Comments about ‘Convention hotel study stirs Salt Lake County Council debate’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, Jan. 7 2014 5:21 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Pagan
Salt Lake City, UT

'SALT LAKE CITY — A 1,000-room convention hotel partially subsidized by tax rebates creates an unfair market advantage, a representative of Grand America and Little America hotels told the Salt Lake County Council Tuesday.'

I thought people who wanted 'limited government' were all about the 'free market'..?

Like most ideals about Conservatism, when concepts meet pavement…

just kidding!

There is a dollar to be made!

My2Cents
Taylorsville, UT

What Utah and many left wingers socialist don't realize is that this country is in a economic disaster and the recession is stalled by business and states using massive amounts of debt in the billions of dollars and 40 years loans (bonds) to maintain and economy that does not exist.

The only economic growth in Utah is government expansion and taxation of those who still have a job paying income and sales taxes. More than 50% of the population of the state does not pay sales tax or income taxes because they are on state welfare and subsidies. And those on tax exempt welfare make more money than those with jobs create a negative loss in the economy.

Utah is a destination state for welfare, not jobs or industry. A stalled economy does not grant the state the right to put more competition in the path of private industry.

Economic debt has destroyed independent business who provided jobs. This state has become beggars and looters of our own taxpayers to pay people and companies to move here. If there was a need for more rooms and hotels, free enterprise would build them.

Moving the prison will bankrupt Utah beyond recovery.

NedGrimley
Brigham City, UT

Without the need to sling mud at either side of the political isle, I think that the government subsidizing of such a venture would be unfair to existing hotels that built on their own merits and with their own money (if they did..). If it is so important for the future of SLC, and there is money to be made in so doing, let it happen on the private sector dime. Otherwise, deal with the consequences of not having a "toe in the door".

It would, however, be very interesting to know if any of those hoteliers that are in opposition received special tax incentives when they built their establishments in SLC... Knowing that it happens A LOT, it wouldn't surprise me and would take a considerable amount of validity out of their complaints.

Makid
Kearns, UT

I do wish people would understand that the government subsidy isn't for the hotel. It is for the extra meeting space. That space will be controlled by the County.

The only reason people think it is going to the hotel is that whoever is going to build the hotel will also be building the meeting space. That is as far as it goes.

The subsidy is post performance, meaning that the developer would get a reduction to their property taxes over the 20 year course of the subsidy as a thank you for building the public meeting space for us.

If someone is having difficulties understanding this. Think of it this way. A hotel developer is going to build a hotel. The Government is going to increase it's centralized meeting space.

If the situation above was on 2 separate pieces of land, no one would be talking about government funded hotels. The only reason people are saying that is that there is an overlap in a single property.

The hotel developer is paying for the foundation work, lobby, elevators, rooms, restaurants, pools, gyms, structured parking, etc. and the government is paying for the meeting space and for some parking stalls.

romeisn'tburning
layton, ut

The Sinclair Oil corporation is opposed to this? No kidding. Like Makid said, the public meeting space is what would be subsidized, not the hotel rooms. These developers are mad that they already built and miss out on the opportunity to make their hotel part of this convention center. The Salt Palace and Expo Center both received subsidies, this is no different (aside from the privately funded hotel on top). The consequences of not doing this will effect far more than the hotel industry. The outdoor retailers convention will move their semi-annual convention to Denver if this isn't under construction in the next 24 months. The economic impact associated with that convention is $40 million a year and growing. If that convention goes, the hoteliers downtown will take a hit. Don't shoot yourself in the foot guys.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments