Convention Center shortcomings costing Nashville $$$$

[Nashvillain]

I listened to the Smart Radio segment, Bzorch. Not to toot my own horn or anything, but I said a lot of the same stuff about both the ballpark and the CC. I don't even have a degree in this kind of stuff, either. Seriously, though, I don't like the idea of Nashville, which has a widely known and distinctive identity blindly following along with these "civic improvement" trends. I think that Nashville, if it is ever going to become a great city, whatever that might mean, if it's going to improve in all the areas that it needs; it's not going to get it done by following along with these widely accepted projects of dubious merit. I'm with Kheldane on this. If private business wants a CC, then a private company should build one. How can SoBro become an urban neighborhood with so much of its critical real estate consumed by mega buildings designed to lure tourists? The same with the Gulch. How is that any better than SoBro? Talk about limited space. How desirable a destination will it remain for young, urban professionals with disposable income (key phrase alert), if all its character and charm are swallowed up by some lame, monolithic shrine to corporate america? How can we stand to lose Cannery row and with it the Mercy Lounge, one of the few places in "Music" city capable of hosting up and coming acts? Not to mention Rocket Town in SoBro will be demolished for the CC if it's built there. Those are the kind of pioneering places that make Nashville a desirable locationo and it would be a shame to lose them for a so-called amenity that every other similar sized city in America has as well.

I'm not really done with my post and haven't proofread it or anything but the dinner bell is ringing. I'll come back and clean it up. In case anyone actually reads it in the interem.

[bzorch]

I agree with you about SoBro and the Gulch. Both of these CC locations seem detrimental to their evolution. I think it would be hard anywhere to dedicate so much space to a single building and expect it to blend in to the neighborhood. Of all of the sites mention the East Bank seems like it would be the least effected as long as the connection to East Nashville was carefully considered. As has been discussed on the forum and the radio segment, I do worry about this being a "viral" project/fad. Because it worked successfully in one City, everyone desperately tries to replicated it. Remember the aquarium phase based on Chattanooga's successs? Stadiums are yet another example of this.

How much space is enough? According Heywood Sanders in his interview Las Vegas and Orlando are set because of the enormous amount of money they can generate on their 100,000+ hotel rooms. What are they now up to 2.5 million square feet? Could you imagine 2 million square feet in SoBro? We would need SoBro and the Gulch. When we are done with this one will we want to expand it in a few years like others are doing? Do we want to participate in the madness? It is an arms race and it is not cheap to play. Though if you believe the proponents we don't have a choice because our economic survival depends on it.

If the City does decide to move forward and build the CC, they should be challenged not to follow the typical model and seek to redefine a kinder gentler CC that respects the urban environment and acknowledges the cost of energy.

[smeagolsfree]

According to an article in the Tennessean today, there are going to be more studies on the CC and Mayor Purcell may not even be in office when the vote is taken for the CC. According to some the CC should have been higher on the priority list but with Purcell I guess he had to dig up all the existing sidewalks in town and redo them at the cost of millions. It was not a pet project for him. Oh well I will stop preaching. Here are the articles from the Tennessean today.

http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/ar...EWS05/603110340

http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/ar...CES05/603110341

[bzorch]

Though I do agree that the CC does not seem to be a major focus for the Mayor. I wanted to say the sidewalk improvements were not necessarily the City's choice. I do not want to get way off topic here, but I thought some background would be helpful.

The sidewalk improvements were prompted by non-compliance with the American with Disabilities Act and the potential litigation brought about by not complying. ADA compliance costly to city

Though in many instances the sidewalk improvements helped improve mobility options and our neighborhoods. The Strategic Plan for Sidewalks and Bikeways has guided these improvements. Link to Plan The sidewalk compatibility index help prioritize which sidewalks to improve or build first. SPI Index

[Hankster]

I think that the location of the Convention Center should be studied in more detail, and financing alternatives studied in more detail. After all, this project, should it go forward will shape the future development of downtown Nashville in profound ways. We need to have looked at every alternative and in every angle before going forward. It would not bother me if the project does not get approved during Purcell's term, but I would prefer that it be decided before then. I'm in the camp that questions the SoBro site as the best. It may be, but I'm not certain of that.

[smeagolsfree]

You are right about the sidewalks I suppose. I was going to go off in a tangent with them until I saw three people in wheel chairs in 5 minutes by Centennial park. Got reminded real quick that they are needed, however some of the ones that were done were in some useless areas.

