Thursday, July 25, 2013

Detroit has much in common with what is happening here

 


One thing that struck me from Detroit’s bankruptcy filing was emergency manager Kevyn Orr’s statement, “I wish there had been a lot more outrage over the past 10, 20 years.” As someone who lived in the Detroit area nearly 20 years ago, I know what he means. That city’s similarities to Buffalo are eerie. With the high rates of poverty and unemployment, failing schools, high crime rates, declining population, unfunded legacy costs and visionless leadership, the people of Buffalo need to start waking up to the problems before it is too late and we see another great American city file for bankruptcy. Let the outrage begin!
Tim Godzich
Buffalo

Saturday, March 31, 2012

Why Stockton, California is a sister city to Buffalo, NY

Read the below opinion piece in the WSJ and tell us that Buffalo won't be following Stockton, CA. Buffalo's unfunded healthcare liability is 6 times larger than Stockton's.  Also get ready for riots in Detroit over the next couple of weeks when they face the not so pleasant music of Chapter 9.
Unfortunately, President Obama nor a President Romney will be able to fix this situation. Our bleak situation is caused by:
  • Our weak local politicians lacking any sort of vision or conviction on how to fix the situation.  We need to take some stiff medicine and no one wants to talk about it.
  • Public service unions lacking any concern for the future and thinking their benefits and entitlements should come to them at all costs no matter how limited the available/future funds are.
  • A passive electorate that is more concerned over Mario Williams and Ryan Miller than holding public servants accountable to start making cuts and show us a plan as to how we are not on a path to Chapter 9.
Unfortunately we may need to go to Chapter 9 to wake everyone up and start making some meaningful changes. Stockton and Detroit here we come!

How Stockton, California Went Broke in Plain Sight The new era of local government: Taxpayers can expect to pay more but get less.

By STEVEN MALANGA

What does it look like when a city of almost 300,000 flirts with becoming America's largest ever city to go bankrupt? Welcome to Stockton, Calif.

An inland seaport in California's Central Valley, Stockton exemplifies the fiscal hole that many municipalities have dug for their taxpayers. Starting in the mid-1990s, the city began attracting frenzied bargain hunters who drove up home prices nearly threefold. Then the California home market crashed spectacularly in 2007. Foreclosures soared, tax revenues declined, and Stockton discovered that the weight of its fiscal commitments might spell bankruptcy.

The city's fiscal history "has eerie similarities to a Ponzi scheme," says Bob Deis, the city manager Stockton hired in 2010. Over the years, the city promised employees huge-and unfunded-salaries and benefits, so when trouble struck officials began cutting back on services such as police and fire protection, plus libraries and parks.

Stockton's current leadership, which has already suspended some payments to bondholders and is negotiating with creditors and unions, is frank about its past shortcomings. In last year's budget, Stockton admitted that its biggest problem has been a lack of transparency resulting in a host of "hidden costs" in labor agreements for "obligations that are often difficult for citizens to identify or understand."

The city recognizes more than 100 different categories of "additional pay"
that employees can earn to boost their salaries but that still make basic compensation packages appear reasonable to the outsider. A fire captain earning an annual base salary of $101,000, for example, can easily increase that by $35,000 thanks to additional pay for everything from automatic annual stipends for uniforms (regardless of need) to more schooling.

Stockton safety employees with 30 years of service receive 90% of their highest working salary as a pension, with cost-of-living adjustments up to 2% annually for the rest of their lives. And while the state requires workers to contribute between 7% and 9% of their salary toward pensions, Stockton agreed in a series of agreements with various municipal unions going back to the 1990s to pay the worker portion of the contribution along with its 20% employer share.

Stockton couldn't afford this rich program even in boom times, so officials played risky investment games. In 2007, the city borrowed $125 million and put the money into Calpers, the giant California pension fund, betting that investment managers could earn more than the interest Stockton owed on the debt. When the market tanked, Calpers lost 24%-30% of the loan's principal, according to city budget documents.

