April 2022

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

« Good work if you can get it | Main | Sanguinary »

May 11, 2012


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

Don Moore

Their numbers are VERY inflated, by possibly as much as 100%. Part of hosting an event includes securing "special" rates for housing. These folks are not staying at the O'Henry. $114 for Day Trippers? They never heard of car-pools.

Even their "guesstimate" of $116 Million results in $6.96 Million to fund the coliseum.

On the BRIGHT Side, ALL of the Hotel/Motel Tax goes to the coliseum, so while the coliseum might not be pulling their weight, the law provides for a fairly decent slush fund that should allow Matt Brown to make his desired improvements (a few at a time) without hitting the taxpayers up for new bonds.


"while the coliseum might not be pulling their weight"

But the coliseum just solidified a triple-bill date with Journey (sans The Voice)/Pat Benatar/Loverboy!?!? Loverboy, dude!


Believe the bs numbers ed

Don Moore

CORRECTION, only 80% of the Hotel/Motel Tax (which according to the City Budget is 3%) goes to the coliseum. The budget projects just over $3 Million to the coliseum. That is slightly twice the operating loss of the coliseum. Still once the Coliseum Bonds are paid off in next budget year; that gives Matt Brown $1 Million clear to spend on improvements and if he can improve the operating loss situation - he can do even more.

@prell - the coliseum has a decent schedule of entertainment, my comments are about the drain on City Taxpayers - most of whom never attend a coliseum event during the year. If the coliseum can become self-sustaining, as it appears they might (when including the Hotel/Motel Tax as a permanent funding mechanism); I will be very happy.

Andrew Brod

I doubt the numbers are inflated, because even if less than $114/day is actually spent by day-trippers, the GACVB generally does not factor in multipliers, a.k.a. spillover effects. My recollection is that Fourier doesn't believe in them, which is either a good thing or a bad thing depending on your perspective. Does it lead to a conservative number or does it "leave money on the table"?

Yes, the memo uses the word "multiplier" but it uses it to characterize the $114/day and $228/day spending figures. To my knowledge, no one else uses "multiplier" in this way. Those numbers are not multipliers as that term is used in economic-impact analysis. I would call them the direct effects, the numbers that get multiplied by the multipliers.

Suppose the composite multiplier for daytime tourist spending (a combination of retail, restaurants, recreation, and gasoline) is, say, 1.65. Then the economic impact of a day's worth of spending by a day-tripper would be $114 x 1.65, or about $188. That's the original spending (the direct effect) plus additional spending created by spillovers.

It appears that this analysis leaves out the 1.65, so unless the $114/day spending figure is more than 65% too high, the overall results aren't inflated. They might even be too low. But don't get hung up on the 65% thing. Remember, I just made up that 1.65 for the sake of illustration. The actual multiplier might be 1.46 or 1.82 for all I know.

The $114/$228 figures might seem high, but they're broadly consistent with other estimates I've seen in various sources. After all, the federal non-lodging per diem rate for Greensboro is $56, and people traveling for pleasure spend on more than just meals.

My only criticism of the $114/$228 numbers is that GACVB hasn't adjusted them in forever. So yeah, they "give a consistent approach."


so now we have the BS numbers from AB that make the case for a more bloated number to make his case but am sure if you have the money ab has the analysis just to fit your needs, go ask king zoning stud henry isaacson and richie rich roy carroll on that complete assinine analysis that got nowhere in front of council,


Another way to extend benefits would be to allow each employee to pick one household member for coverage. As it stands now, if same-sex couples are entitled to a benefit there truly is an equal protection violation if unmarried heterosexual couples don't get the same benefit.

Sure you can argue that The Straights could always get married while the The Gays cannot not, but that argument fails because it necessarily assumes that all gay couples would get married if they could and discounts the possibility that many might simply want to shack up like The Straights. There is no way to determine the intentions of either.

Finally, the fact there are workarounds- something I suggested a while back when we were told the sky was falling because of A1 - only confirms that the doomsday hysteria was unwarranted.

Day three, and none of the evil has come to pass despite what the family law "experts" in the ivory tower predicted.

It's a good thing that nobody accepted my bet.


That's just the way it is, Keith. Some things will never change in regard to various cheerleaders and voodoo economics praticioners.


1 kid in a room for a three day swim meet.

Fri, Sat & Sun.

$228 per day x 3 = $684 total spent per child.

$120 room per day / 4 = $30 x 3 = $90 total spent for room per child.

Free breakfast.

Lunch at Swim meet = $10 x 3 = $30 total.

$20 for dinner x 3 = $60 total.

