|
Post by sdsudevil on Aug 21, 2015 9:29:23 GMT -8
www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2015/aug/20/ballot-measure-would-boost-hotel-room-taxInitiative by attorney Briggs would scuttle tourism marketing tax San Diego — Attorney Cory Briggs says he is putting up $250,000 in seed money for a signature-gathering effort for an initiative that would boost San Diego’s hotel-room tax and do away with a separate tourism marketing tax on hotel guests. Last month Briggs revealed during a speech to the Rotary Club that he was preparing a ballot measure that would increase the city’s existing 10.5 percent (on the dollar) transient occupancy tax to 15.5 percent and eliminate the 2 percent Tourism Marketing District tax. Briggs takes issue with the latter, in part, because it was not approved by voters but by hotel owners, who he says have control over the money. If he gets the backing and the signatures, the proposal would be placed on the June 2016 ballot. In a release this week, Briggs mentioned the seed money and presumably is looking for more financial backing. He said that the additional 5 percent hotel tax would go to the city’s general fund for “basic city services such as infrastructure backlog, street, sidewalk, and pothole repairs, public safety, and beaches and lifeguards, parks, and libraries.” Hotels with fewer than 30 rooms would be exempt from the increase. Briggs said the ballot measure would be passed if supported by a simple majority because it does not specify how the additional money would be spent. If the funds were earmarked, the ballot measure would require two-thirds voter approval. Briggs has battled the city and private developers over a variety of environmental, tax and transparency issues. He successfully sued to overturn a hotel-room tax to fund the downtown convention center expansion because it was not approved by voters; instead, it was approved by a vote within the local hotel industry. That would negatively affect anyone's development financial model, making future investments look worse. Looking superficially at that, I would need a lot more evidence to convince me of why that would be good.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Aug 21, 2015 9:34:56 GMT -8
Raising the tourist tax?...Geee why didn't they think of that years ago and why did the Convention Center try sooooo hard to avoid a vote and circumvent the need for one by just taxing themselves? Because it requires a 2/3rds vote thats why. If they could just avoid the need for 2/3rds by not designating the funds specifically for that need than it would have been done already. This is just the latest desperation attempt to try to keep the Chargers but just like the Hoteliers end around for the Convention Center this one would also not stand up in court. It was voted on twice in 2004 and defeated both times. One of the arguments against the increase was that all of the increase would go towards the city pension deficit. I think one of the two votes only required a 50%+1 majority, and it still failed. The proposal by Cory Briggs for next year would raise ToT by 5%, but would eliminate the Tourism Marketing District. I would imagine the hoteliers would be against this as well.
|
|
|
Post by fredgarvinmp on Aug 21, 2015 9:58:30 GMT -8
Call me a skeptic if you wish but at least IMO, neither Scott Kaplan nor Cory Briggs is exactly a credible source on this stuff. Far from it, actually. I agree especially with Briggs as he has a clear agenda. I have to say though that of all the radio guys, I find Kaplan (who I have never been a huge fan of) to be the most well thought out in his arguments and his interviews on the stadium issue (he certainly challenged Fabiani on his BS directly – you could tell Fabiani wasn’t happy either), and also seems to have the best sources in the background. Not that I expect anything to come of this vague rumor, but will be interesting if anything pops up this next week.
|
|
|
Post by fredgarvinmp on Aug 21, 2015 10:12:01 GMT -8
Raising the tourist tax?...Geee why didn't they think of that years ago and why did the Convention Center try sooooo hard to avoid a vote and circumvent the need for one by just taxing themselves? Because it requires a 2/3rds vote thats why. If they could just avoid the need for 2/3rds by not designating the funds specifically for that need than it would have been done already. This is just the latest desperation attempt to try to keep the Chargers but just like the Hoteliers end around for the Convention Center this one would also not stand up in court. It was voted on twice in 2004 and defeated both times. One of the arguments against the increase was that all of the increase would go towards the city pension deficit. I think one of the two votes only required a 50%+1 majority, and it still failed. The proposal by Cory Briggs for next year would raise ToT by 5%, but would eliminate the Tourism Marketing District. I would imagine the hoteliers would be against this as well.I would be against that as well as someone who worked for one of the key organizations at the time (no longer) when the TMD had its funds frozen by Bob Feelner and saw the data in person of how we fell almost immediately behind the competition in driving room nights and visitors. How soon we forget. I am sure without the TMD our 5% would be well managed (sarcasm).
