Talk:Empire State Development Corporation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of the New York State WikiProject, an attempt to better organize and improve articles related to the U.S. state of New York. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

[edit] POV

There appears to be a lot of venting and POV in this article and doesn't follow Wikipedia standards. I tried to clean up to the Regional Controversies section. I think much of this is because people do not understand it and are venting over its many transgressions. I am tempted to nuke it from regional on down unless somebody can clean up those sections to better wikipedia standards. Americasroof 07:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eliminating POV or just dumping the CENTRAL FACTS about the UDC down an Orwellian Memory Hole?

Everything about the UDC (not just its name change) is intensely Orwellian, and - although I'm sure your motives are pure - the removal of any trace of some of the most pertinent facts about the UDC is consistent with this pattern. Many New Yorkers are aware that the UDC (or the ministry of love or whatever it calls itself these days) was established to provide safe and pleasant low-income housing and in fact builds prisons. But how many are aware that its CEO was previously the employer of one of New York's most powerful Mafia bosses? That fact was reported in the Albany Times-Union and it was reported here, and nowhere else. (Do a search for "Gargano Migliore" at the newspaper's archive if you're interested - you can get some oddball Google results too.) How many New York citizens are aware that the UDC has the power to create subsidiaries (it has well over a hundred, as formerly reported here) that have all the statutory powers of the UDC itself? How many realize that these subsidiaries can be run by an appointed board of directors who acquire the power to condemn land, finance projects by taxpayer-backed and tax-free bonds, grant unlimited tax relief, and over-rule all local zoning laws - and use those powers for the to promote profit-making private projects (malls, shuffleboard stadiums, or anything else they chose to call "economic development") in which members of that board have a direct personal business interest!!?? How many realize that this scenario came within a whisker of actually happening on Long Island in 1991? It would have been a de facto coup d'etat benefitting only a clique of developers and their close allies - while elected representatives would have lost almost all their power! This could be attempted again anywhere in New York State, at any time - and done very quietly. Perhaps it is happening again right now, too quietly for anyone to notice. And guess what? A nice bland predictable Wikipedia article that blurs and smudges and erases the main facts about its subject will help that happen, and thereby contribute to the erosion of democracy and economic accountability - not to mention the libertarian principles that motivated the creation of this Wikipedia project in the first place. My comment here may be hot-headed and POV-saturated. But the text that was eliminated was well-documented and entirely truthful, all backed up by standard sources (the UDC's own documents and archived articles of major, reputable mainstream newspapers). Perhaps the eliminated prose could have been more Wikipedian in style and content - and if so, it certainly should have been revised to that end. But some people's idea of "eliminating POV" extends to removing any content (very much including well-documented facts that are essential to the subject) if this content is not entirely bland, predictable, wishy-washy and sanitized. These editors not only eliminate alarmist rhetoric; they also eliminate alarming facts! They mistake one for the other. The most significant facts about a subject, which make this whole project a tool for empowering our readers, go down the memory hole. Fortunately, Wikipedia's memory hole - the article's history - is still there for diligent readers to discover.Chelydra 11:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name of entity

When I created this article, it began by saying, "The Urban Development Corporation (doing business as the 'Empire State Development Corporation')...." Americasroof moved this article from Urban Development Corporation with the comment, "moved Urban Development Corporation to Empire State Development Corporation: The formal name since 1995 for the Urban Development Corporation is Empire State".

What's the basis for this statement? I can't get to a law library at the moment, but I quickly found this online document. It's a formal opinion by the Commissioner of Taxation and Finance, dated October 9, 2003, that refers to "New York State Urban Development Corporation (d/b/a Empire State Development Corporation) (ESDC)". This example is consistent with my understanding that "Empire State Development Corporation" is a name that UDC likes to use but that was never formally approved by the State Legislature. JamesMLane t c 05:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks James for asking. The new name is on the website and makes note that it changed in 1995 (which is also in the article). The comptroller audit released in May 2006 also makes reference to the former name. [1] I understand the confusion. Once a corporate name exists it never really goes away. Empire is the parent corporation and UDC is its biggest subsidiary (and still exists in name). In the through the looking glass world, the LMDC and WTC Foundation are always referred to as subsidiaries of Empire (even though technically they are actually UDC subsidiaries). In the Wikipedia world we usually call things by what organizations call themselves. Since the state and comptroller call it Empire, that's what it should be (I wondered in here in updating a LMDC article and was forwarded from Empire to UDC). And for what it's worth there are numerous other UDCs around the world and New York's UDC doesn't float to the top anymore. Americasroof 12:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

One other note about DBA. There are lots of corporations (most?) that have a different corporate names from the name they use to do business as. Almost in all instances Wikipedia refers to them by their DBA name. Americasroof 12:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

For other corporations, Wikipedia often has the article at the most common name, such as General Motors, but the article begins by giving the corporation's correct legal name, such as "General Motors Corporation, also known as GM". In cases where the d/b/a name is distinctly different from the legal name, the article should include both names, using the "d/b/a" nomenclature. If you know of any exceptions, they should be fixed, not emulated.

As for 1995, my vague recollection is that, along about that time, a bill to change UDC's name was proposed in the Legislature (at UDC's request), but failed. UDC preferred the "ESDC" name, though, and so just started using it anyway, as a d/b/a name. JamesMLane t c 16:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting points James. If we go for the formal name then my understanding it would be New York State Urban Development Corporation. (http://www.empire.state.ny.us/pdf/udc_2006.pdf) Their website describes the history of UDC as "former" http://www.empire.state.ny.us/Bond_Program/Default.asp I don't doubt that you are correct in your assessment. UDC's biggest new projects at the moment are the World Trade Center and the Harriman complex in Albany and all references go to Empire. I can't make a ruling on its legal name and whether the Legislature approved it. I'm just going on citations which is the logic I thought that Wikipedia uses. On the basis of citations UDC is a subsidiary of the parent Empire. Interesting convesation. Thanks. Americasroof 17:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

To expand just a little bit further on the General Motors example, Empire State is the parent corporation. Its other subsidiary is the Job Development Authority. General Motors also has numerous subsidiaries but we only go by the parent corporation. UDC could probably be broken out as a separate article from the Empire State article but that would probably be counterproductive and confusing. If we were to track back the enabling legislation, we would go to the legislation that combined the corporations and I'm sure Empire State name probably exists in that legislation. The dba debate was just over whether UDC itself should be renamed. Americasroof 17:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

WHY are you so sure the Empire State name exists in enabling legislation? THIS is a glaring example of your own POV contaminating your editorial decisions! Your subjective POV - that is, your naive trust that a notoriously corrupt state government will always do the right thing - leads you to make that assumption. You provide no sources. You don't back it up by anything other than your words "I'm sure" and "probably"! It appears you think that only critics of a powerful entity have "an axe to grind" while those who give it the benefit of the doubt are by nature objective and reliable. But in fact a bland tone, an attitude of blind trust, and a superficial appearance of calm objectivity can often mask the most outrageously distorted and misleading propaganda. Chelydra 11:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a rant to me. The auditor et al call it Empire State. I'm no fan of the bad things UDC did. But to turn the article into a rant will make itworthless. The article was unreadable previously. Americasroof 12:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)