|
|
| |
|
 |
| |
Saturday, July 12, 2003
Dare to Waffle
The Plain Dealer Editorial Board (PDEB) is a little ticked off about the local politicians who are looking to avoid being tied too closely to the new CCC proposal after the recent swell of negative news. So, they go after them.
A new poll, commissioned by Cleveland business organizations, suggests that if an election were held now, Cuyahoga County voters would oppose construction of a downtown convention center by a substantial margin. Package the meeting hall with money for community development and the arts and the margin is narrower, though still negative.
Do these results surprise anyone?
Actually, I think they do. The PDEB, the local business groups, and politicians assumed there would be some opposition, but closer to 50-50. Which is where it apparently was at the beginning of the year. And definitely not so strong even with the "economic incentives" to be a 60-40 opposition. The GCGA and Cleveland Tomorrow paid for a poll, then refused to give any information on it, beyond the results. Kind of suggests that they got results they really didn't expect.
Building a new a convention center is not exactly a heart-warming public endeavor like, say, a campaign to improve the lives of poor children. The steady erosion of Cleveland's convention business is a serious concern to those in the hospitality industry, but it hardly tugs at civic heartstrings the way the potential loss of a major sports franchise might.
Yet in early polls, Issue 15, last spring's health and human services levy, and 1990's Gateway initiative also looked like losers. So do most issues when they are first put before an electorate that is reflexively skeptical, especially when its money is on the line.
"Reflexively skeptical." That would be a phrase I'd love to be able to apply to the PDEB someday with regards to proposals for new taxes. If anyone could let me know when was the last decade the PDEB actually opposed a new tax, it would be nice.
This city has been talking about a new convention center for nearly a decade. But the conversation has never gotten terribly serious because other needs always took priority - and rightly so. Who can disagree with former Mayor Michael R. White's 2001 decision to shelve convention center planning in order to push a school construction and renovation package that will generate about $1.2 billion over the next decade? And by the way, Issue 14 was supposed to lose, too, according to early polls.
Which should also be a hint, as to the true importance of a convention center to Cleveland.
What happened then and in other cases was that elected leaders used an election campaign to educate the voters. On school renovations, it was White and Cleveland schools CEO Barbara Byrd-Bennett. On Gateway, White and Tim Hagan, then a Cuyahoga County commissioner, simply refused to lose. The current county commissioners campaigned relentlessly for Issue 15, then Cleveland Mayor Jane Campbell stepped in as the "closer" for a final barrage of ads.
Yeah. Let's compare a tax to building a convention center with school construction and the health and human services renewal/increase. Does the phrase "apples and oranges" mean anything to you?
Gateway is a legitimate comparison. On so many levels. Of course, even the PD's own reporters have stated that it wasn't exactly "political leadership" that got Gateway shoved down the electorate's craw, it was a $2 million dollar public relations campaign with lots of TV ads with misleading information on jobs creation and revenue for Cleveland. Hagan and White may have been point men for pushing it, but they sure as hell backed away from knowing anything about the pathetic lease and tax abatements that have resulted in Gateway providing no taxes for the city, no lease money actually generated, and the city actually paying money to the Gunds for maintaining Gund Arena at Gateway.
Contrast those cases with the convention center debate. Much of the early groundwork was delegated to the business community, which did its job diligently - developing standards for a new hall, analyzing prospective sites and lobbying for flexible tax authority - albeit with little public input or oversight. But no elected leader, except for Cleveland City Council President Frank Jackson, has been willing to appear too connected with the initiative. Given fiscal and political realities, it's the county commissioners who especially need to step out, and soon. But they seem to be cowed by weak poll numbers and more interested in carping about alleged slights than in leading.
The business elite are the ones who wanted this, and I recall the PDEB actually approved of this procedure (or at least didn't disapprove). The PDEB showed little interest in actually offering their opinion as to the best site (so as not to offend any of the wealthy backers and be able to reflexively support any site without explanation). The reference to Frank Jackson and leadership gives away, in my opinion, the not-so surprising identity of the author of the unsigned editorial piece: Brent Larkin, head of the PDEB (not that this will be found anywhere in the PD website). This is what he said of Jackson back in January.
