Convention Center planning flash back to 2001

I am currently viewing a Lancaster County Convention Center Authority public meeting held on July 25, 2001.

Keep in mind @ this point, the convention center and the hotel were COMPLETELY different - never the twain shall meet. That's what LCCCA Chairman told the court when asked about the unfair advantage that the Penn Square Partner would have being beside the public convention center.

Nevin Cooley makes a presentation about the progress and where the project was going.

Nevin brings up the $4 million 'loan' from the DCED to the city redevelopment authority and given to the PSP. Cooley emphasizes that this is a loan - not a grant and that it will be paid back for a
revolving fund. (of course when the redevelopment authority bought the W&S building from PSP they gave them something like $7.5 million for a building they paid $1.25 million!)

Next, Cooley emphasizes that unlike other communities, Lancaster has PRIVATE investors for their hotel and that many communities struggled to get the private investors for the hotel and some never get those
investors. Fortunately for Lancaster, PSP is there!

After highlighting this "progress" Cooley calls on the authority to "reaffirm overall project is a public/private partnership" and says that the Pricewaterhouse study as well as the Marriott required the
intertwining of the public and the private entities. After telling them how blessed they are to have PSP, Cooley puts the screws on the authority to set up a switch from a $45 million private hotel to one
in which we are not even sure that the private entity is putting ANYTHING into this project!

Design - sharing space between hotel and convention center - this shifted the hotel space to the taxpayer
Shared Staff - allocation of administrative overheard between the public and private. Does anyone on this believe that the allocation of expenses doesn't favor PSP?

Remember at this point the authority had a hospitality committee that was studying which company would manage the convention center. Ultimately, the committee recommended SMG - which LCCCA board
eventually voted against - appointing Interstate - the PSP's choice.

Since the PSP said that joint-management was vital to the success of the project, why didn't PSP let the authority take the lead in picking which management company would lead? Instead, in a dog and pony show the day before this meeting, the PSP announced that Interstate what the company they wanted. The school district of Lancaster, which was promised $400,000 a year in tax revenue, sent a letter to the
authority recommending PSP choice of managers!

What if the authority didn't vote for Interstate? Marriott would likely pull their flag! "without a hotel, we do not have a convention center" Cooley stated.

Cooley emphasizes a schedule (expected by Marriott no less!) that the hotel has to be designed, built and running by 2004 - 42 months later!

Nevin claims that with the shared expenses, that authority might not even have an operating deficit!

Cooley says, "So, Instead of a having a $925,000 operating loss annual, we can move almost to a break even."

Chairman of the County Commissioners, Paul Thibault rose and complimented the authority and PSP and said that it was time to stop wagging fingers and start shaking hands. After all - the PSP were willing to put up THEIR MONEY! (keep in mind that Dale High was the head of Thibault's political action committee!)

Next, City Council President Nelson Polite encouraged the authority do what Thibault suggested.

It's been fascinating to view some of these tapes and the way that the media has been staged and choreographed to manipulate the public. The shame is the way the newspaper has been willing accomplices in duping the public.

Editor's notes:

NewsLanc believes engaging Interstate Hotels & Resorts to manage both the hotel and convention center was appropriate and they appear to be doing a very good job.

The PriceWaterhouse study, like other early reports, were referred to by Penn Square Partners (PSP) but not widely shared and certainly were under reported by the Lancaster press. The market studies (they were not feasibility reports) were not positive. And PriceWaterhouse later withdrew its report because the Convention Center had been greatly expanded in scope and size and probably because the findings of the report were constantly misrepresented by PSP. As an extraordinary gesture, PriceWaterhouse refused to even update their report when so requested by the County Commissioners in 2006 because of their past expeirence.