The Convention Center Transcript

Participants:
Madeline Cain
Mayor of Lakewood
Jimmy Dimora
Cuyahoga County Commissioner
Joe Frolik 
Associate Editor of the Editorial Page, Plain Dealer
Ned Hill
Professor of Urban Studies & Public Administration, Cleveland State University
Frank Jackson
President, Cleveland City Council
Ari Maron
Partner, MRN Limited Partnership
Steve Strnisha
Deputy Director, Cleveland Tomorrow

MR. FROLIK: Thanks for joining us today for the tenth in the series of discussions in "A Quiet Crisis" the series. Today we're going to talk about the possibility of building a new convention center in Cleveland and what that might spawn for the City and for the Region. I want to start by asking each of you, go around the table beginning with you Commissioner Dimora, as the City and County considered whether to spend a half a billion dollars or so to build a new convention center, what's the biggest question that you think needs to be answered about the project before the community would feel assured about going forward with it.

MR. DIMORA: Well, I think the electorate probably needs to understand the need for a convention center, the importance, what it's going to do for the economy and for the Greater Cleveland area. They may even be interested in seeing, does a convention center help them in any way as far as their community needs or concerns are in front of them. But I think that they'll probably also want to know how it's being paid for.

When you are getting into a project of this magnitude and this great number of costs, they're going to want to make sure that their not shouldering or burdening the majority of the costs for these kinds pf projects. Or in return, again, what's the benefit to me as the average taxpayer here in Cuyahoga County. So, I think those are the questions that are probably most and foremost in the electorates mind here in Cuyahoga County.

They have been hearing about this convention center, they have been reading about it and I still think they have, the question is why do we need it? What's the importance? What's it going to do? And how are we going to pay for it? It's not as critical as, I think, where it's going as those other questions in their mind.

MR. FROLIK: Mayor Cain.

MS. CAIN: I think the biggest question before the public would be: Why do we even need a convention center? And so, it's a matter of really, educating the public. And then, as Commissioner Dimora said, you know, who's going to pay, how is the public going to be at the table? And then those two questions together are going to be the questions that the public is going to be most concerned about. The design is wonderful and the location is, you know, any of the proposed locations are interesting, exciting. But when it comes to the general public, the questions are why and how do we pay.

MR. FROLIK: Steve Strnisha.

MR. STRNISHA: I'm going to agree a lot with Mayor Cain and Commissioner Dimora and I would add maybe a little different take. This should be thought of as an investment. An investment by the community, an investment that's going to involve public resources and some private. And we have to look at it from that perspective. I think the community that's being asked to make that decision wants to know what's at stake on this investment, what happens if we don't do something? There are a lot of jobs already at stake in our industry Downtown that could be affected. What is the potential return?

What do we get out of this in the future? Not only for a more vibrant Downtown, things look better and so forth, but what is the ability to generate jobs, generate tax dollars, generate things that can spin off of that, and these are all things that we have measured in previous studies. I think we have to update and give as candid an assessment and hard headed assessment on this as we can so that people can make that kind of judgment.

MR. FROLIK: Ari Maron.

MR. MARON: I think we have to understand what we've got. I call it the good news, the challenges and then the solutions. I think the good news is that as a community we have a tremendous number of assets. I often tell the story that last summer I was on one of the travel websites and they had the top ten summer travel destinations. They had Cape Cod, San Francisco, number 3 was Cleveland. They compared it to New York and it was interesting, they had the orchestra, they had the museums, they had ball parks, all these things that you can do in New York that you can also do in Cleveland. So the good news is, today we have a tremendous number of assets.

The challenge is that those assets don't connect to each other and because they don't connect to each other, we don't maximize their economic potential. So then, the solution is how do we connect the assets so that we have a vibrant city. And, that speaks to things like housing, that speaks to parks and office and retail and also a convention center. If the convention center is placed in the right place, it can be one of those things that connects assets that we already have to each other.

And just quickly, I'll use an example I use, the San Diego example where the Gas Lamp District in 1974 looked a lot like Euclid Avenue does today. They built a convention center right on the water and it sling -shotted an energy right up into the Gas Lamp District. We have those same opportunities to revitalize Euclid Avenue, and by placing the convention center in the right place, Euclid Avenue can be our version of the Gas Lamp District.

MR. FROLIK: Council President Jackson.

MR. JACKSON: The people I've talked to basically ask: Is this just another downtown project or does it fit into an overall plan? And then, secondly, they ask what's in it for them, how do they benefit? And thirdly, they ask who is going to pay for it?

MR. FROLIK: Ned Hill.

MR. HILL: I agree with what a lot of what Jimmy, Madeline and Steve have said. Ari has given this notion of how do we catalyze this? Frank has said, who benefits and how do we make the value proposition? I'm taking a different approach. I think there's broad agreement that Downtown Cleveland now is in some substantial trouble. There's 19 percent vacancy rate sitting down there.

I think the case can be made to voters who own property in the inner ring suburbs, the value of their houses is directly connected to the health of Downtown. The way I would like to say is not rather why a convention center or not, I think we should be asking the question: If you have got 300 million to half a billion dollars, what's the best way to fix Downtown and what's the best way to increase values Downtown? Because with all do respect to my friends and colleagues that live in the City of Cleveland, 60 percent of the City of Cleveland's budget comes from suburban waste taxpayers, 80 percent of the budget of the City of Cleveland is generated by Downtown directly or indirectly. I think I have these numbers right.

So, it's a vital regional interest to make it so that the streets of downtown are lively, that property values Downtown increase in that Downtown becomes a much more competitive office location to I-271/Chagrin, Independence/Rockside or North Olmsted. This Downtown along with the projects that have been undertaken in Shaker Heights, what's proposed in Lakewood is really asking the question: How do we go about investing in our future to maintain this community to do what we can do at a point in time when federal government, state government is not there for us.

So, you know, to me the case that the convention center has to make is is this the investment that is going to revitalize Downtown? And frankly, that case to me hasn't been made yet.

MR. FROLIK: Let's maybe start with that those because those are all really good points that came up. The why do it question, when he was in town a couple time lately, Professor Woody Sanders, the University of Texas in San Antonio talked about, you know, the space race I think is what he calls it, as does Dennis Judd from the University of Illinois, at Chicago, also studies the tourism industry. You have all these cities are building or have built, expanding convention centers, even Cleveland's competitor cities, if you will, Indianapolis, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Columbus, have either expanded or are expanding in recent years. Does it make sense to us to go down that same path, and why would we do what everybody else is doing? Steve, you studied this issue for a long time .

MR. STRNISHA: Yeah. I can't wait to jump in and I have read Professor Sanders, some of his things and he tends to take a broad overview. We have to really look at this from a Cleveland perspective. First off, I have to say that the argument that we ought to hesitate or not get into something because it's competitive is a notion that we all ought to -- it's operant, we have had conversations, I know you have had conversations here about how do we take advantage in the biotech field? How do we make ourselves competitively positioned? Competition is everywhere. I have young kids. You teach your kids that there's competition. And the question for us as Clevelanders though, therefore should be, so the issue of should we not do it because other people are doing it, I think we ought to put aside immediately because there's competition everywhere.

