SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum//index.php)
-   City Compilations (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum//forumdisplay.php?f=87)
-   -   SAN DIEGO | Boom Rundown, Vol. 2 (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum//showthread.php?t=126473)

Marina_Guy Oct 10, 2007 1:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keg92101 (Post 3096481)
What are you talking about??? The poroblem is that the TOT is SUPOSED to go back into tourism and it doesn't. The city keeps it for other purposes (overhead for Mike Aguirre's press conferences). The reason why the hotel industry did not want to raise TOT tax is that the city would spend it on things other than tourism. What the hotels have done is just like what we have in downtown. Create an assesment district to fund marketting for themselves. NO PROBLEM HERE. Its the only way you can actually get things done without the city wasting it away.

Excuse me, but TOT taxes are not for TOURISM... They are way to help pay for city services... Please read and learn. It should be an easy tax to get the citizens to support and remember tourists do impact city services. Just count how many fire trucks and ambulances go to the Manchester Grand Hyatt each month....


Transient Occupancy Tax:

Description: The Transient Occupancy Tax is a general tax imposed on occupants for the privilege of occupying room(s) in a hotel, motel, or inn.

Use of the revenues is unrestricted.

However, some cities budget a portion of the revenues for tourism and business development
purposes.

Authority: The authority to levy this tax is promulgated from the State Government Revenue and Taxation Code, more specifically, sections 7280 and 7281.

Overview: Cities may impose the transient occupancy tax on persons staying 30 days or less in a room(s) in a hotel, motel, inn, tourist home, non-membership campground or other lodging facility. Cities may also levy a tax on the privilege of renting a mobile home located outside a
mobile home park, unless such occupancy is for more than 30 days or unless the tenant is an employee of the owner.

According to the most recent survey available from the League of California Cities, transient occupancy tax rates ranged from 4 to 12 percent.

Nearly two-thirds (65.7 percent) of cities reported using their tax revenue as a general revenue for general fund purposes.

Currently, more than eighty (80) percent of cities in the state collect a transient occupancy tax.

Benefits of considering an increase in the Transient Occupancy Tax include placement of a larger portion of the tax burden to provide city services on transient visitors to the community. Residents benefit from this spreading of the costs of services over a larger tax base, including those visiting
the community, thereby lowering the cost of services to residents.

keg92101 Oct 10, 2007 3:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marina_Guy (Post 3102180)
Excuse me, but TOT taxes are not for TOURISM... They are way to help pay for city services... Please read and learn. It should be an easy tax to get the citizens to support and remember tourists do impact city services. Just count how many fire trucks and ambulances go to the Manchester Grand Hyatt each month....


Transient Occupancy Tax:

Description: The Transient Occupancy Tax is a general tax imposed on occupants for the privilege of occupying room(s) in a hotel, motel, or inn.

Use of the revenues is unrestricted.

However, some cities budget a portion of the revenues for tourism and business development
purposes.

Authority: The authority to levy this tax is promulgated from the State Government Revenue and Taxation Code, more specifically, sections 7280 and 7281.

Overview: Cities may impose the transient occupancy tax on persons staying 30 days or less in a room(s) in a hotel, motel, inn, tourist home, non-membership campground or other lodging facility. Cities may also levy a tax on the privilege of renting a mobile home located outside a
mobile home park, unless such occupancy is for more than 30 days or unless the tenant is an employee of the owner.

According to the most recent survey available from the League of California Cities, transient occupancy tax rates ranged from 4 to 12 percent.

Nearly two-thirds (65.7 percent) of cities reported using their tax revenue as a general revenue for general fund purposes.

Currently, more than eighty (80) percent of cities in the state collect a transient occupancy tax.

Benefits of considering an increase in the Transient Occupancy Tax include placement of a larger portion of the tax burden to provide city services on transient visitors to the community. Residents benefit from this spreading of the costs of services over a larger tax base, including those visiting
the community, thereby lowering the cost of services to residents.

I'm not arguing what it can be used for, or the definition of TOT. If you re-read the article, you'll find this quote:

That tax was originally established in the 1960s to fund tourism marketing, but City Hall has siphoned more and more of it for its general fund needs through the years

I agree that it should not be used strictly for tourism marketting, as these tourists use our services while they are here, and should pay for those services, but, funding the "general fund" has gotten so vague, the money has little impact on improving those services since those funds have to pay for areas that tourists don't use (like the suburbs).

keg92101 Oct 10, 2007 3:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marina_Guy (Post 3102180)

Benefits of considering an increase in the Transient Occupancy Tax include placement of a larger portion of the tax burden to provide city services on transient visitors to the community. Residents benefit from this spreading of the costs of services over a larger tax base, including those visiting
the community, thereby lowering the cost of services to residents.

