So is that a total of $2.8 million ignoring the time value of money or a stream of payments with a net present value of $2.8 million?

I'm all about PILOT, but this looks more complicated than that. Any deal like this needs to be looked at in terms of what happens if it fails. Most developers push to make sure the public side of the "partnership" handles the risk side of the equation while they handle any profits (getting a piece of the action along the way so they make out regardless). For examples, see any proposal Earl Worsham ever had anything to do with.

Even if you truly believe that this is a great time to add hotel space to our Failed Convention Center, office space to a city with an entire tower of empty Class A, retail in a city that can't fill store fronts on the main retail drag and condos when the last new residential building is still sitting mostly empty after two years, you still need to look at the possible downside and play "what if."

Two points. One, the city has not a dime of appropriated taxpayer money going into this hotel. The property is producing zero taxes today. The PILOT just "costs" taxes we did not have and would not have without this project, which will provide a ton of sales tax, hotel motel tax, and jobs and provide a different set of room options for those using the convention center as well as providing for more total rooms such that larger conventions can consider using the CC.

Secondly, the referendum did indeed prevent direct taxpayer money from going to a convention center hotel. The court ruled that this was not a convention center hotel. However, if also ruled, in effect, that even if it were, the ordinance was not violated because and, excuse the emphasis, the language that taxpayers approved included an explicit statement that nothing in the ordinance limited the City from using tax abatement. The PILOT process is how taxes are abated in Tennessee.

In short, this is not a convention center hotel. It is a mixed use project with may elements included a small hotel. But, regardless, the funding mechanism is fully consistent with the language of the ordinance before the voters when they cast their ballots even if this was a convention center hotel. The sailors are sober.

looks like 1990s Atlanta wanna-beism. That design is so Perimeter Park. Too bad they didn't design it for Knoxville. If they'd followed the design guidelines, it could have looked more like the old Hotel Farragut and less like a Perimeter Atlanta Crowne Plaza.

hopefully it is not too late.

If I were the Hampton Inn downtown, the Cumberland House Hotel, Regas, Club LeConte, Chesapeakes, Calhoun's on the River, I'd have my hand out to the City of Knoxville for some downtown tax abatements, other incentives, and other municiple welfare as those folks made it without any public assistance and have thrived despite the inept Ashe administration and its wholesale confusion of what downtown Knoxville really is.

The city cannot just grant tax breaks to businesses under state constitution and law. Freezing of the taxes and subsequent substantial improvements to the property -- such that the assessment is increased in major way -- must occur.

As for the list above, The Hampton Inn has a PILOT, which was done in a complex deal that saved the historic home behind it and led to a much better design that enhanced rather than detracted from a key downtown intersection. Calhoun's on the River operates under a lease from the city. Club LeConte is in a building that never would have been built without significant public support. Chesapeakes and Regas are not at any competitive disadvantage because of our development policies. To the contrary they benefit greatly by increased economic activity downtown, as is exactly the same with Tomato Head, Trio, Cafe 4, Downtown Brewery, Dazzo's. They are not victims of largess to others, somehow. They are direct beneficiaries of the policies we have pursued, of having Mast and the Regal Cinema to draw people downtown and to eat in their establishments. Any notion that they are on the losing end of a zero-sum game is badly misguided. Perhaps we would be better off with Gay Street boarded up as it was, a dead 500 block, no SW, Mast etc. I don't think so. I don't think would be preferred by owners of La Parigo, Nama, Little Havanna, etc.

Knoxville's downtown is clearly attractive to those who live, work, and come for events or just to relax and have fun. There has been a tremendous amount of private investment, which is continuing. Any characterization of the risk incurred under a TIF as "Welfare" with the private investor holding all the risk for failure while putting up the vast majority of the cost is a simplistic mislabeling. The developer personally is on the hook to the bank for servicing the TIF loan if the project does not generate the tax appraisal necessary to retire the loan serviced by the TIF. The taxpayer is at no risk.

Most cities use tools such as we use. We constantly are complimented for our program in its systematic testing of the "but for" and "civic benefit test," our placement of all project details on the web, etc. (link...)

If people think we are backwards, well, so be it. I guess that is an hypotheses that could be tested with some rigor, across cities. Interestingly, we were criticized for being backwards years ago for failing to utilize all tools available."

I have to confess that, despite being a reputed social scientist, I really don't know what the point of the sort of argument that continues to emerge from which the above is extracted. I guess it is part of the fabric of the local body politic and should leave it at that, as sort of the civic dialog equivalent of selling short in the stock market. I know that financial short sellers can enjoy individual wealth in a negative business climate. Not so sure what civic short selling produces even in a negative civic climate. Personally, I like reality constrained, positive civic climates without excessive, ineffective boosterism.

There will be elections for a whole new council and new mayor over the next few years so perhaps candidates can provide a viable alternative approach that will carry the day. Folks seemed pretty positive about the way things were going during the last election.

Thanks

Not seeing how PILOT costs the city anything. If the development wasn't going to happen without the tax break, the revenue to the city would be unchanged. It's a no-brainer. There's no cost or downside to the taxpayers.

The fishy thing with this deal is the financing and city ownership of the underlying property. Don't see why it's needed unless there's some shift of liability from the developer that we probably don't want. After watching the city bend over for bullshit deals like Worsham-Watkins and Universe Knoxville, I don't trust them to protect our interests against catching the risky end of the deal.

Sure sounds like you're a blast from the k2k past.

You any kin to actdelta/Troutman?

What is the status of the Sentinel Tower and the TVA North Tower?

It's the east tower, and as far as I know, it's still virtually empty and looking for a tenant(s).