Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Barry / Politics Music City Center Showdown: Samuels vs. Evans
Posted by Bruce Barry on Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 3:12 PM
Although the conversation was substantive and spirited, it was disappointing (if predictable) to see Samuels peddle a number of persistent canards in lieu of concrete factual argument for this thing. Herewith, Samuels' top nine suspect utterances:
[2] "We looked at expansion [of the existing center] and it's simply not possible." Translation: Expansion of the existing facility is of course possible, but we're not crazy about what that expansion will look like, and it wouldn't duplicate the shiny new one proposed, so we'll just pretend and insist that expansion is impossible and hope nobody notices.
[4] "The mayor and [finance director] Rich [Riebeling] are not going to bring something that is going to put the taxpayers at risk." Translation: Don't worry your pretty little heads about project risks, even though it's now clear that some kind of general revenue backstop will be necessary. Alternative translation: Trust us.
[5] Regarding the significance of early advance bookings of the new center: "This is the time that you do grab market share and we're already seeing that with the numbers." Translation: The public is dim enough to infer realistic long-term demand from deeply discounted initial deals designed to build political support for the project.
[6] If we build it, "We also keep ourselves from raising property taxes....this keeps our property tax low." Translation: Sometimes to argue a position you just have to say things that sound nice without any supporting logic or evidence.
[7] "We have identified revenue streams that aren't available for anything else except the service of the convention center [and] hotel debt." Translation: We made sure to enact state and local laws restricting certain revenue sources to funding a new center, and the public is gullible enough to believe that we couldn't have done the policy making differently in the pursuit of different civic objectives.
[8] On the matter of whether voters should be allowed to vote on the project in a referendum, "All five mayoral candidates were in favor of this...so in a sense they've already done that." Translation: Voters are clueless enough to buy the illogical notion that when all candidates share a view, electing one of them means the general public must also share that view.
[9] "If the revenues are there this is a smart investment." Translation: if it's a good investment then it's a good investment. QED.
Comments (8)
Showing 1-8 of 8
'[2] "We looked at expansion [of the existing center] and it's simply not possible." Translation: Expansion of the existing facility is of course possible, but we're not crazy about what that expansion will look like, and it wouldn't duplicate the shiny new one proposed, so we'll just pretend and insist that expansion is impossible and hope nobody notices.'
What?!? Where do you expand to? Knock down the Ryman? Close Broadway? Knock down Hume Fogg? McKendree Methodist Church? Do you ever go downtown?
like
dislike
Pages 55-64 of the 2006 Music City Center Committee report assessed two different approaches to expanding the existing facility. Although one of the two would kill Hume Fogg (and hence be presumably unacceptable), neither would affect the Ryman. Also it isn't clear that a concerted effort was made to really explore fully creative expansion options.
The 2004 KPMG report looked (pp. 170-179) at four different potentially viable options for expansion of the existing facility. That report concluded (p. 183): "expanding the NCC is a more economical approach to meeting the demand for additional convention space in downtown Nashville."
Certainly it is the case that one cannot make expansion of existing space look like the big rectangular box one can create from whole cloth on a new site, but it is myopic to overlook or be dismissive of expansion as a realistic option.
Find out how much Gaylord has doled out to Metro Council members, especially recently.
Let's see how you interpret that since you are so much smarter than everyone else.
Hey Cheetso - go down to the election commission and find them yourself. Quit trying to insinuate that people who are asking honest, direct questions are doing so with ill intent. Perhaps you're just projecting your own morals on others. Put up or shut up.
Cheetos asks the right question, but that's only the beginning.
How much corporate welfare has Gaylord gotten from Nashville taxpayers?
$80 million in hush money for a hotel they aren't buidling. Have they even thought of giving that back?
What was it, about $180 million for the expansion of Briley Parkway after they opened Opry Mills?
Don't forget the $5 million for the water taxi docks they stopped using after a couple of years.
How many millions did they get for the Pennington Bend Marketing Fund? How many millions for sewers?
What about the tax breaks for the Delta expansion? How many millions?
And just for kicks, let's not forget when Gaylord got busted for stealing water from Metro.
Now they oppose an economic stimulus package for downtown Nashville. Whose interest do you think Gaylord is working to protect?
"How much corporate welfare has Gaylord gotten from Nashville taxpayers?"
However much it is is irrelevant in determinging whether metro taxpayers should be backstopping the costs on a new convention center.
Whatever Gaylord got is a sunk cost now.
The convention center costs aren't - yet.
"How much corporate welfare has Gaylord gotten from Nashville taxpayers?"
Whatever they got is irrelevant - it is a sunk cost.
It has nothing to do with any decision as to whether metro taxapayers should be backstopping the costs of a new convention center.
That ISN'T a sunk cost - yet.
