On his blog “Catalyst,” Michael Walker has a nice piece on the current quandary facing the City regarding its investment in the Lafayette Yard Marriott.
The Hotel’s Board of Directors and management has asked City Council for an emergency appropriation of $500,000 to provide a cash cushion to tide the Marriott over during the first months of this year, and allow the hotel to refinance its (our) bond debt, and hopefully save several hundred thousands of dollars in debt service each year.
I reluctantly agree. The Hotel has proved to be a horrible investment for city taxpayers. Rather than serve as a spur to further neighborhood improvements, the hotel has suffered from being a lonely outpost in a very bleak neighborhood after dark. I won’t go over the whole argument. Michael says it pretty well. Now that we have the hotel, I would rather not let the whole enterprise crash and burn, which looks pretty likely should the additional cash not be granted by Council.
But… there are a couple of troubling questions I have that I would like to see answered before I feel better about supporting the matter.
According to published accounts, two years ago the hotel received One Million Dollars through the State Urban Enterprise Zone (UEZ) program, intended for capital improvements. The hotel has long been fraying at the edges and is in need of improvement. But $225,000 was spent on operating expenses, a big No-No, and the only recorded improvements were new flat-panel televisions for guest rooms.
Where did the rest of this UEZ money go? I feel that an accounting of these funds is essential if the hotel is back asking for more funds.
Also, this news as reported on Sunday in the Times troubles me: “As part of its efforts to attract large groups, the Marriott was recently among five area hotels submitting bids to provide housing for students at The College of New Jersey while the school renovates one its dorms. A contract is expected to be awarded in the coming weeks.”
Generally, when a hotel starts selling itself as a dorm, that’s not a good sign. Can we know more? How many rooms were bid? Will those rooms be separated from other paying guests? What type, if any, additional security will be provided for the student areas? How long will this contract be for? Have any other similar dorm proposals been contracted by the hotel in the past? If this is the first, will the hotel bid more? I am generally hesitant to endorse these types of dorm contracts for what is supposed to be a business-class hotel. It seems like the first step down a not-entirely-desirable path toward a very different business model than the one that was used to sell the idea to taxpayers years ago.
I think we should make an effort to save the Lafayette Yard Hotel. But I also need to know it will be a property worth saving.
Maybe if the hotel was required to pay the $500,000 back, starting with the debt restructuring savings, they MIGHT get me to change my mind. Nobody’s even asking how or if the $500G gets repaid…maybe with some much needed interest?
I don’t think sectioning a section of the hotel for college students is a bad idea. In Hoboken, Stevens Institute of Technology rents some of the luxury condos/apartments in the city for its students. They have an RA stay on the floors where there are students and they have kicked out students who have caused trouble for the residents. It seems to be something that regularly happens in cities that have universities that can’t fit their students in their dorms.
Students live on college campuses for about 9 months of the year, that’s 9 months of no vacancies. The area businesses should benefit (do you know how much college students eat and drink? lol) I also doubt the image of the business hotel will be damaged (let’s face it, it’s bad enough that it’s in Trenton). The main problem here I think is that this is a temporary solution and not a long term solution for increasing business at the hotel.
If someone presents a good plan to make Downtown Trenton somewhere that people would want to go and thus stay in the hotel, then there’s a good reason to save it.
Just don’t let Tony do it. He won’t even take the footer out of the Word template to give the document some air of legitimacy, even if we know it’s likely not.