|
|
|
|
|
This follwing quote from the article sounds like the key element to me.
"We had asked the professors to look at the viability, feasibility of this project on its own without any help from government -- didn't matter if it was a public or private enterprise. But when you add in the public support, the absence of having to pay property taxes and other public contributions Shreveport is making, it changes the numbers," Kennedy said. "The professors did their job, and they did an excellent job."
Go Tech!
Interpertation - if the cash doesn't flow the taxpayers of Shreveport will bail them out - That is what little base that is left in Shreveport 10 years from now...
Just another glaring example of Louisiana politics at its finest -
Tech graduate or not - Hightower is a poor mayor and not much of a business man -
The BIG question is what happens if Texas brings in gaming within the next 10 to 20 years or sooner -
''Don't be a bad dagh..."
Bottom line...it is not a commercially viable project. The only way the plan works is for the hotel not to have to pay property tax AND keep the sales tax it generates. I bet all the downtown hotels would like that deal! Will Shreveport cut them any slack if the new hotel cuts into their profitability?
The business of government is not business.
The hotel will be owned by the city, not a corporation. Therefore, no property taxes.
"Essentially, Louisiana Tech was left with egg on its face after city officials claimed the university's analysis -- which called the hotel venture "a huge risk" -- was revised just hours before the Bond Commission used it as basis for giving the city an overwhelming go-ahead on the project."
Does he have a copy of the report??? If he does there should have been a sidebar highlighting it. Was there one????
Don Walker offers no proof that the analysis was changed. What a bunch of crap. Screw Shreveport!!!!!!!!!!!!
FWIW, where did Don Walker get his degree?
The original Louisiana Tech Report write-up is here from 2 weeks ago when Tech changed its analysis: http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/...WS01/501200324Originally Posted by Tech74
So the assumptions were changed but I still don't see anything about the analysis itself. All eco analysis is based on assumptions. If you assume a revenue stream/costs of A and then a revenue stream/costs of B, you get different conclusions. The only way there would be "egg on anyone's face" is if you use a completely different methodology. My comments on Shreveport, and the Times, stand.
Frankly, the deal about Tech having egg on its face is a load of crap!
The premise the report was written on, has not changed to this date. The charge was to do a report on economic viability without regard to what type entity was doing it. Hightower fessed up to that point the other day.
That a governmental entity has advantages from a taxation standpoint that a business entity does not enjoy is undeniable. The users of the information were smart enough to understand the circumstances and make the appropriate allowances. That does not make Tech look bad. The Bozo's in Shreveport were looking to shift the spotlight because the report made it clear that in a conventional situation, THE SHREVEPORT HOTEL IS A LOSER!
I believe Hightower has had his hand called on this matter, as well he should. Too bad he won't be mayor down the road when the fiscal chickens come home to roost .
Apologies to Bozo, a close personal friend and a great American.
Last I heard a group of caddo residents filed for a class action suit against the City of Shreveport. The suit came about when Hightower was questioned about revenue for the hotel/convention center and he said that taxes would cover any over head, but there is no tax approved for such funds and he stated drawing it out of the cities general fund.
So citizens filed suit to force the city to levy a vote throughout the parish for a tax used primarily to bail out the hotel.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
