The Utica OD had been asking its readers for suggestions on what to do with the Hotel Utica now that a $million in back taxes is owed and a potential sale of the facility has recently fallen through.
How about this: Run it as an hotel!
The hotel was beautifully restored during the last decade. But the ability to bring about a successful restoration of an hotel does not mean there is an ability to successfully run an hotel. A different skill set is involved.
The Utica Phoenix has an article this month that makes a strong case that the Hotel Utica's problems are due to poor management -- in particular by a family member of the hotel's owner.
Most people can understand that if you have a business, you want to take care of your kids. . . .
But here, the Taxpayers have been on the hook for this facility. The City should use its creditor status to either leverage the owner to fire current management and hire someone with expertise and success in running a large hotel . . .
Or foreclose on the facility, hire the expert, and run the facility itself until a buyer can be found.
The fact that new hotels are going up in the vicinity establishes the market for hotel rooms. The City controls the hotel's environs (which could probably use some sprucing up). The City has the power to fix this.
Taxpayers deserve movement on this issue.
12 comments:
Have you ever eaten a meal in that place? The food is lousy & a dog wouldn't eat it. Maybe management at Hotel Utica should try serving food to its patrons that is actually edible!
The city should have foreclosed years ago. It was always a project that rewarded the developers with taxpayer dollars. A foreclosure would trigger change which could include new hotel management or ownership or an alternate use. The project itself is a reminder of the folly of using taxpayer money to finance nostalgia. Millions that could have been used to address some of Utica's core problems have been wasted, all in the name of a downtown that due to demographic change can never be restored.
Agree, Anonymous 10:12, foreclosure should have been carried out. Also agree that Utica needs to solve its core problems first. That said, I disagree that downtown can never be restored due to demographic change. While demographics may have played a role in downtown's demise, the clincher was destruction of large swaths of the downtown core by (1) urban renewal, and (2) state highways. Remember, it took a century to develop Downtown, but took the government only 10 years to kill it off. Demolish half the stores in any shopping center and make it difficult to get around and you will kill it off. Also, policies that subsidized suburban development, and that increase costs to city residents also played a significant role. Those policies are still being implemented, and have resulted in an unsustainable expansion of the public infrastructure that must be maintained by a dwindling population -- raising costs for everyone and making the region un competitive. Cities, and downtowns in particular, *should* be the cheapest place in which to do business because services can be delivered to many within a concentrated area in an efficient manner. At one time this was true and cities grew accordingly -- through *private* rather than public investment. The fact that this is no longer true (but remains true elsewhere in the world) suggests that our public policy created the situation.
What I meant by demographics is that the population base of the area is so small that nothing can achieve substantial change from a development prospective. When we are projected to be an area of slow to no economic/ population growth for many years to come, one should not expect nor waste money on "restoring" the downtown.
So Anonymous 929, in an area of slow or no economic growth the alternative is what? More suburban "growth" that is nothing more than rearranging the deck chairs on a sinking ship? That is the approach taken locally for years....resulting in far more public infrastructure and services in low density areas than the payers can afford. Had we not built the roads and expanded water and sewer lines all over the county primarily at the expense or city residents generations ago, that downtown property would be very valuable, and we would not be having this conversation.
Two points. 1. What is done is done and downtowns must be viewed in that context. One cannot force a round peg into a square hole. Our area is now one of very limited growth with limited resources. Using those resources to chase a dream of Utica's downtown is exactly why so much taxpayer money was wasted on the hotel. 2. People here and across America fled top the suburbs for many reasons. This trend started in the 1950's and continues. It was impossible to force development where city lovers directed. Ever hear of democracy?
In response to your points, Anonymous 630, you are correct, what is done is done. However, that does not mean that we must continue to repeat the mistakes of the past. It makes no sense to continue to subsidize extension of public infrastructure further and further into the suburbs when we have no regional growth. Doing so only increases the burden on the taxpayers/service rate payers. Therefore, development should be encouraged within the existing urban footprint, where infrastructure is already in place.
In the case of the Hotel, the city had to choose either a huge bill to raise the place, or make another arrangement to keep an architecturally significant building. The city chose the latter, which involved a messy entanglement of government with private enterprise. The lack of timely tax payments makes one question the wisdom of that choice. But where does that leave us, now? The fact that hotel rooms are going up literally a mile away at the harbor suggests there is a demand for hotel rooms here. . . . and that the Hotel's problems may be due to poor management by the owners.
The trend of flocking to the suburbs has reversed. People across the country are realizing the government's mistakes of the past, and are rediscovering and reinventing downtowns. While Utica is coming late to this realization it is finally happening here because (1) young entrepreneurs see opportunity downtown and are investing their own money there; and (2) federal and state transportation departments have a better understanding of how downtowns function and are making changes to their policies (i.e., in Utica, the E-W arterial will likely be remade with a smaller footprint).
What happened in the suburbs after the 50s was the result of government policies. Now those policies are changing because people understand the damage they caused. And that is democracy.
One can't began to comment properly on the hindsight logic of the blog owner. Was it cast in stone that the city "had to" get involved in the building at all? Or, did Hanna's ego and political dealings interfere with market conditions and alternatives? Do you honestly know? Of course, no one endorses spending money on extension of infrastructure if there is no growth. And, do you honestly believe suburban taxpayers and boards spend money just to spend it or is their definition of growth different than yours. If people want to live in the suburbs, respect their schools and what they achieve as opposed to Utica schools, desire more open space and newer housing style and design, why should they not be accommodated and increase the suburban tax base? Why should the city not be able to compete? And, tell me what is the numerical demand of so called young professionals to live downtown? Is it 5, 10, 20? At best 50? Please get serious.
I made my point about the hotel, Anonymous. Suffice it to say city leaders weighed out their options and decided on a course they felt was in the public interest at the time. What would you have done differently?
You say that no one endorses extending infrastructure where there is no growth, but that is exactly what has happened in Oneida County because our population has dropped while developed acreage has ballooned. If you want to look at things through a microscope and focus on just parts of the region you could say that New Hartford has "growth," but it is nothing more than rearranging the deck chairs on a sinking regional ship.
The conversation seems to be going no where but what is wrong about rearranging deck chairs if that is what the market demands? I happen to prefer city living but the idea that one can force a dream of urban development when land abounds is silly, as history has shown. Development like anything else is based on the market and competition. If places like Utica realized this long ago, it may be a much more attractive city than it is. As for the hotel, the conclusion that government step in when there is no other option is exactly what I'm talking about. As we've seen millions that could have been used elsewhere in the city have been used to prop up a failed public experiment and line the pockets of favored businessmen. Do you honestly favor spending millions of taxpayer dollars on a privately owned hotel in an area where there is "no growth"? Sounds pretty much like you argue out of both sides of the mouth.
It is wrong for the taxpayer to Subsidize rearranging the deck chairs if the rearrangement makes the ship sink faster! That's what happens when we subsidize suburban development. If we subsidize a rearrangement that hopefully slows our sinking (like reusing the infrastructure already in place in Utica and the surrounding villages), then we buy the region more time.
I have had just heard some very disparaging news, hotel utica is up for sale to a buyer who wishes to turn it into section 8 housing!!!! This can not be the fate of this beautiful downtown building. We need some one who will buy this building and operate it so that it can be restored to its former glory.
Post a Comment