All things Niagara Falls tourism…
Apparently a former sea lion trainer at Marineland (who has a Blogger blog) quit his job. He’d rather be a tech support person for cell phones! He posted a video of himself with a sea lion with these comments:
Anyway this is me doing my old job, I think it’s very apparent as to why I had to quit! (I’m not the sea lion!)
From the Niagara Falls Review:
It’s no secret 2007 has not been one of the tourism industry’s better years in Niagara Falls. Of particular concern is the fact there have been fewer visitors from the United States. Various causes, such as the high Canadian dollar and confusion about what documents are needed at the border, have played a part in the decline.
This type of situation is, of course, not new. Tourism here has always been a cyclical business - the numbers rise, fall, then rise again. For example, there was also a notable decrease in visitors to Niagara Falls way back in 1881. In the fall of that year, after the “tourist season” was over, The Review decided to analyze the situation. In a hard-hitting, front-page editorial published Nov. 18, 1881, the paper provided a lengthy commentary on why, as it was phrased, “Niagara Falls is being shunned by the great multitude of pleasure seekers.”
This is the third and final installment of Margin’s thoughts on the convention centre.
That should be the opening premise here: a convention center in Niagara will never make enough money itself to warrant a $100 million investment based on sound economic planning. Yet it is being sold to the public as a business proposition capable of standing on its own.
So, now that all the pieces are in place to build a huge convention business here, let’s maximize the return to the taxpayers of Niagara.
My question is simply “Why not a little wider sharing of the risk and the rewards?”
The time to build a true partnership between the people and this project is now.
Niagara has a unique opportunity to build a community-based economic development model that will be the envy of Canada – a Community Development Agreement that ensures that the benefits are truly spread throughout the region.
To secure widespread and unequivocal public support for this major development, a binding Community Development Agreement should be made immediately with the private proponents of the convention center.
Other parts in the series:
On Tuesday I received the latest newsletter from the Great Wolf Lodge. They are promoting winter packages for the month of December.
You can sign up for the mailings by visiting the Email Signup page on the Great Wolf Lodge Niagara Falls web site.
From Sympatico Finance:
Niagara Falls, one of Canada’s most prized tourism attractions, is luring fewer American visitors this year because of an unfavorable exchange rate, a Canadian tourism official said on Thursday.
The number of U.S. day trippers crossing the border into Canada to see the spectacular waterfalls has dropped 16 percent this year, Christopher Jones, vice-president of public affairs for the Tourism Industry Association of Canada, told a parliamentary finance committee.
Niagara Falls is one of many cases of lost tourism revenue seen across Canada due to the rising value of its currency against the U.S. dollar, Jones said.
This is part 2 of Margin’s thoughts on the convention centre.
Therefore, to avoid the wailing and gnashing of teeth that has occurred annually with respect to the relatively minor payments the casino has made to the city, a Community Development Agreement would set some easily definable payments that the private proponents of the center should guarantee.
For example, support for a regional transit system that would serve to knit the region together and deliver workers to the center could form the cornerstone of such an agreement.
This facility was sold as a way of creating 1,000 new jobs in the community. Why not mandate a fee to be paid by the convention center AND backed by the leading proponents of the center. This fee could be set at one dollar per day, per worker, to be paid directly to a regional transit authority.
These payments should, unlike the oft-cited Destination Marketing Tax, be used at the discretion of the people of Niagara for projects outside the tourism sector - after all, the $70m public money certainly did.
As the facility estimates that 500,000+ new visitors will attend events at the facility, why not another dollar per visitor dedicated to the refreshment of regional parks and trails.
These payments should be legally binding on the center and the local BIA members on a sustainable and long-term basis. They must be considered the cost of doing business, not charitable donations from the center.
Any proposal to bring in another 500,000+ well-heeled conventioneers points to new profit-making opportunities for private supporters of the convention center.
The competition is fierce and global. $100,000,000 is a great deal of money to be earmarked to a community of Niagara’s size when statistics have shown that 50% of all exhibitions in the US are held in just 16 cities.
