A Tale of Two Buildings and a Parking Lot

The city of Buffalo, not only legislates to promote sprawl style land use patterns, it also rewards sprawl based development with a generous gift from the tax payers.  In my last few posts, dealing with the current city zoning code here, here, and here, I showed how some of Buffalo’s most beloved buildings and neighborhoods can not be replicated today because of an absurd outdated law – the Buffalo Zoning Code.
I also recently wrote here about how much less property tax is collected from sprawl based property when compared to equivalent densely built property.  This massive government subsidy of sprawl in the form of drastically lower taxes is true in Buffalo as well. The result of this legal and economic attack on urbanism is designed to create a city full of parking lots and empty space.  As an example of this I looked at some of the properties from 783 to 701 Elmwood.  This is possibly the most prosperous stretch of Elmwood.  Its land use patterns range from very dense to outright sprawl with some properties containing nothing but parking. The drastic variation in tax rates and money collected from nearby and adjacent properties is shocking.
The first building I looked at was 758 Elmwood.  It is a beautiful 3-storey 1890s building with 20 apartments above a very nice row of shops at street level.  It fills the width of its site and about 1/2 the depth of its lot. It has no parking.  The remaining space at the rear appears to be a shady back yard.   It is a wonderful building that people in the neighborhood love.  It adds great character and vibrance to the street but,  as with other buildings of this type in Buffalo, it cannot be replicated by law. It is outlawed by the zoning code. It is also penalized by the tax code, paying substantially more in taxes than nearby sprawl based neighbors.
Urban-infill-Buffalo-NY-building.jpg
To make this building legal you will need to add space for 46 cars and as much as 10,000 square feet of open land.  That would almost double the current lot size.  Of course to do this you will need to tear down its productive and attractive densely built neighboring buildings.  I also looked at the M&T branch bank building which sits on the next property south.  It is a good example of what the zoning code loves.  It is only one story tall with only one use – banking.  It is set back from the street with a small dull plaza filled with useless little trees. It has a giant parking lot in the back.  Cars need to cross over the sidewalk to use the parking in two places creating a dangerous situation for pedestrians.
Bank-sprawl-Elmwood-Buffalo-NY-1.jpg
The building is not unattractive but it hardly adds much life to the street, especially after it closes at 5:00 pm. This site used to be mostly filled up with the amazing dark old Public School #30. The school was a gloriously hulking 4 stories from the 1890s.  Anyone who remembers that great old building knows what a major loss that was.  It was torn down,  just because.  It would have made a great apartment building today and it likely would have paid the city significantly more in taxes than the bank does. (of course old school 30 did not meet the code either). This is where the city’s sprawl, tax payer gift comes in.  As I noted, sprawl pays significantly less in taxes to the City of Buffalo than neighboring dense development.
For example:
701 Elmwood (the one story parking lot and bank) pays only about $0.51 per square foot of property.
715 Elmwood (the densely built mixed use apartment building) pays about $1.21 per square foot of property – almost three times the rate paid by the bank.
766 Elmwood (parking lot see more below) pays only about $0.09 per square foot of property – only $1,380 per year – the neighboring dense property pays almost $13,000
In raw dollar terms the dense apartment building is paying $6773 more in taxes than the bank.  But if you consider that the bank property, if built out to the level of the apartment building, could be paying as much as $37,000 or approximately $26,000 more than it currently pays.  So you can see that the people of Buffalo are forking over a substantial sum so that M&T bank can maintain a big convenient free parking lot.
Parking-Lot-Sprawl-Elmwood-Buffalo-NY-3.jpg
Then there is the partially gravel covered parking lot at 766 Elmwood which sits between Globe Market and the 7 Eleven store. The owners recently proposed a new high density building for the site – a proposed building which does not meet the zoning (for which they will need to ask for a variance).  In the meantime the owners have graciously allowed free parking on the land.  This parking lot pays only $1,380 in property taxes per year.  That works out to about only 9 cents a square foot!  The apartment building at 715 Elmwood pays more than 17 times more in taxes on a smaller property… that is more than 1700% more!  If built to the same potential as 715 Elmwood the parking lot should collect as much as $25,000 or probably more since a new building mostly likely would be taxed at a higher rate.
Just looking at these two sprawl style properties in Buffalo’s most prosperous neighborhood you can see how the City is potentially leaving as much as 62,000 in tax money on the table – in just 2 properties!  The so-called “free” parking provided on these properties does not look so free all of a sudden. With so much of Buffalo reduced to no value at all how can this tax discount be justified in the city neighborhood that is growing in value? What well run business discounts its hottest product like this?  With so much of the city reduced to basically $0 in value it is insane to discount the areas that are accelerating in value and then also make it illegal to do what it takes to make the land pay what it should be paying. This is just an incentive for divestment in Buffalo. This makes no sense. Buffalo has been buckling under to sprawl culture for more than 60 years now.  It has not worked.  Time to try urbanism again. Time to stop this sprawl handout.
Images are taken from Google Maps. Tax information was gathered from the City of Buffalo website.

