Sorry, but I was astounded by the hypocracy.

Refocusing on the issue, it seems to me that there are two approximately separable questions:

1. Should a new, larger hotel be built on this site?

2. Should it be in part subsidized by the taxpayers?

I fully agree that (2) is outrageous. As a taxpayer I would much rather see money being spent on the decrepid schools, the collapsing infrastructure, and affordable housing for people who really need it, not trustafarian UCSC students driving around in Lexus SUVs.

As for (1) it isn't so clear. The current hotel is an expensive dump (I stayed there 6 years ago and it was pretty bad then) and really should be either fixed up or demolished. Personally I would prefer open space our housing for the homeless, but realistically, we need to maintain something of a tax base in this town. A well-designed hotel that is less of an eye-sore could actually be an asset. The public should not pay one penny to subsidize this, however.