Metro takes next step towards controversial hotel project

Re: Metro takes next step towards controversial hotel project

this makes no sence..more tax dollars NOT spent on the many but the few...they need to get back to the basics, they don't need a hotel..that should be left to the privet sector. how about someone step up and widen I-5 and threw the rose garden, repair a bridge, or build another one across to Washington...do something that will benefit more then a few hundred of just there buddies that are in the back pockets

"Glenn Frazier"

(email verified)

Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 01:28 PM

Re: Metro takes next step towards controversial hotel project

Better yet, why dont we use the tax dollars to pursue building light rail to Washington.

"jason"

(email verified)

Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 01:57 PM

Re: Metro takes next step towards controversial hotel project

I wasn't aware of any shortages of rooms down there! How about spending the money on infrastructure? i/e: road improvements, bridge repair, street and neighborhood beautification, etc.? Isn't that what government is supposed to do? Remember this for the next election everyone!

"Robert J"

(email verified)

Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 01:14 AM

Re: Metro takes next step towards controversial hotel project

I don't see a Tri-Met schedule to Vancouver.

Is there any public transportation between Vancouver and Portland?

"Notorious Kelly"

(email verified)

Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 01:38 AM

Re: Metro takes next step towards controversial hotel project

Anyone with a little common sense can tell you that our tax dollars should be spent on the basics (bridges, schools) before pursuing flashy, new, big budget projects.

However, the proposed headquarters hotel will not be paid for by taxpayers of the Portland region. The money that Metro invests in this project during the pre-development phase will be paid back by bond proceeds. Those bonds will be financed by net operating income from the hotel itself.

Through lengthy discussions with HVS International (a hotel market consultant), Piper Jaffray (the project underwriter), Seattle NW Securities (Metro's Financial Advisor), and Metro's Chief Financial Officer, I am convinced that we have all the right ingredients to make this hotel a financial success.

In the long-run, the hotel will be a unique public asset, generating revenue that Metro will be able to put to use on other projects, putting money back in the pockets of taxpayers.

I am proud of the Metro Council for making the right decision, to move forward with the Headquarters Hotel Project. As the next Mayor of Portland, I look forward to working on this project, and any other economic development opportunities that actually pay for themselves and generate a return on investment for Portland residents.

"Nick Popenuk"

(email verified)

Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 02:37 AM

Re: Metro takes next step towards controversial hotel project

C-tran travels up and down I-5 and I-205 so please no Jail Rail to this side of the river. Thankyou!

"Mr Carter"

(email verified)

Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 02:37 AM

Re: Metro takes next step towards controversial hotel project

What a bunch of losers.We have a mass trancit system that will never produce a proffit.we have a collacium not making a proffit a convention center not making a proffit now you want to get into the hotel buisness,would you please jump off the freemont bridge and save all millions of dollars

"TEDDY IN SALEM"

(email verified)

Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 02:41 AM

Re: Metro takes next step towards controversial hotel project

The Lincoln High School kids say they need more free parking places.

"RedFlyer"

(email verified)

Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 05:23 AM

Re: Metro takes next step towards controversial hotel project

Nick - Taxpayers are still responsible for backing the bonds. In many ways Portland's "Uniqueness" also hinders business progress and expansion, more than it helps. Selling "Bonds" to build a project also does not guaranty its success either. Has it occurred to anyone that Portland's narrow minded attitude's hinder its ability to attract conventions?

"mark"

(email verified)

Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 06:18 AM

Re: Metro takes next step towards controversial hotel project

Mark

I agree that the City of Portland has an anti-business mentality. Recently, City Hall has proposed an increase in parks SDC’s, a new fee on businesses for transportation maintenance, and penalties for developers who don’t use exceptionally green-building practices. All of these actions will make it tougher to do business in Portland.

I also agree that selling bonds doesn’t guarantee the hotel will be a success. No one can be 100% certain of whether a business will succeed or fail. But, Metro has done their homework on the HQ Hotel Project. HVS International is the most respected consulting firm in the industry. They literally wrote the book on hotel market analysis. HVS analyzed the market for a 600-room Westin hotel adjacent to the convention center. The analysis showed that this hotel should be a big success. The demand is real, the market conditions are right.

When the hotel stabilizes in the Portland market (after approximately 4 years of operation), HVS predicts that it will not only be generating enough revenue to break even, but it will be generating an $11 million surplus that can be used to pay for debt service. These revenue predictions have been reviewed by numerous stakeholders and industry experts, and they are overwhelmingly regarded as reasonable projections.

