Print this story | E-mail story | This story has 32 comments Add your own | iPod friendly
Small print won't stop most folks
Published Sunday, June 1, 2008
My finger hovered over the computer’s mouse button last week in a rare “slow down” moment.
I’d just plugged in a bunch of standard information into a Web site to secure a hotel room for an upcoming business trip.
Arrival date.
One adult.
Non-smoking.
No preference on bed size.
Checkout date.
Picked the lowest rate and was about to hit the “submit” button when a rare occurrence happened: I read the small print at the bottom of the page.
Under a small, discrete heading of “Tax & Service Charges” details of a 13-percent room tax were subtly revealed.
Now what’s interesting is that I’ve stayed at this same hotel at least a dozen times on business in the last several years and not once have I ever stopped to consider the tax.
But last week was different because I’d been hearing from readers about the proposed $2 per night hotel assessment tax, and I’d driven past several of the illegally posted signs promoting passage of the tax.
First, calling the proposal a “hotel assessment fee” is dumb. Natchez voters are smart enough to know that whatever you call it, the $2 “fee” is really a $2 “tax.”
If you’re highly opposed to any and all taxes, you should probably vote no on the tax proposal on Tuesday’s City of Natchez general election.
But if you’re a least a bit more intelligent than all of those folks who just adamantly say, “No taxes, ever” then trying to learn about the tax is in order before Tuesday’s vote.
In simple terms, the $2 per bed, per night tax would be dedicated to marketing Natchez. That makes sense as it utilizes the visitors who are already coming to help generate marketing funds to bring more folks here.
The tax is estimated to generate approximately $400,000 in new marketing funds. Amazingly that would increase the current marketing budget to five times its current level.
The city’s marketing budget is woefully under-funded. A big cause is previous administrations funneled money originally earmarked to promote tourism to fund debt instead.
The legislation authorizing the proposed hotel tax is clear that funds should be used for marketing and even outlines a committee that will oversee the spending.
Not having that committee’s make-up picked early in the lobbying phase was a mistake.
Worse, up until just a few days ago tourism tax proponents didn’t seem to have a good plan for how, exactly, they’d spend all the new money.
That was a mistake, too.
Having both a plan and knowing the people who will make spending decisions would have taken away some risk in the minds of the voters.
So the fact that the proponents of the marketing tax have done a poor job of marketing, coupled with the city’s track record to figuring out a way to dip into earmarked funds whenever they want to scares the heck out of me.
But those mistakes and concerns don’t make the need to market Natchez better go away. It just makes passing the tax more difficult.
Many local businesses have larger marketing budgets than the current city marketing budget and that’s pretty sad.
Natchez needs the new tax to help promote more tourism. And the best part is that the tax doesn’t “cost” many locals as it only hits hotel patrons.
Fortunately most travelers don’t think twice about clicking the “submit” button on a reservation without reading the small print.
Kevin Cooper is publisher of The Natchez Democrat. He can be reached at 601-445-3539 or kevin.cooper@natchezdemocrat.com.
Comments
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on June 1, 2008 at 2:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The city's marketing fund is woefully under funded, as was pointed out by one of the Democrat's earlier articles that stated Mr. Reuther laughed when heard the marketing budget was only 150,000.00 a year. What else about us does Mr. Reuther find laughable? So Mr. Reuther, if one follows the trail of articles leading to this tax proposal, has come to town to teach the country folk the rudiments; the same Mr. Reuther who has failed in one previous venture due to monetary conflicts with a former partner.
The legislation authorizing the proposed hotel tax is clear that funds should be used for marketing and even outlines a committee that will oversee the spending. It is clear, isn’t it?
In the language of the bill, "The advisory committee's duties shall be to coordinate the research, planning and ultimate recommendation annually to the commission of an appropriate marketing/advertising promotion plan to effectively increase overnight visitation and tourism in the City of Natchez."
What could be clearer than that? We all know what marketing is don’t we? And we know what advertising is don’t we? They are both the same thing aren’t they?
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on June 1, 2008 at 2:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
We all know what water is too don’t we?
Sen. Bob Dearing, author of another local bill, the one creating the St. Catherine Creek Utility Authority doesn’t think so. While in one bill he trusts you to define marketing, in another he takes great pains to describe what water is…something we deal with every day of our lives.
In SB 3208 Sen. Dearing tells us, "Water" means potable water, surface water and groundwater.” More, while it is generally believed the Creek Authority was created to serve Rentech “The authority is composed of the geographic area of Adams County for the purpose of acquiring property for economic development….”
As far as the bed tax bill, Sen. Dearing saw fit to explain a little more “The enumeration of any specific rights and powers contained in this section where followed by general powers shall not be construed in a restrictive sense, but shall be construed as broadly and comprehensively as possible to effectuate the purposes of this act.”