$180 + entrance fee? = $50

Mall spending = $50

$280 for the three days per kid.

$684 estimate.

684 - 280 = 404

What does the kid spend the other $404 on?


Is a day tripper someone who lives in Greensboro?

Where are the numbers?


Why do they count kids and adults the same way, $228 per day?

Especially if 4 kids usually occupy a room,
while 2 adults do.

When we went for softball tournaments
local spending was pretty stricktly food and room.

Always had a hotel that served breakfast and coffee.

Exausted by the end of each day.

early bed.

finish and hit the highway.

Not a whole lot of impact from buying gas to get home.


Over my daughter's career we figured we would spend at least about $300 - $400 for a typical two night weekend stay. Most folks I knew wouldnt go for rooms much over $90 (unless they were in some sort of points system). "Team rates" werent great but saved a few bucks/night. Typically we were one family = one room. Sometimes we would add another kid (until they got older). When they got older it would typically be 2 familes = 3 rooms (with teens in one) or equally as often 2 rooms (just dads or just moms or just one set of parents), etc. But dont forget sometimes meets are Thursday evening, Fri, Sat and Sunday. It's not always only 2 nights.

Still 2-3 of us with a meal line up of Friday dinner, Sat Lunch, Sat dinner, Sunday Lunch and some times Sunday dinner. Like Goergoe said, Breakfast was typically free hotel style if they opened early enough.

Until they got older and more serious (and swam prelims and finals) we usually did something else over the weekend - shop, movie, local attraction, etc.

People spend money. The GAC is performing as advertised/predicted to date. Perhaps even better. Still gonna lose money as a stand alone building (again as predicted).

As Ed said, it's a plus in MANY regards no matter the various economic impact opinions.

Day trippers: Some (but not all) from say Chapel Hill might commute. Depends on when warm up starts, level and age of swimmer, simple personal preference, etc. Those folks may or may not eat here. Even local will probably eat out at least once over a meet weekend.


Dont forget: Host team pool rental, parking fees, a few tanks of gas here and there.

FYI - Many swim families drive big ol gas guzzlers, SUVs, vans, etc.

There have been numerous meets at The GAC and a few have been quite large and a few have been more than 2 day events. It adds up folks.

There are several more to come. Rumor has it teams from all over the country are inquiring.

Andrew Brod

"if you have the money ab has the analysis just to fit your needs"

That sounds about right, as it applies to any consultant in any line of work you can think of. But of course it was intended as slander. I knew my comment would bring out the yahoos, but given the attempted slander, I suppose I should point out what's already clear to my clients: I never slant an analysis to favor a client. Never have. I never did it when I did this kind of work at UNCG and I don't do it now.

Frankly, slanting analyses wouldn't merely be unethical, it'd be the death of my business. In my litigation work I work for both plaintiffs and defendants. I don't advocate for any particular cause or group. I just do the work and let the numbers fall where they may.

Thanks, yahoos, for the opportunity to put that on the Google-searchable record.

Andrew Brod

"Not a whole lot of impact from buying gas to get home."

That may be, George, but it's also irrelevant from the standpoint of GACVB's analysis, which stops with the direct impact and doesn't factor in multipliers. In other words, if someone spends $60 on gas, all GACVB is measuring is that $60. Henri Fourier isn't claiming anything about the impact of that $60.

Your comment would be relevant if someone had done a comprehensive economic-impact analysis, in which the analyst assigns multipliers to each type of spending. Some kinds of spending have less local impact, and for them the multipliers are lower. The analysis (if done appropriately) takes your concern into account.

Andrew Brod

It occurs to me that maybe GACVB intends for the $114/$228 figures to capture direct effects and multipliers. Mathematically, there's nothing wrong with that. But if that's the case, then GACVB is using a particularly opaque methodology. Economic-impact analysis is already kind of a "black box" from the public's perspective. This would be even blacker.

In any case, the real problem is that those numbers haven't changed in forever. I used them in a study some years ago and stopped when I realized they weren't changing. In my National Science Center study that George tried to impugn on another thread, I used other data.


"In my National Science Center study
that George tried to impugn on another thread,
I used other data."

What other data?
"someone spends $60 on gas, all GACVB is measuring is that $60."

How can they count $60, if most of the money leaves Greensboro?

The Gas station probably keeps a couple of dollars, no?
The four in my family went to Rock Hill, SC for three days.

$228 x 4 = $912 per day

912 x 3 days = $2,736

Didn't even come close to what happened.

$450 for the room.

$50 for the tournament.

$300 for food max. (we took a cooler full of drinks, snaks etc...)

Total spent less than $1,000.

Are you saying the numbers are too low?