Council President Frank Jackson is more specific. Jackson believes it is essential to move on the issue this year. What's more, he stands ready to enthusiastically support a ballot issue - provided he gets what he wants.
Jackson is demonstrating real leadership on this issue.
Seems familiar. Somehow, demanding more money be tacked on to the convention center to be spread out in the 'burbs is considered political leadership. Somehow threatening to kill a new CCC if he doesn't get what he wants is being "connected to the initiative."
Finally, the PDEB piece, ignores the Mayor's office (after continually citing former Mayor Mike White as a driver of the past ballot tax proposals) and blames the county commissioners without naming them.
Maybe the elected leaders of this city and this county don't really think building a new convention center is a good idea. If that's true, they should say so, for that would be leadership, too.
But if they're just afraid to take a stance that might be unpopular, maybe it's time they looked for a new line of work.
And maybe the PDEB shouldn't be so willing to back every tax increase. Maybe the PDEB should have shown a little backbone of its own and offered its opinion of the best site. Maybe the PDEB should sign the unsigned editorials, when they come from one source. Maybe the PDEB should back a candidate who doesn't have the backing of the Cuyahoga County Democratic machine Party.
On the Road -- Again
Greetings, from Zanesville, Ohio. The family is with me as we spend the weekend with the in-laws. Looks to be relatively quiet time. This is the third weekend out of the last four spent with family; and the second weekend road trip in a row. Looks like we have one more before the end of July.
Friday, July 11, 2003
Cleveland Convention Center -- Gimmee Shelter
It hasn't been a good week for those supporting the new CCC (and not just because I am back to blogging about it again). As I mentioned earlier, the first public meeting since they announced their site preference met with some unexpected resistance to the choice.
Posturing from the Cleveland City Council is getting stronger. The Council President, Frank Jackson, is threatening to withhold/kill any support for a new CCC tax, if the pot isn't sufficiently sweetened -- to the tune of about $250 million dollars over 10 years. That's the additional money he wants going to the various suburbs and for downtown, in addition to the $400-500 million for a new CCC, plus there is the desire of the arts community and some county commissioners for $100-150 million over the same period for support of the arts (this is looking like a $1 billion dollar tax plan). Jackson has announced that there will only be two Cleveland City Council meeting addressing the CCC, instead of the five he previously promised (not that they are much use to the general public since they occur at 9:30 am on Monday). At this same meeting, the Cleveland City Planning Commission director, Tom Coyne (This is what the article says, but the director of the CCPC is Chris Ronayne) let loose with the whopper that a new CCC would create 9,600 jobs and generate an additional $170 million dollars in revenue spent in the greater Cleveland area. This must be from the legendary and elusive study that resides within the offices of the Greater Cleveland Convention and visitors Bureau (GCCVB).
The next day, the Cuyahoga County Commissioners received additional news to worry them of the political value of backing a new CCC. A poll commissioned by Cleveland Tomorrow and the Greater Cleveland Growth Association (the 2 major local business organizations pushing the new CCC) showed the public to be 60-40 against additional taxes for a new CCC combined with other projects (it was 65-35 for just the CCC alone).
The spin from 2 Commissioners tells you where they look to be positioning themselves on the issue in the coming weeks.
"If it was voted on today, it would be clobbered, absolutely clobbered," Commissioner Tim McCormack said.
Commissioner Jimmy Dimora was a bit more upbeat.
"It's not positive, but it's got a shot," he said.
Now the really amusing thing, is that they only informed the local politicians, verbally, that the poll was taken, and what the results were. They would not give them any papers on what the specific polling questions were, how many people were polled, margin of error, or anything. Here's why.
Cleveland Tomorrow and the Greater Cleveland Growth Association paid for the poll, which was finished last week. Dennis Eckart, head of the Growth Association, refused to discuss the poll or release its results yesterday. Politicians were briefed yesterday about the results but were not given copies of the findings.
...
By not releasing a copy of the results to public officials, business leaders prevented reporters from getting a copy under Ohio public records law.
"They wouldn't give us the paperwork," Dimora said. "They didn't trust us."
I love that quote of not being trusted, from Dimora. I think this article with politicians talking about the results kind of proves their point.