Mark, your final question relates to Portland’s inability to attract conventions. The Portland Oregon Visitor’s Association (POVA) is responsible for booking conventions in Portland. Whenever a group has been considering Portland, but decides to go somewhere else, POVA asks that group why. The response that POVA hears more than all other responses combined is that Portland lacks an adequate hotel package, including a high-quality headquarters hotel adjacent to the Oregon Convention Center.

More work needs to be done to get a guaranteed maximum price from the developer, and to make sure the underwriters craft a financing plan that minimizing the risk to Portland taxpayers. But, 20 years from now, when the hotel has paid off the last of its debt service, and it’s pumping money into Metro’s general fund, we will all be thankful that David Bragdon and the rest of the Metro Council made this decision.

"Nick Popenuk"

(email verified)

Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 08:26 AM

Re: Metro takes next step towards controversial hotel project

11 million dollars a year assumes every single room is full every single day and earns a PROFIT in excess of $50 per day per room. Pie in the sky dreams? I think so. The taxpayers gonna take this one in the shorts, again!

"Portland taxpayers are gullible"

(email verified)

Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 11:17 AM

Re: Metro takes next step towards controversial hotel project

11 million dollars a year actually assumes occupancy rates of 72% and an average room rate of $162 in the hotel's first stabilized year (2014). These numbers are lower than what is projected for comparable hotels in the Portland market.

And, if the hotel does not live up to these expectations, any short fall would likely be covered by revenue from the Visitor Facilities Trust Account, the hotel tax collected by Multnomah County, currently used for tourism promotion.

The proposed headquarters hotel poses relatively little risk to Portland taxpayers. The long-term benefits to Portland taxpayers should be quite substantial.

"Nick Popenuk"

(email verified)

Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 05:33 PM

Re: Metro takes next step towards controversial hotel project

Nick,

What a jerk. You sound like the con men pushing the Convention Center Expansion or the Tram and 10,000 biotech jobs.

Your spin is sickening.

You say HVS's analysis "showed that this hotel should be a big success" and "generating an $11 million surplus"?

Then why does it need public money?

"overwhelmingly regarded as reasonable projections"

That's what the PDC said about the Tram, SoWa and OHSU biotech expansion.

You have no documentation for claiming conventions are lost because Portland lacks a high-quality headquarters hotel adjacent to the Oregon Convention Center.

None.

The idea that this hotel would lead to pumping money into Metro’s general fund is a staggering delusion equal to those 10,000 biotech jobs and obvlivious to the real world of Portland's increasing and superior competition in the convention business.

Wishing Portland to be a top tier convention locale by pooring millions into another reckless boondoggle

is pure fooolishness and beyond official malfeasence.

Enough is enough. Stop this NOW.

"Charles"

(email verified)

Sun, Nov 11, 2007 at 02:22 AM

Re: Metro takes next step towards controversial hotel project

Charles asks a logical question: If the hotel will have net operating income of $11 million a year, then why doesn’t the private sector build it?

The answer is that private investors require a greater and more immediate return on investment than this hotel will generate. Private investors hire the same market consultants that Metro did to perform market analyses before investing in privately owned hotels. The projections are reasonable. But, no private investors are going to invest $200 million into a hotel that only generates net operating income of $11 million per year. It would take too long to make their money back. The public sector can be more patient with their capital.

Charles states that there is no documentation that the lack of a headquarters hotel causes Portland to lose conventions. There is in fact, very good documentation on why prospective conventions choose not to come to Portland. The Portland Oregon Visitors Associations lost business report, shows that an inadequate hotel package and the lack of a headquarters hotel is the number one reason for lost business, 250,000 room nights each year. The 2nd most common reason for lost business, “lack of date availability” is only responsible for 25,000 lost room nights per year. You can find the POVA lost business report as an attachment to most studies and analyses of the headquarters hotel project.

Charles’ skepticism of this project is justified. Portland has a history of “reckless boondoggles.” However, the headquarters hotel is a true investment. The preliminary financing plan calls for the bonds to be paid for by guests of the hotel, and to be backstopped by other tourism related revenue streams. Projects that can pay for themselves and generate benefits for the taxpayers of the region should be pursued. But, our elected officials should always listen to the voices of skeptics, like Charles, to ensure taxpayer dollars are invested wisely.