2nd, we don't even pay for our own services (trash, etc..) if you live in a single family home.

Marina_Guy Oct 10, 2007 4:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keg92101 (Post 3102513)
2nd, we don't even pay for our own services (trash, etc..) if you live in a single family home.

My only point is that San Diegan's don't vote for new taxes. Right now the majority of San Diegans are cheap and conservative. TOT taxes are the easiest on the citiizen's pocket book... they don't pay them. Tourists do (and to some extent hotel operators ---) While we can try to squeeze more money out of the City... The simple fact is that there is not enough revenue to fund capital projects in the City. We will need more revenue. I don't think you will find anyone to disagree that the City is a fiscal and leadership mess, but it is also a infrastructure mess. One day we will have good leadership that will get the city in a place to invest and build again. I just find it sad that the Hotels are grabbing some funds that could be used for these efforts. By doing this 'marketing assessment' they will put the TOT inline with other markets and those funds will not be available to fund needed infrastructure. It is a cute end-around for the hotels.

SDCAL Oct 11, 2007 5:46 PM

TR Produce
 
can anyone give an update as to what is planning on going in there? I am very curious, is it some kind of secret? Perhaps anyone who can't say anything could at least say when something is supposed to go in?? :)

keg92101 Oct 11, 2007 6:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDCAL (Post 3105713)
can anyone give an update as to what is planning on going in there? I am very curious, is it some kind of secret? Perhaps anyone who can't say anything could at least say when something is supposed to go in?? :)

Someone here said a market, I just hope not Bristol Farms. That place is close to extortion, making Whole Foods seem like bargain basement!

keg92101 Oct 11, 2007 6:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marina_Guy (Post 3102550)
My only point is that San Diegan's don't vote for new taxes. Right now the majority of San Diegans are cheap and conservative. TOT taxes are the easiest on the citiizen's pocket book... they don't pay them. Tourists do (and to some extent hotel operators ---) While we can try to squeeze more money out of the City... The simple fact is that there is not enough revenue to fund capital projects in the City. We will need more revenue. I don't think you will find anyone to disagree that the City is a fiscal and leadership mess, but it is also a infrastructure mess. One day we will have good leadership that will get the city in a place to invest and build again. I just find it sad that the Hotels are grabbing some funds that could be used for these efforts. By doing this 'marketing assessment' they will put the TOT inline with other markets and those funds will not be available to fund needed infrastructure. It is a cute end-around for the hotels.

Would it require a city vote if trash services were charged to home owners? Even if, that may pass since anyone who lives in a condo, already pays for trash and would vote for SFH owners to pay for it as well.

Filambata Oct 12, 2007 1:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keg92101 (Post 3105879)
Would it require a city vote if trash services were charged to home owners? Even if, that may pass since anyone who lives in a condo, already pays for trash and would vote for SFH owners to pay for it as well.

If I remember correctly, there was an ordinance passed in the early 1900s prohibiting the City of San Diego from charging residents for trash collection. I don't remember the reason why. That ordinance will have to be repealed first before a fee can be assessed.

SDCAL Oct 12, 2007 2:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Filambata (Post 3106702)
If I remember correctly, there was an ordinance passed in the early 1900s prohibiting the City of San Diego from charging residents for trash collection. I don't remember the reason why. That ordinance will have to be repealed first before a fee can be assessed.

Since the "early 1900s" prohibition and segregation were repealed and the 19th ammendment giving women the right to vote was passed - so i'm sure SD could take the bold move of repealing a trash collection fee ordinance -

Derek Oct 13, 2007 5:32 PM

STRONG INTEREST SHOWN FROM MAJOR DEVELOPMENT TEAMS FOR CIVIC CENTER COMPLEX REDEVELOPMENT
SAN DIEGO, CA — The Centre City Development Corporation (CCDC), working on behalf of the City of San Diego, today received eight Statements of Qualifications from prospective development teams interested in exploring a possible redevelopment of San Diego’s Civic Center Complex. A complete list of teams is included at the end of this release.

