Local hotel owners are united in their opposition to the proposed four-story Holiday Inn Express that could become their new neighbor.
One by one, the owners gave their reasons why to the Town of Batavia Planning Board Tuesday night. They cited serious traffic concerns and opposed a building that would tower over others. They claimed another hotel would negatively impact their businesses and, ultimately, the local job market.
The proposed "franchise hotel" would have, according to architect Mark Tiedemann, of MWT Architecture, "...80 rooms with a small meeting room space along with a dining space/breakfast area and an indoor pool."
Developer Michael Patel was not present. He also owns the Hampton Inn in Batavia and is an investor in Chase Hotel Group.
"He doesn't live in our community -- he's not from the area," said a hotel owner.
More than one owner complained that the Hampton Inn continually undercuts the prices of its competitors, starting a "price war."
Rashi Dev, owner of the Comfort Inn in Batavia, said her hotel will be the most negatively affected if the Holiday Inn Express is erected at four stories high next to her two-story building.
Hotel owners agreed that demand for their services has dwindled in this troubled economy. Some have had to lay off a number of employees and they admitted working long shifts as their own front-desk attendants, even having to clean rooms.
"We're already overpopulated," said Vibhu Joshi, owner of Days Inn and Super 8. He explained that the number of hotels at exit 48 proves to be the highest concentration off the thruway from Syracuse to Pennsylvania.
"Currently, all the hotels here are struggling in a bad economy and this will hurt even more... the county and the state because the demand will not increase. The supply would be increasing."
The proposed project touts the creation of 19 jobs, but hotel owners questioned whether they are full or part time, and whether or not they will be seasonal. They also pointed out that Patel is known to "share" employees from facility to facility and said that the "new" jobs would most likely be given to those already employed at the Hampton Inn.
Dev informed the planning board of a few parking lot troubles she already encounters with her close proximity to the Hampton Inn, and asked that traffic and parking be looked into further. It was pointed out later by Tom Warth, of Hiscock and Barclay -- hired to represent the existing hotels, that the traffic studies should be conducted during the peak hotel season in the summertime.
Planning Board Chair Kathleen Jasinski tried to assure the concerned business owners that, "This is all so preliminary and it's the first the planning board is hearing of it tonight... If we need to have another public hearing on the matter, we will."
After listening to the genuine concerns and issues of the hotel owners and even a few hotel employees, Jasinski seemed certain that another public hearing will be scheduled at a later date.
The planning board agreed to serve as lead agency on the project and to go through the SEQR process beginning March 15 -- after the applicant provides a traffic study. Jasinski said she couldn't comment on whether the study would be considered adequate if it turns out it wasn't conducted during peak hotel season.
Besides parking and traffic, height was a big concern.
Tiedemann said the building's height shouldn't negatively affect those around it because westbound Thruway traffic can't see the buildings behind the Route 98 bridge anyway. And eastbound traffic would see it behind the others from the opposite direction.
Jasinski warned that, "Unfortunately, we deal with only the land use. We just determine whether or not the project is the right use for the land and that area. We are not involved in the economics -- they have already gone through that with the GCEDC and they've gotten their tax incentives and it's all worked out."
When Warth pointed out that, "Actually, they don't (have it all worked out) because they are waiting on the planning board."
Jasinski replied, "Well they are going to wait a little bit because we have a lot to do."
Although a 40-foot height variance was approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals, the project was incorrectly categorized as one not requiring a SEQR review. In fact, the zoning board cannot grant a variance until a SEQR is completed, so its decision is invalid.
"I don't see any reason to allow another hotel but just in case it turns out they have the right to be there, I would like to see that you don't give the varience for additional height," Joshi charged the planning board. "
"Show the reason - if there is supply and the need is there for a higher building, so be it... but why grant the unfair advantage when everyone else is at the same height? They are the ones getting tax benefits, they will lower all the rates to take the business from us and put us in jeopardy and they sell the bulding and run."
All I hear the owners saying
All I hear the owners saying is that Patel/Holiday Inn Express will offer a better product at a better price, so they should not be allowed "Inn".
That's contrary to every free enterprise concept that made this country as prosperous as it once was.
If we restricted all endeavors to "build a better mousetrap", we would still be driving horse drawn buggies - no need for a thruway OR the adjacent hotels.
Remove the tax breaks facilitated by the GCEDC (as well as the bogus windows project incentives) and let free enterprise reign.
Apparently the bone GCEDC threw to the windows projects was not enough to satisfy the existing hotel owners.
They also resent having to work in their businesses? Oh my! Cleaning their own guest rooms is SO below them!
