The tourist trap/ Taking unfair advantage of out-of-towners

Gazette, The (Colorado Springs), Jan 12, 2003

We appreciate people who think big for Colorado Springs; we only wish that when they step forward with their grand improvement plans, they'd bring their own money with them, instead of reflexively trying to reach into Joe Taxpayer's pocket in the process. Most city residents are wise to these gambits and have shown a reluctance to approve tax raises to pay for every special interest redevelopment proposal that comes down the line. And so proponents of building a downtown convention center, in a reversal of their previous position, are taking a new tack on the issue. They now want Springs residents to vote for a tax increase; only not an increase for themselves, but for visitors who come to Colorado Springs on business or vacation and will unwittingly be dragooned into paying for our downtown redevelopment. That seems to us to be an example of taxation without representation, and an underhanded and ultimately self-destructive way to foist the cost of any new convention center and ballpark off on those who don't have a say in the matter. It will further drive up the costs of visiting the area, and could drive away at least some of the very people we would like to attract. And there are many unanswered questions, including about who would kick in what to help cover costs unmet by the proposed tax hikes and how the plan would affect hotels outside the downtown area.

Perhaps we shouldn't care so much about the interests of out-of- towners, and just treat them as a captive audience to be exploited to pay for what we will not pay for ourselves. After all, other cities are doing it. And if these tourists or business people are willing to spend a fistful of money to get here, why would they care (and would they even notice?) if we tack on a little extra to their hotel or rental car bills?

Why should we have any qualms about raising their taxes without their knowledge or approval? Have you looked closely at an airline ticket recently? Have you read the fine print on the receipt the last time you rented a car or the hotel charges the last time you traveled out of town?

What you'll often find if you do so is that a sizable portion of what you're paying is taxes; some added on by the airport au thority, but many tacked on by cities trying to pay for local in frastructure improvements at your expense. If you rent a car in Phoenix, for instance, you've become an unwitting investor in a new stadium for the NFL's Arizona Cardinals. In fact, sur charges, fees and other kinds of taxes comprise nearly 30 per cent of the cost of renting a car in Phoenix. You're helping to replace the Astrodome when you visit Houston, and to build a new stadium for the Seattle Seahawks when you travel to that city.

You're paying, in other words, for what local taxpayers and wealthy team owners declined to pay for themselves; for some thing that you may never see or enjoy, and could care less about. In short, you've been played for a sucker by these cities and probably didn't even know better - which is just as they would like it.

And now some are proposing that we stoop to the same tac tics here. But that is ultimately self-defeating, as a careful look at your airline ticket, hotel bill or rental car receipt will tell you.

Some will argue that it's every city for themselves, and we might as well join in the plundering. But by acquiescing in the exploitation of outsiders, we are not only being inhospitable and driving up the cost of vacationing in the area, but we are forfeiting any argument against being exploited by others when we travel to their towns. That's a vicious circle that de clares open season on anyone who travels anywhere. In other words, it costs us.

Some people are all in favor of publicly financing stadiums, convention centers and other redevelopment projects as long as it appears that out-of-towners are the public doing the fi nancing. All of which gives a whole new meaning to the term "tourist trap."

Westerner to lead Resource Committee

The Western United States dodged a bullet last week when the chairmanship of the powerful House Resources Committee - which influences policy over vast federal land holdings in Colorado and throughout the West -go - stand Western land issues, New Jersey Rep. Jim Saxton, but to a relatively low seniority Westerner, California Rep. Richard Pombo.

Pombo's darkhorse victory is sure to have a big impact on public lands policy across the West - for the better we believe - and will result in a hue and cry from environmentalists who object to Pombo's hard line on property rights and willingness to reform the Endangered Species Act.

Pombo seemingly came out of nowhere to snatch the spot from Tennessee Rep. John Duncan, after Saxton, the most se nior member of the committee, bowed to the objections of Western members who thought his voting record too liberal and his awareness of Western resource issues minimal.

Saxton, hailing from a state with no public lands to speak of, would have been a disaster as chairman of a committee that has long been led by Westerners.