Now Stockton is stuck with interest costs on top of pension obligations that pile an additional 48% onto basic employee pay. Thus a public safety worker earning $70,000 annually costs the city another $33,000 in interest and pension-borrowing costs.

Perched precariously atop this mountain of obligations are retiree health benefits. Stockton officials awarded these to city employees in a series of votes in the 1990s but made no effort to fund them, intending simply to pay costs out of their budget as workers retired. As hundreds did just that over the years, the costs grew. Next year, the city's fiscal documents project, retiree health costs will surpass those of the city's regular work force. At last count the city's unfunded liabilities for retiree health care are above
$400 million.
Related Video

Manhattan Institute fellow Steve Malanga on Stockton's fiscal crisis.

Stockton Mayor Ann Johnston voted for these expensive measures when she served on the city council. "We didn't have projections into the future what the costs might be," she told the Record, a Stockton newspaper, earlier this month. She added, "I learned that you don't make decisions without looking into the future."

Council votes to approve ever-greater benefits were often unanimous, according to Record columnist Michael Fitzgerald. "Nobody gave thought to how it was eventually going to be paid for," says Mr. Deis, the city manager.

The future is bleak, as the city has only $165 million in its general budget to provide police, fire and other basic services to 292,000 citizens. The police force has shrunk by about 100 officers, or about 25%, in the last two years. Residents report long wait-times after making 911 calls, and police only respond to emergencies.

"Let's say you come home and find your house burglarized," Stockton public information officer Pete Smith said recently. "The front door is open but the house is safe. There's a good chance that you won't get a uniform officer" to come investigate. Stockton's unions have seized on residents'
fears: "Welcome to the second most dangerous city in California," blared billboards posted around town by the police union.

Stockton is the first city required by a new, union-backed state law to try to avoid bankruptcy by entering into mediation with creditors and employees.
The law dictates that only the results of these negotiations-not their proceedings-be made public, forcing Mr. Deis and other officials into a quiet period that may last several months. This is a final indignity for a city trying to turn itself around with "transparency."

The big question is whether Stockton is only the tip of an iceberg. The 50 states alone have promised their employees retirement health-care benefits amounting to a $627 billion future liability-and funded only 4% of that cost, according to a recent accounting by Bloomberg Data. Unfunded state and municipal pension liabilities range up to $4 trillion, depending on what future investment assumptions you make.

Most local governments may never reach insolvency, but the rising costs of these benefits already crowd out other spending, including on police and fire protection. Thanks to unaffordable promises made by politicians who never bothered to total up the costs, we're in a new era of local government in America: Taxpayers can expect to pay more but get less.

Mr. Malanga is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

A version of this article appeared Mar. 31, 2012, on page A11 in some U.S.
editions of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: How Stockton, California Went Broke in Plain Sight.

Get Real Buffalo - View Point ECIDA: More of same old, same old

BELOW ARTICLE TAKEN FROM BUSINESS FIRST

Viewpoint

ECIDA: More of same old, same old

Premium content from Business First by Tim Godzich

Date: Friday, March 9, 2012, 6:00am EST
Just yesterday, I was told that Mayor Byron Brown was going to visit the Electric Building, where my latest start-up adventure is incubating. I was asked to meet the mayor, and I said that would be fine.
Well, then come the CitiStat cameras alongside his entourage. When I told them that I did not want to be videotaped, he basically just blew me off, seeing that I wasn’t able to provide propaganda for his visionless leadership.
It gets better: The building owner came back later and said that he would really like me to meet the mayor. So, trying to be polite, I met the mayor, and I told him my background and my job-creating entrepreneur endeavors.
The only thing he had to say after giving me a flimsy business card was that “if you have 600 to 1,000 jobs, I really would like you to think about Buffalo and I will help in finding you the space you need.”
Has this guy ever created a private-sector job in his life?
NO.
Has Sam Hoyt, the latest political hack to take over regional economic development?
NO.
Has John LaFalce?
NO.