[bzorch]

The article in today's Tennessean makes you wonder how much faith Gaylord has in the City really deciding to building a new CC. Of course, not many know what is going on behind the scenes. They can not just pick up their hotel and facilities and go home. They are here to regardless if we build a CC or not. How successful they are may be in play, but I am not sure how much they should weigh on the decision to build the CC. It does seem unfair for the government to tax their rooms in order to compete with them. I am sure Kheldane would have something to say about that.

Convention stakes high for Gaylord

The tax zone being discussed in the Tourist destination thread makes you wonder if they are related, just to appease Gaylord.

[cdub]

The tax zone being discussed in the Tourist destination thread makes you wonder if they are related, just to appease Gaylord.

It seems interesting to me that Gaylord doesn't want to be taxed on their rooms because the resulting monies will fund the convention center, but they also want a tax break to create the "Downtown Disney" type attraction (or whatever goes there) that could in essence compete with downtown development. Seems a bit hypocritical.

[it's just dave]

I don't think the creation of a "zone" necessarily implies that Gaylord is the party interested in creating a "Downtown Disney" type attraction. They seem to be sticking to their core strategies of convention centers/hotels, not tourist attractions.

[smeagolsfree]

Again Mr Purcell is looking at the dark side as he says Nashville may have to fund up 200 to 250 million for a new downtown hotel and parking garage. The people who compiled the report disagree with the mayor again. They say the city may have to fund maybe 10 to 20% in the form of tax incentives and/or land. Nashville needs a leader on this issue and Purcell is not the man. All he wants to do is study it till he is out of office and leave the truly hard work to someone else and then he will take the credit for getting the ball rolling 8 years earlier when he took office. In the meantime the cost of the project will rise on a daily basis.

Anyway here is the article.

http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/ar...EWS05/603200346

[Hankster]

Again Mr Purcell is looking at the dark side as he says Nashville may have to fund up 200 to 250 million for a new downtown hotel and parking garage. The people who compiled the report disagree with the mayor again. They say the city may have to fund maybe 10 to 20% in the form of tax incentives and/or land. Nashville needs a leader on this issue and Purcell is not the man. All he wants to do is study it till he is out of office and leave the truly hard work to someone else and then he will take the credit for getting the ball rolling 8 years earlier when he took office. In the meantime the cost of the project will rise on a daily basis.

Anyway here is the article.

http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/ar...EWS05/603200346

I've never understood the concept of tax incentives as being a give away by the government in the first place. If one assumes that the investment would not be made without the tax incentives (an assumption which is probably true most of the time), then there would be absolutely zero taxes collected. Therefore, the government is giving away absolutely nothing. Then, in a few years the tax incentives run out, and the government begins to reap the tax revenues from the project, money that the government would not have received unless the tax incentives had not been offered in the first place. Using this logic, how is the government spending any money towards this project? And even though the hotel that would be built might get a break from taxes for a while, consider all the tax revenues the city would reap from the additional tourists staying at the hotel from their expenditures at restaurants, stores, and other entertainment venues.

To me, this is a no brainer. I agree, let's get some leadership on this issue.

[smeagolsfree]

Many hotel companies taking a wait and see attitude about new CC downtown. From the Tennessean today.

http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/ar...7/1436/BUSINESS

[Nashvillain]

Alright, so let's vote no on this thing and move on.

[Kheldane]

It does seem unfair for the government to tax their rooms in order to compete with them. I am sure Kheldane would have something to say about that.

Kheldane say "me no like!"

[Kheldane]

I've never understood the concept of tax incentives as being a give away by the government in the first place. ....

To me, this is a no brainer.

Actually, it's a little bit of a "brainer". Taxes (in theory) pay for city services - thats why property owners pay taxes. City infrastructure, like roads, sidewalks, the capital expenditures for sewer & water (i believe the monthly bill just pays for operating expenses), police protection, fire protection, metro courts to arbitrate disputes, maintenence of public buildings, schools, etc. By giving a builder a break from taxes, you are essentially giving them those services for free. Ah Ha!...but we remember that nothing is actually free. In reality, you are forcing other tax payers to subsidize the city services received by the non-tax paying entity (hotel, condo, etc.). It's simply a transfer of wealth from tax paying citizens to downtown builders. And when you think about it, it's logical. If the builder had a great money making idea then they could afford to build their building and pay their fair share of taxes. As it turns out, their ideas are really just mediocre, so the government forces tax payers to "pitch in" and cover the builder's taxes so the construction companies and builders can get rich. It's basically an interest free business loan from taxpayers if you want to look at it that way. Or another way to look at it is to say the government is acting as an economic development bank for downtown builders, with a scheme involving interest free loans to builders, paid for by taxes taken at gunpoint using the police.

