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

2/4/14

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

"Of the "it would generate 168 new hotel jobs" as the News and Record reported of, how many will be displaced by construction that will have existed beforehand, and how many of the new jobs will actually be new, considering the current employment at the site?"

George Hartzman
.
.
The reply from the City of Greensboro's Andy Scott;

"The Hotel would employ 168 (FTE’s) by the fifth year of operation.

...I do not have current employment numbers for the Elm Street Center or the parking deck.

The total revenue derived from the project by the City exceeds the incentive payment.

When you adjust the revenue by subtracting out the Business Improvement District taxes and the hotel motel taxes, which are statutorily limited in how they can be used – the remaining direct revenue would cover 70% of cost of the incentive.

The remaining cost would be covered by the parking fund."

Andy Scott
.
.
Isn't that the same parking fund which is being tapped to cover any GPAC parking revenue losses?

Under "the terms of the City's Urban Development Guidelines", as cited in the agenda item, the project doesn't qualify under "Eligible Uses of City Assistance" and does not have an "Independent Financial Analysis".

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B9h2K8JxTQUjZjh5TkI5YWlKQmZMaTB4ck5mMGNJRk9kNTlR/edit

And now it also appears that the project may not "create" 150 jobs as set out in the agenda item, because the jobs look like they include jobs that already exist on the property;


What Billy Jones wrote on Mike Barber's potential conflict of interest this morning;

"Will Wyndham Sponsorship Effect Mike Barber's Vote?"

http://greensboroperformingarts.blogspot.com/2014/02/will-wyndham-sponsorship-effect-mike.html

and previously;

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
.
.
There may be a very interesting debate this evening.

1 comment:

W.E. Heasley said...

George:

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

One might want to ponder the use of the term “grant” regarding collective action propositions by politicos. How so? “Grant” is merely a substitute term for “taxpayer money“. In order to redirect attention/focus politicos use the term grant. Which raises a question: If each time politicos used the term “grant” they were forced to use the phase “taxpayer money”, would outcomes be different? For example:

- Taxpayer money in the amount of $1,975,000 for the Elm Street Center Hotel LLC project -

However, in order to be double-Orwellian the particular sponsoring politicos have added “Investment” to the term “Grant”. Politicos have learned that using the term “investment” as a substitute for “spending” redirects attention/focus . Now we find:

- Spending Taxpayer money in the amount of $1,975,000 for the Elm Street Center Hotel LLC project -

Returning to the term “grant”, a second subliminal political meaning exists. One might consider government privileged economies that existed before the year 1700. A phrase common to those days was: “King’s grant”. In other words, the “grant” came from on-high i.e. the elite ruler “grants”. Now we arrive at:

- Spending Taxpayer money by elites in the amount of $1,975,000 for the Elm Street Center Hotel LLC project -


Which is more descriptive of the process?

Investment Grant in the amount of $1,975,000 for the Elm Street Center Hotel LLC project.

-or-

Spending Taxpayer money by elites in the amount of $1,975,000 for the Elm Street Center Hotel LLC project.