If you are looking for sound analysis of the issues surrounding the proposed Convention Center hotel development that Dallas residents will vote on this coming Saturday, read what John Greenan writes here.
John serves as the Executive Director of the Central Dallas Community Development Corporation.
As usual, you'll find his insights smart and on-target.
To vote for the hotel, vote NO on the ballot!
.
2 comments:
I am surprised at your position.
I look at the lost opportunity cost of what $500M -- spent in a more productive way might to for justice, jobs, etc.
Aside from the fact that no matter what we do, we are probably not going to get more conventions. I am remembering all of the times we have added to the convention center with the promise that it would get us more conventions.
There is a great article from Seattle -- excerpt and link below about why 9 of 10 big bucks projects are a problem:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/dannywestneat/2009123442_danny26.html?syndication=rss
What's so controversial about Flyvbjerg's research is not his documenting cost overruns. It's his effort to show why public projects are so chronically out of whack.
It's not technical challenges or complexity or bad luck, he asserts. If that were so, you'd get more variation in how it all turns out. He concludes the backers of these projects suffer from two main maladies.
One is "delusional optimism" — they want it so badly, they can't see its flaws. I know about this firsthand from when I supported the monorail.
The second is worse: They knowingly are lying to the public."
Thanks for the post, Lorlee. While I don't agree with you, I do appreciate your expressing your ideas. Like most other big projects, the alternative best use of funds argument doesn't stand up because those funds wouldn't and won't be appropriated for the sorts of things you (and usually I) would be in favor of. What I like is the advantages of the funding sources (see Larry Hamilton essay above), the new jobs and the spurred activity Downtown.
Post a Comment