Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

DT: Designs for the Omni Fort Worth Hotel


  • Please log in to reply
442 replies to this topic

#51 Dismuke

Dismuke
  • Guests

Posted 16 July 2004 - 08:17 PM

ghuges

The Star-Telegram editorial page has been staunchly pro-hotel. I have never had a problem with the two writers that that usually cover hotel related stories in that they strike me as being fair. And I am not sure whether it is within the scope of their assignment to probe deeper and get to the bottom of things or if it is just to simply present an overview of what both sides of the debate are saying. But someone at that paper - and I don't mean in the form of the occasional anti-hotel op ed piece - should be asking such questions. It is absolutely amazing the sort things - none of which have a lot of public support - our local officials have been trying to get away with in the past couple of years. From what I have seen, the local press has done a poor job of really holding local officials accountable and challenging the "spin" that they spew.

What I wonder is if the reporters are afraid of management's reaction if they "rock the boat" on something that the paper supports editorially. I have no way of knowing one way or another. For all I know, the Star-Telegram may have high standards and be run with integrity. But look at it this way - does anyone really believe that all of the scandals at the New York Times and the way that management has killed pieces in the sports section because they went against one of the paper's editorial crusades are somehow unique to the Times? Of course not. It is just that most people do not consider other big city daily papers to be worthy of such a close level of scrutiny.

The other possiblity is that that they could indeed be "asleep at the switch." It is obviously much easier to simply repeat whatever spin is put forth by both sides than to challenge it.

Maybe what Fort Worth needs is an "alternative press" i.e. a website that holds local politicians and the local media accountable. I suspect that, if someone had the time and/or money to get such a site going, once it picked up a decent word of mouth following, there would be some huge changes made in the way things in this town get done.


RADIO DISMUKE
1920s & 1930s Pop and Jazz
24 Hour Internet Radio
dismuke.org/radio

#52 Dismuke

Dismuke
  • Guests

Posted 16 July 2004 - 08:18 PM

I have sent the following in an email to Anna Tinsley who wrote the article in the Star-Telegram. I have enjoyed some of her articles in the past so my default assumption is that she is a conscientious, hard working journalist. I have no idea whether she will consider putting my question to Mr. Lane and others or whether she will simply dismiss me as some presumptuous nobody who is trying to tell her how to do her job. Either way, she certainly will not be able to say that the question did not occur to her.


------------

Hello:

Thank you for your coverage of the Convention Center Hotel issue. I have a comment about the following passage in your June 24 article:


Councilman Jim Lane, who serves on the revitalization committee, said city leaders must do something to ensure that the recently completed $75 million worth of renovations to the Fort Worth Convention Center don't go by the wayside.

The same argument was made by hotel supporters - including the Star-Telegram editorial page - last fall.

To me, there is a question that is just crying out to be asked of Councilman Lane: "Mr. Lane, if that is indeed the case, why was this issue not addressed and resolved before the $75 million was spent?"

Either city officials knew of this alleged importance of the hotel before they spent the $75 million or they did not.

If they did not know about it, then what does that say about the competence of their ability to take all relevant factors into consideration and to adequately plan long range? I would think that this is something we deserve to know about as we are now being asked to trust the say-so of more or less the same bunch of people regarding a new project involving over twice the amount of funds as the $75 million expansion.

If city officials did know about the need for the hotel before they spent the $75 million, why was this not disclosed to the voters at the time? Can it be that certain city officials realized the public was unlikely to back a project with a $235 million price tag and, therefore, decided to gloss over the need for the hotel until after the expansion was complete on the premise that they could then get the additional funds by making the same sort of "by the wayside" arguments that Mr. Lane and others are now making? If so,
wouldn't that be an example of our local officials being less than honest with the citizens of Fort Worth and something we deserve to know about?

Another possibility occurs to me: the assertion that the $75 million expansion will go by the wayside is not correct and is nothing more than exaggerated rhetoric that Mr. Lane and others are trying to use in order to cow the voters into supporting the hotel by holding the already spent $75 million "hostage." If that is the case, then I think the public certainly needs to know about it.

I submit that, by putting the question I suggested before Councilman Lane and others who are making this argument, one of the three possibilities I mentioned would very quickly come to the surface - and that would certainly be something that Star-Telegram readers deserve to know about.

Thank you again for your articles and for your time.

Dismuke

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
RADIO DISMUKE
1920s & 1930s Pop and Jazz
24 Hour Internet Radio
dismuke.org/radio

#53 Dismuke

Dismuke
  • Guests

Posted 16 July 2004 - 08:18 PM

I don't have the figures at my fingertips, but if one goes back to the bond package that the voters approved for the Convention Center expansion, you will find a figure on the order of $15-20 million. The additional $55 million or so was borrowed (without voter approval) using Certificates of Obligation (CO).

ghughes - without going through a lot of trouble, do you know offhand where I might go to read more about the specifics of this? Presumably old bond election packages are archived somewhere on the City of Fort Worth website. Do you recall the approximate date the bond election was held and the approximate date that the city made the decision to use the CO for the additional millions? This is something that I would like to follow up on a bit.

RADIO DISMUKE
1920s & 1930s Pop and Jazz
24 Hour Internet Radio
dismuke.org/radio

#54 renamerusk

renamerusk
  • Guests

Posted 16 July 2004 - 08:19 PM

I am pro-hotel and pro getting it done!
To call the city council socialists and dirty tricksters is stretch. We live in a representative democracy and not a pure democracy where elected officials are expected to make decisions based upon the best information available to them with the goal of achieving what they believe is in the best interest of the electorate; otherwise, chaos will prevail and a final decision will never be made. Need proof - "Just ask President H. Ross Perot."

Oh yes, there were some wonderful capitalists here too funding the anti-hotel agenda for their own selfish reason - Nah couldn't be! I suggest that they spend some of their money improving their hotels since according to an article published in the S-T, March 31, 2003 revealed that the quality of several downtown hotels were questionable.

Since committee commissioned to study the need for a convention center hotel has just recently validated need for a hotel; I for one am ready to see the mortar and beams cocktail served. Go, Fort Worth Go!!

#55 ghughes

ghughes
  • Guests

Posted 16 July 2004 - 08:19 PM

Interestingly, the City's website does not provide any details of the 1998 CIP in its original state, but other sources can fill in the gaps.

In the Chamber of Commerce newsletter for February, 1998, there is a column by Terry Ryan supporting the convention center portion of the bond package: "...Possibly the most critical is Proposition Two, which authorizes $20,700,000 to finance permanent improvements at the Fort Worth Convention Center, the Will Rogers Memorial Center and the Cowtown Coliseum."

That's on line at http://www.fortworth...98/febmain.html

The City's "Bond Update" is at http://www.fortworth...status_summ.asp It summarizes the work done from the 1998 CIP. There is a listing of improvements to "Major Facilities and Other Projects" that can be found at
http://www.fortworth...herProjects.pdf
You will note that the Convention Center is listed as $75,100,000 funded by 98CIP and Cert of Obligation. The other projects are listed as well... I'll let you do the math.

Hope this helps the investigative journalist lurking within. I didn't try finding when/how the Certs of Obligation came into being. That is left as an excercise for the student. :)

#56 Dismuke

Dismuke
  • Guests

Posted 16 July 2004 - 08:21 PM

To call the city council socialists and dirty tricksters is stretch.


From Merriam-Webster Online http://www.m-w.com :



Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: 'sO-sh&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1837
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done




A city owned hotel is an example of a socialistic policy.

As for dirty tricks, they have been more than covered in the following thread from last fall: http://pub32.ezboard...picID=147.topic



[font color=yellow]We live in a representative democracy and not a pure democracy[/font]

Yes indeed. Absolutely correct.


[font color=yellow]where elected officials are expected to make decisions based upon the best information available to them with the goal of achieving what they believe is in the best interest of the electorate[/font]


No, that is not correct. The purpose of a government in a free country is NOT to serve as some sort of nanny state that exists "with the goal of achieving what they believe is in the best interest of the electorate." First off, who the heck has the right to determine what is or is not in another adult person's "best interests"? Though I am sure it is not your intention, such a statement could very easily serve as a rationalization for any dictatorship.

The purpose of government in a free country is to protect the individual rights of its citizens. It does that though such institutions as the police, the courts and the military. On a local level, city and county governments also provide certain basic services such as street maintenance, fire protection, parks, libraries and water and sewer service that the private sector is allegedly unable or unwilling to provide.

It is NOT an appropriate function of any level of government in a free country use public money in order to artificially lower hotel occupancy rates to below market levels. Such governmental distortion of market forces in the downtown hotel market constitutes a grotesque violation of the property rights of existing downtown hotel owners - especially when one considers that they and their customers are being forced by law to subsidize the construction and operation of their tax exempt competition. I don't care what allegedly "noble purposes" and "good intentions" are used to justify such a policy - it is wrong. The ends do NOT justify the means.

[font color=yellow]Oh yes, there were some wonderful capitalists here too funding the anti-hotel agenda for their own selfish reason[/font]


Absolutely - and more power to them for doing so. What were they supposed to do? Be apologetic for wanting to stay in business? Roll over and play dead? Stand there and cower because someone might call them "selfish"? Good for them for fighting for their rational, and yes, selfish interests. It is called freedom of speech. It is called not being willing to regard oneself as a sacrificial animal. I wish more businessmen had the backbone to stand up for their rights. Whenever a person stands up and defends his rights, he is, by implication, simultaneously fighting for our rights against similar possible future encroachments.

[font color=yellow]since according to an article published in the S-T, March 31, 2003 revealed that the quality of several downtown hotels were questionable.[/font]


Well, that is a matter of opinion. But let's say it is true. Then it is only a matter of time before a bunch of wonderfully greedy and selfish investors come along, see an underserved market (something they are always on the lookout for) and remedy the situation. That is how capitalism works. Do you think a bunch of altruistic do-gooder politicians and government planners with all of their allegedly noble intentions will somehow be able to do a better job? You might want to check with those who have experienced first hand the sort of "hospitality" offered by such hotels in Eastern Europe and Russia prior to the 1990s.

#57 Dismuke

Dismuke
  • Guests

Posted 16 July 2004 - 08:21 PM

ghughes - Thanks so much for the links. I will check them out over the next day or two.


RADIO DISMUKE
1920s & 1930s Pop and Jazz
24 Hour Internet Radio
dismuke.org/radio

#58 ghughes

ghughes
  • Guests

Posted 16 July 2004 - 08:22 PM

Like a friend of mine likes to point out, sunshine is good for process (or something to that effect, right Brad?).

And in that vein, thanks, Dismuke, for writing that note to Anna Tinsley. She is a good reporter, as you said. Information and perspectives from the community are the raw material for good stories, so I'm sure she appreciates your input.

#59 BB

BB
  • Guests

Posted 16 July 2004 - 08:22 PM

I, too, can't blame the other hotel operators for fighting back. This city has given out tax breaks to businesses like they're candy. Having a city financed hotel gives them an immediate advantage over the other owners. Obviously the city has no intention of giving their competitors any type of break.

Has the committee really shown a need for the hotel? They've shown that the convention center needs the hotel so the expansion can be profitable. As dismuke has pointed out, that horse-barn door thinking of the highest order. If the hotel is really needed, wouldn't an private investor be jumping at the chance to build it?

