Local hoteliers are so opposed to a planned Holiday Inn Express -- just north of the Thruway, off Route 98 in the Town of Batavia -- that they've hired a lawyer to make their case to local officials.
Thomas J. Warth (pictured), of Hiscock & Barclay out of Rochester, tried to make the case against the new hotel before the Town of Batavia Zoning Board on Tuesday night. But after a spirited discussion, the board voted unanimously to grant the new hotel permission to exceed local height requirements by 10 19 feet.
With local occupancy rates averaging 45 to 50 percent, hotel owners say there is no need to build another 40, let alone maybe 80, rooms (the final plans have not been presented yet).
The $3.25-million project, located at 8360 Commerce Drive, next to an existing Hampton Inn, will make use of a banquet facility already constructed at the location and include an indoor pool, fitness area, lobby and meeting space.
The developers are seeking tax incentives from the Genesee Economic Development Center. The proposed site is part of a previously prepared industrial park, so the developer will save on construction costs by going into a "shovel ready" complex.
The government-backed cost savings, combined with variances to current zoning laws, are giving the new competition too much help, local hotel operators complain.
"Why can't they live with a 40-foot height if we can survive with a 40-foot height?" asked Vibhu Joshi, owner of Days Inn and Super 8. "The new hotel is getting all kinds of goodies and all kinds of variances. I can see maybe a use variance, but why a height variance?"
Hotel owners are concerned that the height variance will allow the developer to put in even more rooms, though it wasn't clear from the application whether the additional 19 feet was for another story on the building (making it four instead of three) or if the extra height was just needed for elevator shafts.
"The additional rooms in this marketplace will have a significant impact on everybody else," said Richard Lewis, acting manager of the Travel Lodge, which recently underwent significant renovation.
Zoning Board Chairman Gary Diegelman mentioned a couple of times during the meeting that economic issues are not part of the zoning approval process. He said the owners will need to raise those concerns with the planning board, which will have final say on the variances.
Warth argued that even economic issues aside, the developer -- who was not represented at the meeting -- has not made a case for why the height variance is needed.
Diegelman said, "point taken," but added later, "I don't see any (neighboring) businesses here objecting to the height variance."
The project will go before the planning board at a future meeting, but that agenda has not been announced yet.
I guess I'd be pretty upset
I guess I'd be pretty upset if I ran a hotel and paid my taxes year after year and then had the GCEDC give some of that money to help a competitor build a new, better facility.
DAve, I didn't think of
DAve,
I didn't think of it quite that way. Thanks.
I thought they might not appreciate the competition that a Holiday Inn Express might put up.
The Clarion Hotel is getting
The Clarion Hotel is getting tax breaks also. While I don't think any break should be given, if one gets it, then the other should be able to also.
I don't think competition will hurt.
John, isn't it getting a tax
John, isn't it getting a tax break to build a water park?
Not endorsing that tax incentive either, but it's hardly apples to apples.
I'm not liking the idea of
I'm not liking the idea of giving tax incentives to build a new structure that will be competing with already established businesses.
If they want to use their own money to come in and compete, that's fine, but tax money comes from everywhere and when you give a tax incentive the rest of us have to pick up the slack. Essentially, you'd be asking the existing hotels to help fund the tax incentive for their competition....does that make sense?
I think we'd be having a different conversation if the existing hotels were running at 85% capacity year round, but they're not.
Good points Chris, also if
Good points Chris, also if the existing hotels were running at 85%, Holiday Inn Express would build regardless of any incentives.
May be the hotels here run at
May be the hotels here run at 40% to 50% because the business here put people up by the airport in Rochester or Buffalo so they can stay somewhere clean?
Howard, Correct, the Clarion
Howard,
Correct, the Clarion tax break is for a water park, attached to and run by the hotel. We agree that no tax breaks should be given, but it one gets it, then both should.
Chris,
This water park being given tax breaks also competes with exsiting motels. Where would you rather stay, the old ones or the one with the water park?
John, first, I'm not blanket
John, first, I'm not blanket against all tax incentives to stimulate business. I understand the philosophical argument against, but in some cases believe there can be an actual community benefit.
In general, providing aid to start a new branch of business that doesn't directly compete with established, locally owned businesses doesn't bother me too much.
