!cid_B5B69742-B659-4511-98FB-369B46259214@midco

Hotel Sign from the new Sanford Hospital Hotel.

As I was watching the press conference for the announcement of a RFP for a new downtown mixed use parking ramp, Darrin Smith presented several projects that have been done DT and around town. He also brought up the proposed hotel at Elmwood golf course, you know the one that for some reason taxpayers have to help build (still don’t know why the city needs to be in the lodging business, I guess probably for the same reason we are involved in indoor tennis, indoor pools and indoor hockey.)

!cid_7351E005-AF5A-42E9-97E3-462F3E6F163D@midco

The proposed Elmwood Hotel

What I found curious is that the same ‘brand’ is going to be at Elmwood as at Sanford. Is this just mere coincidence, or does Sanford have their hands in the hotel deal at Elmwood, and maybe that is why the city is going to be an investor?

See, Sanford runs the hotels at the Sanford Sports Complex and at the Hospital. Will they have a partnership at the golf course to offer some kind of golfing perk to visitors at their ‘other’ hotels?

Not sure?

I also find it a bit odd that the city has to invest in this project. I think a better approach (especially for the taxpayer’s wallets) would to have the hotel built and ran privately and they can lease the land from the city. Why do we need to be involved with building and investing in a hotel?

Am I missing something here?

4 Thoughts on “Coincidence?

  1. Dan Daily on November 27, 2014 at 2:51 am said:

    There’s not enough hotel rooms in the city. The city’s approach is to build a hotel. Actually 2 hotels. (another at the airport). Realistically, hotel franchisees will not build in city limits because they can’t compete with a city owned hotel that doesn’t have to pay sales and lodging taxes (28%). There are hotels under construction or proposed at Hartford & Brandon where land is cheaper and penalty taxes are low. Also, these cities recognize it’s an antitrust violation for municipalities to engage in commercial enterprise. They’ll not have a millions deficit from federal lawsuits and 7 figure city attorney budgets. Something Sioux Falls might eventually learn is fundamental common sense and steering budget into infrastructure instead of legal expenses thin air.

  2. Ol'Bubbleguts on November 29, 2014 at 11:05 am said:

    My old hometown (80% on .gov assistance)where
    the only people who work are state employees (state capitol and all ya follah?)who come to work and GTFO of dodge as soon as they punch out
    built hotels twice.BOTH BUILT by their version of LLOYD properties.A squirrely theiving DELETED.They didn’t learn from the holiday inn in the 70’s that failed and wound up being turned into a parking garage for state workers after 20 years being empty and unused.They built another one around the 2000’s that has saddled them with so much debt and was sold for a song.Read all about it and how the bonds will never be paid.
    Search for Trenton and Lafayette Yard.

    In Art and Labor and Iconoclasticity
    OBG

  3. I think what you have is someone being lazy & using the Home 2 image as what the Fairway Suites might look like. Sanford doesn’t “run” any of these hotels. The one at the airport is the Ramkota/Regency guys, the one at Elmwood is the Kansas City group, the one at SSC & the Home 2 on their main campus are both TMI hospitality out of Fargo.

  4. Taxpayer on December 1, 2014 at 2:30 pm said:

    There are two factors regarding the EC which Mike Huether and Team hope taxpayers have a short memory about.

    First, that the Convention Center business is THE MAJOR TENANT of the EC, and second, in order for the convention business to be successful a SECOND ON-SITE HOTEL MUST BE BUILT.

    This is what the pro formas were built on. And these are the assumptions that both EC consultants hired by the City based their recommendations on. (CSL hired by the 2009 EC Task Force and AECOM hired by MMM and Team)

    This is what was sold to taxpayers prior to the public vote. Remember all those Educational sessions MMM and Team did before the vote, they repeatedly stated the Convention Center would be the major tenant and not to worry someone would come forward to built that second on-site hotel.

    Since there has been no interest expressed by anyone to build that second ON-SITE hotel, is it possible MMM is going to try to sell taxpayers on the idea that the hotel on the grounds of the Elmwood Golf Course is an adequate replacement for what both consultants recommended?

    BTW, I wonder how the major tenant, the Convention Center, is doing in booking convention business? They’re certainly are being awfully quiet about it!!

Post Navigation