#60 John T Roberts

John T Roberts
  • Guests

Posted 16 July 2004 - 08:23 PM

It looks like the City Council is starting over on the hotel development deal. Here is the Star-Telegram article on the subject.

http://www.dfw.com/m...cal/6165670.htm

#61 jefffwd

jefffwd
  • Guests

Posted 16 July 2004 - 08:23 PM

Potential convention center hotel plan discussed
06/26/2003

By CHRIS HEINBAUGH / WFAA-TV


Dallas' Convention Center might soon have company after all.

A controversial bill - considered essential to help get Dallas its convention center hotel - squeaked through the Texas Legislature. The bill originally died in the House, but it was later attached to an unrelated Senate bill, which passed and last week was signed by Governor Rick Perry.

You would think they'd be celebrating down the street at City Hall, but as it turns out, something else was already in the works: a plan that might make the hotel tax bill a moot point.

Getting a hotel built next to the newly-expanded convention center is a top priority for the City of Dallas. In fact, city council members lobbied in Austin for a bill that would allo wthe state's hotel-motel tax to help fund it.

But, once the bill became law, those same council members had a surprisingly low-key response.
"We're pleased that it passed," council member Veletta Lill said.

But as it turns out, they may not need it after all.

"We had a hotel developer come to us last week about doing a convention center hotel, with the assumption that there would be no hotel tax included," mayor Laura Miller said. "So, we're going to proceed with that assumption and see what we can do without it."

Under the scenario presented to the city, the hotel would be built on top of the Reunion Arena parking garage, with access to the Convention Center.

The hotel would be owned by the city, developed by Woodbine Development, and operated by Marriott.

It's a plan still being crafted, and the hotel tax may still have to be used.

"It's a great tool to have in our toolbox, but we may not indeed need to use it in the future," said Lill.

"You always want to do the best economic deal possible and not use tax money," Miller said. "So, we're going take an attempt at that, and see where we go."

So far, there's no firm offer on the table. But one reason officials think this could happen quickly is because the hotel could be funded with bonds, which are cheap right now. Additionally, those bonds don't require voter approval, which takes time.

Of course, none of the latest plans are likely to please critics of a convention center hotel, who say Dallas has a glut of hotel rooms, and believe the city should not be in the hotel business.

#62 Dismuke

Dismuke
  • Guests

Posted 16 July 2004 - 08:24 PM

I am afraid that the article is not very well written in that there are certain key items of information that are not made sufficiently clear.

"We had a hotel developer come to us last week about doing a convention center hotel, with the assumption that there would be no hotel tax included," mayor Laura Miller said. "So, we're going to proceed with that assumption and see what we can do without it."

Under the scenario presented to the city, the hotel would be built on top of the Reunion Arena parking garage, with access to the Convention Center.

The hotel would be owned by the city, developed by Woodbine Development, and operated by Marriott.

Ok. But under this scenario who will be paying for it? Woodbine? Marriott? The city through some other source than a hotel tax? A combination of the above? The article does not say.

My assumption is that the city will not be paying for it because the article goes on to say"

"You always want to do the best economic deal possible and not use tax money," Miller said. "So, we're going take an attempt at that, and see where we go."


Ok. So is Woodbine and/or Marriott simply going to give the hotel to the city as some sort of gift - and why? Or is this an arrangement where the city continues to own the real estate but Woodbine/Marriott has a long term lease that gives them effective and near total control over the facility? I would assume the latter. The problem is that, as written, the article only hints at the nature of the proposed deal and explicitly says very little.

"You always want to do the best economic deal possible and not use tax money," Miller said. "So, we're going take an attempt at that, and see where we go."

So far, there's no firm offer on the table. But one reason officials think this could happen quickly is because the hotel could be funded with bonds, which are cheap right now. Additionally, those bonds don't require voter approval, which takes time.

Bonds? Issued by whom? Corporate bonds by Woodbine/Marriott? Then of course they wouldn't require voter approval. So presumably it is a reference to bonds issued by the city. But this is written in the context of trying not to use tax money - so who will pay off the bonds if the hotel does perform to expectations? And what kind of bonds are they talking about - the same kind that the Fort Worth city council wanted to use last fall? If so, isn't that important for readers to know?

Either my reading skills have gone by the wayside - or this article raises more questions than it answers.

RADIO DISMUKE
1920s & 1930s Pop and Jazz
24 Hour Internet Radio
dismuke.org/radio

#63 djeseru

djeseru
  • Guests

Posted 16 July 2004 - 08:25 PM

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Has the committee really shown a need for the hotel? They've shown that the convention center needs the hotel so the expansion can be profitable. As dismuke has pointed out, that horse-barn door thinking of the highest order. If the hotel is really needed, wouldn't an private investor be jumping at the chance to build it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



After spending hours looking through hotels to make reservations there in Fort Worth, I did not find any shortage downtown and all dates that I asked for were available. Including the Ashton, which didn't have great reviews, btw. (The only place unavailable was the Texas White House!) When you can spend half the amount in another hotel less than 5 minutes away, why bother staying downtown? (NOT an opinion, only a question...) Besides, the opportunity was there with the T & P Station. Or, they could use that old warehouse there on Lancaster and Jennings?

#64 cberen1

cberen1
  • Guests

Posted 16 July 2004 - 08:25 PM

As long as the city is trying to attract conventions of one person at a time, I think we have plenty of space. Try calling and booking 100 rooms, or 250 rooms. The situation gets a little tougher. And who wants 250 conventioneers driving downtown, trying to find parking places?

I'm a tax payer, just like everyone else on this board. I don't have a problem in the world with a city owned convention center hotel. I'm almost indifferent to how it is funded. The revenue bonds are an ok idea, but the cost of funding is enough higher that it changes the economics of the decision. It does, however, need to be funded based on the merits of the project, and a revenue bond allows the market to make that determination. Either way, I'm in favor.

The role of the government is to do the things that private enterprise con not or will not. Protecting the rights of the citizens is only one of those tasks. Among other things, the government represents the voices of its people in matters that impact the population. The local economy is a prime example. Some people on this board act like there are no citizen supporters of the convention center hotel. I know a lot of people who strongly support the hotel.

I think of it in these terms: For years I've wanted the government to try to think more like a business and not just a cost center. They are, after all spending my money. I want it spent judiciously. Participating in a competitive market forces the local government to do just that. I know they don't have to pay taxes, but with all of the incentives we've handed out, no one else downtown is really having to pay much in the way of taxes either.

I am looking forward to dismuke's 11,000 word, line by line response.

#65 BB

BB
  • Guests

Posted 16 July 2004 - 08:25 PM

Again, I ask the question, why should the city be so eager to build a hotel when the hotel industry is not? What is the city seeing that they are not?

#66 Dismuke

Dismuke
  • Guests

Posted 16 July 2004 - 08:26 PM

I am looking forward to dismuke's 11,000 word, line by line response.

Actually, it is not necessary for me to post an 11,000 word response as BB pretty much hit the nail on the head in two sentences.

The basic premise behind the hotel project is that somehow politicians and government planners better know what is "needed" in an economy than do those who actually participate in that economy - i.e. the sum total of all the plans and choices of countless individuals and businesses that constitute the marketplace. That is the basic economic premise of socialism.

I'm sorry, but that notion is completely demolished by a towering mountain of empirical evidence left over from the wreckage of countless failed attempts throughout history to put some variant or another of that premise into action. Implementing it in some sort of little microcosm in downtown Fort Worth is sure as heck not going to make it somehow magically work - no matter how many local officials might wish it would work or consider the attempt to make it work as being somehow "noble" in its intent. Economic facts of reality are impervious to people's wishes and allegedly good intentions.

Yet despite all of the evidence that is out there that this silly scheme is an economic boondoggle, our local officials keep pushing ahead and talking about it like it is some bold new idea - when it is, in fact, nothing more than stale recycled socialism. Heck, most of the hard core radical socialists and communists no longer bother to assert that their ideas bring about economic prosperity. They know very well that they don't and that they can no longer get away with making such arguments - so, nowadays, they instead denounce economic prosperity itself on egalitarian and ecological grounds.

So, in that sense, our local myopic little pragmatist officials are way behind the times. And, as pragmatists, they are utterly incapable of grasping broad, abstract principles such as capitalism verses socialism even when the issue is confronting them right in front of their noses. As a result, we have a whole bunch of local officials who fancy themselves as "practical" for being somehow "above" ideology who have swallowed hook, line and sinker the basic economic premises and decades old fallacies put forth by a thoroughly impractical and downright wicked ideology that has resulted in nothing but failure, suffering and economic destruction whenever and wherever it has been tried. As pragmatists, they have a very limited grasp of a wider big picture reality. In their minds, the whole issue simply boils down to: "Gee, wouldn't it be nice if Fort Worth had a really big hotel so we can bring in bigger conventions?" It's like the little child who asks his financially struggling parents: "Gee, wouldn't it be nice if we had a really big house out in the country with lots of land and horses?" Of course it would be nice - but such a line of thinking does not constitute a valid argument for anything let alone a matter of public policy and a very costly expenditure. At least one can forgive the little kid for not knowing any better. Perhaps our local officials don't know any better either having been blinded by a pragmatist approach that teaches them that knowledge of basic economic principles and of the ideological conflicts that are at the undercurrent of all political debate is irrelevant and that the "truth is what works." But despite whatever epistemological brain damage might have been inflicted upon them by our utterly inept education system, there are two things that grown adults can and should be held accountable for knowing: 1) We don't always get what we want in life and 2) The ends do NOT justify the means.

As for the concrete, practical consequences of what a city owned hotel will do to downtown and Fort Worth, I addressed some of those in a posting that people may have overlooked due to the fact that it is in a different thread. You can read it in the fifth posting at: pub32.ezboard.com/ffortwo...=165.topic

Well, I ended up saying more than I planned to when I started this posting - but at least it is not 11,000 words.


RADIO DISMUKE
1920s & 1930s Pop and Jazz
24 Hour Internet Radio
dismuke.org/radio

#67 tcole

tcole
  • Guests

Posted 16 July 2004 - 08:26 PM

Asked by me on another thread and never answered: When in the economic history of civilization has supply driven demend? The argument that building a 600 room hotel will be beneficial in attracting more conventions does not preclude its most logical hyperbole: that being that if 600 more rooms is good, then two, better yet five new hotels of 600 rooms each would be even better. And that ladies and gentlemen just does not compute economically.

The only way for more hotel rooms to be constructed (that would make sound economic sense based on market forces) is for the present operators to achieve what is known as economic profit which in turn always seeks to be in equilibrium. That equilibrium is achieved by a slackening of demand or an increase in supply by either new entrants or growth in offerings by the current players. As it stands today, <60% average occupancy does not come close to constituting economic profit. And as such, does not argue for an increase in said supply, by either private enterprise (and borrowing heavily from dismuke's arguments regarding gov't interference into markets) or the public sector.

#68 cjyoung

cjyoung
  • Guests

Posted 16 July 2004 - 08:27 PM

Sounds like a Bass/Sundance/Worthington/Ramada party-line re-hash.

Anyway, with my dot.com billionaire dreams being dashed by the stock market fiasco of the late 90's/early 00's, I guess I'll let you liberals and conservatives fight it out over the merits and de-merits of a Fort Worth CC Hotel.

