Four now vie to be main hotel for Beach convention center

Well of course PPV's are not necessary; the point is, should it be city policy to engage in them if the effects demonstrated by the Town Center PPV are likely to re-occur. I suggested that yes, if the city can stimulate significant tax revenue that would not have happened without the PPV, then it may make sense to enter into a PPV. Given the success of such PPV's it may make sense to do so for the development of the hotel and/or the Dome site. The precedent has been established, and those who would oppose PPV's in principle must admit that they will cause real estate tax rates to rise more precipitously than they would if we had PPV's. You can't have it both ways; that is, if you oppose these forms of creative financing to stimulate private economic activity that results in net revenue to the city that reduces our tax rate, then you must accept the responsibility for the cost of that opposition which will result in a higher real estate tax rate. Your choice.

our Virginia Beach excusemeister has conducted this blog masterfully! No matter how pointed and explict the question, it was expertly side stepped and responded to in politically correct blather. I've never question the benefit of economic development so don't repeat the Town Center story again. The question is the NECESSITY of so called "public private partnerships". You'd have us believe that no project would get off the ground without a public handout. When asked for specifics you mentioned some "highrise". Which one? No response. Surprized you don't run for public office...but appointments are much cozier,...I mentioned before that my taxes went up, they didn't. They only went up in the "little peoples" neighborhoods. Wouldn't want to offend those folk where mosy of the campaign contributions come from, this IS an election year.....Enjoyed the tete-a-tete, next time we cross paths at a "movers a shakers" event I'll say hello...

Oh, that's classic. You admit you don't know what had happened previously, which means you don't know the background, but you express your opinion unemcumbered with the facts anyway. Point is, if Town Center had not been developed, we would not have the $5M in cash flow this year to balance the budget. So if the city had not stimulated the development of Town Center, you would have paid a higher real estate tax rate or Council would have had to make an additional cut of $5M. Now of course long term the Town Center will continue to generate even more in business taxes, and when the common area improvements are paid off, the full value of the real estate tax will inure to the general fund. But you opine this is bad anyway, yet clearly you will be one of the first to condemn the city for high real estate taxes, even though if they had acted as you suggest, the taxes would have to be higher. What is wrong with this picture?

What history?? Please be specific...you can't because there is no such "history". I know how and why these public/private "partnerships" became de riguer. It has nothing to do with the general public good as you've attempted to claim. The idea grew out of "sponsored seminars" at meetings such as "national mayors conferences" and such. Developers professional organizations concocted the idea and then presented the methodology. It simply sweetens the pot for them and they in turn contribute to the campaign cofers of those who voted to approve the project. You can fool some people some of the time, but you can't fool all the people all of the time....

Well, to put it another way, would the Town Center project, which now produces over $5M in tax revenue to the general fund, not counting real estate taxes, have been developed if the city had not entered into a public private partnership? History shows a list of previous announcements of high rise projects that came and went, but nothing happened. When the city entered into the PPV, in which the developer pays a higher real estate tax rate, and the revenue gleaned from the increase is used to finance improvements in the area, the Central business district took off, and the result is a fiscal dividend to the city of $5M this year and when the public improvements are paid for, all the real estate tax revenue will inure to the city as well. So you can criticize that all you want, but if you do, you have to either pay higher real estate taxes or you have to cut something else out of the budget. But of course most anti tax zealots from the taxpayers association like the revenue but criticize the projects anyway. Go figure.

I've never questioned what economic development does for the city. Let me try to put this in the simplest terms......WHY IS IT NECESSARY TO "GREASE THE PALMS' OF DEVELOPERS WITH PUBLIC MONEY!! show me where they decided to cancel a project where public money was denied!

So let me get this straight. You acknowledge that if Town center had not been built that we would not have the $5M in annual income from business taxes generated within the project. So you would rather have the residentail tax base pay that extra $5M, and of course the extra millions provided by the 31st Street project. In essence, you are agreeing that you would rather have the average homeowner pay more in taxes rather than to use the TIF or a PPV that stimulates new economic development that expands the tax base and holds down the real estate tax rate. Frankly, I don't think you will find too many taxpayers that would agree that makes any sense. If you stimulate economic development that would not have occurred, and you use that income to hold down the real estate tax rate, then you have done what most citizens want. That is what I hope will happen with the Dome site and with the Hotel site as well.

next time I run into my distantly related relative who is on VB council, I'll ask what your stipend is for being their online excusemeister...

they make money, plenty of it, there is no REAL reason why public money has to be involved they'd build it without it. Recall me a project that the "developer" declined to build because of a refusal of "public" money. This is nonsense, I'm every bit as educated as you and understand your perspective. "public money" little more than a backward bribe.