About the author  ⁄ STEEL

Architect ( a real one, not just the armchair type), author of "Buffalo, Architecture in the American Forgotten Land" ( www.blurb.com ), lover of great spaces, hater of sprawl and waste, advocate for a better way of doing things.

152 comments
moonqueen
moonqueen

I actually scored very high in reading comprehension on my SATs. Your insinuation may not have been intentional, but it was still there, as it is in many articles and thread posts on this site. Much like Artvoice, BR tends to be a writing project for the upper-middle class (and those who desperately aspire to be there) about the upper-middle class (and those who desperately aspire to be there). Very little thought is put into how it depicts the city outside of the "hip" areas and there always seems an idea in the background that the rest of Buffalo can only be successful and desirable if it mirrors Elmwood Village. I can only think of one author on here who ever mentions Black Rock as a positive, and some of those articles still border on condescending (“we just need to get the artists and hip restaurants in here to force out the locals, because god knows they can’t make their ‘hood any better”) and general coverage of low-income areas is scant. My comment was in no way "off topic" - it was a direct comment ON the article, its tone and substance.

I think "vast tracts" is a tad of an overstatement. Sure, we have quite a few low income 'hoods with an empty lot here or a boarded house there, but there are only maybe two areas I can think of where close to 0 value has been achieved for blocks at a stretch. People here seem to suffer from one of two syndromes - assuming the city is way better than it is (more open-minded, sophisticated, cooperative amongst different groups, etc) or assuming it is way worse than it actually is (super widespread crime, extreme blight, etc). Both mindsets come from a "bubble" syndrome wherein people experience very little outside of their circle of work/friends/neighborhood. They can't see past their choices in lifestyle to accept other people may not want what they want or that their perceptions of certain places aren’t based on fact.

sonyactivision
sonyactivision

And if all municipalities taxed lots as heavily as they tax densely developed properties, what makes you think the owners would start building precious 6 story vernacular charmers with little cafes and yoga studios on the ground floor? Wouldn't they just charge more to park which would kill businesses in the area that rely on customers who drive in to their area?

Of course they could both build large parking ramps and charge more while leasing the ground level for yoga studios and cafes. Win win.

sonyactivision
sonyactivision

Who's angry about parking lots? We have cars. We have to park them. There are lots where we can do so. I'm not the least angry about any of that.

Up and coming
Up and coming

"The problems are not solved they are avoided through a constant consumption of land and resources."

Did you know that less than 10% of US land is developed?

STEEL
STEEL

You need to pull back and work on your reading comprehension. No where does it say anything about the EV being the only neighborhood with value. Nor does it say the rest of the city is valueless. Also, if you don't realize that vast tracts of the city HAVE been rendered valueless then you need to open your eyes to reality.

By the way. If you live in a densely built part of the city even a low income part you are likely paying a higher sf rate on your taxes than this parking lot does in one of Buffalo's wealthiest neighborhoods. That is what you should be angry about.

moonqueen
moonqueen

"With so much of Buffalo reduced to no value at all"

So, I really enjoyed the article until I got to this. I forgot that Elmwood Village is apparently the only part of the city where anything has value or anyone pays taxes. That money the bank takes from me in the form of a house payment every month (which includes my taxes) must really go into some elaborate pyramid scheme. We ALL know working class neighborhoods don't have any real estate transactions (my value-less house was just given to me right?) or pay any taxes. *rolls eyes*

EV isn't the center of the f-ing universe, yet again, Buffalo Rising. Other people here work and contribute to the pie. People often start out making good points about the city, but then just have to throw in something about how Allentown and EV are the only places that REALLY matter and the only people who REALLY do anything around here. A lot of people can't afford to buy in those areas and many just don't want to, but we still pay our due. In fact, I would guess that while someone like myself may not pay as much in taxes for my house/land as someone on, say, the eastern end of Cottage Street I am probably paying a higher portion of my income in comparison.