...meanwhile Dallas is building a new public financed hotel, UT-Dallas is getting $300 million for research and Opryland Texas is big as @#%$.

I don't think the city should own it, but I do believe it is necessary.


Peace

#69 BB

BB
  • Guests

Posted 16 July 2004 - 08:28 PM

Heaven forbid anyone be against the hotel because of their own free will. We're all just Bass minions and so were the thousands that signed the petition calling for a vote.

The need issue goes back to the same point: If people who are in the business of running hotels won't pony up the dough, why is the city so willing? The "our supply will create the demand" argument just doesn't fly.

#70 Dismuke

Dismuke
  • Guests

Posted 16 July 2004 - 08:28 PM

Sounds like a Bass/Sundance/Worthington/Ramada party-line re-hash.

Gee - but if that were only the case. Somehow, I rather doubt that any of the above organizations would want to sign on to my postings on this subject as being an example of their "party line."

I don't even know where you are coming from on that. My understanding is that Mr. Bass was initially opposed to the hotel not on the basis of philosophical principle but rather because he had concerns about the potential disastrous fiscal consequences of the initial funding scheme. If I recall correctly, he has subsequently changed his position on the hotel.

Furthermore, a good many of the downtown hotels can only argue their case from a somewhat compromised position as most of them have, if I recall correctly, extended their hands out at one point or another in hopes of receiving their share of government goodies from the City. I say this as a statement of fact and not as criticism. I am reluctant to criticize in this case as I recognize that even honorable and principled business people are in a rather sticky spot when operating in a mixed (i.e. semi-capitalist, semi-statist) economy. If the government is handing out goodies, favors and corporate welfare and a company does not accept, then its competition will and end up growing at its expense and at the expense of its shareholders. In many cases, companies have little choice but to play the game despite the fact that the goodies come at a very heavy price and usually have lots of strings attached to them. And, of course, there are some business people who actually prefer to operate in such an environment as it enables them to compete based not on their merits in the open marketplace but rather on the basis of political pull - i.e. on the basis of political a** kissing and who they happen to know in their "good ol' boy" networks.

It is very fashionable to talk about how big business and big money corrupts politics. But, in fact, the exact opposite is true. If politicians and their armies of bureaucrats did not hold absolute life and death power over a company's or an entire industry's continued existence, there would be no motive to curry their favor and try and buy them off. It is not money (i.e. wealth earned by productive effort) that corrupts. It is the political power to disrupt the forces of the marketplace - i.e. the power to replace merit with political pull - that corrupts. And if you are in business and see that your competitor is trying to curry favor with some thug from Washington, or Austin or City Hall in order to seek legislation that will put you out of business - what do you do? What are your options? You don't have any - other than to join in the game, hold your nose, stick out your tongue for lots of licking, smile nicely and hope that the thug smiles back at you. That is why many companies are reluctant to stick their necks out and take staunch, pro-capitalist stands on issues and why they contribute large sums of their hard earned money to sleazy politicians and to their ideological enemies. In some cases, it is a matter of moral cowardice - but in many other cases, it is a matter of survival. And when that happens - well, tell me, exactly who has corrupted whom?

...meanwhile Dallas is building a new public financed hotel

Well, that is Dallas' problem. They are hardly a shining example. Their downtown is barely alive and stinks of urine from all the hobos sleeping in the doorways of the many abandoned buildings. They have a huge hotel on Commerce Street (The Grand) that is sitting empty and is starting to visibly rot and decay.

But it is correct - Dallas is wanting to build a government subsidized convention center hotel. So is Houston. So are a lot of cities. Doesn't that perhaps tell you something? Doesn't that suggest that there is not only going to be an artificial glut of hotel rooms in each of the markets impacted, but there may also be a glut of hotel rooms competing for the same large conventions? Have any of our local "ends justify the means" people ever considered what the impact of all those other city owned hotels might have on the proposed one in Fort Worth? And exactly what is the future of the convention industry in today's rapidly changing business environment with post 9-11 travel hassles and fears? Are conventions as we know them, at some point, going to be considered quaint relics of days gone by - kind of like the old fashioned traveling salesman who went from town to town on the rail? I'm sure they will probably continue to exist in some form or fashion - but with companies trying to cut costs and strive for greater efficiencies (which will continue even after the economy picks up), I suspect that many firms will think twice before being willing to fly employees off to expensive hotels for what, in some cases, amounts to an excuse to party and engage in behavior that the little misses and the kids back home probably do not want to learn about.

I promise you that nobody knows for sure how the communications revolution and the ongoing war with terrorism is going to impact the business travel industry long term - and that is probably one of the reasons why the capital markets are reluctant to take on the risk of building a convention center hotel.

I don't think the city should own it, but I do believe it is necessary.

But if it were so necessary, why are there not a bunch of greedy businessmen lining up to serve that need and thereby line their pockets with lots of nice profits? You can't say that it is because they don't know the opportunity exists. With as much publicity as this matter has received, it is undoubtedly being closely followed by the industry. Indeed, the very fact that the city is having to build it is proof positive the marketplace has concluded that is not necessary. What the hotel's supporters are wanting to do is basically spit in the face of the marketplace - and that cannot be done without very unpleasant consequences. All you need to do is look at history to see that is the case.

Well, I see that I once again got on a roll and said more than I planned to. Oh, well. Tough. Everything I just wrote is valid and needs to be said. So I will spell check it and cheerfully click on the "Add Reply" button.


RADIO DISMUKE
1920s & 1930s Pop and Jazz
24 Hour Internet Radio
dismuke.org/radio

#71 renamerusk

renamerusk
  • Guests

Posted 16 July 2004 - 08:29 PM

This is nothing more than good ole council bashing for the heck of it. The council was simply acting in a tradition begun in the formative days of our city when the city leaders of that time boldly acted to bring the railroads to Fort Worth while the a noisy band of naysayers, with encouragement from Dallas, proclaimed that the railroads will come; "Just trust us, we are your friends." Birdville, Texas bought into that bunk while Fort Worth perservered and became the economic center of Tarrant County leaving a very gullible Birdville in the dust. And now it seems that Dallas too is prowling for its own convention center hotel, just like as might add, so have Austin and San Antonio. Fort Worth needs a convention center hotel which was recently validated by a commission of citizens and business leaders. If you think that hotel developers are going to come to this city when other cities all over the country are doing what Austin and Houston have just done, I suggest a day trip to downtown Birdville. Visit their Courthouse and their convention center. Take a photo from the observation deck of one of their numerous skyscrapers.

#72 Dismuke

Dismuke
  • Guests

Posted 16 July 2004 - 08:29 PM

Actually, you might want to brush up on your history as Birdville lost the county seat as a result of election fraud on Fort Worth's part and became marginalized in 1856 - two decades before the first railroad came to town. When the election was held over again in 1860 because of the fraud involved in the first one, Birdville was only able to muster 4 votes. Fort Worth certainly has no grounds to be proud over how it won the county seat. Again, the ends do not justify the means.

Fort Worth needs a convention center hotel which was recently validated by a commission of citizens and business leaders.

Utterly meaningless. Do you really think that Mayor Barr, who was pulling out all stops to shove the hotel through no matter what, would have put together a commission that was unsympathetic to "the cause"? Remember, the only reason that the commission was put together in the first place was because Barr had absolutely no alternative other than either abandoning the hotel altogether or holding an election that he knew his side could not win.

One could just have easily put together another commission of "citizens and business leaders" that would have come to the exact opposite conclusion.

Furthermore, the fact that the hotel was recommended by some commission does not, in and of itself, constitute a valid argument for a city owned hotel. That is nothing more than an appeal to authority. Commissions are not infallible and they can be and sometimes are completely wrong about things.

Finally, your posting completely overlooks the very valid questions raised by tcole and BB.


RADIO DISMUKE
1920s & 1930s Pop and Jazz
24 Hour Internet Radio
dismuke.org/radio

#73 renamerusk

renamerusk
  • Guests

Posted 16 July 2004 - 08:30 PM

"Remember the Birdville!" - Fast forward from 1856 to Today; substitute Fort Worth for Birdville; and the fraud purpertrated by the miserly "Other-hotels" manipulating the "Cut their noses off to spite their faces" billionaire-bashers to scuttle the City's attempt to survive in a very competitive convention and tourism industry. Were they to be successful, then brother, you do have a city which will be marginalized. Yesterday's cry: "Bring on the railroad and discover Fort Worth."; Today's cry: "Bring on the hotel and rediscover Fort Worth."

We have subsidized and, it should be said that a certain billionaire has in particularly, invested in building a beautiful, vibrant and safe downtown to make it attractive for these dissenting hotels to do business. With the exception of one or two, these other hotels have not notably distinguished themselves with the quality and amenities that it would take to get today's convention planners to consider Fort Worth as a viable host. A three-star or greater hotel would be an incentive for them to upgrade their facilities. Until then they will be happy with the status quo.

I have not read, heard or seen any evidence of a fix being engineered by Mayor Barr in putting together a commission to study the need for a hotel. Of all the information published surrounding the issue, I never heard of such accusations and would be interested if you could provide some details.

#74 360Texas

360Texas
  • Guests

Posted 16 July 2004 - 08:30 PM

I read here in the forum, that the convention folks would not hold their conventions here because the existing hotels were not adequate [Read poor condition rooms and facilites]
for their needs. Maybe the existing hotels should invest in facilities upgrades in order to bring in the convention clients.

I would think that there are no other practical alternatives.

Dave

#75 tcole

tcole
  • Guests

Posted 16 July 2004 - 08:31 PM

Posed differently for renamerusk ,cberen1, et. al.:

Assuming the hotel IS built (regardless of how or by who) and that such an increase in hotel rooms indeed IS just the catalyst for FW gaining more and larger conventions, just how many of said conventions would be necessary for ALL the hotels downtown to break even on an annual basis? Remeber that in down-times that there will be an even larger glut of rooms in the marketplace than exist today and that the laws of supply and demand dictate that during those downtimes that rates will trend down. Also, what are the probabilities that FW would snare that "number" year in and year out?

#76 Dismuke

Dismuke
  • Guests

Posted 16 July 2004 - 08:31 PM

"Remember the Birdville!" - Fast forward from 1856 to Today; substitute Fort Worth for Birdville; and the fraud purpertrated by the miserly "Other-hotels"

So suddenly, "fraud" is defined as: "a position that you disagree with?" I'm sorry, but that doesn't wash.

If you are going to make an allegation of fraud, then you need to point to a very specific behavior that was done with a deliberate intent to gain some sort of value by means of deception. If you can point to something done by such "other hotels" (whichever hotels they may be, as it is not exactly clear which ones are being referred to) that falls into such a category of behavior, you might possibly have a case to throw out such an allegation. Otherwise, it is nothing more than empty rhetoric. So please tell us, what specific act of fraud has been committed?

manipulating the "Cut their noses off to spite their faces" billionaire-bashers to scuttle the City's attempt to survive in a very competitive convention and tourism industry. Were they to be successful, then brother, you do have a city which will be marginalized. Yesterday's cry: "Bring on the railroad and discover Fort Worth."; Today's cry: "Bring on the hotel and rediscover Fort Worth."

But this, in substance, amounts to nothing more than your merely once again restating your position that you think the hotel is somehow very urgently needed.