"Nick Popenuk"

(email verified)

Sun, Nov 11, 2007 at 06:34 AM

Re: Metro takes next step towards controversial hotel project

How does one get on this Gravy Train of consulting with the city of Portland.

Every week you seem to hear of a new plan being sent to consultants. It appears that all you have to do is provide statistics that affirm the position the politico's want to support. Get the check provide the proper statistics go onto the next Portland consulting gig.

In the instance of the much ballyhooed hotel even with the citizens not wanting to spend the money, you convene a study group. Phase 1 implemented.

Take the positive spin they will give their project and beat the opposition with the hears why "you" need it stick. Phase 2 implemented

Then the holy grail of "your going to get it anyway" and we are going to tell you why. You bring in the clowns (consultants). Phase 3 implemented

Then you vote on the positive findings of the consultants report and build or finance whatever project you wanted to build or finance. Phase 4 implemented.

Then the final phase of Portland's grand building and revitalization dream. You Soak the Taxpayer because things did not work out as well as projected because someones dog took a dump on the building site during the first week of whatever. This caused the project to be cursed. Ending in us the citizens buried in doggy doo again.

"John Belgarde"

(email verified)

Sun, Nov 11, 2007 at 07:29 AM

Re: Metro takes next step towards controversial hotel project

I think an independent economic assessment of the hotel by I think economist Joe Cortright demonstrated the hotel would lose money on a full cost basis. Moreover, the hotel will require funding from other entities like the City of Portland. Hotels in the immediate area are already being remodeled and expanded to service the demand, reducing the demand for a public hotel. Government already rules too much of our lives in the city of Portland. We need leaders who get back to the basics like budgeting money for road repair instead of more lavish projects. On this matter, I can agree with Multnomah County's call for new money to replace the Sellwood bridge because Multnomah county doesn't have a lavish budget. But the city of Portland government is a whole different matter. The City of Portland's call for more taxes is ludicrous given its lavish budget for such things as street cars, tax abatements for new condos and OHSU's South Water front infrastructure. Over the the last five years, Portland's debt level is estimated by Jack's Blog to have grown at a rate of over six percent per year, outstripping the growth in average Portland incomes. Portland city councilors show a complete lack of concern for the tax burden carried by the majority of its citizens. I would like to see all of the encumbent PDX councilors recalled, or voted out.

"Bob Clark"

(email verified)

Sun, Nov 11, 2007 at 08:40 AM

Re: Metro takes next step towards controversial hotel project

Nick,

Are you ever nieve.

I sadi documentation not that lousy report by CC Hotel proponents. The package Portland can't provide is the top tier destination. No hotel package and headquarters hotel is going to change that.

The report and other analyses completely misses the rising competition in genuine top tier locales.

I don't know why you buy this crap coming from the same cabal who perpetrated other boondoggles happening right in front of us today.

More thans skepticism of this project is justified. Outrage is needed.

The headquarters hotel is a pure boondoggle with all the accompanying rhetoric.

The last thing we need to do is comit to another one of these, and other tourism related revenue streams are need for legitimate tourism promoting uses.

All this will do is siphon away revenue and then we'll here demands form replacement revenue.

This hotel willnot pay for itself and generate benefits for the taxpayers of the region.

You are confused or have a conflict of interest.

Our local elected officials have shown over and over again they have no skills for investing wisely.

"Charles"

(email verified)

Sun, Nov 11, 2007 at 12:01 PM

Re: Metro takes next step towards controversial hotel project

This is an incredibly bad idea. Forbes magazine has done a study showing these hotels lose money. METRO has compounded their bad judgment by first building OCC and then expanding it WITHOUT voter approval. This is the latest in a history of "if we only had" then OCC would be successful. No one on METRO has the foggiest clue of how a hotel works and are mainly working as mouthpieces for Mr Ashforth on this hotel.

However, METRO will sneak it thru the way they did the expansion since not one of them has the guts to kill it.

BTW - Since Mr Popenuk seems to be the only advocate for this thing, mind if I ask if he has any connection? I betcha he either works for POVA or METRO.

"Steve"

(email verified)

Sun, Nov 11, 2007 at 02:46 PM

Re: Metro takes next step towards controversial hotel project

Wow... some amazing things being said here.

