So, the city has decided to approve the deal with the Raddison. Unfortunately they decided to allow the owners to dictate the terms of the deal and the city will not be able to give any reasonable amount of help to another downtown hotel until at least 2013. The deal isn't completely clear to me, but it will be somwhere between 2013 and 2018 that the city will be freed of the contract terms. The new deal reads that the city can only give 15% of the funding for a new downtown hotel and only if it is over 250 rooms has a resturaunt and 15,00 sq. ft. minimum of conference space the hotel would also have to be the same "class" of hotel as the Raddison. This deal is null if the owners do not pay the city $300,000 immediately and $100,000 next year and the year after. The city got screwed on this deal and downtown will be paying the price for at least 8 years, this is another example of our short-sighted city government. And FYI, councilmembers Leeman, Allen and Bauer voted against this deal because of the "no subsidarity" clause, at least they were smart enough to see the deal for what it was.
Downtown Raddison in trouble?
Started by
hood
, Sep 14 2005 11:38 AM
25 replies to this topic
#22
Lmichigan
-
- Members+
-
- 4,467 posts
City
Posted 27 September 2005 - 07:59 PM
The council took the cowards way out. Instead of MAKING the hotel deal with them again, they grin and bared it.
Bauer and Leeman has always been my two favorite council memebrs. They are the only two that don't seem to be sheep. Ms. Bauer ALWAYS answers my emails back, if even a little late at times.
I can't believe they continue to let the Radisson lead them by the balls, for lack of a better term. They could have easily fought this out, if even in court, to get a better deal.
Bauer and Leeman has always been my two favorite council memebrs. They are the only two that don't seem to be sheep. Ms. Bauer ALWAYS answers my emails back, if even a little late at times.
I can't believe they continue to let the Radisson lead them by the balls, for lack of a better term. They could have easily fought this out, if even in court, to get a better deal.
#23
hood
-
- MemberZ
-
- 1,642 posts
Burg
Posted 28 September 2005 - 01:43 PM
Something different definately should of been done. I'm hoping that there are some new faces on the council come November, at least John Pollard, he really seems to stay on top of things.
#24
Lmichigan
-
- Members+
-
- 4,467 posts
City
Posted 28 September 2005 - 03:16 PM
He does, but he is the most arrogant of the grandstanders I've ever seen. It's almost like watching a bad reality TV show if you watch council TV. Though, I did overlook that.
#25
hood
-
- MemberZ
-
- 1,642 posts
Burg
Posted 28 September 2005 - 03:19 PM
I'm sure he will learn to tame it down a bit if he is elected. If he doesn't he won't likely be re-elected, the reason he grandstands now would probably be to make sure that council listens, if he were a member he would be heard without having to yell.
#26
Lmichigan
-
- Members+
-
- 4,467 posts
City
Posted 28 September 2005 - 03:27 PM
I really just think that is a personality trait of his, and not something he could help without some training. lol