Of course, Jimmy Dimora has a way of making it clear it is far from over, once the marketing campaign gets going in support of the new CCC.
politicians found a silver lining in the fact that early polls showed a sin tax to pay for Gateway had little voter support, but voters narrowly passed the tax in 1990 after an expensive public campaign.
An expensive campaign could also convince voters to support a convention center package, Dimora said.
"With a $2 million campaign, anything is possible," he said.
One tip for whatever politicians compared it to Gateway. Never, never, never, make any sort of comparison for a public works project to Gateway. Not going to really make the voters feel good about the present project.
There are other reasons for those who want a new CCC to be getting a sense of urgency and desperation, beyond the usual stated reasons of taking advantage of low interest rates and "losing convention business."
They know that next January Cleveland and Cuyahoga County taxpayers will be hit with property tax revaluation, said to be a 12 percent hike for most taxpayers. Then citizens will be hit by the first impact of the health and welfare levy passed in May. In addition, in the city, taxpayers will begin pay the jumped library levy. Tax bills will be shocking.
Read the rest of Roldo's column if you want to get a greater sense of doom and gloom for the Cleveland City Schools.
Well, as can be expected, this bad news has led to doubts that the new CCC will happen.
A new Cleveland convention center could be derailed because its supporters and local politicians have not resolved key questions about the project, county leaders said yesterday.
"There is significant division," said Cuyahoga County Commissioner Tim McCormack. "It's possible this thing could very well fall apart,"
Another commissioner, Jimmy Dimora, said the plan to put a tax issue on the November ballot could collapse if Cleveland's City Council president doesn't reduce his demand to include millions of dollars for neighborhood development projects.
Business and political leaders are running out of time to reach a consensus. They have six weeks left to place a tax issue on the November ballot.
I can dream. Really, I'll take the small victory if the anointed site on the riverfront for Forest City's benefit doesn't happen. And I don't see how it can if they really intend to make an ironclad agreement containing all the details by August 1 (of course, I doubt their failure to get this will not stop them, only haunt all of Cuyahoga County later).
The one great thing about local politics over national politics, is that personalities and getting dissed are so much more obvious and can clearly have a greater affect on the decisions.
McCormack was angry yesterday after a meeting between the county Planning Commission and suburban mayors about the proposal for a $400 million convention center behind Tower City Center.
Business leaders Dennis Eckart and Joe Roman were expected to attend the meeting and answer questions.
But neither Eckart, head of the Greater Cleveland Growth Association, nor Roman, head of Cleveland Tomorrow, was there. The two have led the charge for a new convention center.
McCormack said their absence sent the wrong message to suburban leaders who will be needed to rally support for a tax issue.
"I don't know what they were thinking by not having anyone show up," he said. "For them not to be there is just not good. They had a duty to be in the room."
The whole drive for a new CCC is getting killed right now in public relations and image wise. I figure there are several reasons for that.
1) Natural news cycle. Keep showing things going up, then down and up. Repeat as necessary.
2) Bad handling of the decision for the Riverfront as the site. The business leaders were supposed to have a decision on the site back in February. They put it off until June. In the time before February and after, they told everyone who listened that they were seriously considering and evaluating all the sites carefully. Forest City Enterprises W.3rd site was getting killed for being impractical, too small, hurting the successful Warehouse district, and so blatantly self-serving to the exclusion of all other downtown interests. In April they pulled it, and in May submitted the bare outlines of a plan for the Riverfront site. Barely a month later, with details of cost and the plans still sketchy at best, this was the recommended site. Many, even those who wanted a new CCC, had to have been offended and turned off by the blatant fixing of the choice.
3) The sidelining of Dave Nolan. You could consider this a part of #2, but I think it warrants a separate spot. The President of the GCCVB has been on the sidelines since the spending scandal broke in May. Nolan had been one of the leading forces to push for a new CCC. He's been a hell of a salesman. He had handled brokering competing interests, helped put a great unified public/private front on the CCC issues. The longer he has been sidelined, the more things have gone wrong -- in public perception; competing interests; personal spats; and a growing disconnect with the general public as the business and political elites bicker.
Tuesday, July 08, 2003
Animals Blush
Well, if they were on the Noah's Ark as conceptualized by Fisher-Price the females wear it.
