Wednesday, June 13, 2012

WDT: Hotels Worried Over On Post Competition

  With a passle of hotels now built in the private sector, a plan to build hotels in the tax free environment of Fort Drum has hotel owners wondering how they will compete in what is being called a saturated market.
   New hotels were needed as there was a shortage, but  the market is satisfied now and a new federal program would allow big corporations to put name brand hotels on post.
    The unintended consequence of improving on post lodging is it will slam hotels nearby built under a different economic model, according to developer Pat Donegan who built two hotels in the City of Watertown.
      To be fair, many off post projects received tax breaks too, but on post businesses are not subject to the continuing taxes like sales tax and the bed tax that off post business must include in their prices.
     Watertown Daily Times | Fort Drum hotel would enter an already ‘saturated’ market

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

As far as bed tax...the reason it "must" be included is to pay for the exuberant chamber expenses. We have the power locally to do away with it.

And to be fair...Donegan is one of those who received many tax breaks for his projects and soon will receive a free road as a second access to his development.

cat rancher said...

Well we have to agree with them. People outside the government take a chance and build what the Fort needs and the government rewards them with this. I don't get it. They want the community to take them to their tit, but they bend it over. NICE.

bob said...

Here is the under-valued crux, the unexplained (for me) avenue of this story: Craig Fox writes "...about 17,000 hotel rooms now operated by the army nationally would be turned over to the private sector..." .

Are these hotel rooms operated by the army real property built by the taxpayer?

Is this a poor choice of words or is this Corporate Welfare at work?

If this is real property built by the taxpayer, why, in this age of $trillions$ deficits would property be "turned over" instead of being sold or leased?

Ya know, just so the taxpayer can get some dividends out of their "investments".