Get a Grasp!
I'm stunned by the Sept. 25 letter by Daniel Smith entitled "Go Away." His letter to Metro Pulse concerning the Homeless in Tennessee was truly hateful and bordered on ignorant. I do not consider myself a "bleeding-heart homeless activist" but I do consider myself realistic. There are endless reasons as to why certain people end up on the street. Smith says—"Kill them, jail them, drive them out of town; we need to stop the flow of scum into our city." He doesn't seem to grasp the true reality of the situation or the people that according to him—choose—this way of life. I suggest Smith take a break from his "ass busting" career and spend a weekend under a downtown bridge or perhaps a homeless shelter. I'd like to hear from Smith exactly what was so enticing that these people chose to live in that way. I'd also like to suggest that he and others like him go to the internet and check www.thehomelessguy.blogspot.com.
Hopefully they'll gain a little understanding....
Laura Russell
Knoxville
Hope for the Miserable
My first reaction upon reading Daniel Smith's letter to the editor ("Go Away," Vol. 13, No. 39) was to dash off a fiery response to his spiteful, hateful and incendiary opinion. Unfortunately, Mr. Smith is the sort of person so close-minded and intolerant of others' opinions that he likely can't be reasoned with. A man so full of anger and hate for others—especially the homeless and their situations, about which he obviously has no knowledge—must truly be a miserable person. I only hope that it doesn't take something traumatic, like addiction taking hold of his children or grandchildren and turning them into prostitutes on those same streets, for him to see the error of his ways.
Steve Wildsmith
Knoxville
Do we need more Volslop?
I honestly am trying to be open-minded about the changes to the MP seen over the past several months including the endorsements of candidates that I don't necessarily see as having the right vision for Knoxville. But as a person who grew up in a sports addicted family and community with not even a passing interest in football, I am disappointed that the MP is including a weekly column dedicated to this topic. Does Knoxville really need another forum to discuss the Vols? And couldn't folks just tune in to Mr. Basilio's daily radio show and Saturday extra?
Regarding Daniel Smith's response to the homeless in Knoxville: My response is put your money where your mouth is! Which would mean an increase in funding for social and health services, police services, mental health facilities, drug and alcohol treatment programs, and more subsidized housing. It is easy to grumble about problems and much harder to find workable solutions.
Helen Morrow
Knoxville, TN
Spinning the Hotel
Last week's "Insights" column by Joe Sullivan unfortunately contained more spin for a taxpayer-subsidized downtown hotel than any propagandist could conjure.
As the general managers of the Radisson, Marriott, Hilton and Holiday Inn, we were not asked for our opinions about a taxpayer-subsidized hotel. Therefore, we would like to set the record straight about the taxpayers' exposure in this ill-conceived project.
Mr. Sullivan's premise was that the $160 million convention center is floundering and the solution is for taxpayers to spend tens of millions more dollars for a new hotel.
The convention center was billed as the key to revitalizing downtown. Now a new headquarters hotel is billed as the key to revitalizing the convention center.
How much taxpayers' money will the city spend before it stops fighting for a white elephant hotel and works with our city's existing downtown hotels to find a united front to make the convention center work?
The convention center's problems are not caused by the lack of a headquarters hotel. If so, why wasn't a hotel built at the same time as the convention center? Why knowingly let the convention center languish for years? Because the necessity for a new hotel does not exist.
Mr. Sullivan's column says wrongly that taxpayers will benefit from subsidizing a new downtown hotel. The opposite is true. The numbers don't work. Here are the facts:
1. Mr. Sullivan wrote: "It takes public sector backing to make these hotels feasible." That means the taxpayers are guaranteeing the debt service behind the bonds. That means taxpayers are on the hook.
2. Contrary to Mr. Sullivan's article, the Holiday Inn is not seeking a subsidy. The hotel, which is located next to the convention center, asks for abatements on current taxes. City taxpayers are not being asked to pay for any of the additional 100 rooms in the proposal. This is enormously less expensive than the tens of millions of dollars taxpayers will be obligated to pay for a new hotel.
3. The Hilton, located across Henley Street from the convention center (where many downtown advocates say the new hotel should be located) made a proposal to become the headquarters hotel that is tens of millions of dollars less expensive to taxpayers than a new hotel.
4. The Radisson and the Marriott back the Holiday Inn and Hilton because we, like any other businesses in their right minds, do not want to compete against a taxpayer-subsidized, city-owned and supported competitor.
5. Our studies show that a city-owned hotel will cause at least one of our existing hotels to go out of business.
6. If this project goes forward, the city will be in the hotel business. Taxpayers are guaranteeing the debt. The city has enough trouble paying for adequate police, the fire department, streets and sidewalks, employee salaries and other responsibilities. Does the city need to be in the hotel business?
7. The average room rate of the four downtown hotels in Knoxville from January through July 31 is $81.12. According to the Hunter study on which much of the city's justification for a new hotel is based, a new hotel's average rate will total $115 per night. When people and conventions are unwilling to pay those costs, the new hotel will cut its rates. We will then reduce our rates. What happens? All hotels get hurt even more and the new hotel will require additional taxpayer funding to support its operations.
8. Covering hotel costs with a bond issuance, as stated in the article, means taxpayer debt is likely to be even higher. City taxpayers will be paying for the hotel, the land and the parking by guaranteeing debt service on the bonds. Any way proponents of a new hotel try to mask it, city taxpayers will still pay for a hotel, parking, land costs and a proposed overhead walkway.
9. The Hunter study claims that a new hotel means 50,000 more room nights in downtown Knoxville. These numbers are inflated. Even so, a 400-room hotel adds an additional 146,000 available rooms annually to the downtown Knoxville inventory. That leaves an additional 96,000 vacant rooms a year, by Hunter's own estimates. Add this to the 174,000 vacant rooms we already experience annually in downtown Knoxville, and the new hotel creates a total of 270,000 vacant rooms every year.
We could go on, but we think the point is made.
The same people who brought you the convention center promising that it was the answer to downtown Knoxville rebirth are now saying a new hotel is the key to convention center success.
The reality is that a taxpayer-subsidized hotel will not generate necessary cash flow, it will not be the magic bullet to attract new conventions, and taxpayers will be paying out of their pockets for this mistake for the next 30 years.
As hotel industry professionals we believe we can help the city solve its problems. We would like to do so. If asked, we will, as soon as the city stops trying to ruin our businesses by using taxpayers' dollars to build an expensive and unneeded hotel.
Ken Knight, GM
Radisson Summit Hill
Walter Wojnar, GM
Holiday Inn Select
Mike Butler, GM
Hilton
Bill Jordan, GM
Marriott
| 
