CC: "A bad idea and an ultimate failure"

While the entire financial structure and "deal" with our private "partner" along with the news coverage from a subsidiary of the same "partner" are offensive and a fraud on the public, they are not the worst part of this project, they are merely multipliers of the waste, deception, and corruption that piggybacks itself on such a large publicly funded white elephant.The worst part of the CC project, in my opinion, is the underlying premise that it will serve as an economic catalyst to 1) increase county-wide hotel occupancy, and 2) jump start and sustain downtown revitalization. There is no better indicator that this project will be a failure than the fact that the entire industry it was sold to support and bolster is against it.

This project is a hospitality industry project and it has not a single, uninterested (I am not counting High Hotels or the Brunswick) supporter within that industry. Even Willow Valley, called to support the LCCCA's case during the hotel tax trial, has jumped ship.

Why can't this project find any support from within the industry...the premise simply does not work. Not only is the CC concept a general failure, read the Brookings Report, but it's benefits will never outweigh its burdens in the Lancaster marketplace. I can go on and on with the reasons why, such as the lack ofinfrastructure, the seasonal nature of the market, etc., etc., etc, but the simple reality is that it is not the answer for Lancaster. Unlike other cities who do not have a significant tourism industry prior to going the CC route, we have something to lose/kill in the process of making bad decisions.As for downtown revitlaization, the key is occupancy. Whether the goal is to create activity (putting people on the streets) or consumption (people spending money), the CC will be dark way too much to have an impact. No store or coffee shop will be able to live off of a building with 20-30% yearly occupancy. Furthermore, the economic models used by PSP would require most convention attendees to make 100% of their expenditures within the four walls of the hotel and CC in order to meet those projected goals. Once again, the premise simply does not work. Say what you want about HACC, that would have meant thousands of people in that space at least 6 days a week fron morning through night.The best way that I can sum up the entire proposal is to say if it were to be built on Route 30 East, or somewhere in the "tourism zone", which would make the most sense since that is a) where the highest concentration of hotel rooms exists and b) is the area which is responsible for drawing the majority of our tourists, I would still contend the project would still be a BAD idea and an ultimate FAILURE.