My thoughts on yesterday's City Council vote on the Convention Center Hotel

The debate over two items on yesterday's City Council addendum to its agenda concerning a hotel to be built adjacent to the Dallas Convention Center brought out some of the best and the worst dialog I have heard from the Council's City Hall Chambers.

The worst came from Mayor Pro Tem Dwaine Carraway who argued that the council should not wait to decide on this issue, that waiting cost the city a horse racing track, a motor speedway and the Dallas Cowboys stadium. Talk about an apples and oranges argument. The only way this argument could have any relevance to the items being discussed would be if the Dallas Convention and Visitor's Bureau was thinking of moving the entire Dallas Convention Center to a location outside the city or abandoning the current convention center completely to build in a new one in Southlake or Grand Prairie or some place like that. Carraway's foolish tirade was certainly a low point in the annals of this City Council's discourse.

The best job on this issue was performed by a council member I usually think wear's the dunce's cap, Mitchell Rasansky. Unlike most of his colleagues, Rasansky actually did some independent research on this affair and come up with some interesting statistics that I will get back to shortly.

But first, a short description of what the council was considering. The first was a motion to finance a feasibility study that would determine whether the Convention and Events Services debt should be restructured. This would be necessary so that it could apply for bonds to build additions to the convention center or even a hotel adjacent to it.

The second item was the big one. That one authorizes the Convention and Visitors Bureau to give $500,000 to the owners of a 8.4-acre parcel of land at Young and Lamar streets that is now the home of a parking lot and a 2-story parking garage. (Both of these items passed.) This half-mil would essentially hold the land until May 31 when the city could decide to purchase the entire parcel for around $30 million. If it does, the $500,000 would be deducted from the purchase price. If the city waits until after May 31 but decides to purchase before Sept. 30, only $250,000 would be applied to the purchase price and the other $250,000 would be forfeited. If the city waits until October or later to make a purchase decision or decides not to purchase at all, the CVB loses the entire $500,000.

Let me say right now I have no problems with constructing a convention center hotel. The CVB argues that Dallas has lost significant conventions because it doesn't have such a facility. I don't think that's true. I do think it's true that conventions that have gone elsewhere have told CVB that's the reason they didn't choose Dallas, but I also think that's just nicer than saying "The other options looked like they would be a lot more fun for our delegates." If I'm a convention planner chosing whether to have my gathering in Dallas, New York, Honolulu, Chicago, Las Vegas, Orlando, San Francisco, Anaheim, Los Angeles, Miami, even New Orleans, I'm thinking Dallas comes in 11th on that list and that has nothing to do with a convention center hotel. Does New York have a convention center hotel?

In fact, I would like to a see a survey of conventions that evaluates why they make the location decisions they do. I'm betting the availability of a convention center hotel is not going to be at the top of that list.

Still, I can see the advantages of a convention center hotel of it's done correctly. My problem is, from what I'm seeing, Dallas isn't doing this correctly. Here's my problem.

The city is apparently willing to play $30 million of our money for a piece of property that has been appraised by DCAD (the same good folks that set the values for our homes) at $8.2 million. That's a significant difference. The $30 million figure comes apparently from two independent appraisers hired by the CVB. But, according to Rasansky's homework, these appraisers didn't even factor into their appraisals the valuations of property right across the street from City Hall that were valued far below the figures used by the independents.

I'm not even going to argue which figure is closer to the true value of the land. However, if DCAD's appraisals are closer to the mark, this is massive misuse of tax dollars to buy this property at an inflated price. If the $30 million is correct, then the city has lost thousands, perhaps millions in property tax revenues because this parcel has been so undervalued. Either way something is wrong. Before the city makes another move, I think someone should examine this disparity a lot more closely. (Of course, that May 31 deadline is going to nudge the City to act with speed instead of wisdom.)

If it turns out the $30 million is correct, here's what I would like the City do to on behalf of me, Terry T. Taxpayer, and all my fellow taxpayers. I want them to calculate the lost property taxes on that piece of land and then deduct that amount from the $30 million.

Oh, and by the way, I also want the City line up someone who knows a little something about developing, designing, building and operating successful hotels.

I don't think that's too much to ask.