The list can go on and on and on …

When asked how it feels to be back in Buffalo, I say it is like Groundhog Day. Bringing back re-treads into positions that they have no clue about proves my point.
My new theory is to take the George Costanza approach to Buffalo. Remember the “Seinfeld” episode when George did the exact opposite and suddenly found a job and girlfriend?
Doing the exact opposite to what the political leaders have been doing to Buffalo over the last 50 years will bode well in righting the USS Buffalo before it sails down the Niagara River and crashes over the falls.
Tim Godzich, a Buffalo native and graduate of the University at Buffalo, is co-founder and president of QBHealth. He also was co-founder and CEO of Liazon Corp.; co-founder and an executive in Minneapolis for Definity Health; and manager in Detroit and Chicago for Deloitte Consulting. Contact him at tim.godzich@qbhealth.com.

Tuesday, January 17, 2012

Get Real Buffalo: Kodak Didn't Kill Rochester. It Was the Other Way ...

Get Real Buffalo: Kodak Didn't Kill Rochester. It Was the Other Way ...: Another great read from the Wall St. Journal. Substitute Rochester for Buffalo and Kodak with ????? that's the problem is there are no big ...

Kodak Didn't Kill Rochester. It Was the Other Way Around

Another great read from the Wall St. Journal.  Substitute Rochester for Buffalo and Kodak with ????? that's the problem is there are no big companies left in Buffalo...

Kodak Didn't Kill Rochester. It Was the Other Way Around

The film pioneer invented the digital camera but couldn't escape the intellectual limitations of geography.

The population of Rochester, N.Y., peaked in 1950 at 330,000. Its largest headquartered company, then and now, was Eastman Kodak. Two years later a popular radio show called "The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet" jumped to the new medium of television. Kodak sensed a winner and sponsored the show. Little Ricky Nelson liked to tote around a Kodak Brownie Camera, which sold for $5.95.
Kodak's successful run outlasted that of "Ozzie and Harriet," which went off the air in 1966, and that of its hometown. Rochester began to shed population rapidly after a race riot in 1964, and five years later its second largest company, the Haloid Corporation, decamped for Norwalk, Conn., later renaming itself Xerox. But Kodak, with its large flows of cash and a top global brand, thrived in the 1960s and 1970s.
Then, gradually, the company began to lose its way. Kodak's troubles first appeared not in stalled revenue but in gradually declining profit margins—a point a year for most of the 1980s. The company's first consumer digital camera appeared in 1995, but buyers preferred Sony, Canon and other Japanese imports. Kodak began selling its digital cameras at a loss to keep up.
The rout was humbling for Kodak, one of whose engineers invented the digital camera in 1975. Also humbled was CEO George Fisher. Mr. Fisher—an extremely successful manager and Ph.D. in applied mathematics who had pushed Motorola hard into cellphones before taking over at that company—became chief at Kodak in 1993. Yet even he could not stop the company's decline.
Kodak's erosion became a mudslide during the last few years. Buy a smart phone today, get a camera free. Sure, the iPhone's camera might not rival Nikon's—yet. But the history of digital technology is one of the bottom steadily catching the top.
Bloomberg
The headquarters of Eastman Kodak Co. in Rochester, N.Y.
If Kodak's looming bankruptcy closes the book on this storied company, much will be written about the company's blindness to digital cameras and then smart phones. Rubbish! Kodak knew the future was digital as far back as the 1970s and, with Mr. Fisher at the top, began hiring managers with deep digital knowledge.
Kodak's problem wasn't blindness. Rather it was that film was a fatally attractive cash cow. Even in its decline, the company's film business produced outrageous profit. That cash paid for Kodak's forays into digital, but the result was that Kodak's digital cameras never learned to run on their own two feet. Trust-fund babies seldom do.
Kodak's other structural problem is geography. When you study the history of great American companies that stumbled and failed, or only partially recovered, you see how difficult it is to overcome the mindset of your immediate surroundings. Businesses located in places where success is the norm, and innovation is built into the ecology, have a better chance of fixing themselves.
Intel almost bit the dust in the mid-1980s but came back to greater glory. Like Kodak, it faced ruinous Japanese competition. Intel didn't hesitate. It shed its memory-chip business and bet the ranch on microprocessors. That was a big bet and it was ruthless. Memory-chip factories were shuttered and people were laid off. That was, and is, easier to do in Silicon Valley, where the laid-off can more readily find new jobs, than in a small city like Rochester, whose population is now at 210,000 plus.
Paralysis can infect cities and regions, and not just small ones. It is still a mystery how the entire Boston-area-based minicomputer industry could fail so suddenly in the early 1990s. Digital Equipment, Data General, Wang, Apollo—all went poof. Each fell from the top of their industries to death in less than a decade.
The two kings of Route 128—Digital's founder Ken Olsen and Wang's founder An Wang—were stubbornly resistant to personal computers. Together, they cast a kind of omerta over the region: PCs must never be mentioned!
John Chambers, CEO and chairman of Cisco, cut his management teeth at Wang. Mr. Chambers tells a story about playing tennis with An Wang in the late 1980s. He tried to talk to Wang about PCs. Wang became so upset that he stormed out of the match.
IBM also nearly died during the early 1990s. But unlike the companies in Boston, it retooled and recovered. Why? I would argue that IBM, being a New York City company—okay, a suburban one—had a healthy disrespect for the status quo and zero tolerance for omerta. Tough-talking Lou Gerstner had no qualms about shedding a couple hundred thousand jobs.
What Mr. Gerstner did was difficult. It would have been infinitely harder to do in Rochester, because the impact on a small city and the multiplier effect of lost jobs, axed all at once, would have been a civic disaster. Of course, Kodak's slow bleed has turned out to be a civic disaster anyway.
The world might be flat. But innovation and adaptation remain local