If that is your position, fine - then please defend it. By that I mean, before once again repeating your assertion that the hotel is needed, please respond to the criticisms that were posted here on the previous occasions that the point was made by yourself and others. Otherwise, we are all just repeating ourselves.

So - you want to continue to make the case for your position? Great! That's what forums like this are all about. To do that, you will need to address the following:

1) If this hotel is so necessary and essential to the future of Fort Worth, then why have no private investors come along seeking to fill that need and thereby make a profit for themselves? What do they know that the city does not? Can it be that they have reason to believe that there is a great likelihood that such a hotel will not be a viable enterprise under current and projected market conditions?

2) Who do you think is most capable of making accurate economic calculations, politicians working in conjunction with government planners and committee appointees using funds the taxpayers were compelled to pay - or private investors putting their own professional and financial futures on the line risking their own hard-earned funds?

3) When in the history of economic civilization has supply ever driven demand? If this hotel is such a good idea, why not build 2 of them - or a dozen of them and thereby get people flocking into downtown in droves?

Also, in case you have not already read it (as it is, unfortunately, in another thread), please read my posting addressing the alleged hotel shortage and downtown occupancy rates at: pub32.ezboard.com/ffortwo...=165.topic It is the 8th posting from the top. After you have read it, please address the following:

4) If it is not financially viable to operate a hotel at lower than current occupancy rates without a city owned hotel in the market, then on what basis do you think that it will be viable to operate one with such a hotel? If it is not financially viable, do we not risk one of the existing downtown hotels having to close down?

5) If the economic environment emerges in which the downtown market simply cannot sustain the existing hotels requiring one of them to close down, do you consider the fact that the city-owned hotel will not be allowed to be the one to fail because it can bail itself out at the taxpayers' expense to be a form of "unfair competition"? If you were in business and paid taxes and the government provided a subsidy to your competitor - but not to you - thereby giving your competitor an advantage in the marketplace, would you not consider that to be a form of "unfair competition"?

6) If the city owned hotel is built and one of the downtown hotels subsequently fails thereby bringing the occupancy rate and number of downtown hotel rooms to about where it is today - will this not put us back at square one? Would you support the city taking over the failed hotel in order once again have the number of rooms allegedly needed in order to support the convention center? If so, what about when the next hotel fails?

7) If Fort Worth ends up being lucky and experiences a boom in downtown sufficiently large enough to absorb the glut of hotel rooms brought about by the city owned hotel and to return the occupancy rates for the other hotels to profitable levels, wouldn't we once again be back at square one? Wouldn't we once again find ourselves in a position of not being able to attract certain conventions because of a lack of rooms? Would you then support using tax dollars to subsidize the building of another city owned hotel or an expansion of the existing one? If so, how can there ever be a "light at the end of the tunnel" for downtown hotel owners in terms of occupancy rates? What impact do you think this will have on potential investors who might otherwise consider investing in a downtown hotel?


Now, you are by no means under any sort of obligation whatsoever to answer these questions. You may be too busy to mess with it. You may not have a desire to mess with it. That is perfectly fine. Refusing to answer someone else's posting in no way implies any sort of sanction of it on your part. However, if you are going to continue to merely assert that the hotel is a good idea and is desperately needed, then you need to, in some way or another, take cognizance of the various objections that others have put forth. If you fail to do so, then it would be perfectly valid for people to draw the conclusion that you are evasive and lacking in credibility. On the other hand, if, using facts and logic, you can address these questions and concerns, you will have given your position added credibility and have performed a valuable service towards your side of the debate.


With the exception of one or two, these other hotels have not notably distinguished themselves with the quality and amenities that it would take to get today's convention planners to consider Fort Worth as a viable host.

That is your opinion and you are most certainly entitled to it. If your opinion has any credibility in terms of the marketplace, then those hotels are ticking time bombs and someone will come along and take their business away from them. That is how the marketplace works.


I have not read, heard or seen any evidence of a fix being engineered by Mayor Barr in putting together a commission to study the need for a hotel. Of all the information published surrounding the issue, I never heard of such accusations and would be interested if you could provide some details.

Whether he "fixed" the commission or not is absolutely irrelevant to the issue of whether or not the proposed hotel should be built. But since you asked for clarification, I will oblige.

To provide such evidence one way or another, one would ultimately have to climb inside Barr's head and read his mind as to what his real intentions were when he made his appointments. Nobody can do that. But this much is known: Barr was a staunch partisan for one side of the debate and was pulling out all stops to win. Barr was forced to appoint the commission or face near certain political defeat. Appointing the commission was an opportunity to take the issue off of the shelf and put it into a "holding pattern" for a while. Barr had every motive and every opportunity in the world to make appointments in such a way that would increase the likelihood of an outcome that he would regard as favorable. One would expect him to do so. Why wouldn't he? That's how the game of politics is conducted by serious players.

Besides, an analysis of Barr's motive is utterly irrelevant considering the context in which I brought it up. Barr is not on trial and appointing people sympathetic to one's views to a commission is neither illegal nor unethical. The only reason I brought it up was because you seemed to suggest that the commission's conclusion was, in and of itself, a valid reason for supporting the hotel. It is not. I brought up Barr merely to point out that one should be skeptical of the objectivity of politically appointed committees. But let's say they were objective. So what? Someone else's conclusion does not constitute a valid argument for anything. To say that it does is to resort to the fallacy of "appeal to authority" That was my point in bringing up Barr and the committee.


RADIO DISMUKE
1920s & 1930s Pop and Jazz
24 Hour Internet Radio
dismuke.org/radio

#77 renamerusk

renamerusk
  • Guests

Posted 16 July 2004 - 08:32 PM

When you clandestinely fund a campaign; and when you hide behind a so call grassroot effort; and when you are not immediately forthcoming of that fact, then you are being fraudulant. My opinion.

Fact, the city does own a convention center and should do what is necessary to maintain its integrity. To that, it makes perfect economic sense to shore up any and all shortcomings. For economic sense, I direct you to Dallas and the enormously successful Anatole Hotel and the building of its adjoining CONVENTION CENTER. This is an economic decision that I suspect you would favor. Did not our public officials simply behave like the ultimate developer, Mr. Trammel Crow, a man known to be able to make a dollar. The cart before the horse; or the horse before the cart- a deal making combination. Crow was prudent; I expected no less of our city officials.

Your position has been stubbornly single-minded as though the only ones impacted in this debate are the privately-owned hotels. Other taxpaying businesses such as restaurants, retailers, merchandisers, etc., in and beyond downtown will likely suffer lost revenues and sales should the efforts to scuttle the convention center is successful; not to mention residents looking for employment. Is not the city council obligated to them as well?

We will not see eye to eye on this matter. It is a philosophical difference. Economics is an inexact science; and so is the free market. The past two years in the stock markets should make one pause at the wisdom of investors. I could agree with much of what you have said, except that you make the Perfect the enenmy of the Good. A large portion of one's luck is made; and those waiting for their ship to come in someday, well they just watch as prosperity sails by.

One thing I believe wholeheartedly, Fort Worth is a diamond in the rough, we need only to assert ourselves just a little bit; in the form of a convention center hotel. Ask not what the private investors will do for you, but what we can do for Fort Worth. Taxes are the price for living in a civilized community.

#78 Dismuke

Dismuke
  • Guests

Posted 16 July 2004 - 08:33 PM

When you clandestinely fund a campaign; and when you hide behind a so call grassroot effort; and when you are not immediately forthcoming of that fact, then you are being fraudulant.

Who is clandestinely funding a campaign?

Are you referring to the downtown hotels that funded the petition drive? Well, that wasn't clandestine. I personally knew from the very get go from reading in the paper that the Raddison was the primary source of the campaign's funds. And guess what? There was absolutely nothing wrong with the hotels doing so. It is called defending oneself. It is called free speech. For your information, that is something that is constitutionally protected. Nor is there anything wrong with them trying to rally public support for their cause. Again, it is called free speech. And, for your information, that does not constitute fraud.

Fact, the city does own a convention center and should do what is necessary to maintain its integrity.

That's not necessarily true. It depends on what allegedly needs to be done. Some things may be acceptable to do towards that end. But some things are not acceptable. As I have said several times before, the ends do not justify the means.


For economic sense, I direct you to Dallas and the enormously successful Anatole Hotel and the building of its adjoining CONVENTION CENTER. This is an economic decision that I suspect you would favor. Did not our public officials simply behave like the ultimate developer, Mr. Trammel Crow, a man known to be able to make a dollar. The cart before the horse; or the horse before the cart- a potent combination; he knew and did what was prudent. I expected no less of our city officials.

Then why hasn't Mr. Trammel Crow been in downtown Fort Worth begging to invest in and build such a hotel here? If the hotel is indeed a viable proposition, why doesn't the private sector jump in and take on the risks and reap the rewards? How many times do I and others have to ask this question - and how many times are you going to continue to evade it?


Other taxpaying businesses such as restaurants, retailers, merchandisers, etc., in and beyond downtown will likely suffer lost revenues and sales should the efforts to scuttle the convention center is successful; not to mention residents looking for employment.

Not true.

First off - downtown merchants and retailers will not lose revenues on account of the hotel not being built. The hotel not being built is going to have zero impact on their existing customer base. Now, one might be able to argue that, if the hotel is not built, those restaurants and merchants might miss out on the potential customers it might attract - but that is an entirely different thing than to assert that they will lose revenues. But that still doesn't justify the hotel. Those merchants and restaurants are no more entitled to some sort of taxpayer subsidy than is any other business.

Second, you have not established a case to demonstrate that not building the hotel will have a detrimental effect on the local economy. The money that will be used to build and subsidize that hotel is not something that is just going to materialize out of thin air by magic. That money has to come from someplace - and, in this case, that someplace is the local economy. If those funds are not used to build the hotel, they will be used for something else - and it will be those sectors of the economy that will end up paying the lost opportunity cost if the hotel is built. So what's the best way for the money to be spent? Ultimately, the answer is going to depend on the issue of who is more competent at economic calculation - government officials who confiscate the money in the form of taxation or private individuals and businesses pursuing their own self-interest using their own hard-earned capital. In other words, it is an issue of socialism verses capitalism.

Furthermore, you still have not addressed the issues that I and others have raised and which I enumerated in my last posting.

Is not the city council obligated to them as well?

Absolutely not.

If the government wants to do something to help small businesses and job seekers, then what it needs to do is get the heck out of the way of the producers - i.e. those who create the capital that make job creation, small business and economic prosperity possible in the first place. It needs to allow capital to efficiently flow to the areas of the economy that offer the highest return - i.e. those areas that need it the most. This stupid hotel scheme does the exact opposite by diverting capital from flowing to productive enterprises to a crazy socialistic government program that no private capitalist is willing to risk his own money on.


RADIO DISMUKE
1920s & 1930s Pop and Jazz
24 Hour Internet Radio
dismuke.org/radio

#79 Dismuke

Dismuke
  • Guests

Posted 16 July 2004 - 08:33 PM

We will not see eye to eye on this matter. It is a philosophical difference.

You are indeed correct. It is a philosophical difference - a profound philosophical difference.

Economics is an inexact science; and so is the free market. The past two years in the stock markets should make one pause at the wisdom of investors.

I am sorry - but that doesn't wash. Look at history. Look at Eastern Europe verses Western Europe. Look at Hong Kong verses Red China. Look at the standard of living of those countries that have some measure of economic freedom verses those that do not. Our economy in its worst recession is better off that of a socialist state.