Nick, if you can guarantee an $11 million net take on a $150 million investment... how can you possibly think that private interests wouldn't jump at the chance to take over such an enterprise? The problem is that you can't guarantee that kind of profit, and in fact, such a prognosis is doubtful. The convention market around the country is saturated, and numerous cities have larger and more flexible convention centers than Portland.

Second... since when should our government be in the hotel business? They'll be competing directly with all the other hotels in the downtown area, and at the same time setting regulations, inspections, etc for their business rivals. The fact that our local government will have business rivals at all should give pause to this plan. Just look at the way our state jealously guards its gambling markets from the possibiliy of native american competition and consider that attitude brought into the hotel business.

And yes... they should widen the I-5. It's ridiculous that our modest city of well under a million residents has a 5 hour rush-hour, and congestion more suited to a city ten times its size. I think we've pretty well proven that you can't speed bump, lane restrict, or traffic calm more than a tiny percentage of commuters out of their automobiles, perhaps it's time to get them moving again so they don't produce quite so much completely unecessary emissions, since after all an idling car pollutes much more than a moving one.

"eddie"

(email verified)

Sun, Nov 11, 2007 at 03:10 PM

Re: Metro takes next step towards controversial hotel project

Steve,

You don't need to guess about my employment. I currently work for the consulting firm ECONorthwest. However, up until September, I was employed by Metro.

When I first heard the Metro was considering a publicly-owned convention center hotel, I was skeptical. However, I have looked into the finances of similar hotels in Sacramento, Denver, Austin, etc. and have found the hotels to be doing very well.

A lot of articles were written in 2002 and 2003 about headquarters hotels doing poorly. This was when the hospitality industry was struggling through a historic downtown. In recent years, as the hospitality industry has rebounded, convention center hotels are performing very well.

In terms of bringing new conventions to town, HQ Hotels have had mixed results. Some cities have seen big increases in room night generation. Others have not. But, even in cities where new convention business has not been induced into the market, the HQ Hotels themselves are generating enough revenue to cover debt service.

Portland is not a top-tier convention destination like Las Vegas or Orlando. The Oregon Convention Center (OCC) cannot operate without public subsidy. No matter how many conventions you bring to town, the OCC will never operate without a public subsidy. Only in Las Vegas can convention centers turn a profit without public sector support.

However, the proposed hotel is not intended to make the convention center financially self-supporting. The hotel is intended to maximize economic benefits to the region, by attracting more convention attendees. The OCC brings 250,000 people to Portland every year for conventions. They stay in our hotels, eat at our restaurants, and pump millions of dollars into our economy. Without this hotel, Portland will lose more and more conventions to more attractive markets.

Every city that Portland competes against has a large supply of high-quality hotel rooms near their convention centers. Convention attendees don't like to stay on the other side of the river and ride public transit to their convention. Building a headquarters hotel adjacent to the OCC will make our city a more attractive convention destination.

The market analysis conducted by HVS shows there is demand for this hotel and it should be able to generate significant net operating income. I spent months working on draft financing plans with the project underwriter, Piper Jaffray, and with financial advisors from Seattle NW Securities. All the information available to me shows that this project has merit.

It will be another year before the architects and developers determine a guaranteed maximum price for the construction. During this time, the financing plan will continue to be refined. I support this project, because it looks very likely, that Metro and the City of Portland will be able to put together a financing package that protects Portland taxpayers from undue risk and creates a valuable public asset. I look forward to seeing the final financing plan, a year from now, to see if this project really will pencil out.

"Nick Popenuk"

(email verified)

Sun, Nov 11, 2007 at 04:48 PM

Re: Metro takes next step towards controversial hotel project

Let's see...remodeling Civic Stadium - twice - was going to be a cash cow and even a stepping stone to MLB. We voted down the Convention Center Expansion only to have it built anyway because we were losing opportunities to larger venues. The Memorial Coliseum was not making money, but now we can afford to repair it so it can at least break-even. The Tram was only going to cost $15 Million dollars. Now we a suppose to believe that this is such a great opportunity for creating not only a profitable Convention Center, but a profitable Hotel as well? Excuse me if I'm more than skeptical.

"mark"

(email verified)

Sun, Nov 11, 2007 at 06:19 PM

Re: Metro takes next step towards controversial hotel project

I think it's pretty obvious that "Nick Popenuk" is a supporter of this and is not going to see things clearly. Money should be spent fixing what we already have. DUH!

