AV’s City Hall correspondent Ellen Przepasniak sends this report on yesterday’s Common Council meeting:

Lawmakers are taking another step to revitalize Buffalo’s economy this week as the Office of Strategic Planning organizes a grant application through Restore NY, a state program that provides money for revitalization of commercial and residential properties. This grant money is one more part of a decades-long housing revitalization effort. Brian Reilly, commissioner for the Department of Economic Development, Permit and Inspection Services, admits this money isn’t enough to fix the city’s housing problems, but it’ll make a dent.

A discussion was held at Tuesday’s Common Council meeting as part of a public forum time required by the grant application, prompted by a resolution from Niagara Councilmember David Rivera. The city will be requesting $20 million, split evenly for commercial and residential development, and Reilly anticipates receiving at least $1 million. “No project is getting everything they’re asking for,” Reilly says.

The grant cannot be used toward any new construction, just for demolition and rehabilitation. However, many city residents are concerned that it focuses too much on the former instead of the latter.

Terrence Robinson, a resident of East Buffalo is anxious about the demolition of historic homes. He saw Monday’s Dyngus Day celebration in the Broadway-Fillmore district as “an infusion of life into that community” that was a positive step toward attracting residents into the neighborhood. “I’m concerned about the historical, cultural, and social fabric,” he says. “Once it’s demolished, there is no chance to recall it.”

Aaron Bartley, executive director of PUSH Buffalo, a West Side housing development organization, encourages other community development organizations and neighborhood leaders to get behind the proposal. Bartley has seen real changes in his community because of past years’ Restore NY grant money and he believes this funding is a chance to tackle “a monumental problem that few cities have faced.”

The key to receiving more money from the state is all in the marketing, according to Reilly. He says the city hasn’t obtained a bigger slice of the pie in past years because the grant application has been unfocused. Buffalo is competing with the rest of the state for funding and needs to fight for its allotment. The state is looking for feasibility and readiness—essentially projects that are packaged and ready to go.

Sam Magavern, a University at Buffalo law professor and co-director of the Partnership for Public Good (PPG), is concerned the city isn’t including enough in its grant application. He is pushing for lawmakers to consider adding block-by-block and green initiatives. The city does not currently have green criteria for demolition or rehabilitation, but Magavern says it should push for salvaging or recycling materials. Chicago requires 50 percent of all construction and demolition debris to be recycled. As a trial, Magavern suggests lawmakers could write recycling materials into the contract for 50 houses they demolish.

He also believes that including block-by-block planning—like how PUSH focuses on a five-block radius—would make the application stronger. Planners must step back and look at the whole process from demolition to the green space that will be left afterward. “Each block is so different, that’s why you need it,” says Magavern. “You can’t just look at the structure, you have to look at the spaces too.”

The old Kentucky Fried Chicken at 448 Elmwood Avenue is among those commercial properties on the grant list. The money would be used to aid in the demolition of the building after which construction for the planned multi-use building can begin. Abandoned libraries like Fairfield and North Park have also made the list and qualify under the grant because the buildings  are currently vacant.

Reilly reminds residents that demolition plans for any building is not absolute; if someone wants to purchase and rehabilitate property, they’re always open to compromise. For this grant, the Office of Strategic Planning is working under the umbrella of the Queen City Hub comprehensive plan, which was adopted in 2004 and lays out a sustainable development strategy for the city. “We want to learn from our experience of failure in Buffalo,” he says.

The city-owned lot at 260 Chandler Street in Black Rock, across the street from the First Amendment Club.

Speaking of the First Amendment Club, they received a notice of violation from the Department of Permit and Inspection Services dated October 2, informing them they are “in violation of Section 264-4a of the City of Buffalo Charter and Ordinances for failure to register the aforementioned property or properties as required by the Rental Registration legislation.” Failure to comply within five days would “result in an inspection and/or court action and a possible order to vacate all dwelling units involved.”

The First Amendment Club holds its meetings at a former bar on Bridgeman Street that sits right across the street from 260 Chandler, the former site of Buffalo Belting and Weaving, Inc., which was destroyed by arson in 2003. According to a press release at the time, Buffalo Belting and Weaving “manufactured on behalf of and sold products to the United States Department of Defense.” Notably, they manufactured the strong bands that are used on aircraft carriers to stop landing planes using a tail hook.

That vacant property is owned by the City of Buffalo, and the fields that stand in the footprint of the former factory have grown to a height of six feet. The field is a textbook example of the kind of thing South District Councilmember Mickey Kearns was referring to at yesterday’s meeting of the Common Council’s Legislation Committee—that lots of city-owned properties are untended even as more and more residents are being issued “quality of life” tickets for having tall grass.

Of course, the Environmental Protection Agency spent over $2.6 million cleaning up the site after the fire, due to “various chemicals and other substances that were in the building” when it burned. So, it should be safe to run a lawn mower over. Right?

Last week I called Sam Fanara, director of the Rental Registry, to see if he could tell me why the First Amendment Club was being targeted. The mailbox was full, so I couldn’t leave a message.
A spokesperson for the First Amendment Club tells me that there are no rental properties on the site.
This afternoon, I called again and spoke with Fanara. He told me he couldn’t speak to the press and referred me to Brian Reilly, commissioner of Inspections, Permits and Economic Development. The person who answered the phone put me through to the answering machine of his secretary, Bernadette Taylor. I didn’t feel like leaving a message, so I called back and was put through to Melanie Gregg, marketing manager under Reilly, who answers inquiries from the press.

Gregg told me that the First Amendment Club would first have to pay a series of fines for the past few years before they could apply to have the address re-zoned to indicate that it is not being used as a rental property but as a club. That procedure would also require a fee.

Since these quality of life tickets are a hot topic these days, I asked her what the difference was between a residence with 10-inch-high grass and the huge lot at 260 Chandler which is owned by the city and clearly hasn’t been maintained in years. Trees have sprouted there. Would the city have to pay a fine to the Department of Permit and Inspection Services for contributing to neighborhood blight?

Gregg told me she would contact the Mayor’s Impact Team and have someone look into it by the end of the week. “If we don’t know about it,” she began, “if nobody’s telling us the grass is getting long—”

I interjected, asking if it was the city’s responsibility to know which properties it owns, or if they just waited for people to call and complain. “I don’t wait for people to call me and tell me,” she concluded.

But since her office was trying to get money out of homeowners for the very violations the city itself is guilty of, I asked her if this was a double standard. “I really don’t have an answer for that,” Gregg said. “At the end of the day, I don’t have the authority to answer that question.”

To which I offered that, at the end of the day, there’s no good answer to that question. She agreed.