Thursday, September 3, 2009
40 Jealous Whores / Around Town / Woods Ingram vs. Cooley: Fight to the Finish
Posted by Jeff Woods on Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 2:14 PM
"Gaylord's where it's always been. They want to be a good corporate citizen. Always have been. In this case, they'd like to find a win-win for the community and for the shareholders of Gaylord. ... "It's potentially a problem if one side went too far to Gaylord's side and forgot what needs to be done downtown to promote the heart of the city, and it's a problem if one side goes too far with taxpayer dollars in the heart of the city to the detriment of the private investment at Gaylord. You gotta make sure that doesn't happen."Now, we learn Mayor Karl Dean met with Gaylord CEO Colin Reed but won't say what they discussed. So it's all a big mystery and nobody wants to talk about what's really happening. You know what this means? It's time to speculate. We figure Gaylord is about to extort some new deal out of the city, tax breaks or something, in return for standing aside as the new convention center goes forward. But what's Gaylord's leverage? It's a little late in this process. The convention center is happening with or without Gaylord's support, isn't it? Whatever, one thing's for sure: All these business people want to cut all these deals behind closed doors and they don't want to talk to reporters about any of it. No public messiness. It's only our money they're talking about, after all.
Comments (11)
Showing 1-11 of 11
When all is said and done, will Gaylord be the only one who gets to vote or say on this issue? The mayor goes out of his way to get the opinion of the Gaylord CEO but has staged the development process in such a way as to avoid getting the opinion of everyone else. Why does this sound so messed up?
I will give Gaylord $100 to fight this center. They apparently would be more inclined to do that than my own council member who only received my vote.
like
dislike
The matchup I'd pay to see is Cooley against Colin "Crocodile Dundee" Reed.
Australia Boy could use an old-fashioned country whuppin'.
Gaylord (collectively) isn't man enough to just stand up and admit that they're viscerally opposed to the Convention Center. Think about it -- They're the only ones who lose on this deal. Nashville taxpayers? Nope; it'll be funded by tourism dollars. Downtown property owners? Nope; it's a facility that will go on a goddamn vacant lot and help support continued downtown revitalization.
The only entity that stands to lose is Gaylord, which risks seeing meetings leave Opryland Hotel and "Music Valley" and instead go to a vibrant downtown -- where conventions are held in most major U.S. cities. Forcing conventioneers to stay at Opryland simply because their companies or associations can't find enough space downtown -- well, it's an insult. (As a visitor, I'd take Tootsie's and the Country Music Hall of Fame any day over Opry Mills and the Wax Museum.)
Fuck Gaylord. Gaylord has been cornholing this community for years. Without lube. Shame on them or standing in the way of progress. And shame on the Scene for carrying Gaylord's water and opposing the convention center. Maybe now that the paper has been returned to local ownership, Kotz and the rest of the carpetbaggers will go back to tearing tickets at Browns games and leave the rest of us to continuing the efforts to make sure that Nashville has what every world-class city needs -- a decent fucking convention center.
There are an awful lot of operating businesses paying property taxes on that "vacant lot". Based on the number of publicly owned facilities in downtown, private property on the tax rolls is becoming quite rare in "vibrant" downtown (what little remains in many areas is TIF).
As a metro taxpayer I will lose. This is a billion dollars that could be used by government for a whole slew of actual goverment services. The only thing standing in the way is an arbitrary and reversible piece of legislation.
It is obvious at this point that proponets have adopted a new strategy of focusing on a single somewhat unlikable corporate citizen (the Disastrous Obama healthcare strategy when dealing with a real issue). The fact that this strategy suddenly starts the moment Cooley is hired with new names suddenly appearing in comments on Tennessean, NCP, and Pith stories is not coincidental.
