One who intends to leave others better off for his having existed.

2/1/14

City Council Agenda Item 25; "Investment Grant in the amount of $1,975,000 for the Elm Street Center Hotel LLC project "


To unequally compete with other hotels and restaurants
which did not receive an "incentive package"



Will the hotel be "operated" by Wyndham (spelling mistake above)
or franchised by Wyndham?

A 4,000 square foot rooftop deck, as long as it doesn't bring around the type of patrons that other downtown rooftop decks had, before Roy Carroll and the city put them out of business?

Like John Lomax's rooftop deck, for relatively white upper class parties/consumers,
which the city won't mess with because "they" are expecting the "right" kind of folks
to use the roof space?

150 mostly low paying jobs, dependent on the GPAC.

If the GPAC doesn't happen,
this thing may go under and/or may never get built in my view.


How did a $35 million dollar investment turn into an $18 million "equity investment"?

So for 5 years, City Council is being asked to provide this project and most likely Roy Carroll's, a $395,000 advantage per year over the Downtown Marriott and other competing hotels, restaurants and meeting spaces?

Approving this before the GPAC financing and structure is finalized makes no sense, as the project would have to cannibalize existing, non-incentivized private company profit margins by stealing some of what would be about the same amount of business to succeed.


"It will create" is a non-operable statement.

This should read something to the effect of "according to the numbers the developers provided the City of Greensboro to input into IMPLAN software, which may or may not be credible, the projections don't provide any guarantee of future performance, and include fixed assumptions that are in reality variable over time.  The project's economic impact analysis is not necessarily based on what the overall economy may inflict upon the reality of what the venture MAY hypothetically create..."

If the resolution has the above language, which is not included in the agenda attachment, I believe it needs to be changed, as the estimate was created from information provided by those who stand to profit from the deal, based on fixed assumptions of data which vary over time.


Again with the "will" on property taxes, which should be "should".

If the GPAC doesn't happen, the sales taxes look likely to be taken/transferred from surrounding businesses via taxpayer supplied monies that will have picked connected winners who fund the political war chests of those advocating for the deal from the losers who didn't, which makes this thing a little sickening.

If there were no taxpayer funded incentives involved, and taxpayer money wasn't going into the GPAC, which will make or break this and Roy Carroll's development plans, it wouldn't matter if they came in and took business from others nearby.

If the GPAC doesn't happen, the value of the property will likely fall below expectations, and the monies that "will" be received may not show up, and if the Parking Funds can't make up the difference because they will also be funding the city's GPAC investment with suspect math involved, the general fund may have to be accessed to supplement the deal.

I believe if Greensboro's City Council approves this request before the GPAC is a for sure go, Council members voting to approve the money will have violated their fiduciary duties to Greensboro's population, which they swore an oath to represent to the best of their abilities.

No comments: