People like HD get their casino rooms comped cuz they're bigtimers. Who pays the hotel tax then? The Casinos.
|
|
|
|
|
People like HD get their casino rooms comped cuz they're bigtimers. Who pays the hotel tax then? The Casinos.
Louisiana Tech University
Flagship of the University of Louisiana System
The amended bill would be directed the money to the bowl game for the "promotion of sporting events". It does not specify where the money was to be spent on, such as stadium improvements or payout money. The money would go to wherever the I-Bowl people wanted it to go.Originally Posted by qng001
I was not in favor of the proposed hotel/motel occupancy tax as first proposed and as amended by the committee before the proposal was killed.
Reason #1: The original bill would have allowed the hotel/motel occupancy tax to be enacted by a favorable vote of the governments of Shreveport, Bossier City, Caddo Parish, and Bossier Parish instead of a vote by the people. I believe if any tax is to be enacted, it should include a vote by the people, since governments will typically vote to increase taxes if they are left to their own devices. I was opposed to the original bill partly because the people in Caddo & Bossier Parishes had no say in the proposed tax.
Reason #2: I believe the Independence Bowl should have investigated all opportunities of financial support from the private sector before having their hands out before the State Legislature. If the sponsorship from Advocare was so valuable to the bowl game, why was there the pressing need to beg the legislature for a localized tax?
Reason #3: I was concerned that the additional revenue from the hotel/motel occupancy tax would not be enough to generate the increased payout needed to lure a higher spot in the SEC or Big XII hierarchy, despite what the I-Bowl officials said at the meeting. If the additional revenue equaled about $2 million a year, that would raise the payout per team to about $2.2 million a team (assuming every penny of the tax went to payout money). This would not be enough money to surpass any SEC or Big XII bowl game except maybe the SEC game in Birmingham. In my opinion, the tax would not have been enough, and it would open the door for further tax increases down the road once this precedent was established for our region.
Reason #4: As mentioned by numerous posters on this thread, I have grave concerns about the management and operations capability of the Independence Bowl officials. The "performance" of the I-Bowl officials at the committee meeting indicated major problems to me. They had at least two months to organize support among the local governments for this proposed tax, and the I-Bowl officials and Rep. Burns did not have even one letter or resolution from a government council or mayor from any of the local governments in Shreveport or Bossier. Telling the committee that you have a text from a mayor indicating his support would not be enough to get my vote if I served on that committee.
If the I-Bowl officials couldn't get their collective heads out of their butts while they pushed for the tax in the meeting, then what confidence do I have that they could properly administer any additional revenue from the hotel/motel occupancy tax? Could they be trusted to land a favorable deal with a major conference? Based on recent history, I have no confidence in the I-Bowl officials. Zilch. Zero. Nada.
Norton's comments in opinion to the tax are completely asinine.
I understand the hotel/casino rationale for opposing the tax. If someone spent one night in a S-BC hotel, I don't think there would be any noticeable effect other than an additional $1.00-$1.50 tax on the final bill. However, if an organization reserved tens of thousands of hotel rooms at the S-BC hotels every year, I could see the money adding up pretty fast.
Last edited by TechAlum05; 05-07-2013 at 04:21 PM.
The "stink" continues. This is copied/pasted from the March 25 Bossier Press-Tribune:
The sports commission would use the extra revenue to solicit major sporting events and the AdvoCare V100 Bowl would increase payouts, moving the bowl's status into a higher tier which would result in more prestigous teams playing in the bowl game.
Passage is pending state legislative approval and all four governmental bodies' approval.
“I'm not promising it's the best answer. Maybe this will bring other people to the table with different ideas,” said Burns.
Bossier Parish Administrator Bill Altimus said he had not read the legislation yet but is in favor of taking action to improve the bowl's stature.
"If there was an additional source of funding for the bowl, along with the sponsorship funding, the bowl can improve its payout which in turn will without a doubt increase interest in the different conferences contracting with the bowl as to the rankings of the the conference tie ins."