Well, of course, the project is not built yet so it can't generate cash flow to the city. But we can look at a similar project, that is, Town Center, to see how it works. That project which relies upon a tax increment financing district, pays for its own development with a higher real estate tax, and that money is used to pay back the bonds used to build common infrastructure. But right now, the new business growth there generates over $5M annually in business taxes, money that goes into the general fund and reduces the pressure on the real estate tax. Since $5M equals about $0.01 on the real estate tax rate, that project results in a $0.89 rate per $100 of assessed value instead of a $0.90 rate. The hotel could be structured in much the same fashion, and since hotel taxes are the highest paid, that fiscal dividend will benefit all of us. Too bad you reveal a total lack of appreciation for the benefits of economic development to keep our tax rate the lowest in the region.

our?we??....my taxes just went up...I guess it was to cover that part of the deal that was going to "line my pocket"

Well, very simply put, it lines our pockets first.

Mike, who cares how much revenue it generates for the city? The question is VERY simple. Why are the citizens of Virginia Beach expected to contribute to a project that is ultimately going to line the pockets of the investors? You may obfuscate all you wish....

Amazing how much criticism is generated by simply asking for posters to withhold judgment until a financial analysis can be completed. Seems to me that is the prudent thing to do. Given the tax rate paid by visitors, and given the potential investment of private capital from all four of the proposals, we need to see the financial analysis. While some form of public investment may be necessary, we need to see how that effects the return on investment generated to the city. For example, while many criticize PPEA's, just the taxes generated in the Town Center from business license taxes, sales taxes, personal property taxes on business property, generates over $5M which is equivalent to $0.01 on the real estate tax rate. Point is, the city and its taxpayers have quite an incentive to stimulate economic development, not just for the real estate taxes, but also for the business related taxes and jobs that business activity generates.

Well you just have to ask what would the public funding provide? Parking is already there in the new lots so parking garages are not needed. What is it they need?

I agree that private investors should take the risk and gain all the profit if they want this hotel. We'll get the tax money from the land and rooms even if we don't fund a dime of it.

As I wrote before, we don't have any tax money left to fund this project. Maybe the city might after the city budget gets passed in May but not until then...

Who are we kidding? I'm sure the City will pick either the most grandiose or the one requiring the most public funding. And to the person who said that the City can't just print money, sure it can. They call it raising taxes.

It seems like your flagship is too far away from the pier - the convention center. All convention goers want is a room for the night that they can afford. If they want more than that, they will be able to limo up to the ritzy hotels.

Mr. Bailey makes a point that there is no public money available to fund these projects. There shouldn't HAVE to be ANY public money poured into this project. Why can't they (the private developers) pay for it themselves and then reap the profits if it is a success. The city will collect taxes on real estate as well as room taxes, etc. City money should not have to be put to risk when the true functions of government cannot be funded.

get a clue another hotel has the city council forgotten the fact that there is already a fairly good sized hotel already next store to the convention center why do we need another hotel , we never hear about a new park, or a larger surfing area or anything for the taxpayers , they cant even aford to spend our taxpayer dollars on a decent bathroom at 1st street ,taxpayers have to use a smelly porta potty , why cant this city council use the hotel facilities that are already right next store , this will be more taxpayer dollars spent on another hotel to litter the oceanfront ,

You mean so all the people coming into town for the gun & knife show have more expensive digs? This ain't Vegas bro, it's just another one of a million regions who recently built a convention center to try to boost tourism. Heck, some of the big conferences in Vegas are falling off (comdex). Everyone has one now, so the market is kind of crowded. Just no gambling or tig bitties in VaBeach... plastic buckets and lawn chairs, florescent illuminated t-shirt shops and an arcade where the ms pac man reboots every time you touch the machine.

Mike: I don't care how many bright minds we wrap around this project, the city staff said there is no taxpayer money to fund these things for a few years. I guess, we'll look at the plans and maybe get back to them once the economy picks back up. The city can’t print paper money… I'm sure the builders will understand the lack of funds and be willing to wait a few years. After all, that is what the rest of the citizens and employees are being asked to do.

BTW: I like the Hyatt submission. It would even better if the build a jet observation platform at the top of the towers so we can wave to the pilots up close as they try to land at NAS Oceana.

It sure would've looked nice next to the new convention center...