If you think the contributions of myself and my neighbors are so insignificant we would be happy to let you make our payments for awhile.

Up and coming
Up and coming

You saying that this isn't a city vs suburb argument is laughable. You remind me of learning about slavery in the 8th grade, when southern states said, "we're not for slavery but we're for states rights." It doesn't take a genius to read between the lines. Like you comment saying,

A similar income street in Buffalo compared to Clarance takes in much more taxes but requires drastically less infrastructure. The fact that Buffalo is also the place where the very poor are concentrated is the explanation for the large amounts...

ignoring the fact that you can avoid most crime in the city by avoiding certain parts of it. For instance if we moved the borders and gave the east side of Buffalo to Amherst. Buffalo's murder rate would drop...

.....or this comment in regards to people wanting to build new homes in Clarence.

That is great now they should pay the true cost of the excessive infrastructure needed to support their chosen lifestyle. That is all I ask.

Since they don't and don't want to then I think it is my right to criticize their choice and the destruction it does to the city, country side and out planet in general. Making a choice does not make it a good choice and does not entitle you to a reward from society.

See the thing is you don't have to be come out and say you're a racist to be a racist. You don't have to come out and say you're a homophobe to be a homophobe and you don't have to come out and say you hate the suburbs to be a suburb hater, because in your case everyone already knows you do.

STEEL
STEEL

What would be the purpose of comparing equal density blocks from city and suburb. The discussion is not about political boudaries. It is about how places are built. You guys love to turn everything into a city versus suburb. I really don't give a shit about political boundaries except in how they tend to be used to keep certain demographics in place.

I have already shown in several articals that sprawl costs more to run and takes in less tyaxes. If you want more be my guest and do the research.

EyeC
EyeC

I live in the city (have for over 10 years), but grew up in the suburbs. If you've lived in the city for 50 years, how do you substansiate your statement: "I have many friends and good neighbors here and we interact regulary, not usually true in most suburbs."? I've found very little difference in interaction with neighbors between the two (interaction was good in both city and burbs)

Up and coming
Up and coming

No honestly I'm really starting to feel bad for you, lol.

whatever
whatever

Perhaps we agree about airports - although I don't think a solution should be to ever use airport spending as an excuse to raise govt spending on any other transportation.

I'd favor raising the respective user fees enough to cover all federal spending on both Amtrak and airports. Why there's any federal spending on any transportation projects or operations seems dumb at this point. Maybe it made sense a long time ago, but now I don't see any reason why all of it shouldn't be funded only by state/local govts and the private sector.

Cato makes sense on this, toward the end here

http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-ce-06302010.html

(just before the conclusion section)

Of course, then federal taxes&fees on gasoline, airplane tickets, etc should also end if federal transportation spending does.

I doubt President Romney will even try for that much change, but who knows - maybe he'll surprise us.

Black Rock Lifer
Black Rock Lifer

Look, if you can't make a credible argument then don't say anything at all, it just makes you look foolish and petty.

whatever
whatever

steel>"governments are already complaining that they do not have the money available to rebuild bridges and roads and other infrastructure such as sewers and water."

When you say "governments" are complaining, it has to mean a politician or bureaucrat.

Governments as inanimate objects don't say anything.

It's very naive if anybody believes everything claimed by a politician or bureaucrat is true and accurate. They may be choosing to prioritize spending on other things like the Buffalo's mayor and Common Council often do instead of more street repairs - but that's very different from the money not being available. If he and they instead prefer to spend on things like city subsidies to Broadway Market, or a "heritage corridor", or $500K city public funds to the Livery project's wealthy owner Savarino, or countless patronage hires and so on ... those are decisions they're legally empowered to make.

Same for elected officials in towns, counties, states, federal.

Let's have a quick look at percents.

Total spending on highways/street infrastructure work (all kinds combined: the sprawled kind you hate, the non-sprawled kind you like, and all fuzzy kinds in between those extremes) is a small portion of public spending at all levels - federal, state, and local.

Mathematically, it isn't busting budgets even in it's entirety - never mind the portion of it you oppose.

For federal, the pie chart near top of the following link says all transportation infrastructure spending (including for public transit, as well as highways, airports, etc) is 3% of the budget.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1258

That also says interest on the debt is 6%, so that's double all transportation costs.

