Your thoughts on Upstate NY ??

Grew Up there wrote:

The money sure doesn't show up on the road surfaces either. It does end up in the school systems to some degree but most of it goes to subsidizing NYC.

What a load of BS. Upstate does not in any way subsidize NYC. The proportion of tax dollars that NYC residents contribute far exceeds the proportion of state government expenditures that are made within the city.

This is true for every major American city, as far as I know. Urban areas subsidize rural areas, not the other way around.

Nut-uh

pendinghealthy/readytocompete wrote:

Nut-uh

You are right. I love upstate but I've always complained that NYC is a drain- especially in the schools.

runn wrote:

You are right. I love upstate but I've always complained that NYC is a drain- especially in the schools.

Mind providing some numbers? This doesn't sound right to me, but I've been wrong before. How much does NYC pay in state taxes and how much state money goes into NYC?

I live in a shack on the St. Regis river near the falls. I will never move

someone mentioned the Adirondacks - Lake Placid in particular is a special place. Its olympic history and facilities make it unique and fun. Not the greatest for running, but good enough.

And of course in the winter the place comes alive - world class athletes training, competing - nordic skiing, biathlon, speed skating, ski jumping, etc.

before my map is eliminated I would like to live a year up there. With a very thick jacket.

Not just money but resources too are sent downstate. All the electricity generated by niagara falls is sent to NYC for nothing. Meanwhile Niagara falls, ny is probably the most dysfunctional city in the country and gets no benefit from its own natural resource. Plus the really high taxes that dissuade any businesses from coming here? Thank NYC for that.

Downstate subsidizes upstate not the other way round. Grew up in upstate and am very familiar w/ the erroneous (and often racist) notion that NYC is a gigantic money pit. Funny how the view persists in spite of the facts.

http://www.rockinst.org/pdf/nys_government/2011-12-Giving_and_Getting.pdf

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2011/12/upstate_ny_grabs_more_than_it.html

http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/demographics/20050726/5/1491

Upstate NY has suffered long-term decline in industry, jobs and population. The idea that it's in any position to subsidize NYC is laughable. I'd like to see an upstate revival, but despite some bright spots, it doesn't seem about to happen.

Upstate and/or Western NY to me can be great places to visit and vacation, especially on the lakes or in the mountains (Catskills & Adirondacks), but to live is a whole different story. A lot of towns are economically depressed, way passed their heyday, the weather is terrible (cold, gray and windy during the winter), not much to do and everything is a long drive away. Downstate is a lot better, closer to the "action," financially better off, warmer & sunnier plus there is still a lot of outdoor activities and available. If you are looking to move to NY, I would suggest looking in the Hudson Valley!

You d-bags havent even argued over what is considered "upstate new york" yet. A few months ago I posted something and said Liberty, NY is upstate and every one ripped me to shit

manbearpig wrote:

You d-bags havent even argued over what is considered "upstate new york" yet. A few months ago I posted something and said Liberty, NY is upstate and every one ripped me to shit

Westchester is the only place I can see there being any argument over since it's in the NYC metro area but outside of the city. Definitely anything north of Westchester is upstate. Some might say that anything North of the Bronx is upstate.

Got out of there wrote:

Thanks for providing Exhibit A to previous post re: incorrect belief that upstate subsidizes downstate. Other way round. If NYC, Long Island, and Westchester became a state, the remainder of NY would be in an even worse economic jam.

Granted. However, what most downstaters fail to realize is that many upstaters would rather take an additional economic hit if it meant we could separate ourselves politically from the downstate vote. So long as the downstate vote exists, our voices are meaningless up here, and we resent that. Our voice in both state and national politics is worth next to nothing, and we would absolutely take a further drop in standard of living from having to associate with downstate.

themanontherun wrote:

Got out of there wrote:

Thanks for providing Exhibit A to previous post re: incorrect belief that upstate subsidizes downstate. Other way round. If NYC, Long Island, and Westchester became a state, the remainder of NY would be in an even worse economic jam.

Granted. However, what most downstaters fail to realize is that many upstaters would rather take an additional economic hit if it meant we could separate ourselves politically from the downstate vote. So long as the downstate vote exists, our voices are meaningless up here, and we resent that. Our voice in both state and national politics is worth next to nothing, and we would absolutely take a further drop in standard of living from having to associate with downstate.

Plus, taxes would be lower and businesses would grow if we weren't subsidizing NYC.