WHY??? either the project will be profitable for the developer or not. If profitable then the 'public money" is just dollars in the developers pocket. WHEN IS THIS GOING TO STOP???

If the citizens of Virginia Beach really want the least expensive project, and the one that will require the least public money, then they need to get behind the project that is the exact opposite. That way, city council will pick a more reasonable project, and say they did it for the good of the citizens who pay taxes, because they didn't understand the proposals. Don't they always have your best interests in mind when they make these decisions?

Mike wants to know hoe he can get a piece. And how to raise taxes so he can get a a bigger piece.

We're looking for a "headquarters hotel for the Virginia Beach Convention Center". We don't need 95,000 of meeting space; that's what the convention center's for. We don't need an indoor water slide, because conventioneers rarely bring kids. We don't need any more damned condominiums, because we already have a glut of them. We don't need a quarter of a billion dollar project, when $53 million will do just fine.

Putting lipstick on a pig does not turn it into Catherine Zeta-Jones. It will be 20 years before that immediate area's safe enough to walk at night. Let's stop pretending we're building on Fifth Avenue in New York.

Go with the Doubletree proposal. The only taxpayer cost will be for a bridge from the hotel to the convention center, a modest amount of money, compared with the alternatives. And in that neighborhood, it makes sense not to have people walk too far at night.

Before anyone jumps the gun, we really ought to evaluate and analyze the four proposals on the basis of the long term fiscal impact on the city of Virginia Beach. That is, which proposal provides the greatest return to the municipal corporation? In fact, that is required by the PPEA, the regulation under which this proposal is moving forward. We ought to do this internally and with an evaluation from an independent outside consultant. Public investment in infrastructure or facilities may be necessary in order to create the best long term financial return to us, the taxpayer. For example, the inclusion of more conference space may enhance the fiscal viability of the project. In any case, we need the best minds and analysis available to help make a fiscally prudent decision. In the end, the visitor pays a tax rate about 10 times the real estate tax rate we residents pay, and the visitor taxes are a lien on the property, paid before the mortgage or certainly the profit to the developer. That's why we need this project to benefit our tax base.

It is far more architecturally striking than the other two. It certainly appears more upscale in design. Plus it is a Hyatt. We already have plenty of hotels that look just the Doubletree. What this area needs is a Ritz Carlton or Four Seasons to attract a wealthier visitor - one who will spend a few thousand during a week at the beach rather than ma and pa from Bucksnort who will spend next to nothing and leave with nothing but t-shirts and salt water taffy.

C'mon VB - you know you want to "tart up" our city. High-end = more $ spent.

This is what happens when Republicans go wild! Virginia Beach has always cared so little for it's residents, yet they continue to vote to line the upper echelon's pockets. My son spent his senior year in high school taking lunch a half-hour after he arrived at 7:30AM because the City was too cheap to put any money into the school system and make enough room for ALL students to eat lunch somewhere near lunch time. They have no problem filling up the Hilton's coffers with our tax money, but God forbid they care about the children growing up here. City employees allowing themselves to be treated like scum is why they do it. The U.S. Government doesn't pay the military enough to survive, they have guys working two jobs to makes ends meet even though their wives work, leaving a thriving pool of people willing to work for nothing. The people of Virginia Beach need to get Myera OUT OF OFFICE before she destroys Virginia Beach the same way Bush destroyed our nation...all out of pure greed. I hope the residents of Virginia Beach get a clear head and stand up! Otherwise, you're going to wind up with ANOTHER huge real estate assessment increase to pay for yet ANOTHER hotel complex!

The projects are needed but there is no money left in the public realm. I’ve heard from the city staff “we have to tighten our belts for the next few years as we are facing a down turning economy and lean times.” So I guess that would apply to EVERY ASPECT in Virginia Beach’s budget. The police department’s request for more officers to combat our gang problem and the four additional staffed emergency ambulances crews were not in the budget due to lack of funding so if we can’t protect the citizens due to lack of funding, how can we fund a hotel?

With the employees getting no increase in the city healthcare and the lowest compensation increase since the early 1990’s (after the employees saved the city over 100 million in GASB45 costs), I would understand why approximately 17,000 city/schools employees would be angry if they funded any of these construction projects. Maybe they could use the 17 million dollar surplus from the employee’s healthcare to fund one of these hotel projects? That would really cause major fallout.

Maybe the builders can build it without public funding. There is no public money left to spend. What a shame…

I like the rendering of the Double Tree the best. It looks like they are showing a covered walkway leading toward the Convention Center (kind of like what I suggested a while back in another post).