Trey Garrison: Why I oppose the people’s hotel

Chris Kidd, says:

Trey, thank you for the insight. Im in agreement, this hotel is bad news for the citizens of Dallas. The common misnomer is that us against this plan are against progress, thats farther from the truth. We believe that downtown would benefit from a convention hotel and entertainment district, but private business needs to take the lead, not the city. If it was a great deal, it wouldve been built already. Ive said it countless times, when you let the city of dallas run something, they always run it into the ground (Convention Center, Fair Park, Farmers Market, Dallas Zoo, ect..). This will be the same thing if it passes.

Also, its become the excuse du jour to invoke "racism" when someone opposes an issue in this city that the "Southern Contingent" has a stake in. Its happened with the Inland Port deal and most of its lead by Poverty Pimp #1 and King Jackhole himself, John Wiley Price and closely followed by his heir apperant Dwayne Caraway. Mostly this is due to potential minority contracting jobs that said property would provide on the county dime. Im a person who believes that EVERYONE should have a chance to go after a contract (Man, Woman, Black, White, Polka-dotted, ect..) and let the best bid and work history win. MLK, Rosa and the rest of the civil rights era leaders didnt get spat on, sprayed with fire hoses and attacked by dogs for this kind of idiocracy. I can only imagine these folks spinning in their graves at this stupidity.

Shawn Williams, says:

We (the people of Dallas, you know, the ones who actually vote and have the most to gain or lose) already own a hotel, The Grand Hyatt at DFW Airport. It is one of the most profitable hotels in the chain.

To assume that the convention center will make more money on conventions if the hotel is not built is to assume we can attract conventions without it. That is a poor, poor assumption.

Dallas (you know they folks who will actually vote on this) has booked more rooms this year -1 million room nights- than we have in recent memory because conventions have pledged to come here on contingent that the hotel is built.

To say that this is a "taxpayer hotel" is political speak. Revenue bonds are not paid from the general fund and not one street or job is lost because of revenue bond money directed to the hotel. The hotel would have to sit empty for three years for this to be even close to a bad deal for the city. Not even the Vote Yes think that will happen.

What about the people's airport? You know, the millions of dollars in revenue bonds directed to improvements at Love Field? Where's the outcry? Where are editorials? Oh yeah, Mr. Crow doesn't own an airport (does he?).

23 of 24 Convention Center Hotels recently have been funded by some sort of public assistance and been successful. The lone exception is St. Louis. Dallas...St. Louis... no comparison. We have 6 million people here in DFW, do they even have 1/10 of that in The Lou?

Houston built a CCH with revenue bonds and sold the hotel and made a little. They have passed us in bookings and the main reason is the attached hotel.

I live in Dallas and this is our city. The burbs will do what they do regardless, we're different. The optimists have moved this city forward and the pessimists let the Cowboys go without a fight. Pessimists opposed the stimulus package but will jog in the park once it's built. Pessimists want us to lose convention business.

And last but not least Trey........ I'll let you know when we can meet up with the fam for dinner. Thanks for the invite.

Travis Bush, says:

Yeah, why didn't the private sector get involved with the hotel? Maybe because no one has that much capital to pony up, Mr. Crow has discouraged his rich buddies from doing so, or no group can finance the project. I wonder if it some point, a private group will try and buy the hotel?

I also agree with Chris..being against the hotel doesn't mean you have to be anti-progress. The debate on this has done one thing for sure, reminded us just how nasty Dallas politics can be.

Chris Kidd, says:

I think alot of this debate from the "pro hotel" crowd has been tanamount to orwellian double speak when it came to how they would fund said property (Take the deal now and pay higher taxes now and later) and overpaying for the now-bulldozed lot. Then, "the card" gets played smartly by JWP and his cronies and Mayor Tom, playing the "Great White Hope", goes off on his goodwill church tour meet n' greet to appease the southern voting bloc by promising employment and (pardon the turn of phrase)a chicken in every pot, which probably wouldnt happen if this project came to actual fruition. If said parties did get their promised jobs, it would be the typical low-wage positions they could get at any other major hotel in the area.

Lets be honest: This whole thing is really a referendum for leppert and his ability to be mayor. He hasnt been forthright on Trinity and this project as well. I have a feeling if he loses, the guy wont be long for this town. I'll be casting my early vote for Angela Hunt ;)

Howard Wen, says:

Please don't try to frame this as a right vs. left (or GOP vs. Democratic) issue. I know lots of people who are ardent liberals who are against this hotel; they feel the city should be spending its (the taxpayers') money on fixing the streets, schools, parks and paying police and fire services more.

If anything, it could be argued that the city spending money to build a hotel with taxpayer money is "socialism for the rich."

This issue is really all about the good ol' boy network that still runs Dallas.