March 2017

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  

« Aftermath | Main | Transparency via Tony »

Feb 04, 2010

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Tim

OK this needs to be published in the News & Record to show that they were not being truthful about downtown hotel plans. Weaver said there were no such plans and now it is confirmed that not only did they want to build a downtown hotel, but Weaver wished he could have used the recovery bonds to do it. I just see a lot of hypocracy here.

Tim

I just think whats good for Quaintance/Weaver is good for Chrisholm/Kaplan. It appears that Quantance believes a downtown hotel is viable otherwise he would not have sent that email to Andy Scott. There is a lot of double talk and if the News & Record wants to focus a lot of attention on what Skip Alston said about this hotel, they need to focus on Weaver and Quaintance as well. Its what I call fair and balanced.

Stephen

Quaintance said weeks ago that they had looked into building a "smaller" hotel downtown, but the city brushed them off. This isn't new news.

Tim

smaller or larger, it doesnt make a difference. Weaver and Quaintance said they had NO downtown hotel plans and that they didnt want to build another hotel anywhere. The email could be evidence of an attempt to undermind this hotel project so Quaintance can build his own at some point in the future.

Ed Cone

"this needs to be published in the News & Record..."

It was, on Saturday, in Dick Barron's article.

And of course it was published online almost a month ago.

Not news if you've been paying attention.

Tim

i dont remember the email itself being posted in the News & Record
besides it wouldnt be the first time they have rehashed old news on this topic/

Spag

Tim, why would you be so opposed to a Weaver/Quaintance project if the whole concept of a downtown hotel is as great as you say?

FTR, I don't care who is building it. If it is going to be a money loser for the forseeable future, than it is a waste of the bonds. Good government doesn't mean Greensboro taking money for bad projects when Burlington could have used the money more productively. Use it or lose it is one main reason why communism could not succeed economically and why the quality of Soviet products was so bad.

Tim

Ironically the man who many believe has the most knowledge in the hotel industry (Dennis Quantance) had plans to build a downtown hotel in the near future and during a time when a feasibility report says Greensboro needs no more hotel rooms at this point in time. On top of that he regrets letting Chrisholm/Kaplan get ahead and he would have sought the recovery bonds as well for his downtown hotel project. Dennis was going to do the same exact thing. The only difference is that his hotel would have been a little smaller.

Andrew

Tim,

You continue to miss the point. They inquired about building a small hotel - not a 200 room hotel. They also weren't setting things up so several people were pocketing millions of dollars before the first brick was layed. I am beginning to think you are one of the people that stands to make a huge sum of money if the Urban Group gets it way.

Tim

frankly I dont care how much Skip Alston and others are making. Its irrelevant as far as i'm concerned. Now matter who builds a downtown hotel, some body is going to make a lot of money. If Dennis had built a hotel downtown, more than likely it would have been somewhere between 100 and 150 rooms which isnt that far off from 200 rooms. The hotel has to have enough rooms for it to be profitable and there has to be a balance between the number of rooms versus the hotel rates. Could Kaplan's hotel be less than 200 rooms? yes but I wouldn't go too far below that. But if you believe the feasibilty report, there is no need for another hotel whether its 100 rooms or 200 rooms. Now I don't have a problem with Dennis and Weaver building a downtown hotel and I believe a new downtown hotel can survive if its built the right way and has other revenue coming from office and retail leases. But I do have a problem with a hotel group trying to push another hotel developer out of the way so they can get their project built instead. I just don't think its ethical, especially when they are not being truthful to the public about their own plans. Its a dirty way to do business in my opinion.

Bob

There are several key issues: 1) 12.5 mil purchase price for the existing property, 2) large development fees and brokerage fees, 3) no real equity in the deal, 4) no hotel experience, and 5) hotel size. I haven't read that Quaintance proposed anything like what's being proposed by Kaplan. But in any case, the city should rule that no money be given to a downtown hotel, regardless of who is building it. The economic recovery bonds should be used to build base industry, not subsidize luxury hotels. I don't see any evidence that it will increase the room nights in Greensboro, so rather than create jobs, it will simply shift them around. One hotel cuts back staff, the other adds staff. Where's the real job growth?

JC

"I am beginning to think you are one of the people that stands to make a huge sum of money if the Urban Group gets it way."

Yep. Pretty obvious.

Bob

The bottom line is that no one would be considering a hotel downtown unless the tax free Recovery Bonds were available. This smacks of the overly aggressive lending policies that have put us in this deep recession. Haven't we learned our lesson from the "no real equity required" lending of the past 4 years?

Tim

In case you forgot, Chrisholm along with her business partner Marlon has hotel experience. I think Marlon has been in the hotel industry for over 25 years. Size wise, its not that much bigger than what Dennis would have proposed unless you think an extra 50 or 60 rooms is a big difference. Since this is a private venture, quite frankly I don't care what the fees are and who makes what. The government plays a role and acts is the middle man, but this isnt going to cost taxpayers.

Abner Doon

"this isnt going to cost taxpayers."

Tax free bonds cost tax payers in that they are tax free.

If they were taxable, the government would have recieved taxes, therefore, tax free bonds cost tax payers by way of taxpayers having to supply more tax revenues to government.

So please stop saying "this isnt going to cost taxpayers."

Ed Cone

Beyond the tax-free bond issue, the project requires public approval, makes use of public funds that could be applied elsewhere, and calls for locating a publicly-funded parking garage at a location convenient to the hotel but not much else.

The public has an interest in this project.

Bob

Tim-

What hotel experience does Chisholm have? Here are 2 links describing her experience - no mention of hotels.

http://www.ncimed.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=173:bridgetchisholm&catid=39:speakers&Itemid=211
http://www.bwcconsulting.com/expertise.htm

What is Marlon's involvement? What ownership stake does he have in any hotels currently or in the past? How much cash will he have in this deal?

Where is the detail on what Quaintance supposedly proposed? And when was that? Was it with tax free bonds?

The problem is it isn't a private venture. Take out the tax free bonds (which shortchange us, the taxpayers), and I think we'd all be happy to let them do their deal. If you think this doesn't cost taxpayers, then why is it we all can't issue these bonds. Because it does cost taxpayers.

And it will hurt Greensboro -- if the city council vets this project and allows the bonds to be issued, then it fails, our credibility is hurt. So next time we need to issue bonds for something that actually makes sense, we pay for it.

Spag

"Ironically the man who many believe has the most knowledge in the hotel industry ..."

Actually, in North Carolina, that would probably be Bob Winston, but he isn't playing this round.

Anyway, is Tim ever going to tell us who he is working for and how much he is being paid? Such a simple question, yet he refuses to answer it.

bubba

"Because it does cost taxpayers."

No!

That can't possibly be correct!

After all, Tim told us it wasn't!

The Magic Wand I posted about in the other thread verifies that!

The comments to this entry are closed.