As for what is upstate- I always thought of everything that is not NYC/Long Island/Westchester- that area. It's not easily defined, not really geographic, but Catskills/Binghamton/Syracuse/Buffalo/Adirondacks. Like that.

Go to Seneca Falls the "real" Bedford Falls from It's a Wonderful Life.

Also, living there is fine if you have an education, and a decent job. We're always shocked at how many parts of the country are worse than our's economically. I work with two people who moved here- one from the Midwest and one from Philly and they both love it and would not consider moving.

I guess to each his own.

runn wrote:

Plus, taxes would be lower and businesses would grow if we weren't subsidizing NYC.

Once again, YOU ARE NOT SUBSIDIZING NYC. Taxes paid by NYC residents are LOWER than state expenditures made in the city.

>

Commonly held by everyone who lives in Upstate for the last ninety years anyway? Inasmuch as I've since heard the same thing from upstate Michigan and Central Pennsylvania and even small town Massachusetts, I'll just have to take your word for it now.

An interesting data point here is very early in Tom Wicker's book about Attica. He describes driving in from Buffalo and the countryside already looking a little bit shabby; I guess maybe compared to Connecticut or New Jersey at the time?

I read this 30 years later and I'm thinking that 1971 was about as good as it ever got! That countryside was looking plenty prosperous to me and I saw tons of it? We went back and forth across 104, sometimes 5 & 20 all summer long. People were still getting hired right into Kodak straight out of high school and if they could put three thousand dollars together they could buy a house. If things went really well then a cottage on the Finger Lakes because I was a guest at at least two dozen of them in my time and some of those people worked on assembly lines all their lives. Very few cars older than six years on the road back then, (and we all know why too?)

So what on earth was Tom Wicker looking at? That image of time and place has only been my template for orderliness and general well being ever since?

I've lived in five other states, traveled as far south as Panama and as far north as Prince Rupert plus all over France and Spain. Upstate New York in the early 1970s would have been well up in the top third with respect the general air of prosperity. It was much closer to Switzerland than it was to Albania. Biarritz or the Loire Valley in 1986 were not a whole lot more spiffy.

Just from the place names you understand that this area was settled in a fit of neo-classicism with utopian movements all over the place. The Mormon church would spring out from the middle of it. People moved here because the soil was better than New England, the growing season was thought to be a few weeks longer and a lot of their descendants would move on once again within a generation. It was the main economic conduit of the young growing country for 130 years and it's naturally in decline now. Sure the Industrial Revolution came through here in a big way but at the very outset the land was parceled out way back when you could still make a living off a 60 acre farm.

Just as naturally they ended up with a dense infrastructure that they can't support from taxing the current commerce base. That's why the back roads suck. Had the place been settled after the railroads were established you would have nearly as many small towns to support.

If the fortunes of the entire region were to reverse in the future it will be the result of the fresh water, I predict. Because the Canadians will be making everyone else pay for it by then.

There's a very very good reason why Canada didn't want a tar sludge pipeline across their own country to Ontario. If you don't think that fresh water will not become a major league commodity someday, soon go to Mexico City where something the size of Lake St. Clair just plain got erased.

I would be remiss if I omitted saying that this has always been a strong area for running, just from my generation I can mention Pfitzinger, Paige, and Tuttle. We used to do low key Ten Mile races sponsored by the firehouse in some podunk town all summer long and Rochester had a very strong all comers summer track program. The cross country Invitational scene has always been one of the strongest in the country. Most of the guys who will go to the State Meet will also get a chance to post a time an Vanny at least once. Check out how Dave Dobrynski's time has held up over the years and remember that he was racing against Paige just about every weekend.

Plus right now they are fracking the snot out of the southern tier, enough to build a new railroad bridge at Portageville; so you better be comfortable with that technology the farther south you get. For what my opinion is worth you will know for certain pretty soon and I don't expect the current level of Marcellus drilling activity to hold up for much longer.

you're a liar wrote:

Once again, YOU ARE NOT SUBSIDIZING NYC. Taxes paid by NYC residents are LOWER than state expenditures made in the city.

Did you just contradict yourself?

Huh? wrote:

Did you just contradict yourself?

Ha, yes. I got that backwards. Expenditures made within the city are lower than taxes paid by residents.

ADIRONDACKS!!! No other place like it. Worth it for me to pay the extra taxes to live 30 minutes from the best state park in the country.

agreed completely! now if only there were places to work and make a living!