Downtown convention hotel justifiably moves forward, but watch the taxpayer subsidies

In business and political circles, excitement is building over construction of a new convention center hotel in downtown Kansas City.

The positive vibes are understandable: The $308 million, 800-room project could woo out-of-town visitors, create jobs and further enliven the heart of the city.

The good feelings exist for legitimate reasons — with one huge caveat.

Public subsidies for the new hotel should not go beyond what’s already been agreed to in deals approved by Mayor Sly James and the City Council.

Specifically, the city should not endorse any direct taxpayer guarantees for the tens of millions of dollars in bonds planned for the hotel. James, in interviews in recent months, has pledged that if developers ever asked for that kind of help, he would oppose it. City Manager Troy Schulte also has said direct public guarantees for the debt are not on the table. Those pledges must be kept on behalf of taxpayers.

Back to the encouraging news.

Earlier this month, Shriners International officials announced the organization would bring about 20,000 people to Kansas City for its 2020 national convention.

That followed recent news from Visit KC that four other organizations had recently committed to future meetings in Kansas City.

In an interview last week, Visit KC President and CEO Ronnie Burt said the new hotel had been a key reason the city grabbed so much attention. During a trip earlier this month to Washington, D.C., Burt added, he met with the executive director of a group that didn’t have Kansas City on its radar as a convention site — but then pledged to “take a look” at the city for its 2024 meeting if a new hotel is built.

The Shriners and another organization — the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science, now set to hold its national meeting here in 2021 — specifically said the hotel would make it possible for them to come to Kansas City, Burt said.

When asked whether that meant these and other conventions could be lost if the hotel deal vanishes, Burt said that was possible, quickly adding that he thinks it would also be “somewhat disastrous.”

Of course, groups have all kinds of reasons for picking one community over another. Hotel rates, the proximity to the most members, entertainment options and, naturally, weather play big roles.

Kansas City has to aggressively fight for its share of the convention market. But is also must watch that it doesn’t overpay for doing so. The public certainly has gone along with the city’s effort by approving a larger Bartle Hall and a large ballroom expansion in the last two decades.

Meanwhile, a group continues to collect signatures on a petition drive that would allow voters to decide whether to proceed with the hotel. Any election would be held in 2016.

Supporters don’t want to go that route. Time is of the essence, they contend with good reasons, when it comes to borrowing money and building the hotel.

Kansas City has spent more than a decade trying to craft a reasonable pact to build this kind of project to further enliven downtown and boost the local economy.

A reasonable plan is now on the table and — as long as the public subsidy does not grow any larger — it’s worth strong pursuit.

This story was originally published September 20, 2015 at 9:49 AM with the headline "Downtown convention hotel justifiably moves forward, but watch the taxpayer subsidies."