""

(email verified)

Sun, Nov 11, 2007 at 11:25 PM

Re: Metro takes next step towards controversial hotel project

They raised my taxes to spend money to study on spending more money. While my child studies in a trailer at a school that the taxes were raised to pay for in the first place.

All you washington people that complain about your comutte move to Oregon. The savings in gas alone will cover the difference in your morgage. And you will gain back how many hours a week of your life?

"Tax payer"

(email verified)

Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 12:42 AM

Re: Metro takes next step towards controversial hotel project

After watching misstep after misstep by the Portland City Council, I dont think you will see any Washingtion commuters moving to Portland. No place is perfect, but the decisions made in Portland are down right scary of late.

"Kevin"

(email verified)

Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 01:22 AM

Re: Metro takes next step towards controversial hotel project

Nick,

How pompous. What? You think you are the only one who looked at this idea?

Your snow job is classic.

Funny how it is nearly identical to previous rhetoric that spouted the 10,00 biotech jobs for SoWa.

Another year, and 670K will be used to cook up justification for going forward.

But I don't know why they bother when they can just ask you and the Oregonian editorial board.

"financing plan will continue to be refined"

Boy that's special. You must be looking to a future job in this planning arena or public office?

Not so funny is your pitch about "undue risk".

There's no such thing in this city. No matter what anything costs or does it's never deemed an undue risk before during or after and everything is called a valuable public asset.

You might as well cut and paste your rhetoric to any other boondoggle.

Oh wait, that's what you did.

You cut and pasted the "final financing plan & pencilling out" of the 1999 North Macadam plan that was used to determine the plan "feasible" and gain approval.

That financing plan has proven to be, essentially, entirely made up, with every public improvement project cost low balled and every revenue projection inflated.

And this approach has not been limited to the Tram and SoWa. It's been repeated over and over again with no one facing any consequences or accountability.

It's just business as usual.

This is the system you present as credible?

Let's hope the public doesn't volunteer to be chumps yet again by standing silent.

I suspect it will only take a few key blogs to advocate agains this boondoggle and it will be gone.

Perhaps even silencing your rhetoric.

"Charles"

(email verified)

Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 02:07 AM

Re: Metro takes next step towards controversial hotel project

"the marketplace should determine the need for such a project"

Silly hotel owners, trying to confuse the issue with logic and good common sense!

Come on, this is Portland! The term 'free market economy' is not in the lexicon of your average local Socialist! No, the only term they understand is "taxpayer supported pork barrel project."

Metro will ALWAYS blow our tax dollars on stupid pet projects, are those hotel owners CRAZY? What city do they think they live in anyway?

Ohhhh, right. The hotel owners are simply being greedy bourgeois capitalist pigs. Whew! I'm glad I remembered that, my "socialist indoctrination" class has a test tonight and I know that one will be on it.

"K"

(email verified)

Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 02:40 AM

Re: Metro takes next step towards controversial hotel project

"I currently work for the consulting firm ECONorthwest."

Even better - a paid consultant. I assume if you get a contract it will have the std govt clause, that if they don't like your report they don't pay for it, which kind of leads the question.

Show me one publically financed conv ctr hotel besides Las Vegas/Orlando doing well instead of puffery.

"Steve"

(email verified)

Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 05:50 AM

Re: Metro takes next step towards controversial hotel project

Nick, you're definitely taking a beating for your position, but I appreciate your efforts to respond and your honesty about where you are coming from even though I don't agree on this particular issue. While I acknowledge that public/private partnerships can get very ugly very quickly (for the public most of the time), Portland and Metro have long made it a goal to bring more business into the OCC and surrounding businesses. This one just doesn't appear to pencil out. I haven't seen the studies so realize I'm going with the figures that have been thrown around today, but I just don't have that much faith in the current council or Metro folks to make the right decision on this issue. Just because you want something so badly doesn't mean it is going to work, unfortunately.

To the other folks, I would disagree that Nick's position comes off as naive or pompous and hope that he continues to contribute to this discussion - he's at least offering responses to a fairly one-sided argument.

"Devin"

(email verified)

Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 06:14 AM

Re: Metro takes next step towards controversial hotel project

Nick Popenuk is a 23 year old former Public Affairs staffer for Metro and current candidate for Portland Mayor. Of course he's in favor of this boondoggle hotel.

Metro needs to pay more attention to building more roads and lowering garbage rates instead of wasting more of our hard earned tax money on toy choo-choo trains and bike paths.