Under the tax bill, marketing can be anything the Advisory Committee deems it. A 1200.00 dollar dinner for a Natchez representative and two out of town travel writers or a trip for four to Aspen to meet with tourism officials there. If Sen. Dearing can define water, he can define marketing. If he can propose to tax tourists, he can propose to tax those who will profit most off them.
The language used in legislation is extremely important. It is written that way for a reason. When SB 3101 was written, the bill was already set up to allow management transfer of the convention center from public to private.
From illegal use of public property to push political agenda, to use of a public facility to push the same agenda with no report of any remuneration to the public who built the facility come legitimate reason for concern. Even we unintelligent folk would rather be partners than patsies. And small print most definitely will stop us.
Posted by texasranger (anonymous) on June 1, 2008 at 2:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If you have a band playing somebody always has to pay the fiddler. Why is it always the working man? Gas isn,t a problem if you have the money to pay for it. Taxes aren,t a problem if you can pass it on to the ones who pay most of the taxes. Who really haven,t much of a choice anyway.
Posted by texasranger (anonymous) on June 1, 2008 at 2:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The small print is where they put the charges you always pay for later. Like AT&T and Direct TV. You get a service from either one and your bill eases up after you sign, then you go back and read the small print.
Posted by fatherof4 (anonymous) on June 1, 2008 at 6:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Why not just use some of the profits, that us taxpayers, are making from our multi-millon dollar investment of the convention center.
Posted by blackwood (anonymous) on June 1, 2008 at 7:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Thanks Kevin. I think this small tax is a great big step in the right direction for Natchez.
Marc Blackwood
Posted by gemccull (Gary McCullars) on June 1, 2008 at 9:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I have noticed that money to be generated from the four (4) new hotels has not been mentioned. I guess that money is not available for marketing/advertising??
Posted by NatchezEnema (anonymous) on June 1, 2008 at 10:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I think it should be a red flag to everyone that the same people that did a poor job of getting a business plan in place and marketing this new tax are the same people pushing it and telling us how and where it needs to be spent. They don't have their ducks in a row and have already hinted around that people don't trust them. I WONDER WHY?
Posted by fatherof4 (anonymous) on June 1, 2008 at 11:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Why not put a 50 cent tax on every newspaper sold. Its only 50 cents. That would add some extra for city to spend on advertisment.
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on June 1, 2008 at 1:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Chick,
The wording of the bill says "the financial plan adopted by the commission shall be submitted to and approved by the Mayor and Board of Aldermen..."
That should read "the financial plan adopted by the commission shall be submitted to the Mayor and Board of Aldermen for approval or rejection..." The possiblity of a lawsuit is written into the bill as is and sure as day breaks someone is going to take advantage of it.
Then, the NCVB crew presided over the sinking of the first voyage of the convention ship, with the captain abandoning the foundering vessel to his capable crew in favor of a new position with Hotel Consultants..taking with him a city check for 240,000 to do the job he abandoned when working in the public interest, This does not inspire confidence.
Thanks,
Marty Ellerbe
Posted by redusmfan (anonymous) on June 1, 2008 at 9:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
No new taxes EVER!!! It will be just like any other tax, it will be earmarked for one thing and 3 years from now, they will be using it for their pet project of the month.....
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on June 1, 2008 at 9:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
EnK...the language you cited would REQUIRE the action of the BOA if changed to your wording...no politician is going to paint him/herself into that kind of corner...it's just human nature...only in utopia would that occur...it's also common contract law language...all of my contracts say, "...will be submitted to the architect for approval"...the language has been tested for years...it stands up...I think this is a nit you're picking at, this time...LOL.
BTW..."shall" is the word that is more worrisome..."will" is more to the point and leaves no room for discretion...at least, that's what my lawyer says...maybe your's doesn't...ain't life grand?
Funny aside...had a lawyer wish me a "Great Day"...I started thinking...hmm, his job is to go to work everyday to make someone else have a bad day...I'm just glad he likes me so far...LOL.
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on June 1, 2008 at 9:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
redusmfan...you're correct to be skeptical, but in this case the need is clear and so is the language, go vote and you'll see that there is no doubt in the wording. I would normally side with you, but I think this one is necessary.
Posted by fire39212 (anonymous) on June 1, 2008 at 10:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If this $2 tax is passed then what is next? How much next time?
This is so true
Posted by NatchezEnema (anonymous) on June 1, 2008 at 10:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I think it should be a red flag to everyone that the same people that did a poor job of getting a business plan in place and marketing this new tax are the same people pushing it and telling us how and where it needs to be spent. They don't have their ducks in a row and have already hinted around that people don't trust them. I WONDER WHY?