Teams from throughout the United States and Canada submitted. A diverse selection committee will convene by the end of October to review the proposals and short-list the teams to two to three finalists by the end of November.

“We are very pleased with the strong interest and response to this development opportunity,” said CCDC President Nancy Graham. “This demonstrates a vote of confidence in the San Diego real estate market. The selection committee’s next step will be to identify the two or three strongest development teams and then CCDC will begin the extensive public outreach process.”

The finalists will participate in a series of public meetings to be held throughout the city to share their prior development experiences and listen to public feedback, questions and ideas. Final proposals from all firms are currently scheduled to be due in mid-2008. Each finalist will be expected to incorporate ideas and suggestions gained from these public meetings into submitted plans.

Currently, San Diego’s City Administration Building accommodates only 600 employees, and the City has had to lease privately owned space for more than 15 years. City offices are now located within eight downtown buildings (four leased), representing more than one half million square feet of leased space.

Collectively, more than 3,000 employees work in these properties, which comprise annual leasing costs of $13.5 million. Deferred maintenance on the City Administration Building alone is estimated to exceed well above $10 million. Because most of the leases will come due in 2013 and 2014 and rates are projected to increase significantly, this RFQ is seen as a proactive approach to evaluate possible costs savings through redeveloping the site.

The RFQ process will include a thorough financial evaluation to ensure that a project would move forward only if it could clearly demonstrate a significant reduction in operational and capital costs to the City. Similar public/private partnership projects include the new city hall in Austin, Texas, and state-of-the-art courthouse facilities in New York City.

Goals of the RFQ include:
• Revitalizing the city’s civic core
• Catalyzing private sector development in the Civic Center area
• Providing more accessible public spaces
• Providing smart growth transit-oriented development
• Opening B Street, closed to pedestrian and vehicular traffic for 40 years
• Replacing aging infrastructure
• Constructing a more publicly accessible City Hall
• Increasing tax increment revenues generated to the City
• Utilizing sustainable development techniques.

HurricaneHugo Oct 13, 2007 7:28 PM

Nice.

spoonman Oct 14, 2007 7:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek loves SD (Post 3109996)
• Opening B Street, closed to pedestrian and vehicular traffic for 40 years


I would love to see the grid restored as much as possible.

sandiegodweller Oct 15, 2007 11:10 PM

STRONG INTEREST SHOWN FROM MAJOR DEVELOPMENT TEAMS FOR CIVIC CENTER COMPLEX REDEVELOPMENT

SAN DIEGO, CA — The Centre City Development Corporation (CCDC), working on behalf of the City of San Diego, today received eight Statements of Qualifications from prospective development teams interested in exploring a possible redevelopment of San Diego’s Civic Center Complex. A complete list of teams is included at the end of this release.




You missed an important part of the story, the actual applicants. It will be interesting to see if any of these groups can put together multi-billion dollar financing.

Sonnenblick-Del Rio Development, Inc., Los Angeles, CA

Gerding Edlen Development, Portland, OR

Kosene & Kosene Residential, Indianapolis, IN

Hines, Houston, TX

Thomas Properties Group, Inc., Los Angeles, CA

Douglas Wilson Companies, San Diego, CA

Lankford & Associates, Inc., San Diego, CA

Plenary Group, Vancouver, BC

Derek Oct 15, 2007 11:22 PM

Thanks for the additional information.

HurricaneHugo Oct 21, 2007 1:44 AM

So I saw a new crane pop up on the north side of Market, which project is this?

keg92101 Oct 21, 2007 3:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HurricaneHugo (Post 3117229)
So I saw a new crane pop up on the north side of Market, which project is this?

16th & Market. Affordable housing...

Derek Oct 21, 2007 4:54 PM

Found an interesting piece on Wikipedia. I think this may be Lane Field, but I'm not too sure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embarcadero_Circle

bmfarley Oct 21, 2007 6:04 PM

Well, since we're into a lull, listing interesting links may now be in vogue..., and we sometimes discuss politics here.... Here's a San Diego political blog I just landed on...

San Diego Politico

Derek Oct 21, 2007 9:21 PM

Firestorm 2007 has officially started.

:no:

bmfarley Oct 21, 2007 9:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek loves SD (Post 3118420)
Firestorm 2007 has officially started.

:no:

early prediction; arson


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:42 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.