We're ought to see whether there's a competitive position realistically for us relative to a convention center. I think there's a strong case to be made about that, Ari touched on it. We have built an incredible amount of assets here. I'll add to some of his examples where a couple years ago when there was a detailed analysis done by PricewaterhouseCoopers by meeting planners, our city was seen as attractive. In other words, people would want to have their meetings here because of things like the Rock Hall, because of where we're located, we're very close to the east coast plus the midwest, because we're a relatively low cost city. We scored better than Columbus, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, a lot of cities. And the fact is, not all conventions, a lot of them, but not all conventions are held in Orlando, Vegas, those places. There is a mix of meetings for us to compete with. So we have done a lot to position ourselves to take advantage of these things and the question is: Can we make a wise investment, right location, right size, right mix of financing to compete in an industry that has had some ups and downs since 9/11 but is still a very substantial industry that jobs can grow on.

And let me add one more point on this and Ned referenced the dollars and the financing. We can, yes, there will probably be a need to ask the public, in general, for some money. But in this case also, the industry already generates a lot of tax dollars. There's about 18 million dollars a year that it generated from the hotel bed tax already, based on even the current state of affairs. Those are paid by people from out of town.

Occasionally, I took my wife Downtown for our honeymoon, but for most of us, or for our anniversary rather, most of us don't pay that bed tax. That can pay for a good portion of this convention center, and that's looking at the industry as being a big investor, if you will, through the bed tax, is one way to pay for that and to take some of the burden off the public in general, that may not see as much absolute direct benefit. But I start from the basis of yes, there's competition. Can we look ourselves in the mirror and say, is there a way for us to compete? I think we have a lot of strong assets to start off with to compete. So I would dispute Professor Sanders on that point.

MR. HILL: Except -- Steve, Woody Sanders has done the best and most detailed research on the convention center industry. What he has found out is consistently the consulting reports overstate demands, understate cost and also encourage people to build boxes that are way too big. The other thing that frequently happens is, you'll get the convention center proposal in and then all of a sudden you'll hear, well, we aren't making it because we need 1,000 room convention center hotel as part of the deal and you come in again.

If you look at one of the flag ship cities in the convention business, if you look at Atlanta and look at the interaction between the Atlanta Center, their baseball park and Downtown, you'll find out that Downtown is an absolute disaster. Underground Atlanta is, if anything, makes work for bankruptcy lawyers. And it is separate and apart from making Downtown viable in Atlanta. Their last department store closed what was it two, three years ago. Their vacancy on Peach Tree Street in Downtown is somewhere around 40, 50 percent. As an industry and saying how do we make this industry viable, I agree, a convention center is part of making part of the industry viable. Is this the best way to spend 300 million to 500 million dollars to fix real estate values Downtown and make Downtown a value product, I'm not certain. And to me, that's the case that has to be made. A lot of that is going to depend on its design, its location, but also, a large part is going to be: What happens outside to make Downtown a residential neighborhood of at least 25,000 people and quite possibly more?

MR. STRNISHA: We shouldn't spend too much time on Professor Sanders from San Antonio but here's two of my criticisms about his work. He hasn't focused on the particulars that are unique to Cleveland. Almost all those studies that he referenced have to do with cities that have viable, existing, highly used convention centers and had to do with expansions of those, and had question was: Would the increment they get be worth doing? The fact is, today, on a convention center that was built in the 20s, we really don't, we're not in the industry.

MR. HILL: You also have the I-X Center. We can't leave that out.

MR. STRNISHA: The I-X Center caters to a different crowd. It caters to consumer shows, very important for our region, but not the kind of conventions that bring in people from out of town, that brings new dollars into the town. So the question for us is: Relative to that industry that we get almost nothing now, would building a center of, frankly, average size to our competitive cities, feed off our assets and help generate more dollars by bringing more people and dollars in? That's what we have to prove.

MR. DIMORA: That's why we build these assets too. I mean, the purpose of having a Rock-N-Roll Museum and a Science Center and the museums on University Circle, and making sure that we have the Arena for concerts and for the Cavs is because you want people to come here and spend their money and spend their time. And in my opinion, this convention center is a piece of the success puzzle for economic enhancement to the Greater Cleveland area.

If we don't make a move towards this convention center now, we fall way behind all the other communities around us, Cincinnati who's vying for putting another convention center, a brand new one, up as well, Columbus who is really doing a tremendous job with their convention center business, bringing people in to be feeder for the hotels, the restaurants and retail shopping area.

It's very important. In my opinion, we have never taken a back seat. We are a very competitive community. When the Brown's were threatening to leave, we took every effort and every initiative possible to make sure that we didn't lose our National Football League team, and we wanted to make sure that Cleveland was competitive.

And we don't want to loose or convention center business. We're at a point now where business is very very bad for the convention center, but that, in my opinion, is because we have an antiquated convention center. We don't have the kind of convention center that magnetizes or entices people to come to this area. We have all the other amenities and all the other assets that we can utilize to entertain them in their off time from not being in the convention center. Now, we need this piece of the puzzle, in my opinion, to keep us moving forward and progress into the 21st century.

And I believe, again, once we build it, they will come. People will start to come to the area. They will spend their money and it will continue to enhance the economic development. Hopefully, I'm looking at this to leverage a lot of private investment, a lot of the additional dollars.

Ari is ready to go. As soon as he knows this convention center is ready, they've got a multitude of projects they want to start working on in the Greater Cleveland area. He's only one developer. I'm hoping that this particular project, though it's through public dollars, will generate and leverage private dollars, give the confidence, give the encouragement to the private developers to start to do something in the Greater Cleveland area.

MS. CAIN: There is the problem because the convention center is almost being thrust upon the public agenda very quickly, kind of, almost out of a vacuum. That is the perception that's out there and it's certainly the perception among a lot of public officials.

Public officials like myself, who are very committed to the City of Cleveland. As I think Ned pointed out, we understand that our success as sort of bedroom communities, although I hate that term, but to a great extent, our economy and in particular in the first ring suburbs, we are very dependant on the success of the mother city. And our voters, at least in my town, have always supported, I mean, supported the Gateway effort, for example. But, they also saw it was something they were going to benefit from.

And so, the public education that has to be accomplished here so that people understand that this is part of a continuum, a planning continuum, that, in fact, there was no reason to build a Rock-N-Roll Hall of Fame on Lake Erie, in Downtown Cleveland if you weren't going to do the rest of the big picture, and the convention center is part of the big picture.

The current convention center is like going into a tomb. So, in my mind, there's no question that Cleveland needs a new convention center. It has to be the right size so the Professor Sanders, you know, I think we need to learn from his research and his analysis, but I too was offended that Cleveland should sort of give up the ghost. That is not our future.

MR. MARON: An amazing thing happened 3 weeks ago. In the industry we own a hotel and we call it a citywide convention. We've had, in the last year, only two.

MR. FROLIK: This would be the Intel convention.

MR. MARON: This was the Intel convention. And what happened -- I live Downtown. What happened is that for that week that the Intel convention was in town, it completely transformed Downtown. There were people walking the streets, the hotels were sold out, the restaurants were busy. Our hotel, the Holiday Inn Express, did as much business in one week as we did for the entire month of January. What that means is that the people that work at our hotel -- we're actually at the lowest unemployment today that we've been since we opened three weeks ago, 35 people because the economy is simply not there to support those jobs.

What's interesting is, 82 percent of those jobs are City of Cleveland residents. The people that work in the hotel industry, the people that work in the restaurant are City of Cleveland residents and a lot of times they are minorities, woman get those jobs and people that need those jobs in this community. And we have the opportunity when the conventions are in town to increase our staffing and get jobs to the people that need it.

MR. FROLIK: Council president, you talked about the need to have this fit into a plan. Can you talk a little bit more about that? Do you see the outlines of a plan in the course of this discussion, as to where this should fit in?

MR. JACKSON: The convention center is not the issue, that's not really it. The issue is the opportunity that it presents and the catalyst that it provides for a plan and the creation of investment dollars and capital dollars that you can use to implement a plan. If you have just the plan, you might as well set it on your shelf at the university because it's not going to go anywhere. If you have money without a plan you are going to waste it.

So the convention center is not really the issue here. It just provides us with the opportunity as leaders in the community to develop a plan. Because if you just use a convention center in and of itself, it will fail. If you have a convention center that promotes the downtown housing, the retail, the commercial, the office space, all the vitality that you need, plus you have the necessary capital to go in to rebuild the new neighborhoods and inner ring suburbs, not only do you have a plan that the convention center then serves as a catalyst to develop downtown, but it can develop neighborhoods, it can develop inner ring suburbs.

In that sense, convention center makes sense. If, in fact, it's just a convention center, I don't see why we should do it. So, a convention center is really irrelevant except for the fact that it provides us this opportunity .

MR. MARON: And the good news is, that plan is already starting to take shape. We built six hotels since Gateway was opened. We have done thousands of housing units Downtown. We are doing retail right now. Euclid Avenue sight control has been consolidated to where there's now actually four owners of undeveloped property between Public Square and East 9th Street. There were as many as 300 two years ago. So, we have started to put the seeds together to do these developments if a convention center is located in the right place and fits into that sort of planning. The good news is it's already happening.

MR. STRNISHA: I don't think anybody who is an advocate of a new convention center is saying that this is the only the one and only answer, it's one piece. The particular -- Downtown new housing that has started to occur, which we need to accelerate, the sighting and active retail of what that the Marons are doing along Euclid and East 4th, maintaining our employment Downtown. It should innately make sense.

If you think of downtowns that seem to work, it's not because they are just employment centers that empty out, it's not that, obviously, they are only residential, it's not that they are only visitors, it's that mix of people that work together, and they do support and catalyze each other. The point that Ari made about if conventions are here and people are on the street, that makes residents feel safer. The residential market gets better in that light.

So I don't think anybody who would be an advocate of the convention center is promoting that in isolation, but that it is a key important part of that overall strategy as we try to get to a Downtown that works for the city, works for the community, work for creating an economic benefit for the whole city.

MR. HILL: Steve, I think the way you put it is interesting, that how this discussion is gonna unravel. I think it's actually been a failure. There hasn't been a general discussion about how you go about saving or fixing Downtown. Instead, what there has been initially was a discussion of where the convention center should go and that really hurt the discussion terrifically.

MR. JACKSON: I disagree.

MS. CAIN: That is the public perception.

MR. JACKSON: I want to point out the reason why I disagree. That is politically, let's talk politics now, is that traditionally that conversation would have been in Cleveland City Council, then it would not have been a discussion of what is best for the City of Cleveland, it would have been a political blood bath over which one could lobby the best to get it where they wanted to get it.

To have that discussion outside of the political realm, to look at the criteria of why you should locate a convention center at a certain point, to build off prior assets that we have created where we can do for future development, how can this help retail, commercial, hotel. Located proper, I think, is analysis that needs to be done by the private sector. Now, of course the decision of that location will wind up being a decision made by public official. Once that decision is made, then we do need a discussion as to the real issue and that is: Why, what benefits are there, who is going to pay for it, who is going to get out of it, who is not going to get. If we would have allowed a public political discussion on location, we would have never got to the substance of this matter.

MR. HILL: I disagree from where I am following this, not as an insider but someone sitting on the outside, that what we're missing has been the discussion. That's the vision for Downtown Cleveland. What is -- how do we measure these, you know, incremental projects as to whether they get us there or not. And it seemed that this convention center discussion was dragged out bit by bit quite painfully by the Plain Dealer banging on the doors of your organization, Steve, the Growth Association, the Mayor, saying we're going to leave it to the business community to come up with the right sight rather than the first discussion of: What's the vision, how do we fix Downtown and then, what are a set of priorities.

MR. JACKSON: If I can add one. But, you would have never, you would never get to that second discussion without the first one. And even though what I might my experience is in government and in the private sector, it is when you are up against that timetable, when you are up against that limit that you begin to do the work and that's why I happen to agree with you that the decision has it be made, it has to be made soon. The public sector will be involved in that, and the discussion of what's the plan, who benefits, who doesn't benefit, who pays for it, how much, all that stuff will be done.

MS. CAIN: It is huge. And that's the reality check, that particularly at this table, we have to really try to talk about that a little bit because the reality is that it's been made very clear and probably can be defended that the way this is paid for, you know, this is going to be on the ballot. I'm assuming it's going to be a countywide ballot. And I'm assuming, I'm not sure who is going to make that decision, and, but again, it's my understanding that it's a November ballot.

And so, the challenge is that you have suburban communities like my own, whose residents are real nervous about, you know, having the money to fix the streets. We have, like many of our older suburban communities, we're looking at investing in our schools. We have 100 year old infrastructure whether you are talking about pipes in the ground, roadways or schools. So we have enormous needs and increasingly throughout the State of Ohio, and even in our county, because of what's happening in the state budget right now, because of our loss of income tax, Cleveland is going through it too because of the economy. A lot of cities are looking for tax increases and schools certainly are.

MR. JACKSON: That's why we can't look at just a convention center, because we have other needs and we cannot put the cost of the convention center on the citizens of Cuyahoga County. We have to figure out a revenue stream that will be paid for mostly by people who don't live in the county and provide, and the county residents will benefit by those extra dollars that could be provided to help build the infrastructure of the suburban community neighborhoods and the City of Cleveland. It has to be a whole package or it doesn't work.

MR. DIMORA: The difficult part does become going back to Frank Jackson's particular concern is, we then get to the point where this convention center is a very big number to begin with on its own, to tack on additional incentives and requests on top of the convention center. Now, you are getting to the point where you may be pricing yourself out of getting the issue at all looked upon favorably by the electorate. So, you have to be careful that we don't over extend ourself or overprice this particular ask.