Monday, January 16, 2012

Get Real Buffalo: A City Is a Startup: The Rise of the Mayor-Entrepr...

Get Real Buffalo: A City Is a Startup: The Rise of the Mayor-Entrepr...: We need an entreprenuer for our next mayor... unfortunately this requires competencies that our current mayor nor past mayors have never had...

A City Is a Startup: The Rise of the Mayor-Entreprenuer

We need an entreprenuer for our next mayor... unfortunately this requires competencies that our current mayor nor past mayors have never had....Some one who has vision, leadership, creativity, passion and is willing to create value by bringing together the three main components of a start up...capital, ideas and talent to drive growth.

A City Is A Startup: The Rise Of The Mayor-Entrepreneur

 
Editor’s note: This post is authored by guest contributor Jon Bischke. Jon is a founder of RG Labs and is an advisor to several startups. You can follow Jon on Twitter here.
On stage at last month’s Le Web conference Shervin Pishevar, a Managing Director at Menlo Ventures, stated “The World is a Startup.” It’s an interesting perspective, and I think what’s true for the world is also true for countries, states and municipalities. With developments like last month’s announcement that Cornell was selected to build a new tech campus in New York City, it seems to follow that if “a city is a startup,” then the best mayors are the ones who are looking at their cities in much the same way as entrepreneurs look at the companies they have founded.
The ingredients for a successful startup and a successful city are remarkably similar. You need to build stuff that people want. You need to attract quality talent. You have to have enough capital to get your fledgling ideas to a point of sustainability. And you need to create a world-class culture that not only attracts the best possible people, but encourages them to stick around even when things aren’t going so great.
Paul Graham has written extensively on this topic in essays like How to Be Silicon Valley and Why Startups Condense in America. Much of his thinking no doubt played into the decision to base Y Combinator entirely in Silicon Valley. Boston’s loss was the Bay Area’s gain and a striking example of why it’s important for mayors to view their cities through an entrepreneurial lens. Paul viewed Y Combinator through that lens and it led him to believe that Silicon Valley simply had more of the ingredients that would make his companies successful than Boston did.
So let’s take a look at those ingredients. Making products and services people want to buy has to be at the top of the list of any forward-thinking mayor. Extensive research by the Kauffman Foundation shows that virtually all job creation comes from companies less than five years old. So if you’re running a city and want to increase the number of jobs in your city, you should be doing whatever you can to encourage more viable startups. It’s something that Ed Lee, San Francisco’s newly-inaugurated mayor seems to understand, telling TechCrunch back in November “I want them [tech companies] to start here in San Francisco, and I want them to stay and to grow.”
Talent is another important factor and lies at the heart of Bloomberg’s efforts in New York City. Creating a world-class engineering campus in New York can be thought of as the municipal equivalent to Facebook’s acquisition of FriendFeed or Gowalla. By having more talented people in the city, New York is better able to compete with other cities in the same way that Facebook better competes with rivals by having more talented engineers under its roof. (What’s more, Facebook recently announced that it will open an NYC engineering office in 2012.)
