The Virginian-Pilot
©
VIRGINIA BEACH
The stark divide among residents over a proposal to build a $109 million, four-star Hyatt hotel and more meeting space next to the Virginia Beach Convention Center was on full display Tuesday night at a packed public hearing on the project - and it won't be the last time.
City officials scheduled a second hearing for Jan. 10 and set a City Council vote on the public-private partnership with developer Armada Hoffler for Jan. 24.
Five City Council members on the 11-person body have come out against the project. No council members offered comment during the hearing.
Opponents outnumbered supporters - in total, about 40 people spoke - arguing the city shouldn't be in the hotel business and could use the nearly $67 million in initial public money to reduce the city and school division's $90 million budget shortfall.
"It's irresponsible, almost un-American," resident David West said.
"If this project is so important, let Armada Hoffler build it themselves," resident Lawrence DeAngelo said.
Supporters said the city needs to invest in the hotel and tourism in general because cuts in defense spending probably will hurt the Beach in the future. They cited city studies that show the hotel will produce $53 million more than it costs over 20 years.
"The numbers are irrefutable," said Nancy Creech, president and CEO of the Virginia Beach Neptune Festival. "We must have a convention center hotel."
Hotelier Jimmy Capps said the hotel is an opportunity to "put Virginia Beach on the map as a conference destination."
Under the deal, the city initially would contribute almost $67 million to help developer Armada Hoffler build a 15-floor, 361-room Hyatt Regency hotel; additional city-owned conference space; and a pedestrian bridge to connect them to the convention center.
The city contribution would include $19.1 million in loans and $4.8 million in economic development grants. The city also would pay a $450,000 annual management fee. Armada Hoffler would contribute $47.4 million up front and repay the loans.
City officials have said the hotel and conference space would create jobs, bring in events, generate property taxes, and boost spending in the city by $88.7 million a year.
Some opponents of the Hyatt hotel said they favored an alternative plan to renovate the existing DoubleTree hotel near the convention center into the facility's headquarters hotel.
Harmony Hospitality Inc., which owns the DoubleTree, is working on a proposal it plans to unveil early next year, company President Page Johnson said before the meeting Tuesday.
Harmony has proposed spending $25.5 million to expand and upgrade the DoubleTree. The company is seeking $5 million to $10 million from the city to build an enclosed walkway between the hotel and convention center.
Aaron Applegate, (757) 222-5122, aaron.applegate@pilotonline.com
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo
If I recall
I remember some discussion with Double Tree at the time the Convention Center was being built. They only wanted the land required and they would have expanded and renovated there current property and made it suit the needs of the Convention Center. Then and now with the same beneficial proposals to the city the City Council rejects Double Tree. The only reason I perceive is that there is less name recognition.
I think it is a done deal that the council will pass the plan and pay out with our money that they do not have. The whole convention center plan from inception through execution was flawed and still is as noted, there is virtually no food or entertainment within walking distance of the hotel. Everyone will need to use a car..so why just
If I recall
I remember some discussion with Double Tree at the time the Convention Center was being built. They only wanted the land required and they would have expanded and renovated there current property and made it suit the needs of the Convention Center. Then and now with the same beneficial proposals to the city the City Council rejects Double Tree. The only reason I perceive is that there is less name recognition.
I think it is a done deal that the council will pass the plan and pay out with our money that they do not have. The whole convention center plan from inception through execution was flawed and still is as noted, there is virtually no food or entertainment within walking distance of the hotel. Everyone will need to use a car..so why just
Of course the greatest risk
Of course the greatest risk is to lose the opportunity to host some 100,000 more visitors per year who will spend their money in our restaurants, our hotels, and our retail shops. Once these visitors are lost, we can never get that revenue back. Our past investments in Atlantic Avenue, on the boardwalk, in establishing programs for entertainment, public safety, all brought our tourism business back from the brink of extinction, and the rejuvenation of public facilities spurred private investment that has improved our hotels and motels. This is the next step in ensuring that we capture our fair share of visitor income to benefit our tax base and our economy. Some just want to give it away; not taxpayers who understand the benefit of it.
Well once again our esteemed
Well once again our esteemed developer is delusional if he concludes that VB will lose 100,000 visitors if we taxpayers don't pony up $65MIL for this HQ hotel. Hyatt is free to build their HQ Convention Center hotel provided "they" pay for all of it. If they expect 100,000 more visitors per year to attend conventions then they and their investors stand to make a fortune and enjoy their return on investment. VB restaurants and city coffers will make money too. If it fails, then they lose, but the taxpayer still wins. As Will Sessoms is a banker, I would think he would be lining up to lend them the money if their rosy predictions can be "banked" on.
vbta stands for...
vbta stands for Very Big Tears All (the Time). Every young professional that calls Virginia Beach home is tired of hearing these crusty old geezers trying to shut the door of good times behind themselves. Most are retired military civilian workers themselves or otherwise suckling from the teat of some other government entity just like the former vbta president himself....both he and his wife are paid 100% by the taxpayers like you and me. It is all just a big ruse of hypocrisy and it's sickening.
..oh those people again...
comment, "Watching the mini parade of t-shirt-wearing, jeans-sporting, hat-donning country bunkins stumble & bumble up to the microphone last evening to spout uninformed, ill-educated opinions of tax-paying rhetoric was nothing short of pathetic."
Didn't see the parade of t-shirt speakers...but, it's a shame those ill-dressed people have the right to speak.
comment, "Yes it was pretty raucus as the opponents acted like spoiled children, laughing, clapping,..."
You're right, that row of developers dressed in suits nudging, laughing & snickering the whole time was irritating.
comment made at council "...for the greater good" - I'm still shuddering from that one.
Our city needs to hit "reset."
The real point
I think everyone is missing the point. A conventioneer flys into ORF, takes 64 to 264 to get to this grand hotel. They will never be back!
City sound bites have glaring omissions on funding streams!
The debt service on the HQ hotel is claimed to come from the meals, hotel room & amusement tax generated exclusively from tourist. That poses many questions.. Will the taxes on all 3 revenue streams be captured in the resort area or citywide? What part of tax revenues is dedicated to the General Fund? Given that a major part of these tax revenues are already dedicated (improperly) to fund projects to the resort area where will the revenues come from? Identify the annual annual revenues that will be exclusively dedicated by tourist that will pay down the debt. Will this project be part of the City's annual appropriation to VBDA to pay down their total debt?. Until a detailed explanation is made this project should be removed ASAP
Comment deleted
Comment removed for rules violation. Reason: Post in ALL CAPS or bold
Obviously, you are not well-traveled....
Obviously, you are not well-traveled...you should get out more often.