You can buy additional animals for the ark: hippos, peacocks, rhinos, alligators etc. Interesting thing is that all the female animals are clearly smaller, have pink ears, are blushing (I'm not kidding) and have their tales pointing up (I'm not going to try to give you hubby's explanation of that one--this is a family blog)! Umm, so all the female animals took the time to put on make-up before they got on the ark? {Sigh} I guess I'm greatful they don't have ribbons or mascara or sky blue eye shadow (yes I was a kid in the 70's).
I guess there had to be some way to distinguish them without adding genitalia.
Quickly Reconstituted
Looks Like Arter & Hadden is not really dead, just revising and revamping (Subs. Req'd).
About 100 Arter & Hadden attorneys have formed Tucker, Ellis & West LLP, which will open for business on July 16. The new firm’s managing partner, Bob Tucker, said the other name partners in the new firm are Steve Ellis and Kim West.
Tucker Ellis could be described as “Arter & Hadden-lite,” as it will cast off many of the expensive office locations that contributed to Arter & Hadden’s financial difficulties while retaining some of Arter's best clients.
Prior to its demise, Arter & Hadden had about 250 attorneys in 10 offices in the United States and one affiliated office in Geneva, Switzerland. The new Tucker Ellis will occupy just three former Arter & Hadden offices in Cleveland, Los Angeles and San Francisco, according to a news release issued Tuesday by Arter & Hadden.
About 75 of the new firm’s attorneys will be based in Cleveland. Tucker Ellis’ attorneys bring with them many of Arter & Hadden’s high-profile clients, such as welding equipment maker Lincoln Electric Co., University Hospitals of Cleveland and health care products giant Johnson & Johnson.
Looks like the end of Arter & Hadden just means the end of an old law firm-business model that helped to bleed the firm of liquidity.
This Just In
Gosh, this is a shocker.
Britney Spears Says She's Not a Virgin
Now I don't know what to believe in.
Monday, July 07, 2003
Return to Conversations on the a New Cleveland Convention Center
A confluence of issues precluded me getting a post in on the CCC sooner. Most of recently it involved my Pitt-centric focus on the Big East-ACC matters.
So going back a almost a month, to two consecutive days of CCC propaganda. This was the first piece that I accidentally caught while flicking one Wednesday night, on the local NBC affiliate:
"DATELINE CLEVELAND: OUTSIDE THE BOX, Do We Really Need A New Convention Center?"
Cuyahoga County voters will have the decision of whether to support a new convention center or not on their November ballot and that vote will ultimately impact all of Northeast Ohio.
However, before one vote is cast, many questions need to be answered first. DATELINE CLEVELAND has spent the last months talking with many of the key people involved in this dialogue. The information in this broadcast may help the region's voters make up their minds about the degree of support they are willing to provide.
"Our city's economic future could be in the balance with the outcome of this vote," said WKYC Senior Political Correspondent Tom Beres and co-host of this DATELINE installment. "We felt it important to explain both sides of the convention center question and provide viewers with information and analysis. It's not just about a new facility; there are so many more concerns within this controversial issue and many factors that need to be taken into account."
"We have tried to shed some light on what each camp is thinking, how they are positioning their arguments and how all of the convention center discussions will impact our entire community," added DATELINE co-host Dick Russ. "This broadcast is designed to raise awareness. It really is one hour of programming viewers can not afford to miss."
Except that it lacked that one key element that it suggests in the title and even in the "summary" presented: both sides.
They never presented one person to actually oppose a new CCC. There was no one saying, "This won't help downtown." or "There is no actual empirical data showing that there will be real, sustainable job growth from spending $500 million on a new convention center." The closest they came to an opposing viewpoint, was an economics professor at Cleveland State who said it likely wouldn't provide near the bang for the buck that some other use for the same money could (more about him later).
Instead, most of the show was taken up explaining that the old CCC was outdated and that no one wanted to come to it. They listed and gave some of the pros and cons of the various sites set forward for the new CCC. Honestly, I was blown away by the level of puff that they could pack into an hour. To prove that Cleveland needed a new convention center, they looked to Pittsburgh.