[smeagolsfree]

The CC coalition has withdrawn a proposed 1/2 cent sales tax on meals at restaurants to help fund the proposed center.

Here's the link:

http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/ar.../604110348/1001

[Lukin]

Thank God. Of all the things to tax too. I'm all for a new convention center....just as long as it doesn't cost me anything extra. Otherwise there are a million other things I think this town needs first before a massive new center...oh, and please don't put it in sobro.

[downtown cliff]

...He states that retaining a highly educated and skilled workforce creates a successful city. So the keys to attract and retain them are:

1. Density

2. Amenities

3. Walkable Streets

4. Lively Downtown

5. Reclaimed Waterfront

These are all key to attracting an educated workforce; add good schools to the mix if you want to keep them as they age.

[BnaBreaker]

Yeah I know, i'm Mr. Pessimistic lol...but I gotta say, I really don't like the idea of that behemoth being right downtown. It's going to take up so many blocks of prime real estate, AND it's going to separate all the urban neighborhoods being built around it. Can't we put it somewhere else? Anywhere else? I know the location needs to be somewhat central...but Chicago for example has the McCormick Center in the far south side and it does just fine.

[Guest]

Kheldane

Here is where you and I differ on a basic point. I will not quibble with your logic, I will stipulate that TIF is an interest free loan for a fraction of the total developmental cost. But these funds come with strings attached. One of reasons that Purcel is sucessful at reaching his affordable housing projections is TIF. In many (not all) cases the projects would not get built without the TIF in place. So as a shareholder in Nashville I see this as an investment in the future of downtown and thus the city. The 'free' service period is not indefinite and when the initial TIF loan is paid then the new sources of tax revenue come on line for the city. In the big picture the streets and infrstructure would be maintained regardless so the extra cost is limited to education, sanitation police and fire if needed...

Actually, it's a little bit of a "brainer". Taxes (in theory) pay for city services - thats why property owners pay taxes. City infrastructure, like roads, sidewalks, the capital expenditures for sewer & water (i believe the monthly bill just pays for operating expenses), police protection, fire protection, metro courts to arbitrate disputes, maintenence of public buildings, schools, etc. By giving a builder a break from taxes, you are essentially giving them those services for free. Ah Ha!...but we remember that nothing is actually free. In reality, you are forcing other tax payers to subsidize the city services received by the non-tax paying entity (hotel, condo, etc.). It's simply a transfer of wealth from tax paying citizens to downtown builders. And when you think about it, it's logical. If the builder had a great money making idea then they could afford to build their building and pay their fair share of taxes. As it turns out, their ideas are really just mediocre, so the government forces tax payers to "pitch in" and cover the builder's taxes so the construction companies and builders can get rich. It's basically an interest free business loan from taxpayers if you want to look at it that way. Or another way to look at it is to say the government is acting as an economic development bank for downtown builders, with a scheme involving interest free loans to builders, paid for by taxes taken at gunpoint using the police.

[Guest]

Yeah I know, i'm Mr. Pessimistic lol...but I gotta say, I really don't like the idea of that behemoth being right downtown. It's going to take up so many blocks of prime real estate, AND it's going to separate all the urban neighborhoods being built around it. Can't we put it somewhere else? Anywhere else? I know the location needs to be somewhat central...but Chicago for example has the McCormick Center in the far south side and it does just fine.

Not pessimistic at all...The CC needs to be in the Gulch at Church, end of story. The NCDC will hopefully stand firm in their previous opinion and this will go a long way towards firming up political support. This also make a great deal more sense as West End will be adding hotels as well Gulch, CBD, SoBro. The key will be efficent people movers to get the attendees where they want/need to go.

[bwithers1]

Here, here. The Church Street site is already cut off from surrounding areas by railroads and viaducts, so that there are not too many other likely land uses other than for large developments. Plus there are so many possibilities for parking garages over there that wouldn't really disrupt streets that pedestrians use all of the time otherwise. And aren't those railroads supposed to become future commuter train lines? By contrast, the Sobro site could otherwise be filled by a variety of housing, retail, and office uses and integrated into a neighborhood and destination site.

In that regard, the Church Street site is similar to the McCormick Place area in Chicago, which is near downtown but is otherwise cut off from surrounding areas by interstate ramps, railroads, dead-end streets, etc. That site in Chicago is actually pretty cut off from hotels (other than the McCormick Place Hyatt) and I would definitely not set out from there on foot going anywhere. But the city manages to get conventioneers to/from their hotels, restaurants, bars, sporting and cultural events safely and efficiently so that the attendees enjoy the city, spend lots of money, and leave with a good impression. Likewise, Nashville should make the most of an otherwise awkward piece of land rather than place a three-block impediment to diversified development in Sobro, which has such terrific potential.

