The normally smart Jim Heaney lets his “progressive” tendencies overwhelm his common sense in his blog today, as he dizzily contorts the rules of logic as lead apologist for an impediment to progress.

It is no secret that Canal Side is dead. The Common Council’s out-of-the-blue decision to change the rules mid-game and require a CBA for land to be transferred to the ECHDC was the bullet to the head. It is telling that the Common Council, when performing their one (and only one) role in this entire process, chose to impede development rather than help it along. If that’s not a microcosm of our problems, I don’t know what is. As a side note, the most striking thing about the Common Council’s action is that the vote was unanimous – what’s the point of having planners and economists on the Common Council if they ignore basic planning and economics?

But back to the Jim Heaney’s blog. His lead news item is that the ECHDC is not backing down from calling the CBA a death knell, and this is a bad thing because the ECHDC is an unelected authority. This begs all sorts of LOLZ for multiple reasons.

First, as WNYMedia has shown in the last two weeks, being elected in this city should be proof of incompetence, entrenchment, belief in the status quo, and general ass-hattery. That you were chosen by the voters is a mark of FAIL, not endorsement. Having an elected body in the City of Buffalo rule on anything more complicated than a loan to a failed restaurant is more than it can handle. I’ll take the appointed technocrats over the elected FAILpols any day. I’m sure Jordan Levy is a better manager than David Franczyk is a Council President, and Tom Dee is a better construction manager than Bonnie Russell is a elected representative. If the ECHDC had the power to levy taxes or fees, or had a history of FAIL, that might be something different. But as it is, the ECHDC is the only public-ish entity in Buffalo moving forward with any progress.

That all being said, if you still buy Jim Heaney’s premise that elected officials should be making the decision, then how can you not be outraged that the Common Council has handed over veto-power of Canal Side to a “who’s who” of lefty pie-in-the-sky ideologues and status quo labor unions. Should not the Common Council represent the needs of its constituency, not the needs of this smattering of self-appointed public advocates? Who do these groups think they speak for? The unemployed, that would rather have ANY job than NO job?  Since when is Buffalo in the position of saying no to hundreds of jobs in any pay range? As a Buffalo News editorial pointed out, these CBA’s are used in other cities where people have been displaced or adversely impacted, as a method of compensation. The Erie Canal Harbor is a concrete wasteland. Everyone benefits from anything being there – we aren’t tearing down Allentown (or Lovejoy, or Kaisertown, for that matter) to make room for this development. 

Back to the elected officials. Jim Heaney, after wishing to transfer power from the appointed bureaucrats to the unelected (and, ironically, employed) protestors, calls on Brian Higgins to fix this mess. His theory? Higgins has enough chips on the table to need a win, and will bully Levy until he gets one. Heaney, astoundingly, sees Levy as the risky obstructionist, and the one with his neck out.

Right facts, wrong analysis. Higgins does have a lot riding on the SUCCESS of Canal Side. The two worst outcomes – that either Canal Side does not get built, or worse, it is built and sits empty - are the one’s most likely with the CBA. Higgins gets this, and will lean on the Common Council to pull their collective head out of their ass and move this project along. Unfortunately, Higgins is a Byron Brown guy, and that block is shrinking on the council. Normally, I see this as a good thing. Not this time.

Note to the Common Council: just because you have veto power, doesn’t mean you need to vote that way. Way to live up to the Buffalo stereotype.