Let us stay on topic, or we will be undermining this online community. Becky raises excellent points about the Coast Santa Cruz Hotel.

If the owner wants to replace this eyesore, let the owner pay. If this private project can't be accomplished with private money, it isn't economically viable. There's no compelling public benefit (e.g. low-income housing) and so there should be no public money.

Council's idea of manipulating the hotel market to create a conference-based economy is nuts. To have conferences you need lots of large hotels. I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to building some new hotels, but I know that my city council members and my neighbors have a bad record when it comes to letting things be built. A conference-based economy revolves around minimum wage jobs, so it is not "economic development" anyway.

As for public-private partnerships, there's always a loophole. In Pittsburgh, where I attended university, two heavily subsidized department stores are walking right now.

A Lazarus (Macys) store was built with $50 million of public funds and $20 million of private funds. The public money included an $18 million loan. Federated Department Stores doesn't have to pay it back, because sales have been too low! Federated is closing the store after just 5 years. [ See "Lease lets Lazarus leave...", www.post-gazette.com/neigh_city/20030904lazarus0904p1.asp ]

A Lord and Taylor store was opened with the help of an $12 million public loan. May Company doesn't have to pay it back, again because sales have been too low. May Company is closing the store after just 3 years. [ See "Taxpayers may find they cosigned...", www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/pittsburgh/s_147313.html ]

Elsewhere on Indymedia I am endorsing a private development (affordable apartments at 250 Cardiff Place). Assuming that zoning, environmental, and other regulations are followed, private development is great -- if done with private money.

P.S.: What is wrong with the Boardwalk ride? What did the Planning Department (non-political), as opposed to the Planning Commission (political), say? Should city government really be spending its time on such a silly issue?