$640.00 to fill the tanks...

How is this =really= different from WalMart jumping in and crushing all
the local stores? Think for a moment.


Because the City built the hotel complex only after shopping the idea
around to all the big-box hotel chains -- and failing. [...]
...they knew there was no way to net a return on their investment
within their lifetimes.

That makes it a bad business decision on the city's part.

So, the Mayor of Coralville and his cronies [...] simply decided to
build it themselves, and lease it back to Marriott Corporation.

[Marriott] got a brand, new $60 million hotel for ZERO
investment, and don't have to worry about paying ANYTHING but a monthly
lease.

I think Marriott typically leases space and runs hotels that way. At
least that's the way it is here.

It's a hotelier's dream -- and a taxpayer's nightmare.

The taxpayer gets a lease payment out of the deal, and doesn't have to
worry whether or not the hotel makes money.

There simply is no law prohibiting a city from building a
hotel, and calling it "urban development", in Iowa.

This is similar (from my POV) to a city building a sports complex, for
the Olympics.

WalMart only builds where they think they can make a profit.
Governments don't CARE about profit -- after all, it's not *their*
money. THAT is the difference, and that is why a government-owned
hotel is "unfair"...and Walmart isn't.

Governments don't care about profit - true. But that's not why it's
"unfair". In my eyes, what makes government-run businesses unfair is
that there is no separation of powers between those who make the laws
and the government business that has to follow them.

However, other big businesses get cozy with government too, winning tax
concessions which are just as good as free investment money. Government
lures business promising homeowners that it expands the tax base (and
keeps the mill rate down), but then it gives tax abatements and zoning
conessions and special considerations which nullify these putative
benefits to the homeowners. These concessions would be very difficult,
or even impossible, for a small business to get.

This is equally cozy in my view. But it is not labeled "communism",
wheras the former is.

I'm not fighting here, I'm just trying to see whether you have a zebra,
or just a horse in stripes.

Walmart had agreed to pay our airport $3.2 million for that
land -- which would have made our airport debt-free...

.... which sounds good until the first plane crashes on the roof killing
seventy five people, and then there is a call to close the airport.
There's a reason airports (should) have buffer zones. You should know
it better than most.

The anti-Walmart crowd is successfully using the courts to stifle free
enterprise -- ANY free enterprise -- that they think is "unsuitable".
Somehow these self-annointed saviors believe that the unwashed masses
who flock to Walmart every day aren't capable of making these decisions
for themselves, and must be led toward the light. It's sickening.)

That's mighty theatrical talk. What exactly did they sue to prevent?

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.