Dave Copeland, several months ago summed up the success of the David L. Lawrence Convention Center in Pittsburgh in an e-mail:
Success? Well, the people charged with promoting it have been very vocal that theyÂ’re ahead in their bookings. But the goals they established were so low that it would have been next to impossible for them to NOT reach them.
So now you have a building that is roughly $60 million over budget and $110 million more than the original estimate back in 1997. And it's a building that will need perpetual operating subsidies (there's no such thing as a "profitable" convention center. Boosters measure success by the extremely fluid "tourism dollars" which, any economist will tell you is difficult to quantify). The building itself is too small to compete for conventions with other cities Pittsburgh's size, and there's a whole host of structural problems (I did a series of stories in November 2001 about a foundation problem, and last February a worker was killed when a truss that was being installed collapsed. Cause: wrong bolts, which may or may not have been use for the 13 trusses previously installed).
And all that private development that was supposed to come once Pittsburgh built a world class convention center? Boosters now say what is really needed is a taxpayer-subsidized convention center hotel, because Pittsburgh doesn't have enough hotel space to draw big conventions. In other words, private investors don't think this is a big enough deal to plunk their own money down.
So if that's a success, the bar is incredibly low. Just like Pittsburghers were told "look at Cleveland" when Pittsburgh "needed" new stadiums, Clevelanders are being told to look at Pittsburgh
One of the best articles I read on the subject was in Cleveland Scene.
To be fair, Cleveland is looking to include a taxpayer-subsidized convention center hotel in the cost, so they are getting that part "right."
The next night, I found that the local PBS affiliate was having a roundtable discussion on the new CCC. ( real audio or windows media for those who want to listen)
The participants:
Madeline Cain -- Mayor of Lakewood
Jimmy Dimora -- Cuyahoga County Commissioner
Joe Frolik -- Associate Editor of the Editorial Page, Plain Dealer
Ned Hill -- Professor of Urban Studies & Public Administration, Cleveland State University
Frank Jackson -- President, Cleveland City Council
Ari Maron -- Partner, MRN Limited Partnership
Steve Strnisha -- Deputy Director, Cleveland Tomorrow
Do you know what is missing from this roundtable? An actual opponent to a new CCC. The closest thing to an opponent is Professor Hill. His argument, was the rather useless and wholly theoretical argument that the City of Cleveland would be better off economically to spend the $500 million needed for a new CCC on other things (that will provide a bigger bang for the buck, but when push came to shove he seemed to favor a new CCC over nothing) -- a completely irrelevant position since the issue isn't what to spend $500 million on, but whether to spend $500 million on a convention center --and at the same time proving the point of the tired joke from Econ 101:
Three people are stranded on a desert island - an engineer, a biologist, and an economist. They have a case of canned goods, but no can opener.
The engineer proposes using the resources on the island to break open the cans; the biologist suggests letting erosion do the job; and the economist says, "Lets suppose we had a can opener..."
So with those sort of "discussions" happening, it somehow seemed like a surprise when the business groups threw their support behind the Forest City/riverfront proposal.
Some are more naked in their reasons for a new site than others.
In Austin, the city donated an old airport to the Austin Film Society, which offers the hangars and office space at cost to feature and commercial films. Austin saw more than $75 million in film expenditures in its first year of offering the space.
In Philadelphia, the city allowed the Philadelphia Film Commission to convert an old convention center into sound stages for filming. This municipally-owned stage is booked with film business so often that officials now hunt for additional venues to accommodate more indoor film work.
A couple of options seem reasonable. First, if a new convention center is built on a different site, a substantial portion of the old convention center could be converted to sound stage use. Two to three spaces of 10,000 to 25,000 square feet apiece would be soundproofed as stage space, while an additional 75,000 square feet could be used by area vendors of equipment, as office and commissary space. Additional space could also be used to house costumes, props and related filmmaking amenities. Arts organizations - especially those with a performing or media arts focus - would be logical co-tenants for the facility.
...
[Chris] Carmody is president of the Greater Cleveland Film Commission.