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Aug 21, 2015 10:54:30 GMT -8
San Diego's TOT is quite low in comparison with other cities. I just returned from Denver and their TOT is 15%
No one would cancel their trip or convention because we are charging a market rate TOT. Especially in a 'resort' city.
|
|
|
Post by Ambivalent_Fan on Aug 21, 2015 11:15:42 GMT -8
I'm waiting for the day that the Supreme Court votes down all TOT taxes for "taxation without representation" violations...
|
|
|
Post by fredgarvinmp on Aug 21, 2015 11:19:12 GMT -8
San Diego's TOT is quite low in comparison with other cities. I just returned from Denver and their TOT is 15% No one would cancel their trip or convention because we are charging a market rate TOT. Especially in a 'resort' city. I agree in regards to the general visitor, but again having been directly involved with the segment, TOT % is a very real point of concern for large groups making a decision in choosing a city to host its convention (and it's more complex than just "market rate"), which is where the real issue lies in trying to keep a thumb on it. On the radio earlier this week a couple of our local sports guys were flippantly saying “just raise the TOT” to build the stadium like it was a no-brainer, clearly without understanding the potential repercussions. I am certainly for keeping the Chargers and I think we can find a solution, and I am not saying we shouldn’t use TOT for a project that would include a center expansion, just saying that the answer to every project we propose in San Diego cannot be the TOT.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Aug 21, 2015 11:36:59 GMT -8
San Diego's TOT is quite low in comparison with other cities. I just returned from Denver and their TOT is 15% No one would cancel their trip or convention because we are charging a market rate TOT. Especially in a 'resort' city. I agree in regards to the general visitor, but again having been directly involved with the segment, TOT % is a very real point of concern for large groups making a decision in choosing a city to host its convention (and it's more complex than just "market rate"), which is where the real issue lies in trying to keep a thumb on it. On the radio earlier this week a couple of our local sports guys were flippantly saying “just raise the TOT” to build the stadium like it was a no-brainer, clearly without understanding the potential repercussions. I am certainly for keeping the Chargers and I think we can find a solution, and I am not saying we shouldn’t use TOT for a project that would include a center expansion, just saying that the answer to every project we propose in San Diego cannot be the TOT. I agree with a lot of this ... San Diego voters won't just vote to raise the TOT because it mostly affects visitors -- most voters like to know what the increased revenue will be applied to as well. Voters will not be swayed by the general notion of "infrastructure". Similarly, they won't vote for something that raises the TOT while simultaneously prohibiting any revenue raised from going towards convention center expansion or stadium payments (present or future). I also think that many here are not giving enough deference to those that book large events and smaller conventions when evaluating higher San Diego rates in general w/ lower than average TOT vs. other cities with lower general rates but higher/market TOT. Raising the TOT in SD to "market" rates could have a negative effect overall in the competitive world of destination management.
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Aug 21, 2015 13:05:42 GMT -8
I agree in regards to the general visitor, but again having been directly involved with the segment, TOT % is a very real point of concern for large groups making a decision in choosing a city to host its convention (and it's more complex than just "market rate"), which is where the real issue lies in trying to keep a thumb on it. On the radio earlier this week a couple of our local sports guys were flippantly saying “just raise the TOT” to build the stadium like it was a no-brainer, clearly without understanding the potential repercussions. I am certainly for keeping the Chargers and I think we can find a solution, and I am not saying we shouldn’t use TOT for a project that would include a center expansion, just saying that the answer to every project we propose in San Diego cannot be the TOT. I agree with a lot of this ... San Diego voters won't just vote to raise the TOT because it mostly affects visitors -- most voters like to know what the increased revenue will be applied to as well. Voters will not be swayed by the general notion of "infrastructure". Similarly, they won't vote for something that raises the TOT while simultaneously prohibiting any revenue raised from going towards convention center expansion or stadium payments (present or future). I also think that many here are not giving enough deference to those that book large events and smaller conventions when evaluating higher San Diego rates in general w/ lower than average TOT vs. other cities with lower general rates but higher/market TOT. Raising the TOT in SD to "market" rates could have a negative effect overall in the competitive world of destination management. There is another "fee" and I don't even know if it's legal, or permitted in California. But in Las Vegas, 2 or 3 years ago they began charging a "resort fee" at every hotel--at least on The Strip. I rarely go except for business conferences or conventions, but I get nailed every time for every day and it's around $25 or $30 per night. That is PLUS the tax.
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on Aug 21, 2015 14:01:33 GMT -8
TOT taxes deter very few tourists (most people are hardly aware of such a tax). I'm all for raising it to bring in more money for the city. It should have been done a long time ago.