I could make a very lengthy argument that the worst of the economic busts our country has known were the result not of the free market but rather by the marketplace having to adjust to dislocations caused by various sorts of governmental interference. But that would be way too lengthy and far beyond the scope of a message board posting. The bottom line is look at the history of economic freedom to the degree that it has been tried - verses various forms of economic statism throughout history. Capitalism results in progress, prosperity and an unprecedented improvement in quality of people's lives. Statism results in poverty, backwardness and economic stagnation at best - and if left unchecked, it leads to situations like the USSR, Red China, and Nazi Germany.



I could agree with much of what you have said, except that you make the Perfect the enenmy of the Good.

No - I don't make the Perfect the enemy of the Good. I just don't regard mixing the Perfect with any part whatsoever of the Bad as somehow constituting the Good.


A large portion of one's luck is made; and those waiting for their ship to come in someday, well they just watch as prosperity sails by.

Prosperity results from someone producing it. Government does not produce anything. All it does is tax capital away from the producers and spend it on other things. Some of those things - such as the courts, military, police and the establishment of a rule of law - are necessary preconditions for an orderly system of production and trade and constitute the legitimate functions of government. But when the government goes beyond those basic functions, what it is basically doing is confiscating capital from the productive and transferring it to those people and/or endeavors who are less productive and could not have otherwise earned the funds in the free market. That is the exact opposite of what is required for prosperity.

If you really want to catch the ship of prosperity, what you should be doing is fighting to stop those who seek to stand in its way. Laissez faire!


RADIO DISMUKE
1920s & 1930s Pop and Jazz
24 Hour Internet Radio
dismuke.org/radio

#80 tcole

tcole
  • Guests

Posted 16 July 2004 - 08:34 PM

Dis has provided 7 succinct questions...for that matter, I have given two arguably easier questions; to which reasoned well thought out answers have been elusive.

I know (and Dis has provided) a number of answers to the questions posited that argue against the hotel. What has not been provided are any answers in the affirmative, and in those various answers and the logic behind them lies the true scope of debate, not "downtown will suffer, Dallas is building one, etc."

As to economics being an inexact science - sometimes and sometimes not. Economics holds for the "possibility" that a city developed and owned hotel will accomplish exactly what its proponents espouse - a relatively inexact forecast of the future impact. On the other hand, economics (or more precisely the study and application of it) assigns a very low "probability" for success - a much more exact forcast. As an example, picture a roulette wheel. Whenever you play roulette, the ball has a possibility of landing on any number (and according to more complex statistics and some very high math, none or all at the same time - but that is beyond the scope of this example) but has specific probabilities of landing on a specific number. This is the arena in which private investors play (and do not confuse institutional money with retail investors who "chased" dot com fortunes in the late 90s), balancing risk (probability) with return (possibility). A gov't owned ventures artificially lowers or eliminates altogether adverse probability and thus impacts the market to the detriment of those entrants who do not benefit from similar impacts to adverse probability. Furthermore, gov't (at all levels) has an attrocious record of analyzing risk and reward.

#81 Dismuke

Dismuke
  • Guests

Posted 16 July 2004 - 08:34 PM

As to economics being an inexact science - sometimes and sometimes not.

That was a good example you gave.

My take on whether economics is an exact science is that it is a very exact science. It is economic forecasting that is inexact - though I would say that it is more of an art than a science.

Economics, as a science, is governed by the laws of cause and effect - just as is physics. The laws of economics are just as immutable as are the laws of physics. And, just as in physics, if a certain set of circumstances come into play, it is possible to know without a doubt what the inevitable consequences are.

For example - let's say that there is a certain commodity for which the demand, for whatever reason, suddenly starts to exceed the supply. By virtue of the economic laws of cause and effect, the inevitable result is going to be higher prices for that commodity at least in the short term. Unless the situation was caused by some sort of temporary disruption such as a natural disaster, the higher prices will, in turn, have the effect of attracting investors to that industry who will seek to profit from those higher prices by trying to open up new sources of supply or by perhaps bringing to market a more plentiful alternative to that commodity. If so, then by virtue of those same laws of cause and effect, the price of that commodity will tend to stabilize in the long term.

Now, let's suppose that, because of the high prices, a bunch of politicians become upset and cry out that the situation is unfair. It is unfair, they claim, that the Ed Basses and Bill Gates of the world don't think twice about paying the higher prices - but working people are having to cut back on DVD rentals, trips to restaurants and on their vacation plans just so they can continue to purchase that commodity. As a result, those politicians who are contemptuous of the laws of cause and effect and regard them as nothing more than "theory" and think that reality is "flexible" and will easily bend to the intensity of their wishes and allegedly good intentions, decide to demonize those who produce that commodity as "greedy" and impose price controls. Well, the laws of cause and effect cannot be wished out of existence - and the inevitable consequence will be chronic shortages of that commodity. You won't be able to find it for sale anywhere - unless the situation lasts long enough for a black market to develop and you are willing to pay exorbitant prices and risk criminal prosecution. Another consequence of the price controls is that all incentive for investors to take on the risks of opening up new sources of supply is suddenly removed - and until the controls are lifted and prices are allowed to adjust to their natural levels, the situation will only deteriorate.

The above is just one of countless examples that could be given of the immutable laws of economics. The scenarios I mentioned will unfold each and every time a similar set of circumstances occurs. It does not matter what particular commodity one is talking about. It does not matter which country one is talking about or what era in history or what political party happens to be in power. Certain causes will always result in certain effects. The exact scenario I described above actually happened quite recently with the energy shortages in California. It happened in the United States when Nixon imposed wage and price controls during the early 1970s. It happened in post-war Britain where wartime price controls remained in effect well into the 1950s. It happens on an almost constant basis in various third world countries. There are a number of politicians in this country who loudly threaten to take us down the exact same road I described every time there is a 10 cent uptick in the price of gasoline.

As a result, it is a fairly simple matter to project the consequences of a certain economic event - such as the Florida orange crop being wiped out by a frost, or a new tax, regulation or unfunded government mandate being imposed on a particular industry, etc. This is so because we live in an orderly universe in which every entity acts according to its nature - i.e., a universe governed by the law of causality.

Economic forecasting is more complicated. Forecasting is nothing more than making predictions of the future - and, in the realm of human affairs, that is, by its very nature, inexact.

Believers in goblins and psychics notwithstanding, it is simply not possible to predict the future of a single human life - let alone an entire industry or society - with total certainty. The best that one can do is to say: "if the present trends continue and if no outside circumstances intervene in a significant way, this will be the result.

It is those "ifs" that make economic forecasting inexact. And it will always be that way. An astronomer can tell you exactly where the earth and its moon and the various planets and galaxies will be in space a million years and ten seconds from now. Someday, scientists may even be able to predict exactly when things such as earthquakes, tornados and killing frosts will strike. But when dealing with the behavior of human beings, we will never be able to achieve that degree of precision in our forecasting. The reason is simple - human beings possess the faculty of volition. They choose the course of action they will take - and no one can predict with certainty the choices another person will make.

Let's say you are trying to forecast the future of the kid next door. You see that he is highly susceptible to peer pressure and has fallen in with a bad crowd and takes drugs. He has already had a brush with the law for breaking into the house down the street - but lucked out when the owner chose not to press charges after Daddy slipped him $500. Take a look at another kid in the neighborhood. He has a strong sense of self and wastes little energy conforming to the latest fads or worrying about how popular he is. He makes high marks in school and knows exactly what he wants to do when he graduates. After school, he works at a job where he has already received a promotion. He has saved a nice chunk of change to help him with his college expenses and looks forward to when he is out of college and can open a 401k. Now, make a generalized forecast about each kid's future. Seems easy doesn't it? But guess what? Until the kid going down the wrong path is thrown in prison, he is capable at any point in time of choosing to make a change in his system of values and in his behavior. The kid who is going down the right path could also, at any time, choose to go down a different path. Perhaps he becomes impatient, decides to take a "shortcut" and engages in some form of white collar crime. Perhaps he gets dumped by his girlfriend, becomes depressed, decides to give up and enter into a downward spiral. Now, both of these scenarios are highly unlikely - but they are possible because, at every moment of life, both kids have the ability to exercise choice. If one wants to get really scientific about it, the most one can do is look at a large number of instances of kids in similar situations and, based on those statistics, assign some level of probability for their subsequent behavior.

That is exactly what lenders do when they decide whether to extend credit to someone. They engage in economic forecasting. They look at that person's behavioral history and look for trends - and based on the past behavior of others in a similar situation, assign a degree of probability to the eventual outcome, which determines their risk. The degree of risk the lender is willing to take on is factored into the price of the loan. Some lenders are willing to take on higher risks - and they set their fees and interest rates accordingly.

The exact same principle applies to economic forecasting on a wider scale as well, only that it is infinitely more complex - so complex that it might well beyond the ability of one single person to grasp. Consider the enormous number of variables and potential scenarios that have to be considered and predicted before one can make a relatively mundane decision such as to whether another hotel is needed in a given market.

Furthermore, human volition brings about another crucial factor in the outcome of economic affairs that is next to impossible to forecast: innovation. Imagine how dramatically different the economic history of the world would have been had Thomas Edison, Henry Ford and Bill Gates decided early on to live their lives differently. In 1983, everybody knew what a computer was. Imagine if, back then, the impossible happened and some economic forecaster had a mystical insight revealed to him that in the year 2003 a majority of American households would have computers. Even with this incredible advantage that he would have over other economic forecasters - there would still have been no way for him to predict the huge and, in some cases, devastating impact that computers have had on certain industries such as film processing, the recording industry, travel agencies etc.

Furthermore, there are other outside factors that impact the equation. Consider the economic consequences in the wake of 9-11 or in the months leading up to the recent Iraq war due to the fact that businesses were reluctant to take significant risks because of the difficulties of economic forecasting in the face of such uncertainties. Consider when you are planning your retirement. Among the many things you have to take into consideration is the possibility that the government might engage in another orgy of 1970s style currency inflation thereby silently taxing away the purchasing power of your nest egg. You also have to factor in the possibility that the government's social security Ponzi scheme might become bankrupt if younger workers down the road revolt against the extremely high payroll taxes that will be needed to keep it afloat. You have no way of knowing what will happen in either case - but you nevertheless must take action and be prepared to live with the consequences of those actions.

Now consider all of the various things I have just mentioned and apply them across a variety of industries for an entire economy - and you will see just how primitive and backward is the notion that government officials can somehow plan an economy.

We chuckle with an amused sense of well-earned superiority at primitive savages who, not having discovered the law of causality, dance and spill the blood of animals and sometimes other humans in order to induce the thunder gods to water their crops. They believe that if they just wish hard enough and loud enough, they will get what they want. We, of course, do understand the laws of causality - so we dig wells and construct things such as dams and aqueducts. Sadly, however, when it comes to economic matters, many people today are little better off than those savages. They have never discovered the laws of causality as they apply to economics - or have been indoctrinated by their socialistic professors that such laws are a fiction, or are somehow "flexible." They consider their wish for a certain economic outcome to be an irreducible primary and think that all they need to do is tax, spend and issue edicts accordingly and their wishes will become reality. As a result, we have the spectacle of modern day economic witch doctors trying to fight a "War on Poverty" by shackling and punishing those who produce wealth. And in Fort Worth, similar witch doctors are trying to realize their wish for an increased number of downtown hotel rooms by proposing a plan which will make it difficult, if not impossible, for the existing hotel operators to survive.