[BnaBreaker]

Here, here. The Church Street site is already cut off from surrounding areas by railroads and viaducts, so that there are not too many other likely land uses other than for large developments. Plus there are so many possibilities for parking garages over there that wouldn't really disrupt streets that pedestrians use all of the time otherwise. And aren't those railroads supposed to become future commuter train lines? By contrast, the Sobro site could otherwise be filled by a variety of housing, retail, and office uses and integrated into a neighborhood and destination site.

In that regard, the Church Street site is similar to the McCormick Place area in Chicago, which is near downtown but is otherwise cut off from surrounding areas by interstate ramps, railroads, dead-end streets, etc. That site in Chicago is actually pretty cut off from hotels (other than the McCormick Place Hyatt) and I would definitely not set out from there on foot going anywhere. But the city manages to get conventioneers to/from their hotels, restaurants, bars, sporting and cultural events safely and efficiently so that the attendees enjoy the city, spend lots of money, and leave with a good impression. Likewise, Nashville should make the most of an otherwise awkward piece of land rather than place a three-block impediment to diversified development in Sobro, which has such terrific potential.

Great point. A location can be close to downtown, but at the same time cut off from any other legitimate potential use. I guess this thing would really eat up some parking lots over there too huh!

[rocky top buzz]

I highly doubt anythign will be done on this anytime soon. I wasn't here in the 90's, but how long did the city talk about building the GEC before it finally came to fruition?

[Kheldane]

Kheldane, Here is where you and I differ on a basic point. I will not quibble with your logic, I will stipulate that TIF is an interest free loan for a fraction of the total developmental cost. But these funds come with strings attached. One of reasons that Purcel is sucessful at reaching his affordable housing projections is TIF. In many (not all) cases the projects would not get built without the TIF in place. So as a shareholder in Nashville I see this as an investment in the future of downtown and thus the city. The 'free' service period is not indefinite and when the initial TIF loan is paid then the new sources of tax revenue come on line for the city. In the big picture the streets and infrstructure would be maintained regardless so the extra cost is limited to education, sanitation police and fire if needed...

Hey NB - Sorry it took me so long to get back to you, work is crazy these days:

Actually, TIF is not even a loan in the sense that it would be "re-paid". In securing TIF financing for the Viridian (for example), I highly doubt that Tony has agreed to pay an extra-high tax rate after the TIF period is over in order to catch up on missed tax payments. The transfer of wealth is a permanent transfer of wealth from taxpayers all over nashville to downtown developers. Just because the land owner starts paying taxes after the TIF period is over doesn't mean they are paying back the TIF benefit --- they would have been paying those taxes no matter what.

The "success" of Bill Purcel's development initiatives is completely irrelevent to the actual economic impact of those initiatives. I'm criticizing the actual economic impact of his initiatives. Of course, if you subsidize downtown development then it will occur faster and more frequently than if you didn't. I don't argue that TIF helps Purcel achieve his stated goals. What I challenge is the idea that TIF is somehow an economic boon for nashville. The economic reality is that TIF enriches downtown developers at the expense of all nashville taxpayers. Regardless of what quantity of city services the downtown lots are receiving for free, they *are* receiving it for free - so it's a government sponsored transfer of wealth - - -and economics tells us this results in an overall decrease in the standard of living for nashville. I could lauch into a detailed account of why this is the case, but I think we've all been through this already. But seriosly, I don't mind explaining it again if you still want a more detailed proof of why socialism leads to the desctruction of wealth.

And lastly, while I do appreciate what you mean by the phrase "Shareholder in Nashville", you are in reality, not a shareholder in nashville. You personally will receive no dividends in the monetary sense from these downtown developements (unless you happen to be a developer). Now, I realize that us lucky few who love skyscrapers (myself included) get to see more of the good stuff because of TIF,,,,but make no mistake the economic reality is unchanged regardless of my emotional affinity for skyscrapers. You are actually a tax payer in Nashville, and as such, your earnings have been forcefully confiscated in order to enrich downtown developers and make it look like the local politians are "accomplishing" something. As I said, you are most likely a happy participant in this scheme - but that doesn't change the fact that your participation is in fact *mandatory*. In contrast, ownership in a real corporation is 100% voluntary.