  9/5/10: The county should market the city, not the city.

Me (who just bought a home in the city this year): ?????????!!!!!!??????!!!!!!!!!

Hope that clears things up!

I think The Recorder generally does a fair job of covering both positive and negative events in Amsterdam. But what I do want to point out is that these stories pretty much all got picked up by Capital Region television news stations and the Times Union – media outlets that rarely, if ever, put out positive stories about Amsterdam. This example leaves no doubt: shocking and negative news spreads quickly and easily. Positive news, however, seems to take some work.

So it’s with this point in mind that I want to expand on the assertion I made in the previous post. I believe The Recorder contributes to a negative external and internal perception of Amsterdam because its editorial articles have consistently and vehemently opposed the idea of promoting a positive image of Amsterdam.  That is why I believe they deserve a place in the “weaknesses” area of the S.W.O.T. analysis. Here’s just a sampling of what I mean…

2/15/2009
Yes, the city is making progress, but has it made enough to be truly enticing?…Our advice to the mayor and Common Council is to put the implementation of the “Small City. Big Heart” marketing campaign on hold until we have more to offer visitors.

1/21/10
… we’re not sure the city is ready to be marketed…People intrigued by the marketing campaign still won’t buy a house here without checking the city out first. Right now, it’s like having friends over to check out your new big-screen TV, but you didn’t finish cleaning the house.

Being that neither the publisher of The Recorder, nor its editors currently reside in the city (yep, I’m bringing that up!), I’m willing to bet that none of them have taken a good look recently at the overall condition of the city’s neighborhoods. If they had, I think they would have come to a different conclusion. I’ve walked all over the city over the past few years, and there are plenty of great looking neighborhoods in the West End, upper Locust Ave area, Market Hill area, Henrietta Ave area, Church St/Rockton area, the South Side and others. These are areas with lots of well maintained housing that any middle class home buyer would be proud to own. The fact is that year after year, people do in fact (with no gun to their head) decide to start businesses or own a homes in Amsterdam.

But that message doesn’t get out there. The crime and profanity does. Mayor Thane has taken up the task of working to get the positive message out to prospective businesses and residents because no one else has. Why does The Recorder constantly speak out against this? (I counted at least 5 editorials in the space of 2 years.)  Is it because marketing the city runs counter to their pro-consolidation stance? Or might their stance be influenced by the bleak outlook of the print news industry?  Should we as a community take economic advice from an organization that stands a good chance of becoming extinct in 10 to 20 years?

If anyone doubts the importance of promoting a positive image, I would ask why corporations spend billions of dollars every year on advertising to make sure their products have a favorable image. The answer is simple: because they know it works. They wouldn’t spend the money if it didn’t.

The Recorder certainly does their fair share of reporting on the positive events and that is to be commended. But it’s obvious that the good news rarely gets picked up on it’s own by other news organizations in the region. If The Recorder truly believes in Amsterdam as a city, then the least it could do is stop trying to shoot down anyone working to get the positive news out. At best, they could decide to actively support the effort to market the city to potential residents and businesses, contributing to the effort to improve Amsterdam’s perception of itself and in the surrounding region, rather than working against it.

Our current situation has us relying on the Amsterdam Industrial Development Agency (AIDA) to lead in the area of business development.  AIDA’s benefit to the city can be seen primarily by the ten or so businesses that occupy the Edson St. Industrial Park which is administered by AIDA, as well their role in helping several other larger businesses within the city.

A majority of the companies in the park, such as Fiber Glass Industries, Breton Industries, Power and Composite Technologies, Saratoga Horseworks,  Mohawk Sign Systems, and Fort Miller Company, are manufacturing businesses.  All the buildings in the park are very large in size, and I would venture to guess that most of the businesses employ 100 people or more (either at their Amsterdam locations alone or the total for all their locations).

Based on these observations, I think it is safe to say that our city’s “default” strategy for business development is currently geared toward larger manufacturing (ie “industrial”) companies. This is precisely what I believe needs to change in order to jumpstart our city’s economy. We need to broaden the scope of the types of businesses that we work to attract.

Most people are aware that manufacturing jobs have been declining in America. This graph illustrates just how steeply they have plummeted since 2001. Going forward, the US Bureau of Labor Statistics predicts the number of manufacturing jobs will continue to decrease.  Overall GDP of the manufacturing sector continues to rise due to increasing productivity (that’s a whole other topic), and no doubt manufacturing will continue to be an important and sizable part of our economy. But based on the employment numbers, it should become obvious that we cannot continue to look at only manufacturing companies to create jobs.

According to the BLS, the types of jobs that will be growing in numbers include those in the fields of healthcare, science and information technology (especially network systems, data communications, computer software and application engineers).  In the area of healthcare, we have St. Mary’s Healthcare as the largest employer in the area which provides a base for this industry in the region. My hunch is that this industry will continue to grow just fine in Amsterdam on its own.  What I don’t see is any progress toward or vision for attracting science or information technology jobs.