In the NY state budget

http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/New_York_state_budget

transportation spending is 10% ($12B out of $117B), and much of that $12B spending happens in mostly-non-sprawled NY City.

In all local budgets within NYS (same link, the table below the state table), transportation is a similar total portion, $20B out of $181B, or around 11%.

Again, that amount is for all transportation-related spending and also includes what you'd call the good kinds of it - public transit, urban/dense streets, etc.

Spending on what you consider bad sprawly kinds of transportation items is a relatively small fraction of a fraction. That doesn't mean you don't have a right to criticize it - of course you do. However it just looks very lame to say it's a 'budget buster' as you did above or bankrupting us as others have said sometimes.

If you want to reference any link to any particular government who you interpret as saying what you say it said, then we can all look at it's most recent budget online and see the numbers & percents.

Up and coming
Up and coming

I want to see a break down. Look over the budgets for each municipality, add up the tax revenue, then subtract the tax revenue from the over cost of maintaining and building roads etc and then let us know what figures you come up with and how the tons pay for infrastructure. Also, I'd like to see a direct dollar amount of city funds that are spend subsidizing suburban development. The city gets millions of dollars from the state for renovating schools, school budgets, metro rail, bus service, social service programs, police, etc. On top of that i'd like to see what an equal density suburb block pays in taxes compared to an equal density city block. Because we all know that Kenmore Tonawanda Cheektowaga Hamburg etc all have areas that are equally as dense, or more dense that vast swaths of the east and west sides. Also, Buffalo has 30,000 abandoned properties that we're built in dense/vibrant fashion, but now they look like the wild wild west. So explain to me why they became this way if the build environment is such to keep this from happening. If you can directly answer some of these questions maybe people on here will take you seriously.

STEEL
STEEL

You have seen them if you have been reading - I do know that many comment on my stuff without reading but if you go back they are still there

300miles
300miles

And...So...? It's still happening regardless of the reasons. And unless the trends suddenly turn around the results are still real results. Your logic would be like saying Buffalo's population decline isn't real because it's only based on the fact that other cities have lower taxes and better services.

Up and coming
Up and coming

Obviously if you knew anything about property tax you'd know that the 2k difference has little to nothing to do with your driveway, or lack there of. Also, nobody forced you to redo your driveway so you can toss out that 3k. So in the end you were set back 1300 dollars over 18 years. Factor that out over 18 years and thats less than 100 dollars a year. Im so sorry your life was consumed by the anxiety of spending less than 100 dollars a year.

bung
bung

Oh ya, plus the $36,000 extra in taxes I paid the eighteen years I had that house + $3000 to pave the driveway + $700 to seal it over the years + $600 for the snowblower = $40,300 + anything I had missed. Sounds like a lot of work to me.

Up and coming
Up and coming

I know right? That snow blowing you do, 10 maybe 15 times a year and the drive way sealing you do once a year really consumes people's lives, damn car's.

Up and coming
Up and coming

I's be sorry boss. I dont be speakin that a great a English they're. I was meanin to say hi, but I's be fast like a june bug typin on this their mochine here, an I a mispoke. I's wont be dooin it again.

bung
bung

I have never had a problem parking in the EV. I live seven blocks from that parking lot. I have never parked in that lot it looks like a pain in the ass to get in or out of.

My current house has no driveway and I have no problem parking. My previous house had a driveway a smaller house assessed within 10k of my current one. I paid $2000 more in taxes per year over 100% more in taxes. One can say just have a driveway. Plus the price of maintenance paving, sealing, and having a snow blower to clear it. So I guess you can say there is no such thing as free parking.

It amazes me how people’s lives are totally consumed by their car or cars.

LouisTully
LouisTully

Yeah, because "cup" was your only error. I'll avoid breaking it down Barney style for you.

Up and coming
Up and coming

"friendly streets"

Do the streets say high and pour your a nice cut of lemonade on a hot day?

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkMp
https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkMp

Each new neighborhood is subsidized by the last one. If not there would be Clarences and Amhersts all by themselves without a core to have fed off of. There is a reason there are not isolated cities of no poverty and only with wealth and low taxes. There is a reason they develop outward attached to each other.

It's all fine to move out farther across an invisible municipal boundary and under a different name but it does not change the fact that it is all Buffalo. It is all interconnected and none of it would have developed or functioned on its own. The old part still needs to be paid for as does the new. The same population has 3x more infrastructure to pay for, maintain and at times demolish. We can blindly point fingers at the place 2 miles away we left or we can work together to fix things.