If there was sufficient evidence that another downtown hotel was needed, someone would build one. If such evidence existed and was somehow overlooked by the hotel industry, all local officials would have needed to do is bring it to the industry's attention. There are enough people in this world looking to make a buck that someone would have stepped forward if such an opportunity existed. Anyone with an understanding of basic economic principles can understand this. Those who assert that there is a place in the market for the city owned hotel are doing so on the basis of wishful thinking - I don't care how many "consultants" they hire to create fancy reports to allegedly back it up. Local officials and their "consultants" have no more access to facts and figures to be used in their economic forecasts than do the forecasters employed by the hotel industry - and perhaps less access as some of these companies undoubtedly have proprietary sources of data. The only thing that allows these officials to attempt to fly in the face of the economic laws of causality in pursuit of their various utopianistic pipe dreams is their power to confiscate capital through taxation and to order the police to enforce their edicts. And it is that ability that we need to wake up and place strong legal - perhaps even constitutional - limits on.

Anyhow, I see that I have ended up typing out another essay. I guess that is what happens when one is passionate about a certain subject and extremely frustrated at the widespread lack of understanding and downright ignorance over the basic issues surrounding it. As I have been typing for the better part of an hour and have other things I need to get done, I will stop for now.


RADIO DISMUKE
1920s & 1930s Pop and Jazz
24 Hour Internet Radio
dismuke.org/radio

#82 cberen1

cberen1
  • Guests

Posted 16 July 2004 - 08:35 PM

dismuke,

Just so you know, you are up to 10,452 words, not counting your signature lines. Some people go their entire lives and don't write that much.


Everyone else:
The questions has been raised about when has supply ever driven demand. I have to admit that I could not get through all of the posts on this thread, so it might have been answered and I just didn't see it. But here is the answer.

All of the time. Was there demand for PDA's before PDA's were available? Not really. People were thrilled with their file-a-fax's and daytimers. This is so true, in fact, that Palm almost never got off the ground because in their business plan they could show no evidence that anyone wanted this thing. They have a list of all of the venture capital firms that shot them down, and it is a long list.

The same holds true for lots of things. There is no demand for many items until these things become available. Is there demand for a Ft. Worth that can handle a large convention? We don't know because right now Ft. Worth can not handle a large convention. And it won't be able to until it gets enough hotel capacity. But we know there is a lot of demand for downtown Ft. Worth in general.

No hotelier has as much at stake as the city does. They have less to gain on this unproven commodity than the owner of the commodity. Everyone in the hotel business has cash flow concerns so not many of them are making big capital expenditures in any city. But the notion that things are bad now, so they will be bad forever is silly. If you want to catch things on the upswing you have to be in a position to take advantage when it happens. You don't want to be building a hotel while all of the business is going elsewhere. You want to be up and running when the demand hits.

Sometimes these things take vision and leadership. Boldness and decisiveness are often met with ridicule and scorn by the meek and timid. I'm a big believer in downtown Ft. Worth. And I'm convinced that convention business will be good for downtown. And if the guys who are most tasked with doing what is good for Ft. Worth say this hotel is the way to go, then I'm all for it.

#83 Dismuke

Dismuke
  • Guests

Posted 16 July 2004 - 08:36 PM

cberen1:

Thank you for responding directly to one of the concerns that have been put forth.


Was there demand for PDA's before PDA's were available? Not really. People were thrilled with their file-a-fax's and daytimers.

Absolutely correct. What they had to do was create that demand and a market for the product. That is what Thomas Edison had to do on a number occasions. That is what has to be done in the case of any bold new innovation.

This is so true, in fact, that Palm almost never got off the ground because in their business plan they could show no evidence that anyone wanted this thing. They have a list of all of the venture capital firms that shot them down, and it is a long list

Yes - and many important innovations faced similar circumstances in the beginning. And like you mention later in your posting, many innovators were faced with ridicule and scorn.

But this still does not invalidate the fact that a market is driven by demand and not supply. If a demand for a product cannot be found or created once it has been brought to market, the product fails - and the producers will likely end up suffering pretty painful financial consequences.

The same holds true for lots of things. There is no demand for many items until these things become available.

But it doesn't follow that, once those things become available, a demand will materialize. Therefore, when determining whether or not to bring a product to market, one has to base one's decision on the potential demand as best as one can forecast it. In other words, the whole process is still demand driven.

And yes, in the case of new products and new technologies, it is possible that the potential demand may not be apparent to investors who cannot see past the conventional wisdom of the time. As a result, those capitalists who do invest in such products are innovative visionaries in their own right - and if their foresight proves correct, they are rewarded handsomely. Innovation, by its very nature, requires creators - and investors - who are able to see things that other people have not yet grasped.


Is there demand for a Ft. Worth that can handle a large convention? We don't know because right now Ft. Worth can not handle a large convention. And it won't be able to until it gets enough hotel capacity. But we know there is a lot of demand for downtown Ft. Worth in general.

But when determining whether or not there is a potential demand for a new hotel in downtown Fort Worth, what one must take into consideration is the needs and desires of its potential customer base - NOT the need of the convention center for more business and NOT the needs and desire of people in Fort Worth for a busier and more prosperous downtown. So far, all of the arguments put forth for the hotel have been based on the latter.

No hotelier has as much at stake as the city does.

Absolutely not true. A hotel chain has everything at stake.

If a hotel chain is able to go discover a market that others have overlooked, it will be rewarded very handsomely by getting a significant jump on its competiton.

On the downside, if hotel executives make a costly bad decision, they face the risk of losing their jobs or bankrupting the company. They cannot bail themselves out by simply confiscating more money from their customers like the city can from its taxpayers. The worst that city officials face is not being reelected - and most of them will probably be out of office by the time any city owned hotel is built. Other community leaders who support the hotel have their own industries and jobs that will remain intact regardless of the hotel's ultimate prospects.



Everyone in the hotel business has cash flow concerns so not many of them are making big capital expenditures in any city. But the notion that things are bad now, so they will be bad forever is silly.

But large companies such as hotel chains do not base their decisions on the immediate cash flow concerns of the moment. Their strategies and investments are based on the long term. And if they have a basis to feel optimistic about the long term prospects for their industry, they have ready access to the capital markets to make the necessary investments to be in a position to capitalize on them. And guess what? With interest rates the way they are today, there is plenty of capital available for any deal that promises a decent return. Their short term cash flow in a down market has very little to do with it.

You don't want to be building a hotel while all of the business is going elsewhere. You want to be up and running when the demand hits.

And the hotel industry and Wall Street is very much aware of this and both are constantly looking for opportunities to cash in on future potential demand. What facts in reality do the city officials in Fort Worth have that the hotel industry and capital markets do not - aside from the fact that city officials have certain wishes and desires for the success of the convention center? I'm sorry - wishes and desires are not a rational basis on which to undertake a very costly expenditure.

And even if the city does know something about the future of the downtown market that the hotel industry has overlooked, that still does not constitute a valid argument for a city government to go into the hotel business. The ends do not justify the means.


I'm a big believer in downtown Ft. Worth. And I'm convinced that convention business will be good for downtown.

That's wonderful. I applaud you for your optimism. Now, if you truly believe that there is some sort of basis in reality that another hotel will be successful and good for the city, go out and find others who share your view and convince those who are skeptics to change their mind, pool your resources together and build it. If it works out, then everyone wins - your pocketbooks, the Convention Center and Fort Worth in general. And if it doesn't work and the idea turns out to have been nothing more than wishful thinking, the people who will suffer the consequences will be those who bought into it in the first place. And if you cannot convince enough investors - well, you don't get your hotel. Guess what? That is life - we don't always get what we want. And getting what we want is NOT a justification for getting a bunch of politicians to resort to socialistic policies. Again, the ends do not justify the means.

In an economy as large as the United States - heck, we live in a global age in which we have ready access to capital from virtually any country in the world - if one cannot find the capital to build something as commonplace and mundane as a hotel, then it shouldn't be built. Period.

And if the guys who are most tasked with doing what is good for Ft. Worth say this hotel is the way to go, then I'm all for it.

If you want to base your opinions on issues on the say-so of others - well, you are most certainly free to do so. But I don't recommend that anyone else try it.


RADIO DISMUKE
1920s & 1930s Pop and Jazz
24 Hour Internet Radio
dismuke.org/radio

#84 Dismuke

Dismuke
  • Guests

Posted 16 July 2004 - 08:36 PM

All of the time. Was there demand for PDA's before PDA's were available? Not really. People were thrilled with their file-a-fax's and daytimers.

Something else has occurred to me on this that I did not bring up in my previous posting.

It is true that, when PDAs first hit the market, there was no existing demand for them. However there was and always has been a huge demand for the benefits that PDAs provide people - i.e. greater efficiency and convenience in storing and organizing information, etc. The basic question over whether or not to bring it to market was how likely would it be able to satisfy that demand at a price people would be willing to pay and which would provide a profitable return on investment, including the costs of educating the public about the product's benefits. And, of course, since it was a brand new, unprecedented product, coming to the correct conclusion involved a certain amount of vision - and a great deal of risk. But ultimately, the decision to bring it to market would have centered around whatever evidence they had to believe that product would profitably satisfy a certain demand - and, as such, the decision was demand driven.

RADIO DISMUKE
1920s & 1930s Pop and Jazz
24 Hour Internet Radio
dismuke.org/radio

#85 Dismuke

Dismuke
  • Guests

Posted 16 July 2004 - 08:37 PM

...They have a list of all of the venture capital firms that shot them down, and it is a long list.... Is there demand for a Ft. Worth that can handle a large convention? We don't know because right now Ft. Worth can not handle a large convention. And it won't be able to until it gets enough hotel capacity. But we know there is a lot of demand for downtown Ft. Worth in general.

Gee - I am on a roll today. Here is another point that just occurred to me that I didn't make:

The government acting as venture capitalist is a very scary precedent to set.

Imagine participating in a mutual fund or an REIT or some other cooperative investment endeavor where, if the investment managers in charge made bad judgments and the investments turned sour causing the fund to lose lots of money, they could turn around and require you and the other investors to fork over additional funds to make up for the losses - and if you refused to do so, they could file a lien against your property or your bank account. And they would justify doing so on grounds that "we are all in this together" and "the success of this fund is important to all of us" and that "the needs of the majority of investors for the fund to be successful outweighs the selfish desires of those individuals who no longer wish to participate."

Would you volunteer to participate in such an investment scheme? Well, guess what? That is exactly what you are doing if you say that you support the government playing the role of venture capitalist in this hotel or any other such endeavor.

RADIO DISMUKE
1920s & 1930s Pop and Jazz
24 Hour Internet Radio
dismuke.org/radio

#86 tcole

tcole
  • Guests

Posted 16 July 2004 - 08:37 PM

You beat me to the punch and amended your error on the Palm example. The demand was indeed present for info storage - mechanical or electric. The Palm Pilot just satisfied it in a relatively new way.