"Oregon Reality"

(email verified)

Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 06:51 AM

Re: Metro takes next step towards controversial hotel project

Well now, Nick's information was bad enough but now we learn he also has no credibility.

He wants a job and will say anything.

What a perfect recipe for getting appointed around here.

"Charles"

(email verified)

Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 07:39 AM

Re: Metro takes next step towards controversial hotel project

I would like to clarify that my position on the headquarters hotel project in no way represents an official position of ECONorthwest.

ECONorthwest has been involved in the project in the past, but that was before I started working for the firm.

And, since i am a candidate for Mayor of Portland, and I publicly support this project, I will not be involved in any future consulting work on this project.

"Nick Popenuk"

(email verified)

Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 10:44 AM

Re: Metro takes next step towards controversial hotel project

give them a couple fart sacks and a tent and charge them $150 a night and give them a baggy to take stuff with them

"DALE"

(email verified)

Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 11:38 AM

Re: Metro takes next step towards controversial hotel project

Well Nick I won't vote for you. You believe that Portland has planned well for the future and is "on-track" with "High Density Housing" and "Smart Growth" though government socio-economic manipulation. This limits opportunity for the middle and lower income residents. As a planner you have no idea how your "planning" hurts lower wage earners by forcing us to accept the "planned" view of the future. There are those who would criticize me for my dissent, but they, like you, have no desire to work to make the city more flexible with less structured planning and more emphasis on how people live not how planners want them to live. I constantly hear about how we can't live where and how we want, because we must accept arbitrary political and "planned" boundaries. Excuses such as "you can't build yourself out of congestion" and "we must accept high density living to preserve our quality of life" only limits new ideas and suppresses free exchange of ideas by the population to better themselves. Metro's charge is to "plan" for the future and they have failed so spectacularly that the Headquarters Hotel is just a diversionary tactic to direct attention away from the fact that they failed to plan for additional traffic and congestion.

"mark"

(email verified)

Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 12:25 PM

Re: Metro takes next step towards controversial hotel project

I have an idea - why not get the Indians to partner up with you and build a casino/hotel/wine tasting mall? That would kill a lot of birds with one stone - they wouldn't need a 99W bypass for casino traffic, it would make the convention center hotel a VERY attractive location if it had gaming and would be a very nice addition to the center of Portland.

""

(email verified)

Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 12:43 PM

Re: Metro takes next step towards controversial hotel project

Unbelievable that even a dollar more of our money is being spent to put lipstick on this porcine boondoggle. How dare Metro throw any good money after bad on this? Let alone $669,000?

Somebody with a clue, PLEASE run for the Metro council! Who voted for these people?

"Taxed and Spent"

(email verified)

Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 03:19 PM

Re: Metro takes next step towards controversial hotel project

People have no idea how truly dumb and conflicted by crazy interests these Metro Councilors and their many activists really are.

It's like Oregon has been taken over by some revenge of the nitwits who then stumble through policy making with complete incompetence and quided by zealous enamor over an irrational agenda.

All the while abandoning ethics and honesty as their ends justifies the means mindset coddles their concience.

The red neck short version: They're a bunch of ass_oles.

"Stan"

(email verified)

Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 01:13 AM

Re: Metro takes next step towards controversial hotel project

Typically I do not participate in blogs but in this case I believe there is so much misinformation being propogated that I thought it important to at least attempt to provide access to information if anyone chooses to educate themselves for an informed opinion. I have provide links below to the studies cited. These studies are by the same consultants that the private sector uses to provide information to those weighing the risk to build and those weighing the risk to loan on hotels.

As someone who has owned and operated their own business for the last 28 years, I do not take these decisions lightly. I am doing the due diligence as I would in my own business where I have literally "bet the farm" on making business decisions. I should add that my fellow Councilors or MERC Commissioners, do not take spending the public's money on HQ Hotel or on any public investment any less lightly. It is the job we have either been elected or appointed to do on behalf of all the public.

If a private entity would own and operate the HQ Hotel in the manner which would generate the economic development for the businesses and citizens of the region and Oregon, I am all for it. The important point however is not just the ownership but the OPERATIONS which make the difference. In order to attract the conventions which infuse new money into the region, the hotel has to be able to book 500 rooms, 18 months or more in advance. To date no private entity has been willing to do so without a public subsidy to the tune of 60 million dollars or more. Therein lies the issue. We can provide a subsidy somehow to a private entity or we can create a public asset like a library. (by the way, why aren't the same cries being made about public libraries? After all it provides books like Powell's.)

