$640.00 to fill the tanks...

The fact that this hotel was built entirely with taxpayer's money, by
the City of Coralville, might surprise you.

You know, after reading your post an hour or so ago, I have gotten more and
more ****ed-off. Since when does a government have the right to tinker in
direct competition with the private sector?

If you really want to read more about this seemingly impossible
competitive scenario, read this, from our local newspaper:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?Y1EA1249D

I don't understand it. My kids don't understand it. No one I talks to
understands it. Yet, it's happened. And a fair number of small motels
are in grave danger because of it -- including ours.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

If you really want to read more about this seemingly impossible
competitive scenario, read this, from our local newspaper:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?Y1EA1249D

I don't understand it. My kids don't understand it. No one I talks to
understands it. Yet, it's happened. And a fair number of small motels
are in grave danger because of it -- including ours.

How is this =really= different from WalMart jumping in and crushing all
the local stores? Think for a moment.

It's city-owned. This means it's paid for with taxpayer money, and
profits go back to the taxpayer (in the form of lower taxes). Every
citizen is a shareholder of this business. (Skip for a moment the
question of whether they are willing shareholders). Other than the fact
that it's owner is a municipality, this is a business just like any
other business. It is competition just like any other competition. If
you wanted, you could put together fifty million and compete with them.
That is capitalism.

It may appear that the fact that it's city owned would give it an unfair
advantage, inasmuch as the city is also the legislative body entrusted
with making laws, and they could make laws favorable to their own
business, and put other businesses at an unfair disadvantage. But what
is unfair about that? Big (independently owned) businesses do this all
the time - it's called lobbying and buying votes. I don't think for a
minute that WalMart isn't close and tidy with the municipalities in
which it plants itself, getting tax breaks that smaller businesses could
only dream of. They can do this because they are big, and the
municipaliaites want the added commerce that such a big business will
bring (and the added taxes on those other businesses that the added
commerce would bring) Yes, it's an illusion, but it's one that
taxpayers buy into.

I'm sure there is a sense that city-owned is "too close" but lobbying is
"okay capitalism" but I don't really see it that way. I see it as
simply a matter of size, and what 600 pounds buys a gorilla.
Unrestrained capitalism does this. They get the keys to their own cage.
Your city owned hotel just does this more blatantly.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

In article . com,
"Jay Honeck" wrote:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?Y1EA1249D

"However, some like Tom Stillwagon of Iowa City couldn't wait to see the
new facility close up."

When I first read this, I read the word c-l-o-s-e as in "to shut down".
Then I read the next sentence and saw the meaning was intended to be
"near".

In article . com,
"Jay Honeck" wrote:

If you really want to read more about this seemingly impossible
competitive scenario, read this, from our local newspaper:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?Y1EA1249D

I don't understand it. My kids don't understand it. No one I talks to
understands it. Yet, it's happened. And a fair number of small motels
are in grave danger because of it -- including ours.

Jay,

1) If this scenario is doing or will do serious damage to your hotel,
I'm genuinely sorry; I've had the chance to stay in a certain number of
"boutique" hotels in my life -- never an aviation one yet, but Doris
Day's highly dog-friendly small hotel in Carmel, just for example -- and
enjoyed them all.

2) But I've also attended during my working life a lot of scientific
meetings at hotel-convention center combinations of the type that your
link seems to describe -- one just last month in Quebec in fact -- and
gotten immense value from having all the action and interactions right
in one location, with one lobby. Hotel/convention centers can also
bring large economic benefit to the cities in which they're located,
which is socially valuable also.

3) As to _how_ the current result was brought about, which in your view
may be seen as representing an inappropriate mixing of government and
private activities, that may indeed be the case. But Hey! That's
precisely unregulated Free Market Economics at work.

The wealthy and prosperous -- e.g., the people who will actually profit
from this new hotel/center -- simply can, and do, purchase (in the free
market) "the best government (best for them) that money can buy".
Happens all the time: big sports stadiums, etc.

And getting rid of "big government", "starving the beast", "getting rid
of all those onerous government regulations", all the other Right Wing
nostrums: These won't prevent what's hit you, they'll just make it
_easier_, not harder, for things exactly like your current problem to
happen.

"Jose" wrote in message
om...

How is this =really= different from WalMart jumping in and crushing all
the local stores? Think for a moment.



It is plain and simple communism. The people (read government) owns the
means of production.

On the other hand, Wal-Mart was a little company that got big because it
provided something the buying public wanted. It did not start out the giant
that it is today.

It is plain and simple communism. The people (read government) owns the
means of production.

On the other hand, Wal-Mart was a little company that got big because it
provided something the buying public wanted. It did not start out the giant
that it is today.

But now that WalMart is big, it goes public, and the people once again
own the means of production (only this time it's a limited set of
people). And, when it gets big enough, it purchases influence in the
government.

Ultimately, if enough influence is purchased, we end up in the same
place, effectively, as what you call communism.

Also, I would say that another useful definition of communism is that
the people own the =only= means of production. This is where it gets
bad. Otherwise, it is just in competition with everything else.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:




How is this =really= different from WalMart jumping in and crushing all
the local stores? Think for a moment.

You've got to be kidding.

You've got to be kidding.

Nope. Sufficient political influence is functionally equivalent to
ownership.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

How is this =really= different from WalMart jumping in and crushing all
the local stores? Think for a moment.

You've got to be kidding.

Don't forget that this is from a guy that thinks his privacy may be in
danger from the radio tags in products being sold today.

Oh, brother!
--
Jim in NC

Morgans wrote:


How is this =really= different from WalMart jumping in and crushing all
the local stores? Think for a moment.

You've got to be kidding.


Don't forget that this is from a guy that thinks his privacy may be in
danger from the radio tags in products being sold today.

Oh, brother!

It shows a stunning lack of understanding of basic economics.