Friday, October 9, 2009
Barry / Politics Newest Induction Into the Convention Center Argument Fabrication Hall of Fame
Posted by Bruce Barry on Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 10:52 AM
The Music City Center will be a stimulus for downtown, creating 2,500 immediate new construction jobs early next year and more than 30,000 additional jobs once the center is complete.More than 30,000 new jobs once the thing is built--where does that number come from? A fanciful imagination, apparently. The Music City Center Committee's 2006 final report recommending a big new convention center relied (p. 44) on economic impact analysis contained in a KPMG feasibility study commissioned by Metro government's internal audit division in 2004. The KPMG study (p. 205) concluded that the "incremental impact" of a new convention center on the local economy would be the addition of up to 2,900 jobs during the first five years of a new center's operation.
Let's recap. The MCC Coalition via Howard's op-ed promises "more than 30,000 additional jobs once the center is complete," while the actual analysis on which this thing is being sold to the public forecasts no more than 2,900 new jobs in five years post-completion. Howard and the Coalition are exaggerating employment impact by more than a factor of 10. Now that's a hall-of-fame-caliber performance!
Comments (16)
Showing 1-16 of 16
Bruce,
What are your feelings on Gaylord's involvement as behind the scenes opposition in all of this? Good, bad, indifferent?
like
dislike
I don't know what the actual number is, but 2,900 way underestimates the total impact of a new convention center and a hotel. What about all of the jobs that will be created in local restaurants by the increased business, for example?
Also, the Marriott people told the Metro Council that following the opening of Music City Center, another hotel would open in the downtown area within four years. Obviously, that will create more jobs. What about increased business for current hotels?
In conjunction with the Music City Center, the Country Music Hall of Fame is now talking about expanding. That's more jobs.
Again, I don't know how you go about calculating the actual economic impact, but this post vastly low-balls it.
I don't know how you go about calculating the actual economic impact, but this post vastly low-balls it.
How do you go about calculating economic impact? You hire experts to do an impact study. That's what the city did, and 2,900 is the number that resulted. This post doesn't low-ball anything. It merely reports on the massive discrepancy between the actual number produced by the actual consultants' feasibility study on which the MCC is being sold to the public and the made-up number that MCC supporters are now promulgating in published arguments.
What are your feelings on Gaylord's involvement as behind the scenes opposition in all of this? Good, bad, indifferent?
Indifferent. Within the limits of laws governing corporate political conduct, Gaylord can say and do whatever it likes. It is hardly a surprise that they might feel economically threatened by the proposed facility. How could they not? I wouldn't really call their activities "behind the scenes" anymore, as it is public knowledge and has been publicly reported that Gaylord has retained big-gun PR talent on this and has written a check to the Nashville's Priorities group raising questions about the project. Why shouldn't a corporate entity in a city try to protect what it perceives to be its own pecuniary interests when there is civic momentum toward a public policy outcome that they think would harm those interests? Isn't that how intersections between governments and markets are supposed to work?
Who needs facts when it comes to a billion dollars. Listen cry baby tax payers, there are several rich guys in town who want this to happen and that should be enough. They want it so it should happen. Just because it doesn't make sense shouldn't make a difference to you.
By the way journalists, so if you were going to "look" into this deal, who in Nashville stands to make the most money off the deal? Has anyone researched the direction of the probably stream of money? Knowing who is getting rich off of the project may shed some light on why facts seem to be going out the window.
Just curious.
Did that study just look at the people directly hired by the convention center and hotel?
Again, I'm not an expert, but it seems to me that a convention center will create a lot more than 2,900 jobs when you consider all of the business it will generate. I've read that it will bring a million new people to Nashville each year. That's a lot of people eating in restaurants, drinking in bars, shopping at Opry Mills.
And that doesn't include the 2,500 construction jobs to build the place.
Obviously the fiction department of the new PR firm working on this is writing the copy.
I've read that it will bring a million new people to Nashville each year.
Yes you have, and it's another creative (read: made-up) number that does not withstand scrutiny. Documents circulated earlier this year to potential hotel developers and sources of financing (a context where exaggeration is not rewarded) revealed that the anticipated room night volume associated with a new convention center doesn't come close to the numbers one would require to justify an estimate of 1 million new visitors per year. When confronted with this little discrepancy last spring, MCC boosters in the CVB sought to buttress their imaginative numbers by making bizarre claims about the throngs of conventioneers who will become so enthralled with Nashville during a convention visit that they will make a return tourist visit with family in the same year.
"What about increased business for current hotels?"
I'd say that increasing hotel taxes to pay for the new convention center would tend to have a negative effect on hotel business.
Raising the costs of tourist's trips to Nashville might make them more likely to look elsewhere for places to go.
Convention center business is down across the board anyway due to the economy. Businesses are looking to cut expenses and cutting back on conventions is one way to do it. It is not at all clear that the business will pick back up even as the economy recovers (which is going to be a long slow process).
Event planners look at a lot of different factors when choosing a location. Yes, cost is one, but I doubt that Nashville's modest increase in its hotel/motel tax will make a difference.
Nashville has one of the strongest brands in the U.S. We are a destination city now, and the Music City Center will make us more attractive.
This project is well worth pursuing.
Quick checklist of the talking points (no matter how absurd)
- million new visitors
- an entire Smyrna of new jobs (30,000)
- Gaylord is bad (don't look behind the curtain to see who even keeps bringing up Gaylord)
- Nashville is a brand and no other city has a brand
check on all those. That leaves
- why don't you naysayers believe in Nashville?
- tourism and convention centers are legitimate investments (no matter how bad the industry really is)
- tourism is the second largest industry in Nashville
none of these claims have taken hold yet no matter how often they are stated. Probably because none are true.
Aren't you a little conflicted on this?
I have been writing about political issues in this city since long before my spousal unit sought public office. Although at times I write about issues that come before the Council (e.g. the convention center), I studiously avoid writing about Council politics or deliberations on those issues, and I also steer clear of any reporting or commentary on current Council members, dynamics, or processes.
"Event planners look at a lot of different factors when choosing a location. Yes, cost is one, but I doubt that Nashville's modest increase in its hotel/motel tax will make a difference."
The increased tax will apply to EVERYONE - not just people coming here for a convention.
That is what I was talking about. The majority of tourists who come here in any given year are NOT coming because of a convention.
"tourism and convention centers are legitimate investments (no matter how bad the industry really is)"
Says you.
I say it's not a legitimate function of government under any circumstance. Neither is building football or baseball stadiums.
If all these deals were such great money makers, then there would be plenty of private investors lining up to do with without government involvement.
The fact that they aren't should be telling you something.