Let the city make itself a place for those who live there. The critical mass will bring in the rest as it always does. If it is a worthy place to live, it is a worthy place to be and the time to get into or out of it is not longer the main concern.

brownteeth
brownteeth

Once again, this is a city. First come first serve. Most days I can park directly in front of my house, some days not. No big deal. My 85 year old neighbor seems to be ok with this too.

There are certain things you deal with when you CHOOSE to live in a dense urban neighborhood. Parking is one of them. I don't even complain about Chip Strip patrons parking on my street as long as they are respectful of the neighborhood, ie dont be loud at 2am or leave trash around.

It's not like the city and my particular 140 year old neighborhood suddenly got dense overnight. To me being concerned about where cars will fit into the mix if infill and development continue is irrational and baseless. Its like when NYS banned smoking in bars and restaurants and everyone thought it would kill all those businesses. Well we all know that only a few suffered but most survived just fine.

I think we should stop putting the cart before the horse and deal with the parking issue if/when it actually becomes one. We should have more faith in ourselves that we will effectively adapt, just like when smoking was banned.

Up and coming
Up and coming

You're so dillusional, I'm really almost starting to feel bad for you.

Up and coming
Up and coming

Unless you compare that data over a wide range and find that the top 15 US cites all saw a decline in growth, or negative growth.....just sayin.

TheNextMayor
TheNextMayor

Great article.

Buffalo would be a perfect laboratory for Land Value Tax.

sobuffbillsfan
sobuffbillsfan

More friends, like on facebook? J/K

I would be interested to see the break down here of activities. How many are tied to raising kids, may skew the numbers a bit. But I don't dispute that there are happy, engaged, and active people in the suburbs. Thanks for digging this up, its not a comprehensive book, but still an interesting study.

I'm curious as to how he broke out the density though. Not all suburbs are sprawl, many on here including myself at times use the 2 interchangeable. The Village of Hamburg has 10k + people in 2 square miles. That is more dense than some of the "big cities" in the US. However once you break over the Village line the town tends to sprawl. Are the people in the Village of Hamburg less social than the town of Hamburg?

Black Rock Lifer
Black Rock Lifer

Yes, because we all know the real estate industry has no bias, they are only looking out for what's best for American families. We should all listen to their expert advice, after all they have no other motives other than doing the right thing for homebuyers, right?

On "crime", never had a problem in over 50 years, on "clean streets" my block is always clean, we take care of it ourselves, on "closely knit" city neighborhoods are by far more personal and connected, I have many friends and good neighbors here and we interact regulary, not usually true in most suburbs. On "quality of homes", the city offers the very best, no comparison to the cheaply built tract housing and developements that make up the majority of the suburbs. On "budget" you must be kidding, city homes offer much more for your dollar, especially here in Buffalo. As for yards, I like many of my neighbors have a beautiful garden area, city yards tend to be smaller but of better quality, most suburban yards are underutilized and sparsely landscaped. Finally on stress, many suburbs are congested with heavy traffic, air pollution can be higher than in the city. The high taxes, longer commutes, and lack of community all contribute to stress, many suburbanites are frazzled in their constant struggle to maintain their lifestyle.

STEEL
STEEL

This is all pretty much subjective marketing from a developer and pretty much off topic. This story has nothing to do with the suburbs it has to do with sprawl and sprawl based tax policy. Lets try to keep on topic from here on.

LouisTully
LouisTully

That's it! My choi s e is the suburbs! I'm selling my house right..... NOW!

Black Rock Lifer
Black Rock Lifer

The article was speculating, nothing more than an opinion. Loss of population in 2 of 15 cities and growth rates of 2% to 16% in the other 13 is hardly a negative trend unless you are a pessimist.

Up and coming
Up and coming

I just pulled this off a leading out of state real estate website. It clearly shows why the suburbs are a better choise for most families.

Are Suburban homes safer? Living in Suburban communities are generally considered to be safer than cities. In fact the crime rates are lower, the streets are cleaner, communities are more closely knit, petty crimes and violent crimes are harder to commit in such quiet communities. Choosing for a safer environment for your family, living in the suburbs could be one of the best options for you. Chandler properties are situated in one of the safest places in the country.

Quality homes – If you compared it with homes in the city, taking your budget in the suburbs can get you a nicer, better home. You can also get a bigger yard if you want to, where you can to do some gardening or where children will have more space to run around and play in. In other words, you get more value for your money with suburban homes.