By all means, Moose (I mean, Ingram): Let's just tax the tourists to pay for schools instead of reinvesting in tourism, which will create local jobs, local profits and local sales and business tax revenues. There are probably a grand total of two or three "businesses" that own the giant asphalt island that's been targeted for this improvement. And those people have probably gotten rich on parking fees they've been charging for years. Maybe in addition to targeting the Gaylord gangsters, we should also take a look at who owns those lots and what they've pocketed over the years. Personally, I think it's high time Gaylord, Ingram, and others answer for their obstructionist efforts. MP&F sat back tweetering and googling while Gaylord had its way with our fair city. If someone's finally standing up to these pricks, so be it. In the immortal words of Michael Buffer: "Let's get it on."
By the way: I've been kicking ass in the blogosphere long before this convention center boiled over. I just happen to be opinionated -- and correct. Don't be a sissy. Ask Colin Reed why he and his stock
options hate the idea of a new Nashville Convention Center.
I've been commenting on blogs for years. Unlike the person "Moost," who obviously works for Gaylord.
Your argument doesn't work, Moost, because the tax revenue to which you refer comes from business GENERATED by the Music City Center. Nashville doesn't get this tax revenue without the Music City Center because it doesn't get the business without the Music City Center.
I also find it interesting that the state legislation that created $80M in bonds for Gaylord is suddently "arbitrary and reversible." Sounds like your bosses want to use that $80M for something other than the hotel for which it is earmarked. That would be the hotel they no longer want to build.
Take a deep breath there harry. I referred to the tourism taxes going to the mcc as arbtraryband reversible, but so is thehush money that went to gaylord. It us laughable that you think that all that money collected at every rental car desk and Motel is tied entirely to convention business. The current center at most brings in maybe 5% of travellers. That means a lot of businesses are reimbursing out of town contractors for per diem without even seeing downtown let alone a convention facility. I would be the Loews people would be amused by someone saying a majority of their guests are there on convention center business. Face it, the convention and meeting industry's claim on all that revenue is imaginary. Aside from that point, what other industry gets to have local government collect taxes for it then have that same govt go in debt building their faculties? Professional sports? Tourism and the tiny subclass of meeting planning has somehow gotten in the habit of expecting tax rebates of it's own revenue and those of loosely affiliated ones. That still sounds silly to a lot if people. Particularly those still wanting to see real numbers, not unquantified consultant promises.
Whoa! Looks like the PR machine has cranked up again after a few quiet weeks.
Not sure how we have made the leap that Gaylord got an $80 million tax break. All Gaylord got was permission to use the IDB to issue tax exempt bonds. This is the same thing we do for Vanderbilt, Baptist, a host of private housing developers, etc. Plus with the convention and meeting business in shambles it ain't worth a thing. Which, of course, is one of the many reasons is hasn't happened yet.
Harry, you need to get your numbers right. There is no way this project will generate anywhere near enough money to have an impact on anything. The costs of operating a public hotel and convention center plus the debt service on all of it will take everything we got and then some.
The current center was financed with a federal grant and private investment plus some tax exempt bonds and as a result could more or less cover its debt and operating with HOT money. But you can't triple the size of a center, add a publicly owned hotel while only increasing the HOT revenues by 1/3. The math just doesn't work.
Gaylord has obviously decided they don't want the creation of 3,000 construction jobs over the next four years. Looks like Colin Reed has become addicted to putting people on the unemployment line. How many Gaylord employees have gotten the axe this year? 400?
A consultant for Gaylord said in the Tennessean yesterday the convention business is taking an upswing. Do you guys not listen to your consultants?
Gaylord has been addicted to taxpayer subsidies for years, like those tax breaks for the Delta expansion in 1996. Why are you pooh-poohing them now?
Given the 60 percent slide in Gaylord's stock value, Reed knows bad business practice, but you're attacks here are a thinly veiled attempt to keep Marriott from getting more hotel rooms in Nashville than Gaylord.
If Gaylord wants to pick a fight, reckon they would repay Davidson County taxpayers for the widening of Briley Parkway or the McGavock Pike clover leaf or those docks on the Cumberland River we built for their freaking water taxis they don't run anymore?
