For the First, the owners claim to have invested $9 million; for the Second, the equitable owners committed to invest $11 million.
The First pays real estate taxes; the Second does not.
The First opened as a four star hotel; the second as a three star.
The owners of the First have received no special considerations from city, state or county; the Second has had various permits and fees waived and its debt has been guaranteed by the City of Lancaster.
The First is owned by out of town interests; the Second is owned by powerful local interests… one of the largest private employers, the local newspaper, and initially the largest local bank.
The First has been a money loser from its inception as a Hilton Hotel due to the paucity of customers; the Second depends heavily on the heavily subsidized convention center to generate its guests.
But the irony concerning the Brunswick Hotel versus the Marriott Hotel does not end there.
The Brunswick has recently had its long vacated two story annex condemned because of water infiltration from the roof and the buildup of mold inside, a condition that has existed for at least a decade to the full knowledge of the city and others.
The irony: According to partner Hamid Zahedi, the condition was caused by the long term parking of police cars and city sponsored demolition on that roof, for which the City has never accepted responsibility or made repairs.
According to Zahedi: “In reply to your question as to why the annex is in such condition, I have to advise you that this goes back to when the Police department used the roof of the annex for parking. All the salt used to melt the ice has damaged the roof. The removal of the ‘concrete jungle’ by the city did improve the aesthetics but caused further damage by allowing more moisture in. We advised the City several times but did not get satisfaction.”
The development of Lancaster Square which included the Hilton and the Hess Department store was an honest and transparent mistake. The issue had been researched and openly debated for almost a decade. Unfortunately, both the Hilton and the Hess (which opened the same month as Park City!) were DOA – Dead on Arrival.
In 1998, The Winterbottom Report, as it was called, examined and made recommendations for the revitalization of three separate sections of the city: Downtown (Lancaster Square & Penn Square); North Prince Street; and South Duke Street.
Among the proposals coming from the study was the recommendation for a “conference center,” to be located downtown, at the site of the Brunswick Hotel in the Lancaster Square section of the city. “With upgrading of the [Brunswick] hotel,” wrote Winterbottom on page 52 of the report, “there is the opportunity to create a small, state-of-the-art conference center and additional hotel space.”
This is what Winterbottom’s report said on page 55 of the Watt & Shand building:
“The Watt and Shand Building at Penn Square is the heart and soul of Downtown, Lancaster City, and the County. It is already a special place and one of great beauty, charm, interest and vitality. The challenge is to further reinforce this special place and to bring about the meaningful redevelopment of the Watt and Shand Building.”
The report goes on to recommend:
“Provide the necessary private and public support to ensure redevelopment of the Watt and Shand Building, by a private developer, as a viable mixed-use development. Re-use of the Watt and Shand Building would reinforce and support other downtown activity by providing employment and ground-level retail activity.”
Mayor Charlie Smithgall, the City Counsel and others share blame for ignoring the recommendations. Had the Convention Center been constructed adjoining the Brunswick, Lancaster Square would have finally been put to constructive and successful use and a major blight removed from the city.
Moreover, when Penn Square Partners acquired the Watt and Shand site they indicated they would create a mixed-use development. Instead they chose the route of government largess and, at least for S. Dale High’s firms, millions of dollars in developers fees and then tens of millions as a contractor, all drawn from the public trough.
So who are our heroes and who are our villains:
The First who invested their own money in a foolish effort to revive the Brunswick despite evidence that there simply was not a sufficient customer base, and now are in the hopeless situation of also having to compete with the Marriott?
Or the Second, who sponsored and bludgeoned through the heavily subsidized and now failing Convention Center Project and has received every possible benefit that taxpayers can bestow?
Full Disclosure: The publisher of NewsLanc enjoys dinner every few months with Hamid Zahedi at which time the discussion is mostly about the Middle East.