And so, the financing formula in the package is going to be very critical so that you can show that a vast majority of these dollars are being paid for from out of town dollars, not necessarily burdened onto the electorate here that live in the community. And that's going to be in my opinion, the most difficult piece of this whole formula or this whole convention center conversation is the financing package. How are we going to pay for it? That's always been a number one issue, even more than site and govern it and who is going to run it? Where are we getting the dollars and how are we going to actually pay for this particular package is as important as it might be.

MR. HILL: There's a point that I know I heard the Commissioner talk about on different occasions is, one, the dollars are critically important. Two, educating the voters, it's a mistake that they have in Downtown Cleveland. And the fact is, we can't win if this is Downtown versus the neighborhoods. In fact, we know most of Cleveland's neighborhoods depend on a successful Downtown to provide basic services. I know as a Lakewood residents, the value of my house depends on Downtown as a viable sight for offices.

MS. CAIN: I would agree with that.

MR. HILL: And I guess that one of the reasons, my caution about this is, I do believe the convention center has been kind of thought about by the public as: Oh, here's the latest silver bullet panacea. There's no discussion about what the vision is for Downtown Cleveland to make it viable, and how do you fundamentally fix Downtown Cleveland's problems.

MR. MARON: I think that plays out on daily basis when I read newspaper and I read about what your university, Ned, is doing with the college town programming and those 16 thousand students that are commuter students now. And now we're talking about engaging them and living Downtown and walking the streets, that's one piece of ot. What we're doing on lower Euclid Avenue is another piece of it. What's the success of the warehouse district is another piece of it. So, all of these actually see this plan on a daily basis coming out of the newspaper.

MR. HILL: And I agree with you. Part of what's going on is if you are going for a 300 million dollar, 500 million dollar ask, what part of it is net on the taxpayer versus what is going to be exported. That's an important part. I think, we also have to say what part -- is there going to be financing left to jumpstart the rest of them Downtown because the convention center isn't going to do it on its own.

I begged the people that are coming in with these ideas, make certain that it's a wrap on the money. Don't come at me three or four years later for a 1,000 room hotel because I can guarantee you every politician that went behind it the first time is going to do a Vince Campanella right in front of you.

MR. STRNISHA: I think that's why Frank's point, this is an opportunity and you have to balance it with what Jimmy said about how much can you legitimately sell to the community that will obviously come out of their pocket. This is an opportunity, obviously, to deal with the convention center, a key investment, but also, to potentially address other things. And say we are addressing a number of economic development initiatives.

Two quick points, I always feel compelled to talk about financing, that's my background, and the issue of the plans. On financing, I do think that there's going to be a way to present throughout the dollar amount, currently, that is raised through the bed tax, that is almost entirely exported. That's under our current circumstance now. That's without raising the rate and anything. That is 18 million dollars a year.

MR. HILL: And we're below the national average, I think.

MR. STRNISHA: No. We are, on that tax, no. We're towards the upper end, but we're not at the upper end. So they will credibly be able to say, yes, the convention center is a component here. Yes, we're asking to put the public to put in this amount, but, the industry and out-of-towners will be paying a significant piece. And that will have to be, I agree, part of the message. I think looking at the numbers, we'll be able to say that as that part of it.

On the issue of plans, I would be worried about the point that you are saying, Ned, that we have to show the full vision and how this makes a difference. If we had been twiddling our thumbs over the last 15, 20 years on the issue of plans, starting with Civic Vision 2000 at the end of the 80s, continued with Civic Vision 2000 beyond and the new Downtown plan that was adopted by the City Planning Commission at the end of the '90s. There have been revisions and I think that vision, now we've got to -- the frustrating thing is we can stack up a set of reports, literally, that present that plan and vision as Ari kind of pointed out. It's either been, sort of forgotten, it hasn't been communicated well. It's not like we have to spend the next two months saying, quick we have got to come up with a plan, we have to show how this does fit in, and that we have thought about it, and that it is consistent and makes sense because --.

MR. JACKSON: Steve, you need a private investment to go along with the public investment.

MR. STRNISHA: And the good things is that you have examples like, puffing you up here Ari. We have examples already occurring so you don't have to even say it's totally if come. The work that they're doing on East 4th Street, the work that has already occurred by people invested in the Warehouse District shows that there's money and dollars there that would --.

MR. HILL: But we need that stretch goal that says Downtown is going to be a residential neighborhood of 25 to 50,000 people.

MR. STRNISHA: We said that in, for the record, we said that in 1998 as part of the city plan.

MR. HILL: And it gets buried.

MR. STRNISHA: Yes.

MR. HILL: We need to buy the sticker that says Cleveland, the waterfront community, Downtown Cleveland, waterfront neighborhood and a competitive commercial location. That's two bumper stickers but -- .

MR. STRNISHA: You identified our challenge.

MR. HILL: That's just -- I'm telling you and also in the middle of this, you have to realize the Euclid Corridor Project is more important than the convention center, to fix our main street.

MS. CAIN: Well, and hopefully to improve transportation. And that should, by itself, be an economic development engine as well. It's a piece of it and that was going to be one of my questions, you know. Is anybody talking to the transit planners in this community because a the lot of public dollars have been invested in this community in public transit and hopefully, the decision as to where a convention center is going to be located is going to enhance those decision that have already been made relative to transit. It seems to me that you have a better convention center in the end, if it is tied to that transit system.

MR. STRNISHA: A number of the sites, actually, do tie in to the transit system.

MS. CAIN: Right, but not all.

MR. STRNISHA: The factor is, you evaluate these sites and how they tie into and help both the, both the transit agency and our ability to move people.

MS. CAIN: If I may, Joe. I have another question because something Steve said is making me nervous, and that is, the bed tax generated off of hotel nights, whatever, stays in the city. I consider those public dollars. Is that what you are calling the public investment, or are you talking about, I mean, what exactly is going to be demanded on the public side. Is it, you know, a beverage tax, a hotel or a bed tax. I mean, that's my point though.

I have no problem with taxing the entertainment industry, whether it's the bed tax or beverage. That piece of it that makes perfect sense because now we're attracting people to Cleveland and now, they are helping to pay for this, they benefit from it and they help to pay for it.

MR. DIMORA: They're the beneficiaries of it.

MS. CAIN: It sounds to me, based on your earlier comments, that you are looking for a lot more public investment.

MR. STRNISHA: The way I see the numbers, a significant piece, particularly if you are looking at just the convention center, I know, we may be looking at something beyond that. A very significant piece could come very directly from the industry in the form of taxes that deal with occupancy in hotels, meals paid by visitors and so forth. I'll be candid, I don't think it covers 100 percent, but I would in the same breath, say, yes, that is the industry that directly benefits. I also make the argument that we'll have to make, that yes community, you do benefit too. Jobs that are created, tax dollars. So to me, having the industry pay a good piece, which I think we can show through those direct taxes, but the public also pays some that, I think can be presented as a very fair deal.

MR. JACKSON: Steve, if you had a dollar tax, how much of that dollar would be spent or raised from the local community as opposed to people living outside of the county.

MR. STRNISHA: Well, the bed tax is almost entirely paid from outside.

MR. JACKSON: So if you had a dollar tax on a beds, hotel beds, almost all of it would be paid by people outside the county.

MR. STRNISHA: Yes.

MR. JACKSON: And food and beverage?

MR. STRNISHA: Well, that's gets a little trickier. And unfortunately, the way taxes work, you can't, when you are presented with your bill, they say, well we're going to charge you, are you from out of town, then we'll charge you. So, taxes as an instrument are obviously, rather imprecise. But, obviously, visitors come to town often on accounts and they do tend to pay higher amounts on their food and beverage bills.

Also, the way the food and beverages tax as an option, has been discussed is, it doesn't affect any carry out, fast food, obviously anything from groceries. You go to the local pizza place and take it out and to the extent that may be if you're more middle or lower income, that's the way you patronize restaurants to a greater degree. Hopefully, you're mainly hitting out of towners or people with more means too spend a lot of money in restaurants.

MR. JACKSON: Any other revenue sources.

MS. CAIN: State capital dollars?

MR. STRNISHA: Well. I think, I'll disagree with you, Ned. At least that it ought to be in discussion because the fact is, the State benefits greatly from a new convention center in Cleveland, Ohio. I mean, we are bringing in people, a lot of those people aren't coming from Columbus and Cincinnati, they are coming from other states. I think this community, when it knows what it's going to put in to this, ought to be prepared to go to Columbus and say, this is an investment for the state too, we want you to put in a certain dollar amount.

MR. HILL: Good luck. Not that you shouldn't make the ask.

MR. STRNISHA: But it's a similar argument. You can argue an even stronger economic argument to the state as the fact that they put in 15 percent of the money for Gateway.

MR. DIMORA: But that was in better economic times. And let's face it, every time you pick up the paper and hear the news accounts, I mean, they're always in the hole. They are in deficits. They are in deficits, now they are continuing to cut the budget constantly, trying to, unfortunately, balance their budget on the backs of poor people and most vulnerably in our county. I don't see them having the change of mind that they're going to come and step up to the plate, especially, when you have Hamilton County also wanting to do the same thing. And, you know, I'm sure Columbus is going to want something if Cuyahoga County and Cleveland gets something.

I think the states outlook now, in my opinion, is, you have to take care of your own set of economic circumstances and problems and issues. Every community and every county has to take care of their own, just like we had to do on Issue 15, the health and human service levy that just got passed on May 6th. They are depending on severing their ties of financial support to the communities and to the counties. They have their own problems and their own issues that they have to deal with as they want to separate us. So I would not hold out hope on the state coming up with any significant money.

MR. STRNISHA: No. I agree.

MR. DIMORA: They might give you a little bone or something like that.

MR. STRNISHA: Somehow they seem to find money occasionally for Cincinnati, and Columbus and some other cities. And we should be prepared, if they're going to do that, and say we have a very legitimate --.

MR. DIMORA: We should get a piece of the pie, there's no question. I just don't think there's any pie left to eat, that's the problem.

MR. HILL: I would like to raise the question as to whether we're going repeat the Philadelphia story or not when it comes to this. Philadelphia did a major, a new convention center. They were looking for a convention center expansion, the problem was, they didn't renegotiate the work rules in the Philadelphia convention center. They have got a huge jurisdictional dispute. And they are three times, if I get the numbers right, the industry average for putting on a show there. So the time to get an operating agreement that works is before a vote, not after the deal is done. Do we have or are we on track to get a competitive operating agreement with the union so that we don't have a jurisdictional issues and overpriced labor, and it's too expensive to put on a show in that convention center.

MR. DIMORA: Well, I think bringing up labor, they may and we should start looking at the labor opportunities here as they have been partners in a number of ventures to dedicate dollars towards these kinds of projects because they know that it gives them jobs, temporary jobs during the construction phase, it's an investment, as well, into the community and.

MS. CAIN: If it works there will be more jobs.

MR. DIMORA: And they're willing to sometimes step up and start to be a partner in these kinds of projects. I don't think we have really taken a look at them serious enough.

MR. HILL: You are talking as a source of financing now?

MR. DIMORA: Possibly with some of the financing coming from organized labor, some of the funds that they set up to help with these kinds of projects because they know, again, there's jobs that are available and the jobs are going to be had. And again, it's an investment and a benefit to the community. So we should possibly throw that into the mix as a possible new partner. If we don't, again, use the State of Ohio or get the benefit of the State of Ohio, maybe organized labor and the union pension funds that they utilize to invest.

MR. STRNISHA: There have been a lot of investors in Downtown housing.

MR. DIMORA: That might be another angle that we could use and another partner that we might be able to pick up in the mix of trying to figure out the financing. One piece that Steve didn't mention, and I'm not sure if it's dead in the water, is the conveyance fee that was part of the package, which is a significant amount of money.

MR. HILL: You are going to have to explain that in English to someone like me. I don't know what you are talking about.

MR. STRNISHA: I was leaving a few things for you to --.

MR. DIMORA: Maybe I should have the finance expert get into that.

MR. STRNISHA: It's essentially the fee you pay upon transfer of property when you sell your home or sell a property. It's a tax that is levied at the county level.

MS. CAIN: Both residential and commercial?

MR. STRNISHA: Yes.

MR. DIMORA: It's about $400 that's generated on $100,000 value is what the dollar amount is.

MR. STRNISHA: Right.

MR. HILL: Are you thinking about bumping that up?

MR. DIMORA: That generates, presently, about 17 million a year into Cuyahoga County Coffers on these transactions. Now, that's another option that the Growth Association and Cleveland Tomorrow, I want to make it clear because I know the real estate industry is not going to be happy with that as K board has already called me and let know that they are opposing any type of increase.

MR. HILL: By K board, I think you mean the real estate agent.

MR. DIMORA: Real estate board, yeah. And so I explained to them that I know that the business community is trying to put out every viable option and ever viable piece of financing availability in front of the elected officials to try and put this package together. And again, it may not be the number that was being talked about, you know, 75 percent increase, it may only be a 50 percent or 25 percent, but again.

MR. FROLIK: Percent of cents?

MR. DIMORA: 25 percent increase. But, again, it's a possibility or an option that is being put out on the table as being viable to help pay for the cost of construction of the convention.

MR. HILL: Jimmy, let's go back to my original question. Are we going to have a viable operating agreement before this thing goes to ballot, because if you don't, you aren't going to get it afterwards. That's the Philadelphia story.

MR. DIMORA: I'm still saying the time line is going to be tough to meet.

MS. CAIN: You have to start the dialogue.

MR. STRNISHA: My sense would be that might be ideal, but that wouldn't be essential. There are a number of steps along the way past the vote by the people in terms of putting this whole project together and so forth and I think that there is still --.

MR. HILL: In Philadelphia, they found out they needed as much leverage as they could to get a viable operating agreement. After the financing was done, it was too late.

MR. STRNISHA: Let's be clear here. We have studied this, obviously, a little bit. This is not an issue of whether something is union or nonunion. Some places work extremely well on a union basis and we know that. It's, as you pointed out, getting an understanding and making sure that you can remain competitive, and I would agree that it might be ideal to do that, but I think this project will have a number of steps beyond the voters approving it to reality that certainly starting that discussion would be good and still nailing that down, there's still some key points in the future.

MR. DIMORA: I was just going to say there's a long way to go and a lot to be done between now, June 4th, and August 21st when you have an issue on the ballot.

MR. HILL: Publicly I haven't even seen this issue discussed. But when you talk to people who put on events there --.

MR. DIMORA: Thank goodness you brought it up today.

MR. HILL: We're going to call it Hill renegotiations.

MS. CAIN: We shouldn't be afraid of it, though. I mean the labor community in Cleveland, absolutely, they want to be at the table. They are very willing to sit down and negotiate project labor agreements. They are a critical part of these stakeholder --.

MR. STRNISHA: Which we did at Gateway after the vote.

MS. CAIN: So to get started now is not a bad idea.

MR. HILL: I'm talking about the operating agreements. When the thing is up and running, what are the jurisdictions, what are the work rules, what's the cost of actually putting on a show there. Very different from the operating agreements which we have done with construction quite well. The trade unions have been terrific on this. I think we have to put this one up on the table early.

MR. JACKSON: Steve, you've said that Cleveland Tomorrow and Growth Association have said that they recognize that the cost of operations is a major factor in whether or not someone chooses to come to Cleveland or another place. So is it something that you're --.

MR. STRNISHA: It's one of a lot of factors. Obviously, the size of the facility, does it work, is it located, the hotel rooms, everything. But obviously the cost of the show is key, and I'm agreeing with Ned's point that this is going to be an important factor. I agree also with what Jimmy and Madeline have said. I think we have a pretty good basis and history to go from with labor in this town, that that can be worked out and addressed. Yes, the sooner the better, but I don't know that that is an essential component that has to be absolutely ironed out before --.

MR. DIMORA: Before this time line that we're in. We have a lot of area to cover in a short amount of time and trying to just make sure that we have a viable financing package to make sense out of putting the convention center up and any other enhancements, if it's neighborhood development, if it's any money for the arts, which is another piece that we want to tie into this particular project.

MR. FROLIK: On the financing, we can come back a little bit to what goes into the package and stuff. We talked a lot about the public funding, where the public fund comes from. A number of people, I think, have begun to talk about, and this relates to what do you expect to come out of this, what is reasonable for me, as a voter, to expect in terms of the private sector doing the investment, the other stuff which ought to spin off from this and is there a way to make it so that it's more than a hypothetical, that if you do this, we think there's a good chance versus if you do this, various investors are willing to do -- if the public does X, various investors will do Y?

MR. MARON: I think we're already seeing that happen. I mean we're doing that on Euclid Avenue, as I mentioned. I think the question in my mind, actually, that hasn't been addressed is what is the cost of not doing a convention center, that we've got a Galleria that just sold for $30 million. What does that mean to property values Downtown? What does that, in turn, mean for the money that goes to the schools from the property taxes, to those values.

So I think the question comes down to we have already got people. We're putting money into housing in the Gateway neighborhood. The Warehouse District, we've got housing projects there. Retailers, Pickwick & Frolic on 4th Street as well as other national retailers are starting to look at Cleveland. So we're already seeing that interest, but the question becomes, if we don't build a convention center and property values continue to fall, what do we do then?

MR. HILL: I have never seen a city where a convention center has turned around property values. It hasn't happened in Atlanta. It hasn't happened in Boston. It hasn't happened in the Midwestern cities.

MR. MARON: In conjunction with good planning. In San Diego, for example, is the city that I mentioned earlier where, again, we've got Euclid Avenue sitting there that looks exactly like that Gas Lamp District. It's the private investment that was already starting there and we've got the six hotels ready to go and we've got the housing there and we've got retailers that's interested.

MR. HILL: No, you don't have the housing there, and I think as I'm looking -- as I look at Downtown, I'm saying if you have 300 to 500 million dollars, what is the best way to turn around downtown? I still say that creating a deeper Downtown residential housing market is going to get you more bang for the buck than anything else. It means the Euclid Corridor project. If we end up with just $300 million on this and nothing else, it isn't going to work.

And I disagree with you, Jim. If this becomes a Christmas tree and you say, all right, here's a chunk for neighborhoods, here's a chunk for arts, here's a chuck for convention centers, it's not going to make it.

MR. JACKSON: It's not going to make it if you don't do something.

MR. HILL: But you have to invest in Downtown Cleveland. I think that's the thing we all agree with. How are you going to do it?

MR. JACKSON: Well, see, where I disagree with you is that people seem to believe that the public is going to buy again a Downtown project that's been sold as a panacea for the development or the growth of Cleveland. They're not going to buy it.

MR. HILL: I agree.

MR. JACKSON: Unless people believe that from this project they are going to receive benefits directly and indirectly, they will not go for it. So the question is, if you take and you say, we don't need a convention center. We can invest into housing, into commercial, into retail, into office space, then I would agree totally with you. But I do not see the private sector tripping over themselves to build the neighborhood that everybody says they need Downtown. I don't see the private sector making the commitment into retail that they say they need Downtown. I don't see the private sector doing any of that.

So your question, Joe, about where is the private side, if there's no private side, then this doesn't work. We shouldn't do it. And it cannot be we may do it. It has to be that we will do it. That's the plan. That's why creating some funds in addition to the convention center that we can assist in rebuilding our neighborhoods, rebuilding inner-ring suburbs, providing incentives along with the tax abatement, what we do to encourage Downtown housing where you can build housing that will accommodate 20,000 people, where you can, from that, expand retail opportunities, stabilize the office market and make a decision whether or not we're going to convert that space, an empty space into housing or are we go to do something to promote. All those things have to be done, but I just don't see the private sector moving on this. I just don't see them doing what they say needs to be done to create a viable City of Cleveland. I don't see them doing it.

This is the opportunity. This is the catalyst. If they don't come to the table with what they need to come with in order to work what they say needs to be worked, we shouldn't do it.

MS. CAIN: I'm not clear on what will the private sector be bringing to the table here.

MR. JACKSON: What they will bring is their investment. We don't build houses. The public sector does not build houses.

MS. CAIN: But in terms of convention center.

MR. JACKSON: What they do in terms of the convention center is they make money. That's what it is.

MS. CAIN: We hope.

MR. JACKSON: I use the analogy of a loaf of bread. Convention center is a loaf of bread. A merchant -- no one will go into a store if the merchant doesn't have a loaf of bread, but if that's all the merchant sold, he would go bankrupt. But if he sold the loaf of bread plus all these other things, then he makes a profit, he invests, he hires.

For the private sector, convention center is dollars. They make money. That's all, they see dollars. For that, they will invest. I'm saying that they have to take the same risk. If this is a true partnership between the public and the private sector, they should take the same risk that we take. They should guarantee what they want to do.

If they are saying that they need a Downtown with 20,000 people, then they should put that on the table and they should do it. If they're saying they have to upgrade and expand retail, then they should put the money on the table and they should do it. I don't blame them for not doing it if they see they can't make money. This is an opportunity for them to make money and for that opportunity, if we're true partners, then they need to come to the table with something, too. Not as a promise but as a guarantee.

MR. MARON: It's what happened with Gateway. If Gateway isn't built, then the 4th Street development doesn't happen and lower Euclid Avenue doesn't happen and the hundreds of millions of dollars that have been put into Euclid Avenue, 4th Street, Prospect Avenue since Gateway was built, we never see those. So it's that exact same scenario.

MR. JACKSON: If you leave the neighborhoods out, if you leave the suburban communities out, with the problems of the inner-ring suburban communities and you leave these neighborhoods out, it is not happening.

MS. CAIN: Let's talk about that because what I hear here is, you know, I sit on DOPWIC, which is the committee that decides how Issue 2 dollars are spent in the community, so I'm already anticipating the issue 2 application that comes in. So, you know, this will compete with the public investment in the first suburban communities, so I think that --.

MR. JACKSON: How would it compete?

MS. CAIN: Because the dollars that communities like mine need to rebuild our century-old infrastructure will be going, part of them, a large portion of them, will be going to support infrastructure around this project. We have seen it before.

MR. STRNISHA: I really don't know that you ought to assume that. I don't think that that's --.

MS. CAIN: I would be real surprised.

MR. JACKSON: We need to know.

MS. CAIN: Our next step here -- I just want to -- let me just frame it this way: I love Cleveland. Okay? I grew up in the City of Cleveland. I love Cleveland and I love what I have seen over the last 20 years happening in Downtown Cleveland. When I was in legislature, I supported all of that and it's great and I still support it. But I have to tell you that up until, I mean, now we're all focused on Euclid Avenue and the immediate Downtown area, but there's been a lot of success in the City of Cleveland that we have all been part of for the last 20 years. We should all be very proud of that.

But at the same time, your first ring community where half a million people live and a good probably almost half of the voters in this county live, we are your success in Cleveland. When Jane, my good friend Mayor Jane Campbell talks about building 1,500 housing units a year in the city of Cleveland, I get excited and then I get worried because, you know, Westlake and Solon and Avon and Avon Lake are building four times that every year. Now, Cleveland is -- all this public money is fueling positive economic development in Cleveland and there's nothing -- for us, it's a struggle. It is a huge struggle. It is a struggle to get Issue 2 dollars for our infrastructure and we dance in the streets when we get, you know, $100,000.

MR. JACKSON: That's why I agree with you. That's why if it's only a convention center, it's not worth it.

MS. CAIN: How do you sell it?

MR. DIMORA: I'm not the one advocating the neighborhood dollars. The Council president and the Mayor want the neighborhood dollars. My concern is that, as you can hear, they want neighborhood dollars. The Mayor wants neighborhood dollars for the suburban communities. My concern is we're ended up pricing this package up too high and we're not going to get the electorate to consider it because it's going to be too costly or we're not going to be able to come up with enough money to be able to put the package together because we just don't have enough places to go for revenue to do the things that we would like to do.

It's just like your own home. I mean, you only have so many dollars to go around and do the repairs and improvements.

MR. STRNISHA: Here's our challenge, Commissioner. I think that ultimately we have, if there is a package put together that is a convention center plus some other thing, they all have to hang -- if it's seen as all these separate ornaments on a Christmas tree --.

MR. HILL: Then they're done.

MR. STRNISHA: Yes. If we can credibly, and I really think we can because we have said it around this table, that this is an investment package, that there's a key investment relative to downtown, that there's key investments in city neighborhoods, that it's not pie in the sky. It's building off of what we've started. That the inner-ring suburbs are key to that and have similar challenges. I make the argument that West Park and Lakewood are just -- right. So they have to hang together by a rationale that says this is what we have to do to reinvest in our community.

Arts making this community competitive and an attractive place to be because of the whole cultural side of what we want to provide can also be -- we don't often think of it that way but can be positioned that way. So I think our challenge is to have all these things not hang separately apart but hang with sort of --.

MR. MARON: The question is who are we competing with, I think, and I don't think that -- I think of Lakewood and Cleveland as being together competing with New York. I went to Shaker Heights High School. Most of my graduating class is in New York. It's not that they're going to Solon or those places. It's that they're leaving the market because they like the inner-ring suburbs, they like the downtowns, they like how that feels, but it needs to have a certain economic pulse to it.

MS. CAIN: Right. And I don't disagree with you. Again, the stronger Downtown Cleveland, the stronger the Warehouse District is, the stronger my community is and I understand that, but at the end of the day, I am not going to be able to keep a tax base that's going to fund the outstanding school system I have, the outstanding library I have and rebuild 100 year old infrastructure. We can't do it by ourselves. We cannot do it by ourselves and so.

MR. JACKSON: We should create the policy so we can all pay for it.

MS. CAIN: We have to benefit, too.

MR. DIMORA: Talking about the Christmas tree with the ornaments, and you're not going to sell it that way, but still, the bottom line, you have to add up all those ornaments on the tree to get the bottom line. That's where you have to be concerned about how far are we going with this.

Now, we don't have a major partner and that's what Pittsburgh enjoyed in their particular project and their particular construction.

MR. STRNISHA: With the state.

MR. DIMORA: State of Pennsylvania stepped up big time and put almost $200 million into that project. We don't have that here in Ohio. Ohio is not willing to do it. We just talked -- we asked Ohio just to divert some existing sales tax and they refused us to do that, so that's what we're missing in this financial puzzle.

We don't have a major partner to help assist us and I don't believe, when you start putting those ornaments on the tree and you get to that bottom line that you are going to have enough financial wherewithal to put this package together between now and August 21st where there's a comfort level in the ask to the electorate.

MR. STRNISHA: Well, there's what people would ideally like and then there's obviously the balancing of what can be raised and what you can accomplish. But I would again go back and say, we have said it around this table, Mayor Cain has talked about how things Downtown matter to people in the inner-ring suburbs, how Downtown matters to neighborhoods and neighborhoods should matter to Downtown.

Ideally with the voters, somebody in Lakewood would vote for this package not because, oh, there's something in it for me, it's that, yes, there's something here that's for the inner-ring suburbs. But I agree with the other parts of this, how they all fit together.

MR. HILL: Steve, not you, I mean, generally the community that's behind this has to make a pitch that says this is not more than just we need to save or help the convention industry. That's not going to do it.

MR. STRNISHA: In the case of the convention industry, like I said, I think we can show how they will step up with a significant portion.

I need to come back to one part that Ned said about if you had $300 million because, first off, I would start off would you not put it in housing maybe instead of the convention center. First off, I would go back and say great downtowns and downtowns that work do not depend on one thing. If we took every dollar we had and said Downtown's future is all residential, I believe we would fail.

MR. HILL: We need a viable office market which gets reinforced by housing because we all know the fundamental problem with Downtown is the streets are dead.

