So the PDCVB took their turn to comment on the state of affairs at the Lancaster Convention Center on June 6. Having a few hours free, I came to hear what they had to say. It appears to me that they spent a lot of time and a lot of energy to make six relatively simple points that I will list, in no particular order, and then provide further comment:
Find other sources of revenue
Don’t raise the hotel tax
Hotel tax not enough
Get the stakeholders in a room to work out the issues for themselves
Don’t fund public projects with variable interest rate financing
We can’t sell our way out of it
Find other sources of revenue
Essentially they are suggesting that hotel taxes cannot be the sole source of funding for the CC. While this is a nice sentiment, they didn’t actually make any alternative suggestions. Even the LCCCA’s report last week gave some options: restaurant tax, sales tax, local neighborhood tax just to name a few.
Don’t raise the hotel tax
I’m sure that the hoteliers loved hearing this, and it does make sense. They don’t seem to be getting too much of it so why should they be forced to fund the entire mess. Furthermore, you would expect that the PDCVB would advocate for its own membership.
Hotel tax not enough
In an oversimplified look at the financing, they said that even an increase in the hotel tax is not enough. The variable rate financing mess looms so large, even an increase in the hotel tax won’t pay the bills.
Get the stakeholders in a room to work out the issues for themselves
The PDCVB suggested, and offered to broker, a meeting between the LCCCA, the County and PSP to work everything out. Hah. Penn Square Partner [owner of the Marriott Hotel], which seemingly holds all the cards and advantages, is unlikely to renegotiate their terms significantly. What this means is that this entire debacle falls at the feet of the LCCCA and subsequently the County.
Don’t fund public projects with variable interest rate financing
Al Duncan’s strongest statement was that projects like the CC should not be funded with variable rate financing…one of the key elements that is choking the CC. I agree 100%. I think that we all would have been better served had this project been financed with a more long-term outlook.
We can’t sell our way out of this it
The most interesting thing that was said yesterday, and repeated this morning in the LNP article, attributed to PDCVB President and CEO Chris Barrett, was that “we can’t sell our way out of it”. This comment should cause worry to every resident of Lancaster County.
Overall, while the PDCVB has seemingly done a thorough once over of the project, I think they could have been a lot tougher on the project and the two major players: the LCCCA and PSP. I appreciate their desire to not look back in time and call out either the LCCCA for their financing choices or PSP for the lopsided agreements but maybe that is exactly what is needed. It looks like the LCCCA’s “build it at any cost” attitude could come back and bite us all in the butt.
Going forward, the PDCVB will have a pivotal role in providing frank and honest perspective to the community. Yesterday was a start. I was hoping to see them take a stronger stance and offer some real solutions, but it was a start.
I would also like to note that Robert Field’s, publisher of Newslanc, open letter of 5/22 may have offered the best possible solution to date: https://newslanc.com/2012/05/22/an-open-letter-to-the-lancaster-county-pa-commissioners/