I don't have paid access to The Times archives but I believe similar comments are there. The bill hands tax dollars to I Bowl without specifying use OR requiring open records access. "Promotion of sporting events" could be more staff, higher salaries, more junkets to "lobby" teams, etc. Do YOU trust the I Bowl people? Ugh. But the two gentlemen quoted here are personal friends and honorable guys who probably just trust the I Bowl to do what it says.
Last edited by Russdawg; 05-07-2013 at 04:30 PM.
Careful. GatorDawg doesn't like it when you imply that our nation's bowl system isn't all about charity for the children. :icon_wink:
Just read this thread and viewed this video for the first time. Is there any wonder why the State of Louisiana is the butt of many jokes around the country when these are the kind of people that can get elected here! These types don't only reside in North Louisiana, we have our share down south as well. God help us if we can't do better than this!!!
On reason #1- Fair enough. I agree in principle on obviously letting the people determine taxes which have an impact in their lives. Not sure how much of an impact this has on them since most residents will not be staying in these hotels anyway. But on the larger picture this tax can have an impact on the local economy.
On reason #2- I believe you over-estimate the impact of a title sponsor on their budget. How much do you really think Advocare pays? *Hint- it is less than you think* It is completely understandable that the I Bowl wants this tax to upgrade their pick. It has nothing to do with their corporate sales. Shreveport is not Dallas or Atlanta. They cannot generate millions of dollars from corporate sales. I doubt they can even generate a million dollars from corporate sales.
On reason #3- The money would have been enough for a slight jump in pick atleast in the SEC. Unfortunately for the I Bowl they do not have much growth opportunity when they are fighting bowls in NFL stadiums. But they can sure be the best of the rest. Also this is a battle that outside money can solve as well. CapitalOne is the premier bowl for the SEC and they have one of the worst stadiums.
On reason #4- I agree it sounds like they were not ready to properly get this tax through.
Just all of them except the I Bowl obviously.
The Casinos don't want to sell rooms. They want to comp them to gamblers who will spend money in the casino. This is a big tax on the casinos.
If a room is comped then no tax is applied or charged correct? Meanwhile more bowl payout potentially leads to better teams and more room nights (and yes more gambling) for the hotels. Ideally that is how it works. Now casinos opposing this tells me that either I Bowl has been suggestion other hotels (makes sense because NCAA hates to be associated with gambling) or they had no faith in the bowl to attract a better fan base. Either way the bowl needs to figure out a way to solve these questions or they are stuck in their position for good.
Tax is due whether the room is paid for or comped. THe result of this legislation just determined who paid the tax...the hotels or the casinos. Obiviously the casino hotels would be against it. Hotels in the Shreveport-Bossier market already have an occupancy rate of over 80%. Much of that is for the casinos. There is not much else here. Our hotel rates are higher than comparable Dallas & Houston hotels. Our hotels do not have the need for the Indy Bowl crowd that historically brings in about 5K to the area for two nights.
Indy Stadium is old, in a rough part of town & Shreveport does not provide many alternative things to do during the bowl period to get out-of-towners to stay longer. If Shreveport wants to retain a bowl they must get past their "heyday" where LSU played Notre Dame & Mich. St. and move on. They cannot afford to keep selecting the last SEC pick & last or second to last from the ACC. They need teams from confrences that are actually excited to go there. Air travel to & fro also sucks.
Bye the way. Barbara Norton is an idiot! One of the dumbest people that I have ever met in my entire lifetime. A laughingstock amongst normal Shreveporter's.
Your points assume they do not get a better pick from the tax. Nothing I know of was set in stone but I think this tax would've allowed them to better both picks and thus created more opportunity for tourism. I have no clue what kind of value the bowl adds to casinos. That is for the casinos and the bowl to figure out. But I have a hard time believing a better pick will not all create more opportunities for the casinos.
Now your point about the I Bowl having their heyday when LSU played. Do not forget that they had Alabama play twice in the past 10 years. 99% of bowls would take that. It isn't about getting conferences excited to go anywhere. It is about being able to attract the schools in the conference that will travel anywhere regardless of how excited they are.
Hmm.....just for the record, I'm not a gambler at all.
I didn't say you were a gambler.Hmm.....just for the record, I'm not a gambler at all.
I said you are a bigtimer!:icon_wink:
Louisiana Tech University
Flagship of the University of Louisiana System
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
