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

2/28/14

From the owner of the Greensboro Marriott Downtown on the Impact of the Wyndham Downtown Hotel

"As the owner of the Greensboro Marriott Downtown, I would like to express my objections to the City of Greensboro, committing public dollars to a private development that will affect my business adversely.

Outlined below are my concerns:

* Impact to my hotel

2013 Actual

Occupancy 60% ADR $128.22 Rooms Revenue $5,555,527
.
.
* Projected Impact

10,500 room nights X $128.22 = $1,346,310 Rooms Revenue

* Consequences of Impact
* Force us to lay off a minimum of 30 employees


Did Greensboro's City Council just eliminate 30 jobs
to create what may or may not be 169?

* Curtail future renovation plans as funds will not be available
* Put the business in a tight situation as it relates to debt service

Did Greensboro's City Council
put the Downtown Marriott in jeopardy of a debt default
to benefit some of their campaign contributors?

We purchased the hotel in and with extensive capital.

I gave Greensboro a first class downtown hotel with a well-respected brand.

Over the years we have continued to upgrade the hotel, most recently putting 1.5 million
in 2013 to a lobby, lounge and restaurant renovation.

We are not against new development when it makes sense, but in a market that runs well
below the national average, does it make sense?

The city would be well served if they had and independent study that confirmed the proposed hotels projections and the impact the proposed hotel will have on its competitors.


My understanding is there was not an independent study created 
not paid for by the developers, 
that stated the Wyndham would be feasible.

We would be happy to fund this using and agreed upon consultant.

Thank you for your consideration...
.
.
My understanding is the hotel developers provided a feasibility study 
paid for and sought out by the developers
which the city supposedly saw, which the city returned
without making copies of.

Greensboro's City Council picked a local crony
who, along with friends, family and GPAC supporters
funded a great deal of 2013's election,
to unfairly compete with a relatively unconnected business owner down the street.

Greensboro's City Council picked Randall Kaplan and friends
to put the Downtown Marriott out of business, 
without bothering to find out what the impact would be before doing so.

Greensboro's City Council violated the idea of free enterprise,  
by altering what should be an even playing field to benefit a select few
who put many of them in power.

Background;

I hear congressional candidate Zack Matheny is pushing for the Downtown Hotel deal

http://hartzman.blogspot.com/2013/12/i-hear-congressional-candidate-zack.html

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

http://hartzman.blogspot.com/2014/02/city-council-agenda-item-25-investment.html

On "new" jobs created by the proposed Wyndham and lack of the project meeting incentive criteria

http://hartzman.blogspot.com/2014/02/on-new-jobs-created-by-proposed-wyndham.html

Amanda Lehmert contradicts Sunday's News & Record Editorial on the downtown hotel deal

http://hartzman.blogspot.com/2014/02/amanda-lehmert-contradicts-sundays-news.html

From the 2010 Greensboro funded study for the Elm Street Center hotel, of which the Rhino can't seem to investigate

http://hartzman.blogspot.com/2013/12/from-2010-greensboro-funded-study-for.html

How can a 180 room hotel create more than 3 times the economic impact of a 3,000 seat performing arts center?

http://hartzman.blogspot.com/2013/12/how-can-180-room-hotel-create-more-than.html

On the IMPLAN analysis tool used to gauge $29.3 million economic impact of the Wyndham hotel

http://hartzman.blogspot.com/2013/12/on-implan-analysis-tool-used-to-gauge.html

From a few emails I recieved late last night on the Wyndham deal etc..., and Sam Howe's LTE

http://hartzman.blogspot.com/2013/12/from-few-emails-i-recieved-late-last.html

Downtown Wyndham Hotel Economic Impact Math

http://hartzman.blogspot.com/2013/12/downtown-wyndham-hotel-economic-impact.html

Letter to the Editor; "Hotel decision should wait for new council"

http://hartzman.blogspot.com/2013/11/todays-letter-to-editor-hotel-decision.html

Proposed legal theft of taxpayer money; "developers want $8 million in taxpayer money from City of Greensboro"

http://hartzman.blogspot.com/2013/11/proposed-legal-theft-of-taxpayer-money.html

City Council Agenda Item 11; Investment Grant for a hotel and parking garage for the Elm Street Center Hotel, LLC.

http://hartzman.blogspot.com/2013/11/city-council-agenda-item-11-investment.html

From 2011; Downtown Hotel: Some words George Hartzman intends to deliver to Guilford County’s Commissioners on September 16, 2010

http://hartzman.blogspot.com/2013/11/from-2011-downtown-hotel-some-words.html

Kathy Manning, Randall Kaplan's wife, lobbying for a GPAC and their new hotel, with some Nancy Hoffmann, Dawn Chaney and Nancy Vaughan

http://hartzman.blogspot.com/2013/08/kathy-manning-randall-kaplans-wife.html

GPAC Toleo Foundation Donation Questions

http://hartzman.blogspot.com/2013/08/gpac-toleo-foundation-donation-questions.html

Performing Arts Center: "[Notable]...Task Force Members"

http://hartzman.blogspot.com/2012/02/performing-arts-center-notabletask.html

George Hartzman on the hotel deal and Crony Capitalism

http://hartzman.blogspot.com/2012/02/george-hartzman-on-hotel-deal-and-crony.html

2 Guilford County Commissioners Tell Randall Kaplan from Downtown Greensboro Hotel What They Think About Economic Incentive's in Future

http://hartzman.blogspot.com/2010/09/2-guilford-county-commissioners-tell.html

1 comment:

W.E. Heasley said...

Ah, a classic public choice theory case.

Political taxing authority G portrays a subsidy as a private-public venture. Those warm and fuzzy private-public ventures. Yes, kumara and let’s make some campfire smores.

However, if one examines the situation via public choice theory [politics without the drama] one finds political taxing authority G, and the political power purveyors thereof, bestowing taxpayer money on firm W. Meanwhile, all other firms in the same economic sector as W, say firm M, are disadvantaged by the subsidy bestowed upon W by the politicos through the mechanism of government G.

Therefore, politicos through the mechanism of government G pick winners and losers through the use of taxpayer money: W wins, M loses.

Back at kumara and let’s make some campfire smores, political power purveyors of G attempt to frame the phenomena of picking winners and losers through taxpayer money as their fine beneficence. The political argument is framed to the greater taxpayer as: politicos are creating beneficial results that accrue to the taxpayer. The loser, M, is swept under the rug as a mere nuisance.

The end product is a political constituency building exercise through taxpayer money. Why use one’s own money or campaign funds when taxpayer money is readily available for political constituency building exercises.