These are the links to various sites where the information resides.

The Project

http://www.metro-region.org/index.cfm/go/by.web/id=24777

Frequently Asked Questions

http://www.metro-region.org/index.cfm/go/by.web/id=24799

MERC Resolution. Please note the Commissioners are volunteer private citizens from various business sectors who are charged with overseeing the operations of not only OCC but the Expo Center and the Performing Arts Center.

http://www.metro-region.org/files/places/merc_res_07-26.pdf

Presentation to the Metro Council and MERC on the various studies.

http://www.metro-region.org/files/places/work_session_presentation_9-6-07.pdf

The EcoNorthwest Analysis of the various studies.

http://www.metro-region.org/files/places/econw_alternatives_analysis.pdf

Public comments.

http://www.metro-region.org/files/places/hqh_public_workshop_summary_081507.pdf

The feasibility study by HVS.

http://www.metro-region.org/files/places/hvs_study.pdf

The study of the OCC competition by KPMG specifically to the HQ Hotel.

http://www.metro-region.org/files/places/kpmg_economic_impact_hotel.pdf

The 2006 annual analysis report by KPMG.

http://www.metro-region.org/files/places/kpmg_economic_impact_occ.pdf

I would also invite you to talk with representatives of the POVA, the Portland Oregon Visitors Association who are contracted to market the OCC and why they believe an HQ Hotels is necessary.

This is a link to the Portland Development Commission whose conclusion the HQ Hotel was not feasible by a private developer.

http://www.pdc.us/ura/convention_center/hqhotel.asp

Thank you,

Rod Park

Metro Councilor District 1

"Rod Park"

(email verified)

Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 02:49 AM

Re: Metro takes next step towards controversial hotel project

Only in the People's Republic of Portland could you have an even more worthless money wasting organization than City Hall - it has to be Metro - You idiots deserve those morons - spending money like its water - Metro is worse than an ex-wife with a no-limit credit card !

Yes build more Hotels - never mind that the roads are toast- gotta find places for those tourists !

Excuse me Rod Park but that would be like leaving the druggie in charge of the Pharmacy !

Dear Rod-

Stop wasting taxpayers money on BS schemes - get a real job !

OH yes the PDC - another wonderful agency - just throw the money out in the street - at least the taxpayers will get something for the real screwing their getting !

"Kong"

(email verified)

Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 08:49 AM

Re: Metro takes next step towards controversial hotel project

Rod - could you possible waste any more money than usual ? The Top three most worthless - money wasting local agencies in this State !

1. Portland City Hall

2. Metro

3. The PDC

thank god you morons are confined to the Portland Metro area - please stay there !

"Dave"

(email verified)

Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 08:52 AM

Re: Metro takes next step towards controversial hotel project

Rod,

Do you honestty think those are impartial assessment?

I mean come on. POVA who is charged with promoting the CC favors the Hotel?

Gosh now that's a surprise and impressive endorsement.

Not so much.

The list you provided is exactly the same type stuff cooked up to promote prior boondoggles like Cascade Staion and the Tram/SoWa with promises of 10,000 biotech jobs. The North Macadam plan was determined to be "feasible" by "staff". We now know every project estimate and revenue projection was BS.

Not one of you Metro Councilors did any due diligence or spoke up about that fraud. YOU STILL DON'T.

All you can do is move on to the next boondoggle and round of propagandizing.

You're trying to force light rail on Vancouver, you just threw a few more million at the Beaverton Round, have the various cities spending millions on Commuter rail stations, are spending counltess millions attempting to model Damascus and North Bethany in the most expensive and longest Metro planning way possible, can't plan your way out of paper bag UGB expansion and you support everything the PDC does.

Shut up with the studies, lay off half your staff and do something honest.

For someone who has owned and operated their own business for the last 28 years you sure have some major deficiencies when it come to our money. And all of you always unanimnously support wasting more of it. Or if you prefer,"betting our farm" away.

Perhaps you can share with us what due dilligence of your own you have performed on today's convention centers and our competitors?

Any?

Or is all you feel compelled to do is brouse through these "studies". Tell me where it is these convention will be leaving, where they've been happy, and coming to Portland? All of our major competion is has been adding to their facilities in their better locales.