TOT and the "resort fees" in Vegas have never deterred me from going there or anywhere else. It's just a part of travel/vacations. And raising it 2.5% is not a significant amount to the individual but it's a significant amount when calculated in total.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Aug 21, 2015 14:02:51 GMT -8
I agree with a lot of this ... San Diego voters won't just vote to raise the TOT because it mostly affects visitors -- most voters like to know what the increased revenue will be applied to as well. Voters will not be swayed by the general notion of "infrastructure". Similarly, they won't vote for something that raises the TOT while simultaneously prohibiting any revenue raised from going towards convention center expansion or stadium payments (present or future). I also think that many here are not giving enough deference to those that book large events and smaller conventions when evaluating higher San Diego rates in general w/ lower than average TOT vs. other cities with lower general rates but higher/market TOT. Raising the TOT in SD to "market" rates could have a negative effect overall in the competitive world of destination management. There is another "fee" and I don't even know if it's legal, or permitted in California. But in Las Vegas, 2 or 3 years ago they began charging a "resort fee" at every hotel--at least on The Strip. I rarely go except for business conferences or conventions, but I get nailed every time for every day and it's around $25 or $30 per night. That is PLUS the tax. I think the resort fee in LV is currently $28/night--up from I think $22.40 just last year. People who get offers of 3 free room nights quickly discover the rooms aren't free, as the resort fee is always charged. And as Aztecbolt has said, it's doubtful that raising taxes and fees will deter very many people. Before booking a trip to LV, the resort fee will always pop up, so you always know you are paying it in advance.
|
|
|
Post by AccessBowlTime on Aug 21, 2015 14:40:59 GMT -8
I'll agree the LV resort fee hasn't deterred me from visiting LV but when I checked into my hotel room there this last spring, I sure went "Wow" when I heard how much was tacked on.
So does that mean it really doesn't matter? Well, my wife and I were paying for just one room for two nights. But what if I'm somebody looking to book 100 rooms for a 5-day convention? THAT'S where too steep a room tax can result in hotels losing bookings to another city.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Aug 23, 2015 15:02:16 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Aug 23, 2015 15:25:43 GMT -8
The Raiders aren't coming here. If they move to a smaller market than the one they are currently in they'll go somewhere that pays for a new stadium....not the pittance that the City of San Diego is putting up.
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on Aug 23, 2015 15:46:32 GMT -8
And that is just another reason why a move to LA just doesn't make any sense. How many of those 26% would actually go up to watch a game and spend money (not just watch on TV). You're probably talking about numbers in the low single digits. Their paying fan base from SD would basically evaporate.
|
|
|
Post by Spud on Aug 23, 2015 16:28:46 GMT -8
Does it really matter when they expand their market by 5 times the current market? What would be interesting to find out is what is the percentage of San Diego residents who watch football claim to be Charger fans?
|
|
|
Post by retiredaztec on Aug 23, 2015 18:22:10 GMT -8
TOT taxes deter very few tourists (most people are hardly aware of such a tax). I'm all for raising it to bring in more money for the city. It should have been done a long time ago. TOT and the "resort fees" in Vegas have never deterred me from going there or anywhere else. It's just a part of travel/vacations. And raising it 2.5% is not a significant amount to the individual but it's a significant amount when calculated in total. Attending spring training for years every March, I was blown away some years back at how much more I was suddenly paying for a rental car and hotel room. Seems I was picking up the tab for Cardinals Stadium. After the initial sticker shock, I accepted this as the way of the world and it really made sense as a smart fiscal move. There was no way I was going to give up spring training because I had to pony up more dough, especially since I was already paying a butt load of money. (Yuma is just a distant memory). Of course it would work for San Diego. Problem with this city is it spends too much time reacting.
|
|
|
Post by Spud on Aug 24, 2015 7:04:54 GMT -8
TOT taxes deter very few tourists (most people are hardly aware of such a tax). I'm all for raising it to bring in more money for the city. It should have been done a long time ago. TOT and the "resort fees" in Vegas have never deterred me from going there or anywhere else. It's just a part of travel/vacations. And raising it 2.5% is not a significant amount to the individual but it's a significant amount when calculated in total. Tourists aren't necessarily the problem..it's the convention business that takes a hard look at these things. Granted San Diego will always be a prime destination, but conference planners really look at this stuff when deciding on a location...especially large businesses.
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Aug 24, 2015 7:17:31 GMT -8
I'm waiting for the day that the Supreme Court votes down all TOT taxes for "taxation without representation" violations... I have similar thoughts but hope it does not ever happen. Always an Aztec had the correct thought as far as I am concerned. I think that if were we to try to put a tax on Orange county for the benefit of San Diego the taxation without representation idea would carry the day.
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on Aug 24, 2015 8:26:57 GMT -8
TOT taxes deter very few tourists (most people are hardly aware of such a tax). I'm all for raising it to bring in more money for the city. It should have been done a long time ago. TOT and the "resort fees" in Vegas have never deterred me from going there or anywhere else. It's just a part of travel/vacations. And raising it 2.5% is not a significant amount to the individual but it's a significant amount when calculated in total. Tourists aren't necessarily the problem..it's the convention business that takes a hard look at these things. Granted San Diego will always be a prime destination, but conference planners really look at this stuff when deciding on a location...especially large businesses. I dunno. Destination spots keep winning out. Does Vegas's resort fees stop conventions and businesses from continuing to go back there?
|
|