Better Environment – Since suburban homes are nicer, the environment is safer, quieter, and less populous than city environments, and there’s more room for recreational activities with the family, people who live in suburban communities tend to be less stressed out because they can come home to a better environment.

Up and coming
Up and coming

Let me break it down to you Barney style. The article was showing how the growth in the top 15 US cities is slowing dramatically, or declining. And how the urban renewal experienced in the 90's was a passing fad.

STEEL
STEEL

That is an odd thing to say when governments are already complaining that they do not have the money available to rebuild bridges and roads and other infrastructure such as sewers and water. I have posted articles showing that the transit tax is less than roads cost. I have shown that metro buffalo has tripled its infrastructure while decreasing its population. Since 1978 Buffalo's GDP has decreased relative to inflation yet local government taxation has increased in order to par for the massive expansion of roads and other infrastructure. I would like to see your stats showing that sprawl is not so impactfull on locay government resources.

Up and coming
Up and coming

You can try this....

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/12/the_sociable_su.html

Interesting paragraph:

Brueckner and his co-author, Ann Largey, took data from a survey of 15,000 Americans and ... showed that, other things being equal, suburban residents have more friends and confidants, invite friends into their homes more often and have greater involvement in community groups. People who live in less-densely populated areas, Brueckner says, are more likely to join a hobby-oriented club, attend club meetings and belong to a non-church-related group.

STEEL
STEEL

How is it irrelevant?

Black Rock Lifer
Black Rock Lifer

Only 2 of the 15 cities lost population (Detroit and Chicago), the other 13 had growth rates of between 2% and 16%. I don't see how that is bad news.

LouisTully
LouisTully

That's a pretty stupid article. They're basing the growth of US cities on high unemployment causing young people to not be able to afford to buy homes in the suburbs.

Black Rock Lifer
Black Rock Lifer

If ticket fees, etc. did indeed cover ALL costs to operate an airport and the cost to actually fly I would agree there is no subsidy. I think it is safe to say that is not the case, the costs to fly are certainly subsidized by the taxpayers. There are airports, security, air traffic controllers, etc. that are all payed with taxpayer dollars.

Of course if ticket prices reflected all those ancillary costs I would not include the other generous subsidies the wealthy take advantage of in that equation.

Up and coming
Up and coming

This is a better read....

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/census/2011-04-07-1Acities07_ST_N.htm

These couple of "factoids" really stuck out too.

Fourteen of the 15 most populous cities in 2000 lost population or grew more slowly by 2010. Philadelphia was the lone exception, reversing a decline in the 1990s. Cities that lost in the 2000s included Chicago, Baltimore and Detroit.

A key factor: blacks leaving for the suburbs and more immigrants settling directly there instead of cities when they arrive in the USA.

Immigrants are naturally going to suburban areas. That's where the housing is, where the jobs are."

Also, many Sun Belt metropolitan areas such as Charlotte, Nashville and Orlando, which saw an influx of immigrants in the past 20 years, are largely suburban regions.

The urban revival of the 1990s may not return, Lang says.

"That could've been it," he says. "It might have been as good as it gets."

Black Rock Lifer
Black Rock Lifer

I was refering to children, it is a fact that children are more likely to be killed or maimed in rural areas or outer ring suburbs than in the city. Your stat's are lumping all driver miles into one, this would include city driving and interstate driving, both are much safer and drive down the deaths per hundred thousand miles.

Also as I stated violence is the city is almost always targeted, especially murder, it is rare for an innocent bystander to be killed. The chance of being murdered in the city if you are not a thug or criminal is miniscule, almost nonexistent. Car accidents are a real threat to all, cars do not discriminate, victims are innocent and cannot avoid the threat.

batmankh
batmankh

Sorry you've devoted so much time to this now irrelevant series of yours. It's fun to pound the keys with anger, so pick a new cause and keep pushing for change.

No_Illusions
No_Illusions

...Park where everyone else in the suburbs park, on the side streets and then walk. No one ever seems to complain that they have to walk 2 miles for a Sabres game.

Even if every place had a parking lot there would still lack the parking on Elmwood on a Friday or a Saturday; where you already could spend 20 minutes just finding parking on a side street.

Maybe a parking garage behind these buildings is needed, but surface parking adds neither the necessary spaces Elmwood needs, and it detracts from the atmosphere of the neighborhood.

© 2014 Hyperlocal Media. All Rights Reserved.