Compromise on the Hotel Issue

I have been a proponent for limiting (okay, banning) new hotels in the downtown area.

During the debate, two opposing positions have emerged. One is to create zoning that would stiffen the approval process (via conditional use permits, or CUPs) for new hotels. This would give the City leeway to demand from developers features that would benefit the city. It would also increase public input into the process. The second is to allow new hotels downtown openly as we do now, but insist on retail space downstairs. 

Most of what we could ask of larger developments (a convention center, low income housing etc) is not tenable downtown and so I came to the opinion that CUPs were just a way to keep the door open for more and more hotels. And until recently, I was under the false impression that CUPs could not specify the exact kind of retail that would be included. If in fact this is true, then this idea is worth discussing.

If I had to narrow down our anti-hotel argument to its strongest most agreeable point, it would be this. We should not allow more hotels until we have learned first-hand the impacts of the many hotels coming online right now. Are there "unintended consequences" to doubling (and then some) the number of hotel rooms in town? We are assuming that there will be many -and fear that many will be negative.

Ironically, the concern about ‘unintended consequences’ is the main argument I have heard being made against a hotel ban. Some see the value in preserving small town charm and retail diversity downtown, but are concerned that a hotel ban would stifle the economy in various, unintended ways. 

It seems to me that we are all in agreement that unintended consequences are scary, and regardless of our course, somewhat inevitable.

I understand that the idea of a ban could be considered toxic in terms of keeping options open for beneficial development.  Many feel it is too black and white. Some say 'draconian' -oh my! 

But there are grave and widespread concerns about growth among the towns folk. If our city council were to vote against our proposed ban on new hotels downtown, they could be unfairly branded as being “pro tourism” to the detriment of local interests. They could easily pay a harsh political price.  

Regardless, growth is coming. Wouldn't it be prudent to enact a 'pause' on additional hotels, since we don't know what will be the result from the ones coming up now? 

Here is what I propose. Even though there are important concerns about Saggio and the North Village (potentially 250 rooms, but outside of the main town space) let's hold off allowing new hotels until after Replay is built, plus one year, in order to experience the impacts. At that time, we would hold three large public input sessions to help the city council determine if the limits should be lifted (a simply majority vote of the Council) or extended. 

This approach is empirical, open ended and fair. The process is lengthy, but we should not rush decisions that will have effects on our community for many decades to come. 

Are you with me?