But lets get some facts straight. The Palm Pilot was NOT created by PALM, but a company called 3Com (COMS - founded in 1979) which IS in the business of producing comunication chips and devices (at one time the primary competitor to Cisco Systems). COMS merely added comunicative powers (IR in the first models), significantly added memory and adopted a script-based interface (somewhat borrowed from APPL - remember the Newton?) to an electronic organizer (Casio and other Japanese manufacturers had been making them since the mid 80's) and neatly packaged the whole thing for between $300-$400. They did this WITHOUT venture capital money. COMS subsequently spun-off PALM as a seperate co. in early 2000 to take advantage of then current mkt conditions - PALM was worth more to all involved as a separate venture.

The co. cberen1 is thinking of is Handspring (HAND - merging with PALM as of about 45 days ago), which was founded by former COMS ees and the Pilot developer. They did indeed find a rough sea seeking venture money - due primarily to concern over entering a competitive arena where a dominant brand was well entrenched (PALM) yet prices were falling due to deep pocketed entrants such as CPQ and HP (later to merge themselves) and the 800 lb gorilla DELL eyeing the space; and secondarily due to prevailing capital mkt conditions of the time.

So we are back to square one as to supply driving demand. Even Edison's inventions satisfied a demand as opposed to availing some supply in hopes of demand being creatred. As an example, the incandescent electric light satisfied a demand that had previously been met with gas lamps and arch light (more dangerous or expensive). Similarly, the gramophone satisfied the demand of info storage - just in a different medium.

BTW dis, wonderful allegory regarding gov't as a venture capitalist. As evidenced by failing programs, gov't does not hold for the probability of failure b/c it has a virtual bottomless well of capital upon which to draw. Private capital on the other hand does not have such a luxury, and must thus ascertain "when to fold 'em."

#87 tcole

tcole
  • Guests

Posted 16 July 2004 - 08:38 PM

The Palm Pilot was created in 1995-96 by US Robotics (founded in 1976) which in turn was acquired by COMS in 1997. USR subsequently re-emerged as independent in 2000.

#88 renamerusk

renamerusk
  • Guests

Posted 16 July 2004 - 08:38 PM

Thank you cebern1 and well said. I agree wholeheartily with your analysis.
The people in charge of the future of our city can not use the free market as the exclusive determinant factor in deciding what is in the long term best interest of the city. There is an insulting free market mentality that Fort Worth is not profitable a place as for instance, Dallas is. So much so that Dallas' hotelry and office market is overbuilt and over hyped thanks to the free marketers who for some unexplicable reason continue to under valuate the potential to the west of Dallas. Would some of that overbuilt supply had been a better investment had it been made in Fort Worth? I think so. Yet the developers seem not to come here. Well fine! Fort Worth city leaders, "you are obliged to forge ahead with my blessings."
Now we are being confronted with a new challenge, the American Airlines Maintenance Facility at Alliance Airport. Tulsa and State of Oklahoma are already offering a economic package to save their local facility; so is Kansas City and the State of Missouri. And what will Fort Worth and the State of Texas do? I do not think that they will sit on their hands and do nothing.

I appreciate your sound analysis of the situation. Cities can not afford to allow timid free marketers to determine the future of their community; they have to and are expected to act when others will not. A convention center hotel is a project that must be allowed to go forward,, especially when the free marketers are licking their wounds after being so sure of themselves in the Dallases of the world.

#89 renamerusk

renamerusk
  • Guests

Posted 16 July 2004 - 08:38 PM

Dear Mr. Free Marketer, Pro Se

Explain why the free market did not cease its insanity before disaster in overbuilding the supply of hotel rooms in Dallas while at the same time being so sure of themselves that Fort Worth was not a viable market. It would appear that their market analysis was questionable when after all is said and done that they could be so out of equilibrium. How could they not know what was going on here in Fort Worth? - a newly expanded convention center. If one of them had taken their blinders off for just an instance, maybe one of them could have invested just a fraction of their resources in Fort Worth where the city was busily readying itself to become a regional convention hosting city. Free marketers are cowardly lemmings. Face with such miscalculations by these overbuilding, overhyping experts, this city will again have to show them the error of their timid ways and get things done.

#90 Dismuke

Dismuke
  • Guests

Posted 16 July 2004 - 08:39 PM

Explain why the free market did not cease its insanity before disaster in overbuilding the supply of hotel rooms in Dallas

Well, for one, I am not sure exactly what "disaster" you are talking about or whether it is, in fact, true that there has been an overbuilding in the supply of hotel rooms in Dallas. You already have a track record in this thread of making factually incorrect assertions - so as far as I am concerned, my only correct option is to regard this latest assertion as being arbitrary, i.e., as neither true nor false, until I am presented with some actual evidence one way or another.

Now, to address the issue of overbuilding in more general terms, a couple of points can be made.

First, overbuilding in certain sectors of the economy on a massive scale is very often not the result of a free market but of its opposite - some form of governmental intervention that disrupts normal market forces.

In some cases, overbuilding is caused by governmental manipulation of the credit and currency supply. For various reasons, governments at times find it politically expedient to embark on a policy of "cheap" credit - i.e. making credit available in higher quantities and at lower rates than would be available under similar circumstances in a free market. Unlike the government, a free market banking system would not be allowed to create credit and/or currency out of thin air. Under a free market banking system, credit would be based on an actual supply of existing wealth - and, therefore, would exist in a finite supply. If the demand for credit increased, it would become accordingly scarce and, as a result, lenders would impose more stringent lending standards and/or higher interest rates. This would make it more difficult to get a loan to build a hotel, an office building or whatever. Under such a climate, only those projects that can objectively demonstrate the highest probability of success would be able meet the more stringent loan requirements and/or afford to pay the higher interest rates - and the people wanting to pursue higher risk projects would find themselves unable to get the financing to do so. When supply and demand is allowed to thusly operate, it has the effect of acting as a break on overproduction and overbuilding. Unfortunately, these forces are often not allowed to operate freely - and if artificially cheap credit is made available too long, the result is that projects that otherwise would not and should not get funded are able to go ahead. A classic example of this was the overbuilding and boom of the 1920s that occurred as a result of the Federal Reserve monetizing the national debt resulting in an artificial overabundance of cheap credit.

There are other ways that government interference can result in overbuilding. The tax code is one way. A good example of this was the massive overbuilding of office buildings during the 1980s. During that time, the government gave office building owners favorable tax treatment - and as a result, more office buildings were built than there were potential tenants for.

In both cases, the blame for the overbuilding rests not with the free market but with the dislocations caused by statist intervention.

Can overbuilding occur in a free economy? Sure it can - although, as I just mentioned, the law of supply and demand helps act as a natural break to prevent it from getting too far out of hand. But, yes, it is possible for, let's say, a number of hotel companies to overbuild in a particular market. The reason is simple: people are not omniscient. The essence of success for an investor is correctly forecasting the future - and, of course, people will always make errors of judgment in that regard. Unforeseen circumstances can also occur. For example, the overall situation of the hotel industry and the travel industry in general changed overnight on Sept 11. Nobody could have foreseen that.

Now, the real issue is NOT whether private investors make errors in their economic calculations. They do so all the time. All you have to do is look at the list of bankruptcies.

Nor is the issue a question of whether private investors or government planners make less errors. No person can state with any level of credibility in this day and age that government planners somehow can do it better. There is just too much overwhelming evidence to the contrary in the form of wrecked economies and suffering populations around the world and down through history to credibly assert otherwise.

The REAL issue is this: when private investors make errors in their economic calculations, they do so with THEIR wealth that THEY had to produce and it is THEY who suffer the consequences. When government planners make errors in their economic calculations, they do NOT do so with their own wealth. They don't produce any wealth - their only source of wealth is what they confiscate from the taxpayers and it is those taxpayers who suffer and are ultimately forced to fork over even more wealth in order to pay for those consequences.

Free marketers are cowardly lemmings.

Calling those who do not support your position "cowardly lemmings" does NOT constitute a valid argument for a city owned hotel.

If standing for a free market, i.e. the principle of individual rights and liberty as applied to production and trade (production and trade being critical to the survival and quality of life of every human being) makes me a "cowardly lemming"....well, all I can say is that being called "chicken" had zero impact on my beliefs and actions when I was in grade school - and it sure as heck does not have an impact on me today.

Face with such miscalculations by these overbuilding, overhyping experts, this city will again have to show them the error of their timid ways and get things done.

One can make assertions right and left - which you have a track record of doing. But merely asserting something does not somehow give it validity. One's assertions must be backed up by facts and logic - and in your case, it has been extremely lacking. And when you have been called on it by myself and others, you have repeatedly failed to provide either facts or logic to back up what you have been saying. Instead, you have consistently opted to simply throw out additional utterances saying essentially the same point over and over again.

If you think your assertion quoted above is valid - then you need make a case for your position. You need to point to specific facts in reality and use logic to demonstrate why government officials and planners are somehow more capable than private investors at economic calculation and educate us as to exactly what information and insights these officials and planners have access to that private investors do not. If you have an ounce of intellectual honesty and veracity within you, then you will be eager to provide us with such a case. If you are not capable of doing so, then you might wish to avoid further embarrassment. Continuing to spew empty assertions and insults is NOT going to make your case and you are certainly doing sincere individuals on your side of the debate any favors by doing so.


RADIO DISMUKE
1920s & 1930s Pop and Jazz
24 Hour Internet Radio
dismuke.org/radio

#91 djeseru

djeseru
  • Guests

Posted 16 July 2004 - 08:40 PM

All I keep reading is "Dallas this" and "Dallas that" - so what? Why do those who want this hotel have to keep comparing Fort Worth to Dallas? Sounds like Dallas-envy to me...Fort Worth has had no problems in growth and development over the past century, and this one will probably be no different considering the growth rate of Fort Worth today. Hotel or no hotel...

#92 360Texas

360Texas
  • Guests

Posted 16 July 2004 - 08:40 PM

"Fort Worth has no problems in growth and development over past century and ..... no different considering the growth rate of Fort Worth today. Hotel or no hotel".

Hmm that sounds like a logic fallacy: Rationalization through generalization.

#93 djeseru

djeseru
  • Guests

Posted 16 July 2004 - 08:41 PM

Okay, so I'm the logic retard...because I think it's silly to keep comparing Fort Worth to Dallas? Dallas got a hotel so to 'keep up' Fort Worth has to have one? I suppose I am just too 'logically' stupid to see how and / or why Dallas should have an impact on the way Fort Worth decides to grow. Or because I can't give you a doctoral thesis on why or why not this hotel should be built?

#94 Dismuke

Dismuke
  • Guests

Posted 16 July 2004 - 08:41 PM

All I keep reading is "Dallas this" and "Dallas that" - so what? Why do those who want this hotel have to keep comparing Fort Worth to Dallas?

It is simply a way of trying to cash in on an emotionalistic rivalry they presume some of their readers feel towards Dallas.

The basic premise of the pro-hotel side is: "A city-owned hotel will have positive economic benefits for Fort Worth." If once accepts that premise, then it follows that, if Fort Worth does not build the hotel, it will miss out on those benefits.

Now, if one wants to put forth that position - well, this forum is a great place for that. To do so, it is necessary for them to make a case for it - i.e. to demonstrate that their claim is correct. It is also necessary to counter the legitimate objections that those opposed to the hotel have raised. And, indeed, Cberen1 made an intelligent attempt to counter one of those objections. But that has been a rare exception in this thread. Instead, what we have had is the premise "Fort Worth will miss out on those benefits if the hotel is not built" restated over and over and over again with no substantiation and no cognizance taken of the legitimate objections that have been raised.