Of course, getting top engineers and designers to actually work for a city might prove challenging (with a notable exception to be seen in the success of the Code for America program), but mayors can have a significant impact on helping a city to attract the best and brightest.
I recently spoke with Daniel Huttenlocher, the dean of the Faculty of Computing and Information Science (CIS) at Cornell University, who played an integral role in Cornell’s bid for the Roosevelt Island campus (read more about this effort in Eric Eldon’s interview with Huttenlocher).
His observation that Bloomberg’s history as both a technologist and an entrepreneur helped him and others in his office to better understand the need for New York to increasingly be a hub for the best technologists on the planet. Bloomberg is to New York City as John Calipari is to Kentucky basketball, intuitively adhering to Vinod Khosla’s notion that CEOs should be spending a very high percentage of their time recruiting.
Capital is another necessity for a city’s success. In some cases this might mean mayors actively courting angel investors and venture capitalists. The success of the Silicon Valley ecosystem is due, in no small part, to the availability of early-stage capital and its density of investors. Other metro areas have historically struggled to replicate this investment ecosystem but more attempts are underway.
Sergio Fernández de Córdova, the founder of Fuel Outdoor and chairman of New York Entrepreneur Week, pointed me to an effort underway in the state of Connecticut to provide more funding to early-stage companies in the state. In addition, New York City announced $150 million in funding solely devoted to startups in the city as part of the tech campus announcement. While these efforts might pale in comparison to the latest billion-dollar fund raised by a Silicon Valley venture firm, they are a step in the right direction for states and municipalities trying to spur innovation.
A final ingredient is culture which can loosely be translated to livability when we think about cities. This was impressed upon me recently during a meeting with Eric Garcetti, the former Los Angeles City Council President and leading contender to become the city’s next mayor. Garcetti recognizes the challenges that LA has when competing against the Bay Area to be the home base for the next great technology company. Indeed, Los Angeles has lost a number of its most promising companies to the north such as Lookout and Yammer (born out of Los Angeles-based Geni).
Still, Los Angeles is one of the most desirable cities in the country to live in and the recent Silicon Beach resurgence is due in part to this. Listening to Garcetti talk about LA’s strong points reminds you of Larry and Sergei discussing why Google’s culture made it possible for them to attract so many outstanding engineers or Tony Hsieh sharing why Zappos’ quirky, fun work environment helped them retain top performers. By emphasizing LA’s strengths, Garcetti hopes to retain talented USC, UCLA and Cal Tech grads who might not be so keen on spending “Junuary” in San Francisco.
As we roll into an election year, many cities are in a state of crisis. Budgets are a mess and job growth has been minimal for a good swath of the country. Cities in need don’t just need strong leadership, they require transformational leadership. It’s no easy feat but it’s likely that the more that mayors view their cities through an entrepreneurial lens, the better they will be able to adapt to a rapidly-changing world.
Bloomberg seems to be leading this charge with his efforts in New York City and mayor’s offices around the country are taking notice. Others like Ed Lee, Garcetti and Newark mayor Cory Booker appear to be taking a similar tone in their respective cities. Perhaps these are the first examples in what will become a long line of mayor-entrepreneurs