MR. STRNISHA: And Downtown housing will do better, and it's not so much an issue of subsidy. Yes, subsidy is a factor in housing projects, but if you tell me that 600,000 people a year, which is I think about a 400,000 person increase, who spend $250 a day, and the average stay is three days a week, are going to be in Downtown Cleveland and are not there today, housing developers are going to be a lot more interested as well as retail developers, a lot more interested than if you say, no, those people aren't going to be here. So it is a benefit to residential development and retail development for that convention industry that we know we can get.

MR. HILL: Steve, that also has a be a large --.

MR. STRNISHA: It's not an either/or with the $300 million.

MR. HILL: It is to a certain extent.

MR. STRNISHA: No; it's not.

MR. HILL: If you look at Downtown Atlanta which has the convention center people rave about in terms of its square footage, if you look at Downtown Atlanta which has a ballpark, which, unfortunately, they put a little too far away from Downtown, you do not have the spin-off development in Downtown Atlanta.

MR. STRNISHA: Atlanta is different. Atlanta is not a good comparison to Cleveland, Ohio. We have a very compact Downtown. We have a base of housing to start off.

MR. HILL: And their Downtown is about as compact as ours. Now, the problem is that they have lost the commercial office market to three rings of ring roads and they're an exit ramp economy. We went from, what was it, ten years ago we were 60 percent Downtown grade A office space, 40 percent suburban. We're now two years away from being 50/50.

MR. STRNISHA: My point, maybe to summarize, is that investment in the kind of things that we want to see, be it more residential or more commercial, is less an issue of the subsidy than for Downtown to have a future and look like a good investment from that standpoint.

MR. HILL: We agree.

MR. STRNISHA: And what we can build off of with the assets that we have and with the people and dollars and foot traffic and everything that will come about, one important piece of the pie will do more to spur that development than saying, well, we're not going to build a convention center. It's the same Downtown that you've always seen but I got $300 million here to pass out.
Developers don't take money to do bad deals.

MR. HILL: That's absolutely correct.

MR. STRNISHA: So that's less the issue than, as you pointed out, a comprehensive plan that addresses each of these things that we want to see, be it the entertainment/retail component, the residential component or the office component, and this is one key piece.

When we worked on with the City the '98 Civic Vision 2000 and Beyond study, it spoke about a lot of things. And I remember when it came out, we said, the only thing they're going to talk about is the convention center. We had five areas of recommendation, Euclid Avenue, residential development, waterfront, all of which we're kind of getting at now, and sure enough, convention center, it's the big project, so it gets a lot of attention. And we have to remind people, as I think we're discussing here today, that it is a key part but it works with all these other investments.

MR. MARON: Let's catalog the things that we're planning right now that we're doing. We're doing -- CSU is doing their master plan program. As I mentioned before, we've got Gateway doing planning for lower Euclid and 4th Street. We've got the Warehouse District doing planning for new residential between the Warehouse District and Public Square and even planning on looking at Public Square and what are some of the things that we can do there.

We've got money that we're now looking at lakefront planning. We're looking at residential in the Flats. There's all of this planning that's happening now that we're doing and a convention center could fit right in the center of that and catalyze all of those different things.

MR. HILL: We need the money to execute those plans.

MR. MARON: Absolutely.

MR. HILL: I think it's very important to demonstrate it because the convention center has got two problems. One is with all big projects, it sucks all the political oxygen out of the tent and you can't talk about anything but that big elephant that is there in the corner. The second is we have to understand where the money is coming from so that it will fundamentally revitalize Downtown.

MR. MARON: Sit with the developers. The developers look at that lakefront and they say, you open up that lakefront, you give us those eighteen new intersections between Downtown and the lakefront and they salivate over what housing --.

MS. CAIN: There's the public dollars I'm talking about.

MR. MARON: -- over what housing could be there. They're willing to do that.

MS. CAIN: The other piece of this that I think that I'm surprised none of us have brought up before is Continental, the airport, the hub. There are lots of people in my community who are affected by whether continental stays in this town or not and the economy, the regional economy, what happens if that goes away, and that needs to be part of the debate, as well.

And so again, I go back to, really, some of my earlier comments that as long, and I think the Council president said it this way, it is not just the convention center. It's a much bigger picture, so there's been a lot of talk over the last -- and discussion over the last ten years about the region and regionalization and regional stakeholders and the Growth Association isn't just about Cuyahoga County anymore. It's a seven-county organization. Well, that -- and wouldn't it be nice if we could generate tax dollars from seven counties for our convention center. If we could figure out a way to do that.

MR. DIMORA: Expand that Port Authority Board and expand another -- that's a whole lot of thing to tie in all those counties.

MR. HILL: You are right. If you can spread this over seven counties so that we secede from ohio and become the federated state of the northeast.

MR. DIMORA: County commissioners have a plan for that.

MS. CAIN: It is part of the big picture.

MR. JACKSON: Part of the problem is they didn't tell everybody else what the plan was. That's why you didn't get it.

MR. DIMORA: We're ready.

MR. FROLIK: Ari and Steve, in your mind, if this convention center is built, is it so -- does it fundamentally change the investment climate so that more private money, more people like yourself, you and your dad have really put it on the line.

MR. MARON: I go back to three weeks ago.

MR. FROLIK: Are there more of you that will come forward? And, Steve, is that your sense from the Cleveland Tomorrow, for the partners?

MR. STRNISHA: I absolutely think so, and I also go back to the cost if we don't do it. We have hotel industry Downtown right now that is doing very poorly and I think they will hang in there if they see a new convention center coming and if they don't, I think some bad things could happen.

MR. HILL: Are they doing worse than the hotel industry in peer cities on the whole?

MR. STRNISHA: Yes.

MR. HILL: I have been getting hotel rates lately that are beyond belief countrywide.

MR. MARON: But if you look at a Hyatt Regency that was built three years ago that's now offering $69 room rates on the weekends for a 60 million dollar project, that's how bad it is Downtown.

MR. STRNISHA: And you do this for the future, but we have to be cognizant of that because that's very here and now. Real people work in those hotels? Real tax dollars are generated.

MR. JACKSON: Does the same thing apply to suburban hotels.

MR. STRNISHA: I think they're all hurting to a certain degree. You would be able to comment on that, Ari.

MR. JACKSON: Would this also help them?

MR. MARON: Yes. Because effectively what would happen is it would push those room nights that are now -- you know, once Downtown gets filled up, the next thing that happens is they go into the suburban hotels, so, yes.

MR. FROLIK: The practical political best selling of this, let's assume, although it might be tight on the time limits. Let's assume by August 21st, 22nd you have got a proposal so that you can put it on the ballot in November, and then you've got about 90 days or less to go out and sell it to the voters. How do you go about doing that? We have had a very wide ranging discussion here, lots of big concerns.

MR. JACKSON: If we wait until the 22nd, it is not going to happen. What we have been pushing on is to have the site selection relatively soon so that we inside Cleveland City Council can hold a hearing a week for five to six weeks that begins, you know, the discussion about all the issues that have been raised here and that helps the public then understand what it is that we're talking about.

And then from -- and if the County Commissioners ask that it be put on the ballot on the 21st for the November election, then they'll have 90 days to build off that. But if we don't get this site selected by the end of this month and begin some public dialogue where the media and the