Claims that Dallas will whoop Fort Worth and profit at our expense and that Fort Worth will become another Birdville are nothing more than an emotionally charged way of restating for the umpteenth time "Fort Worth will miss out on those benefits if the hotel is not built."

Sounds like Dallas-envy to me...


For better or worse, because the two cities are so close to each other geographically, comparisons between the two are probably inevitable. And some people have the mentality that the world is a limited pie and that one can profit only at another's expense - and, therefore, life is a mad scramble and competition to grab one's share of that pie before somebody else does. It never occurs to such people that it is possible to bake additional pies so that there will be more than plenty for everybody.

Some people consider the fact that Dallas is the bigger city to be unacceptable and an indication that Fort Worth has somehow failed. I don't agree.

First off, Dallas got a massive head start over Fort Worth early on - and, if one were to regard it as being some sort of contest, it is very difficult to catch up. Suppose Waco set a goal to become bigger than Fort Worth. If both cities prosper and experience growth, imagine how difficult it would be for them to catch up. They would not only have to match Fort Worth's rate of growth, they would have to consistently exceed it over a long period by a significant margin.

The Houston and Texas Central Railroad reached Dallas in 1872 giving it a rail outlet to the Gulf. That gave it a huge advantage over surrounding towns. A year later the Texas and Pacific Railroad crossed the H&TC near Dallas - and then ran out of funds when the railroad reached Eagle Ford just west of Dallas and was stalled there for three years. Having that junction and being the western most point on the east-west rail line was huge for Dallas and gave it an enormous head start by the time the rail finally reached Fort Worth in 1876. Had the T&P ran out of funds a number of months later after having reached Fort Worth, the history of both cities would have been dramatically different.

In the 20th century - particularly in the post World War II years - Dallas experienced an economic growth rate that far outpaced Fort Worth's. Undoubtedly, the fact that it was already the largest city in the region was at least a contributing factor to this - it already had more "critical mass." One certainly cannot say that it was because Dallas' leadership was more open to and pushed harder for government funded projects. The business oligarchy that ruled Dallas for many decades was known for its conservatism. Indeed, when the Federal Government rebuilt the Trinity River in Dallas, it was quite controversial as there were many who were skeptical of accepting Federal funds from both a philosophical perspective and from the realization that there would inevitably be strings attached to those funds. Contrast that with Amon Carter who tirelessly nagged anyone in the Roosevelt administration who would listen to throw more Federal projects and funds Fort Worth's way. And, of course, there was Jim Wright who, for decades, was famous for his ability to "bring home the pork." If government programs were so all powerful in bringing about economic growth, then one would think that Fort Worth would have had a big advantage over Dallas.

One thing that certainly cannot be underestimated as a factor of Dallas' 20th century growth is home grown success stories such as Texas Instruments and EDS - both of which were on the cutting edge and ground floor of technological changes that had an unprecedented world wide impact. Fort Worth's success stories, on the other hand, such as Tandy and Pier One tend to be in more traditional industries.


Fort Worth has had no problems in growth and development over the past century, and this one will probably be no different considering the growth rate of Fort Worth today.

There are definite advantages to growth and development in one's region and it is something to be embraced and encouraged. And, I am certainly open to the argument that Fort Worth has not done as great a job at marketing itself as it could have.

My personal take is that Fort Worth being part of a significantly larger metropolitan area offers its residents far more advantages than disadvantages verses the alternative of being the nation's 25th largest city off by itself somewhere. To me, what matters most is the opportunities and quality of life that are afforded to the individual citizens who reside in the city - not some sort of disembodied entity that civic boosters can rally around and have their egos bruised if they feel that which they are rallying around is perceived by others as playing second fiddle to a larger city. Obviously perceptions are a fact of reality that one has to deal with when marketing one's city - but only as a means to an end, not as an end in itself. What matters is our quality of life - not "beating Dallas."

I think one can also make a very good point that many of Fort Worth's advantages have come from the fact that it did not experience some of the growth pains Dallas did. Fort Worth did not tear down all of its classic and timeless pre-World War II downtown buildings to the degree Dallas did and replace them with the ugly, unfriendly and increasingly out of date post war boxes and parking lots. Fort Worth has a number of charming tree lined early 20th century inner city neighborhoods on the West and South sides that safe and desirable places to live - neighborhoods that have never needed "renewal" or "gentrification" as they never went into decline in the first place. Dallas cannot say that. Most such neighborhoods in Dallas went though periods of decline where they were quite dangerous and are only recently recovering. Those that did not experience such decline are very expensive to live in. I don't want Fort Worth to be another Dallas. If I did, I would already live there.

I think a person's approach of how they view their city is often a reflection of how they view themselves. If you had a happy family life, a career you really enjoyed, a nice house, money to engage in the hobbies and activities that are important to you and a nice nest egg of savings to provide you economic security in the event of an emergency and a comfortable retirement - would you regard yourself as being successful? Some people would because they have achieved the things in life that are important to them. Others, however, would not regard themselves as successful because their next door neighbor, or their brother-in-law or whoever has more. In other words, they define success not in terms of their own values but in terms of a comparison with and/or the perceptions of others. Likewise, some people view their civic involvement in terms of the opportunity and quality of life that can be afforded - while others view it in terms of "keeping up with the Joneses."

RADIO DISMUKE
1920s & 1930s Pop and Jazz
24 Hour Internet Radio

#95 ghughes

ghughes
  • Guests

Posted 16 July 2004 - 08:42 PM

An excellent discourse, dismuke. Especially your point that Fort Worth has benefitted by being part of a larger entity while offering a unique place in it.

#96 renamerusk

renamerusk
  • Guests

Posted 16 July 2004 - 08:42 PM

I am not referring to a specific disaster, but the general agreement that the people who follow the hotel/convention business regularly say and print.

I did a search of articles published in the Dallas Business Journal (dallas.bizjournal.com) regarding hotel occupany in 2002 and 2003. The overall picture was bleak, even before 9-11. Interestingly, Dallas's numbers were better when they included Fort Worth/Tarrant County. In particularly, Fort Worth routinely does better. Somehow this fact does not seem to sink in to the brilliant minds of most of those free marketers who continued to build and build and build in Big D. I think you will find the supply and demand arguments you make, though often valid, do not always follow true to form.

And yes, at the risk of repeating myself once again. The city council was and continues to be justified in pursuing a convention center hotel, especially when they and many of their constituents see and read of developers inexplicably ignoring Fort Worth.

When the city decides to build updated fire stations and state of the art equipment, where is the logic in saying wait until we have a calamitous fire or extraodrinary natural disaster before we prepare ourselves. I dont think so. "Be prepared Fort Worth; build the convention center hotel."

#97 ghughes

ghughes
  • Guests

Posted 16 July 2004 - 08:43 PM

As reported in today's S-T, Opryland Texas is booking conventions like crazy and won't open for months. http://www.dfw.com/m...ast/6244261.htm
1500 rooms or so, 400,000 sq ft of convention and meeting space.

I think FW leadership had the idea right a few years ago, that is the need for convention center space, but we may have been "overtaken by events." I don't know what if any enticements Grapevine had to offer, but I would think the ease of construction and close access to the airport would reduce the need for government participation.

Is the Opryland going to be successful? The original Opryland in Nashville was an amusement park, then a big hotel was added and now the park is gone and a mall is next to the hotel. But the hotel prospers (with its conventions) in a suburban setting, close to the airport. All done by Gaylord.

There may be a formula there that works.

Meanwhile, won't a downtown FW CC and hotel get crushed by Opryland? Or do we claim that so many conventions will come to the Metroplex that Dallas, Fort Worth, and Opryland can all prosper? There aren't enough on the horizon now to interest investors in either Dallas or Fort Worth sites.
I suspect our money and efforts would be better spent figuring out how to attract the conventioneers from Grapevine to visit Fort Worth. They'll stay up there for the big mall, and there are plenty of places to eat. There's big movie palaces, too, and Grapevine has a nice historic downtown.

Come to think of it, once they are up there, we might well have lost them. But I'm willing to listen...

#98 Dismuke

Dismuke
  • Guests

Posted 16 July 2004 - 08:43 PM

400,000 square feet? According to the Fort Worth Convention and Visitors' Bureau website, that is bigger than the downtown Convention Center which the website says offers "a total of 252,718 square feet maximum exhibit space" - and that is after the expansion.

To me, this brings up the question as to whether it is necessary for city governments to be in the Convention Center business - never mind the hotel business.

Looks to me like Fort Worth would have been a heck of a lot better off if, instead of expanding the Convention Center, it had spent its energy trying to lure Opryland to Downtown Fort Worth instead of Grapevine.

Come to think of it, once they are up there, we might well have lost them. But I'm willing to listen...

Maybe the best bet in that regard would be the Tarantula Train which goes into Grapevine - and if that is successful, perhaps some antique street cars running down North Main between the Stockyards and downtown.


RADIO DISMUKE
1920s & 1930s Pop and Jazz
24 Hour Internet Radio
dismuke.org/radio

#99 staplesla

staplesla
  • Guests

Posted 16 July 2004 - 08:44 PM

I'm a Nashvillian (born and raised in FW) and also an employee of Word Entertainment (subsidiary of Gaylord). Just wanted to state that the Gaylord Opryland Resort and Convention Center was built prior to the theme park not after as it has been stated. We also don't consider the center as being in the suburbs (it is only 5 min. from downtown).

Sidenote - I enjoy visiting the site John and seeing what all is going on in FW.

#100 ghughes

ghughes
  • Guests

Posted 16 July 2004 - 08:44 PM

Having not yet reached 50, I was afraid my recollections of Nashville history had been altered, but it appears that I do retain enough operating brain cells from high school to properly sequence the events of the 70's. I did some web searching to verify, but to clarify a bit of how Opryland developed, here goes:

First, I suppose one can argue about suburban settings, but the Opryland site was rather isolated when development began there. Briley Parkway was extended north from I-40 to support the project. Using that highway and other freeways (Mapquest's chosen route) it's over 10 miles between Opryland and downtown (so drivers in Nashville must be really fast to do that in 5 minutes). But in terms of Nashville's general development Opryland is not in the urban core. A lot of that has to do with the way the Cumberland river carves up East Nashville. It is within Metropolitan Nashville/Davidson County, of course, so technically it is not in a suburb.

But to history:
The Opryland theme park was built in 1971 and operated for 26 years. The Grand Ole Opry moved from Ryman Auditorium in downtown Nashville to its present home at Opryland in 1974. Some of us were appalled at the move from its historic downtown home out to a theme park. But when Richard Nixon visited the new auditorium and played the piano there it seemed like sort of a blessing of the new. I personally preferred Duke Ellington's Ryman Auditorium performance in that same time frame, but there is no accounting for taste.

The Opryland Hotel had its grand opening in 1977 according to a press release at Gaylord's website.
http://www.gaylordho...s/sep_20_02.cfm

That press release is interesting reading because it documents the construction and expansion history of the hotel and convention center. Currently 2,881 guestrooms and more than 600,000 square feet of meeting and exhibition space.

How does this fit Fort Worth? I don't know. But suffice it to say that Gaylord knows how to host and entertain and has a history of business success.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users