New Midland County hotel tax
The recent vote by the Midland County Commissioners to seek to institute a 3% hotel occupancy tax is predictably provoking hand-wringing ire from some other local bloggers.
I have absolutely no problem with opposition to increased taxes that is based on general principle. "No new taxes" might be a debatable campaign slogan, but it's generally an excellent way to govern, if the other side of the equation is also kept in check.
So I won't argue with my fellow bloggers about feeling a bit of dismay about imposing a new tax.
However...
Arguments that such a tax will hurt Midland's competitive advantage or will reduce tourism or hotel-staying visitors don't appear to have any basis in fact. Nobody is going to alter their travel plans because they've suddenly discovered that they're paying $2.50/night more for a hotel room in Midland. If there's a rigorous study* that proves an inverse correlation between hotel occupancy taxes and hotel occupancy in a non-tourist destination like Midland, I'll gladly recant that statement, but I haven't been able to find such a study.
And if keeping taxes level won't increase city/county revenue, and if raising taxes won't decrease hotel occupancy, and if the tax revenue is earmarked for a legitimate cause (local opinions may vary, but state regulations provide a relevant definition), I see absolutely no problem in letting out-of-towners foot the bill. As a relatively frequent out-of-town traveler myself, well-acquainted with the same taxes in San Antonio, Santa Fe, etc., I say turnabout is fair play.
Statistics, anyone?
*I'm well aware of the theoretical arguments concerning the impact of additional taxes on the demand for goods and services. But theory doesn't always predict actual behavior, which is why we'll always have way too many economists.
Wallace, you hit the nail on the head. The demand for hotel rooms within the same city are relatively price elastic; that is, people often price-shop to find the best hotel rate in the city of their destination.
However, demand for hotel rooms in different cities is probably much more price inelastic. It would take a large price differential to convince someone to stay in Odessa instead of Midland if their destination is Midland. It's just a feeling, but I don't think 3% gets you near the hurdle rate.
I may have messed up the economic terms, but the bottom line is that 3% isn't going to affect occupancy one way or another. As I said, I reserve the right to change my mind if there's data showing otherwise, but I can't find any.
Posted by: Eric at January 29, 2005 04:49 PM"Buy the Basin and the buck stays here."
Well, few are buying. So we gotta raise the price.
Posted by: Bert at January 30, 2005 01:11 AMBert, I guess that's a catchy statement, but it's not factual. Quarterly sales tax receipts in Midland have been steadily increasing for the past couple of years. And, afaik, projects like the Horseshoe Complex don't get any of that money, so whether people "buy the basin" or not is irrelevant for the purposes of the tax.
Posted by: Eric at January 30, 2005 09:08 AM"Build it and they will come."
No one's coming, so they gotta build more.
Posted by: Bert at January 30, 2005 05:24 PMAh, yes...now we're getting somewhere...the timeless wisdom of the movies.
Posted by: Eric at January 30, 2005 05:37 PMI'm betting that [at least on a dollar spent efficiency basis] more people do come to a venue like The Horseshoe© than will ever come to the rather expensive and oft times vacant Grande Burrito Stadium.
Posted by: Wallace-Midland, Texas at January 30, 2005 10:48 PMI'm with Eric on this one. Midland-Odessa is not and never will be a high-on-the-list stop for tourists, so this hotel/motel tax is not going to drive away people. Anyone who is coming to Midland is coming for a reason.
It's not like you're DFW, with seven different municipalities competing for convention and business travelers who might shun Arlington for Hurst.
(spoken as someone whose grandparents live in Monahans. I realize I've probably "outed" myself by process of elimination here.)
Posted by: bryan at January 31, 2005 12:16 PMA ciy should be like as Ostrich. small head (small government)--------LARGE BODY (LARGE POPULATION).
=======
Things like horsehoe should be part of the body instead of the head. After all it is the feet, a part of the body,that need the shoes.
Ain't it funny when people use shoes on their heads??? Even ostriches, who hide their heads in the sand don't do that!!!
About the publisher
Random Abbye photos...
Random Thursday: The Abbreviated Tuesday Political Edition
More rattler than meets the eye
Poop happens. And then disappears.
How the West was Won
Beware of Vampire Dog
Tieing? There's no tieing in gymnastics!
NBC Bungles Web Video
Random Thursday: The Monday Olympics Edition
On Holiday
Random Thursday
Chair Play
Book Review: "The Road"
Education is paramount. Well, next to jet skiing.
Warbirds, Old and New
The Neighborhood:
West Texas Blogs:
[Midland unless otherwise indicated]
Other Texas Blogs:
The Business:
The Church:
The World:
Though I'm not for soaking strangers.....I'm with you on this. The 3% increase won't affect much in the way of travel. Our biggest weekend of the year is the AirSho and I guarantee that those visitors 1] don't notice fees like that and 2] they are used to paying them. Like we did in Houston last month. And very high ones too!
Also, of all the civic projects undertaken in the last decade, I'm convinced that the HorseShoe© will be the most useful and therefore and to wit: profitable.
Posted by: Wallace-Midland, Texas at January 29, 2005 02:00 PM