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on June 1, 2008 at 11:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
fire...I agree with you that we should be attentive and judicious about any new tax, but this particular one is worthy...if another tax comes up, I'll evaluate it on it's merits just as I have this one and I'll be with you 100% (pre-tax) in opposing it if it isn't warranted and justified...in fact, it is rare that a tax has such a specific and justified purpose...I wish they all could be voted on.
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on June 1, 2008 at 11:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sam, the way that bill is written now, the BOA must approve the NCVB decision. It removes all responsibility from all elected officials.
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on June 2, 2008 at 12:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
EnK...if the BOA has to approve NCVB decisions aren't they responsible?...and, in so far as I understand the initiative, the NCVB isn't in control, the advisory group advises the BOA, but the BOA and Mayor sign off...something wrong with that accountability?
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on June 2, 2008 at 12:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
No, because by law they have to approve it. And yes, what it wrong is control of public money by unelected board.
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on June 2, 2008 at 12:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The mayor only has a voice if the aldermen split on approval. And that will never happen. Because they appointed the NCVB.
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on June 2, 2008 at 12:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This was written by the casinos and hotels.
Posted by texasranger (anonymous) on June 2, 2008 at 12:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Why not put a tax on the hotel tax? ,just one more tax and everything will be much better.
Posted by texasranger (anonymous) on June 2, 2008 at 12:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Put another tax on gasoline,It will help too.
Posted by beammeupscotty (anonymous) on June 2, 2008 at 7:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Shake down the tourists and leave the locals alone. After this tax passes I want a tax to help lower my car tag. Anyone with an out of county car tag $2.00 an out of state car tag $5.00 and if you don't have a southern drawl another $2.00.
Posted by destiny (anonymous) on June 2, 2008 at 12:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
beamme...lol, funnnnnny. I will go and vote a resounding NO and hope everyone else will follow suit. Where is all the many thousands of dollars that have already been poured into that plan? No one seems to know or come up with half of a reasonable answer. They got 'our' dollars last time and now they are pushing for our vistors to anti up. I have family and friends from out of town that stays in these places each time and darn if I want to see them fleeced for more money. PLEASE hit that no button folks.
Posted by rushinghjr (anonymous) on June 2, 2008 at 4:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree with you on this one Destiny!
Posted by peachpit (anonymous) on June 2, 2008 at 6:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sorry Kevin. I have to disagree with you this time. Until the bill is writen that doesn't pad the pockets of the Casinos owners and politicians, I too would vote NO. I don't live in Natchez but I live close enough is Vidalia, Louisiana. Gambling was a BAD idea for both of our states. We are just inviting Thugs in to our peacefull little cities for a quick fix to our economic woes.
I for one don't want for us to be known as another Vegas or Atlantic City. Look at the new casino that isn't even set up yet. Contraversy already.
If this "tax" is another quick fix or even a hint of it. Please vote No 'till they get it right in a bill with no strings attached.
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on June 2, 2008 at 10:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This bill is to MARKET NATCHEZ not casinos, not hotels, not restaurants, not anything else specifically...will casinos, hotels and restaurants be marketed, sure, they are part of our attraction, but everyone will benefit. The advisory panel proposed, is just that, an advisory panel, the Mayor and BOA decide how the money will be spent...if someone lines his/her pocket, it is illegal and should be prosecuted...if you want to make sure they are, elect Chick!
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on June 3, 2008 at 2:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Yes, Sam, the tax is to market all of Natchez..all of Natchez involved in tourism. Anyone not involved in tourism doesn' need any marketing. Better to spend that half a million on bribes and trips to meet other industry that might be needing a place to set down roots.
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on June 3, 2008 at 7:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
But EnK...we're all involved in tourism...we're all Natchezians...except of course for you Vidalians...the point being that we all stand to gain if Natchez as a whole gains.
Posted by rocketman (anonymous) on June 3, 2008 at 7:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
EnKiKur; Weren't you born and raised in Natchez?
Posted by redusmfan (anonymous) on June 3, 2008 at 8:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Sam, this is one of thge issues where I have to continue to say HELL NO!!! This should be used to for tax incentives to to real industry tyo come to Natchez to employee average Joe with decent jobs. I will define decent jobs, jobs that provide health insurance, pay an average of $40k a year and have steady work schedules so people can plan budgets and have stable lives.
Sorry sam, but I am encouraging everybody I know to vote against furthering tourism in Natchez. It is a dead end...and Natchez has almost reached that dead end...
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on June 3, 2008 at 10:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Yes, I was born and raised in Natchez, and I fully support the US Department of Commerce which says we must give up the traditional ideas of state and county boundaries if we are to compete in the global economy.
Isolationist polcies such as this one being advocated in Natchez, tariffs on people from other states, forbidden in the Constitution, have already led this great country into one disastrous war of corporations against the people. It saddens me to see isolationist protectionism being touted once again by the very people who were so greatly harmed by the evil influences of it before.
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
(Requires free registration.)