The city brings in about $3,400,000 per year off a 6% tax.

If each room costs $150, that's $9 in taxes per room.

$3,400,000 / $9 per room = about 377,778 rooms sold per day.

GACVB is saying 67,940 rooms sold through April 30.

12 / 4 = 3 x 67,940 = 203,820

The Coliseum and Aquatic Center sell more than half the rooms sold?
At $100 per day, = $6 per room per day.

$3,400,000 / $6 per room = about 566,667 rooms sold per day.

The Coliseum and Aquatic Center sells about 36%
of all rooms sold in Greensboro in any given year?

Is this even remotely plausible?


"$3,400,000 / $9 per room = about 377,778 rooms sold per day."

I think this should say "per day per year"
The GACVB is saying $116.04 million economic impact through April 30.

116.04 x 3 = $348,120,000 economic impact from the Coliseum per year on 203,820 room nights.

= $1,707 economic impact per room night?


Andrew Brod

"How can they count $60, if most of the money leaves Greensboro?"

You're missing the point. They're not tracking where the money goes. They're not tracking the economic impact of that money. They're just adding up how much is spent locally, based on their $114/$228 spending estimates.

(FWIW, I'm not sure it's true that most of that $60 leaves Greensboro. But whether it does or not is relevant only if the analysis is actually trying to calculate economic impact. It's not relevant to the analysis described in the IFYI.)


"They're not tracking the economic impact of that money."

Says "economic impact"
"They're just adding up how much is spent locally,
based on their $114/$228 spending estimates."

Then why does it say "economic impact"?
"based on their $114/$228 spending estimates."

Where is the math and explanation behing the estimates?
Says "economic impact" six times on the one page memo.

How can it not be about "economic impact"?

Andrew Brod

Go ask them.

Don Moore

One figure that is NOT Contested - Tax Revenue. That's posted in the City Budget.

As for impact, even the Chain Restaurants and Hotels employ LOCAL people, so there is some local impact.

As long as the Coliseum can stay away from New Bonds, it can be self-sustaining with the Tax Revenue used for improvements and operating losses.


Well, it's pretty obvious that what we need here is a new sixty million dollar Performing Arts Center. That should bring in thousands of new tourists that will help cover the operating losses of the Coliseum, Aquatic Center, Civil Rights Museum, Ampitheatre and ACC Hall of Champions. Then all we have to come up with is another scheme to milk the taxpayers out of to cover the losses of the PAC, really quite simple.


The problem is that Matt brown wants all the hotel tax money for himself and not one dime to any downtown gpac or we will see a maneuver where they can use the money downtown. Look at next week's city council meeting where you will see santa brown with his needs for coliseum like a redo of front concourse of aquatic center and the thing has
not been open a year. Ridiculous


"The $114/$228 figures might seem high,
but they're broadly consistent with other estimates I've seen
in various sources."

"My only criticism of the $114/$228 numbers
is that GACVB hasn't adjusted them in forever."

"I did this kind of work at UNCG"

"...those numbers haven't changed in forever.

I used them in a study some years ago
and stopped when I realized they weren't changing."

"Go ask them."


like i have said, here is what is on agenda for may 15th 2012

25. Public Hearing to receive public comment on Coliseum Improvements. (Council District: all) (Attachment #25 to Councilmembers)

26. Resolution directing the filing of application for approval by Local Government Commission of a Limited Obligation Bond to Finance Improvements to the Greensboro War Memorial Coliseum Complex. (Council District: all) (roll call vote) (Attachment #26 to Councilmembers)

27. Resolution approving the issuance of a Limited Obligation Bond by the City of Greensboro, North Carolina to finance improvements to the Greensboro War Memorial Coliseum Complex, approving certain documents and actions relating thereto and authorizing other official action in connection therewith. (Council District: all) (roll call vote) (Attachment #27 to Councilmembers)

32. Resolution approving Capital Fund Expenditures from a portion of the Seventy Percent (70%) net proceeds of the Occupancy Tax received by the Greensboro/Guilford County Tourism Development Authority from the original Guilford County Three Percent 3% Room Occupancy Tax for the expansion of the Coliseum and Debt Reduction. (Council District: all) (roll call vote) (Attachment #32 to Councilmembers)

and what people are missing is that the durham dpac was paid with hotel and motel tax money, which for greensboro is not going to happen if matt and his fiefdom is taking all the money like the above agenda items for council next week.


I thought it had been established that a downtown PAC could not access Hotel/Motel as that money is ear marked for Coliseum.

Ed Cone

Not established definitively, Mick, but that seems to be the prevailing view.

The comments to this entry are closed.