The other problem is the size of businesses that AIDA appears to be geared for. Crucial to creating new jobs are new business startups. According to research done by The Kauffman Foundation, most startups average between 5-8 employees, and the trend shows that number has been getting smaller over the past few years. What resources does AIDA have to attract and assist this type of small business?

Another emerging trend in businesses startups in the increasing percentage of sole proprietorships, otherwise know as self-employed workers or “freelancers”. According to the same research done by the Kauffman Foundation (cited above), single employee businesses now make up more than 27% of new business startups, and the number of multi-employee startups has actually fallen in comparison. So the question has to be asked again: what resources does AIDA have to attract and assist these types of new businesses?

The Kauffman Foundation sums up their research this way…

… policymakers’ focus on big changes in employment because of events such as a new manufacturing plant or the recruitment of a business to a community ignore the more important fact that our jobs outlook will be driven more by the collective decisions of the millions of young and small businesses whose changing employment patterns are not as easy to see or influence.

Given that idea, I believe our city can become more attractive to smaller science and information technology based businesses. Here’s what I believe needs to be done…

1. Clearly define AIDA’s mission to focus on large manufacturing businesses (or other large businesses). Pursue integration of AIDA with the Montgomery County IDA to facilitate funding of larger projects.
2. Create a separate entity to attract and assist small business. The incubator center that Flippin proposes as part of his Big A initiative is exactly what we need. While other incubator projects in the area have had less than desirable results, I think Flippin hits the nail on the head as to how this idea would be different:
   

   Where will companies come to occupy the incubator? They will originate from various venture and startup programs at local universities. The incubator will recruit firms from the surrounding area (even westward) as it will have what startups want: dollars to invest and space. The fact that funding exists acts as a big differentiator to other programs.

3. In addition to an inventory of the larger structures and property available for business use, an inventory of smaller spaces, including rentable space (such as in the Clock Tower and Noteworthy buildings) must be made available online and updated regularly.
4. In order to attract self-employed entrepreneurs, fund the formation of a co-working facility such as this one in Fort Collins,  Colorado.
5. Form a business organization similar to a Chamber of Commerce, but exclusive to the city and which facilitates more structured networking between businesses, markets the city’s business opportunities, and serves as “welcome wagon” to new businesses moving into the area.

I believe these initiatives will put our city on the right track to taking full advantage of the emerging economy. Other ideas? Post them in the comments section!

The idea starts with the formation of a public/private corporation (“Big A”) which will be responsible for the economic revitalization of Amsterdam. What Big A will do is fund projects in five key areas:

1. Preserve existing housing stock and drive residential development in the city for the 20-34 crowd.
2.  Develop the Southside as a residential and commercial mixed-use destination
3.  Invest in alternative energy as a revenue driver for the city and attract renewable energy start-ups (leverage the locks on the Mohawk)
4.  Create a digital arts and engineering (focus on alternative energy) charter middle school
5.  Establish an incubator center around digital arts, alternative energy and nanotech

Overall, I believe these proposals are right on target to make Amsterdam economically competitive again. They build on Amsterdam’s strengths and address the weaknesses. They also fit well with the direction of the NY Tech Valley initiative and the trends in the global economy.

The $3-$5 million price tag that Flippin estimates, which a majority is proposed to be funded by public bonding (borrowing), will no doubt scare some people. But Flippin rightly points out that there is usually no debate when the city bonds for things like demolition of old buildings or other projects that are understood to be “essential”. I believe investing in our economic future is essential. If the furnace in a house breaks down in the middle of winter, the homeowner will no doubt borrow money to fix it rather than risk freezing to death. Amsterdam’s economic furnace is broken down and we are facing an economic winter.

An important aspect of this plan is accountability, and I think Flippin’s ideas for this will go a long way in helping people to trust this initiative. First, he proposes that the agency has a 5 year charter. I’m not sure if that means the agency will only exist for five years, or only use public funds for 5 years, but either way, that’s an important aspect because it avoids creating a new government dinosaur (ie like AIDA) . The other control he suggests is providing public funding in yearly increments ($500,000 to $1 million per year) based on performance, all of which makes perfect sense.

Frankly, the greatest challenge in this whole proposal is selling it to the people of Amsterdam such that it wins an approval in a public referendum. The past mayoral election shows a city evenly divided on the future direction of the city. Flippin advocates “destroying and disrupting” the current thinking on economic growth and the institutions (ie AIDA) that are charged with stimulating economic growth. While I completely agree that our thinking has to change radically, the militaristic analogy, when extended reveals a problem. It’s usually understood that an offensive effort requires an overwhelming advantage in order to overrun a defending foe. That advantage is simply not there. I believe it will require a whole lot of persuasion to rally our residents around this plan. The past behavior of simply labeling people as “against change” or other less than flattering names will simply backfire again. The case for advancing this plan must be presented in a positive, persuasive way, such that a solid majority of voters believe and trust the initiative. If it’s not accepted at first, then it needs to be presented again in a different way and many more times if necessary until it finally takes hold.

I hope to post more comments on the individual proposals soon!