Here's why I have had a hard time bringing myself to write about the new CCC lately. The situation has somehow managed to exceed my own cynicism. Seriously. The 5 or 6 proposals initially put out there were clear in their naked self interest. Forest City Enterprises was taking it on the chin, ainitialled their inital pathetic offering, and in the beginning of June offered a new site (and further mediocre reviews). Barely 3 weeks later their site is picked as the primary site to build a new CCC. Part of me wants to be optimistic because they not only have to get the following done by August 1
Dennis Eckart, head of the Greater Cleveland Growth Association, and Joe Roman, head of Cleveland Tomorrow, detailed the plan yesterday for Plain Dealer editors and reporters - with several caveats.
By Aug. 1, they said, political leaders and the property owners, Forest City Enterprises, must agree to:
Build houses on the vacant Scranton Peninsula, across the river from Tower City.
Expand The Avenue, Tower City's ailing shopping mall, be fore the convention center is built.
Address what to do with Public Hall, which will be vacated if a new center is built.
Commit to expanding existing hotels in the area.
If those things don't happen, business leaders propose that a convention center be built at the site of the current center, an aging, underground building near Mall C.
"This has to be an ironclad development agreement, not left to the whims of market forces," Eckart said. "We're going to ask the most for our $400 million public investment."
and then they have to get this on the ballot by the August 21 deadline. My only hope comes from the apparent hostility the most recent public meeting had to the proposed site for the CCC.
Business leaders and city officials started selling their plan for a new convention center last night, but not all taxpayers were ready to buy.
More than 100 people attended a public hearing, at which executives from Cleveland Tomorrow and the Greater Cleveland Growth Association presented their recommendation to build a $400 million convention center behind Tower City Center.
But many in the audience complained that the plan cost too much, was being pushed too fast or was designed to benefit its developer, Forest City Enterprises, which also owns Tower City and the land where the center would be built.
This alone wouldn't be enough, but then there is this matter. (subs. req'd)
As proponents for a new Cleveland convention center forge ahead in crafting a plan with politicos for building and funding a new center, they will need to court a soured constituency whose support previously was a given: the Greater Cleveland Lodging Association, the hotel industry trade group.
That comes at a bad time as the convention center drive enters a go-for-broke phase if money issues are to make the November ballot. Cleveland Planning Commission approved a site last Friday, June 27, for a new convention center - the first formal review by the city of a plan - and project boosters secured language in the state budget signed last week that assists development and financing mechanisms for a center. They are steps convention center backers have dreamed of for a decade.
Should convention center backers fail to mollify the hotel interests, business leaders and politicians pushing the plan risk the unbelievable: There is talk behind closed doors in the industry about opposing a hotel bed tax and other tax hikes vital to financing a new center and other economic development purposes, though that has yet to surface publicly.
The hoteliers' grumbling comes after convention center backers secured valuable language in the budget bill that allows Cuyahoga County to hike bed taxes by 2%, to divert existing bed taxes to the project from the Convention & Visitors Bureau of Greater Cleveland, to impose a restaurant and beverage tax, and to seek a 0.25% hike in sales taxes.
Executives of the Greater Cleveland Growth Association and Cleveland Tomorrow, the driving forces behind convention center planning, say hoteliers' concerns are groundless. They say that in working on the convention center plan, they have worked from a playbook that David Nolan, president of the Convention & Visitors Bureau of Greater Cleveland, helped to draft on behalf of the industry.
Mr. Nolan went on administrative leave a month ago after media reports questioned the bureau's spending practices and the bureau launched its own internal probes of the board-approved practices. The move sidelined from talks the industry's point man, and no one from the industry stepped into the void.
Now, a month later, five members of the hotel trade group and their lobbyist complain their industry hasn't been kept in the loop at the final stages of the business community-controlled project before it tossed the ball to the city of Cleveland and Cuyahoga County.
...
Bart Hacker, public affairs director of the Ohio Hotel & Lodging Industry Association, to which the Cleveland group belongs, said he found out about provisions for Cleveland's convention center only in the final days of budget deliberations.
"There was little interest in knowing what we thought or proposed," Mr. Hacker said.
Likewise, the only look that the hotel industry got at the business community's preferred site - between Huron Road and the Cuyahoga River, behind Tower City - was a brief presentation at a June 19 Convention & Visitors Bureau board meeting. That briefing came the day before the Growth Association and Cleveland Tomorrow issued their preference for the riverfront site.
