Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2009 9:31 AM
To: Rosenberg, Stan (SEN)
Subject: Campus Center Hotel to pay local hotel/motel tax?????
Hey Stan,
A fellow Amherst Blogger and Town Meeting member is reporting that in the current budget the loophole for the Campus Center Hotel has been closed:
SECTION 50. The first paragraph of section 2 of chapter 64G of the General Laws, as so appearing, is hereby amended by striking out clause (b) and inserting in place thereof the following clause:- (b) lodging accommodations, including dormitories, at religious, charitable, educational and philanthropic institutions; provided, however, that this exemption shall not apply to accommodations provided by any such institution at a hotel or motel operated by the institution.
Any truth to this???
Larry K
(See ya at the Parade!)
-----Original Message-----
From: Rosenberg, Stan (SEN) <Stan.Rosenberg@state.ma.us>
To: amherstac@aol.com
Sent: Wed, Jul 1, 2009 9:52 am
Subject: RE: Campus Center Hotel to pay local hotel/motel tax?????
Yes, I put this in my amendment to expand the local option hotel motel tax. I have been pressing the university quietly for more than a decade without result so as a matter of fairness I included the language in my amendment. The Governor signed it as part of the budget. It goes into effect on August 1 resulting in revenue both the the state and the Town.
stan
To: Stan.Rosenberg@state.ma.usSent: Wed, Jul 1, 2009 9:58 am
Subject: Re: Campus Center Hotel to pay local hotel/motel tax?????
Thanks! I think it will make a significant difference to the town in these very trying times!
Larry
13 comments:
Need your taxes raised? Call a conservative.
Nice work, Larry.
YA
Make people who don't even live here pay for Amherst's follies. Sweet.
I do wish you'd waited for Stan's press release, Larry. You know you'd still beat the bricks and mortar:-) and this one is Stan's parade:-)
Another blogger in town wanted to publish this info back on June 19 but was persuaded to wait until *after* the budget had been signed by the Governor, when all threat of line item veto had passed. I don't know how long you've known, Larry, but I appreciate that you also waited until after the threat of line item veto had passed.
You know, I'm not exactly shy about keeping my identity secret...
-- another blogger
Oh...I have a feeling the bricks and mortar media are contacting Stan as we speak.
And he's pretty damn good extemporaneously, thus obviating the need to rely on a "press release."
Sorry Gavin, I was in a hurry at that particular moment (baby crying) and couldn't remember how to spell your name off the top of my head.
As one of the anonymous commenters who bash Larry on a regular basis, I want to make sure that Larry gets some of the credit for this. He kept this issue in the public discussion. I for one would not have known about this in the first place without Larry's obsessive harping on it.
Sincerely: Score one for tax justice for this blog and the guy who runs it.
Thanks. Coming from an Anon critic like you I'm genuinely touched.
But I've only been "harping" on this for 10 years.
The town subsidizing golf at Cherry Hill, I've been harping on for 25 years. Which reminds me, I need to file Public Document for June revenues.
And although I was in Korea about half the month, I'm told it was pretty rainy back here (not great for golf green fees).
Cherry Hill should be sold. The land should be developed as a Bally's Gym. In order to keep the recreation component of course.
Bally's has declared bankruptcy three times in the past few years.
That super-low-price, high-volume concept (hoping the cheapskates never actually show up, but can't break the Electronic Funds Transfer agreement doesn't work in the long term.)
I was thinking landfill--now THAT makes money (and what a perfect Karma bite in the ass for the NIMBY's who brought us the disaster in the first place).
Wow, that buidling looks awful. Embarassingly bad. It needs to get the same treatment that Lederle got last year.
This will come back to bite Amherst far worse than any tax revenue you might get.
What will happen now is that events that would have been held in that hotel will shift toward more popular venues (Springfield, Boston) where there are more attractions and with it the incidental spending downtown which far is in excess of the tax revenue.
Also when (does anyone believe "if"?) Amherst goes for the local option surcharge, it will push the issue of making UMass a separate municipality.
Amherst has one state rep, there are 169 for everyone else. Likewise with Stan - he is one of several. And the rest won't forget this slight-of-hand.
Amherst will kill the goose that lays the golden egg....
Post a Comment