If you think there are a bunch of conventions being held right now where they are unhappy and can't wait for Portland to get a CC Hotel you are hopelessly naive.

Your fellow Councilors or MERC Commissioners, never worry about facing any consequences for any of the spending of the public's money. There's no accountability for anything.

Just like the PDC commissioners or TriMet board or Port of Portland Commission.

And every sinlge "investment" is ushered along with the same studies you just listed.

Hey, study this.

I'm the public. I don't like how you act on my behalf. Not in the slightest.

Now what options do I have? Try and go up against your gang? You just appointed a new gang member and no outsiders are allowed in.

We would be better off selling the Convention Center and let the private sector operate conventions here.

Just like many other cities do. YO do know what private business is right? You run one.

I'll bet not a shred of the studies or due dilligence looked at selling the CC. Hmmmm?

Of course not. That would mean a big loss of public employee Metro MERC jobs and some of Metro's mission.

Can't have that.

We don't need the CC to be a public asset like a library. It aint a library and by the way I think libraries need more money.

The Public convention center is a product of mission creep.

And it's creeping us out.

I advise readers here to ignore the "studies you posted just as you and yours ignore every piece of public tesimony that doesn't align with your many predetermined outcomes.

Instead, folks should simply google convention center scams, or Convention Center Hotel boondoggle or any other combination and discover how other cities have fallen prey to the Public CC and Public CC Hotel swindles. Just like we were here when we voted against the CC expansion and YOU went forward anyway.

We voted NO and you ignored the vote.

Now you're advising us an another expansion?

Let me guess, We won't get to vote this time?

As with light rail, you don't like messing with that voting stuff do you?

Here's the best start for the folks.

http://wweek.com/editorial/3151/6868/

Q & A

Heywood Sanders

Convention Center critic dumps on Portland's plans for a $140 million convention hotel.

"Rachel"

(email verified)

Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 02:41 PM

Re: Metro takes next step towards controversial hotel project

Those piles of documents only prove that Metro spent piles of our money having consultants produce them.

The comparison of this CCH with libraries is absolutely to the point. Libraries as a public service have huge, longstanding public support. The CCH has nearly none. Forcing it through the system against peoples' will is nothing but theft.

"Taxed and Spent"

(email verified)

Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 04:34 PM

Re: Metro takes next step towards controversial hotel project

I'm not so sure I support public money being spent on a convention center hotel either. But, what I do support is civil discussion. And that is definitely not to be found here.

"John"

(email verified)

Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 10:48 PM

Re: Metro takes next step towards controversial hotel project

This is the same Rod Park who was in political position to make decisions on the Urban Growth Boundary and then

sold off his land in Clackmas County at outrageously

inflated prices...right along 282nd.

I want to make prediction. This Nick guy will most likely win the election as Mayor of Portland. He has all the right stuff that Portlanders desire:

a political hack who has worked for a sinister organization like Metro, a complete unwillingness to consider any opinion other then his own, a dedication to spending tax dollars like a drunken sailor.

"dale"

(email verified)

Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 11:34 PM

Re: Metro takes next step towards controversial hotel project

John,

The convention center should be sold to private operator. The proceeds could be used for reducing debt and other worthy things, and the yearly loss of revenue would cease.

Some of the best Convention Centers in the country (Las Vegas) are private entities.

Unfortunately the extrordinary lack of civil treatment of the public will prevent Metro from doing the right thing.

If you want to affect civil discussion you might want to begin with requesting, demanding, that Park and Metro stop insulting the public.

There's nothing civil about their agenda.

"Rachel"

(email verified)

Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 12:25 AM

Re: Metro takes next step towards controversial hotel project

Dale,

I disagree with Rod Park and his position on the convention center, along with many other METRO activities.

That said, I have also known Rod and his family for most of my life and I know of nor would suspect any such wrongdoing on his part. Selling property that has been zoned differently is an option available to any landowner. I am certain that if there were discussions concerning his specific property, Rod meticulously abided by whatever rules applied as far as appropriately recusing himself from the vote and/or discussions.

That is how Rod is, to do less or to do wrong would be dishonorable and it isn't how he or his family operates.

If you have proof of malfeasance, please present same. Otherwise, tossing out claims of wrongdoing about an honest person, whatever their occupation, is wrong.

"Chris Hawes"

(email verified)

Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 12:48 AM