Agreed, competition is
Agreed, competition is healthy not destructive so long as the playing field is level. The height of the hotel is not going to attract more people, the fact that it looks nicer might. And with all the signs in that area, you aren't going to miss another hotel because one is taller. If that was true the comfort inn (or whatever that one is named) would already have closed all the other hotels.
"They also resent having to
"They also resent having to work in their businesses? Oh my! Cleaning their own guest rooms is SO below them!"
You're missing their point entirely. I seriously doubt they resent doing those jobs but if they're focusing on any one given task typically done by an employee they aren't dealing with much of the "big picture" stuff, which is far more important.
I see the concern for the
I see the concern for the existing hotel owners and it is unfortunate that the Holiday Inn Express may hurt there businesses. My mom works for one of the local hotels that we already have(not saying which one) and she tells me that there is a constant shortage of work already. With this being said, I do feel bad that business isn't booming in our already existing hotels.
I agree that the new Holiday Inn Express potentially could hurt business but, it's like going in to a department store and choosing a toothbrush: Over a hundred different kinds to choose from, they all do the same thing, some are better than others, some look "cooler", than the rest but, when it comes down to it... People are going to choose what one they want to use.
Same with these hotels; Some look better than others, they all pretty much do the same thing but, people will choose which one they want to go to. I am opposed to the Holiday Inn Express comming to Batavia but, if it does, it's all what we make of it.
Here we go again. The
Here we go again. The government (Town of Batavia) considering sticking their nose where it doesn't belong, into the free enterprise system. What right does the government have to restrict competition? If this new hotel complies with all required criterion, then they have the legall right to build.
No existing business wants to see more compitition move in, but that's the free enterprise system, and that's what makes America tick.
If the government bows to the existing hotels and their wishes, it's just another step towards socialism.
All of your crying "free
All of your crying "free enterprise" seem to be forgetting that in order for this hotel to be built, it must (probably) get tax subsidies through GCEDC, and it needs a variance on height (to add more more) rooms. Without those government intrusions into the market, perhaps it doesn't get built.
Shouldn't the developers be required to compete on a level playing field, paying for the entire project on their own dime? And if there is such a crying need for more rooms, can't they just make do with 30 instead of 40? Why the need for the variance?
As we've reported before, the existing owners are saying they want to stifle competition. They want fair competition. Why is that wrong?
To an owner I've heard them say, it's OK if they build, but no tax abatement and no variances. That seems like a reasonable request when the market is already over saturated with hotel rooms.
"To an owner I've heard them
"To an owner I've heard them say, it's OK if they build, but no tax abatement and no variances. That seems like a reasonable request when the market is already over saturated with hotel rooms"
Couldn't have said it better myself Howard! That is exactly how I took the above article! If the current hotels can't fill their rooms & are having to deal with downsizing how as a community can we support another hotel that is asking us to pay for part of their build!
Howard, I agree with you, but
Howard,
I agree with you, but the GCEDC is giving help to another hotel for a water park.
If we are truly fair, either all get it, or none. I vote for none.
We've already been over the
We've already been over the Water Park issue, John, and my position hasn't changed. While I don't per se endorse such deals, they are the proverbial apples and oranges. One does not equal the other by a long shot. One, the water park, will help fill rooms (all boats will rise); the other (Holiday Inn) will empty rooms. There is simply no comparison between the two. The water park is absolutely no excuse to grant abatement to HI.
Howard: Please read my
Howard: Please read my original comment.
"Remove the tax breaks facilitated by the GCEDC (as well as the bogus windows project incentives) and let free enterprise reign."
I extend this sentiment to the water park as well.
How can you, a self proclaimed independent thinker with libertarian leanings, advocate ANY tax incentives (spelled government intervention)in the supposed furtherance of ANY business?? Shrink our bloated government and associated taxes and the private sector will thrive. It did before and, if allowed, will do so again.
I'm not advocating any tax
I'm not advocating any tax incentives. I said that pretty explicitly.
I just have a problem that
I just have a problem that this land is being used for another hotel with low paying jobs. We are giving tax breaks to another entity that will never produce more than a certain amount of jobs at a minimum rate of pay.I believe that these "shovel ready" properties should be for industries and manufacturers that will continue to grow, employ more local people and entice more business to our area.
Just musing, Isn't it ironic
Just musing,
Isn't it ironic that our fathers and grandfathers worked in factories with the hope that their children and grandchildren could do better and never have to follow their footsteps.
They succeeded far beyond their wildest dreams.
Now, we are looking for those same manufacturing plants to ensure that our children and grandchildren will have jobs in the future.
I mentioned the level playing
I mentioned the level playing field, and its my position that government interfered with a height restriction, not by lifting it.