Keep in mind that one report shows that Niagara’s hotels charge 15% over the national average daily rate, and perhaps as a result, have found themselves with 15% less occupancy.
Few, if any, convention facilities built over the past quarter century anywhere in North America have come close to meeting the optimistic projections made by the proponents and their consultants.
Indeed, as a leading advocate for the exhibition industry pointed out, …”convention centers in the United States were seen as loss leaders in that they were publicly funded and not designed to recover costs, much less generate a profit.”
Other parts in the series:
A person with a Blogger blog posted about their trip to the Niagara Falls. They stayed at the Hilton Garden Inn in Niagara-on-the-Lake and visited many of the sites in Niagara Falls. The person posted a lot of pictures, with short captions under each one.
From Niagara This Week:
A U.S. government plan which will allow enhanced driver’s licences as acceptable identification when crossing the border along with passports is being hailed as good news for travellers and business people alike.
But while most like the idea of a new high-tech licence, some frequent border users hope rolling out the new program doesn’t get bogged down with costs and lengthy applications — much like at passport offices have been since the American Homeland Security department announced regulations requiring air travellers to carry passports when entering the U.S.
Last week a new user joined the community here at AccessNiagara and is going by the handle Margin. He has submitted a document with his thoughts and concerns about the convention centre. As I asked him why the interest in this, he said that he has “no axes to grind or money to be made from this development. The issues here need wider discussion and so far, we have had vapid rhetoric from all corners. We need to challenge the orthodoxy that growth at any cost is a public good and the simplistic idea that only a small segment of private sector should benefit from a $70m public investment. $100,000,000 is a lot of money when no one can point to a convention center that has achieved the returns that the promoters promised.”
I’ve divided his submission up into 3 parts and will present it today (Wednesday), tomorrow (Thursday), and Friday.
The last write-up by Fallsview had great feedback, so let’s continue that with this one.
Seldom do all the stars align to bring $100 million developments to regions outside major urban areas.
This is the third time Niagara has landed one of the biggest construction projects in Canada.
Perhaps three times will be luckier for the people of the region.
Now that all the funds are committed for the Niagara convention center, perhaps it is time to eliminate the uncertainty that plagued the other significant tourism related developments over the past decade, namely: who gets the lion’s share of the benefits.
We have been promised a Blue Ribbon Panel to ensure that the local property tax base will not ultimately support the facility or it won’t ultimately be sold for one dollar to some lucky consortium, when it fails to live up to the promises made in the run up to the announcements.
So, instead of another blue ribbon panel of the usual suspects, why not a group of locals to negotiate a binding agreement with the proponents of the project outlining what benefits we expect to receive.
Further, instead of a binding agreement ensure that the local tax base does not subsidize the facility, why not a binding document that guarantees a sustainable return to the regional tax base.
There are thousands of precedents across North America to show that these type of agreements work and, and in the end, build stronger communities and local economies.
The development of a community benefits agreement today would go a long way to ensure wider public support and solidify the collaboration that to date has bridged the political spectrum.
The federal contribution comes from a $4b fund that supports “investments … in areas that are vital to sustaining economic growth and supporting an enhanced quality of life for Canadians”. The Ontario contribution points to ecological sustainability and a commitment “to strengthening Niagara’s tourism industry and improving the quality of life of hardworking families.” The Mayor of Niagara Falls agreed that it was “truly spectacular news and that the “chance of running annual deficits are minimal.”
It seems, therefore, that all the major players are in favour of a development that supports families and residents over the interests of local business owners.
Let’s set that in stone.
Other parts in the series:
Last Friday I received an email from Niagara Falls Tourism about a new Niagara Falls Photo Contest they are holding in conjunction with the Winter Festival of Lights.
You can find out more on a special page on the Winter Festival of Lights site. The contest runs from Contest Runs from November 9, 2007 - January 31, 2008.
Recent Comments