8/12/13

GPAC; Guilford County Commissioners meeting on AUGUST 15, 2013;

"C. Approve the request from the City of Greensboro to utilize the portion of the countywide Hotel/Motel Room Occupancy Tax that is restricted to capital improvements and related debt service for the proposed Greensboro Performing Arts Center project."

(Marty Lawing) [Contact]

http://www.co.guilford.nc.us/commissioners/pdfs/AgPacket_081513.pdf






"Binding Commitments";
 

Looks like the hotel tax isn't applicable for the project under the rules;

Looks like the money can only be used for the Coliseum.

Would the money make some improvements elsewhere undoable?


What about the $7.8 million for the land?

What if a 1% growth rate is the best case scenario, which economically, is likely going forward?


What happens if interest rates continue to rise?



Guilford County's Commissioners are about to make a fiduciary decision.


Wasn't the growth assumption 1% above?


How much was in the account on June 30, 2013?

2 comments:

W.E. Heasley said...

George:

Most excellent post.

Hence politicos want to build yet another monument to themselves under the auspice of “doing something”. More succinctly, a “some people system” where the plans of the few supersede the plans of the many. [Yawn]

Moreover, government produces nothing that the private sector would not have produced, absent tax. Hence government is merely a transfer agent.

The spontaneous/emergent free market appears not to see a demand for a music hall. If a demand existed the free market would respond and a music hall would already exist. That is, there is no appreciable demand hence no supply is provided.

Enter notional propositions, ill prepared cost/benefit analysis and failure to account for land and ongoing maintenance costs. However, politicos through the mechanism of government wield the power of “the transfer agent”. In order to build yet another monument to themselves under the auspice of “doing something” transfers are rearranged to suit the particular politicos through the mechanism of government.

Furthermore, if the sponsors are so sure of themselves, then in the cost/benefit, where is the counterfactual? If the monument is not built and such hotel/motel taxes where used to say, pay off existing debt then permanently removed [tax reduction], what would the outcome be of the counterfactual? One can not present a meaningful cost/benefit without providing the counterfactual or opportunity cost.

Billy Jones said...

The proof is in the linked document. And they plan to use public funding to build it. They don't care if you vote them out of office come November, they will already have the riches they came for just as Jim Cockerham lost the election and made Millions off the airport expansion all those years ago.