The Virginian-Pilot
©
VIRGINIA BEACH
The City Council is scheduled to hold a public hearing tonight on the proposal to build a $109.2 million hotel next to the Virginia Beach Convention Center.
The hearing is set for 6 p.m. in the City Council's chambers at 2401 Courthouse Drive, Building 1.
City officials have negotiated a potential deal with developer Armada Hoffler to build a 361-room Hyatt Regency, which they say would help attract more events to the convention center. The city's upfront cost would be nearly $67 million, including loans and economic development grants.
The City Council is divided on the public-private partnership. A vote is likely early next year.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo
An auditorium full of moribund boo-birds
It sure looked like the moribund boo birds out numbered the supporters of this boondoggle. I thought Robert Dean made some excellent points as well as Reid Greenmum. Jimmy F was great too. Looks like the Mayor picks and chooses who gets more time to speak. Pretty sad.
Anyway, the public hearing is only for show. There are very few up there on council that really care what the public thinks.
Federal Spending Cuts & More
I would normally be supportive of investing in our city but with the pending cuts in federal and state spending, I can not support this investment. The credit rating agencies are dropping our ratings based on the projected cuts in federal and local military spending. Federal spending drives Virginia Beach like it or not.
As I speak with many city and school employees on a daily basis, I hear the concerns of the "working residents." They understand that we as a city must have "shared pain" and to invest in a tourist hotel at this time doesn't show me we are all on the same page.
Based on those pending points and employee discussions, I must oppose the 61.4 million expenditure. Maybe once the situation is improved but not now!
New information
I respect your decision but believe it is based upon erroneous information. None of this money comes from the City; it comes from the tax revenue of new visitors attracted to our convention center, vistors we had lost before because we did not have a convention hotel. The credit rating action is not based on anything we did; it is based upon concern that DoD will have to cut more. If they do, a diversified economy will be more important than ever. You talk about working residents, and I know that those on fixed incomes with no raises for years have been unduly affected by the economic downturn caused by the collapse of our national economy. Because the Beach diversified, the effect on us has been much less. We must learn that lesson.
Federal Spending Cuts Loom Ahead
I didn't blame the City but the federal cuts are dead ahead and we are not going to avoid them. The credit rating agencies are dropping our ratings and there is no way to avoid those facts either. Reality means we must pause and consider holding our fire on this investment. If it is worth investing on, that deal will still be there once we see the results of the cuts in federal and state spending.
It isnt the time to spend money we do not have on business that currently doesn't exist to risk the investment when it is better to hold on waiting for a better day and time.
Council members are divided for a reason and I too share their real concerns. Vote no. Sorry...
Again, I respect your
Again, I respect your opinion, but simply do not agree that we would spend money we do not have. Point is, we won't. The developer is obligated to pay the full cost of construction of the hotel, the meeting space, the road improvements, and the bridge. When the project is done, with a certificate of occupancy, it will likely be two years from now, giving the convention center staff and Hyatt the opportunity to market in advance. Payments on the loan only start after the building is complete when the new visitors start to arrive. This is not being funded out of city money that could have gone to workers; quite the contrary, the money the city earns on this project will go into the general fund to help pay employee salaries.
Pay Raises?
It isn't about employee pay raises... It is about risking an investment in a time where even the credit agencies are worried about cuts in federal and state spending.
lobbyists....
a lobbyist first task is to divert attention from the truth.....bury the issue in bovine elimination....
Yes, that's true, and I must
Yes, that's true, and I must admit that you and aalto have been most active of late.
The Reality
Posters herein have a misperception if they think our tax dollars are going into this hotel. Frankly, the city's investment in this project comes from the new revenue this project generates. The financing will be revenue bonds with the future revenue of the project used to pay the debt service. So in essence, the taxpayers will reap the reward of higher visitor revenue, and after paying the debt service, cost of operations and marketing, reserves for improvements, the project is expected to produce added tax revenue of $55 M to the general fund to reduce the tax rates we the taxpayers pay. Since visitors pay such high tax rates, the City is the beneficiary of this new business much more than the hotel operator or the developer.
Not a supporter
The city, and it's taxpayers are still going to be on the hook for the financing, be it bonds or grants. And the "future revenue" will not begin to pay any of the debt until the hotel is up and operational in two to three years. That debt will be due from day one. At what occupancy rate will the revenue begin to pay the debt service? At what average room rate? I have not heard or seen any of those figures. Also, the land will have to be taken via eminent domain, which is wrong to transfer it to another for-profit company. But the decision will not be made from any comments made here or in the public forum. It has already been decided in the back rooms. This is just a formality since the public now knows about it, despite the secrecy cloud.