This isn't a case of "if one gets it so should be the other" because the other is looking for tax breaks to establish a business in a crowded market where no economic need or improvement has been shown (yet).
The Clarion issue is as unrelated from the Holiday Inn Express issue as the sun is from Pluto.
The HIE developers will reap a substantial economic advantage funded by taxpayers to the detriment of established, tax-paying businesses.
Perhaps there needs to be more competition from newer, nicer hotels, but the competition should be on a level playing field.
The Clarion isn't creating anything that will compete with any other local business, except perhaps Darien Lake, but I see it as being more complimentary than competitive. It's conceivable, if successful, that the Clarion project will help fill existing rooms rather than empty them.
Howard, When that water park
Howard,
When that water park is built, it is my guess that it will hurt the other hotels near it. If they want a water park, fine, but don't ask for a tax break.
I think it will help the
I think it will help the other hotels, if successful.
If the Clarion is booked, who do you think gets the overflow?
If you're a family of four who wants to enjoy the water park, but can't afford the Clarion, where are you going to stay?
If you're a family of four
If you're a family of four who wants to enjoy the water park, but can't afford the Clarion, where are you going to stay?"
Days inn or Super 8, the Holiday Inn Express will be well over $100 per night at that time of year
Why should the GCEDC be
Why should the GCEDC be involved in this anyways..Most of the jobs that it will create will be mininum wage type jobs..The other hotels will probably lay off some of their hired help because of lost of business..So where will the net gain in jobs be..The whole idea of GCEDC is to create jobs,if they can't show a net gain in these hotel jobs then no help from them should be needed..
I'm with Mark. The quality
I'm with Mark. The quality of jobs and the economic impact on surrounding businesses should be taken into account before handing out free money.
This is a situation where the company should spend its own money if they want to enter the market.
Chris, You are right. I just
Chris,
You are right. I just think that the water park should not get GCEDC month either.
I'm also with Mark and Chris,
I'm also with Mark and Chris, a new hotel will probably not create new jobs, they'll just shuffle. John; although I generally disagree with corporate welfare, I'll go along with Howard that it sometimes can be helpful. Theoretically the water park will add jobs, because of people needed to operate it. So it's not the same thing.
Dave, To me, corporate
Dave,
To me, corporate welfare is corporate welfare. You might support one project and I might support another, but it is all corporate welfare.
And while the water park might create some new jobs, they are most likely to be minimum wage, just like the new hotel will be.
True enough, John. I can see
True enough, John. I can see where it may be helpful in certain situations, but the only fair solution is none.
Also, you're right they will probably be low paying jobs. But can you see where the water park brings additional jobs, while a new hotel will cause other hotels to reduce staff thereby creating a very low or zero net gain?
In any event, not worth taxpayers money, in my opinion.
Minimum wage will be the
Minimum wage will be the starting pay, with experience, not much more and for management...usually owner/ family operated. Not much room for advancement. This will affect the occupancy/profit margins of the existing ones which will in turn affect the current staff. So for me, I think this is a horrible time to allow another hotel to come in. These Hoteliers sink millions of dollars into their properties to make improvements as well as general upkeep not to mention the franchise "requirements" and petty upgrades that nickle and dime them upon each 6 month inspection. If they do not comply with these requirements, they're fined. So can you blame them for not wanting additional competition?
Not to long ago there was talk of the Batavia Downs building hotel suites on site? What ever happened with this? At the time of that news, I felt this would hurt the existing hotels. There should be a strong connection between the Downs and all of the hotels by offering Shuttles and package deals. Of course each individual person can chose their own package based on their affordability or preference. Start a shuttle bus service business that will create jobs at the same time. Once this is successful and there is "room demand"...then, bring in new options.
The Chamber does a wonderful job in promoting our county as well as the neighboring ones, they work hard to bring in tour buses as well as offering training to the front line staff of hotels to teach them how to promote our area. This is all free of charge to chamber members. The front line staff is key as they are the ones who speak directly to the "out of town" guests. Perhaps the GCEDC and or the planning board should then implement a new "law/requirement" for the new hotel to employ and maintain a certain number of year round staff, part time etc. etc..also to require their staff to hold training certificates through the Chamber to ensure they are properly promoting other local business's. In fact... all hotels should be required to do this. Just a thought.