Loveland’s City Council narrowly passed a measure to place a new 3% Lodging Tax on the ballot. While LovelandPolitics has not taken a position on the issue see story, we are discouraged by the false rhetoric and lack of substantive community debate on the proposal.
Below are the 3 things you might consider:
1. Severe Language While the language isn’t unique to Loveland as most of what the city attorney provides is cut-and-paste, the ballot measure does include (curiously) police power to seize property and use police power; specifically “physical force” to enforce the new tax. Seems a little unnecessary doesn’t it when so many civil court remedies are available and enforceable by the city? What is worse is the lack of any due process. Giving power to the city manager to decide arbitrarily who pays fines and fees without any checks or balances to that power is unsettling. (remember this is the guy who claims farm fields can be legitimately called “urban blight” because it is council’s discretion)
2. Not just a hotel tax It is not a “hotel” tax, “Transient occupancy” tax or other form of tourist tax. It applies to ANY property owner (except churches and registered non-profits) that provides anyone including their family a place to stay. Anything you receive may be eligible for the tax depending on how much it is and when it was paid.
3. Flaky Council Comments and Actions Councilman Walt Skowron said in early August he would not support a 3% tax as it is too little revenue but did, Councilman Klassen stated he needed to see community support before voting for it again – and did anyway despite the lack of support. The Mayor first voted for the 5% tax proposal that failed to get approved but was quoted in the paper defending 3% over 5% as if he had supported it all along. Mayor Pro Tem Clark doesn’t want to support a tax while running for Mayor so he said he couldn’t support it as proposed but to satisfy his pro-tax chamber buddies defended the message and gave them encouraging words. Carol Johnson is one city councilor who is just giddy about getting any new tax on November’s ballot that funds chamber related activities. Maybe Johnson thinks the potential of extra revenue for the chamber can help her job prospects with them.
So what do you think?
I’m kind of neutral on this lodging tax, though I don’t really think we need to raise a tax just for “promoting” the City. There once was a tax proposal to use the money for road improvements. I thought that was at least a reasonable idea because tourists passing through on their way to Estes Park, etc. do cost us some for maintenance, capacity, etc. But I probably won’t vote for this tax.
Interesting speculation about Carol Johnson’s motives. Also a good observation about the Mayor. He plays that game all the time… saying one thing and changing the story later…or saying one thing and doing the opposite. but so do some of the others. I love it when they ask pointed questions and raise issues as if they really have a concern, but when it comes to the vote they ignore all those issues and concerns.
Loveland is not a destination city like Estes Park. It doesn’t have the consistent draw for lodging of a university town like Boulder or Ft. Collins, either. Loveland is a bedroom community that sends most of its working residents out of the city limits each day and welcomes them back home each evening. Having a cost advantage of lower taxes on Loveland lodging probably already helps lodging in town, along with extra retail & restaurant visits that wouldn’t otherwise happen. Rather than sacrifice an existing and needed advantage, Loveland should maximize its low cost advantage in lodging by creating more fun things to do here, like the Sculpture Show and events at the Budweiser Events Center. This lodging tax, like previous ones that failed when put to a vote of the people, only increases the constituencies who live off burdens placed on other people. This is not what Loveland needs now, anymore than it was when it failed previously.
Imposing a tax for an unspecified reason is silly. It really means if we, the city, get more money we will spend it.
The argument that everyone else is doing it so we should to, so reminds me of my Mom saying “If everyone else was jumping off a bridge, would you?”
Lastly, lets address the all of our neighboring towns have a lodging tax. What a great marketing campaign the Loveland lodging community could produce with a
“Visit Loveland, We Will Not Charge you Extra to Stay!”
‘If you Visit Northern Colorado, Stay in Loveland, We are Tax Friendly!”
“Loveland, No Tax to Sleep”
Wow, if the goal is to bring more visitors to Loveland, then do it with common sense.
Then again, maybe the reason we keep rejecting the tax is we have enough traffic on the roads an in the stores.
I agree with Milton and Tom. and “police action” is just uncalled for Fascism being pocketed in the books.