"We'd been at other meetings where the other sites were discussed," said Joseph Khairallah, general manager of the Hyatt Regency Cleveland, "but we never saw the one they (business leaders) recommended." He has no complaint about the site itself.
The lodging association also has problems with the financial plan. While the state approved language allowing the county to increase bed taxes 2 percentage points, it also changed the way current bed taxes are allocated. A state law that gave the Convention & Visitors Bureau control of the 4.5% county bed tax - it uses 3% for its operations and marketing expenses and 1.5% to repay bonds on the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum - was replaced by language giving that control to the county and having the money flow through the county's general fund.
The lodging industry wanted a 1 percentage point increase in the bed tax countywide and a 1 percentage point hike in Cleveland, Mr. Hacker said, not 2 percentage points countywide. The group also dislikes the potential 0.25% increase in sales tax the state allowed the county to impose for a convention center and economic development that also goes on hotel bills. Those increases, combined with the recently hiked state sales tax and all existing taxes, mean a guest in downtown Cleveland might wind up paying 17.5% tax on his hotel bill.
That's likely to give Cuyahoga County the second-highest total hotel tax rate in the nation, said Scott Ringer, general manager of the Cleveland Marriott Downtown at Key Center. Indeed, a study by the Meetings & Conventions trade magazine in August 2002 put the city at 15th position. At 17.5%, Cleveland would trail only Washington, D.C.'s 20.25% rate.
Emphasis added.
This may merely be posturing by the hotel groups, but with Nolan still on the sidelines the proponents of a new CCC are at a disavantage at selling the hotel people on the benefits. Especially after a winter where downtown hotels saw the occucpancy rates below 60%. Even with a new CCC there won't be much business in the winter, and they won't be too keen on dealing with another 300+ rooms on the existing Tower City hotels.
Since that less than positive first public meeting, the Cleveland City Planning Commission hasn't announced another public meeting -- that is unless, they might be cynical enough to wait until a couple days before the meeting to actually post the date, time and location. Would they?
I think I need some more gin.
Reasonable Idea or Shrewd Manipulation?
The house the wife and I live in is on the small side, and lacks much in cabinet space in the kitchen. This has forced some improvisation with a bakery cart and a free-standing shelf-unit. The bottom of the bakery cart has been my defacto bar area. The bottles and other bar supplies are on the bottom shelf and the bottle rack below that. The one thing we haven't found a good location has been our daughter's growing stock of baby foods.
Wife: Chas?
Me (slightly distracted by the baseball game on TV): Yeah, dear?
Wife: Do you think you could box up some of the bottles of booze you don't use often (starts to rush the words as my head whips around to full attention) so we can put Angie's baby food there and free up some of the counter space.
Me: What?
Wife: Well, just the stuff you don't drink regularly. Not the scotch, gin, bourbon, vodka and stuff like that. Just the, the...
Me: You mean the flavored liquors I bought for drinks you would like, but then still didn't bother drinking?
Wife: Yeah! Just those.
Me: (speaking slowly as I think about it) Well, I guess it would be okay... Wait, is this a clever ploy to start getting the alcohol out of the house?
Wife: (looking shocked at the accusation, then giggling a little) N-no! That's not it. I'm just trying to get non-essential stuff out of the kitchen to give us some more room.
Me: (still being suspicious) O-kayyy. I guess so. Sure.
I may simply be paranoid, but I'm going to do it.
Go West
The drive home was not as easy as the drive to my folks house. Not unexpected, since this was the Sunday after a 3-day July 4th weekend. Actually, it looked like I had the easier drive heading west than anyone going east. The PA and OH turnpike had major backlogs on the eastbound 'pikes. There was a 6 mile backup at the Breezewood exit, and a couple miles at the Warrendale exit. The Ohio/Pennsylvania border had a mile and a half back-up leaving Ohio.
The kid slept for about half the trip. Not as good as the trip out, but better than our return from Chicago where she screamed and cried for the final hour.
The one thing, I don't understand about the PA Turnpike. The rest stops. I have no idea why the last service station westbound on the turnpike is 77 miles from the PA/Ohio border, but there are 2 service stations on the eastbound side covering the same distance. That one rest stop still stinks from years of use and the fact that everyone with kids is almost forced to stop there before daring to continue any further west.
|
|
 |
|
 | |
